Can Anyone Defend Leaving Baby's Who Survive Abortion to Die?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
September 3, 2008 9:26am CST
There has been a lot of talk about this issue lately. Usually the discussions grind down to either support or opposition to Barack Obama. I want to take him out of the mix and just focus on the issue itself.
All the arguments defending elective abortion center around either the "viability" of the fetus, or the fact that the fetus is inside the mother.
However, none of those arguments are valid for a neonate who is alive outside the mother.
So, the question becomes, what is the difference between leaving a baby who survived the abortion to die and leaving any other neonate to die?
1 person likes this
8 responses
@foxyfire33 (10005)
• United States
10 Sep 08
There isn't a difference depending on the means of "leaving it to die". The instances mentioned here about the linen closet were definitely sick and disturbing. If the baby was "left to die" by being swaddled in a blanket and held gently by any caring human being until it's last breath because medical intervention would only be cruel -that I feel is good and acceptable.
I have a thought and if it's too off topic or whatever I understand...People keep talking about a late term abortion because the mother's life is at risk as being justifiable. Why does the baby need to be automatically killed to save the mother? Is there no other way to deliver the baby early and attempt to preserve it's life. Have people never heard of c-sections and NICUs? I never understood what was meant by that excuse.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 08
"leaving to die" means that the baby is born alive. Which means that medical professionals should give an "abortion survivor" the same medical treatment they would for a baby born alive from any other procedure.
As far as the question about the life of the mother, most of us who are against elective abortions acknowledge that there are medical reasons why doctors might have to kill the baby to save the mother. We don't want laws banning it, even though we also realize it's a sad situation.
There are times when the fetus has been saved when the mother is dying, and if a doctor, paramedic or nurse can, their protocols should allow them to try.
@foxyfire33 (10005)
• United States
10 Sep 08
I guess I still don't understand the medical condition that would require a late term abortion rather than a premature delivery. Either way the child has to come out so I don't get why it has to be killed or allowed to die first. Maybe that's the easier method but it can't be the only way to deal with the mother's health issue.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 08
Many of the situations that used to kill mothers during childbirth can now be done with C-sections or meds that slow the birth process, but sometimes the mother is bleeding out too fast to be able to save them both. A lot of times it has to do with the mother not calling the ambulance when the symptoms begin, so by the time the ambulance gets there and gets her to the hospital, it is too late to save both.
As I've said in other comments, medical triage protocols for two or more patients in life threatening situations call for saving the one with the best chance of survival.
It's a tough decision to have to make, and one I'm glad I was never confronted with when I was a paramedic.
@Ravenladyj (22902)
• United States
5 Sep 08
Whoa hold on a sec...there is a practice of letting already born preemies to die?? Could you explain exactly what you are talking about just so i know cause in all honesty I'm baffled at the moment...
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 Sep 08
Here is a video of Jill Stanek RN on O'Reilly describing the monsters who would do this sickening act of inhumanity.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/09/stanek_on_the_o.html
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
6 Sep 08
Jill stanek is not a valid source. Sorry. That would be like me siting queer out loud as a valid source for gay discrimination or Al sharpton for examples of black discrimination. Why pick the most extreme to prove your point.
No, I do not agree with a fetus being pulled from the womb, crying and bleeding and left to die, but it sounds like propoganda. Give me a valid source and then I will get angry.
@coolseeds (3919)
• United States
10 Sep 08
If it is breathing outside of the womb why not give it a chance? It seems really cold not to try to help it. What kind of person would let a baby die because it is their job. That is kind of sick if you ask me. Someone who could do such a thing should have a mental evaluation and should not be working with people.
@maximax8 (31046)
• United Kingdom
5 Sep 08
I found out at 36 weeks pregnancy that my baby has spina bifida. In the morning I was offered an abortion and I found that shocking. In the afternoon I looked round the special care baby unit and saw tiny premature babies. My son was born at home then he went to intensive baby care for three weeks. He had two operations and now he is a happy little 15 month old boy.
A lady told me that her baby was born in a hospital in Germany and she was getting something for her baby. She heard a baby crying and a nurse told her to leave the baby alone. This upset the lady and she was told that the baby was disabled and was being left to die. That was one of the most horrific things I have heard.
If I was a nurse I couldn't stand by and see a baby suffer. I have seen tiny babies getting help to survive and I think they will be grateful when they are grown up. There is no difference in leaving a baby that survived abortion to die to leaving a wanted new born baby to die. Both would be very wrong. Personally I don't agree with abortion but I respect other people's ideas. Once born a mother should realize she has a live baby and the abortion didn't work.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 Sep 08
That wasn't a nurse, that was a monster with a nursing degree, working with "doctors" that would have been just as happy working in Auschwitz or Dachau.
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
8 Sep 08
According to nurse Stanek's testimony before congress one baby was suppose to have been a spina bifida baby. But after the abortion was done the baby came out a perfect little being. So the doctors are not always right.
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
6 Sep 08
You know I wouldn't be surprised to see,in the near future,A case where a woman goes in for an abortion, finds out that the baby survived, that the abortionist kept the baby alive and sues him for malpractice. I'll bet that the ACLU is looking for this woman right now. They did it in the Scopes trail, Roe v Wade,and to get get sodomy legalized in Texas. It's so much easier to get laws changed this way than thru that whole Legislative Process thingy.
Sorry I didn't answer your exact question but I really can't justify stopping an innocent heartbeat at all. I'll leave that to the experts.
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
9 Sep 08
I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which a woman can go in for an abortion, and leave without knowing the 'survival status' of the fetus. It's not exactly like it's something one can keep secret--she's THERE when it happens, after all!
It just doesn't seem practically possible.
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
9 Sep 08
Nobody (of consequence) is against giving live-saving treatment to 'abortion survivors'. Nobody. Including Obama.
Just making that clear. The bill Obama opposed, he opposed for two reasons (which he has clearly delineated):
1. There was an already-existing bill that already covered giving life-saving treatment to the 'demographic' the new bill 'addressed'. At best, the bill is redundant and superfluous.
2. The bill contained language that would outlaw abortion entirely, making it unconstitutional.
This is a non-issue.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Sep 08
But that was only one of the two reasons he gave for voting against it. I'll grant you that that reason is legitimate, but the other reason was a bold faced lie.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 08
Now that that's out of the way, were you interested in actually answering the question I asked, or is defending Obama (which wasn't what I ask) all you have?
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
9 Sep 08
What part of 'there already existed (and exists) legislation that mandates life-saving treatment of such children and so at best the new bill was redundant and superfluous' don't YOU understand?
@venshida (4836)
• United States
6 Sep 08
I could not do it. The only difference I think of is seeing the baby would be more reason for someone to want to save it. When its in the womb, some people might not view it as living breathing human being but being able to see it changes the equation.
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
8 Sep 08
These days they have the technology to make three D photos of the baby while still in the womb. I have seen the pictures. There is no doubt in my mind .... that is a baby in there.