Why does the media do that? Do they think their readers will not notice?
Does anyone know exactly what the Kansas law is who and can tell me ... Is it as simply written as stated in the article? What exactly ARE the criteria?
I believe the cases cited are devastatingly sad, but they do not seem to meet the KS law to me. The babies' situations as cited are "late 3rd term" and will die anyway. If that's true, why kill them? Why not just deliver them either through induced labor or C-section and then let the babies live out their natural life, even if it's only a few hours, a few days or a week?
I don't believe there is a law that hospitals are required to take extraordinary measures to keep a baby alive (tubes, pumps, ventilation, etc) ... just palliative care. Anyone know?
This is a very sad story - that a mother would have the idea in her head that it was more humane to have her baby aborted late in pregnancy than to have the baby born - does she think the baby has no nerves or feeling while he is in the womb and that perhaps it may hurt to be aborted? It was not more humane for the baby - she wanted the easy way out so she would not to have to deal with the emotions of witnessing her terminally ill child - very, very, very sad - heartbreaking.
“why kill them”
Because the left has taught it’s followers that killing babies is a moral and courageous thing to do.
Give it time, and some apostate pro-baby-killing ‘church’ out in Kansas will either name itself after Tiller, or put up a statue of the dead SOB.
My wife has a chromosomal translocation that gave one of our children an extra D-group chromosome. It didn't survive labor, and couldn't have survived more than a short time on its own. Our attitude about future births was that she would proceed with the pregnancy, give birth, and we would accept whatever consequences ensued. Neither of us believes we are qualified to make the decision as to who shall live and who shall die.
Yes, that’s incredible.
And I never understand that you’re going to die very soon, let’s kill you now theory either. It’s so clearly to make things better or easier for the survivors, and yet it is always portrayed as some kind of compassion.
The best take on this is the Monty Python Black Death sketch when the son is trying to put his father on the cart filled with dead bodies and the old man protests “I’m not dead yet!”
I don’t understand this; I seriously do not understand -— if the baby will/might die, they can’t wait just a little longer so that they don’t murder him/her????
I’m going to vomit.
Proverbs 12:10.......the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel
Oh really? By having the baby forcibly removed from the uterus, almost born, then having its brains sucked out of its head? I doubt this woman would to this to her DOG, but she thinks it's 'humane' for her baby?
The more 'humane' thing to do would have been to let the baby be born naturally, then love it until it died, on its own. Sure, the family would have been sad, but they'd have been able to hold that baby, and love it for the time it had on this earth, and it would have known love and care at the end of its life rather than violence and pain.
It's sometimes just breathtaking how people justify the choices they make.
Since the parents are the health care proxy for their minor children, they make the decision about the level of care their babies will receive. If the baby has no chance of survival, I believe they can ask that no resuscitation be given at birth, so the parents can just spend time with the baby without all the tubes, machines, etc.