T Nation

This is What's Wrong With Abortion

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

They threw a live baby away. This is what is wrong with abortion, these people have no respect for human life, living or dead. I know you will say it wasn’t the doctor. Does it really matter?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09013009.html

I would hope the mother(term used loosely)would receive nothing monetary from this lawsuit. Did the mother name this child? I don’t get how you name something you intended on KILLING. I totally understand naming a baby that dies, but not one that you kill. Thats pretty sick.

Some people be crazy yo.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

They threw a live baby away. This is what is wrong with abortion, these people have no respect for human life, living or dead. I know you will say it wasn’t the doctor. Does it really matter?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09013009.html

I would hope the mother(term used loosely)would receive nothing monetary from this lawsuit. Did the mother name this child? I don’t get how you name something you intended on KILLING. I totally understand naming a baby that dies, but not one that you kill. Thats pretty sick. [/quote]

Damn it! You beat me to it.

Yes, First anybody here going to contest that this baby was not a living human being either out or as it was moments before in her uterus?
I want this bastard who threw out the baby, to be charged with murder even though technically, he just completed the abortion. The reason why is it should stoke the flames of the abortion argument bringing it front and center…Because this is an example of what abortion truly is, MURDER.

Yes. This should be the most short-lived thread in PWI.

It also demonstrates that there is no easy line that anyone can draw between “human” and “embryo” or whatever the hell you want to call a baby.

The people involved in this should be charged with murder and accessory to murder. Period.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yes. This should be the most short-lived thread in PWI.

It also demonstrates that there is no easy line that anyone can draw between “human” and “embryo” or whatever the hell you want to call a baby.

The people involved in this should be charged with murder and accessory to murder. Period.

[/quote]

Yep.

From reading that piece it doesn’t state anywhere that the baby/embryo had any chance of surviving, the cause of death is listed as extreme prematurity. The pregnancy was at 23 weeks and as far as I know there has only been 1 case where a baby born before 23 weeks has survived and in that case, they were specifically set up to try and save the baby, which of course would not be the case in an abortion clinic.

Seems like the Doctor (and others) totally fucked up and should be fully investigated and whatever punnishment should be applied.

If it can be argued that he was criminally negligent then he should be charged with that. You cannot charge him with Murder though because Abortion is legal.

The piece uses words like decomposing infant deliberately to pull on your heartstrings and it works.

It’s a pretty horrible case but if you accept abortion as right then you cannot call the guy a murderer. If you are anti abortion then go ahead and call the guy a murderer, but then again, even had he performed the procedure correctly that would still be the case.

No, this is what’s wrong with medical incompetence and human stupidity in general. Everyone did something wrong: the doctor in delegating the abortion to an unqualified underling, the underling in putting the baby in the trash, the clinic owners in trying to cover everything up, and the stupid mother for, one, waiting 23 weeks to have an abortion, and two, trying to cash in on the situation afterward.

As horrible and obscene as this situation is, I have serious doubts that they could have done anything to save the baby. Abortion clinics, for obvious reasons, aren’t commonly equipped with respirators, incubators and other vital equipment, nor are its personnel trained to keep preterm infants alive. Had the baby been born alive, even if the doctor had been present, and even if he had tried to save it (which I doubt he would have, it being at cross-purposes with his task to do so), the baby would have died anyway.

The American Association of Pediatrics says babies born at less than 23 weeks of age are not considered viable. The mortality rate for such infants is 70 per cent, according to the National Institutes of Health. So even with the best medical care and equipment available, the baby would have had only a 30% chance of survival.

And that 30% depends entirely on a great expenditure of time, energy and will on the part of the hospital, to say nothing of a great expenditure of money on the part of the mother.

It costs serious money to keep a premature infant alive, the cost climbing in inverse proportion to birth weight. How much? Up to 224,000 dollars for a 500-700g baby, according to the Department of Obstetrics at UC Davis. For some reason, I doubt that Sycloria Williams had a quarter million in her purse to cover the costs, let alone medical insurance.

Even if she dearly wanted the baby (which she didn’t), had happened to find herself in the best hospital in Miami (unlikely in the first place), and had delivered a 23-week preterm baby, the doctors would have informed her that the baby had very little chance of survival, that it would cost an exorbitant amount of money to even try to save it, and that it would be at greatly increased risk of a whole slew of neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular disorders. I would put money on her consenting to let the baby die.

And if she did, neither she nor the doctors would be guilty of murder, manslaughter, malpractice or even negligence. Premature babies die all the time. It’s sad, but it’s the way it is.

This really isn’t an abortion issue. The death of the baby would not have been prevented by changing the abortion law.

After all, does anybody really believe that even if abortion had been illegal, that Sycloria Williams’s unwanted baby would have ended up anywhere else than where it did, dead in a cardboard box?

Damn it, Cockney, how dare you essentially present my argument shortly before I submit my own post.

It’s irritating enough to have one rational contrary argument in what should rightly be an emotional issue, but two?!

And anyway, you’re a foreigner, and an atheist, and probably a Communist to boot, and you live in a country that smells like fart most of the time. Your opinions count for nothing here, boyo.

Now go away, or I shall insult you a second time.

:stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
From reading that piece it doesn’t state anywhere that the baby/embryo had any chance of surviving, the cause of death is listed as extreme prematurity. The pregnancy was at 23 weeks and as far as I know there has only been 1 case where a baby born before 23 weeks has survived and in that case, they were specifically set up to try and save the baby, which of course would not be the case in an abortion clinic.

Seems like the Doctor (and others) totally fucked up and should be fully investigated and whatever punnishment should be applied.

If it can be argued that he was criminally negligent then he should be charged with that. You cannot charge him with Murder though because Abortion is legal.

The piece uses words like decomposing infant deliberately to pull on your heartstrings and it works.

It’s a pretty horrible case but if you accept abortion as right then you cannot call the guy a murderer. If you are anti abortion then go ahead and call the guy a murderer, but then again, even had he performed the procedure correctly that would still be the case.[/quote]

If someone finds you wounded on the street is it justifiable to throw you in a dumpster rather than help because you don’t have good survival odds? Many gunshot victims are living beings, but at that point can’t survive on their own, so would they forfeit their human rights? I guess we should do away with ambulances and emergency services and load up the dumpsters.

Alive is alive, whether you need help to survive or not.

It is negligent homicide at the very least.

Serious LOL. You put it far more eloquently than me.

And as my office is next to the main storm drain for the city, the fart smell comment is not that far from true.

I will try and find you a shrubbery though if it makes things better.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Damn it, Cockney, how dare you essentially present my argument shortly before I submit my own post.

It’s irritating enough to have one rational contrary argument in what should rightly be an emotional issue, but two?!

And anyway, you’re a foreigner, and an atheist, and probably a Communist to boot, and you live in a country that smells like fart most of the time. Your opinions count for nothing here, boyo.

Now go away, or I shall insult you a second time.

:P[/quote]

Let’s not try and take your gun though. Right? You have a right to bear arms, but this baby, born alive, did not have a right to life. The baby was delvered not aborted, they then cut the umbilical cord and placed the live baby in a biohazard bag and threw her away.

If you took the time to read what I wrote, you would see that my line of thought has to do with these people and their lack of respect for life. The abortion crowd does not respect life unless it is their own. Why exactly did this baby that was born alive, that had a 30% chance of living deserve to die. If your doctor called tomorrow and said you had melanoma and that you only had a 30% survival rate what would your reaction be? What if he told you that since it was only a 30% chance he wasn’t going to bother treating you because the cost per pound of bodyweight was outlandish. Gee, that sounds logical!

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
From reading that piece it doesn’t state anywhere that the baby/embryo had any chance of surviving, the cause of death is listed as extreme prematurity. The pregnancy was at 23 weeks and as far as I know there has only been 1 case where a baby born before 23 weeks has survived and in that case, they were specifically set up to try and save the baby, which of course would not be the case in an abortion clinic.

Seems like the Doctor (and others) totally fucked up and should be fully investigated and whatever punnishment should be applied.

If it can be argued that he was criminally negligent then he should be charged with that. You cannot charge him with Murder though because Abortion is legal.

The piece uses words like decomposing infant deliberately to pull on your heartstrings and it works.

It’s a pretty horrible case but if you accept abortion as right then you cannot call the guy a murderer. If you are anti abortion then go ahead and call the guy a murderer, but then again, even had he performed the procedure correctly that would still be the case.

If someone finds you wounded on the street is it justifiable to throw you in a dumpster rather than help because you don’t have good survival odds? Many gunshot victims are living beings, but at that point can’t survive on their own, so would they forfeit their human rights? I guess we should do away with ambulances and emergency services and load up the dumpsters.

Alive is alive, whether you need help to survive or not.

[/quote]

By that argument, part way through any abortion the surgeon would have to stop the abortion and attempt to save the baby even though he had inflicted the wounds.

If you want to argue the rights and wrongs of abortion, go ahead but that is not what this case is about (though plenty of anti-abortion people will try to use it to promote their cause.)

The doctor appears (from a report in a newspaper) to be at fault for negligently botching a medical procedure and for that he needs to be investigated.

If he is guilty of murder in your eyes then that should be for carrying out an abortion in the first place, not for the manner in which he carried out this one.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
From reading that piece it doesn’t state anywhere that the baby/embryo had any chance of surviving, the cause of death is listed as extreme prematurity.

The pregnancy was at 23 weeks and as far as I know there has only been 1 case where a baby born before 23 weeks has survived and in that case, they were specifically set up to try and save the baby, which of course would not be the case in an abortion clinic.

Seems like the Doctor (and others) totally fucked up and should be fully investigated and whatever punnishment should be applied.

If it can be argued that he was criminally negligent then he should be charged with that. You cannot charge him with Murder though because Abortion is legal.

The piece uses words like decomposing infant deliberately to pull on your heartstrings and it works.

It’s a pretty horrible case but if you accept abortion as right then you cannot call the guy a murderer.

If you are anti abortion then go ahead and call the guy a murderer, but then again, even had he performed the procedure correctly that would still be the case.

If someone finds you wounded on the street is it justifiable to throw you in a dumpster rather than help because you don’t have good survival odds? Many gunshot victims are living beings, but at that point can’t survive on their own, so would they forfeit their human rights?

I guess we should do away with ambulances and emergency services and load up the dumpsters.

Alive is alive, whether you need help to survive or not.

By that argument, part way through any abortion the surgeon would have to stop the abortion and attempt to save the baby even though he had inflicted the wounds.

If you want to argue the rights and wrongs of abortion, go ahead but that is not what this case is about (though plenty of anti-abortion people will try to use it to promote their cause.)

The doctor appears (from a report in a newspaper) to be at fault for negligently botching a medical procedure and for that he needs to be investigated.

If he is guilty of murder in your eyes then that should be for carrying out an abortion in the first place, not for the manner in which he carried out this one.[/quote]

It is legal to kill a baby by leaving it in a trashcan?

I like how the defense of this case revolves around putting a price tag on life and using a probability chart for life saving equipment.

And yes, I pretty much feel all abortion is murder. However, if you don’t see a difference throwing a live baby in a dumpster, I hope you too are against all abortion.

Can one of you guys chart out how much each person is worth at each age, gender, race?

A 23 day old isn’t worth 200k. what about a 1 year old? what about a 3 year old? is “it” worth more once they learn to walk or talk? Orphans not worth investing money in if they don’t have people who love them? Do you value infants by weight? Tell me what the spending limits should be on each person.

I’m sorry, but that justification is asinine.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Let’s not try and take your gun though. Right? You have a right to bear arms, but this baby, born alive, did not have a right to life. The baby was delvered not aborted, they then cut the umbilical cord and placed the live baby in a biohazard bag and threw her away.

If you took the time to read what I wrote, you would see that my line of thought has to do with these people and their lack of respect for life. The abortion crowd does not respect life unless it is their own. Why exactly did this baby that was born alive, that had a 30% chance of living deserve to die.

If your doctor called tomorrow and said you had melanoma and that you only had a 30% survival rate what would your reaction be? What if he told you that since it was only a 30% chance he wasn’t going to bother treating you because the cost per pound of bodyweight was outlandish. Gee, that sounds logical![/quote]

Snipe, calm down before you hurt yourself.

If you had taken the time to read and understand what I had written, you might have gathered that I was not arguing in favor of abortion, nor claiming that this or any baby did not have the “right to life”.

Rather, I was stating that whether this particular baby had been born in a hospital, in an abortion clinic, or in an alley, the result would have been the same. One dead baby.

I am not claiming that it is a desirable situation, nor that the baby deserved what it got. Simply that premature babies die all the time, that nobody in this case could have done much to prevent it from happening, and that abortion being right, wrong, legal or illegal makes not a dime’s worth of difference.

In the case of me being critically ill with malignant cancer, with only a 30% probability of survival, I can assure you that in the absence of either medical insurance or the required quarter of a million dollars to pay for chemotherapy, radiation therapy,

Bone marrow transplants, and outpatient care, may chances of finding a doctor who would perform all this for me pro bono are about that of the proverbial infernal snowflake.

I would, in short, die. I wouldn’t be particularly happy about it, but that’s the way it is. If some big-hearted charitable organization or philanthropist wanted to kick up some coin to same my poor cancerous ass, I would be most grateful. But I wouldn’t count on it.

But back to the topic at hand. You know what triage is, right? It’s the process of prioritizing patients based on the severity of their condition. Doctors can’t save everyone, so they allocate their resources primarily on those who have the best chance of survival. Unfortunately, in our country, in many cases, this also means those who have the means to pay for it.

Unless you are personally willing to foot the bill for neonatal care for every impoverished inner city woman who delivers an extremely premature infant, or know someone who would be willing to do so, your respect for the lives of these babies is not going to result in their not ending up dead.

DoubleDuce, you make the mistake of confusing a description of reality with a “justification.”

Nobody is arguing that a baby is not “worth” saving.

I am simply stating that people who either have no access to (or can’t afford to pay for) the neonatal care needed to keep a high-risk, extremely premature infant generally have very few options beside letting the baby die.

I don’t value infants by weight. I quoted a study that correlated the costs of keeping a preterm infant alive with its birth weight.

Not surprisingly, the more prematurely a baby is born, the less it weighs, the more likely it is to die, and thus the more care it requires. This costs proportionately more money.

For the third (or is it fourth? I’ve lost track) time: I don’t like the situation, but it’s the way it is.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Let’s not try and take your gun though. Right? You have a right to bear arms, but this baby, born alive, did not have a right to life. The baby was delvered not aborted, they then cut the umbilical cord and placed the live baby in a biohazard bag and threw her away.

If you took the time to read what I wrote, you would see that my line of thought has to do with these people and their lack of respect for life. The abortion crowd does not respect life unless it is their own. Why exactly did this baby that was born alive, that had a 30% chance of living deserve to die.

If your doctor called tomorrow and said you had melanoma and that you only had a 30% survival rate what would your reaction be? What if he told you that since it was only a 30% chance he wasn’t going to bother treating you because the cost per pound of bodyweight was outlandish. Gee, that sounds logical!

Snipe, calm down before you hurt yourself.

If you had taken the time to read and understand what I had written, you might have gathered that I was not arguing in favor of abortion, nor claiming that this or any baby did not have the “right to life”.

Rather, I was stating that whether this particular baby had been born in a hospital, in an abortion clinic, or in an alley, the result would have been the same. One dead baby.

I am not claiming that it is a desirable situation, nor that the baby deserved what it got. Simply that premature babies die all the time, that nobody in this case could have done much to prevent it from happening, and that abortion being right, wrong, legal or illegal makes not a dime’s worth of difference.

In the case of me being critically ill with malignant cancer, with only a 30% probability of survival, I can assure you that in the absence of either medical insurance or the required quarter of a million dollars to pay for chemotherapy, radiation therapy,

Bone marrow transplants, and outpatient care, may chances of finding a doctor who would perform all this for me pro bono are about that of the proverbial infernal snowflake.

I would, in short, die. I wouldn’t be particularly happy about it, but that’s the way it is. If some big-hearted charitable organization or philanthropist wanted to kick up some coin to same my poor cancerous ass, I would be most grateful. But I wouldn’t count on it.

But back to the topic at hand. You know what triage is, right? It’s the process of prioritizing patients based on the severity of their condition. Doctors can’t save everyone, so they allocate their resources primarily on those who have the best chance of survival. Unfortunately, in our country, in many cases, this also means those who have the means to pay for it.

Unless you are personally willing to foot the bill for neonatal care for every impoverished inner city woman who delivers an extremely premature infant, or know someone who would be willing to do so, your respect for the lives of these babies is not going to result in their not ending up dead.[/quote]

In an alley versus in a doctors office are 2 different things. Criminal charges can be filed for a patient dieing in a waiting room without any care. Criminal charges cannot be filed if they die in an alley. ERs are forced to at least stabilize even the uninsured.

The doctor by being licensed and agreeing to preform the surgery had additional responsibilities that the normal citizen does not. Period. You cannot equate his responsibilities (financially or otherwise) to the child to you or me.

Part of those responsibilities, to me, would include infant care in the event of a botched surgery, the same way he would be required to provide care for the mother if something went wrong.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce, you make the mistake of confusing a description of reality with a “justification.”

Nobody is arguing that a baby is not “worth” saving.

I am simply stating that people who either have no access to (or can’t afford to pay for) the neonatal care needed to keep a high-risk, extremely premature infant generally have very few options beside letting the baby die.

I don’t value infants by weight. I quoted a study that correlated the costs of keeping a preterm infant alive with its birth weight.

Not surprisingly, the more prematurely a baby is born, the less it weighs, the more likely it is to die, and thus the more care it requires. This costs proportionately more money.

For the third (or is it fourth? I’ve lost track) time: I don’t like the situation, but it’s the way it is.[/quote]

You are right, it would fall more into the excuse than justification category.

Like I said the doctor has additional responsibilities.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
From reading that piece it doesn’t state anywhere that the baby/embryo had any chance of surviving, the cause of death is listed as extreme prematurity.

The pregnancy was at 23 weeks and as far as I know there has only been 1 case where a baby born before 23 weeks has survived and in that case, they were specifically set up to try and save the baby, which of course would not be the case in an abortion clinic.

Seems like the Doctor (and others) totally fucked up and should be fully investigated and whatever punnishment should be applied.

If it can be argued that he was criminally negligent then he should be charged with that. You cannot charge him with Murder though because Abortion is legal.

The piece uses words like decomposing infant deliberately to pull on your heartstrings and it works.

It’s a pretty horrible case but if you accept abortion as right then you cannot call the guy a murderer.

If you are anti abortion then go ahead and call the guy a murderer, but then again, even had he performed the procedure correctly that would still be the case.

If someone finds you wounded on the street is it justifiable to throw you in a dumpster rather than help because you don’t have good survival odds? Many gunshot victims are living beings, but at that point can’t survive on their own, so would they forfeit their human rights?

I guess we should do away with ambulances and emergency services and load up the dumpsters.

Alive is alive, whether you need help to survive or not.

By that argument, part way through any abortion the surgeon would have to stop the abortion and attempt to save the baby even though he had inflicted the wounds.

If you want to argue the rights and wrongs of abortion, go ahead but that is not what this case is about (though plenty of anti-abortion people will try to use it to promote their cause.)

The doctor appears (from a report in a newspaper) to be at fault for negligently botching a medical procedure and for that he needs to be investigated.

If he is guilty of murder in your eyes then that should be for carrying out an abortion in the first place, not for the manner in which he carried out this one.

It is legal to kill a baby by leaving it in a trashcan?

I like how the defense of this case revolves around putting a price tag on life and using a probability chart for life saving equipment.

And yes, I pretty much feel all abortion is murder. However, if you don’t see a difference throwing a live baby in a dumpster, I hope you too are against all abortion.
[/quote]

Where in that report do you get that the baby/fetus was alive when it was put in the trashcan? Maybe I need to read it again but I didn’t see that stated anywhere.