Politics And Current Events

[Guinness]

I figured this was the case.

Update: Sources telling @Lvozzella and me that tip to @bigleaguepol about Northam’s yearbook photo came from medical-school classmate or classmates upset about governor’s abortion remarks earlier in the week.

https://t.co/eHCsOSuvIE

I realize I stand alone here in this thread, but (and I'm hoping I'm missing something here and please correct me if there's more to the 'he's racist' verdict) a Halloween costume in poor taste from 35 - THIRTY-FIVE (or, over a third of a century) - YEARS AGO seems to me to be considerably less consequential than comments he made in favor of INFANTICIDE.

I mean, Sweet Mercy, surely even you people find his position on that issue to be abhorrent... right!?

For Pete's sake, he just days ago spoke favorably of allowing a mother to "decide" whether or not to "keep" a child she already gave birth to... (where "keep" refers to whether or not the baby should be murdered).

[MWB]

There is definitely a segment of the Republican party that is perfectly willing to ignore King, as seen by delayed responses and Trump’s non-response. That isn’t a commentary on the opposite party.

[count2infinity]

Could I see a link to him being in favor of killing babies after they’ve been born, please?

[Guinness]

Could I see a link to him being in favor of killing babies after they’ve been born, please?

So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics ... index.html

Sorry, I guess I should have said "seconds from being born". (difference without distinction)

ETA:

Whoops... I re-read the quote, and the inference is exactly what I said it was... "The infant would be DELIVERED..."

So... yeah... there ya go...

[count2infinity]

I’m still not seeing him being in favor of killing babies...

[MWB]

I’m still not seeing him being in favor of killing babies...

You’re not trying hard enough.

[Guinness]

I’m still not seeing him being in favor of killing babies...

"The infant would be delivered..."

"... and then a discussion would ensue..."

Come on. What do you think he's talking about here?

What discussion would ensue, exactly?

[Guinness]

I’m still not seeing him being in favor of killing babies...

You’re not trying hard enough.

Cute.

It's right there in black and white. Link to CNN provided. Surely they're not some biased right-wing outlet trying to paint the racist goob'nuh of VA in a negative light, right?

[MWB]

When asked to clarify he said he was not talking about what you said he was. You’re inferring something. Maybe you’re right. But it’s an inference.

[Gaucho]

"[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

The bill -- which among other things would end a state rule that requires at least three physicians confirm "that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health" and ends "the need to find that any such impairment to the woman's health would be substantial and irremediable" -- is currently tabled in Virginia's legislature.

Previously accidentally omitted parts bolded.

[Guinness]

When asked to clarify he said he was not talking about what you said he was. You’re inferring something. Maybe you’re right. But it’s an inference.

That's BS politician-speak, and if we're being honest I think you know that. What do you think he meant when he said "the infant infant would be delivered"..."and then a discussion would ensue..."?

[eddy]

While they try to get this guy out, is it too much to ask to get Steve King out too?

Here’s the post that brought it up first. I believe the intent, as eddy said later, is get rid of all of ‘em.

Yeah, once again I'll say why is this so **** hard to understand. It's not a this side or this side. Get them all the **** out. End of story. Period. Mind blowing to me that it somehow got some of you making this about sides.

[slappybrown]

It seems very obvious to me that they’re talking about a circumstance akin to an elderly person being kept alive by a respirator (“non-viable fetus”) and difficult decisions made by family members to take them off those devices keeping them alive.

[Guinness]

"[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

The bill -- which among other things would end a state rule that requires at least three physicians confirm "that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health" and ends "the need to find that any such impairment to the woman's health would be substantial and irremediable" -- is currently tabled in Virginia's legislature.

Previously accidentally omitted parts bolded.

Yeah, none of that changes the context. Because it remains right there in your quoted text, unedited: "The infant would be delivered". He's talking about allowing for live-born children to be murdered.

While we're at it, and not to turn the discussion from his abhorrent views on the question of quote-unquote abortion - let's be factual, it's actually infanticide - the bill allowing abortion (just like the abhorrent NY bill) in the case of the "impairment of the mental health of the mother" is de facto carte blanche to murder fully-formed children en utero... but in this pig's view, that's also a topic for discussion AFTER "the infant has been delivered"... in his own words.

[Gaucho]

It seems very obvious to me that they’re talking about a circumstance akin to an elderly person being kept alive by a respirator (“non-viable fetus”) and difficult decisions made by family members to take them off those devices keeping them alive.

That's how I understand it. But to be fair, Northam appears to be not very good with words.

[slappybrown]

The baby being “rescusciatated” seems to be clearly suggest a baby born without the ability to survive on its own without medical aid. Non-viable (and I am not a doctor) suggests to me a situation where the newborn is unlikely to overcome the condition that required resuscitation in the first place.

The mental health piece of it is something I would need to understand better beforeevaluating it’s rationale.

[Guinness]

It seems very obvious to me that they’re talking about a circumstance akin to an elderly person being kept alive by a respirator (“non-viable fetus”) and difficult decisions made by family members to take them off those devices keeping them alive.

Nonsense. This is 2019, not 1919. Abortion is legal from day one to 24 weeks in every state, I think (without looking it up). There's no reason to abort after that timeframe because of "severe deformity". By then, that condition would have been well known to the mother.

[slappybrown]

It seems very obvious to me that they’re talking about a circumstance akin to an elderly person being kept alive by a respirator (“non-viable fetus”) and difficult decisions made by family members to take them off those devices keeping them alive.

Nonsense. This is 2019, not 1919. Abortion is legal from day one to 24 weeks in every state, I think (without looking it up). There's no reason to abort after that timeframe because of "severe deformity". By then, that condition would have been well known to the mother.

I’m focused on “non-viable” & “resuscitated” and you’re focused on “severe deformities.” How those interact and the language of the bill determine how I view his stance. But it’s not as clear cut as you appear to think it is.

[Guinness]

Northam appears to be not very good with words.

F him, and the people of Virginia who voted for him.

Be plain in your language. Especially when it comes to human life.

[MWB]

When asked to clarify he said he was not talking about what you said he was. You’re inferring something. Maybe you’re right. But it’s an inference.

That's BS politician-speak, and if we're being honest I think you know that. What do you think he meant when he said "the infant infant would be delivered"..."and then a discussion would ensue..."?

What slappy said.

[Guinness]

It seems very obvious to me that they’re talking about a circumstance akin to an elderly person being kept alive by a respirator (“non-viable fetus”) and difficult decisions made by family members to take them off those devices keeping them alive.

Nonsense. This is 2019, not 1919. Abortion is legal from day one to 24 weeks in every state, I think (without looking it up). There's no reason to abort after that timeframe because of "severe deformity". By then, that condition would have been well known to the mother.

I’m focused on “non-viable” & “resuscitated” and you’re focused on “severe deformities.” How those interact and the language of the bill determine how I view his stance. But it’s not as clear cut as you appear to think it is.

I'm interpreting the man's words as he spoke them. I take people at their word - especially people who have "authority" over life and death as does the governor of a state. It is a matter of life and death, particularly in this case. It is no reach at all to presume that an authority which the state grants under certain conditions on one day can be extended to other conditions on the next, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

[Trip McNeely]

ICE arrests 21 savage for over staying visa from UK. Really doing the important work

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/i ... d-his-visa

Btw, I’m pretty sure 21 Savage has lived in Atlanta almost his entire life

[count2infinity]

It seems very obvious to me that they’re talking about a circumstance akin to an elderly person being kept alive by a respirator (“non-viable fetus”) and difficult decisions made by family members to take them off those devices keeping them alive.

That's ELDERICIDE!

[Guinness]

It seems very obvious to me that they’re talking about a circumstance akin to an elderly person being kept alive by a respirator (“non-viable fetus”) and difficult decisions made by family members to take them off those devices keeping them alive.

That's ELDERICIDE!

Absent a DNR, you're right - it is.

I realize you're trying to be funny, and in my book there're no boundaries when it comes to humor, but these things have an on-the-ground element which should carry some weight when it comes to questions of public policy.

You want to joke about when you had to pull the plug on pap? I get that. I recall laughable moments in the midst of the most difficult times for my family, too, and it's those moments where we look back and smile even when things were as bad as they were. But there's nothing funny about questions of state authority in this particular area. There's countless cords of human beings stacked back-to-back and miles high when it comes to this issue. Just take 5 minutes to read up on the history of the 20th century, for reference.

[count2infinity]

I found our next AMA candidate... should be a blast.