Anti-Planned Parenthood Propaganda - MERGE

[doggie]

This video is going around that planned parenthood is ok with killing babies that survived a botched abortion. She has a hard time answering as I don't think this problem has come up. I mean it would depend on many things and it is not a yes/no question. I mean first it would have to be a late term abortion in the first place and are not most of those for babies that would not be viable in the first place? Someone has to decide so who if not the doctor? I did a search and so far I could not find out if this ever happened. But of course pro lifers are jumping on this with both feet and jesus wept too.

qEv1afKaLhA

[NotALoserLikeYou]

They just closed down some "abortion house of horrors" where they supposedly did that, severed the cord after birth. Everything he did was illegal, not any sort of common practice

cnn.com/2013/03/04/us/pennsylvania-gosnell-trial/index.html

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I mean we hear stories from these "abortion survivors" so I guess babies can be born alive but like you said it would be so rare. Most abortions occur before viability and then the dr would have to really screw it up.

[doggie]

so Florida makes a law on a what if and expects a good answer?

[TheLurkingFrumper]

I believe this is another way of referring to partial birth abortion.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

It seems pro lifers use the statistic of 400 a year which is from the CDC in 1981. But the saline abortion used for those is not used so much anymore.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Not partial birth, this is referring to babies who survived the abortion and fully emerged.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... wrong.html

Labor is induced after stopping the fetus's heart with a drug. Sometimes the drug is improperly administered and the baby is born alive. In the US there is a "born alive" law where the dr must administer care if that happens.

[Mama Mia]

It seems pro lifers use the statistic of 400 a year which is from the CDC in 1981. But the saline abortion used for those is not used so much anymore.

400 a year that survive ? Or 400 a year for late term abortions ? What is considered "late term" - is there a set number of weeks ?

[NotALoserLikeYou]

400 a year that survive ? Or 400 a year for late term abortions ? What is considered "late term" - is there a set number of weeks ?

400 that survive. Late term is after the usual legal cut off of 24 weeks IIRC.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

But they can survive (briefly) before the 24 week mark. 21, 22 weeks

[NotALoserLikeYou]

So allegedly 400 a yr, in canada I think it said 491/yr. these include babies with defects that would have killed them.

[Mama Mia]

That seems really high. I thought that less than 1% of abortions were late term ? Wouldn't that make the survival rate relatively high - like 5-10% of late term ?

I can see why if it happened only once or twice having a law would be pointless - but if it is that often, than a law seems to make sense.

[alba]

So allegedly 400 a yr, in canada I think it said 491/yr. these include babies with defects that would have killed them.

Do the people quoting this know that Canada's population is a tenth that of the US? And that in most of the country you can't have an elective abortion after 12-20 weeks, not 24? [ETA] According to a website run by UOttawa's med school, "Over 90% of abortions in Canada are done in the first trimester, only 2-3% are done after 16 weeks, and no doctor performs abortions past 20 or 21 weeks except for compelling health or genetic reasons." (http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Abortion_e.htm) Any abortion occurring in Canada late enough for the fetus to be viable is on a fetus that ISN'T viable because of defects. (Interestingly, that site also says that 80% of Canadian women are using contraception, compared to 64% of American women, and we all know the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy).

In theory I can see how a late-term abortion of a non-viable fetus could actually survive (for a short period of time), but I'm sceptical as to how commonly it happens.

Also, I wouldn't trust the Daily Fail for something like abortion information ;) Or, well, anything, really.

[miffy]

^Yes, Daily Fail should only be for entertainment purposes.

Evidence:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nkeys.html

[AtroposHeart]

To answer the original question

No, not really.

It's just fundies don't really know anything about abortion (and don't want too) so they set around and make horror stories to scare each other.

[RainbowSky]

Every once in a while there will be a story on the news about a traumatized woman who had a live baby after an induction and the baby was born alive but people didn't do anything for it, they presume or actually killed it, or they do do something for it and she's mad about that. It was a big thing around when Obama was elected the first time, people saying he said its okay to kill the babies born alive. It could've been where I was living at the time, no idea. I didn't look it up at the time.

[Mama Mia]

Every once in a while there will be a story on the news about a traumatized woman who had a live baby after an induction and the baby was born alive but people didn't do anything for it, they presume or actually killed it, or they do do something for it and she's mad about that. It was a big thing around when Obama was elected the first time, people saying he said its okay to kill the babies born alive. It could've been where I was living at the time, no idea. I didn't look it up at the time.

This is what I don't understand . I had always assumed it was something that was incredibly rare - more urban legend status than anything. But 400 a year, which apparently comes from the CDC seems really high, if you think about it.

I wonder if that statistic, because it's from 1981, was when there might have been a higher number of later term abortions since they still used the trimester system ? And presumably abortion was easier to obtain in the early 80's than currently. And the technology wouldn't have been as good for dating pregnancies and finding abnormalities .....

[sunshine]

christianpost.com/news/planned-parenthood-backs-right-to-kill-babies-surviving-failed-abortions-93030/

I'm deeply sadden by this post: A baby that survives an abortion...kill it anyway. :-(

[kpmom]

Shouldn't you be explaining that Golden Showers post?

Or why you believe childbirth feels just like sex?

[treemom]

So here is the deal, I am not in love with the phrasing the pp director used, but considering a law that required all infants to be stabilized after birth before a DNA cold be created and didn't allow a peaceful death for my child was a huge deciding factor for my late term abortion, well I understand why people push against these laws.

And why wouldn't medical care be left up to a dr and patient?

[twin2]

Just for fun, let's play a game.

Let's put you up in from the the National Academy of Sciences. Now explain immediately Einstein's theory of Relativity and how it predicted the existence of black holes.

That is what happened to this women. The congressmen put her in a position to try and answer a question she wasn't prepared to answer or allowed time to formulate an answer.

Propaganda is all that article is.

ETA: Whatever the answer to that question it is best decided by a doctor and a patient, not a congressman.

[treemom]

Well it isn't an easy answer either. Seriously, there are unintended consequences to legislating medical care.

I believe a fetus who is Born alive during an abortion is now a baby, but not all babies born alive should be given medical care. In late term abortions (where this is more likely, but still rare) there is usually a pretty clear reason why abortion is being chosen and in many cases it is due to diagnosis incompatible with life.

But really, why is the obsession to focus on the incredibly rare instead of talking about the common right of women to have medical privacy?

[So Says I]

My goodness, what an unbiased and reliable news source you chose, sunshine. :roll:

I must admit that I'd enjoy watching you attempt to debate twin2 and especially treemom about this issue (sorry, treemom, I'm sure this same old shit has gotten beyond tiresome.)

[doggie]

I posted this sunday and I see it as.

1 it would have to be a quack doctor to screw up that badly

2 it would have to be a late term abortion.

3 the infant would have to be viable and the abortion not done because the infant has no or little chance at life if the pregnancy is let run its course.

I don't think this is something PP deals with.