Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion

[Genx87]

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.

This very article talks about a 24 week old 3 years earlier.

It is irrelevant what the % is, we dont base our human rights on a % for other people, why a baby?

 

[xj0hnx]

Why 22? Why not 21 or 23? 20 or 24? There has to be a statistically significant survival rate to even begin justifying an otherwise arbitrary setting like that.

Why do we even bother giving AIDS patients medicines to extend their lives, I mean their statistical survival rate is 0%.

 

[BigDH01]

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.

But in this case, providing socialism for kids hurts the adults we expect to engage in the market. When a doctor seeks the increased margins available in the subsidized children's market, he reduces the supply for the adults who have to engage in the market. The subsidies for children increase the prices for adults and the adults are price rationed. So when a premature baby receives one million dollars in care, it might mean that a few adults can no longer afford their own healthcare.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

This isn't murder we're talking about. We're talking about the likelihood of fetus survival at a given number of weeks versus another number of weeks as the basis for allowing/disallowing abortions. So yes, statistics play a part because the chosen number of weeks must have the highest likelihood of being accurate for any given mother.

 

[Blackjack200]

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?

I guess so, since it has no right to health care.

 

[zsdersw]

Why do we even bother giving AIDS patients medicines to extend their lives, I mean their statistical survival rate is 0%.

🙄 Try referring to something that's even remotely similar.

 

[Atreus21]

I can't believe this has turned into a health care debate. Could we make a separate thread for that or something?

 

[BigDH01]

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?

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

I'm assuming you mean right to life here, even if it entails millions of dollars of care. If it is conceded that the right to life is analogous to right to healthcare, then I can extend it to any number of procedures or medicine that treat life threatening illnesses. It also means that there is basically going to be no free market healthcare.

 

[Atreus21]

This isn't murder we're talking about. We're talking about the likelihood of fetus survival at a given number of weeks versus another number of weeks as the basis for allowing/disallowing abortions. So yes, statistics play a part because the chosen number of weeks must have the highest likelihood of being accurate for any given mother.

If babies have been shown to be able to survive at 22 weeks, then it is negligent to assume that we're not killing a human being at any point thereafter if it is aborted. Imagine firing a gun into the air. It's probable that you won't kill anyone, but you are nonetheless putting lives at risk, and that's why, if you killed someone in such a case, you'd be guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide.

I don't care whether it's statistically relevant or not.

 

[xj0hnx]

🙄 Try referring to something that's even remotely similar.

It is completely relevant. You want to provide statistical survival rates to determine care, the statistical survival rate of AIDS is 0% and we still give them care.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm assuming you mean right to life here, even if it entails millions of dollars of care. If it is conceded that the right to life is analogous to right to healthcare, then I can extend it to any number of procedures or medicine that treat life threatening illnesses. It also means that there is basically going to be no free market healthcare.

It is not conceded. The right to life, as I understand it, means the right not to be murdered. Dying of a disease does not infringe on the right to life.

 

[Genx87]

I'm assuming you mean right to life here, even if it entails millions of dollars of care. If it is conceded that the right to life is analogous to right to healthcare, then I can extend it to any number of procedures or medicine that treat life threatening illnesses. It also means that there is basically going to be no free market healthcare.

I meant basic human rights, as in the right to not be murdered or have its life taken by another human, to be treated in a humane way. To have equal protection under the law.

 

[BigDH01]

I can't believe this has turned into a health care debate. Could we make a separate thread for that or something?

They are too entwined. The argument for viability only stands if we can take for granted that any baby born at 22 weeks will be given the full extent of medical resources regardless of anyone's ability to pay for it.

 

[BigDH01]

I meant basic human rights, as in the right to not be murdered or have its life taken by another human, to be treated in a humane way. To have equal protection under the law.

So if the mother removes the 22 week old from her womb without directly killing it and lets it die, did she commit murder?

 

[BigDH01]

It is not conceded. The right to life, as I understand it, means the right not to be murdered. Dying of a disease does not infringe on the right to life.

So if a baby is removed at 22 weeks, like the baby in the article, why is it such an outrage that it's left to die? It had a shot and does not have a right to healthcare. Right?

 

[Atreus21]

So if the mother removes the 22 week old from her womb without directly killing it and lets it die, did she commit murder?

Yes. Most definitely.

 

[Atreus21]

So if a baby is removed at 22 weeks, like the baby in the article, why is it such an outrage that it's left to die? It had a shot and does not have a right to healthcare. Right?

Uh, perhaps because basic human nature should compel us to protect the the truly helpless?

 

[BigDH01]

Yes. Most definitely.

How? She simply denied the baby further access to her body. If she couldn't afford to pay the million to give it treatment, that's her business. Remember, a right to healthcare is not conceded so we are now price rationed.

 

[BigDH01]

Uh, perhaps because basic human nature should compel us to protect the the truly helpless?

You can't have it both ways. You can't sit here and tell me that I should pay to keep a premature baby alive as if they are entitled equal protection and then tell me a right to healthcare does not exist. If the right to healthcare doesn't exist, then why does my tax money go to treat babies whose mothers can't afford to pay their million dollar hospital bill?

 

[Circlenaut]

So what? Are we going to start determing at birth who lives and who dies based on pre-disposition?

I sure fucking hope so one day. Genetic screening should be mandated. It sucks royally to live with a genetic disorder.

 

[Genx87]

So if the mother removes the 22 week old from her womb without directly killing it and lets it die, did she commit murder?

I would say yes. Yes she did in the same fashion current law will prosecute a mother who neglects her children to the point of death.

 

[Atreus21]

How? She simply denied the baby further access to her body. If she couldn't afford to pay the million to give it treatment, that's her business. Remember, a right to healthcare is not conceded so we are now price rationed.

So wait. After a mother goes full term and delivers, you're going to say she's not guilty of murder if she bars the hospital from caring for her baby, and does nothing to nurture the kid?

As I said, hospitals are legally bound to care for people in life-saving situations, and this would be no exception, regardless of the price.

 

[zsdersw]

If babies have been shown to be able to survive at 22 weeks, then it is negligent to assume that we're not killing a human being at any point thereafter if it is aborted. Imagine firing a gun into the air. It's probable that you won't kill anyone, but you are nonetheless putting lives at risk, and that's why, if you killed someone in such a case, you'd be guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide.

I don't care whether it's statistically relevant or not.

You may not care if it's statistically relevant, but you're not the scale on which policy decisions are weighed, either.

 

[Genx87]

I sure fucking hope so one day. Genetic screening should be mandated. It sucks royally to live with a genetic disorder.

And you are the type of Eugenicist to make that determination who lives and who dies right? So much power, who gets to wield it?

 

[Atreus21]

You may not care if it's statistically relevant, but you're not the scale on which policy decisions are weighed, either.

Well, if the policy is currently that abortions can take place after 22 weeks, and if that entails killing a living human being, then current policy is wrong.