Select to expand quotecammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
You've gotta know that the parents aren't suddenly going to pull their socks up and make the world a special place for their failed abortion. I know that if I died you'd take good care of my children but how much more common do you think abuse is against non-biological children?
Again, its unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, that it all there is to it.
If a baby is suffering, assist it, there is no argument that could justify not doing that.
Actually, it's pretty much the same argument I use for turning off life support for trauma patients, and overdosing Alzheimer's patients with muscle relaxant.
The quality of life just isn't there. And the reasonable prospect of a flourishing life is not there.
In fairness, your point on this situation is much more valid the any of your prior arguments.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..cammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
You've gotta know that the parents aren't suddenly going to pull their socks up and make the world a special place for their failed abortion. I know that if I died you'd take good care of my children but how much more common do you think abuse is against non-biological children?
Again, its unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, that it all there is to it.
If a baby is suffering, assist it, there is no argument that could justify not doing that.
Actually, it's pretty much the same argument I use for turning off life support for trauma patients, and overdosing Alzheimer's patients with muscle relaxant.
The quality of life just isn't there. And the reasonable prospect of a flourishing life is not there.
In fairness, your point on this situation is much more valid the any of your prior arguments.
So you would argue that given a patient has no hope of survival and/or quality of life they should receive no care and just be put in a room out of sight left to die alone.
The bill that was voted down in the senate proposed that these children be given care in their final minutes and hours not just put aside to die alone out of sight.
The people that voted it down and support voting it down are disgusting individuals, how they reconcile denying care to a suffering baby astounds me. You would get put in jail for cruelty if you treated an animal that way, cane toads are afforded more empathy than these children.
Hey cammd, I generally don't disagree with your position.
But it wasn't a bill. It wasn't a proposal to change the law.
It was a motion that the senate recognise something. It would have changed nothing and done nothing except to put on the record the senate recognised that something happened.
Whether the motion passed or failed the situation would be the same.
Amongst other things healthcare is a state issue.
Select to expand quotecammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
You've gotta know that the parents aren't suddenly going to pull their socks up and make the world a special place for their failed abortion. I know that if I died you'd take good care of my children but how much more common do you think abuse is against non-biological children?
Again, its unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, that it all there is to it.
If a baby is suffering, assist it, there is no argument that could justify not doing that.
Actually, it's pretty much the same argument I use for turning off life support for trauma patients, and overdosing Alzheimer's patients with muscle relaxant.
The quality of life just isn't there. And the reasonable prospect of a flourishing life is not there.
In fairness, your point on this situation is much more valid the any of your prior arguments.
So you would argue that given a patient has no hope of survival and/or quality of life they should receive no care and just be put in a room out of sight left to die alone.
The bill that was voted down in the senate proposed that these children be given care in their final minutes and hours not just put aside to die alone out of sight.
The people that voted it down and support voting it down are disgusting individuals, how they reconcile denying care to a suffering baby astounds me. You would get put in jail for cruelty if you treated an animal that way, cane toads are afforded more empathy than these children.
You've missed the mark a little a little. The care should be aimed at them dying, not living. That's not the same as no care
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..cammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
You've gotta know that the parents aren't suddenly going to pull their socks up and make the world a special place for their failed abortion. I know that if I died you'd take good care of my children but how much more common do you think abuse is against non-biological children?
Again, its unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, that it all there is to it.
If a baby is suffering, assist it, there is no argument that could justify not doing that.
Actually, it's pretty much the same argument I use for turning off life support for trauma patients, and overdosing Alzheimer's patients with muscle relaxant.
The quality of life just isn't there. And the reasonable prospect of a flourishing life is not there.
In fairness, your point on this situation is much more valid the any of your prior arguments.
So you would argue that given a patient has no hope of survival and/or quality of life they should receive no care and just be put in a room out of sight left to die alone.
The bill that was voted down in the senate proposed that these children be given care in their final minutes and hours not just put aside to die alone out of sight.
The people that voted it down and support voting it down are disgusting individuals, how they reconcile denying care to a suffering baby astounds me. You would get put in jail for cruelty if you treated an animal that way, cane toads are afforded more empathy than these children.
You've missed the mark a little a little. The care should be aimed at them dying, not living. That's not the same as no care
Well they voted for no care.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Hey cammd, I generally don't disagree with your position.
But it wasn't a bill. It wasn't a proposal to change the law.
It was a motion that the senate recognise something. It would have changed nothing and done nothing except to put on the record the senate recognised that something happened.
Whether the motion passed or failed the situation would be the same.
Amongst other things healthcare is a state issue.
OK wasn't a actual bill, my bad, nevetheless refusing to recognise the need to care for these children is equally bad.
Why are they so hated by so many, they are innocents.
Select to expand quotecammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
You've gotta know that the parents aren't suddenly going to pull their socks up and make the world a special place for their failed abortion. I know that if I died you'd take good care of my children but how much more common do you think abuse is against non-biological children?
Again, its unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, that it all there is to it.
If a baby is suffering, assist it, there is no argument that could justify not doing that.
Actually, it's pretty much the same argument I use for turning off life support for trauma patients, and overdosing Alzheimer's patients with muscle relaxant.
The quality of life just isn't there. And the reasonable prospect of a flourishing life is not there.
In fairness, your point on this situation is much more valid the any of your prior arguments.
So you would argue that given a patient has no hope of survival and/or quality of life they should receive no care and just be put in a room out of sight left to die alone.
The bill that was voted down in the senate proposed that these children be given care in their final minutes and hours not just put aside to die alone out of sight.
The people that voted it down and support voting it down are disgusting individuals, how they reconcile denying care to a suffering baby astounds me. You would get put in jail for cruelty if you treated an animal that way, cane toads are afforded more empathy than these children.
You've missed the mark a little a little. The care should be aimed at them dying, not living. That's not the same as no care
Well they voted for no care.
If that's the case, which just doesn't make sense, then I'm inclined to agree with you.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
If that's the case, which just doesn't make sense, then I'm inclined to agree with you.
Nobody gives much of a crap about children in Gaza, having to endure amputations without anesthetics - why is that?
I'm calling it! Pathetic, uncaring, stupid, white, obese, self important, and soon to be redundant, old, males. Lol
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..psychojoe said..
If that's the case, which just doesn't make sense, then I'm inclined to agree with you.
Nobody gives much of a crap about children in Gaza, having to endure amputations without anesthetics.
I'm calling it! Pathetic, uncaring, stupid, white, obese, stupid, self important, and soon to be redundant males. Lol
You said stupid twice. Still not entirely sure of your point, other than you care more for the children of Gaza than some of their parents.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
You said stupid twice. Still not entirely sure of your point, other than you care more for the children of Gaza than some of their parents.
Was editing, sorry for saying stupid twice.
But yes. You are correct, I do care far more for the babies and children of Gaza than their parents and for an unborn, unwanted lgally aborted W.A. fetus.
I'm calling it! Pathetic, uncaring, white, obese, stupid, self important, and soon to be redundant, old, males. Lol
What's the bill supposed to change from the current guidelines and standards for such situations?
The abortion industry is horrendous, inducing babies alive and then leaving them to die for convenience (3.10). Its difficult to believe.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
The abortion industry is horrendous, inducing babies alive and then leaving them to die for convenience (3.10). Its difficult to believe.
Certainly is difficult to believe. I assume that these are emergencies where the life of the mother is in danger and the fetus is judged to be non viable and/or there are no facilities to support it.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..cammd said..
The abortion industry is horrendous, inducing babies alive and then leaving them to die for convenience (3.10). Its difficult to believe.
Certainly is difficult to believe. I assume that these are emergencies where the life of the mother is in danger and the fetus is judged to be non viable and/or there are no facilities to support it.
If you believe Dr Joanna Howe, which I do, its not for emergencies its for convenience. She makes the claim at 3.10 in the video
Select to expand quoteGasHazard said..
Hmm, Sky News ...
Imagine for a second Sky news is reporting this accurately. What are your thoughts about it.
Select to expand quotecammd said..GasHazard said..
Hmm, Sky News ...
Imagine for a second Sky news is reporting this accurately. What are your thoughts about it.
I think it's likely to be a misrepresentation.
Select to expand quoteGasHazard said..cammd said..GasHazard said..
Hmm, Sky News ...
Imagine for a second Sky news is reporting this accurately. What are your thoughts about it.
I think it's likely to be a misrepresentation.
So if it were true you would be shocked and disgusted.
Select to expand quoteGasHazard said..
I think it's likely to be a misrepresentation.
I don't expect you to reply but here it is, not a misrepresentation its just for convenience
More evidence our rights are being taken away.
www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-government-to-enforce-buffer-zones-near-abortion-facilities-by-end-of-october/?utm_source=digest-freedom-2024-09-19&utm_medium=email
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
More evidence our rights are being taken away.
www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-government-to-enforce-buffer-zones-near-abortion-facilities-by-end-of-october/?utm_source=digest-freedom-2024-09-19&utm_medium=email
Glad that they are doing that, those people are pests. If they had any integrity at all they should be out there helping the children mamed in wars and victims of domestic violence rather than them meaninglessly moaning about an unwanted fetus.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
If they had any integrity at all they should be out there helping the children mamed in wars
'Wars as you put it are not wars between enemies but slaughter.
Profits from armament sales takes precedence over the well being of the people if you were not already aware.
Wars have been going on for as long as man has, unfortunately mankind is allways finding new and creative ways of slughtering others.
It's either some d1ckhead who wants to take over the world or a load religeous fanboys arguing over who's god is the best.
and yes nowadays weapon manufacturers do make a nice profit out of it (your super is probably invested in some of them.)
This is disturbing. Pro-life results in extra death.
A Texas hospital refused to abort a dead foetus resulting in the teen mum dying from sepsis.
www.texastribune.org/2024/11/01/nevaeh-crain-death-texas-abortion-ban-emtala/
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
This is disturbing. Pro-life results in extra death.
A Texas hospital refused to abort a dead foetus resulting in the teen mum dying from sepsis.
www.texastribune.org/2024/11/01/nevaeh-crain-death-texas-abortion-ban-emtala/
Where does is say the hospital refused to abort a dead foetus.
It's well into the article. You could split hairs about whether it's actually a refusal when doctors decide that it has become riskier due to the delay.
In any case, I don't know how you slaves to DNA ever have the time to argue on internet forums. If you weren't a pack of hypocrites you'd be busy taking care of unwanted children.
Around 11 a.m., two hours after Crain had arrived at the hospital, a second ultrasound was performed. A nurse noted: "Bedside ultrasound at this time to confirm fetal demise per Dr. Totorica's orders.
"When doctors wheeled Crain into the ICU at 11:20 a.m., Fails stayed by her side, rubbing her head, as her daughter dipped in and out of consciousness. Crain couldn't sign consent forms for her care because of "extreme pain," according to the records, so Fails signed a release for "unplanned dilation and curettage" or "unplanned cesarean section."
But the doctors quickly decided it was now too risky to operate, according to records. They suspected that she had developed a dangerous complication of sepsis known as disseminated intravascular coagulation; she was bleeding internally.
Frantic and crying, Fails locked eyes with her daughter. "You're strong, Nevaeh," she said. "God made us strong."Crain sat up in the cot. Old, black blood gushed from her nostrils and mouth.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
It's well into the article. You could split hairs about whether it's actually a refusal when doctors decide that it has become riskier due to the delay.
In any case, I don't know how you slaves to DNA ever have the time to argue on internet forums. If you weren't a pack of hypocrites you'd be busy taking care of unwanted children.
That is such a pathetic argument for the following reason
1. Its not splitting hairs, it just doesn't say what was claimed
2. I find the same time you do to argue on internet forums
3. There are many unwanted children in the world, some are yet to be born, some are already born. Where is the hypocrisy in believing they all have a right to live.
4. DNA is the building block of LIFE.
Select to expand quotephiln said..
I believe the new rights' political slogan is "your body my choice".
maybe you don't realise in Australia we have the most extreme abortion laws in the world.
Abortion is available up to birth in some states, its just plain murder of children.
I don't think any where in the US even considers that an option, I heard Kamala Harris refute the assertion that late term abortion could happen in future in the U.S.
DNA is the building block of life, huh? So you're standing up for cockroaches' right to reproduce then. They have DNA too.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
DNA is the building block of life, huh? So you're standing up for cockroaches' right to reproduce then. They have DNA too.
I thought your last argument was pathetic but maybe it was as good as it gets
