After birth" abortions now being considered

[Supreme American]

A 'blob of flesh' needs cells who split and work to keep the 'blob' alive and growing, a working bloodstream achieved by a beating heart to provide and distribute the needed energy and a central nervous system which operates and controls all of these processes. Every single point is given in unborn babies even in embryonal phase!

That's what we call 'life'.

And?

[PetiteParisienne]

If it's not a joke, it's an absolute atrocity. I will say, however, that this happens to newborns with severe defects if they are not terminated in utero. Anencephaly is an example. Hard-line pro-life people will often decide to let their child die a hideous death shortly after birth rather than end the pregnancy when the defect is detected.

[Sikeliot]

Given that the article is no longer there, it must not have been real. Abortion should only be allowed up to a certain point into a pregnancy (first 3 months?) after which it is ONLY acceptable if the mother's health is in danger, in my opinion.

[Susi]

It's late term that's the core of this discussion. Indeed, it's FULL-TERM!

You're taking it out of context, you replied to Lagergeld here:

That isn't true, especially early term. It's basically a blob of flesh.

She was referring to early term. You took it the wrong way.

[rhiannon]

What if the mother's health is at risk?

Because you know, a woman killing her full-term, fully healthy baby wouldn't cause any psychological distress for the average mother..

If the mother's health were at risk, this would likely be known prior to delivery, hence reducing the need to kill a child as it's being born. This is what happens in partial birth abortions.

I mean, obviously, the baby has to come out, at this juncture, with mom's health in danger, you want to get the baby out quick as possible....so they could do a csection and have staff present to attend to the baby as soon as it was out.

There is no reason to actively kill a baby past the age of viability....and this whole idea of letting a baby just lay there and die? Well, anencephalic babies will obviously die shortly after birth, and it's really only in these extreme circumstances I could see the logic in allowing nature to just take its course. Even then, however, most parents would at least want to hold their baby until it passed.

[jerney]

If the mother's health were at risk, this would likely be known prior to delivery, hence reducing the need to kill a child as it's being born. This is what happens in partial birth abortions.

I mean, obviously, the baby has to come out, at this juncture, with mom's health in danger, you want to get the baby out quick as possible....so they could do a csection and have staff present to attend to the baby as soon as it was out.

There is no reason to actively kill a baby past the age of viability....and this whole idea of letting a baby just lay there and die? Well, anencephalic babies will obviously die shortly after birth, and it's really only in these extreme circumstances I could see the logic in allowing nature to just take its course. Even then, however, most parents would at least want to hold their baby until it passed.

I just misunderstood what you meant. I assumed you meant prior to birth/prior to viability of the fetus

[rhiannon]

I just misunderstood what you meant. I assumed you meant prior to birth/prior to viability of the fetus

I cannot support any abortion which occurs at the age of viability and after. At this point, what happens to the fetus is tantamount to murder, IMO. I understand if the woman cannot carry to term...for whatever reason....and that these women may be forced with the possibility of inducing early delivery. But actually aborting and KILLING a child that has past the point at which it can survive outside the womb? That's just plain despicable.

If a woman has to deliver early due to health threats or some horrible fetal malformation....then deliver the child and if the kid is gonna die anyway....hold your baby until it passes. If the child has a chance for survival....then there'd better be all steps taken to help that baby survive a birth it shouldn't have had to undergo so soon.

No more of these awful horror stories about abortion docs killing babies that may have had a chance at life. I think most mothers would be sickened at that prospect as well.

I also have very mixed feelings about abortions performed any time after about 15 weeks, but realize that certain tests are not generally done until early in the 2nd trimester such that a termination decision may have to be made.

[Leliana]

And?

And? And give it some reflection and thought please. You and me share similar views on miscellaneous important topics and I can't comprehend why the mass murder of millions of mostly White and Western children doesn't bother you.

[jerney]

I cannot support any abortion which occurs at the age of viability and after. At this point, what happens to the fetus is tantamount to murder, IMO. I understand if the woman cannot carry to term...for whatever reason....and that these women may be forced with the possibility of inducing early delivery. But actually aborting and KILLING a child that has past the point at which it can survive outside the womb? That's just plain despicable.

I agree if the child is fully healthy, but if it has some medical problem and won't survive for very long after birth I think the mother has the right to choose if she wants to terminate through abortion or deliver the baby and then watch it die. I know of a case where a girl found out her baby had some medical condition that meant it would only survive a day or two after birth, but this particular condition could only be detected around 25 weeks or so. When she found out around the 6 month mark, she wanted to terminate the pregnancy rather than be forced to go through an entire pregnancy knowing it would result in a dead baby in the end, but in the end she had to deliver the baby because her state outlawed abortions at 24 weeks I believe. My point is, in these situations I think the decision should only be in the hands of the mother.

No more of these awful horror stories about abortion docs killing babies that may have had a chance at life. I think most mothers would be sickened at that prospect as well.

I think late-term abortions are awful unless done for medical reasons, but it's always seemed hypocritical to me that certain laws allow late-term abortions on fully healthy babies, but if they make it through the abortion and are killed after it's considered murder. I don't understand the logic there. It's done with the same mindset and same intent, but for some reason it is only 'acceptable' or allowable to some people while the fetus is still in-utero? In the end of the day it's the same thing whether performed inside or outside the womb.

It reminds me of some article I read where a woman decided to abort her fully healthy baby around 22 or 23 weeks. They gave her some drug which was supposed to end the pregnancy and then she was left in a room to deliver the baby. The drug didn't kill the fetus right away, so it was born alive and the woman begins wailing about her baby being alive and asking for help from the workers at the clinic. They didn't help her or call an ambulance like she asked and the fetus ended up dying 10 minutes later. She then writes in the article what awful people these workers were for not "helping" her baby when it was born alive, and how they didn't help her "save" her baby, etc. I'm sorry, but this woman was sick enough to make an informed decision to abort a perfectly healthy baby that could have been "compatible" with life within a weeks time so I feel no sympathy for her. She decided to kill her child and then acts like a victim when her wishes are carried out? She's no better than the abortion workers imo.

[rhiannon]

And? And give it some reflection and thought please. You and me share similar views on miscellaneous important topics and I can't comprehend why the mass murder of millions of mostly White and Western children doesn't bother you.

Leliana....do your views change if the child is not white? That is, do you have your views on abortion based on principle, or based on circumstance....that being the child in question is white?

I had the impression that your views were based on principle, but your post here gives me pause.