Post-Birth Abortion

[Liability]

Oh emmie, stop.

There is no fine academic distinction involved in defending a post-birth abortion.

A child born alive is a human being. Killing it after it is born alive is therefore murder.

Opposition to any law that would call this kind of murder "murder" and make it illegal is sick.

I expect a base line of honesty as to the premises for any discussion. And I expect no less from you, even if you disappoint on this occasion.

Debates such as this in bioethics are designed to push the boundaries and make people think beyond the obvious. These people were not advocating murder, as they described they were taking a particular premise to its logical conclusion. Bioethics is a fascinating field, and the issues it raises more often than not will set you back on your heels --- which, in my opinion, it's designed to do. Medical and nursing ethics have guided and enhanced my practice for nearly 30 years. Discussing and debating these issues aren't inherently evil or 'sick'.

Playing the trained seal, Amy applauds ^ a silly meaningless post.

 

[Emma]

Nonsense.

Voting on a bill (or just verbalizing one's "position" on it) about a prohibition against post-birth 'abortion" is not an ethics discussion.

ANY position that allows for the murder of a human being, especially a helpless newborn infant, absolutely is evil.

Voting on a bill?

I'm talking about a published debate between bioethicists on a specific premise put forth 40 years ago by Tooley regarding 'personhood'. I know you know the difference between what they did and actually advocating for murder.

I can't help it if you are attempting to discuss a subject I haven't discussed and then argue against what you imagine I might say on your topic.

Again, the President -- before he got elected -- OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act.

THAT is the only topic I have been discussing.

I didn't realize you weren't discussing the article in the professional journal, as laid out in the OP. Carry on.

 

[Liability]

Voting on a bill?

I'm talking about a published debate between bioethicists on a specific premise put forth 40 years ago by Tooley regarding 'personhood'. I know you know the difference between what they did and actually advocating for murder.

I can't help it if you are attempting to discuss a subject I haven't discussed and then argue against what you imagine I might say on your topic.

Again, the President -- before he got elected -- OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act.

THAT is the only topic I have been discussing.

I didn't realize you weren't discussing the topic of the thread, as laid out in the OP. Carry on.

Yes. The actual words I used in the few posts I offered didn't provide you with ANY hint that I was addressing just one part of the general topic.

 

[whitehall]

According to the confused minds or liberals one way to reduce crime is to legalize it. Too many arrests for marijuana possession? Legalize the stuff and the problem goes away. The homosexual pedophile organization NAMBLA has been lobbying the democrat party to legalize consensual sex between men and underage boys. Why not make it legal for mothers to kill their own children under the age of one year or five years or the legal age of 18? Without laws there is no crime. The concept is simple and elegant in a psychotic way.

 

[Emma]

I can't help it if you are attempting to discuss a subject I haven't discussed and then argue against what you imagine I might say on your topic.

Again, the President -- before he got elected -- OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act.

THAT is the only topic I have been discussing.

I didn't realize you weren't discussing the topic of the thread, as laid out in the OP. Carry on.

Yes. The actual words I used in the few posts I offered didn't provide you with ANY hint that I was addressing just one part of the general topic.

Actually no. I didn't read through the whole thread, but saw that post and knowing your (educational) background, was rather surprised. I should have realized that here, as on most threads at USMB, the discussion had veered away from the discussion of the article published in the journal to trying to score political points off both sides. So it's my fault for not reading every post up to the point I responded to you. Mea culpa. I wasn't concerned with the political, rather my interest is in the bioethical issues it raised, again from a medical and nursing perspective.

 

[Liability]

I didn't realize you weren't discussing the topic of the thread, as laid out in the OP. Carry on.

Yes. The actual words I used in the few posts I offered didn't provide you with ANY hint that I was addressing just one part of the general topic.

Actually no. I didn't read through the whole thread, but saw that post and knowing your (educational) background, was rather surprised. I should have realized that here, as on most threads at USMB, the discussion had veered away from the discussion of the article published in the journal to trying to score political points off both sides. So it's my fault for not reading every post up to the point I responded to you. Mea culpa. I wasn't concerned with the political, rather my interest is in the bioethical issues it raised, again from a medical and nursing perspective.

The degree to which the conversation veered off isn't all that far, actually.

In the OP, the "ethics' debate was focused on the scenario that SOMETIMES it might be ethically permissible to kill a child who survived an abortion attempt. The circumstances where it was suggested that it MIGHT be ethically/morally appropriate? The same ones that would have justified an abortion in the first place.

You might consider that a valid "TOPIC for debate."

I do not.

 

[Emma]

Yes. The actual words I used in the few posts I offered didn't provide you with ANY hint that I was addressing just one part of the general topic.

Actually no. I didn't read through the whole thread, but saw that post and knowing your (educational) background, was rather surprised. I should have realized that here, as on most threads at USMB, the discussion had veered away from the discussion of the article published in the journal to trying to score political points off both sides. So it's my fault for not reading every post up to the point I responded to you. Mea culpa. I wasn't concerned with the political, rather my interest is in the bioethical issues it raised, again from a medical and nursing perspective.

The degree to which the conversation veered off isn't all that far, actually.

In the OP, the "ethics' debate was focused on the scenario that SOMETIMES it might be ethically permissible to kill a child who survived an abortion attempt. The circumstances where it was suggested that it MIGHT be ethically/morally appropriate? The same ones that would have justified an abortion in the first place.

You might consider that a valid "TOPIC for debate."

I do not.

As a topic of debate on the ethics of that premise? Absolutely. In practice? No.

 

[beagle9]

Oh emmie, stop.

There is no fine academic distinction involved in defending a post-birth abortion.

A child born alive is a human being. Killing it after it is born alive is therefore murder.

Opposition to any law that would call this kind of murder "murder" and make it illegal is sick.

I expect a base line of honesty as to the premises for any discussion. And I expect no less from you, even if you disappoint on this occasion.

Debates such as this in bioethics are designed to push the boundaries and make people think beyond the obvious. These people were not advocating murder, as they described they were taking a particular premise to its logical conclusion. Bioethics is a fascinating field, and the issues it raises more often than not will set you back on your heels --- which, in my opinion, it's designed to do. Medical and nursing ethics have guided and enhanced my practice for nearly 30 years. Discussing and debating these issues aren't inherently evil or 'sick'.

This may be the path that Hitlers scientist were on also, where as they probably had all sorts of excuses for this kind of rational or type thinking as well.

 

[Liability]

Actually no. I didn't read through the whole thread, but saw that post and knowing your (educational) background, was rather surprised. I should have realized that here, as on most threads at USMB, the discussion had veered away from the discussion of the article published in the journal to trying to score political points off both sides. So it's my fault for not reading every post up to the point I responded to you. Mea culpa. I wasn't concerned with the political, rather my interest is in the bioethical issues it raised, again from a medical and nursing perspective.

The degree to which the conversation veered off isn't all that far, actually.

In the OP, the "ethics' debate was focused on the scenario that SOMETIMES it might be ethically permissible to kill a child who survived an abortion attempt. The circumstances where it was suggested that it MIGHT be ethically/morally appropriate? The same ones that would have justified an abortion in the first place.

You might consider that a valid "TOPIC for debate."

I do not.

As a topic of debate on the ethics of that premise? Absolutely. In practice? No.

If the conclusion is rejected before the debate, then there's no point in the debate.

It is not even a valid topic for an ethics debate.

 

[Unkotare]

The Catholic church charities do much in the way of helping children (and others), try doing a little research. To state that the church 'doesn't give a shit once they're born they only care about the fetus not the woman' is retarded and wrong. For cryin' out loud.

I ain't seen many Catholics going around adopting babies - have you? I have seen a lot of them picketing abortion clinics, though. Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.

You haven't "seen?"

Holy shit. What a stupid and fully dishonest post.

Are you one of the "geniuses" who can tell the religion of a person just by looking?

Sorry to have to be so blunt, but let's call you what you are. And what you are is a dishonest hack.

You are being far too kind in your assessment.

 

[CausingPAIN]

I don't always agree with those who advocate slaughtering infants,

but when I do: It's Obama!​

To feed my conservative hunger to save taxpayer dollars I say exterminate anything in the oven if you don't break the plane you don't get points. Thank you for being a contestant hopefully better luck next time.

As an abortion cost $1000 and we get to save $250-$375,000 in long-term cost to the taxpayer
I apologize that my conservative pocketbook wants to cut down on expenses
Conservatively speaking

I recognize that you are a vile sick-shit rodent of a "human being."

But thanks all the same for putting into words the way so many of you mentally ill libs think.

Please continue verbalizing (as coherently as you are able -- limited though that may be in your case) the "thinking" that places a dollar value on human life, you depraved diseased evil motherfucker.

I humbly apologize I sometimes speak frankly on subjects. As pro life bitches about taxpayer dollars being used for abortions. And that abortions are provided every day at some financial cost their appears to be a value set on a cell. As I consider a cell to be life as well a cat. When it comes to humans still debating that. On top of that human skill humans for all sorts of reasons. Basically I am comfortable with the two that did the deed, and the woman having access to medical to guide her with what's best to do. Also giving a woman basically the last call because I respect them as equal no gray areas.

As for my calculation rant on saving taxpayer dollars its basically accurate. adjust it to today's valuations the last time I did research on these numbers.


tech chair Monday use for abortion

 

[CausingPAIN]

I don't always agree with those who advocate slaughtering infants,

but when I do: It's Obama!​

To feed my conservative hunger to save taxpayer dollars I say exterminate anything in the oven if you don't break the plane you don't get points. Thank you for being a contestant hopefully better luck next time.

As an abortion cost $1000 and we get to save $250-$375,000 in long-term cost to the taxpayer
I apologize that my conservative pocketbook wants to cut down on expenses
Conservatively speaking

I recognize that you are a vile sick-shit rodent of a "human being."

But thanks all the same for putting into words the way so many of you mentally ill libs think.

Please continue verbalizing (as coherently as you are able -- limited though that may be in your case) the "thinking" that places a dollar value on human life, you depraved diseased evil motherfucker.

That hurt!

Just learning

 

[Noomi]

The Catholic church charities do much in the way of helping children (and others), try doing a little research. To state that the church 'doesn't give a shit once they're born they only care about the fetus not the woman' is retarded and wrong. For cryin' out loud.

I ain't seen many Catholics going around adopting babies - have you? I have seen a lot of them picketing abortion clinics, though. Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.

This is, hands-down, the stupidest frigging thing I've ever heard you say . . . and believe me, that's a high bar to clear.

Maybe you "haven't seen a lot of" stuff because your head's so far up your ass.

How many babies have you adopted, Cecile? You care about babies so much, put your money where your mouth is. But, like most pro lifers, you won't.

 

[Noomi]

Wow. You must have been REALLY popular with the boys when you were a teenager, given your level of gullibility and willingness to believe any damned-fool thing you're told.

Look up "cephalocentesis", then fuck off and die.

It's actually kinda funny, watching liberals attempt to cloak their evil in "science", given how pitifully uneducated you people are. Apparently, having your government treat you like a helpless, ignorant child has actually turned you into a helpless, ignorant child.

There is still a risk of heavy bleeding with a C section. The fluid is drained from the head and the fetal head is delivered last. Fetus is born is breech position.

You don't know much about this stuff, do you? But conservatives never do...

What in the bloody hell are you babbling about?! Who said anything about a Caesarian section? And what does draining the excess fluid from the skull have to do with breech births, neither of which have fuck-all to do with C-sections?

Seriously, whatever drugs you're doing, you need to taper off of a bit.

The thread is about partial birth abortion. If you knew anything about the subject, you would have KNOWN why I brought up the subject of C sections.

FFS.

 

[The Professor]

Do you even know WHY a woman might need a partial birth abortion? I guess not, because you sound completely ignorant on the subject.

And also, partial birth abortion is illegal in the US, so why the fuck you lifers keep bringing it up is beyond me.

I note with interest that, while you loftily pronounced the poster "completely ignorant" as to "why a woman might need a partial birth abortion", you did not yourself demonstrate that YOU know.

And also, you're not in the US, so why the fuck you foreigners think it's any of your business WHAT we talk about is beyond me. When we want your advice on what our political discussions should and should not be about - or on anything other than how to be a member of a government-owned herd of ignorant sheep, about which you seem to be an expert - we'll "baaaah" at you.

Look up hydrocephalus and STFU. Fetal head can get so large it can't be born naturally. A c section is required, the cut of which must be deeper, and there is a risk of bleeding, even death. Partial birth abortion eliminates that risk.

While a fetus with moderate to sever hydrocephalus can require a C section, let's put things in perspective. Only 1 or 2 babies in a 1,000 develop hydrocephalus.

The Stats

Fetal Hydrocephalus

If you are simply defending that small group of women whose fetuses have been diagnosed with hydrocephalus, you make a legitimate argument. However, if you are using them to justify the partial birth procedure for ALL woman I believe your argument fails.

The one thing I find to be despicable, inhumane and criminal is when a child who is born alive is set aside and allowed to die. I know this is accepted by some people, and their arguments are not totally devoid of logic; however, I find the act to be morally repulsive. I couldn't care less about the rights of the mother in this situation. If that makes me insensitive to women's rights, so be it.

 

[Noomi]

I note with interest that, while you loftily pronounced the poster "completely ignorant" as to "why a woman might need a partial birth abortion", you did not yourself demonstrate that YOU know.

And also, you're not in the US, so why the fuck you foreigners think it's any of your business WHAT we talk about is beyond me. When we want your advice on what our political discussions should and should not be about - or on anything other than how to be a member of a government-owned herd of ignorant sheep, about which you seem to be an expert - we'll "baaaah" at you.

Look up hydrocephalus and STFU. Fetal head can get so large it can't be born naturally. A c section is required, the cut of which must be deeper, and there is a risk of bleeding, even death. Partial birth abortion eliminates that risk.

While a fetus with moderate to sever hydrocephalus can require a C section, let's put things in perspective. Only 1 or 2 babies in a 1,000 develop hydrocephalus.

The Stats

Fetal Hydrocephalus

If you are simply defending that small group of women whose fetuses have been diagnosed with hydrocephalus, you make a legitimate argument. However, if you are using them to justify the partial birth procedure for ALL woman I believe your argument fails.

The one thing I find to be despicable, inhumane and criminal is when a child who is born alive is set aside and allowed to die. I know this is accepted by some people, and their arguments are not totally devoid of logic; however, I find the act to be morally repulsive. I couldn't care less about the rights of the mother in this situation. If that makes me insensitive to women's rights, so be it.

At least you accept that hydrocephalus exists.

I make no excuses for those women who do not have a good medical reason to abort, but I refuse to judge and condemn a woman who chooses a late term abortion. It is her choice, and not my business.

On the issue of fetuses being born and set aside to die, this is a crime, last I checked. Just because the abortion fails does not give any doctor the right to merely allow the fetus to die. It MUST be saved, and if a healthy fetus was dumped aside to die, then the people responsible should have their balls in a vice.

 

[Saigon]

Professor, Liability -

Questioned about United Kingdom government policy on the issue in Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique and is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity."[30]

Intact dilation and extraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Unkotare]

I ain't seen many Catholics going around adopting babies - have you? I have seen a lot of them picketing abortion clinics, though. Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.

This is, hands-down, the stupidest frigging thing I've ever heard you say . . . and believe me, that's a high bar to clear.

Maybe you "haven't seen a lot of" stuff because your head's so far up your ass.

How many babies have you adopted, Cecile?

You're an illogical dim-wit.

 

[Unkotare]

On the issue of fetuses being born and set aside to die, this is a crime, last I checked.

You didn't check.

 

[Noomi]

On the issue of fetuses being born and set aside to die, this is a crime, last I checked.

You didn't check.

I did check. And it should be illegal, if it isn't, then something is seriously wrong.