Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
geez. what a mess. and this from the guy who said they don't need to be the 'party of stupid'. or did he forget he said that? some of his actions in the last year or so would indicate he completely forgot all that.
|
So it's that simple huh? I mean - does any addressing of the fact that another human being will die when the life support is removed have any bearing here, or is it "tough sh*t" for the baby?
"Viability" cuts both ways. So if the baby is old enough to have a shot, a decision has to be made.
I don't necessarily support the law. I don't like government overreach. But Jindal is not automatically wrong for trying to save the baby.
Predictably NARAL sticks their nose in even when it's not an elective abortion - because any eroding of the ridiculous concept (that the baby's worth is solely based on how much the parents want the baby) must be avoided.
Again - not fond of the law. What should be done? Do nothing and the baby dies in an age where we could save him/her. Mandating keeping the mother on life support also sucks. Is there an in between course of action, i.e. advising the family of the chances of the baby making it, not disconnecting life support until the family is briefed so they can decide one way or the other, etc..?