This is What's Wrong With Abortion

It was born alive then was placed in a bag and thrown away. I guess they could have waited for it to die before chucking it.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.

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]

To me you can make a case that the doctor was at fault for not giving the mother the option of trying to save the baby, but again, from the report we don’t know whether he did or didn’t.

This is something that may well come up in the investigation.

Technically it was just a successful abortion.

Much like the successful execution in the green mile where they melt they guy’s face off.

Is it horrible, yes. But it is an abortion after all.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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

[/quote]

I think you’re a pretty good guy, DoubleDuce, and I generally avoid making personal snipes at people on these forums, but I can’t help but think that in this particular instance, you are being somewhat DoubleDense.

I’m not making an excuse for anyone in this case. Did you miss the part of my first post where I said that everyone involved did something wrong? If not, I’ll say it again. EVERYONE in the news story Snipe quoted is culpable, from the doctor to the mother to the clinic owner to the janitor who took out the fucking trash.

I’ll state it one more time. Babies die all the time because they were born prematurely. In many cases, the doctor tries to save them, but not always.

Many times, either the doctor (weighing all of the risks and costs involved) decides to let the baby expire, or else obtains informed consent from the parents to allow the baby to expire. This could, I suppose, be termed “full-birth abortion.” Regardless, it happens every day.

I don’t like it, but nether do I feel it’s worth my time to rage against the practice.

Not that raging against things that one doesn’t like has ever accomplished anything.

[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]

I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.

[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]

Scott Peterson is in prison for double murder…One of the murders was his unborn son.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
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]

While we could just as easily make an argument as to why these statements do not justify letting the infant die, this is not the case at hand. This baby was alive at birth, just like the cancer patient. The comparison ends there. After birth, the babies umbilical cord was cut but not clamped off. The baby was then put in a plastic bag to bleed to death and suffocate.

Viability is not the issue. Viability is always a grey area. None of us are viable for 150 years. A cancer patient may not be viable for 1 week. Murdering the cancer patient before they die a natural death is still wrong, regardless of how much life they have remaining.

This baby may have only been viable for one hour. However, since the nurse caused her to bleed out by not clamping the umbilical cord and suffucate inside a zip-loc bag instead of dying a natural death, it should be pretty clear to you that it was indeed murdered.

EDIT: More information can be found here, where it is also reported that the baby was actually put in the bag with a caustic solution: Abortionist loses medical license

[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]

When the baby pops out alive, technically it is no longer an abortion it’s a live birth.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
To me you can make a case that the doctor was at fault for not giving the mother the option of trying to save the baby, but again, from the report we don’t know whether he did or didn’t.

This is something that may well come up in the investigation.[/quote]

The doctor wasn’t present at the time she delivered. He was attending an emergency en route to the clinic and wasn’t informed of the delivery until afterward.

One may presume that inasmuch as the mother was in an abortion clinic, saving the baby was not a high priority for her until after the fact, when she realized there was some money to be had in remorse, grief, and victimhood.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

It was stated that the baby’s lungs were clear of fluild indicating it took it’s own breaths…Dead people can’t breath.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

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

I think you’re a pretty good guy, DoubleDuce, and I generally avoid making personal snipes at people on these forums, but I can’t help but think that in this particular instance, you are being somewhat DoubleDense.

I’m not making an excuse for anyone in this case. Did you miss the part of my first post where I said that everyone involved did something wrong? If not, I’ll say it again. EVERYONE in the news story Snipe quoted is culpable, from the doctor to the mother to the clinic owner to the janitor who took out the fucking trash.

I’ll state it one more time. Babies die all the time because they were born prematurely. In many cases, the doctor tries to save them, but not always.

Many times, either the doctor (weighing all of the risks and costs involved) decides to let the baby expire, or else obtains informed consent from the parents to allow the baby to expire. This could, I suppose, be termed “full-birth abortion.” Regardless, it happens every day.

I don’t like it, but nether do I feel it’s worth my time to rage against the practice.

Not that raging against things that one doesn’t like has ever accomplished anything.[/quote]

Humans die all the time, not just babies.

If it is not an excuse or justification it would have no place in the argument. If you aren’t excusing or justifying with those numbers what was your point in putting them up?

Much like your “it happens everyday” comment. The frequency of an action has no bearing on right/wrong/criminality est.

You sound entirely lukewarm. We are arguing shoulds and shouldn’ts and you are quoting cost statistics rather than your opinion.

If you are going to be devils advocate in this thread at least put some effort into it. You normally do a lot better job.

Is anybody arguing that the live baby born here was not a human being? Seems to me we’re all in agreement with that.

From a pro-life stand point the situation here illustrates pretty clearly that you are killing a human being when having an abortion.

[quote]pat wrote:

I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.[/quote]

Really?

Amilia Taylor, the world’s youngest surviving baby, was born at 21 weeks, but that was in 2007, so it couldn’t be her that you’re talking about.

Are you sure it was 21 weeks? Because before Amilia, no baby had ever been born earlier than 23 weeks and survived. Standard medical procedure is to not even attempt to resuscitate babies born earlier than 22 weeks.

I seems to me that the baby was born in the wrong place. For a different outcome the mother should have been somewhere where they want to save prematurely born children.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
I seems to me that the baby was born in the wrong place. For a different outcome the mother should have been somewhere where they want to save prematurely born children.[/quote]

I guess location is everything. In one location you’re trying to save a human life. In another, you’re just throwing away nothing more than a fingernail clipping.

[quote]pat wrote:
I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.[/quote]

If she’s completely normal, then I call bullshit. Whoever thought she was 21 weeks old at birth was off by at least 6 weeks.

If she’s massively retarded and requires constant care throughout the day, then the error might only be by a few weeks.

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.

If she’s completely normal, then I call bullshit. Whoever thought she was 21 weeks old at birth was off by at least 6 weeks.

If she’s massively retarded and requires constant care throughout the day, then the error might only be by a few weeks.
[/quote]

A-men! Damn retards wasting all our money.

[quote]pat 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.

Scott Peterson is in prison for double murder…One of the murders was his unborn son.[/quote]

Interesting about the girl that you know that lived who was born at 21 weeks given that the youngest premature baby to have survived was born on October 24, 2006. The baby was 21 weeks and 6 days at the time of birth and it was reported as being the first case of someone surviving at less than 23 weeks. Most hospitals have a 24 week cut off, anything before that and they just say sorry.

But I am sure that you are correct.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pat wrote:

I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.

Really?

Amilia Taylor, the world’s youngest surviving baby, was born at 21 weeks, but that was in 2007, so it couldn’t be her that you’re talking about.[/quote]

That case is also disputed as the 21 weeks is calculated from the (estimated) date of conception, instead of the more common method of counting since the last menstrual period of the mother. Doing so takes two weeks off. By the more common method, Amilia Taylor was born at 23 weeks.

12 years of reasearch, 150 babies born at 22 weeks or earlier, 22 babies that didn’t survive.