Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Jocassee on February 06, 2009, 09:05:50 AM
-
I don't normally go on a posting spree, but this was too important to pass up.
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
I want someone to explain to me why its okay to kill a 23-week baby in the womb but not after it's been born. 23 weeks is what, nearly six months. Is abortion at that stage legal?
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.
Is that a fact.
The Department of Health account continues as follows: Just before noon she began to feel ill. The clinic contacted Renelique. Two hours later, he still hadn't shown up. Williams went into labor and delivered the baby.
"She came face to face with a human being," Pennekamp said. "And that changed everything."
Not a tumour. Not a tissue growth. Not a fetus (I know that is a proper scientific term, but it has been used to minimize human life).
I hope stories like this enlighten the public to the atrocities this country continues to commit in our "clinics."
-
Yeah, I read about this. Depressing as heck to think we have a goodly number of sociopaths in the medical profession.
Let us all recall that our current POTUS voted against the Born Alive Infants Act analog in the Illinois state senate.
-
I'll never understand why it is legal to have an abortion (one out of convenience, that is), yet killing a mother and baby gets is two counts of murder. Obviously, the latter is the correct view. How come they aren't consistent?
-
I guess it is because the idea that a baby is a separate living person inside the womb is debated, but no one I have heard debates whether a living baby outside the womb is a separate living person.
-
I want someone to explain to me why its okay to kill a 23-week baby in the womb but not after it's been born. 23 weeks is what, nearly six months. Is abortion at that stage legal?
It is legal, under certain circumstances:
The Supreme Court has held that bans [on later term abortion] must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion
I'm not sure what the US defines as late term. Several states prohibit abortion after 24 weeks. Also note - over 85% of abortions occur before 12 weeks in the US according to the CDC, and only 1.4% happen over 20 weeks.
It is a blurry line, and I am distinctly uncomfortable with it.
-
This sickens me.
Getting an abortion as you're going into labor? Seriously, WTF?
The "parasite" is coming out one way or another at that point anyways. Drop it off at a fire station with no questions asked... how much less responsibility can you ask for? People are so warped that they will deliver a child and throw it in the trash?
This illustrates perfectly that abortion isn't about "choice." It's about selfishness and self-denial.
I didn't get knocked up. See? I don't have a baby, do I?
I really think it exists purely to dodge the stigma of the above statement.
I think Sycloria Williams (the womb-donor... "Mother" is not a title befitting her) needs to face charges too. Attempting to abort a baby as you're going in to labor?
My brother was 2 months premature, the result of an accidentally induced early labor from a fall. He's 24 years old now.
-
This is the problem with the pro-choice crowd. They don't just argue that a foetus or an embryo is not a person (which is arguable). They want a right to kill the unborn at any stage of pregnancy.
Even accepting (which a lot of people don't) that the 9th Amendment guarnatees a person a right to his own body, any right to abort foetuses should end at the point that the foetus becomes a baby.
I do not know whether that happens on the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
But even if you accept completely the argument that a woman should be empowered to abort the pregnancy at any stage (even, crazily, on the last day before birth), it simply does not follow that this right should somehow extend to the baby after it has been born.
And this is the problem with an extremist pro-choice view like this - it leads to a dehumanization of the baby.
-
Another point which I do not understand - what the hell is the purpose of getting an abortion at this late stage of the pregnancy.
Okay, you don't want the baby. I got it. Can't you give it away for adoption? Why was it so urgent to take another person's life? What possible benefit could she have derived from this?
-
Another point which I do not understand - what the hell is the purpose of getting an abortion at this late stage of the pregnancy.
Okay, you don't want the baby. I got it. Can't you give it away for adoption? Why was it so urgent to take another person's life? What possible benefit could she have derived from this?
Indeed, that's why there really is no justification for late-term abortion. If it was a "life of the mother" issue, such as severe preclampsia, or internal bleeding, the proper medical answer would be a C-section to get the baby out anyway. In most any case you can imagine, a vaginal delivery is always more dangerous.
It is nothing but a loophole to commit infanticide. =( I suppose a desperate mother who is afraid of her family or spouse finding out she's pregnant and has managed to conceal a pregnancy through the first two trimesters with loose clothing etc. might see it as a way out. No justification for killing a baby though.
I do feel that the extreme end of the pro-life side diminishes its argument by inserting itself into the very, very, early stages of conception, being concerned about the "rights" of stored embryos/blastocycsts, and opposing contraception methods that prevent implantation of fertilized eggs, well before the embryo has arms, legs, organs, or a nervous system.
Although the net result is mainly to make a nuisance of themselves.
However, the extreme end of the pro-choice side, including our current POTUS, defends infanticide. The difference is pretty clear there.
-
This is the problem with the pro-choice crowd. They don't just argue that a foetus or an embryo is not a person (which is arguable). They want a right to kill the unborn at any stage of pregnancy.
No they don't, at least not the mainstream ones.
Our current president is no more for late-term abortions than mainstream activists.
-
Drop it off at a fire station with no questions asked...
That brings up the part of this that disturbs me the most. The fact that the person attending to the mother made no effort to rescue the living child. The whole thing is horrifying on it's own, and the child would likely not have survived long enough for paramedics to arrive, but no call for qualified medical assistance at all.
-
No they don't, at least not the mainstream ones.
Our current president is no more for late-term abortions than mainstream activists.
His voting record says otherwise.
-
So, did Obama name this bloke as Surgeon General, yet?
-
I hate the "health of the mother" argument. In 7 years working at an OB/GYN I never once saw a case where an abortion would save the life of the mother... that is just a loophole liberals put in legislation to allow ANYONE to get an abortion at any point. Pregnancy is a health risk to the mother no matter what and abortion doctors can make up whatever they want to perform it. Slight increase in BP? OK for abortion. Gestational Diabetes? OK for abortion. "Mental health" of the mother? OK for abortion. We deal with these problems daily, they aren't a serious health risk for the mother if she follows the doctors orders.
Also I love it when pro abortion folks say they want abortion to be legal for "health of the mother". If it isn't a baby, and it isn't alive, then she isn't a "mother".
-
So, did Obama name this bloke as Surgeon General, yet?
Depends. Did he pay his taxes? If "yes," he doesn't qualify to be a BHO appointee.
-
and suicde by an adult is wrong/illegal
-
this story will not be reported widely and then completely disappear.
infanticide is a sacrament to the new religion called "Progressive" in our brave new world
-
Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.
Is that a fact.
Yes it is a fact.
Im Pro-Choice but this is sick and disturbing. I dont know anyone that would consider a baby born prematurely as a "fetus" and able of being thrown away killed.
From what I know about abortions related to me first hand, the woman is usually unconscious from the anesthesia. Was this woman under anesthesia?
From the article I read a second party not the woman, nor the abortion doctor killed the baby by placing him/her in a plastic bag and throwing it away. Was this woman conscious as her baby was being thrown away? Second how the hell did the media find out about this; someone said something. Was it the woman supposed to get the abortion, or another party that worked at that clinic.
There are alot of questions to still be answered, If the woman getting the abortion was conscious and of able mind (not medically drugged because those realllllly f*** you up) at the time her baby was being killed she needs to be charged with infantcide along with the worker who commited the murder.
Please do not think Pro-Choice people want this, or are anywhere near supporting this. The baby took a breath on his/her own, that means he/she was alive and capable of living on his own. The very definition that Pro-Choice supporters use as the mark of human life.
-
So, did Obama name this bloke as Surgeon General, yet?
He isn't elligable, he paid his taxes.
-
Yes it is a fact.
Im Pro-Choice but this is sick and disturbing. I dont know anyone that would consider a baby born prematurely as a "fetus" and able of being thrown away killed.
From what I know about abortions related to me first hand, the woman is usually unconscious from the anesthesia. Was this woman under anesthesia?
From the article I read a second party not the woman, nor the abortion doctor killed the baby by placing him/her in a plastic bag and throwing it away. Was this woman conscious as her baby was being thrown away? Second how the hell did the media find out about this; someone said something. Was it the woman supposed to get the abortion, or another party that worked at that clinic.
There are alot of questions to still be answered, If the woman getting the abortion was conscious and of able mind (not medically drugged because those realllllly f*** you up) at the time her baby was being killed she needs to be charged with infantcide along with the worker who commited the murder.
Please do not think Pro-Choice people want this, or are anywhere near supporting this. The baby took a breath on his/her own, that means he/she was alive and capable of living on his own. The very definition that Pro-Choice supporters use as the mark of human life.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
Yeah, "Pro-Choice" people want to stop this practice, for sure.
-
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
Yeah, "Pro-Choice" people want to stop this practice, for sure.
Yes, because what Obama feels on this issue is shared by all pro-choice people.
-
Yes, because what Obama feels on this issue is shared by all pro-choice people.
Please do not think Pro-Choice people want this, or are anywhere near supporting this
I have no doubt that Obama does not represent all Pro-Choice people.
There are, however, at least some who do- most notably, President Obama.
I was merely pointing out that it's not verboten to all "Pro-Choice" individuals.
-
Yeah, "Pro-Choice" people want to stop this practice, for sure.
Yea but when you quote my entire post, and reply with a snippy one line responce it comes across as antagonistic and a "Yea sure" attitude.
If you can list me or cite alllll these Pro Choice people who think its alright to kill a baby that is breathing on its own, I will conceed that Pro Choice supporters are just baby killers in sheeps clothing.
If you can't list anyone (not voting on a bill does not = I support killing new born babies) please tone down the retoric, its bordering on slander because if you actually think this is what 90% or even 51% (Of course there will be some lunatic fringe what group doesn't have its wackjobs??) of Pro Choice supporter belive it just shows how out of touch you are with the abortion issue.
-
If you can list me or cite alllll these Pro Choice people who think its alright to kill a baby that is breathing on its own, I will conceed that Pro Choice supporters are just baby killers in sheeps clothing.
Sooo, if it's breathing on it's own, it's alive; but if the baby is getting it's breath through it's mother it's not? I'm confused. What about people on ventilators, are they alive? Does your soul magically enter your body when you take your first breath? What about if you draw the baby out of the mother, but kill it just before it has a chance to take it's first breath? Is that OK?
Do you believe abortion is unethical? Would you reccomend someone get one?
-
Yes it is a fact.
Im Pro-Choice but this is sick and disturbing. I dont know anyone that would consider a baby born prematurely as a "fetus" and able of being thrown away killed.
From what I know about abortions related to me first hand, the woman is usually unconscious from the anesthesia. Was this woman under anesthesia?
From the article I read a second party not the woman, nor the abortion doctor killed the baby by placing him/her in a plastic bag and throwing it away. Was this woman conscious as her baby was being thrown away? Second how the hell did the media find out about this; someone said something. Was it the woman supposed to get the abortion, or another party that worked at that clinic.
There are alot of questions to still be answered, If the woman getting the abortion was conscious and of able mind (not medically drugged because those realllllly f*** you up) at the time her baby was being killed she needs to be charged with infantcide along with the worker who commited the murder.
Please do not think Pro-Choice people want this, or are anywhere near supporting this. The baby took a breath on his/her own, that means he/she was alive and capable of living on his own. The very definition that Pro-Choice supporters use as the mark of human life.
You make some good points, but you miss THE point--which is, a life is a life, whether it is in the womb or breathing on its own. That is what makes abortion wrong, not some semantical difference over whether it is really "alive" by a definition set up by the abortionists.
I will concur that the article needs more detail about the situation in question, but the issue remains the same.
-
Seenterman:
First, I don't think you've any room to whinge about people's tone given your brief but "colorful" history here.
Second, why are you prevailing on us to show some type of "proof" that 51% of pro-deather's feel a certain way? You assume they don't then rail on about our lack of proof. Show us yours and we'll show you ours.
Last, you want a list of people who are ok with this sort of thing? Howza bout: the doctors who perform partial birth abortions, the nurses who assist them, the hospital admins who allow it, the Planned Parenthood worker who recommends it to the mom, the lawmakers who voted to keep it legal, the lobbyists who tried to talk more policritters into voting that way, and all the rank n' file who supported those people and orgs. I can't give an exact % of the overall pro-death community those groups make up, but I'd be willing to wager it's a far more substantial number than you want to admit.
-
Please do not think Pro-Choice people want this, or are anywhere near supporting this. The baby took a breath on his/her own, that means he/she was alive and capable of living on his own. The very definition that Pro-Choice supporters use as the mark of human life.
My little brother was on a heart monitor for the first 18 months of his life.
He was also on a respirator for a few days when he first prematurely popped out.
Was he not alive?
-
Your Mom wanted him, so he was alive. If she hadn't he would be "potential life."
Ain't moral relativism grand?
-
Sooo, if it's breathing on it's own, it's alive; but if the baby is getting it's breath through it's mother it's not? I'm confused. What about people on ventilators, are they alive? Does your soul magically enter your body when you take your first breath? What about if you draw the baby out of the mother, but kill it just before it has a chance to take it's first breath? Is that OK?
Do you believe abortion is unethical? Would you reccomend someone get one?
You make some good points, but you miss THE point--which is, a life is a life, whether it is in the womb or breathing on its own. That is what makes abortion wrong, not some semantical difference over whether it is really "alive" by a definition set up by the abortionists.
I will concur that the article needs more detail about the situation in question, but the issue remains the same.
Wow you guys debate like its 1930 and abortion is illegal. Get with the program abortion is legal, all of you missed the point. Im not going to argue Roe Vs. Wade all over again because the decision is already made.
But to answer your questions Yes I do think abortion is unethical to a degree, bringing a child into this world you can not take care of is also unethical to a degree.
Would I recomend someone get one, Thats the mothers decision ultimatly and im a male, but yes I would suggest it as an option if the mother did not / could not keep the baby.
The baby was already born, out of the mothers womb and breathing. It was then killed. This wasn't an abortion, abortions happen inside the womb. Im not going to argue partial birth abortions because I dont support them but im not going to agree with the general tone that "All abortions are bad". Morally maybe but its not your choice its the mothers.
-
Geez guys, get with the program. The Supreme Court already decided slavery is legal. I'm not gonna debate that with you. Is slavery unethical? To a degree maybe, but who are you to deprive a man of his property?
-
The baby was already born, out of the mothers womb and breathing. It was then killed. This wasn't an abortion, abortions happen inside the womb. Im not going to argue partial birth abortions because I dont support them but im not going to agree with the general tone that "All abortions are bad". Morally maybe but its not your choice its the mothers.
If that's your belief, then you are seriously messed up.
I could stuff you inside an elephant's womb and icepick your head in and call it an abortion, under that definition.
The only scant ground you possibly have to differentiate between abortion and murder, is disconnecting the fetus/child from the uterus and bringing it out into the world. Once you start stabbing the head to intentionally FORCE it to be nonviable, you are murdering.
A clump of cells scraped off the uterus at 2 months is one thing (and still quite arguable).
A 2-3 pound human shape that has muscle contractions, brain activity, pulse and respiratory capacity should not be forcibly stabbed and executed, whether in the womb or out of it.
-
Gentlemen (and I use that term loosely...),
We will play nice in this thread.
Abortion threads are one of those few things that give forum staff migraine headaches.
I'm all for minimizing the pain to the overpaid hired hands around here, but I'll let the thread live for the time being - but only if we use our indoor voices, Capiche?
Otherwise, to the bit bucket it goes, and unheeded repeated warnings to certain members for not abiding by forum rules will result in their user accounts winding up in that very same bit bucket.
I trust I've made myself clear on this matter.
-
What is life? When is something alive? I say that life is the process of taking in nourishment from the surrounding environment, and growing new cells, and reproducing cells as they deteriorate and die. Animal life and plant life achieve this by different methods, but the result is similar and easily recognizable. We know when something has died, because it soon rots and decays away to fertilizer.
Once we accept that a human life is taking in nourishment from it's environment (the womb of the mother), and growing new cells and regenerating cells as it develops, we have to ask when that human achieves a legal status as a person. The gist of the abortion argument is that a human baby at any stage of development is not a person if it has not been separated by natural processes from the womb, and person-hood is only available for those babies that have drawn breath after exiting the womb. This argument allows people to artificially open the womb and destroy the baby before it draws air outside the womb. It allows instruments to be inserted into the womb to achieve the same result. These operations deliberately end the life of a human being, sometimes prior to that baby being able to sustain life with assistance outside the womb, and sometimes well after the baby is capable of sustaining life with assistance outside the womb. What is so magical about the ability to breath air, that we force the definition of person-hood to depend on that ability. We have medical situations where adults are kept on respirators in order to maintain their life - do these people lose their status as persons due to inability to breath without external assistance? NO. Then why does a baby have to be able to breath independently in order to receive status as a person?
The double standard when it comes to human life and animal life is simply amazing. We pass laws to protect the EGGS of birds, fish and amphibians from human predation and interference in the life cycle of that species. We say that endangered species should be protected to prevent extinction of the species, yet we allow human life to be exterminated like vermin, for little or no reason. What makes the egg of some non-human life more precious than a human life? Why do we say a non-person animal life has more rights than a non-person (legally speaking) human life? I personally believe that a human at any stage of development should have the same rights of person-hood as any human that has been born and is breathing on it's own, whether assisted or not. Once the human egg has been fertilized by the human sperm, a complete human individual is developing. To say it is OK to destroy that individual as long as it has not achieved some arbitrary ability to sustain itself without assistance from the parent is fallacious. If that argument is followed, we could allow parents to starve their infants and small children to death and call it abortion.
-
My brother was 2 months premature, the result of an accidentally induced early labor from a fall. He's 24 years old now.
Both me and my brother were born 2 months premature. I had a heart defect, he caught meningitis in NICU and ended up having a stroke.
I'm 35, have an MBA, and am a semi-serious cyclist. Bro turns 30 this year and just got his Masters of Library Science.
Indeed, that's why there really is no justification for late-term abortion. If it was a "life of the mother" issue, such as severe preclampsia, or internal bleeding, the proper medical answer would be a C-section to get the baby out anyway. In most any case you can imagine, a vaginal delivery is always more dangerous.
My wife developed preclampsia towards the end of Thing 2's term. Because of that and because the baby appeared to be under stress, they did a C-section two days later. Other than being a bit underweight, Thing 2 is alive and well.
Chris
-
The problem is that fetuses don't get to vote!
A lot of the debate concerning abortion is about when the baby/fetus/or "tissue growth" actually achieves "consciousness", or when must it be extended the same rights as bonafide humans :rolleyes:
One could argue that before the CNS develops, the organism cannot attain consciousness. Others might say that from conception the embryo is embodied with a soul. I believe we will never be able to gauge what mental or behavioral processes constitute a Human Being. If so, what pattern of brain activity will be accpted as humanity? =|
If mental processes and intelligence are what make us human, then how much intelligence is required? If a fetus is not human because it lacks adult-like intelligence, then what stops us from extending that to mentally challenged individuals? Should we destroy them ala Third Reich or use them as unpaid labor and keep them in pig pens?
Well, one thing is sure though, and this cannot be disputed: as soon as the zygote is formed, a new, original and unique DNA sequence is created. This human DNA, a form of ID accepted in courts around the world as evidence of one's existence, does not belong to the mother or father, but to a third, separate individual. I believe that that in itself grants recognition of the "growing tissue" as a true Human.
One day society is going to look back at the "OMG I was so drunk but he/she was so hot and we did it in the club's bathroom" abortions and realize just how criminal we were.
That being said, I believe exceptions should be made for rape/incest/sexual molestation of children, through, and only through a genuine court order. Abortion should never be allowed as routine birth control for the lazy, careless or ignorant; there are too many other forms of effective devices to avoid pregnancy.
-
I'll never understand why it is legal to have an abortion (one out of convenience, that is), yet killing a mother and baby gets is two counts of murder. Obviously, the latter is the correct view. How come they aren't consistent?
Why is the latter "obviously" the correct view? It isn't obvious to me.
-
The baby took a breath on his/her own, that means he/she was alive and capable of living on his own. The very definition that Pro-Choice supporters use as the mark of human life.
no for all the reasons so ably listed before this
"This wasn't an abortion, abortions happen inside the womb. Im not going to argue partial birth abortions because I dont support them but im not going to agree with the general tone that "All abortions are bad". Morally maybe but its not your choice its the mothers. "
nice dodge partial birth abortions do happen and are legal and are abortions but you aren't gonna argue that . nice moral position
how about if after a while the mom wants to off herself? why is that illegal and a partial birth abortion is kosher?
and that drivel about bringing an unwanted baby into the world? you try to adopt recently? wonder why folks pay big bucks to go overseas and adopt? the babys are wanted just an inconvienience to someone. and of course many of those whop made that choice have to support it now or face the realization they made a mistake. funny thing i work with recovering addicts, amongst the ladies you would be amazed how many of them regard making that "choice" as a turning point in their life. and how many describe the feelings as a result as being a lifelong albatross around their neck. gotta hear em talk 10 or more years later about "today would be my babys birthday" funny how the feminist sisters are there for the medical procedure but long gone for the aftermath. sometimes the babies life isn't the only one sacrificed
-
nice dodge partial birth abortions do happen and are legal and are abortions but you aren't gonna argue that . nice moral position
Enough.
A subtle hint for future threads - attack the argument, not the individual.