Aggieangler93 said:

---

SECEDE already!!

Let them kill their monster babies, let them hand in their horrible murdering guns, let them watch their economy crumble with higher taxes while they pass out free dollars to so many who so justly deserve it, and watch them become the defenseless lambs they so desire to be.

I'm so tired of people that are so screwed up and want to screw everyone else up too!!!

We need to build a wall alright, along the red river. The hell with these fools!!!

(RANT OVER....WTH?)

---

But I really like those gals from Oklahoma.
Can we keep them?

JonSnow said:

---

What he is saying (but doing so terribly) is that if you have a breathing non-viable birth, that you don't perform heroic measures to sustain life. Not commit any type of murder. So if a baby is born without a head for instance (this happens and it is gruesome and terrible) you keep the infant as comfortable as possible but don't use breathing or feeding tubes and don't shock when their heart stops. Basically like a DNR for an adult on hospice. IMO to do anything else in such a case is cruel and unethical although I know others may feel differently.

---

I do believe this is really what he was trying to say, when you read/listen to the whole interview in context. However, without this specifically spelled out in the law, with limits, it leaves opens a VERY dangerous grey area. Because, it is essentially up to a single doctor (in consultation with the mother), to determine what baby/fetus qualifies for termination or denial of resuscitation. It currently requires 3 dr's to all concur, this law would change that to 1.

cupofjoe04 said:

---

JonSnow said:

---

What he is saying (but doing so terribly) is that if you have a breathing non-viable birth, that you don't perform heroic measures to sustain life. Not commit any type of murder. So if a baby is born without a head for instance (this happens and it is gruesome and terrible) you keep the infant as comfortable as possible but don't use breathing or feeding tubes and don't shock when their heart stops. Basically like a DNR for an adult on hospice. IMO to do anything else in such a case is cruel and unethical although I know others may feel differently.

---

I do believe this is really what he was trying to say, when you read/listen to the whole interview in context. However, without this specifically spelled out in the law, with limits, it leaves opens a VERY dangerous grey area. Because, it is essentially up to a single doctor (in consultation with the mother), to determine what baby/fetus qualifies for termination or denial of resuscitation. It currently requires 3 dr's to all concur, this law would change that to 1.

---

There is no "termination". It is ethically deciding to withhold life saving measures in an absolutely hopeless case. Not actively terminating life. The medical team is not going to snuff them out with a pillow or do a lethal injection. As far as who should decide, it should start with the parents. If the parents want something unreasonable or unethical to be done, then every hospital has an ethics board made up mix of people including usually clergy who ultimately decide.

JonSnow said:

---

cupofjoe04 said:

---

JonSnow said:

---

What he is saying (but doing so terribly) is that if you have a breathing non-viable birth, that you don't perform heroic measures to sustain life. Not commit any type of murder. So if a baby is born without a head for instance (this happens and it is gruesome and terrible) you keep the infant as comfortable as possible but don't use breathing or feeding tubes and don't shock when their heart stops. Basically like a DNR for an adult on hospice. IMO to do anything else in such a case is cruel and unethical although I know others may feel differently.

---

I do believe this is really what he was trying to say, when you read/listen to the whole interview in context. However, without this specifically spelled out in the law, with limits, it leaves opens a VERY dangerous grey area. Because, it is essentially up to a single doctor (in consultation with the mother), to determine what baby/fetus qualifies for termination or denial of resuscitation. It currently requires 3 dr's to all concur, this law would change that to 1.

---

There is no "termination". It is ethically deciding to withhold life saving measures in an absolutely hopeless case. Not actively terminating life. The medical team is not going to snuff them out with a pillow or do a lethal injection. As far as who should decide, it should start with the parents. If the parents want something unreasonable or unethical to be done, then every hospital has an ethics board made up mix of people including usually clergy who ultimately decide.

---

Sorry for the derail...I only brought the late term abortion stuff up to show how evil the people who want to take our guns are. Many of them also openly promote socialism and insanely high tax rates.

Let's assume the governor should have just chose his words more wisely...it doesn't change the fact that NY, New Mexico, and VA are are legalizing infanticide...i.e. abortion up to delivery. And tons of liberals are openly celebrating this. All the mother has to to is claim that she is emotionally distressed (what mother isn't at times when she is preggerz)?

True- I only used that term because the bill doesn't specifically target the issue we are discussing (children that have been born), but removes the "3 doctor" restriction from all stages of pregnancy. In other stages, "termination" is the term many people prefer/use.

Good point, and well said. Though not all would agree with your definition of the term infanticide- which is the reason for the heated debate. But- moving the goalposts inch by inch, generation by generation. That is where I see the crossover from this thread's original intent.

CT'97 said:

---

How about we terminate this thread and send this discussion back to the politics board?

---

jk, sounds good. Sorry for the late-term-abortion/socialism derail. Only did it to highlight the type of people we are up against.

gotsand said:

---

bassmaster07 said:

---

magnumtmp said:

---

highvelocity said:

---

I think the OB could outfit a pretty strong militia is this were to happen in our lifetime

---

I'm in.

---

I'm out. All my guns fell into the Brazos river at hwy 60.

---

I'm surprised there's any room left for water in that river.

---

Sure you aren't confusing the Trinity and Brazos rivers?

Broba Fett said:

---

Probably gonna go something like this.

---

Here's Austin when this goes down. Cupids, rainbows and all...

Boo Weekley said:

---

CT'97 said:

---

How about we terminate this thread and send this discussion back to the politics board?

---

jk, sounds good. Sorry for the late-term-abortion/socialism derail. Only did it to highlight the type of people we are up against.

---

Man it's hard to associate a gender to that person, but I'm pretty sure that was their point.

Hmm...called it early I guess. Thanks Pelosi.