Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

reply to post by Unity_99

Late developing fetus's are NOT mentally challenged.

I agree, and I never said they were. But they are not sapient or self-aware, which they may have in common with severely retarded adults.

Originally posted by Pigraphia
Just playing devils advocate again.

When Lacy Peterson was killed her husband was charged with double homicide.
She was still within the first or barley the second trimester.

Actually your facts are inaccurate on this. Lacy Peterson was reported missing Christmas Eve 2002, her due date was February 10, 2003, which would put her at 33 weeks pregnant and in her 3rd trimester. A 33 week pregnancy is considered viable, ie; able to survive outside of the mothers womb.

Originally posted by Pigraphia
Technically didn't he just abort the baby not kill it?

Based on what I have been able to find regarding abortion laws in California at that time, it would have been illegal for her to abort the pregnancy, for simply convenience sake. The cut-off time was set at 20 weeks, after which time as the fetus could be considered viable, an abortion could only legally be performed to protect the health of the mother.

Additionally as she was the one carrying the pregnancy, and was by all accounts healthy and happy about her pregnancy, and excited about the baby's upcoming birth, he did not have a legal right to force her to end the pregnancy nor did he have a legal right to assault her in such a way as to intentionally abort the pregnancy. By all accounts he too was seen as equally happy about the pregnancy and excitedly anticipating the baby's birth. It would appear that prior to her death, he had not suggested he did not want to be a father or request her not risk becoming pregnant, so even if the current laws allowed the biological father the right to choose whether a woman carrying his child be forced either to carry a pregnancy full term or abort a pregnancy, the legal cut-off for a "choice" based abortion being 20 weeks, he would still not legally be allowed to force her to end the pregnancy so far along as 33 weeks because he no longer wished to bear the responsibilities of fatherhood.

Personally regarding the OP
I disagree with the opinions quoted. I believe there is a vast difference between aborting an unborn fetus and killing a viable newborn after a successful birth. The primary reason for abortion is to end the reproductive process (preferably early) and avoid giving birth. This is done for a number of reasons, ability to care for the child, physical or mental health of the mother, pre-term health issues discovered in the fetus, and yes even so called convenience of the mother.

Currently I believe the earliest preterm baby to survive, was delivered at 21 weeks 6 days gestation, the pregnancy was conceived via in-vitro fertilization so they did know the exact date of conception. The age of viability with medical assistance is currently considered 20 weeks.

According to the CDC most recent data from 2008, the majority of abortions in the US occurred during a period less than or equal to 8 weeks gestation, 62.8% of the total, adding in those of less than or equal to 13 weeks gestation shows that 91.4% of the total were performed prior to the second trimester. Of those 14.6% were performed medically ie; non-surgical.

Gestational Age

There is a major difference between a first trimester fetus and a newborn infant. There have been some issues raised regarding fetal pain during an abortion, and although this issue has been used to validate banning all abortions, the research is not firm or conclusive. The research suggesting fetal pain during abortions was based on pre-term infants and their reactions to pain, but the research is controversial as it was performed on infants that had been born and were living outside of the womb and the mother. The majority of research I have found has provided the 20 week age of viability as a guideline in consideration of fetal pain.

I personally am pro-choice, although I myself would not abort a pregnancy I was carrying (unless medically necessary), I have personally known situations where carrying a pregnancy full term would be far to destructive to the mother's life to justify it. Both Ecoptic and Molar pregnancies are in-viable and must be treated early to avoid the death of the woman carrying either type.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


It was so long ago I guess my memory was fuzzy.
The devils advocacy still stands though.
There have been other cases where someone has been charged with double homicide when the woman was pregnant.
My devils advocacy is there to point out the lines are very hazy.

reply to post by Maslo


They are very much self aware. I remember myself. They don't think they are literally mom, or dad, or the puppy. They know they are themselves distinct people. At birth. The lack of info regarding babies is due to the needs of infants, which is to sleep, grow, and process information, especially security related information and how quickly they can get their needs met, comfort, love, and learn. They can't express themselves except with emotion, starting with a cry, then putting everything they can into their emotions of delight and joy, with their smiles, when that phase kicks in, and exuberance and happiness.

Right away, this puts scientific studies at odds with understanding infants.

Who is having abortions as a matter of convenience?

reply to post by LErickson


More than a few young women who can’t be bothered with contraception and or are irresponsible with it. In my country some school drop outs with no prospects think that having a child is a good way to make a living. Off the government/taxpayer, (single parent pension.) When the reality sets in and they change their mind, you guessed it!!

Personally I think as I said above, abortions can be avoided for the most part with a responsible, healthy approach to contraception and sex.

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Playing devils advocate because even the devil needs help sometimes.

What if carrying the baby to term would kill the mother?
It happens all the time.

What if carrying the baby to term would kill the mother and the baby?
This is also possible.

For this argument both situations are discoverable months before term is reached.

There are almost NO cases like that, and that is according to long-time, experienced OB/GYNs. In a few cases, if there is a danger, it's during delivery, and then a c-section eliminates the problem. Plus, as a mother, I would die for any of my kids.

Tests claiming a baby won't make it are also not always reliable. Plus, if that's the case, the pregnancy will fail on its own, so there is no reason to abort. Even women told the child will be "disabled", based on supposed results from amniocentesis, have been lied to. Many women have refused to abort, only to bear a perfectly healthy baby, with NO issues. Many fetal issues are able to be fixed as well.

reply to post by AuranVector


You describe reality much differently than I do.

I agree with Colton's description.

And, the fact that he saw the same PRINCE OF PEACE that Akiane saw and painted as a child who went to Heaven, too is also incredible.

In her case--raised in an atheist family--home schooled with little socialization at all outside of her family, when she started talking about her visits with Heavenly angels and God . . . it was quite a shock to her parents, too.

The congruences between the two life experiences of those two children are more than a little startling and striking.

Your description sounds like so much New Age stuff that I have grown wary and weary of as I think it is not an accurate description and prone to great hazards.

imho.

reply to post by AuranVector


Certainly problem children are a challenge to be adopted. However, even there, Christians have done far more than any other value orientation.

I'm supportive of the poor and some orphanages on my meager income as I feel led to be.

I've had challenges enough taking care of myself giving most of my substance to my overseas students and loved ones. LOL.

I'm not about to adopt at age 65. LOL.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Maslo

 

They are very much self aware. I remember myself. They don't think they are literally mom, or dad, or the puppy. They know they are themselves distinct people. At birth. The lack of info regarding babies is due to the needs of infants, which is to sleep, grow, and process information, especially security related information and how quickly they can get their needs met, comfort, love, and learn. They can't express themselves except with emotion, starting with a cry, then putting everything they can into their emotions of delight and joy, with their smiles, when that phase kicks in, and exuberance and happiness.

Right away, this puts scientific studies at odds with understanding infants.

edit on 2-3-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

I also have full memories from about four months of age on. My long-term memory is excellent. However, I learned long ago that this is not normal. Most people do not remember that far back with clarity. After simultaneously being told that I was accurate but also a liar, as I obviously had to have been attempting to pull one over on my grandmother (according to her), I decided to stop advertising it. My husband remembers practically nothing of his childhood, and I have an extremely difficult time believing that he can't remember much of anything while I remember practically everything.

The writers of the article have slid right on down that slippery slope. The next line and the stepping slightly over it will be right on up the pike. Mark my words. This is nothing more than justification for the devaluing of human life for daring to inconvenience others. People can and will quibble all day long about what human means and what inconvenience means- but it won't change the facts.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

In a few cases, if there is a danger, it's during delivery, and then a c-section eliminates the problem.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
You must never have heard of an ectopic pregnancy and that's just the first on off the top of my head.

There are a host of potential things that can go wrong that can kill both mother and child before delivery.

Good for you willing to die for your child, I'm sure in cases where both the mother and child would die they will be grateful to know you would have done the same thing.

Come back when you have your facts straight.
By facts I don't mean obscure data showing an uber rare complication where both mother and baby lived.
Those are practically miracles or at the very least are due to amazing doctors.

reply to post by Pigraphia


Once you get past the stage where you could more easily abort, like say two months, to me there is a calculated risk, ie. my heart wasn't good and I had chronic fatigue, no thyroid, so weighed up the last pregnancy carefully. Plus 5 boys, but only wanted 1 girl if any. In any case, if things had gotten bad, then getting it to the right stage of preemie might be necessary. But once the pregancy is advanced its 2 lives, not just one. Some decisions have to be individual, case by case, but need to be done with regards to the whole family unit, because other children rely on their parents and mothers, its not just 2, it could be 4 or more lives impacted.

But I knew he was meant to be with us in my heart. So very glad to have thought it through and knew there was really no way I would have terminated that pregnancy matter what. I don't judge anyone, in this issue, however, that things are not done mercifully to the infant, yes.

The early ones are the best compromise.

However, whatever decision is made, the techniques they use must not be inhumane as they currently are.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

There are almost NO cases like that, and that is according to long-time, experienced OB/GYNs. In a few cases, if there is a danger, it's during delivery, and then a c-section eliminates the problem.

Tests claiming a baby won't make it are also not always reliable. Plus, if that's the case, the pregnancy will fail on its own, so there is no reason to abort.

Although your information looks possibly convincing, the above "facts" are incorrect. There are two well known early pregnancy complications that result in an nonviable fetus, and can result in the death of the mother if not treated promptly. The more commonly occurring one is an Ecoptic Pregnancy, this occurs when the fertilized egg implants within the fallopian tube rather than the uterus. The fallopian tube does not have the ability to expand as the uterus does, nor does it provide a nourishing environment for the fetus to continue growing. This is not a situation where if given time it will eventually move, once it has occurred and is diagnosed the fetal cells must be removed promptly (aborted) to prevent the cells from growing sufficiently to rupture the fallopian tube. An Ecoptic pregnancy occurs on average of 20 out of every 1000 pregnancies.

The less common complication is called a Molar pregnancy in this situation the fertilized egg carries two extra genes which corrupt the development, producing what is more accurately termed a benign cyst, or in some cases a malignant tumor, a grouping of cells that will never develop into any form of viable fetus. When this occurs the mother often will experience vaginal bleeding and recurrent passage of pelvic cysts the size of grapes. The mother must be treated quickly to prevent maternal mortality, in some cases even though treatment was prompt, the occurrence of the molar pregnancy resulted in gestational trophoblastic disease if this becomes persistent treatments available are chemotherapy or a hysterectomy. In some rare cases after the removal of the molar cells the mother develops a cancerous form of gestational trophoblastic disease called choriocarcinoma which develops and spreads to other organs

Regarding situations where carrying the baby full term could cause maternal mortality, I'd like to see those specialists convince one of my high school teachers of that. Would never happen, his wife was very happy with the pregnancy of their first child, I talked to her every day as she was the school secretary and it was a small school. Everything appeared to be going fine, but as she went into labor her blood pressure started rising rapidly and they were not able to control her deteriorating condition, she died of what the doctors diagnosed as Toxemia during labor, they were able to save their infant daughter.

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by Pixiefyre

 

It was so long ago I guess my memory was fuzzy.
The devils advocacy still stands though.
There have been other cases where someone has been charged with double homicide when the woman was pregnant.
My devils advocacy is there to point out the lines are very hazy.

Haven't you learned yet? It's only murder if the mom wants the baby to live. If dad wants the baby to live and mom doesn't, it's "abortion". If dad wants the baby dead and mom doesn't it's called "murder". If there is no dad around and mom wants the baby and it's killed it's "murder". If no dad is around and mother doesn't want the baby then it's "abortion".

So to me, the ONLY thing that determines if it's "murder" or "abortion" is if the mom wants the baby or not. Screw dad, and screw baby.

Lets just turn the title of the OP around and finally admit that "abortion is no different than killing babies."
That, I can agree with.

Killing disabled babies..aahh the splendour of utilitarian bio-ethics.Seriously,how diabolical.Every sane person with the tiniest fibre of decency+humanity should speak out against demons in human form,like this creature,In any case,abortion should not even be necessary under normal circumstances-BIRTH CONTROL pills+ injections were invented,remember? Im sure there are clinics where one can get these free,in America? My country is,compared to the US, one step up from a banana republic,but free birth control is available,including condoms.But here,as everywhere else,there will always be those who cannot be bothered-and then find themselves having to use abortion as a way of getting rid of a pregnancy they could easily have avoided in the fist place.There are women who fall pregnant on birth control,but they are the exception,not the rule.

reply to post by gecrazy

If you get raped,report it to the police,and you will receive the "morning-after"pill,i forget the pharmaceutical name,RU-Something or other.You may have to get anti-retroviral treatment anycase,in case the rapist is Hiv-positive.Otherwise,go on the 2 or 3 month injection,in case you are raped,or decide to have sex with some one.Just one day in 2 or 3 months one has to lift one's ass off the couch,or swallow one measly pill a day-and voila! No unwanted pregnancies and blissful happiness all round!

reply to post by milkyway12


Thank you finally someone who can properly say what needs to be said

Originally posted by MollyStewart


More than a few young women who can’t be bothered with contraception and or are irresponsible with it.

Who?
I asked WHO?
Do you not understand "who?"

In my country some school drop outs with no prospects think that having a child is a good way to make a living. Off the government/taxpayer, (single parent pension.) When the reality sets in and they change their mind, you guessed it!!

Cool story bro. I guess I should hate some people I do not know because of what you told me about how they feel and think.
Let me again ask, WHO.
Not these empty anecdotes about some people you know of in some place. Sorry but you cannot back that up and I cannot address it. It is empty all the way around. This is why I asked who. I want a real substantive answer.

Personally I think as I said above, abortions can be avoided for the most part with a responsible, healthy approach to contraception and sex.

Personally I think this is all your opinion and I was interested in facts thus the asking of the question and all.

reply to post by LErickson

Cool story bro. I guess I should hate some people I do not know because of what you told me about how they feel and think. Let me again ask, WHO. Not these empty anecdotes about some people you know of in some place. Sorry but you cannot back that up and I cannot address it. It is empty all the way around. This is why I asked who. I want a real substantive answer.

Please don't call me bro. I am not your brother nor male; thank you. I would have thought my moniker made that somewhat clear. I understand the question "Who?" very well and since you decided to frame the question with aggressive, accusing verbiage I will respond but not in kind.

My sister had an abortion because she slept with someone she did not know and fell pregnant. It was an inconvenience for her, one she regrets to this day. In fact even though it was a proper medical procedure, it affected greatly her chances to have another child later on. With her last child also had as means to partial income,damaged her beyond repair. Her daughter who is 23 has a young baby, she chose to keep her baby which was for some time also used as a stipend, or financial support mechanism although many of those problems have since resolved due to rehab and a partner who is now solidly employed. So whilst none of these things happened directly to me, I have direct knowledge of them by contact with these people and their friends, many of whom are in similar situations. I trust that is somewhat less anectdotal for your sensibilities. I'd rather you did not respond to this post as I believe I have answered your question adequately but if you feel you must, remember these people are members of my family.

Cheers

"21st century barbarianism" describes the ethos of modern "educated" man perfectly.