Only if they have a valid photo ID.
I thought they already were.
Indeed–how otherwise was Kermit the Killer convicted of murder?
Yes. All morality is cultural beliefs. That’s why morals vary by culture.
If the fetus is not viable, it should be given comfort care. If it is, it should be sent to the NICU. Whether the mother should be notified of this is something I’ll leave to people who know more about this stuff than I do; my guess is that she would want the baby adopted.
I’ve heard stories about doctors who drowned babies that survived abortion procedures, and would DEFINITELY not advocate that. :eek:
This was how we ended up with Kermit Gosnell. :mad:
I never found myself in a situation where I might have considered an abortion, but I got pilloried on another website for saying that if I had, I would have wanted it done in a hospital, not a storefront clinic. :rolleyes: One person said, “You do know that it would cost 10 times as much, don’t you?” and I replied, “Yes, and I would have been willing to pay it for the extra safety factor.”
I’ve also been criticized for stating that pre-abortion sonograms are often a good idea. No, I don’t think they should be mandatory, but if there is ANY doubt about the age of the pregnancy, it should be done for the safety of the mother.
This is nonsense. Even the OECD states that comparisons between many countries cannot be made. Many countries do not count a birth as a “live birth” if the infant is under a certain weight, length, or is only alive for a few minutes. The US counts a birth as a “live birth” if any sign of life is detected…regardless of prematurity (one heartbeat, one breath, etc.).
I would never condone cannibalism, human sacrifice, or rape. But I can’t get too worked up over a lil pillaging.
Our infant mortality is worse than Canada, the E.U., Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and Japan, among other places. Likewise our life expectancy. Does this all stem from different definitions? If so, why do we define public health terms differently than the rest of the first world?
That said, “It’s my body!” totally fails as an argument for a woman’s right to choose, once the baby’s not in her body.
See below…
I have no idea how often this happens. I’m guessing not very often. But this is why procedures might be altered, so as to provide a higher probability of an abortion, and a lower probability of a birth. The patient came in for one, and not the other.
Pretty much never, given how rare late term abortions how and that they are performed either to save the woman or because the fetus is nonviable.
That could in fact be one of the ideas behind these laws; when the nonviable fetus dies they can then accuse the doctor and mother of murder.
What act does the Born Alive Infant Protection Act prohibit that is not covered by existing statute on murder?
We don’t do it differently from the rest of the world. Each country has its own guidelines on what is cosidered an infant mortality case and what is not. We follow the WHO definition of “live birth”. Some countries may not report very premature babies as a live birth, while others don’t count severely malformed babies that die shortly after birth to be a live birth. Some countries don’t count babies that don’t live more than 24 hours, etc.
If you look at the WHO Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality report you’ll see the US is not in the range of 3rd world countries as many would have you belive
None, but it does provide another club for battering women who choose to be used as breeders.
A solution in search of a problem, I believe.
Thanks for your answers. I knew about the Gosnell case, but hadn’t considered that when I read the OP. I had thought only of “regular” abortions performed in an hospital.
Again, why? The pregnancy ends, whether or not the fetus survives, doesn’t it? So, the patient got what she wanted in any case. Why would one want to make sure that the fetus can’t possibly survives the procedure?
Because she’d have to pay for it, and probably the resulting baby will die horribly anyway given the typical reasons for a late term pregnancy. Making sure it survives just so it can die a slower, more painful death is disgusting.
She wouldn’t necessecarily have to pay for it. She could abandon the kid. And we’re talking about a surviving baby. I’m not sure why it should be treated differently from any other premature baby.
Parents of very premature babies are often offered the option of not providing care.