Warning: Link contains photos of the aborted fetus. This is happening at an abortion clinic in Orlando. I do not know the veracity of the woman’s claims, but if they are true, did the staff have an obligation under the Hippocratic Oath to try and save the baby, especially if, as the woman claims, she asked for help?
Personally, I support a woman’s right to choose, but I would hope she would explore other options, such as putting a baby up for adoption, before abortion. If, however, she chooses abortion, I will not stand in her way.
In this particular instance, if the baby was born alive, I don’t understand why the abortion clinic staff wouldn’t try to save the baby, since it seems the mother asked them to. I’m waiting for more information to come out, but I pose the question:
If a baby is born alive at an abortion clinic, does the staff have an obligation to try and save it if the mother asks them to? If she doesn’t, do they still have an obligation? Do they have the right, if the baby is born alive, to actively kill the baby or just let it die on its own?
Something is fishy about this story; my Spidey Sense is tingling. Sounds like someone trolling for lawsuit money.
Also, what exactly is World Net Daily? I know they say they’re an independent new media concern, but some of the headlines I saw at their site looked a little National Enquirer-esque.
WND is a conservative leaning website. Some of their stuff is a bit :rolleyes:, like how Harry Potter is leading children toward witchcraft, but my local radio station is also reporting this story, and the doctor of the clinic is vehemently denying any wrongdoing.
I’m also waiting for more information. This may just turn out to be a Finger in Wendy’s Chili story, where a woman regretted having an abortion once she saw the fetus.
This whole thing seems so weird. For one thing, 22 weeks is the extreme outside limit of viability for a premature baby, and I do mean extreme – this site says that only 1% of babies born at 22 weeks survive. Considering the circumstances of this birth, i.e. not in a hospital with a NICU, I’d say the fetus had a very very very extremely very incredibly very small chance of surviving even if immediate action had been taken.
Which is not to say that the staff wouldn’t have had a responsibility to take action anyway. It just seems to add to the overall fishiness of the story to me.
Not a chance. Not a fucking chance in hell, zero, zip, zilch, nada. Admittedly, I don’t know squat about this, but I’d bet everything…my money, my house, my favorite testicle…that this nothing more than a made up rumor designed to advance the notion that abortion providers are front offices for Satanism 'R Us.
Amend that. It need not be maliciously concocted, merely a mistaken apprehension quickly and uncritically believed by such persons who are so inclined anyway.
Okay, then, we’ll sit back and wait for more information. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this wasn’t a woman who regretted her decision and is trying to transfer her guilt elsewhere.
There’s so many holes in this story that I don’t know where to begin. First off, a therapist would never have recommended an abortion to a woman who had named the fetus and obviously personified it and referred to it as “a baby.” I doubt that the screeners at an abortion clinic (they do ask you questions before the procedure, though it is not as thorough as an actual therapy session) would have let the woman have an abortion when she was so obviously not ready.
Second, abortion clinics are professional medical establishments. They would not have forgotten (or as the article infers, maliciously refused) to inject the digoxin–to induce labor in a medical abortion without stopping the heart is illegal (because of the risk of the fetus being expelled alive). And, on the very outside chance the fetus was born alive, they would not have waited three minutes to give the woman aid. Abortion clinics are bound by the same code of medical ethics that other hospitals are, the providers are real doctors and nurses and waiting around when someone tells them to call 911 would mean an immediate suspension of their license. Providers are required to provide for the health of the woman at all stages of the procedure; she could have been calling to the nurses for reasons entirely unrelated to the moving fetus (such as bleeding), and it wouldn’t look too good for a clinic to lose a patient because they “wanted to let the fetus die.”
And also, every single pro-choice person (I’m trying to think of a counter-example, but I don’t think there’s anyone who doesn’t believe this) believes that when a moving fetus is out of the body, it is to be considered a live baby and thus all measures should be taken to save it. If true, this story would be as horrific to pro-choicers as pro-lifers, a medical clinic defying the ethical code to further their own agenda. So again, you’ve got the article inferring that the only people who could possibly think this is terrible are pro-lifers. Not great journalism. And I can’t find any non-slanted articles on any of the major news sites about this; in fact, I can’t find any other articles about it at all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a total fabrication, but if it is true I think the woman is just seeing what she wants to see (the fetus moving), and drawing out the time between the expulsion of the fetus and the nurses coming to her side. I suppose thirty seconds can seem like three minutes if you’re hysterical enough.
In addition to doubting the credibility of the paper, I found some of the testimony of the mother weird.
*"Angele explained that she researched the various second-trimester abortion methods to determine which would be best in her situation.
“Although ‘labor and delivery’ is most difficult on the mother,” she explained, “it seemed to be the best choice for my son. And it would allow the opportunity for my son to be born whole, stillborn, and I could hold him and grieve him and have him cremated.”
Angele says she named her baby ahead of time and made a lot of plans because, she said, “I wanted him to go from my tummy to heaven in the most dignified way possible.” *
Or there is no woman. She’s just made up by psycho Pro-lifers, who didn’t pass high school biology, as way to plant a story. Not every abortion ends with regret.
I agree with the other replies. The first thing I did was try to verify this via Google, but no major news outlets referenced the story. The only ones that did were pro-life sites, making me wonder. Now I for one am against abortion, simple as that. It’s baby killing. But I also resent someone pro or con abortion resorting to rumor and sensationalism to garner my support. I hope for the baby’s sake that this is a false story. And if it is, shame and poo-poo on the one(s) responsible. :mad:
Having cared for many premies over the years I can say with some confidence that the fetus in the pictures was not born alive. In the second picture, you can see massive discoloration across the abdomen. Also, the cord has been cut without being tied, but isn’t blood stained, indicating its heart wasn’t beating. It likely died in utero and was beginning to decompose. Also, the eyes and mouth are still fused, I doubt if it had a gestational age of 22 weeks. (The mother could have carried it for 22 weeks, but it was not developing normally, IMO)
Also, in the mother’s narative, she describes it as pale… that early, they are ruddy, sometimes even purplish, with skin so thin, they look vaguely peeled.
I realize this is likely some sort of hoax, but there was a question here as well, and the answer is yes, under federal law, there is an obligation to save the baby under these circumstances.
Well, I’m not totally pro-choice, but I’m on the fence on this, as I am about the whole abortion issue. To me, there’s nothing special about being outside of a womb that makes you any more alive and conscious than when you were inside.
I don’t see a big difference between an abortion at 22 weeks and simply killing a fetus outside of the womb at that stage, just like I don’t see a big difference between an abortion at 9 months (like that happens a lot) and killing a baby once it’s been born. The question for me is at what time in the developing life’s, err, life, should one draw the line. I don’t know the answer to that one.
This alone makes me suspicious. Bush is rabidly anti-choice (see the current article about the Florida DCF denying a girl an abortion) and not above manipulating the media like the whore he is (see just about any article about Schiavo).
All of this poses the question that no doubt has been posed before. When do you determine that a being is an individual person. I mean is it so hard to agree that an embryo/fetus that has, at conception begun to take on an independent development. I mean at conception, the course of nature takes over therefore to me that makes it an individual. And simply because the mother has her own designs on the way things should be does not change the fact that the fetus is destined to become a person. But being a creationist and not an evolutionist, I feel we have a higher accountability that believing i evolved from an amimal. For what it’s worth.