Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion
A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly a day later.

The 22-week infant died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy.

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.

However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die.

He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neo-natal unit at the neighbouring Cosenza hospital, where he died on Monday morning.

Italian police are investigating the case for "homicide" because infanticide is illegal in Italy.

The law means that doctors have had an obligation to try to preserve the life of the child once he had survived the abortion.

The Italian government is also considering an inquiry into the conduct of the hospital staff.

Eugenia Roccella, the under-secretary of state in the health department, on Wednesday night promised a government inquiry into the incident.

“The minister of health will send inspectors to the hospital in Rossano Calabro to investigate what actually happened, and to see if the Law 194, which prohibits abortion when there is a possibility of the foetus living separately from the mother, and permits it only when the continuation of the pregnancy would result in life-threatening danger to the mother.”

She said that if initial information is correct, “this would be a case of deliberate abandonment of a seriously premature neonate, possibly also with some form of disability, an act contrary to any sense of human compassion but also of any accepted professional medical practice".

She added: “We must remember that a baby, once born, is an Italian citizen equal to all the others, and is entitled to all fundamental rights, including the right to health and therefore to be given full support.”

The case has reignited controversy on the legality of abortion in the Roman Catholic country.

It could also raise questions in Britain over the legal upper limits for abortion and the viability of the foetus – or its ability to survive outside of the womb.

A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said: "There cannot be anybody in the world who is not horrified by a story like this nor anybody in the UK who would not support a massive reduction in the upper limit for abortion."

Most abortions at 22 weeks simply involve the induction of the birth which normally results in the death of a young foetus.

The case is causing uproar in Italy because it is the second involving a foetus of that age surviving the procedure in just three years.

The other involved a baby in Florence who weighed just 17oz when he was aborted at 22 weeks because of a suspected genetic disorder, but lived for three days.

Since 1978, abortion has been available on demand in Italy in the first three months of pregnancy but is restricted to specific circumstances – such as disability- in the second trimester. The government is considering a review of the working of the laws.

The case also comes as figures in Britain revealed last week that the number of babies born weighing only 2lbs has more than doubled in just two years.

Yet the proportion of tiny babies born stillborn has nearly halved, the health service statistics have shown.

The figures do not reveal at what stage the babies were born but a child weighing under 2lbs is likely to have been born at least three months early.

They will inevitably include some born alive at an age when they could, in other circumstances, have been aborted.

More than 200,000 abortions are performed each year, most for non-medical reasons within the legal upper limit of 24 weeks gestation.

The increasing number of babies surviving below 24 weeks, partly because of advances in medicine, has led to widespread calls for the legal upper limit to be further reduced.

Attempts to lower the limit failed in Parliament in 2008.

In 2005 a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a five-year-old schoolboy.

I'm sorry, but this is fucking horrifying.

We now know that a child has a chance of survival outside of the womb at 22 weeks gestation. Are you going to seriously contend that this child wasn't a human being? Or perhaps will you say that simply the "chance" of survival doesn't indicate 100% certainty, and as such we retain the right to roll the dice with the kid's life?

Call this an emotional appeal, but I don't see how people can be calm and analytical about this.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I'm sorry, but this is fucking horrifying.

We now know that a child has a chance of survival outside of the womb at 22 weeks gestation. Are you going to seriously contend that this child wasn't a human being?

Call this an emotional appeal, but I don't see how people can be calm and analytical about this.

So what's the answer, then? What should we use the full force and credit of government and law to do about it? Whose rights are going to be placed on a higher pedestal than others?

Emotional appeals are fine, but they're hardly proper when making public policy decisions. I sympathize, but really... what's the point? What good does it serve?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
So what's the answer, then? What should we use the full force and credit of government and law to do about it? Whose rights are going to be placed on a higher pedestal than others?

The right to life should be prioritized above the right not to have a baby. And from this article, I'd say it's fair to assume the right to life kicks in, so far, at 22 weeks.

If abortions were legal up to 22 weeks, I'd have no problem until another kid is born alive and breathing at 21. Especially despite an attempt to abort him or her.

Emotional appeals are fine, but they're hardly proper when making public policy decisions. I sympathize, but really... what's the point? What good does it serve?

Because in this case it's not just morally repugnant, but so horrifying as to elicit an emotional response, which indicates a serious oversight in public policy. At least in my opinion. If babies are being killed, it deserves our attention.
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Well that sucks. Relevance to abortion laws not found.

Relevance to American abortion laws not found, true. But I wish we had Italian abortion laws. At the very least, abortion is illegal after 24 weeks. And even that, apparently, is too high a limit.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
The right to life should be prioritized above the right not to have a baby. And from this article, I'd say it's fair to assume the right to life kicks in, so far, at 22 weeks.

What you're saying would, if implemented, amount to a really sloppy law. Sloppy laws are worse than their absence.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
What you're saying would, if implemented, amount to a really sloppy law. Sloppy laws are worse than their absence.

In this case, I'd vehemently disagree.

This is kind of stupid. We're arguing the same point in two different threads.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
So what's the answer, then? What should we use the full force and credit of government and law to do about it? Whose rights are going to be placed on a higher pedestal than others?

Emotional appeals are fine, but they're hardly proper when making public policy decisions. I sympathize, but really... what's the point? What good does it serve?

What right gives one human to take another humans life? What you are essentially arguing is a women has a right to take the life of her child if she doesnt want that child. Clearly this was a viable fetus. Regardless of its location.

Emotional appeals are used all the time in public policy. Welfare, Social Security, Healthcare, military spending, drug policy. So why cant it be used when dealing with preserving a babies life?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
What right gives one human to take another humans life? What you are essentially arguing is a women has a right to take the life of her child if she doesnt want that child. Clearly this was a viable fetus. Regardless of its location.

There isn't a right for one human to take another human's life. There is a point between conception and birth that we become humans, and that's where the sloppiness comes in when crafting policy.. because we don't know, and have only our opinions to go on at this point.

Emotional appeals are used all the time in public policy. Welfare, Social Security, Healthcare, military spending, drug policy. So why cant it be used when dealing with preserving a babies life?

Because they're just as wrong when used for all of those things you mentioned as they are when talking about abortion.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
There isn't a right for one human to take another human's life. There is a point between conception and birth that we become humans, and that's where the sloppiness comes in when crafting policy.. because we don't know, and have only our opinions to go on at this point.

Well, evidently something huge occurs at 22 weeks.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
There isn't a right for one human to take another human's life. There is a point between conception and birth that we become humans, and that's where the sloppiness comes in when crafting policy.. because we don't know, and have only our opinions to go on at this point.

I think it is fine to say right now 22 weeks can be considered viable. We have evidence.
 

surfsatwerk

Lifer
Mar 6, 2008
10,110
5
81
Anytime a doctor fucks up the consequences can be horrifying. You wouldn't make this post if it was some poor bastard getting a heart transplant or other surgery and the doctor's extreme negliegence caused the patient to linger on fully conscious for two days before they died.

If you want women to have fewer abortions then we should work to create a society where women feel they can capably provide for the child they are carrying. This is an issue for women and their doctors, not politicians.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Anytime a doctor fucks up the consequences can be horrifying. You wouldn't make this post if it was some poor bastard getting a heart transplant or other surgery and the doctor's extreme negliegence caused the patient to linger on fully conscious for two days before they died.

If you want women to have fewer abortions then we should work to create a society where women feel they can capably provide for the child they are carrying. This is an issue for women and their doctors, not politicians.

There's a difference between deliberately trying and failing to kill an infant and accidentally killing an adult.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Anytime a doctor fucks up the consequences can be horrifying. You wouldn't make this post if it was some poor bastard getting a heart transplant or other surgery and the doctor's extreme negliegence caused the patient to linger on fully conscious for two days before they died.

Of course not because the surgery wasnt designed to kill the patient now was it?
And the patient most likely opted in for the surgery where the fetus was granted no such right.