Welcome to the boards, madinventor. If you want, since you can’t search, I can (or someone else can) provide you with links to other discussions we’ve had on this matter.
I’m going to wait for more information on this. It seems to me that there may be some anti-choice folk who are rabidly trying to depict abortion providers as cold-blooded killers, and I have serious doubts about this particular situation.
They might believe an intact fetus alive, outside of the womb, is a baby, but in fact not everyone agrees that all measures should be taken to save it.
In fact, there have been court cases fought where parents who gave birth to premature infants wanted to withold medical treatment and sued the hospital for not complying with their wishes. These weren’t parents who wanted to abort; these were parents whose children were born early due to pre-term labor. I guess these cases were filed before the 2002 law, when there was still ambiguity about a parents’ right to withold treatment from a premature infant.
What? (I couldn’t the link in the OP to work). What the HELL? She’s referring to her son and how she wants him to go to Heaven, she’s named him…so why is she even having an abortion? Would any reputable clinic even allow this woman to have an abortion? Maybe she was a plant or something?
Under the circumstances assuming that the baby was born alive a 22 weeker is not worth the effort. If the lips are still sealed you are going to have to do some cutting just to try and establish an airway to lungs that have had no real chance to develop assuming the rest of the airway is even open.
I used to work with NICU ambulance teams. Even if that baby was a c-section with an RT and NICU nurses standing there I’d bet my next paycheck it wouldn’t have lasted more than another couple minutes. In a clinic without the proper equipment…don’t even bother.
Something is so totally wrong here. There are 1) many abortion clinics that won’t even perform abortions that far into the second trimester [2nd trimester abortions account for about 8.5% of abortions, and even then most are not this far along in the second trimester), and 2) none that I know of (I used to be tangentially involved with the field) that would perform one on a woman who expresses any doubt whatever this is what she wants. When you combine 1 with 2 the odds become astronomical.
It’s not like abortionists have to drum up customers: the customers are there. Between 30 and 50%, depending on which poll you choose, of all American women of childbearing age will have an abortion during their lifetime- we all know far more people than we realize who have had the procedure. There’s not a clinic out there that can’t afford to turn away a patient whose mental preparedness is in doubt (not to mention the litigation risk of such a patient).
The people I’ve known who worked in abortion clinics will tell you that a tiny fraction of 1% of the women who come to them express any doubt in the least. (Most common customers in the southern clnics I have knowledge of: teenaged and early twenty something unmarried white women; far rarer but the most adamant “this-is-what-I-want” demographic: women old enough to be grandmothers [early 40s to early 50s], who often did not think they were still capable of getting pregnant.) I’m with the poster above who offered to put up all they have or can get in a bet that this story is at very least highly exaggerated.
Whether or not the abortion clinic could have or should have done anything to save a fetus in such an instance is up for debate. However, actively killing a fetus that is completely extracted from the female body goes against virtually the entire reasoning behind Roe v. Wade, and I cannot see how it wouldn’t fall under the murder statutes of every state in the union.
I find it interesting how vehemently people are rejecting the possibility of this. It’s obvious why, but it is interesting. On extremely liberal boards like this people hold things like abortion up as a holy grail. Any possible tainting of said holy grail is met with extremely fanatical and passionate dismissal.
An abortion clinic is just like any other medical practice. Stuff gets messed up, sometimes real bad. It’s pretty far fetched that professional surgeons have amputated the wrong limbs before, but it happens. It’s pretty unbelievable that someone who spends years training to be an anaesthesiologist will give anaesthetics to someone without even asking if they are allergic to the particular chemical, but it happens, and there’s also cases of anaethesiologists that have left the room while a machine is pumping chemicals into a person “forget” about it and come back to find they’ve killed the individual.
Medical professionals mess up very very badly sometimes. Sure, it’s an extreme minority, but you’d be shocked at the degree of incompetence you could find in any field if you look long enough.
So while it is certainly true an abortion clinic that is operating correctly wouldn’t even perform an abortion on a woman like this, it doesn’t mean it could not happen or that it would even be that shocking if it did.
I’m not a medical professional, but that was my guess when I saw the massively discolored abdomen. I also noted that there is no text claiming that those photos are photos of the fetus/child described in the story.
Martin Hyde, it’s not just that the unlikelihood of an abortion clinic functioning in this way that makes the story suspiscious: WorldNetDaily as a news source is at best suspect, especially since the story appeared there first.
Right, and Martin Hyde, I’m sure in your world, anyone to the left of John Birch is Satan Incarnate, but even the staunchest pro-choice person (like myself)would find this particular abortion (if true; BIG if) situation disgraceful. I certainly would, if it were true.
FWIW, I think only ivylass brought up that option.
The only info on the audio was that the allegation we’re discussing here had been made.
And I concur with the worthlessness of WorldNutDaily as a source.
More from the Orlando Sentinel story:
Looks like Jeb’s doing some more pro-life showboating. First Schiavo, now this.
If I had to guess what was happening here, I’d guess that the baby was not born alive and was not, in fact, moving, though the mother really thought it was at the time. If Terri Schiavo’s parents taught us anything, it’s how strong denial can be in emotionally-charged situations.
I have seen no reason for this thread to degenerate into ad hominem attacks. Just address the issues (such as they are).
Regarding the veracity of the story, I note that “Harry Perper, M.D” (who figures prominently in “Angele’s” story) does not appear in the Orlando Yellow Pages (nor does any doctor named Perper). I do not know whether Florida has a registry of MDs available to the public on the internet.
Abortion doctors often find it in their interest not to be featured too prominently.
I’m not saying this story is true or untrue. In fact if I had to put money down I’d lean towards untrue (but wouldn’t be surprised either way.)
I just found it interesting people were so quick to dismiss it as “absolutely impossible.”
Well here’s the thing. Firstly I think anyone that wants to argue about abortion needs to actually read the Roe v. Wade decision and the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision (this second decision is a “redefinition” of RvW and is essential in understanding abortion post 1989.)
The only reason the court finds abortion acceptable is because they do not feel the unborn life’s right to life supercedes that of the mothers. But the court openly says that unborn life does have certain rights, and the State does have a right to protect those rights. Particularly after viability, when a State was given the power to procure abortion if said state so chose.
Basically RvW is a rights weighing decisions. The court pretty openly accepts the rights of both the mother and the unborn. They just say that up until the unborn reaches viability (27 months in RvW, revised to as early as 22 months in Casey), the State has no right to be involved in the decision to abort.
However once the baby is outside the mother then the mother has no right to terminate it’s life. The only reason the mother ever had a right to terminate a fetus is because it was growing in side of her and the court felt that women in that situation had a right to do what they wish with their bodies up until a certain point. When the fetus is outside the woman’s body she has no compelling interest that would give her the right to abort the fetus.
Women don’t have a right to abort fetuses because they don’t want to be saddled with the responsibility of a child, they have the right to abort because the fetus cannot exist outside of her and she has certain right’s inside her body. Those rights however are “no longer compelling” when the two parties can be separated without anyone dying.
The AMA’s Doctor Finder (available at www.ama-assn.org) lists an OB/GYN by that name in Boca Raton.
Cool. You can still abort the kid until he’s a year old!
I’d just like to point out that you’re the only person in this thread to have used the word impossible so far.
This though, is a good point.
Boca Raton? hmmmm? I wonder how many times a week he makes a 6 hour round-trip drive to Orlando? (Not impossible, but it does make me curious about either the logistics of his service or the names selected for the WND story.)