Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion

[child of wonder]

And forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term when they don't want to is equally repulsive. There should obviously be a line at which we should say - no abortion unless the mother's health is in jeopardy, but we shouldn't take the attitude - "you spread your legs and now we're going to punish you by forcing you to have a baby." Even if you don't mean punish, that's what your attitude is essentially saying.

With your blanket case, what about people who had safe sex or used the Pill but something went wrong (ie: condom broke, pill failed....)? After all, the individuals were being responsible. For all the talk about how government is too big, to argue a position that we need the government to interfere with people's personal, medical matters is absolutely asinine.

Instead of arguing over who can and can't get abortions, the bigger issue should be in preventing people from being put in such situations where they need to make such a decision in the first place. To make abortion illegal will only mean that people will resort to dangerous and back-alley methods to obtain one.

You missed the part where I said I don't think we should legislate abortions. I personally find abortions of convenience repulsive but there are so many "what ifs" and unanswerable questions surrounding when life begins, fetal viability, etc. that it is not feasible to make any kind of law against abortion.

Therefore, I do not support making abortion illegal and I agree that steps need to be taken to help ensure people are never put in a position in which they have to decide whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy or not.

 

[Moonbeam]

Honest to god, if we had some form of functional male birth control (outside of condoms, which have their own issues), I think the instance of abortions would go down significantly.

Our male dominated society is totally fucked up in this regard. Just look at the posts above mine, there is absolutely no discussion about the fact that there was a FATHER involved in this as well. Everyone blames the woman for choosing to get an abortion, no one gives a damn about the dad.

What, you want me to get all pissed off thinking about somebody who got some I didn't?

 

[HumblePie]

How accurately can date of conception be determined by doctors? Are they dependent upon the mother to tell them? Is it possible the baby was farther along than they thought it was?

Technically the date of conception for medical determination is done by the last day of the last period the woman had.

For example, when my GF got pregnant we knew the date of conception because it was only 1 day that I saw her since I live in a different town. However, although we went to the planned parenthood the next day, since her last period was 3 weeks prior, the date of conception for medical purposes was put on that date. So she was considered to be in her 3rd week instead of about 5 days later.

 

[Genx87]

We shouldn't have shit to say about the issue. The mother with the guidance of her doctor should make that choice.

Wrong, when a fetus is viable it is a human and afforded basic human rights.

 

[xj0hnx]

And forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term when they don't want to is equally repulsive. There should obviously be a line at which we should say - no abortion unless the mother's health is in jeopardy, but we shouldn't take the attitude - "you spread your legs and now we're going to punish you by forcing you to have a baby." Even if you don't mean punish, that's what your attitude is essentially saying.

Oh yes, by all means lets murder the most helpless among us because it is an inconvenience to the mother, god (opps, sorry forgot god repulses the loony left) allah forbid she take responsibility for spreading her legs. The case of incest, or rape is one thing, but sing abortion as birth control is reprehensible. Then again personal responsibility is the antithesis of the loony left.

 

[Genx87]

No, it's not enough and all of the public policy we base off of how it applies to only one life is just as much BS as setting the goal posts to 22 weeks would be.

Would one human dying, accidentally, because of concealed-carry laws be enough for us to make concealed-carry illegal? No.

Moving the goal posts to 22 weeks is being proven with this and other cases. How many instances of human babies dying would it require for you to change your mind?

 

[Brainonska511]

You missed the part where I said I don't think we should legislate abortions. I personally find abortions of convenience repulsive but there are so many "what ifs" and unanswerable questions surrounding when life begins, fetal viability, etc. that it is not feasible to make any kind of law against abortion.

Therefore, I do not support making abortion illegal and I agree that steps need to be taken to help ensure people are never put in a position in which they have to decide whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy or not.

True, I did not intend to characterize you as being for legislation that bans abortion. Just that the extension of the attitude about 'abortion for convenience' to legislation is a common theme among anti-choice groups.

 

[Tom]

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?

I support women's choice, because I see it as a conflict between her rights and the unborn's rights. but I think a woman has to make that choice in a reasonable time, which should be medically determined. On the other hand I think the unborn have a right to privacy which makes deciding to have an abortion because of a disability troubling to me. Unless the disability threatens the health of the woman.

But the woman's choice ends once there's a live birth.

But as a society, I don't think we are prepared to pay the cost of taking care of all these children, we aren't willing to take care of lots of other problems kids around the world have.

 

[Genx87]

I support women's choice, because I see it as a conflict between her rights and the unborn's rights. but I think a woman has to make that choice in a reasonable time, which should be medically determined. On the other hand I think the unborn have a right to privacy which makes deciding to have an abortion because of a disability troubling to me. Unless the disability threatens the health of the woman.

But the woman's choice ends once there's a live birth.

But as a society, I don't think we are prepared to pay the cost of taking care of all these children, we aren't willing to take care of lots of other problems kids around the world have.

I agree with your point. Ideally I would outlaw abortion outright. But I am pragmatic about it will admit there isnt much medical evidence to support my position. However I feel as medical technology advances the science behind this is going to make it tough to support an abortion past a certain point in a pregnancy. It will turn into the right of the women vs the right of an unborn child. I think it will be hard to justify morally and scientifically the right of the mother always trumps another's life just because the life resides within her womb.

As for society. I think there is a huge adoption market in this country we are ignoring. People are being forced to adopt from other countries due to lack of American born babies to adopt.

 

[BigDH01]

Wrong, when a fetus is viable it is a human and afforded basic human rights.

If a 22 week old is viable with a great deal of expensive medical care, is that care their basic human right?

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

Well said. :thumbsup: I agree 100% with this.

 

[between]

...

 

[Genx87]

If a 22 week old is viable with a great deal of expensive medical care, is that care their basic human right?

Yes, considering we pay for a lot of other people I would say it is.

 

[Genx87]

that is a very contemporary viewpoint. historically, infanticide has always been an option. Frankly, I don't see the problem with a mother or father killing their child within the first weeks or months of life (as long as it is done humanely). Infanticide has a long and noble history - google it

Wow, where do you people get this crap? Why stop at a few weeks and months? What is your cutoff?

 

[BigDH01]

Yes, considering we pay for a lot of other people I would say it is.

So what is the point of a market for healthcare for children when demand is completely inelastic?

 

[Atreus21]

If a 22 week old is viable with a great deal of expensive medical care, is that care their basic human right?

They're entitled to whatever it takes to save their life, just like any adult.

 

[Tom]

I agree with your point. Ideally I would outlaw abortion outright. But I am pragmatic about it will admit there isnt much medical evidence to support my position. However I feel as medical technology advances the science behind this is going to make it tough to support an abortion past a certain point in a pregnancy. It will turn into the right of the women vs the right of an unborn child. I think it will be hard to justify morally and scientifically the right of the mother always trumps another's life just because the life resides within her womb.

As for society. I think there is a huge adoption market in this country we are ignoring. People are being forced to adopt from other countries due to lack of American born babies to adopt.

Adoption doesn't begin to address what I mean, when we think it's worth our time and money that no person in this world is hungry, or homeless, or sick with a preventable illness, that's when the hypocrisy will go away.

 

[BigDH01]

Wow, where do you people get this crap? Why stop at a few weeks and months? What is your cutoff?

By the same token, if healthcare is a human right for an infant, why not for a 5 year old, 13 year old, 19 year old? What is your cutoff?

 

[Atreus21]

that is a very contemporary viewpoint. historically, infanticide has always been an option. Frankly, I don't see the problem with a mother or father killing their child within the first weeks or months of life (as long as it is done humanely). Infanticide has a long and noble history - google it

It has no place in civilized society. And if you truly have no problem with infantacide, then you have a serious problem.

 

[zsdersw]

Moving the goal posts to 22 weeks is being proven with this and other cases. How many instances of human babies dying would it require for you to change your mind?

What "other cases" are you referring to? Cite them, count them, and then weigh the number against the number of other premature births, and then tell me what the percentage is. It won't be as relevant as you think.

 

[BigDH01]

They're entitled to whatever it takes to save their life, just like any adult.

So is any adult entitled to any treatment that will save them from any life threatening condition?

 

[Atreus21]

What "other cases" are you referring to? Cite them, count them, and then weigh the number against the number of other premature births, and then tell me what the percentage is. It won't be as relevant as you think.

The article I posted by itself references a kid who survived at 24 weeks, and is now five years old.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

 

[Atreus21]

So is any adult entitled to any treatment that will save them from any life threatening condition?

I'm frankly unsure. I know now it's illegal for a hospital to refuse care in life-threatening conditions.

But there's a difference between a 5 year old and a 5 minute old infant. Infants are utterly helpless, and require care if they are to live. The same can't entirely be said of a five year old.

If you're looking for a cutoff point, I'd say an infant is entitled to care during the hospital stay post-birth.

 

[BigDH01]

I'm frankly unsure. I know now it's illegal for a hospital to refuse care in life-threatening conditions.

But there's a difference between a 5 year old and a 5 minute old infant. Infants are utterly helpless, and require care if they are to live. The same can't entirely be said of a five year old.

If you're looking for a cutoff point, I'd say an infant is entitled to care during the hospital stay post-birth.

Why? Is the 5 year old somehow more in control of their life than an infant? Perhaps the 5 year old should get a job and insurance.

 

[zsdersw]

The article I posted by itself references a kid who survived at 24 weeks, and is now five years old.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

The point is that a handful of cases does not good policy make.