doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

[Marilyn. 340]

my baby had complications and only lived for 12 days... but I was told that the cut-off for viability was about 22 weeks.. yeah there isn't a high chance of survival at that age but that doesn't mean they aren't viable,....

Marilyn, I'm sorry for your loss.

I too lost a son at 23 weeks. It was lose my wife or lose the baby. The docs did everything to help my wife but in the end there was no way to break the fever within her; her body initiated delivery and the baby was born stillborn. they had the ultrasound on her and were monitoring the activity of the baby, he was moving - no signs of distress out of him up to the point of delivery. within 5 minutes of delivery the fever abated in my wife. I got to hold the little guy - he was perfectly formed, not much bigger than my hand. he looked like he was sleeping (the nurses cleaned him up and wrapped him in a little blanket)

with our son we had to make the decision to take him off life support because his prognosis was not good...

I am sorry for your loss too

Edited February 7, 2009 by *Marilyn*

[jundp 191]

We actually have more outrage over detainees at Gitmo.... or the human waste on Death-row than we do about these fully formed fetuses which are only guilty of being in the wrong womb.

Actually, Danno, some people think all human life is precious and don't use qualifiers to determine which ones we, as humans, have the right to murder. Murder. Yep, I said it. Death penalty is murder and abortion is murder. And no one deserves torture.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Obama is in favor of allowing babies born alive during abortions to be left to die, as his Illinois Senate record shows. So, expect to see more of this, albeit, more clinical and less sloppy than this case. If you're pro-abortion, then accept the fact that killinga life is what an abortion does. No way around it.

[Danno 1,228]

We actually have more outrage over detainees at Gitmo.... or the human waste on Death-row than we do about these fully formed fetuses which are only guilty of being in the wrong womb.

Actually, Danno, some people think all human life is precious and don't use qualifiers to determine which ones we, as humans, have the right to murder. Murder. Yep, I said it. Death penalty is murder and abortion is murder. And no one deserves torture.

While I don't agree with your position (yet), I do respect it because you are consistant.

[Peikko 1,575]

Obama is in favor of allowing babies born alive during abortions to be left to die, as his Illinois Senate record shows. So, expect to see more of this, albeit, more clinical and less sloppy than this case. If you're pro-abortion, then accept the fact that killinga life is what an abortion does. No way around it.

Oh, more of your drivel. Yeah, Obama hates babies blah, blah, blah.

[Danno 1,228]

I am sure everyone agrees that no fetus should be treated in this appalling way, no matter what side of the abortion issue you sit.

This story does nothing to forward a mature debate, it just seems to seek to fuel the anger mindset of those who are entrenched in their position. Or at least, the way the OP presented it that seems to be the 'point'. How stupid.

MC, I posted a timely story which highlights the obscenity of abortion.

I'm willing to bet, a lot more late-term abortions took place last year than there were cases of waterboarding yet I don't recall you being bothered by those stories being posted.

Other people post what they like and I will too, quite being a crybaby about it.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Danno

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Obama is in favor of allowing babies born alive during abortions to be left to die, as his Illinois Senate record shows. So, expect to see more of this, albeit, more clinical and less sloppy than this case. If you're pro-abortion, then accept the fact that killinga life is what an abortion does. No way around it.

Oh, more of your drivel. Yeah, Obama hates babies blah, blah, blah.

I post so that you can display your hatefulness. Baiting you is child's play.

[HAL 9000 96]

Certainly I can see where medical fact and actual legal context have little to do with what we want to see ey brother Danno?

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

Obama is in favor of allowing babies born alive during abortions to be left to die, as his Illinois Senate record shows. So, expect to see more of this, albeit, more clinical and less sloppy than this case. If you're pro-abortion, then accept the fact that killinga life is what an abortion does. No way around it.

Oh, more of your drivel. Yeah, Obama hates babies blah, blah, blah.

you could try to debate rather than dismiss.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Obama is in favor of allowing babies born alive during abortions to be left to die, as his Illinois Senate record shows. So, expect to see more of this, albeit, more clinical and less sloppy than this case. If you're pro-abortion, then accept the fact that killinga life is what an abortion does. No way around it.

Oh, more of your drivel. Yeah, Obama hates babies blah, blah, blah.

you could try to debate rather than dismiss.

She knows she'd lose.

Hey, Chuck!

[Danno 1,228]

Certainly I can see where medical fact and actual legal context have little to do with what we want to see ey brother Danno?

Hal you are a little TOO FIXATED on the viability issue.

It's never been my habit to limit human rights to the current advances in medical science.

How many people are in the hospital on ventilators and the like... clearly "they are not Viable" too.

That 23-week old fetus, so perfectly formed it had finger prints, needed nothing but food to live (like all of us) and then for a certain sum of money it was terminated.

My friend there is soon going to come a time when medical science will not only conceive a child outside the womb but also bring it to term, without ever being inside a mother.

Then where will your "viability bench mark be"?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am sure everyone agrees that no fetus should be treated in this appalling way, no matter what side of the abortion issue you sit.

This story does nothing to forward a mature debate, it just seems to seek to fuel the anger mindset of those who are entrenched in their position. Or at least, the way the OP presented it that seems to be the 'point'. How stupid.

MC, I posted a timely story which highlights the obscenity of abortion.

I'm willing to bet, a lot more late-term abortions took place last year than there were cases of waterboarding yet I don't recall you being bothered by those stories being posted.

Other people post what they like and I will too, quite being a crybaby about it.

She isn't wrong though - this is an extreme case, and it has been/is being used to justify entrenched ideological positions on the subject.

Late term abortions (over 20 weeks) account to less than 2% of the total, according to the CDC.

In other words - this is far from representative, and as such is little more than a nuance of an intensely complex moral/ethical debate.

Certainly I can see where medical fact and actual legal context have little to do with what we want to see ey brother Danno?

Hal you are a little TOO FIXATED on the viability issue.

It's never been my habit to limit human rights to the current advances in medical science.

How many people are in the hospital on ventilators and the like... clearly "they are not Viable" too.

That 23-week old fetus, so perfectly formed it had finger prints, needed nothing but food to live (like all of us) and then for a certain sum of money it was terminated.

My friend there is soon going to come a time when medical science will not only conceive a child outside the womb but also bring it to term, without ever being inside a mother.

Then where will your "viability bench mark be"?

Hmmm.... where will your ethics be...

[Danno 1,228]

I am sure everyone agrees that no fetus should be treated in this appalling way, no matter what side of the abortion issue you sit.

This story does nothing to forward a mature debate, it just seems to seek to fuel the anger mindset of those who are entrenched in their position. Or at least, the way the OP presented it that seems to be the 'point'. How stupid.

MC, I posted a timely story which highlights the obscenity of abortion.

I'm willing to bet, a lot more late-term abortions took place last year than there were cases of waterboarding yet I don't recall you being bothered by those stories being posted.

Other people post what they like and I will too, quite being a crybaby about it.

She isn't wrong though - this is an extreme case, and it has been/is being used to justify entrenched ideological positions on the subject.

Late term abortions (over 20 weeks) account to less than 2% of the total, according to the CDC.

In other words - this is far from representative, and as such is little more than a nuance of an intensely complex moral/ethical debate.

when you say it like that... it doesn't sound so bad PD.

Last I read we are doing over a million abortions a year: what's 2% of a million?

And how many people got waterboarded?

*IIRC, there is no law requiring abortions to be reported, CDC numbers are not facts.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am sure everyone agrees that no fetus should be treated in this appalling way, no matter what side of the abortion issue you sit.

This story does nothing to forward a mature debate, it just seems to seek to fuel the anger mindset of those who are entrenched in their position. Or at least, the way the OP presented it that seems to be the 'point'. How stupid.

MC, I posted a timely story which highlights the obscenity of abortion.

I'm willing to bet, a lot more late-term abortions took place last year than there were cases of waterboarding yet I don't recall you being bothered by those stories being posted.

Other people post what they like and I will too, quite being a crybaby about it.

She isn't wrong though - this is an extreme case, and it has been/is being used to justify entrenched ideological positions on the subject.

Late term abortions (over 20 weeks) account to less than 2% of the total, according to the CDC.

In other words - this is far from representative, and as such is little more than a nuance of an intensely complex moral/ethical debate.

when you say it like that... it doesn't sound so bad PD.

Last I read we are doing over a million abortions a year: what's 2% of a million?

And how many people got waterboarded?

*IIRC, there is no law requiring abortions to be reported, CDC numbers are not facts.

Danno - that's just bait and switch. If you want to talk about a subject - stop bringing in irrelevant tangents (that would be waterboarding).

The CDC numbers are "facts" insofar as its possible to obtain them.

[HAL 9000 96]

Certainly I can see where medical fact and actual legal context have little to do with what we want to see ey brother Danno?

Hal you are a little TOO FIXATED on the viability issue.

It's never been my habit to limit human rights to the current advances in medical science.

How many people are in the hospital on ventilators and the like... clearly "they are not Viable" too.

That 23-week old fetus, so perfectly formed it had finger prints, needed nothing but food to live (like all of us) and then for a certain sum of money it was terminated.

My friend there is soon going to come a time when medical science will not only conceive a child outside the womb but also bring it to term, without ever being inside a mother.

Then where will your "viability bench mark be"?

Danno,

If I was fixated I wouldn't be using argument A by stating B as you are. Nor, for what its worth- is limiting any argument to base science (actual physiology) what I am doing. That can be discussed in another topic if you think it important to do so. What is at stake here is your insistence on the condemnation of a whole population of adults that can and do make rational choices in their lives as is their lawfully-protected choices with an extreme example thusly brought forward.

But as you yourself mention it- you claim the fetus needed something particular while excluding what is painfully obvious to real medical professionals that deliver babies at full and pre-term. You are no doctor nor biologist and therefore I would not expect you to understand something at that level. I would expect you to understand the relationship that a 23 week-old fetus has a slim (yet valid, as the article states) chance of survival - WITHOUT technological assistance that STILL do not guarantee more than a slim chance of survival. That's called *gasp* common sense. Which you, surprisingly, ignore once more.

That is not viability. Quit using slippery slopes where there are none. You are the only one slipping.