planned parenthood calls for post birth abortions-when abortion results in live birth

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL, you have no clue what the cerebral cortex is, do you? Without it, you're not a person and a 24 week old fetus does NOT have an active cerebral cortex.

A born human being, say you or me, that would sustain injury to a degree where our cerebral cortex was no longer active beyond random impulse would be declared dead.

Let me, in no uncertain terms proclaim that without a cerebral cortex you are not a person AT ALL and that the activity in that part of the brain does not start until beyond week 25 (or at week 25).

Of course, if you consider a pet rock (which is pretty much what this fetus is at this time) a person then i can't help you.

24 week old preemies may have a devil of a time surviving but if they do they don't grow up to be found at the market between the broccoli and carrots.

 

[*kjm]

LOL,

then i can't help you.

And as a father I sir cant help you:|

 

[SheHateMe]

PP was asked

No, they weren't. Some fringe group of lobbyists for Planned Parenthood was asked.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, they weren't. Some fringe group of lobbyists for Planned Parenthood was asked.

That's the most useful response in this entire thread.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The additional issue with a baby after birth is that ultimately it's a very personal, serious decision that needs to be made there. Fact is it's not hard to imagine a botched abortion (which is the entire context of the Florida discussion linked in the OP) resulting in the poor baby being mangled. Having to make a horrible decision with a doctor whether to keep said baby alive. Trying to codify into law that a mother must make only one decision in that scenario without leaving the circumstances open to interpretation by a physician is what PP seems to be arguing here. It's quite clear in that sense, based only on what I heard in this video. PP takes issue with the language signifying only one way to handle a botched abortion (of course, these are extraordinarily rare anyway, but still important).

I tend to remove the romantic notions and emotional response when discussing these issues but by all means because i do not believe that laws and regulations should ever be based on such things but by all means, argue your cause if you want to.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And as a father I sir cant help you:|

As a grandfather i can't help you.

Your romantic notions of fetal development matters not at all, the cold hard facts are that without a cerebral cortex you have the personality of a carrot and you don't have any activity in the cerebral cortex until well into week 25.

Since this is how we determine whether a born person is actually alive or whether we can call him dead and harvest his organs i find it fitting that this is how we define human life before it begins too.

If you disagree because you have seen images of fetuses then let me find a pic of a much cuter kitten, emotional responses are not a good basis for laws.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The additional issue with a baby after birth is that ultimately it's a very personal, serious decision that needs to be made there. Fact is it's not hard to imagine a botched abortion (which is the entire context of the Florida discussion linked in the OP) resulting in the poor baby being mangled. Having to make a horrible decision with a doctor whether to keep said baby alive. Trying to codify into law that a mother must make only one decision in that scenario without leaving the circumstances open to interpretation by a physician is what PP seems to be arguing here. It's quite clear in that sense, based only on what I heard in this video. PP takes issue with the language signifying only one way to handle a botched abortion (of course, these are extraordinarily rare anyway, but still important).

At what point does a baby have a right to live?

 

[Chaotic42]

At least copy the title properly:

Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion:
-
Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.
-

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

At what point does a baby have a right to live?

Week 24, before that there is no human life per the medical definition so anything done to the fetus is irrelevant, after that no abortions can be had and everything should be done to keep the fetus (or if born, infant) alive regardless of anyones wishes.

If you set the limit per the medical definition of human life all other discussions become utterly pointless emotional outbursts that are not relevant to law or medical practice.

 

[lotus503]

Week 24, before that there is no human life per the medical definition so anything done to the fetus is irrelevant, after that no abortions can be had and everything should be done to keep the fetus (or if born, infant) alive regardless of anyones wishes.

If you set the limit per the medical definition of human life all other discussions become utterly pointless emotional outbursts that are not relevant to law or medical practice.

I think week 22 because the ability for it to survive actually goes down dramatically. from 24 weeks.

I prefer any abortion after 1st trimester be due to serious complications or the mothers health.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I think week 22 because the ability for it to survive actually goes down dramatically. from 24 weeks.

I prefer any abortion after 1st trimester be due to serious complications or the mothers health.

It matters not at all whether it "may survive" the question is about taking a life.

ANY viable egg may become a human being and restricting fertilization can be construed as taking a life if we are talking about viability alone.

By using the medical definition as we do for born human beings we CAN establish when an abortion in fact becomes "taking a life" and when it does not. This leaves out ALL opinion too, we use what is already established.

I prefer abortions to be made like organ harvests are made, on humans that are not alive.

 

[lotus503]

It matters not at all whether it "may survive" the question is about taking a life.

ANY viable egg may become a human being and restricting fertilization can be construed as taking a life if we are talking about viability alone.

By using the medical definition as we do for born human beings we CAN establish when an abortion in fact becomes "taking a life" and when it does not. This leaves out ALL opinion too, we use what is already established.

I prefer abortions to be made like organ harvests are made, on humans that are not alive.

I disagree I think it's life when it's viable outside the womb with only mothers care until then it's a fetus not a baby.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I disagree I think it's life when it's viable outside the womb with only mothers care until then it's a fetus not a baby.

Just my opinion of course.

I get that, i'm not saying that your opinion is wrong just like you surely won't suggest that every viable egg isn't a potential life.

I'm just saying that if life begins as it ends, which per the medical definition should, we already have a limit set in STONE that people can argue with until they are blue in the face, it still won't change.

So for the purpose of law, not based on opinion or irrational whims of people, this is the best we got.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TridenT
Do you see why people know I'm a moron?


FTFY
_____________

 

[TerryMathews]

The additional issue with a baby after birth is that ultimately it's a very personal, serious decision that needs to be made there. Fact is it's not hard to imagine a botched abortion (which is the entire context of the Florida discussion linked in the OP) resulting in the poor baby being mangled. Having to make a horrible decision with a doctor whether to keep said baby alive. Trying to codify into law that a mother must make only one decision in that scenario without leaving the circumstances open to interpretation by a physician is what PP seems to be arguing here. It's quite clear in that sense, based only on what I heard in this video. PP takes issue with the language signifying only one way to handle a botched abortion (of course, these are extraordinarily rare anyway, but still important).

You're missing the forest for the trees. Once that baby comes out alive, even mangled, it's no longer an abortion. It's euthanasia.

The mothers intent is not relevant once that baby is born.

 

[TerryMathews]

I disagree I think it's life when it's viable outside the womb with only mothers care until then it's a fetus not a baby.

Just my opinion of course.

By your definition micro premies wouldn't be people for months.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The dirty little historical secret about Planned Parenthood is that it was originally founded and funded by highly dedicated eugenicists and population control advocates. It was never about "women's rights" or "family planning". The entire goal of Margaret Sanger and the Rockefeller Foundation in setting up Planned Parenthood was racial, genetic purity and keeping a lid on the population of "undesirables" (poor folks and brown people).

That's why it's so hilarious when liberals and Leftists pull the race card as they often do. In one minute they'll scream "that's racist!", and in the next they'll sing the praises of Planned Parenthood, an organization set up by eugenicists to pursue the same goals the Nazis were pursuing in Germany.

Perhaps that's how the organization was founded, but obviously that isn't what it stands for today nor is that its public policy (nor is there any sign that eugenics is its private, internal policy).

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Planned Parenthood, but it sounds like a good organization that is doing a great service for our society. (But then again, I'm an atheist and not a religious mystic.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Baby killing PP says its the womans choice. Just like the say its the womans choice to abort. It now should be the womans choice to murder.

You say that it would be murder. Are you suggesting that there is a personality, a human-level consciousness that is self-aware, inside of a newborn? What makes you think that a newborn human has a level of consciousness and self-awareness that is higher than that of a cow (which we slaughter for food)? How you can murder a person if no personality exists?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

From seeing the video it's sick as heck..... baby on the table alive and still kill it! It's murder at that point... And the worst part is now they are coming out and talking about it and thinking it is right in anyway.

You say that it's murder, but what if the body does not contain a human consciousness; a personality? What if it's level of consciousness and self-awareness is no different than that of a cow's (or much less than a cow's)?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

LOL, you have no clue what the cerebral cortex is, do you? Without it, you're not a person and a 24 week old fetus does NOT have an active cerebral cortex.

You're asking too much of the anti-abortion people to contemplate that. They were indoctrinated to believe that the Magic God Being "breathes" a "soul" into the egg at the time of conception, and that's all they need to know. The fun part is watching them twist themselves into logical pretzels, doing anything to keep from saying, "My position is based on blind religious faith."

 

[michal1980]

You say that it would be murder. Are you suggesting that there is a personality, a human-level consciousness that is self-aware, inside of a newborn? What makes you think that a newborn human has a level of consciousness and self-awareness that is higher than that of a cow (which we slaughter for food)? How you can murder a person if no personality exists?

I cant give you an answer that will satisfy your sick twisted mind. If you think people are cows, then nothing can change your mind.

 

[michal1980]

LOL, you have no clue what the cerebral cortex is, do you? Without it, you're not a person and a 24 week old fetus does NOT have an active cerebral cortex.

A born human being, say you or me, that would sustain injury to a degree where our cerebral cortex was no longer active beyond random impulse would be declared dead.

Let me, in no uncertain terms proclaim that without a cerebral cortex you are not a person AT ALL and that the activity in that part of the brain does not start until beyond week 25 (or at week 25).

Of course, if you consider a pet rock (which is pretty much what this fetus is at this time) a person then i can't help you.

How many times do you have to change the goal posts to justify killing people?

 

[WelshBloke]

You're missing the forest for the trees. Once that baby comes out alive, even mangled, it's no longer an abortion. It's euthanasia.

The mothers intent is not relevant once that baby is born.

That brings up an interesting wider point.

Should parents be able to refuse treatment for their children?

 

[nehalem256]

You're asking too much of the anti-abortion people to contemplate that. They were indoctrinated to believe that the Magic God Being "breathes" a "soul" into the egg at the time of conception, and that's all they need to know. The fun part is watching them twist themselves into logical pretzels, doing anything to keep from saying, "My position is based on blind religious faith."

Once it is outside of the mother it is pretty clearly no longer an abortion, but has become infanticide.

 

[Texashiker]

I think you are digging deep beyond what the article says.

Planned Parenthood isn't calling for this. A lobbyist backed into a statement indicating she doesn't know what to do in a situation and suggests leaving it to professionals. That isn't the same as calling for post birth abortions, muchless Planned Parenthood openly advocating for it.

In other words, a representative from planned parenthood refused to affirm the rights of the child.

If a child is born alive, then it should receive the full protection of the law. See how simple that was? Just say it.