Fishy Suddenness Of Catastrophic Abortion Billi

I am speaking of deformed children who do not need life support machinery to survive, but do need nourishment that they are capable of ingesting when it is provided.

Is anyone seriously talking about withholding food and water from a child in that situation?

If the baby is able to survive when given nourishment, then the child should be able to survive until a natural death.

For me the issue should have been addressing: Should a deformed newborn automatically be hooked up to a life support machine? If so, for how long?

The other issue is late term abortions for any reason. That child should be given the opportunity to live.

are you talking about feeding tubes?


If a baby is born with major complication they are automatically hooked up to machine to safe their lives, it is then up to the parent based on the diagnosis of the doctor if they keep them on the machine or not.

sometimes the complication can be reversed after further treatment, sometimes it can’t.

When your taken of life support, your not killed.

the doctors monitor your condition, give you food, water, pain killers. allowing you to die naturally it can take mins, hours, sometimes days.

Ok this is basically a Right wing scare tactic used to change the topic from the what’s has been going on in the administration.

1 Like

Correct. So why was this bill needed?

Because it not currently legal to do this with babies in some states.

Then here is where the bills went wrong. They started with legalizing late term abortions. Second, that included up to the point of giving birth. It sounds to me the issue that should have been addressed (where it has not been already) is death with dignity–no extraordinary measures, but the person being kept comfortable and hydrated–fed if it is not forced.

If this bill was attached to late term abortions, then it should be re-written so no such connection is made.

That seems like a very strange complaint when it is understood what the objective and parameters of the law actually are.

What would be the purpose of a broad range of objectives and parameters in a single bill?

The parameters are not broad.

That is the point.

People are trying to light their hair on fire and claim that they are. They are trying to make very real tragedies and very real personal sadness an issue of the State by depicting the people who have to make these hard choices as monsters.

It is horrific what I am seeing from the usual suspects in the CEC pushing this to gin up outrage and how hard it is for people to let go of their anger when it is explained to them that this is addressing something that is none of their business.

The parameters are too broad if the same bill addresses both late term abortion and death with dignity after birth occurs. Abortion and death with dignity are two very different issues.

If one has a child born whose survival depends on being on life support and that is the parents decision that is fine. It’s their choice.

It’s also fine if parents decide they do not want their child on life support if that is all that is keeping them alive.

The abortion bills in question have the parameters of nonviable fetus and life of the mother.

And I will say it over and over until it gets through.

The vast vast vast majority of late term abortions are done for women who would rather keep the baby.

Denying them the choice of how to deal with their tragedy and their medical issue just to fell better about oneself is abhorrent to me.

This is human misery that we are talking about. These are people suffering loss. The moral reaction shouldn’t be… lets get the Government to make their loss harder.

It makes no sense.

Then this should be included in the parameters of any late term abortion bills. That this bill does NOT address the viable fetus, ONLY the nonviable. I would also want the definition for “non-viable.” Because I work with special ed students, I cannot agree to anything if “non-viable” means, “Well, the quality of life they will have doesn’t measure up to that of a ‘normal’ child.”

I think that you are buying into the scare tactics and giving “non-vialble” a definition that is not being used here.

Then run for office where you will have a say in the crafting of bills.

Since you are not in any of these legislatures, what you want is of no consequence.

1 Like