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.
No, it says no penalty if the baby dies. Some babies die within the first 28 days without being "killed".
There is no criminal penalty now if a baby dies without being "killed" (e.g. SIDS), any more than there is if a woman has a spontaneous miscarriage. And there is no penalty if parents make the choice under guidance from a medical doctor not to put a very sick or handicapped baby on life support, or perform extensive surgery etc. which is highly unlikely to prolong life and/or give the child any quality of life. So there must be more to it than that, or it wouldn't have been mentioned.
For instance, in the hypothetical case that a newborn with Down's syndrome needs lifesaving heart surgery which is anticipated to repair the heart and give the child a quality of life consistent with other people with Down's syndrome, is it legal / moral /ethical to refuse the surgery and allow the baby to die?
There is no criminal penalty now if a baby dies without being "killed" (e.g. SIDS), any more than there is if a woman has a spontaneous miscarriage. And there is no penalty if parents make the choice under guidance from a medical doctor not to put a very sick or handicapped baby on life support, or perform extensive surgery etc. which is highly unlikely to prolong life and/or give the child any quality of life. So there must be more to it than that, or it wouldn't have been mentioned.
For instance, in the hypothetical case that a newborn with Down's syndrome needs lifesaving heart surgery which is anticipated to repair the heart and give the child a quality of life consistent with other people with Down's syndrome, is it legal / moral /ethical to refuse the surgery and allow the baby to die?
You may debate whether it is moral or ethical, but should it be criminal?
You may debate whether it is moral or ethical, but should it be criminal?
That's the question, isn't it? Are you asking for my opinion? Yes, I think it should be criminal to deny a child who has reasonable expectation of good quality of life (which, for instance, most people with Down's syndrome enjoy) lifesaving medical treatment, but rather allow them to die untreated.
Neither of those ideas matter to posters like you , only LEGAL matters. If California continues on it's disgusting path, the bill will pass, and you'll get to cheer on post birth abortion. If it doesn't, you can just remember those abortionists who did kill newborns. In spite of it being "illegal."
Neither of those ideas matter to posters like you , only LEGAL matters. If California continues on it's disgusting path, the bill will pass, and you'll get to cheer on post birth abortion. If it doesn't, you can just remember those abortionists who did kill newborns. In spite of it being "illegal."
Sick people on this board.
You do not get to decide what is moral or ethical for another person.
You do not get to decide what is moral or ethical for another person.
The CA bill does not legalize killing babies.
Ethics are subjective.
Morals are not.
Legal is neither. it's just an arbitrary ruling.
Which is why you only concern yourself with legal. If it were legal to kill newborns, AKA post-birth abortion, your posts indicate you would be OK with it.
Sick. Evil. Sick.
Moving on.
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.