Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you are trying to say this is a slippery slope argument?
Personally I do not see it that way, nor am I looking to see abortion banned as the goal of protecting an innocent baby that managed to be born in the 3rd trimester.
The Gosnell ghoul obviously killed live birth babies and still felt he did nothing wrong. Aside from the lack of morals and poor medical practices he engaged in, how could he genuinely believe he did nothing wrong?
Here is a question for you and or others who think it is a backdoor attempt to ban all abortions. Lets say a woman decides she wants to abort the baby (for whatever reason) in the 3rd trimester, and goes to a clinic to do so. While filling out paperwork in the waiting room, or while going to the bathroom, she suddenly gives birth to a live healthy baby, before the procedure can start. Do you think that baby should be allowed to be killed after a live birth occurs?
`
I don't know of anyone who thinks that.
Do you know of any actual examples of a healthy live birth being denied medical care?
Why do you think that? Late abortions are also done to preserve the life and/or health of the mother. Is the mother's health/life unimportant to you?
Yes, I was aware of that, but thought those cases were very rare. Now, since this has come out from Cuomo and Northam, I’ve learned differently. Of course the mother’s life is important, but there seems to be a movement to leave it all up to the mother and Dr. At some point the baby is viable and delivering a live and reasonably healthy baby only to have it killed is reprehensible to me. There are so many people who would love to adopt and they would give those unwanted babies a great life. If the mother is advised for health reasons to abort and dosen’t want the child, why not explore adoption. I’m sure people would be happy to adopt children with birth defects, I’ve read many stories of kids who are blind, deaf or have spina bifida who found loving homes.
Gosnell killed a lot of healthy newborns. People would have been lined up around the block to adopt them.
Yes, I was aware of that, but thought those cases were very rare. Now, since this has come out from Como and Northam, I’ve learned differently. Of course the mother’s life is important, but there seems to be a movement to leave it all up to the mother and Dr. At some point the baby is viable and delivering a live and reasonably healthy baby only to have it killed is reprehensible to me. There are so many people who would love to adopt and they would give those unwanted babies a great life. If the mother is advised for health reasons to abort and dosen’t want the child, why not explore adoption. I’m sure people would be happy to adopt children with birth defects, I’ve read many stories of kids who are blind, deaf or have spina bifida who found loving homes.
NOBODY is going to kill a live and reasonably healthy baby. THAT's baldly untrue. A lie. FALSE. And to believe it is STUPID.
A third-trimester abortion is risky, for the mother. You don't just walk into a clinic and say you want a third-trimester abortion. Only a handful of doctors perform them. Don't trust me, research it.
And then actually think.
A woman doesn't go through a month, two months, three months, wanting the baby, four months, five months, six months, wanting the baby, and then suddenly decide that not only does she not want the baby, but she wants the baby killed. No one does that. No one.
If a woman seeks a third-trimester abortion, it's because something terrible has gone wrong. It's a tragedy. And you guys spewing this garbage about a woman just deciding on a whim are clueless, as well as being terribly cruel to these women. Third-trimester abortions are risky. They are extremely expensive (they run $25,000-$30,000, compared to a straightforward delivery that costs $5,000-$6,000). And the families who have third-trimester abortions mourn their losses. They are heartbroken. These babies are wanted.
NOBODY is going to kill a live and reasonably healthy baby. THAT's baldly untrue. A lie. FALSE. And to believe it is STUPID.
A third-trimester abortion is risky, for the mother. You don't just walk into a clinic and say you want a third-trimester abortion. Only a handful of doctors perform them. Don't trust me, research it.
And then actually think.
A woman doesn't go through a month, two months, three months, wanting the baby, four months, five months, six months, wanting the baby, and then suddenly decide that not only does she not want the baby, but she wants the baby killed. No one does that. No one.
If a woman seeks a third-trimester abortion, it's because something terrible has gone wrong. It's a tragedy. And you guys spewing this garbage about a woman just deciding on a whim are clueless, as well as being terribly cruel to these women. Third-trimester abortions are risky. They are extremely expensive (they run $25,000-$30,000, compared to a straightforward delivery that costs $5,000-$6,000). And the families who have third-trimester abortions mourn their losses. They are heartbroken. These babies are wanted.
It says here that she was aborted two months premature. There is no mention of the health of the mother or any defects from Gianna except what was caused by being burned from saline. You say no one but no one decides they don’t want their late term babies. That dosen’t explain all the women who went to Gosnell and had perfectly healthy late term babies killed.
In regards to any medical decisions for a child, including spina bifida, it is always up to the parents about treatment or no treatment for the child.
Child neglect and child abuse laws can apply. If you think an infant born with Spina Bifida after a botched abortion should be left to die, comfortably of course, if the mother [and father, doctor ?] say so, fine. imo, that's a position most people will consider extremist.
[/b]
Child neglect and child abuse laws can apply. If you think an infant born with Spina Bifida after a botched abortion should be left to die, comfortably of course, if the mother [and father, doctor ?] say so, fine. imo, that's a position most people will consider extremist.
Do not resuscitate is a choice that only the parents and the doctor should make, not you or some pro-life group. DNR is not the same as infanticide, it's entirely different. It is not immoral to decide against using extraordinary medical care to keep a baby alive who will never be able to survive on it's own without extraordinary and continuous medical intervention. My cousins first child was born with microcephaly, she wanted everything done to keep the baby alive, and with lots of tubes and oxygen and brain surgery he lived until he was four. He was blind, deaf, unable to move his arms or legs, the only thing he could do was scream day and night, which according to the doctor was due to him being in horrible pain every minute of every day of his life.
That may be one of the least intelligent responses to a serious question I have ever seen.
Clearly Gosnell felt what he did was legal and moral, and he was an MD, not some kook shooting kids in a school.
He and presumably others view an abortion as a legal means to end the life of a child, BOTH inside and outside of the womb.
Inside the womb, at least up until a certain stage in pregnancy, abortion is legal. However the ability to end a viable babies life surviving outside of the womb is no longer an abortion, even if that was the reason the woman went to the clinic (presumably within legal parameters) in the first place, correct?
So how about answering the question (posed to the other poster) about how this bill criticism fell into all the usual liberal talking points from the pro-choice side?
`
You are the one throwing an ignorant slant on this issue.
No one thinks it is legal to kill a child outside of the womb. That is not being done. Severely deformed newborns that are terminal are being allowed to die a natural death without futile interventions that will only prolong the suffering of the infant and its parents. That is not murder.
The laws we have already make it clear that it is illegal to kill a child outside of the womb so there is no point in introducing new legislation that merely reiterates what the laws we have already address......unless you are just playing politics.
And that is exactly what Republicans are doing here, falling back on their good old standby, abortion, to rile up their base for the 2020 elections.
Liberal talking points? Do you really expect liberals to hold their tongues every time conservatives roll out a new set of lies to excite their base and attack a woman's right to choose?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is only one party that is extreme on the issue of abortion, and its not the GOP; hell, this bill doesn't even restrict abortions, but only deals with a level of care to children who are not snuffed out as intended during an abortion . . . yet they still can't get behind this??? Voting against this act is a complete disgrace and shows you how vile these Dem senators are. Rarely have I been more disgusted. WTF?
Are you so naive that you don't know that many Republicans quite strongly support a law that bans all abortions? No exceptions permitted! Also many Republicans want to ban all contraceptives, because they believe using contraceptives is no different from abortion.
So you are trying to say this is a slippery slope argument?
Personally I do not see it that way, nor am I looking to see abortion banned as the goal of protecting an innocent baby that managed to be born in the 3rd trimester.
The Gosnell ghoul obviously killed live birth babies and still felt he did nothing wrong. Aside from the lack of morals and poor medical practices he engaged in, how could he genuinely believe he did nothing wrong?
Here is a question for you and or others who think it is a backdoor attempt to ban all abortions. Lets say a woman decides she wants to abort the baby (for whatever reason) in the 3rd trimester, and goes to a clinic to do so. While filling out paperwork in the waiting room, or while going to the bathroom, she suddenly gives birth to a live healthy baby, before the procedure can start.
Do you think that baby should be allowed to be killed after a live birth occurs?
As has been repeatedly mentioned here, no obstetrician is going to "kill" a healthy third trimester fetus - either before or after it is born. The only reason a third trimester pregnancy would be terminated early is for the benefit of a seriously ill mother, and some early third trimester babies will not survive even if every effort is made to help them.
Your question about Gosnell can only be answered by Gosnell, and he is an anomaly. The anti-abortion crew want to make it sound like Gosnell is typical of abortion providers, and that is absolutely not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taz22
Yes, I was aware of that, but thought those cases were very rare. Now, since this has come out from Cuomo and Northam, I’ve learned differently. Of course the mother’s life is important, but there seems to be a movement to leave it all up to the mother and Dr. At some point the baby is viable and delivering a live and reasonably healthy baby only to have it killed is reprehensible to me. There are so many people who would love to adopt and they would give those unwanted babies a great life. If the mother is advised for health reasons to abort and dosen’t want the child, why not explore adoption. I’m sure people would be happy to adopt children with birth defects, I’ve read many stories of kids who are blind, deaf or have spina bifida who found loving homes.
Gosnell killed a lot of healthy newborns. People would have been lined up around the block to adopt them.
No one is going to deliver "a live and reasonably healthy baby only to have it killed". That is infanticide. It is illegal. What Gosnell did was already illegal. There is no need to try to make it somehow more illegal. I do not know whether Gosnell was simply incompetent, just greedy, or a truly evil person who enjoyed what he was doing. What he did is not acceptable and it is not what other abortion providers do.
If the fetus needs to be delivered early because mom is seriously ill, either labor is induced or a Cesarean is done and every effort is made for the result to be a healthy baby. However, some of those babies will not survive. For example, consider a pregnancy where the bag of waters ruptures at 26 weeks without labor. Mother and fetus both get infected. The uterus must be emptied because mom is septic and will die if it is not done. The fetus is still alive, however, but very likely will succumb to sepsis after birth and may have severe handicaps (mental and physical) if it survives. This is the situation that resulted in major change in abortion law in Ireland. A woman in that very situation (though at 17 weeks) was denied an abortion. She died.
Any family who has a newborn with birth defects will be given information about what the defects entail, what treatment is available, and what the expected quality of life will be. You appear to be blissfully unaware of how severe some malformations can be and the utterly dismal prognosis for them, even with treatment. The prognosis for spina bifida is generally good. It is not comparable to the anomalies for which third trimester termination for fetal indications would be considered.
It says here that she was aborted two months premature. There is no mention of the health of the mother or any defects from Gianna except what was caused by being burned from saline. You say no one but no one decides they don’t want their late term babies. That dosen’t explain all the women who went to Gosnell and had perfectly healthy late term babies killed.
The records at the link indicate Gianna was born in 1977 and weighed 1260 grams at birth, corresponding to about 29-30 weeks. I suspect the abortion attempt was made later than the legal limit because either her mother did not accurately remember her last menstrual period or lied about it in order to get the abortion. Ultrasound may not have been done at all because it was not universally available then in the US. My younger son was born in 1977 and I did not have ultrasounds at all. Without ultrasound, dating a pregnancy can be very difficult.
What Gosnell did is not typical of abortion providers. See my comment above. Any other provider would have refused to do the late abortions that he did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
[/b] Child neglect and child abuse laws can apply. If you think an infant born with Spina Bifida after a botched abortion should be left to die, comfortably of course, if the mother [and father, doctor ?] say so, fine. imo, that's a position most people will consider extremist.
Why do you choose to use spina bifida as your example? The conditions for which third trimester termination is used are not treatable and are incompatible with life at all, much less anything near a normal life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
