• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HumblePie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are they taking the woman's word as to when her last period was or is there an absolute medical evaluation that can determine when that was after the fact?
 
xj0hnx said:
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.
Click to expand...

You'd think a military person would be all for abortion, as its just killing someone earlier to you. Guess shooting a kid in the street is better.
 
xj0hnx said:
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.
Click to expand...


women are not responsible for pregnancy.
 
BigDH01 said:
Why? Is the 5 year old somehow more in control of their life than an infant?
Click to expand...

In some respects yes. A five year old knows when he or she is hungry, and to look for food. An infant will simply cry until it succumbs to starvation.

Perhaps the 5 year old should get a job and insurance.
Click to expand...

I don't see the point you're trying to make.
 
Atreus21 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion in the U.S., but yes it is "fucking horrifying".
 
zsdersw said:
The point is that a handful of cases does not good policy make.
Click to expand...

Hate to bring this up, but with reference to gay marriage, don't homosexuals only comprise 5% of the overall population?

I don't care about policy. If a human being wrongly dies, it deserves our attention. Abortion proponents have based their arguments on the assertion that the child isn't yet human, and thus not subject to being murdered. I don't see how they can argue that anymore in this case. Clearly this was a human being, and at the very LEAST abortion proponents should admit that abortion should not be allowed if there is any chance of killing a living breathing human being, which there definitely is at 22 weeks.
 
LumbergTech said:
Not sure what this has to do with the discussion in the U.S., but yes it is "fucking horrifying".
Click to expand...

That the Italians at the very least recognize that abortion after 24 weeks is wrong, and even that evidently is too late. Our policy should be the same or better.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
In some respects yes. A five year old knows when he or she is hungry, and to look for food. An infant will simply cry until it succumbs to starvation.
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous because you believe that a 5 year old knows to look for food (that they can't grow or afford) means they are fundamentally different than infants, specifically with regards to healthcare. Do you think a 5 year old has greater means to pay or gain access to healthcare than an infant?

I don't see the point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

Healthcare is rationed by price. Do you think a 5 year old is better able to secure funds than an infant? If not, why is healthcare considered a right for an infant but not a 5 year old?
 
BigDH01 said:
It's ridiculous because you believe that a 5 year old knows to look for food (that they can't grow or afford) means they are fundamentally different than infants, specifically with regards to healthcare. Do you think a 5 year old has greater means to pay or gain access to healthcare than an infant?



Healthcare is rationed by price. Do you think a 5 year old is better able to secure funds than an infant? If not, why is healthcare considered a right for an infant but not a 5 year old?
Click to expand...

Healthcare is NOT rationed by price. As I mentioned earlier, hospitals are legally bound to provide life-saving care. How it's paid for is another matter.
 
Atreus21 said:
Healthcare is NOT rationed by price. As I mentioned earlier, hospitals are legally bound to provide life-saving care. How it's paid for is another matter.
Click to expand...

They provide immediate life-saving care if I walk into an ER. It does not necessarily mean any chronic life-threatening condition I have will be treated (especially at any cost).

Given that you didn't address the difference between a 5 year old and an infant, I would assume you believe they are entitled to the same care. If so, what is the point of pursuing or advocating free market health care for these individuals? You've said it yourself, healthcare is not rationed by price. Without that rationing, an efficient free market won't exist. With that rationing, infants and 5 year olds who can't afford care don't receive it.
 
BigDH01 said:
They provide immediate life-saving care if I walk into an ER. It does not necessarily mean any chronic life-threatening condition I have will be treated (especially at any cost).

Given that you didn't address the difference between a 5 year old and an infant, I would assume you believe they are entitled to the same care. If so, what is the point of pursuing or advocating free market health care for these individuals? You've said it yourself, healthcare is not rationed by price. Without that rationing, an efficient free market won't exist. With that rationing, infants and 5 year olds who can't afford care don't receive it.
Click to expand...

I said the difference between a 5 year old and an infant is that a 5 year old isn't utterly helpless.

Are you proposing that a free-market health system doesn't work because babies who survive an abortion lack the money to afford care?
 
Tom said:
women are not responsible for pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. If you choose to have sex than you are responsible for the consequences. Which is why I am all for abortion in the case of incest, or rape, but it is reprehensible to use it as birth control.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
Hate to bring this up, but with reference to gay marriage, don't homosexuals only comprise 5% of the overall population?
Click to expand...

It's actually between 5 and 10%.. from the data I've seen.

I don't care about policy. If a human being wrongly dies, it deserves our attention. Abortion proponents have based their arguments on the assertion that the child isn't yet human, and thus not subject to being murdered. I don't see how they can argue that anymore in this case. Clearly this was a human being, and at the very LEAST abortion proponents should admit that abortion should not be allowed if there is any chance of killing a living breathing human being, which there definitely is at 22 weeks.
Click to expand...

It obviously has our attention, but then what? What do we do about it? That's where policy comes in.. or almost invariably does for people who look to the government to solve, prevent, or reverse any problem society has.
 
CitizenKain said:
You'd think a military person would be all for abortion, as its just killing someone earlier to you. Guess shooting a kid in the street is better.
Click to expand...

Maybe to a dumbshit loony leftist like yourself you think that people in the military like killing, that would be your deluded fantasy world talking.
 
zsdersw said:
It's actually between 5 and 10%.. from the data I've seen.



It obviously has our attention, but then what? What do we do about it? That's where policy comes in.. or almost invariably does for people who look to the government to solve, prevent, or reverse any problem society has.
Click to expand...

Well, I think a good start would be disallowing abortion after 22 weeks.
 
Atreus21 said:
I said the difference between a 5 year old and an infant is that a 5 year old isn't utterly helpless.
Click to expand...

Does a 5 year old have the means, or should we expect them to have the means, to pay for their own healthcare? If not, why should a 5 year old not be entitled to the same healthcare an infant is entitled to?

Are you proposing that a free-market health system doesn't work because babies who survive an abortion lack the money to afford care?
Click to expand...

Basically. If healthcare is a right for babies (in other words, they receive treatment regardless of their ability to pay) then there is no market. What is a market without price rationing? It's just a subsidized mess where some people subsidize with tax money and others with insurance, where everyone is paying above efficient market prices.

And if you can't find a material difference between an infant and a 5 year old in regards to their obligation to pay for their own medical care, then I would say there's no market for 5 year olds either. Etc, etc. And it's really nice, because this state subsidized right for children drives up prices for adults who are expected to play by market rules as they have had their supply siphoned off as doctors and hospitals seek the great margins from NICU. And of course the margins are great, there's no price rationing.
 
BigDH01 said:
Does a 5 year old have the means, or should we expect them to have the means, to pay for their own healthcare? If not, why should a 5 year old not be entitled to the same healthcare an infant is entitled to?

Basically. If healthcare is a right for babies (in other words, they receive treatment regardless of their ability to pay) then there is no market. What is a market without price rationing? It's just a subsidized mess where some people subsidize with tax money and others with insurance, where everyone is paying above efficient market prices.

And if you can't find a material difference between an infant and a 5 year old in regards to their obligation to pay for their own medical care, then I would say there's no market for 5 year olds either. Etc, etc. And it's really nice, because this state subsidized right for children drives up prices for adults who are expected to play by market rules as they have had their supply siphoned off as doctors and hospitals seek the great margins from NICU. And of course the margins are great, there's no price rationing.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm not terribly experienced in arguing universal healthcare, except that socialism should be used to iron out some of the harder edges of capitalism. It provides for the exceptions, like those who are truly helpless.
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
Why 22 weeks, though? Again, this is about statistically significant data, not a handful of cases.
Click to expand...

Well, your definition of statistically significant differs from mine. You don't allow a crime if it's statistically insignificant. A murder is a murder, even if there's one a year in the world.
 
BigDH01 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I dont think it is a "right", hence the reason why I included that we are already doing this for other people under the guise of it being a "right", so why not for a baby?

What are you driving at? That is a baby is born that requires medical care we should let it die?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top