Obama Supports Infanticide

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Winchester' date='18 November 2009 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1258593084' post='2005214']
In the picture, it's actually bottomless.
[/quote]

not helping your case for it being you...

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 November 2009 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1258594006' post='2005224']
not helping your case for it being you...
[/quote]
Have somebody translate it into Canadian, Canadian.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Winchester' date='18 November 2009 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1258594102' post='2005226']
Have somebody translate it into Canadian, Canadian.
[/quote]

done.

"In reality, the picture below the bottom

As, Canada, in Canada, the conversion."

ahhh, now i understand. its all about the syntax up here.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='18 November 2009 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1258592829' post='2005212']
And I was trying to be facetious.
[/quote]
You never know on these boards. I'm never facetious and yet people often seem to interpret me as such.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='18 November 2009 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1258581712' post='2005062']
A solution to this would be to have healthcare worker panels review cases before they hit Govt/Judicial systems. I believe in Indiana (where I'm currently a second year medical student at IU) that medical malpractice casese are reviewed by an independent panel involving a physician (and nurses, etc) to see if negligence or malpractice occurred. Then this report is presented to a judge who will determine if the case should be heard. It seems, anecdotally anyway, that the majority of cases that these physician panels deem as "not malpractice" end up w/ favorable outcomes for physicians. In this way, the medical professionals have their professional input before the beaurocrats and laypeople mess things up.
[/quote]


Thats not a solution because they're not on sight at the time of the delivery.

You'd end up with bureaucratic boards gratuitously selected by politicians, on whether a doctor at the scene, committed murder or not.

The fact is, pregnancies go wrong, and there are times where delivery of a deformed previable fetus is necessary for the mother's health. Yes, this is still called an abortion. I've seen such, held a 20 week fetus, that was born dead, from the deformity. The mother had no intention of getting an abortion, but was excited about having her first child. However, things went bad in the development of the fetus, and when they lost the heartbeat, the best medical choice was to abort the pregnancy. Should the baby have had some sort of movement where the mother thought it was alive, and the doctor did nothing, she could report him to the medical board. Under the BAIPA, the doctor would've had to perform procedures to try and keep the fetus alive, that would be useless. Even if the fetus was alive(sometimes the heart beat is not detectable on a deformed previable fetus), it would have no chance at survival outside the womb.

The doctor has the expertise to make the decision at that time, no one else. A board of health physicians, can only estimate whether the doctor acted appropriately or not. Some, zealous pro-life political activist who monitors these boards, would be looking for the doctor's license revoked.

No thanks. I'll trust that the majority of doctors, will make the right decision in this case.

FYI, these are not performed at abortion clinics, but in hospitals, where the health of the mother must be monitored before and have the procedure.

BTW, the above baby was baptized, just in case there was undetectable life in him, and the family had a funeral an burial.


Jim

[Winchester]

Yes, if the doctor doesn't check life signs, he's negligent. Even if he "knows" from years of experience that it's a meaningless twitch. If he properly documents, he'll have no trouble even if a lawsuit is filed. Pretending people can't complain because Obama protected us from a bad law (even though it's clear from a quote provided that Dear Leader was worried about abortion rights, not protecting doctors) is asinine. Doctors suffer from idiotic complaints all the time and the only law that will protect them is one forbidding lawsuits.

[quote]FYI, these are not performed at abortion clinics, but in hospitals, where the health of the mother must be monitored before and have the procedure.
[/quote]
Quite telling. The abortion industry is about money, not women's rights.

[JimR-OCDS]

Winchester

[quote]Yes, if the doctor doesn't check life signs, he's negligent. [/quote]

Not on a deformed previable fetus, which has no chance at survival.




[quote]Even if he "knows" from years of experience that it's a meaningless twitch. If he properly documents, he'll have no trouble even if a lawsuit is filed.[/quote]

Really? I guess you have full faith in bureaucracies. I don't.

Jim

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1258640920' post='2005531']
Winchester



Not on a deformed previable fetus, which has no chance at survival. [/quote]
Yes, on a deformed supposedly previable fetus. Weird stuff happens, which is why we check vitals. If the baby is dead and rotting, then we're in the clear.
[quote]
Really? I guess you have full faith in bureaucracies. I don't.

Jim
[/quote]
I don't. Nor do I have full faith in doctors, though apparently, you do. Most of the time, if you properly document, you'll be fine. In fact, if you bother to falsify documents right then, you'll be fine. This doomsday scenario of doctors being stripped of their powers because someone thought they saw something would have come about. Certainly in some cases, doctors have been unjustly punished. Just as in some cases, they have unjustly escaped punishment. This happens. But it's clear Dear Leader wasn't protecting doctors but the ability for them to make money by killing people. That's what abortion is: the murder of an innocent for the convenience and profit of people. What they are morally culpable for, we don't know, but in reality, they are commiting murder.

I am certain you believe abortion should be illegal.

[JimR-OCDS]

Winchester


[quote]Yes, on a deformed supposedly previable fetus. Weird stuff happens, which is why we check vitals. If the baby is dead and rotting, then we're in the clear.[/quote]

There has never been a pre-viable fetus, i.e. under 20 weeks, who survived outside the womb, even when that fetus had no deformities.

Fact is, even in neonatal intensive care, attempting to save a fetus born earlier than 20 weeks is not acceptable medical practice.

Back when my son was born at 27 weeks, the best they could do is save babies at 24 weeks, and thats if they were girls. Boys were more like 26 weeks. Today, the best they do is 21 weeks.

They've determined that under 20 weeks, its just a fruitless attempt to try and save the fetus.


[quote]I don't. Nor do I have full faith in doctors, though apparently, you do.[/quote]

I've seen the amazing things they do, to save lives. I never met a doctor who did otherwise.

After my son's birth, he was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, MA. I got to see them save my sons life, who is 28 years old BTW, but also the lives of other babies under their care. None would ever not work to save a baby who had a chance to live.


[quote]Most of the time, if you properly document, you'll be fine. In fact, if you bother to falsify documents right then, you'll be fine. This doomsday scenario of doctors being stripped of their powers because someone thought they saw something would have come about. Certainly in some cases, doctors have been unjustly punished. Just as in some cases, they have unjustly escaped punishment. This happens. But it's clear Dear Leader wasn't protecting doctors but the ability for them to make money by killing people. That's what abortion is: the murder of an innocent for the convenience and profit of people. What they are morally culpable for, we don't know, but in reality, they are commiting murder.[/quote]

You seem to have trust in government boards over doctors.

I don't.

Too often, government commissions end up with those at the bottom of their field, because those who are at the top, remain working in their field.

Jim

[Winchester]

Is the rule not supporting life, or not working an infant in arrest?

There are lots of "nevers" that have changed. That's quite simply not a good argument.

We don't work traumatic arrests, for instance. Perfectly acceptable. Any complaint will be shot down on investigation.


And did you notice Socrates's quotes earlier? Your theory about the Comrade was wrong.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Winchester

[CatherineM]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1258640100' post='2005527']


The fact is, pregnancies go wrong, and there are times where delivery of a deformed previable fetus is necessary for the mother's health. Yes, this is still called an abortion. I've seen such, held a 20 week fetus, that was born dead, from the deformity. The mother had no intention of getting an abortion, but was excited about having her first child. However, things went bad in the development of the fetus, and when they lost the heartbeat, the best medical choice was to abort the pregnancy. Should the baby have had some sort of movement where the mother thought it was alive, and the doctor did nothing, she could report him to the medical board. Under the BAIPA, the doctor would've had to perform procedures to try and keep the fetus alive, that would be useless. Even if the fetus was alive(sometimes the heart beat is not detectable on a deformed previable fetus), it would have no chance at survival outside the womb.

The doctor has the expertise to make the decision at that time, no one else. A board of health physicians, can only estimate whether the doctor acted appropriately or not. Some, zealous pro-life political activist who monitors these boards, would be looking for the doctor's license revoked.

No thanks. I'll trust that the majority of doctors, will make the right decision in this case.
[/quote]
You just killed me. I was supposedly a deformed un-viable fetus that was going to kill my mom if carried to term. My mom was in pre-op getting ready to be wheeled in to remove me when she felt me kick and couldn't go through with it. The doctors all told her I would be born with all sorts of defects. I ended up being a low birth weight baby, but healthy in every respect, and she says I came out kicking and never stopped.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Winchester' date='19 November 2009 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1258648154' post='2005574']
Is the rule not supporting life, or not working an infant in arrest?

There are lots of "nevers" that have changed. That's quite simply not a good argument.

We don't work traumatic arrests, for instance. Perfectly acceptable. Any complaint will be shot down on investigation.


And did you notice Socrates's quotes earlier? Your theory about the Comrade was wrong.
[/quote]


The rule is, not working on a fetus that shows signs of life, which get you in trouble.
Signs of life could be from what the mother or any other lay person observes at delivery.

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='19 November 2009 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1258653160' post='2005606']
You just killed me. I was supposedly a deformed un-viable fetus that was going to kill my mom if carried to term. My mom was in pre-op getting ready to be wheeled in to remove me when she felt me kick and couldn't go through with it. The doctors all told her I would be born with all sorts of defects. I ended up being a low birth weight baby, but healthy in every respect, and she says I came out kicking and never stopped.
[/quote]


Was this when ultra sound was available or before?

Also, it sounds more like your mother was beyond 20 weeks in the pregnancy.

Also, if you were not determined to be dead, i.e. you had a heart beat, it would be wrong to induce labor that would kill you.


Jim

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1258654513' post='2005619']
The rule is, not working on a fetus that shows signs of life, which get you in trouble.
Signs of life could be from what the mother or any other lay person observes at delivery.

Jim
[/quote]
Not if it's documented that vitals were taken. Simple enough to do, and there is no obligation to work someone once hooked up monitoring devices.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yea really, how hard could it possibly be for a doctor to see this almost certainly stillborn infant, see a little twitch or whatever, and say "hey nurse, take his pulse for me, just in case."?

Not. Very. Hard.

If we automatically assume that we are *never* going to save a premie under 20 weeks, then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. What about back when they had never saved one before 30 weeks? What if they just didn't try particularly hard to save that 21 week child, because it just couldn't be done?