- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 18,956
- Reaction score
- 12,851
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Private
I’m beginning to think we listened to completely different interviews.
In the one I watched, Northam made no mention whatsoever of anything remotely close to infanticide. He said that the doctor and parents would discuss options. As he was clearly talking about an infant with a life threatening condition, I logically assumed he meant they discuss possible treatments or possibly palliative care.
Maybe his comments would have been better received by many if he hadn’t shifted from earnest, yet compassionate, sounding politician to clinically speaking physician. I actually appreciated the directness of his comments.
Same as I appreciate using the correct terminology “terminating a pregnancy” or “aborting a fetus” over the more inflammatory, and incorrect “killing a baby”.
I wished he had clarified what "options" he was talking about. Further, I think he should have stayed in clinical mode and clarified exactly what he meant. It's not hard. You assumed something just about everyone can understand, but your assumption is just that. Why couldn't Northam have said that, given the reaction his interview got?
Instead, Northam went from doctor to bought and paid for PP shill and parroted their talking points instead of just answering the damn question, "Are you talking about killing a baby or withholding care with the intention of the baby dying, after it's been born?"
Northam isn't dumb. He knows this was the crux of the head explosions. Why not just answer. Your answer was perfect and I assume you're not a doctor?
At any rate, now Northam is pretending this isn't even an issue and is busy explaining spit shining shoes to a black woman.
I mean, seriously.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.