Anti-Planned Parenthood Propaganda - MERGE

[ladyamylynn]

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. :-(

Well, I'm deeply saddened by your moronic anti-choice propaganda.

[TheLurkingFrumper]

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 think we all like to assume that most late term abortions occur because of medical conditions that create a non-viable child. While I do think believe that most late term abortions do occur for medical/genetic reasons, it is not always about "viability." Most pregnancies in which maternal testing during pregnancy reveals that the child will be born with down syndrome end in abortion in this country (90%). Now are these abortions done for medical reasons? Yes. However, Downs Syndrome has a wide range of severity and many of these pregnancies could indeed end in a "viable" child. So, in a case like moderate or mild Downs Syndrome, if the child survives the abortion attempt, who is the person who decides if they're "viable" and deserve medical treatment in your option? The parents have already made the decision that they can't/don't want to/lack the resources to raise a disabled child and obviously have decided adoption is not an option, but people with Downs Syndrome can have very purposeful and fulfilling lives. So who is the child's (now born) advocate for "viability" in this?

400+ is a high number (higher than I would have thought), and given the high instance of abortion for Downs Syndrome, it could be assumed that a large percentage of children who survive abortion may have some degree of Down Syndrome.

[alba]

TheLurkingFrumper: I was under the impression that something like Down's Syndrome was not an adequate reason to get an abortion past the elective abortion cut-off date (usually between 12 and 24 weeks), and that after that time the fetus either has to be non-viable or threatening the life of the mother.

[pookel]

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.

IIRC, he voted against a bill that would have required doctors to attempt to save the life of any baby who survived an abortion attempt.

The thing is, babies aren't aborted at 22-24 weeks for no reason. The vast majority of terminations at that stage are done because of severe birth defects. Parents who choose termination at that stage are almost always making a choice to let their baby die early and painlessly instead of being born only to suffer and die anyway. Forcing doctors to attempt to resuscitate a baby who is going to die anyway is not only pointless, it's cruel.

[pookel]

Also, I could be remembering this wrong, but I think the bill that Obama voted against actually required the attempted resuscitation of *any* baby who was still alive - even those who would were too young to have any chance at survival.

[treemom]

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 ?

no way 400 survive. The standard methodlogy for late term includes stopping the heart. Saline isn't done very often anymore and that was what presented this risk factor.

[Minerva]

TheLurkingFrumper: I was under the impression that something like Down's Syndrome was not an adequate reason to get an abortion past the elective abortion cut-off date (usually between 12 and 24 weeks), and that after that time the fetus either has to be non-viable or threatening the life of the mother.

Down Syndrome can be accompanied by fatal heart defects, and it wouldn't surprise me if anti-choice people spun those stories to make it sound like the fetuses were aborted at 26+ weeks just because they had Down Syndrome. With that said, it's not just the survivability of the fetus' condition that can make you eligible for a late-term abortion, I'm pretty sure quality of life is also a consideration. I really doubt you can have an abortion for an uncomplicated case of Down Syndrome very far past the cut off for an elective procedure, though.

[treemom]

In the us it depends on what state you are in.

That is an important mantra to repeat when it comes to abortipn.

[Minerva]

Some context for the Canadian 491 number. [link=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/31/pol-cp-conservative-mps-rcmp-letter-abortion-homicide.html]Maurice Velacott and two other complete morons called[/link] on the RCMP to investigate the 491 infant deaths listed as having resulted from abortions as reported by StatCan over a period of 9 years (not 491 per year). They believed that in each of these cases "there was an attempted abortion, the baby was born alive and died as a result of the injuries caused through the attempted abortion", and that this violates the section of the Criminal Code according to which babies become persons when they've exited their mother's body but it's still a homicide if you injure the baby before or during birth and it dies of the injury after birth. Had they bothered to do any research at all, they would have known that "live birth abortion" is the practice of inducing labour and not resuscitating the fetus once it's born. It's standard practice to stop the heart before the fetus is extracted, but if the pregnant person requests to just be induced, it can be done. It's perfectly legal to induce premature labour, and it's perfectly legal to not give an infant life support. Of course, the RCMP wouldn't even give their sensationalist bullshit the time of day.

[Wolfie]

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.

This is somewhat off topic, but it reminded me why guardian language in pet ownership can be so dangerous. A dog, cat, rabbit or guinea pig is not a human. And if we can't even agree that there are some severely disabled fetuses in humans that should or not be helped to live, how much more complicated if they start trying to legislate animal medical care like human care?

/threadjack

[treemom]

This is somewhat off topic, but it reminded me why guardian language in pet ownership can be so dangerous. A dog, cat, rabbit or guinea pig is not a human. And if we can't even agree that there are some severely disabled fetuses in humans that should or not be helped to live, how much more complicated if they start trying to legislate animal medical care like human care?

/threadjack

Just because I want to clarify something, I think the parents and doctors have the right to determine whether infants who have a diagnosis incompatible with life, etc or should be stabilized.

I have no opinion on anyone's specific situation. Just the idea that I don't think born alive should automatically equal stabilizing medical care.

[Wolfie]

Just because I want to clarify something, I think the parents and doctors have the right to determine whether infants who have a diagnosis incompatible with life, etc or should be stabilized.

I have no opinion on anyone's specific situation. Just the idea that I don't think born alive should automatically equal stabilizing medical care.

I totally agree with you. But we've all seen cases in the news where there is a long court fight over whether somebody should be allowed to die or kept alive as a vegetable. I don't want that to happen with animals too.

[formergothardite]

I see Sunshine couldn't be bothered to even attempt to support her beliefs in this thread too.

And I agree with Treemom on this. She said it all way better than I could.