Cart 0

It’s negligent homicide at best; not a ‘communications problem,’ ‘hospice,’ or ‘family decision’

Posted by John T. Reed on

A “Democrat strategist” on Fox News tonight said the infanticide issue is a “communications problem.” Then he said infanticide was like “hospice.” Then he said “shouldn’t the family decide, not outsiders?”

So make a movie of it all if communication is the goal

If it is just a communications problem, and a picture is worth a thousand words, make a video of the newborn being made comfortable, then the family discussion about what to do with the infant, i.e., let it die or kill it or—actually, there does not seem to be an alternative to those—after all, we are talking about an unsuccessful abortion here. Then show the baby in the negligence, intensive non-care room screaming for hours for nourishment and water until the heart monitor finally flatlines. Get all that on film. Then post it on YouTube. There can be no better communication of what is actually happening in the process Governor Northam described.

They ALREADY decided to kill it.  They missed.

The discussion to decide what to do already happened. They decided to have the abortion, which kills the fetus/infant. Why do they need another discussion of the same topic?

Hospice is for people with terminal untreatable illnesses. That is about as far as you can get from the ‘Well Baby CLinic.’

Hospice is a place where you go to die because your illness is terminal and incurable. The only problem the live infant has is a mother who does not want him or her. That is not medical. Nor is it terminal.

Others want desperately to adopt that baby who is being made comfortable. The baby itself is not capable of reflective thought, but it most definitely has the instincts of a live human and will rage against death in the ways that it knows before birth: screaming for help from its parents and trying to suck nourishment from a breast. It desperately wants to live like every other healthy human. If it knew and understood what a hospice is, it would claw at the walls to escape.

The family does NOT have the right to decide to kill the baby

Should the family decide whether the baby should be killed or neglected to death? HELL FREAKING NO!

With adults, nowadays, there is often a living will where the person tells his or her family how he or she wants them to react to various disabilities that might prevent the person from deciding themselves or communicating their desires in the event.

Newborns do not have a living will.

They have not delegated authority to pull the plug on their life. They have not signed a living will. They are about 18 or 21 years too young to be legally “competent” to sign any contract, least of all a living will about “pulling the plug.”

The family can only decide whether to pull the plug if the patient is unable to communicate or no longer sane AND HAS DELEGATED THAT AUTHORITY TO THE PERSONS IN QUESTION. Families may not decide whether to pull the plug on a human in their family when that human is a minor or has not signed a living will while sentient. 

The only “family” that believes it has the right to decide which members live or die independent of the wishes of the subject person is the Mafia.

Family members have the right to make a lot of decisions about their children, like where they go to school, whether to get them circumsized, whether they go to church and where, whether they eat their vegetables, which doctor and dentist to use, and the like.

Whether to KILL the child is not one of the decisions the family gets to make. A newborn with no incurable disease has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The family cannot take any of those away from the child. No one can.

The child must live. If the mother and father do not want him or her, he or she must be placed in foster care or put up for adoption. There is NO RIGHT TO KILL THE BABY in the authority of ANYONE.

Why isn’t adoption/foster care the mandatory CHOICE for parents neither of whom wants the infant? Who the hell do they think they are? Hitler?

Why would they even suggest killing the infant? What is this about? What is the motive for killing the baby? To avoid some embarrassment or regret about putting it up for adoption? Does no one regret giving the newborn a thumbs-down like a Roman emperor deciding whether a slave gladiator lives or dies?

The ONLY decision the parents of the abortion survivor have any right to make is keep it or put it up for adoption, period! What kind of monsters would kill it? Why? What horrible thing is there in putting the infant up for adoption that is worse than murder? Why is this not a no brainer for everyone who thinks it is any of their business?

Mother has the right to control her own body

Abortion advocates constantly say the mother has the right to control her body. Maybe so. But after the infant survives the abortion, it is not her body any more.

Physician has NO authority to decide to kill a baby

What is this about the physician participating in the decision discussion? NO ONE has the right to decide to kill that baby, least of all a doctor. Did they repeal the Hippocratic Oath whose first first words are purportedly, “First, do no harm.” Wikipedia says, 

‘The phrase "primum non nocere" is believed to date from the 17th century.

‘Another equivalent phrase is found in Epidemics, Book I, of the Hippocratic school: "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient." The exact phrase is believed to have originated with the 19th-century surgeon Thomas Inman.’

Here is the whole Hippocratic Oath:

“I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

“To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else.

“I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.[dubious – discuss] But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

“Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

“Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.”

There is no place for Ralph Northam—who is not only governor, but also a licensed, former PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGIST—in a profession of people who take that oath.

Are doctors like Agent 007; they have a license to kill?

Just the opposite. They have a license to CURE. If they kill instead of cure, they LOSE their license to cure. Indeed, they go to jail for murder or negligent homicide. And if they ever get out, they will get no license to do anything, let alone treat patients.

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.