Lawsuit: Florida Clinic Botched Abortion, Threw Out Live Baby

[Care4all]

What's the difference between what they did and actually going through with the abortion? The baby was the same age either way.

not much....one had its first breath outside the womb.

Abortions really need to be limited...to 12 gestation weeks max imo...

unless for the health of the mother, late term abortions should be banned, starting yesterday! the developing child is sentient at that point, and it is simply inhumane to make the baby to be suffer pain...imo.

I just wish we could all agree to that....

What the hell does pain have to do with it? Why would it be OK to kill this child before 12 weeks but not after birth? It's the same child. Why do you think that at 12 weeks and one day it is suddenly worth keeping alive, but before that it is nothing but a worthless piece of flesh?

The Nazis used arbitrary reasons to select people they felt were inferior to stay alive or be executed. What makes your position any different?

see my answer to jsanders...

 

[Gord]

not much....one had its first breath outside the womb.

Abortions really need to be limited...to 12 gestation weeks max imo...

unless for the health of the mother, late term abortions should be banned, starting yesterday! the developing child is sentient at that point, and it is simply inhumane to make the baby to be suffer pain...imo.

I just wish we could all agree to that....

What the hell does pain have to do with it? Why would it be OK to kill this child before 12 weeks but not after birth? It's the same child. Why do you think that at 12 weeks and one day it is suddenly worth keeping alive, but before that it is nothing but a worthless piece of flesh?

The Nazis used arbitrary reasons to select people they felt were inferior to stay alive or be executed. What makes your position any different?

see my answer to jsanders...

It doesn't answer my questions. But I am not surprised you would run away...

 

[user_name_guest]

not much....one had its first breath outside the womb.

Abortions really need to be limited...to 12 gestation weeks max imo...

unless for the health of the mother, late term abortions should be banned, starting yesterday! the developing child is sentient at that point, and it is simply inhumane to make the baby to be suffer pain...imo.

I just wish we could all agree to that....

Sorry, I see no difference between abortions at 5 weeks and abortions at 23 weeks. We all know that the 5 week old fetus will grow into a 23 week old fetus. I don't see why it is any less human.

it's simply less developed, at least the child to be, has no chance to experience pain...

And most importantly this is the stage where most spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, take place naturally...

it is the least harmful to the mother...

just some of the reasons....might even kill less developing humans...

Why do you object to it? Is this a partisan game of some sort, where it is ALL OR NOTHING....and the cause of at least reducing the number of abortions each year really means nothing to you?

Care

So you are fine with terminating people who are handicapped? I mean they aren't fully developed. You mention less developed. So handicapped individuals are so. Would it be okay if we terminate their life the same we would a 5-week fetus whose less developed than a 23-week one?

 

[Care4all]

What the hell does pain have to do with it? Why would it be OK to kill this child before 12 weeks but not after birth? It's the same child. Why do you think that at 12 weeks and one day it is suddenly worth keeping alive, but before that it is nothing but a worthless piece of flesh?

The Nazis used arbitrary reasons to select people they felt were inferior to stay alive or be executed. What makes your position any different?

see my answer to jsanders...

It doesn't answer my questions. But I am not surprised you would run away...

An embryo does not have the same worth as a baby capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb or a baby that has taken it's first breath....then the baby to be is considered born alive, not still born...as example.

I believe this for various medical and religious reasons.

this does not mean the embryo does not have great worth...because, after all...it is a developing human being....just not the same worth as a baby that has survived the birthing process...or that can survive outside of the womb.

The mother has greater worth than the baby to be, always. If it were between saving the mother to be's life or the embryo's or fetus;s life, the doctors are obligated to save the mother....why would that be if they both were equal? It wouldn't be....so logically, they are not equal, not yet....

but they could be, if all is allowed to naturally reach fruition...and this is why I am against abortion personally....

At the same time, I also understand the need to not have government dictate what women can do with their own bodies and I do not expect everyone out there to have the same religious beliefs as me...but after 10-12 weeks when the baby has transitioned from an embryo to a fetus....fetus is a fully formed human being...where all the organs and limbs are all positioned in the right spots just needs the time to develop them all....it has passed the time period where ones own body would most likely naturally abort the child if something were wrong....i see this as a period that God created...i don't think He thinks of himself as a killer of these embryos that spontaneously abort and i don't think they suffer any or He would not have picked this period in nature for this to occur....

so logically, i have come to accept this period being acceptable, if there has to be a period of time at all, to allow women to abort.

In America, under Common Law, abortions were permitted until quickening....this was when they felt the first kick or the baby kicking.

Women used drugs to abort in early pregnancy.

This was the law in this country in the 1600's thru till the 1820's or so when Connecticut introduced their own separate laws to govern abortions...and as a country, we were much more ethical and religious than we are today so they say...yet this was still permitted up to the point of quickening....

WHY?

Because they too felt that up to the point of quickening, the baby to be did not have as much worth as the mother to be, and also gave the women the right to choose to go through a pregnancy...many if not most women died in pregnancy or their child to be died in delivery, so it was thought of as humane to allow them to abort...these were MARRIED WOMEN who were aborting back then....not single women having sex outside of marriage, though i am sure there were some in that state.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter what they think or what he thinks or what she thinks regarding this subject....it matters what we COLLECTIVELY think and come to common grounds on.

care

 

[Gord]

see my answer to jsanders...

It doesn't answer my questions. But I am not surprised you would run away...

An embryo does not have the same worth as a baby capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb or a baby that has taken it's first breath....then the baby to be is considered born alive, not still born...as example.

I believe this for various medical and religious reasons.

this does not mean the embryo does not have great worth...because, after all...it is a developing human being....just not the same worth as a baby that has survived the birthing process...or that can survive outside of the womb.

The mother has greater worth than the baby to be, always. If it were between saving the mother to be's life or the embryo's or fetus;s life, the doctors are obligated to save the mother....why would that be if they both were equal? It wouldn't be....so logically, they are not equal, not yet....

but they could be, if all is allowed to naturally reach fruition...and this is why I am against abortion personally....

At the same time, I also understand the need to not have government dictate what women can do with their own bodies and I do not expect everyone out there to have the same religious beliefs as me...but after 10-12 weeks when the baby has transitioned from an embryo to a fetus....fetus is a fully formed human being...where all the organs and limbs are all positioned in the right spots just needs the time to develop them all....it has passed the time period where ones own body would most likely naturally abort the child if something were wrong....i see this as a period that God created...i don't think He thinks of himself as a killer of these embryos that spontaneously abort and i don't think they suffer any or He would not have picked this period in nature for this to occur....

so logically, i have come to accept this period being acceptable, if there has to be a period of time at all, to allow women to abort.

In America, under Common Law, abortions were permitted until quickening....this was when they felt the first kick or the baby kicking.

Women used drugs to abort in early pregnancy.

This was the law in this country in the 1600's thru till the 1820's or so when Connecticut introduced their own separate laws to govern abortions...and as a country, we were much more ethical and religious than we are today so they say...yet this was still permitted up to the point of quickening....

WHY?

Because they too felt that up to the point of quickening, the baby to be did not have as much worth as the mother to be, and also gave the women the right to choose to go through a pregnancy...many if not most women died in pregnancy or their child to be died in delivery, so it was thought of as humane to allow them to abort...these were MARRIED WOMEN who were aborting back then....not single women having sex outside of marriage, though i am sure there were some in that state.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter what they think or what he thinks or what she thinks regarding this subject....it matters what we COLLECTIVELY think and come to common grounds on.

care

OK I understand. The Nazis rationalized the right to life too...

 

[Care4all]

Sorry, I see no difference between abortions at 5 weeks and abortions at 23 weeks. We all know that the 5 week old fetus will grow into a 23 week old fetus. I don't see why it is any less human.

it's simply less developed, at least the child to be, has no chance to experience pain...

And most importantly this is the stage where most spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, take place naturally...

it is the least harmful to the mother...

just some of the reasons....might even kill less developing humans...

Why do you object to it? Is this a partisan game of some sort, where it is ALL OR NOTHING....and the cause of at least reducing the number of abortions each year really means nothing to you?

Care

So you are fine with terminating people who are handicapped? I mean they aren't fully developed. You mention less developed. So handicapped individuals are so. Would it be okay if we terminate their life the same we would a 5-week fetus whose less developed than a 23-week one?

If there were a handicapped man in a building that was on fire and he was going to die if i did not help him along with a container of frozen fertilized eggs, I would save the handicapped man first, before rescuing the embryos...if i had the chance, i would go back and rescue the frozen fertilized eggs, but not before rescuing the man that was BORN already and living and breathing, here on earth.

how about you User? what would you do under these circumstances....are the embryos or the frozen fertilized eggs of the same value and worth as the born and living human being? Would you really see them as the same worth as the handicapped man?

Care

 

[Jon]

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter what they think or what he thinks or what she thinks regarding this subject....it matters what we COLLECTIVELY think and come to common grounds on.

Unfortunately, that's not how this issue is being handled. Because of Roe v. Wade, it only matters what the liberals sitting on the Supreme Court think.

 

[Jon]

it is the least harmful to the mother...

I couldn't give two shits. She should have thought about that before having irresponsible intercourse.

 

[DiveCon]

If true, murder is a crime and it always has been.

What's the difference between what they did and actually going through with the abortion? The baby was the same age either way.

not much....one had its first breath outside the womb.

Abortions really need to be limited...to 12 gestation weeks max imo...

unless for the health of the mother, late term abortions should be banned, starting yesterday! the developing child is sentient at that point, and it is simply inhumane to make the baby to be suffer pain...imo.

I just wish we could all agree to that....

i'd agree to that, but that wouldnt mean i would stop seeking to save the life of even earlier children at the same time

 

[Care4all]

It doesn't answer my questions. But I am not surprised you would run away...

An embryo does not have the same worth as a baby capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb or a baby that has taken it's first breath....then the baby to be is considered born alive, not still born...as example.

I believe this for various medical and religious reasons.

this does not mean the embryo does not have great worth...because, after all...it is a developing human being....just not the same worth as a baby that has survived the birthing process...or that can survive outside of the womb.

The mother has greater worth than the baby to be, always. If it were between saving the mother to be's life or the embryo's or fetus;s life, the doctors are obligated to save the mother....why would that be if they both were equal? It wouldn't be....so logically, they are not equal, not yet....

but they could be, if all is allowed to naturally reach fruition...and this is why I am against abortion personally....

At the same time, I also understand the need to not have government dictate what women can do with their own bodies and I do not expect everyone out there to have the same religious beliefs as me...but after 10-12 weeks when the baby has transitioned from an embryo to a fetus....fetus is a fully formed human being...where all the organs and limbs are all positioned in the right spots just needs the time to develop them all....it has passed the time period where ones own body would most likely naturally abort the child if something were wrong....i see this as a period that God created...i don't think He thinks of himself as a killer of these embryos that spontaneously abort and i don't think they suffer any or He would not have picked this period in nature for this to occur....

so logically, i have come to accept this period being acceptable, if there has to be a period of time at all, to allow women to abort.

In America, under Common Law, abortions were permitted until quickening....this was when they felt the first kick or the baby kicking.

Women used drugs to abort in early pregnancy.

This was the law in this country in the 1600's thru till the 1820's or so when Connecticut introduced their own separate laws to govern abortions...and as a country, we were much more ethical and religious than we are today so they say...yet this was still permitted up to the point of quickening....

WHY?

Because they too felt that up to the point of quickening, the baby to be did not have as much worth as the mother to be, and also gave the women the right to choose to go through a pregnancy...many if not most women died in pregnancy or their child to be died in delivery, so it was thought of as humane to allow them to abort...these were MARRIED WOMEN who were aborting back then....not single women having sex outside of marriage, though i am sure there were some in that state.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter what they think or what he thinks or what she thinks regarding this subject....it matters what we COLLECTIVELY think and come to common grounds on.

care

OK I understand. The Nazis rationalized the right to life too...

so you tooooo are an ALL OR NOTHING GUY?

you don't want abortions reduced you just want to win your GAME?

i choose not to be that way and think we need to limit abortions beyond the 10-12 weeks....you can fight that for political purposes if you want....but why you would, is beyond me?

care

 

[DiveCon]

What's the difference between what they did and actually going through with the abortion? The baby was the same age either way.

not much....one had its first breath outside the womb.

Abortions really need to be limited...to 12 gestation weeks max imo...

unless for the health of the mother, late term abortions should be banned, starting yesterday! the developing child is sentient at that point, and it is simply inhumane to make the baby to be suffer pain...imo.

I just wish we could all agree to that....

What the hell does pain have to do with it? Why would it be OK to kill this child before 12 weeks but not after birth? It's the same child. Why do you think that at 12 weeks and one day it is suddenly worth keeping alive, but before that it is nothing but a worthless piece of flesh?

The Nazis used arbitrary reasons to select people they felt were inferior to stay alive or be executed. What makes your position any different?

wouldnt you accept the compromise and save the lives ofd those it would effect, while continuing to work towards saving the rest?

 

[DiveCon]

it's simply less developed, at least the child to be, has no chance to experience pain...

And most importantly this is the stage where most spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, take place naturally...

it is the least harmful to the mother...

just some of the reasons....might even kill less developing humans...

Why do you object to it? Is this a partisan game of some sort, where it is ALL OR NOTHING....and the cause of at least reducing the number of abortions each year really means nothing to you?

Care

So you are fine with terminating people who are handicapped? I mean they aren't fully developed. You mention less developed. So handicapped individuals are so. Would it be okay if we terminate their life the same we would a 5-week fetus whose less developed than a 23-week one?

If there were a handicapped man in a building that was on fire and he was going to die if i did not help him along with a container of frozen fertilized eggs, I would save the handicapped man first, before rescuing the embryos...if i had the chance, i would go back and rescue the frozen fertilized eggs, but not before rescuing the man that was BORN already and living and breathing, here on earth.

how about you User? what would you do under these circumstances....are the embryos or the frozen fertilized eggs of the same value and worth as the born and living human being? Would you really see them as the same worth as the handicapped man?

Care

why not have the man in the wheelchair hold the embryos while you get him out and save both at the same time

 

[Cecilie1200]

This was very tragic if this is truly what happened. But some of this doesn't add up to me. It said the cause of death was extreme prematurity. Does that mean that the baby didn't bleed out? It seems to me like this is a case of another frivilous lawsuit. Why would she name the baby if she went to have an abortion? If the baby's lungs filled with air, wouldn't it be crying? Not trying to spark a debate, it just doesn't seem right to me.

Listing the cause of death as extreme prematurity doesn't necessarily preclude her having bled out from a badly severed umbilical cord. Without reading the entire autopsy report, I don't think anyone can comment much further than that.

Why would you consider the lawsuit frivolous? You don't think they committed malpractice in several respects? You don't think this young woman was horribly traumatized by all this?

As for why she named the baby, the article said why. "She came face to face with a human being, and everything changed", or words to that effect. The girl saw a real, living baby come out of her, and even though the child died, she still felt compelled to attach a name to her.

Who ever said the baby WASN'T crying? And no, she wouldn't necessarily have cried. Not all newborns do right out of the birth canal, and inside a plastic bag, she wouldn't have cried long.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Stupid people do stupid shit kit.

Carefor, In the case of Abotion providers it isn't the AMA its NARAL and the abortion rights advocates that rise to the defense of the butchers. During my ten years in exile in Alabama, they had an abotionist in Alabama who was almost literally killing two for the price of one and when the state tried to put the butcher out of business for gross incompetence you'd have thought they were trying to end any and all abortions the way the proabortion crowd carried on.

Doeton then why beg for something that would not have mattered a bit to this case? The same doc that screwed up this abortion was as readily available 3 months ago as now.

More available in many states, which won't allow abortions that late without pressing medical reasons.

 

[Care4all]

she either took her first breath or she did not...if this little girl took her first breath, then she was born alive. If the baby did not take her first breath, then i don't know what you would call her...she wasn't stillborn?

 

[Care4all]

So you are fine with terminating people who are handicapped? I mean they aren't fully developed. You mention less developed. So handicapped individuals are so. Would it be okay if we terminate their life the same we would a 5-week fetus whose less developed than a 23-week one?

If there were a handicapped man in a building that was on fire and he was going to die if i did not help him along with a container of frozen fertilized eggs, I would save the handicapped man first, before rescuing the embryos...if i had the chance, i would go back and rescue the frozen fertilized eggs, but not before rescuing the man that was BORN already and living and breathing, here on earth.

how about you User? what would you do under these circumstances....are the embryos or the frozen fertilized eggs of the same value and worth as the born and living human being? Would you really see them as the same worth as the handicapped man?

Care

why not have the man in the wheelchair hold the embryos while you get him out and save both at the same time

 

[DiveCon]

If there were a handicapped man in a building that was on fire and he was going to die if i did not help him along with a container of frozen fertilized eggs, I would save the handicapped man first, before rescuing the embryos...if i had the chance, i would go back and rescue the frozen fertilized eggs, but not before rescuing the man that was BORN already and living and breathing, here on earth.

how about you User? what would you do under these circumstances....are the embryos or the frozen fertilized eggs of the same value and worth as the born and living human being? Would you really see them as the same worth as the handicapped man?

Care

why not have the man in the wheelchair hold the embryos while you get him out and save both at the same time

i dont believe in the no win situation


i always freaked out the lifeboat folks

 

[Gord]

not much....one had its first breath outside the womb.

Abortions really need to be limited...to 12 gestation weeks max imo...

unless for the health of the mother, late term abortions should be banned, starting yesterday! the developing child is sentient at that point, and it is simply inhumane to make the baby to be suffer pain...imo.

I just wish we could all agree to that....

What the hell does pain have to do with it? Why would it be OK to kill this child before 12 weeks but not after birth? It's the same child. Why do you think that at 12 weeks and one day it is suddenly worth keeping alive, but before that it is nothing but a worthless piece of flesh?

The Nazis used arbitrary reasons to select people they felt were inferior to stay alive or be executed. What makes your position any different?

wouldnt you accept the compromise and save the lives ofd those it would effect, while continuing to work towards saving the rest?

Sure, begrudgingly. I was simply talking about rationalizing how one sees life.

 

[Gord]

An embryo does not have the same worth as a baby capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb or a baby that has taken it's first breath....then the baby to be is considered born alive, not still born...as example.

I believe this for various medical and religious reasons.

this does not mean the embryo does not have great worth...because, after all...it is a developing human being....just not the same worth as a baby that has survived the birthing process...or that can survive outside of the womb.

The mother has greater worth than the baby to be, always. If it were between saving the mother to be's life or the embryo's or fetus;s life, the doctors are obligated to save the mother....why would that be if they both were equal? It wouldn't be....so logically, they are not equal, not yet....

but they could be, if all is allowed to naturally reach fruition...and this is why I am against abortion personally....

At the same time, I also understand the need to not have government dictate what women can do with their own bodies and I do not expect everyone out there to have the same religious beliefs as me...but after 10-12 weeks when the baby has transitioned from an embryo to a fetus....fetus is a fully formed human being...where all the organs and limbs are all positioned in the right spots just needs the time to develop them all....it has passed the time period where ones own body would most likely naturally abort the child if something were wrong....i see this as a period that God created...i don't think He thinks of himself as a killer of these embryos that spontaneously abort and i don't think they suffer any or He would not have picked this period in nature for this to occur....

so logically, i have come to accept this period being acceptable, if there has to be a period of time at all, to allow women to abort.

In America, under Common Law, abortions were permitted until quickening....this was when they felt the first kick or the baby kicking.

Women used drugs to abort in early pregnancy.

This was the law in this country in the 1600's thru till the 1820's or so when Connecticut introduced their own separate laws to govern abortions...and as a country, we were much more ethical and religious than we are today so they say...yet this was still permitted up to the point of quickening....

WHY?

Because they too felt that up to the point of quickening, the baby to be did not have as much worth as the mother to be, and also gave the women the right to choose to go through a pregnancy...many if not most women died in pregnancy or their child to be died in delivery, so it was thought of as humane to allow them to abort...these were MARRIED WOMEN who were aborting back then....not single women having sex outside of marriage, though i am sure there were some in that state.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter what they think or what he thinks or what she thinks regarding this subject....it matters what we COLLECTIVELY think and come to common grounds on.

care

OK I understand. The Nazis rationalized the right to life too...

so you tooooo are an ALL OR NOTHING GUY?

you don't want abortions reduced you just want to win your GAME?

i choose not to be that way and think we need to limit abortions beyond the 10-12 weeks....you can fight that for political purposes if you want....but why you would, is beyond me?

care

I would accept any compromise that would enhance the chance of life. But I would never rationalize that any compromise is a satisfactory goal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If there were a handicapped man in a building that was on fire and he was going to die if i did not help him along with a container of frozen fertilized eggs, I would save the handicapped man first, before rescuing the embryos...if i had the chance, i would go back and rescue the frozen fertilized eggs, but not before rescuing the man that was BORN already and living and breathing, here on earth.

how about you User? what would you do under these circumstances....are the embryos or the frozen fertilized eggs of the same value and worth as the born and living human being? Would you really see them as the same worth as the handicapped man?

People are always saying this as though they think it makes some sort of point about the acceptability of abortion, something like, "Aha! If you would save the handicapped man, it MUST mean that it's okay to kill unborn babies!" Sorry, but this triumphant burning building story doesn't make that point at all.

As Ramesh Ponuru says, think about another hypothetical situation. You're in a burning building. You can either rescue a research scientists who is making great strides toward the cure for Alzheimer's disease, or rescue a heroin-addicted 58-year-old man who has spent his life in and out of prison. Which one do you save?

Let's say you save the scientist. Are you therefore saying that it's permissible to kill hopeless old drug addicts? Are you saying that such people do not have the same right not to be killed as a research scientist?

Neither hypothetical question asks you to contemplate actively killing anyone. The moral question posed by burning-buiding stories is the extent to which you can show favoritism without be unjust. To put it another way, in affirming that all human beings have an equal right not to be killed, we need not affirm that all human beings have equal claims on us in all respects.