Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion

Planned parent hood was asked what would happen with the baby, sitting there alive on the table, and the woman said it would be left up to the mother,

She didn't say..."it would be taken care of and given the same rights as you and me" she couldn't answer the damn question.

And as we can see,you too believe a born child can be killed after it comes out of the womb. liberals are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sick, that is a fact.[/QUOTE]

Depends on if it is viable

The vast majority of late term abortions occur because of non-viability

 

And how many women died because this idiot (and there will always be some) had NO OVERSIGHT

You want to stop the Gosnells of the world - you make it legal and you ensure they are not operating outside of the law - which he was

Make abortion illegal and you will see far far more Gosneslls

 

Depends on if it is viable

The vast majority of late term abortions occur because of non-viability[/QUOTE]

It is alive breathing on its own outside of the womb, it is already viable. why are liberals so anti-science?

- - - Updated - - -

I want to make sure its illegal to kill another human being.

 

It can breathe and still not be viable

Happens every day - or did you not know that?

If a baby is born at 22 weeks it is not really viable, the organs are not developed enough, we can keep them alive for a while on life support but the vast majority die, perhaps one in a million babies born that early make it but most do not and those that we try and save will bleed out from skin tears in skin too thin to hold together or bleed into the brain or.........

Roe versus Wade does not apply to late term abortions and if memory serves it does not apply after 16 weeks - which is long before viability

 

If the abortion is being done to save the life of the mother and the baby is healthy and survives, the baby would not be left to die. It would be a miraculous ending to a heart-breaking ordeal. They would not need a law to force them to give the baby all the care it would have gotten if it had been a normal birth. So NO - in that situation I do not believe the baby should be left to die and don't have any reason to believe it would be.

If the abortion is being done because the baby has abnormalities like no skull and no brain, Harlequin Ichythosis, organs on the outside of its body or other deformities that would mean a very short life or a life of pain and suffering, it should be left up to the family and the doctor to make the decision based on being able to see and examine the baby in person. If the abnormalities were not as bad as they expected and the doctor thought they could be fixed to some degree, then let the parents decide if they're able to take on the huge financial and caretaking responsibilities with consideration to their income, other children, and other responsibilities. If the defects are as bad or worse than they expected, and the parents and the doctor think it's best to let the child die peacefully, then YES I think they should let it die.

The more I read the conservative posts here, the more astounded I am that none of you seem to be able to look past the "baby on the table breathing" and comprehend the magnitude of the decision that brought them to this point and the magnitude of the decision to try to save it or let it die. I don't think I've seen even ONE WORD of compassion for the families who have to deal with this and what a heartbreaking ordeal it is for them. And to call them "murderers" because something went wrong with either the mother or the fetus that put them in a life or death situation that THEY have to live with is cruel, callous and uncaring and IMO is very much at odds with the purported concern for the unborn child's life. The living people who will be responsible for the financial and caretaking responsibilities and their doctor are the ONLY ONES who should have ANY say in the matter. Certainly not pro-life fanatics with tunnel vision and no ability to see all sides of the matter.

Let me ask YOU a "yes or no" question. Do you believe that if you had been advised that your much wanted and looked forward to baby had horrible birth defects that would mean it would NEVER have any kind of normal life and that you and your family would be totally responsible for a lifetime of monstrous medical bills and caretaking at the expense of the future of you, your wife and your other children, do you think there should be a law that says you, your wife and doctor should have absolutely nothing to say about it - that you will have to take on all the responsibilities both financial and personal caretaking - that no matter what effect it has on your family and their futures, you have NO CHOICE but to do as the law says and let them make the decision FOR you with no regard to what YOU think should be done? YES or NO

 

Absolutely correct!

And I will add to this - if the baby is born alive at 20 weeks and makes some respiratory effort (and it happens with miscarriages) are you going to let the mother hold her infant and love it as it dies or whip it away from her to perform useless and futile "resuscitation" efforts??

See this goes beyond abortion and into miscarriage which happens far more often than abortions at this stage of pregnancy and these decisions to resuscitate or not ARE made every day by women, families and doctors




Are you going to interfere with that?

 

This doctor is one of those who did abortions in back alleys before Roe v. Wade. I'm sure there are still some out there operating the way they always did because they don't WANT government or medical oversight and are making enough money to make it worthwhile for themselves. They don't care about the women or the babies - just the money. And as Bowerbird said, this is what we'll go back to if abortion is made illegal. Good doctors won't risk their lives and futures and doctors like Gosnell will be the only ones left. Have you thought about that or is it one of the things your mind doesn't stretch to?
Planned parent hood was asked what would happen with the baby, sitting there alive on the table, and the woman said it would be left up to the mother,

No, she didn't, because she couldn't answer for every single child this might happen to. She had no way of knowing if it would be a normal, healthy baby or such a terribly abnormal baby that the best choice would be to let it die and save it from a lifetime - long or short - of pain and misery. I don't know what your choice would be, but most mothers wouldn't willingly inflict that on a helpless child who will never be able to make its own choice.

A child that has such terrible abnormalities that it has no hope for anything except a life of pain and suffering should be allowed to die the same way vegetative patients are allowed to die when it's known they are brain dead and there's no hope that there will ever be any improvement or conscious life for them.

What do YOU believe should happen to these babies? Should they be kept alive simply because YOU believe they should be no matter what condition they're in or what the parents and the doctors who assess their condition and make a prognosis or the quality/length of their lives who will be responsible for believe? Why should that decision belong to you or the state or the government or anybody else other than the people directly involved and affected?

 

This situation still amounts to cold blooded murder by Planned Parenthood and the abortion doctor!!!!

 

Thats because I'm right. Many leftists bleat on and on about being compassionate, unless you are old or unborn, then the most heinous Megalian practices are A-Okey doaky. Leftists suck.

 

,

Actually most Liberals ignore facts and logic in favor of emotion and psuedo-facts

Actually under the Pennsylvanian laws as they existed at the time, most of the abortions that Gasnell preformed were legal. Further, the lack of oversight was due to the way the laws were written, and not because the patients were immigrants. In 2011, the Pennsylvanian legislature rewrote the laws to require more oversight. You might also find it interesting that Planned Parenthood opposed that law. Especially after they had to shell out $500,000 to bring their two Abortion Clincs up to code.

While I can't speak for the New York Times, I can say that I ignored the fact because it was irrelevent. The patients are not on trial. It is the Doctor that has been charged. Surely your not condoning the Doctor's actions because his patients didn't know better. Frankly, now that I think about, the fact these were immigrants and minorities proves that there needs to be a law that protects the patients and the living breathing babies.

According to the CDC, Anencephaly (baby born with out a brain) occures within the first month after conception. It can be diagnosed through a detailed Ultrasound. or by testing the amniotic fluid. They also state that the rate is defect occurs is 1 in 5000. For the state of florida that would mean about 41 cases annually. So there is no reason to preform a late term abortion.

The law in Florida, and the case if Philly, is not about babies being aborted because they have a birth defect. They are about babies that are born alive, and could survive under the same conditions that any other pre-mature could survive. The only reason that they were killed was because their mothers didn't want them. A convenience to the mother is not a viable reason to kill a baby.

Again you are reading something into this topic that is not there. This is not about aborting babies because of a birth defect. It is about a baby being born to a mother that did not want them. So, a law should be passed to protect the right to life for these newborns.

Careful, they will take your Liberal decoder ring away from you for statements like that. You would limit medical care to those that can afford it. So, if a poor person has a Pre-mature baby, it should be killed because the family can't afford the cost of the medical care.

The only switching being done here is you interjecting birth defects into the argument. That is not what this discussion is about. It is about babies born during a botched abortion. These are living breathing, and in most cases heathy babies.

You said that it should be up to the parent. So, if a doctor tells the woman that the child was born alive, and the mother says, "I don't want it. Kill it." Then you have no problem with the doctor snipping the babies spinal cord? Simply, kill the baby because it is more convenient for the mother. You don't have a problem with that? So, in your mind when does a baby have the right to life?

Let's look at this from another angle. What about when a mother gives birth to a live baby, and then stuffs it in a dumpster where it dies of exposure. Do you think that the mother is guilty of murder? I mean after all, you did say that the decision for a newborn to live is up to the parent.

And you carefully avoid where the article where Dr Gosnell performed an abortion on a 17 year old that was 30 weeks along. According to the Grand Jury documents states that the fetus weighed 6 lbs, and was breathing and moving when the doctor killed it.

Again, you are assuming facts not in evidence. These babies were healthy babies prior to the doctor murdered them. Further, the laws in Pennsylvania required the clinic to inform the patient of their right at least 24 hours before the abortion. So, unless you have some evidence that the 17 year old was not informed, then we have to assume that she was.

Actually, what the Florida lawmakers and myself understands is that a healthy living breathing baby has a right to life. This is why the Floride lawmakers are working to pass a law to protect them. No child should be killed because it is more convenient for the mother.

 

What situation? Termination of an unviable pregnancy?

Or are you talking about Gosnell because most of us view him as a back alley butcher

- - - Updated - - -

What situation? Termination of an unviable pregnancy?

Or are you talking about Gosnell because most of us view him as a back alley butcher

 

I just loooooove people who think they know better than the entire medical profession "'cuz I red sumfin on da internets"

No, in practice anencephaly is not that easy to diagnose. It is frequently not diagnosed until late in the pregnancy and although it is a common reason for late term abortion it is not the only one - there are a LOT of conditions that are incompatible with life that are not diagnosed until late in pregnancy.

You say only 41 a year? Well that is probably the sum total of LATE term pregnancies in that state per year - or did you not know that LATE (post viability) abortions are a rare event?



You are actually in a "catch 22" situation with early diagnosis of congenital abnormalities

http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/130663

 

The fact remains, and anyone can view the woman from PP that wouldnt instantly say the baby born alive should recieve the best medical care possible. Any one that would argue against that is a dispicable low life. PP has rightly been called an abortion mill for years, and now I guess you can add that they are willing to be a murder mill too.

This situation with the Fla Legislature is opening the eyes of a lot of people just how rotten PP really is. Their primary reason for existance is to make huge amounts of money being an abortion mill. They claim to support women, but look at the facts, they dont even do mamograms!!! They just make money killing unborn babies!!!!!

 

hmm

what an interesting choice of a word: normal

what exactly is a "normal life"

let me make it even easier for you and the use of the word "normal" and we'll base it upon what you use to justify "normal life"

is it "normal" for one male to insert his penis into another? If you say a child with birth defects will not have a "normal life" then those who have gay sex must also not be "normal" in order for your definitions to be accepted.

If we can come to an agreement about the meaning of normalcy then we can address what to do with "abnormal" things. Based upon your use of "normal" it would appear that you do not wish to give life itself to the "abnormal". Interesting corner you have painted for yourself

 

You might want to go back and read all my posts on this tread, because you are making my point for me. The original topic is about a law that the Florida lawmakers are trying to pass. It would force doctors to follow normal lifesaving procedures for a baby that was born alive during a botched abortion. The driving force for this law is a case in Philly where a Dr. Gosnell was conducting late term abortions, and then snipping the spinal cords of the living breathing babies. The law in Florida is being opposed by Planned Parenthood. There are some on this board have opposed the Law and the case against the Dr, because they call the law a "cookie cutter law". They have interjected birth defects into the arguement when that is not what this argument is about. It is about killing living healthy babies simply because it is more convenient for the mothers. As I said, your argument supports my belief that the Flordia law should not be opposed because of something that rarely occurs.

It is typical of a Liberal to jump on one point, and attempt to create a false big picture based on that one point. The facts of the Gosnell case, and the driving force for the Florida law, is that botched abortions are resulting in living breathing babies. The doctor would then cut their spinal cords to kill them. This was not being done because they were defected. It was done as a convenience for the mother. My point that I have stated over and over again is that convenience for the mother is not a viable reason to commit murder. The fact that these type of murders are taking place proves that this law is needed.

Now, do you have anything to add that is actually on topic? Or do you believe that a newborn baby does not have a right to life? Maybe you agree with Sen Boxer's statement that she made in 1999, You know that life does not begin until the family takes the baby home from the hospital.

 

I guess here is where the disagreement centers. According to the liberals, late-term abortions are almost never performed for no better motivation than the convenience of the mother. Liberals note that nearly all such abortions are of WANTED pregnancies reluctantly terminated for compelling medical reasons.

According to conservatives, conversely, nearly ALL abortions are just because the mother changed her mind and decided a child would inconvenience her life, and the length of time she endured the pregnancy is pretty much irrelevant. According to this model, nearly all late-term abortions are of perfectly healty normal babies, and deformities or other crippling problems are the rare events.

So we have two issues here. First is the actual facts in the case. What percentage of late-term abortions are due to medical issues such as deformities, and what percentage is a matter of simple convenience? Second, EVEN IF most are a matter of simple convenience, should there be a special category of convenience abortions where the mother's choice is denied to her for compelling sociological reasons?

Of course, from the instant of conception the fetus is "alive". So I guess the real issue here is, does it MATTER whether the fetus can be kept alive outside the womb, and for how long? Some fetuses come through late-term abortions not completely dead. Do those have a "right to life"? Who should decide? The mother? The legislature? The Church? The courts? The public (through referendum or whatever)?

Granted, Dr. Gasnell was incompetent. But what he was trying to do was abortions, because the pregnant women did not wish to raise a child. He wasn't doing them due to deformities or other urgent medical reasons. Presumably, if he had been a competent abortionist, he'd have been able to kill the fetus in the process (as is done even in first-semester abortions), rather than having to do so late enough to poke the buttons of those who would impose their morality unilaterally on others.

But granting all this, why not use the power of civil law to impose and enforce qualifications for doctors? Otherwise, this is like outlawing cars because some people are lousy drivers. And if those passing such a law were all Amish, one might suspect that the motivation for such a law wasn't as represented. What we have here, and let's nobody pretend otherwise, is a bunch of anti-abortion folks looking for yet another hurdle they can place in front of exercising a constitutional right, because THEIR morality overrides the law.

And there we look into the face of glazed-eyes and closed mind. Abortion is not murder. Saying it's murder is a category error, the abuse of language for ideological purposes. We do NOT need laws to override the constitutional rights of people whose decisions we dislike - unless we are arrogant as hell.

 

It is amazing how convoluted things become when we start trying to decide who has a right to life and who does not. You state that life begins at conception, but that extinguishing that life is not murder. Even the Chinese that use late term abortions as a form of population control will not terminate the life of a baby that takes their first breath. Why shouldn't the US atleast make that distinction. If a baby is born as a result of a botched abortion it can not be killed after it takes it's first breath.

If we were to assume that the Gosnell case was an isolated situation, or that the Florida law that makes it illegal to abort a fetus after the 24th week is being enhered to, then there would be no need for a law to protect a baby born from a botched abortion. But if you look into the subject, you will find these type of cases all over the country. Here are some names to google, George Teller, and James Pendergraft IV. While you are at it, take a look at the Grand Jury court documents of the case against Gosnell. People need to be protected from the likes of these people that are getting rich running fetus slaughter houses.

The end result is determining when the rights of the mother ends, and when the rights of the baby begins. I do not support the use of late term abortions in any case where the mother's or baby's life is not in jeopardy. Nor do I support the use of abortions as a form of birth control. But maybe the Chinese have a point of compromise that we can agree to. A baby's right to life begins when he/she takes their first breath. Would you agree with that?

 

If post birth abortion becomes legal, I say we practice on all these proponents of this to make sure we get it right.

 

Unfortunately this is NOT a yes/no black/white issue

Everyday there are babies born who are too young to survive - most through miscarriage - do you want to resuscitate all those babies and put them through futile heroics just so you can declare "no murder!"

Even churches have no problem with palliation under these circumstances

 

Agreed - and I have no issues with discussing the ethical dilemmas surrounding just choices. But most will accept a reasonable degree of disability but if the parents think the child will not survive or would only survive to pain - then termination does become an option

The internet has multiple examples of couples who have chosen either way. Google up "Edwards syndrome" as one example

- - - Updated - - -

This is not "post birth abortion" and in fact there is no such thing

 

REally?? Love to see you validate that claim

http://clinicquotes.com/baby-born-alive-after-late-term-abortion-in-china/

Tiller had more than one investigation against him and they could find no wrong doing. He was one of those performing late term abortions for conditions incompatible with life

Again this black and white approach. Abortion for the life of the mother is very unusual - we would deliver early and try everything in our power to save the infant - that even happened in the "Swine Flu Epidemic" when pregnant women were the hardest hit and they did not survive until they delivered. See you are often left with lose one or lose both

As I proved earlier in the thread LATE term abortions are RARE

Most commonly they are done for conditions incompatible with life

Such as

 

I think you accidentally nailed it there, saying "when WE start trying to decide." Who is WE? When we say it's up to the mother, none of anyone else's business, especially not the government's business, then all that convolution goes away. The convolutions are the result of the misapplication of "we".

Let's really try to be more honest here. "Murder" is a legal term, and even within the law its application isn't always straightforward. But when one side of the discussion is concerned with quality of life and the other is concerned with rigid legalities, we're not going to communicate.

And once again, by attempting to apply a legal rigid rule, you have manufactured the very convolutions you claim you're trying to avoid. Brainless babies take breaths. Hopelessly deformed babies do so as well. Those who would cost a fortune in heroic measures to keep alive for even a week breathe during that week. Yet it doesn't ever seem to occur to you that a one-size-fits-all rule, no matter what that rule might be, will be riddled with exceptions and conditions.

There is no "need" for the law to protect anything. The Florida 24-week limitation is simply an effort to curtail a constitutional right by nibbling it away bit by bit. The issue in the Gosnell case is that he wasn't qualified to perform these operations. There wasn't anything wrong with what he attempted to do, there was plenty wrong with how he did it. Again, you are trying to outlaw cars because some people are dangerous drivers. The problem does NOT lie with the cars.

Try not to confuse things here. Tiller did nothing wrong. Yes, we need to be protected from unqualified doctors (and mechanics, and teachers, and lawyers, etc.) But the solution here is to identify and punish the unqualified people, not the perfectly legal actions they are unqualified to perform. The idiots at Bob Jones or Liberty colleges are doing enormous damage through sheer incompetence. But the answer isn't to punish their students!

I agree. And really, it's not that difficult.

In that case, I defend your right not to have an abortion if both lives can be saved, and I defend your right not to use abortion as a form of birth control. I defend your decision to do what YOU think best in your own circumstances. I deny MY "right" to tell YOU how to run your life.

Again, you are missing the point. You are still trying to draw a universal line, when every case is different. Now your proposed line is "if it takes a breath, nothing else matters." How about something like "IF the mother wants to do everything possible to save the baby, regardless of any deformity, let her try. IF the mother for any reason wishes to continue the abortion, let her do so." Would you agree with that?

Now, on a somewhat different tack, I saw an interesting study (in Chicago, I think) where those conducting the study identified a demographic considered to be at high risk for abortions. That's not hard to do; we know who's getting abortions. They selected a few thousand young women as the experimental group, and a few thousand others as the control group. They gave all the women in the experimental group free contraceptives. It's significant that they didn't just say "if you want these, come to X address and get them". They physically went door to door GIVING the contraceptives to the experimental group.

Of course, using contraceptives, even free ones, is always optional. About 1/3 of the experimental group declined them. Those who accepted continued to be given contraceptives for 2 years. At that time, the number of abortions was counted up. The experimental group had less than 1/3 as many abortions as the control group - and nearly all of them were obtained by women who declined the free contraceptives.

It's important to bear in mind that women do not abort wanted pregnancies (except when the child couldn't survive or live a life the mother would consider worth living). You may wonder, why would a woman who did not wish to get pregnant, turn down free contraceptives handed to her in person, only to get pregnant anyway and abort? The reasons for this seem to be complex and various. Partly it's religious, partly it's cultural, partly girls feared that if their parents saw the contraceptives, they'd be punished for being sexually active.

It's also worth noting that similar studies were done where the free contraceptives were available at a location the experimental group was directed to. Few of them went there, Why? Again, various reasons, the main one being that young women did not wish to implicitly announce that they were sexually active through being seen getting the contraceptives.

To me, this is kind of fascinating. IF young women could get contraceptives without an audit trail (which could be visiting a known dispenser, or from spending money, or anything else where their NEED for contraceptives would become known to parents, friends, etc.) they gladly used them, and didn't get pregnant. Where they feared discovery, they often ended up at abortion clinics, desperate, their cover blown.

What this tells me is, abortions can be almost entirely eliminated, turned into very rare events, through responsible contraception. And responsible contraception is NOT practiced because of fear of discovery. And discovery is feared because we live in a sexually repressive society. Look at the opposition to same-sex marriage and out-of-closet homosexuality generally, look at the opposition to sex education at the age where young people are starting to be really interested and to experiment, look at the opposition to free contraceptives (which would save insurance companies a bundle!)

And if you DO look at those things, you realize that you are barking up the wrong tree entirely. Abortion is a direct and inevitable result of sexual attitudes and repression. I personally wouldn't favor a law either requiring or prohibiting contraception where pregnancy was unwanted. But I would very gladly be willing to pay for a nationwide program of providing free contraceptives, hand-carried to the recipients personally. Perhaps if ALL women of child-bearing age were involved, there would be less fear of discovery. And abortions would nearly vanish.

 

bowerbird

Its pretty damned black and white to the baby. It is life or death. That means the doctor is either a doctor or a killer!!!

 

No it is not - not when it is a case of the baby would not live in any event. Anencephalic babies are born every day,



and every day around the world someone will put a little bonnet on the poor wee thing



and give it to the parents to love and hold as long as it survives



But no special intervention is done and no heroics are attempted

This is not murder but palliative care.

Do you know what "Euthanasia" REALLY means? "Gentle death"

 

You just said it has only happened 8 times.

If the baby is breathing on its own, and alive, it is a living human being.

If you get to be 85, and we don't think you are viable, is it ok to just throw you in the soiled utilities closet?

- - - Updated - - -

Defects or not, letting a baby that is alive, to die, is murder.