Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion

[bfdd]

What's so hard about taking responsibility for their decision to butt naked and fuck? Why does the left want to absolve irresponsible people of their actions by murdering babies?

While I don't disagree that people need to stop using abortions as a form of birth control, I don't think they should be illegal. I think we do need to put a line down somewhere though. I'm pretty much disgusted with people who decide 6+ months in to get an abortion, they couldn't of figured that out at the 2 month mark?

 

[ShawnD1]

What's so hard about taking responsibility for their decision to butt naked and fuck? Why does the left want to absolve irresponsible people of their actions by murdering babies?

So if they left that baby at the door of social services, it would be ok if it wasn't taken in and was just left to die. Good to know.

 

[xj0hnx]

So if they left that baby at the door of social services, it would be ok if it wasn't taken in and was just left to die. Good to know.

Thanks for quoting me and then making a completely irrelevant to what I said comment.

 

[ShawnD1]

Thanks for quoting me and then making a completely irrelevant to what I said comment.

I asked if you would support taxes to pay for orphanages and you completely dodged the question. Since conservatives are often against government spending, especially when it helps people, I can only assume that means you'd just leave abandoned children to die rather than use tax money to build orphanages or care for them. This is called deductive reasoning.

 

[Chaotic42]

And forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term when they don't want to is equally repulsive.

I'm fairly socially liberal, but we disagree here. It's not equally repulsive.

 

[werepossum]

Worst doctor ever. He was outsmarted by an unborn baby.

Still laughing over this one, thanks! Those darned babies are shifty!

This could never happen in our country 'cause our aborted babies are parted out.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm fairly socially liberal, but we disagree here. It's not equally repulsive.

So it might not be equal (just got caught up in my writing this morning), but the idea of people using government to bludgeon people into their moral standings (in this case, preventing the individual choice in whether to terminate or to keep) is still repulsive to a degree; claiming to want liberty but then at the same time telling women what they can and can't do with their body.

I'm not in favor of late-term abortions unless the mother's health is in jeopardy, and I doubt many of those were really happening anyway before that federal law was passed. The late-term abortion issue seems like a red-herring to try and ban all abortion on the illogical basis that the fetus at 8 months is the same as the fetus at 20 weeks.

 

[Chaotic42]

So it might not be equal (just got caught up in my writing this morning), but the idea of people using government to bludgeon people into their moral standings (in this case, preventing the individual choice in whether to terminate or to keep) is still repulsive to a degree; claiming to want liberty but then at the same time telling women what they can and can't do with their body.

I'm not in favor of late-term abortions unless the mother's health is in jeopardy, and I doubt many of those were really happening anyway before that federal law was passed. The late-term abortion issue seems like a red-herring to try and ban all abortion on the illogical basis that the fetus at 8 months is the same as the fetus at 20 weeks.

Okay, we've got fairly similar view points then.

 

[xj0hnx]

I asked if you would support taxes to pay for orphanages and you completely dodged the question. Since conservatives are often against government spending, especially when it helps people, I can only assume that means you'd just leave abandoned children to die rather than use tax money to build orphanages or care for them. This is called deductive reasoning.

No moron it means I would rather the parents that couldn't keep their dick in their pants, and their legs closed take care of their responsibility instead of murdering it.

 

[werepossum]

You repuglicans are such dumb asses.

Keep your hand off a persons body, you pervert.

Interesting that it's "your" body even if it's carrying a genetically unique human life, yet it's "our" body when it's all you but you want your health care bill paid by others . . .

 

[Nemesis 1]

You repuglicans are such dumb asses.

Keep your hand off a persons body, you pervert.

Actually if I had a vendetta against a single person . I wouldn't touch them . I would find out what is dearest to them and remove it from their life. Never saying it But always letting them know who and why this terriable thing happened . Its a Hard cruel way. But its the way to inflict the most pain.

 

[ebaycj]

Why yes, when it comes to human life that is enough. We create all sorts of public policy based on potential for life. Even if it only applied to one instance. In this case we now have proof a fetus can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks in the worst condition provided.

For one day.

 

[ShawnD1]

No moron it means I would rather the parents that couldn't keep their dick in their pants

xj0hnx has proposed a new bill: you can't have sex unless you have a license from the government :awe:


It's admirable that you want babies to be born, but realize that someone needs to pay for them. If you want to pay for them with taxes then that's a fine stand to take and we can debate it. Telling people not to have sex is just weird.

 

[Fear No Evil]

For one day.

Most infants would only survive days or less if left alone.

 

[xj0hnx]

xj0hnx has proposed a new bill: you can't have sex unless you have a license from the government :awe:


It's admirable that you want babies to be born, but realize that someone needs to pay for them. If you want to pay for them with taxes then that's a fine stand to take and we can debate it. Telling people not to have sex is just weird.

Is the concept of personal responsibility so foreign to you that hold the parents accountable isn't even a consideration? What a fucked up world.

 

[alphatarget1]

----

To further add, why are people arguing as if "liberals" are pro-abortion? That's disingenuous at best. I highly doubt you'll find many that are pro-abortion; no one walks willy-nilly into an abortion clinic. It's pro-choice - we want to leave the choice to have or not have an abortion up to the individual. The "Pro-Life" movement is really just anti-choice. You can easily be pro-choice and pro-life - I don't really like the idea of abortion, but it's not my prerogative to tell someone else that they can't have one.

At some point the fetus should be considered as life and given protections. Aside from some super religious nutjobs I don't think most Americans care that chicks take plan B after accidents. Viability should set the limits on abortion, and I'm sure a good majority of Americans agree with me.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

If the brakes on your car fail and you rear end someone are you still responsible, even if you had them serviced? Yes. One of the results of having sex is the female getting pregnant, pretty sure everyone knows this. And yes, I do support sex education in schools because kids are dumb asses, they should at least be taught that when they make a stupid decision what the consequences can be.

How about even if everyone knew that every time you used the brakes there was a 2% chance of them failing?

What's so hard about taking responsibility for their decision to butt naked and fuck? Why does the left want to absolve irresponsible people of their actions by murdering babies?

Creating a straw man does not help your case. They are not murdering anybody, and an abortion does not kill a baby.

Interesting that it's "your" body even if it's carrying a genetically unique human life, yet it's "our" body when it's all you but you want your health care bill paid by others . . .

Uniqueness has nothing to do with it. Snowflakes are all unique. Are you now going to claim they are super special because of that?

At some point the fetus should be considered as life and given protections. Aside from some super religious nutjobs I don't think most Americans care that chicks take plan B after accidents. Viability should set the limits on abortion, and I'm sure a good majority of Americans agree with me.

That's not the controversial part of it. The controversial bit is the abortion at 22 weeks bit. At that point a foetus is nearly viable already, albeit with a lot of NICU help.

 

[TruePaige]

Interesting that it's "your" body even if it's carrying a genetically unique human life, yet it's "our" body when it's all you but you want your health care bill paid by others . . .

Who's blood courses through the veins?


Some of you "moral police" are just sad.

 

[Oceandevi]

Only cowards deny that human females have human babies inside them while pregnant.

 

[zsdersw]

A baby that survived a botched abortion is clearly human. You want to use the statistical chance of them surviving to determine when they should be cared for as a human.

And how many 22-week-olds would survive outside of the womb? Not a statistically significant number.

If the government is to decide, for everyone, with laws that ban abortions after a certain stage it must define when the unborn become human and, as such, endowed with inalienable rights under the Constitution. The determination of when that happens, whether it's 22 weeks or any other number needs to be based on when it is most likely that the unborn are sufficiently developed. This depends on statistics and large sample sizes, not a handful. All the outrage and individual opinions in the world aren't going to change that basic fact.

I'm not saying this incident specifically and abortion in general isn't a tragedy.. it is.. but as I said earlier, yes, it's outrageous and disgusting... so now what? What do we, as a society, do about it? Unless you're going to be a vigilante you'll need to act through the government.. which is a policy matter.. which requires everything I listed in the previous paragraph.

 

[Taejin]

this thread is a classic example of the fallacies inherent with trying to implement any kind of law based on sentiment. take notes kids.

 

[Atreus21]

this thread is a classic example of the fallacies inherent with trying to implement any kind of law based on sentiment. take notes kids.

It's hardly sentimental to assume that a baby that can breath on its own after 1) surviving an attempted abortion and 2) being born 18 weeks premature, is indeed a human being. On what basis do we justify aborting babies, then, at 22 weeks or after?

 

[Atreus21]

And how many 22-week-olds would survive outside of the womb? Not a statistically significant number.

If the government is to decide, for everyone, with laws that ban abortions after a certain stage it must define when the unborn become human and, as such, endowed with inalienable rights under the Constitution. The determination of when that happens, whether it's 22 weeks or any other number needs to be based on when it is most likely that the unborn are sufficiently developed. This depends on statistics and large sample sizes, not a handful. All the outrage and individual opinions in the world aren't going to change that basic fact.

I'm not saying this incident specifically and abortion in general isn't a tragedy.. it is.. but as I said earlier, yes, it's outrageous and disgusting... so now what? What do we, as a society, do about it? Unless you're going to be a vigilante you'll need to act through the government.. which is a policy matter.. which requires everything I listed in the previous paragraph.

All it requires is a supreme court decision.

I hate to use this tactic, but how many babies would have to die in such a way for it to be considered statistically significant?

 

[zsdersw]

All it requires is a supreme court decision.

Oh? How's that judicial activism working out for you?

I hate to use this tactic, but how many babies would have to die in such a way for it to be considered statistically significant?

I don't know, but it's more than a handful here and there.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It appears that between 1000 and 2000 babies 22 weeks or older are aborted each year in the US.

BTW...a baby at 20 weeks hears and recognizes its Mother's voice...and the general consensus of the scientific community is that they also become capable of perceiving pain at this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_perception

I wonder what it feels like to be a "Candy Apple Baby"?

Here's a list off the most common abortion techniques.
http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/themanyways.htm

Menstrual extraction
A very early suction abortion, often done before the pregnancy test is positive.

Suction
The abortionist first paralyzes the cervix (womb opening). He then inserts a hollow plastic tube with a knife-like tip into the uterus. The tube is connected to a powerful pump with a suction force 29 times more powerful than a home vacuum cleaner. The procedure tears the baby's body into pieces and the hose frequently jerks as pieces of the baby become lodged. The placenta is then cut from the inner wall of the uterus and the scraps are sucked out into a bottle.

Dilatation & Curettage (D&C)
Uncommon today and used during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. This is similar to the suction procedure except that the abortionist inserts a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife up into the uterus. He then cuts the placenta and baby into pieces and scrapes them out into a basin. Bleeding is usually profuse.

Dilatation & Evacuation (D&E)
Performed during the second trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy. This method has largely replaced saline and chemical abortions, which too frequently resulted in live births, a complication from the abortionist's perspective! A pliers-like instrument is needed because the baby's bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the baby's body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them. The nurse's job is to reassemble the body parts to be sure that all are removed.

D & X (Partial Birth)
Also used for advanced pregnancies. The cervix is dilated to allow passage of a ring forceps. A foot or lower leg is located and pulled into the vagina. The baby is extracted in breech fashion until the head is just inside the cervix. The baby's legs hang outside the woman's body. With the baby face-down, scissors are plunged into the baby's head at the nape of the neck and spread open to enlarge the wound (See Video of Technique) (see photo). A suction tip is inserted and the baby's brain is removed. The skull collapses and the baby is delivered. Sharp and suction curettage is continued until the walls of the womb are clean. Read a nurse's (Brenda Pratt Shafer) eyewitness account of a partial birth procedure.

Hysterotomy
This method is usually used late in pregnancy and is likened to an "early" Caesarian section. The mother's abdomen and uterus are surgically opened and the baby is lifted out. Unfortunately, many of these babies are very much alive when removed. To kill the babies, some abortionists have been known to plunge them into buckets of water or smother them with the placentas. Still others cut the cord while the baby is still inside the uterus depriving the baby of oxygen.

Salt Poisoning a.k.a. "Candy Apple Babies:"
Most often used after the first trimester (first three months). The abortionist injects a strong salt solution directly into the amniotic sac (fluid surrounding the baby). The baby breathes and swallows it, is poisoned, struggles, and sometimes convulses. It takes over an hour to kill the baby. The mother delivers the dead baby in a day or two (sometimes alive!). Why "candy apple" babies? The corrosive effect of the salt solution often burns and strips away the outer layer of the baby's skin. This exposes the raw, red, glazed-looking subcutaneous layer of tissue. The baby's head sometimes looks like a candy apple. Some have also likened this method to the effect of napalm on innocent war victims. This technique was originally developed in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

Prostaglandin Abortions
Three forms, two are injected and one is a vaginal suppository. Its first approved use was for "the induction of midtrimester abortion." The hormone produces a violent labor and delivery of whatever size baby the mother carries. If the baby is old enough to survive the trauma of labor, it may be born alive, but is usually too small to survive. In one article, among the complications listed was "live birth!"

RU-486
A drug that produces an abortion taken after the mother misses her period. Its effect is to block the use of an essential hormonal nutrient by the newly-implanted baby, who then dies, and drops off. Note that RU-486 is not a contraceptive because it does not prevent fertilization or implantation. It is used only after the mother has missed her period and the baby is at least two to three weeks old, with a beating heart (the fetal heart begins to beat when the woman is four days late for her period). It is no longer effective after six or eight weeks.