Any answers?
Yes, parents. Presumably grieving. A woman who has just aborted her pregnancy* isn’t a parent in the same sense.
- Please note, I am about the most hardline defender of her right to do so you will find.
Yes, this, if that’s what the mom wants. And in addition, the mother should immediately be made aware of whatever Safe Haven Laws exist in her state so that she can, if she chooses not to have input, give custody of the infant to the state and a court appointed medical guardian will make the decisions about health care from that point on. It can be done in just a few minutes with a judge on speed dial.
Excellent question. I can’t see any except to inflate the “problem” in the public perception. In reality, it just hardly ever really almost never happens. But bringing this forward as a bill makes people think it happens frequently, and the purpose of that is to foment anti-abortion sentiment in the public.
Exactly. The proper thing to do is to gently explain that the fetus was born and is alive, and let’s talk about what we can do next. Mom can ask them to put in a breathing tube, or not. If they’re old enough that they’re breathing on their own, then it’s time for the Safe Haven Laws discussion.
Basically, treat it as you would a premature birth, because that’s what it is. Sometimes it’s appropriate to withhold medical care from a micropreemie, but it’s never appropriate to withhold comfort care.
So, in answer to the OP, I would not oppose such a measure in any state where Safe Haven Laws exist which would protect the parents from assuming financial and custodial responsibilities for this infant, like any other. I think it’s a stupid, needless law, but I don’t have a functional problem with it.
Possibly. But I guess it doesn’t apply to all prematures. Rather the subset of them who have a low expectation of survival.
I don’t see why it should be different in this case.
I think it is essentially those with no expectation of long-term survival. As with other terminal patients, they can ethically be allowed to succumb to the inevitable (with comfort care as appropriate).
A living infant, having emerged from an aborted pregnancy, is no longer subordinate to the personhood and bodily integrity of the woman. It is a born person; they are separate patients. If the infant has, like Gianna Jessen, any reasonable hope of survival, it is certainly not ethical to withhold care, even at the express request of the biological mother. Her choice for her body–which, again, I most vigorously uphold–was to end the pregnancy, to remove from herself the potentiality of parenthood. That being done, the matter is frankly not her business any more.
The medical ethics of the NICU are…complicated. It’s pretty much all considered on a case by case basis, and disabilities and quality of life are definitely taken into account, not just mere survival. Mine was born at 23 weeks and I was reassured several times that if we wanted to remove “extraordinary measures” like her ventilator, that would be okay. In my case, I needed to hear that because I was wary of allowing invasive procedures if it meant they were going to prolong her suffering should something go wrong. No, I was told, we can stop any time. We didn’t need to, but it was an option gently and compassionately talked about for several weeks, until it looked as though she was out of danger of severe lifelong disabilities. But every NICU is going to be different.
I think if I got that choice as my daughter’s mother, it should be extended to the mother of an accidental birthed baby. But again, if she doesn’t want anything to do with it, we have mechanisms in place for that already, and she should be informed of that.
I don’t think so. She came in with the clear intent of not taking any responsibility for a baby. So, I believe she shouldn’t be given any say in its care (unless she changes her mind at this point and decides to recognize it), since there’s zero reason to assume she would act in its best interest.
I think we’re essentially saying the same thing, only our default assumption is on opposite sides.
I’m saying she should be responsible, unless she doesn’t want to be responsible.
You’re saying she shouldn’t be responsible, unless she wants to be responsible.
So it’s such a minute difference, I really don’t care to belabor the point. The upshot is that if she wants input, she should get it. If she doesn’t, she shouldn’t.
To punish the woman. That’s always the point of “pro-life” legislation.
It’s a lot easier on the patient, medically. The fetus, once dead, can be removed piecewise, without having to be expelled whole and intact. Also, the patient would have to pay for the process, the life-support, the supplies and hours of care, all given to the newborn. Once the baby is born, yes, the mother can legally abandon all responsibility, but she would remain liable for all the costs of the birth. An abortion is a lot cheaper.
I think this is a backdoor way to try to restrict abortion and I’m totally against it. It doesn’t matter what the status of the fetus is, the abortion procedure is to eliminate it as an object of concern. You might as well remove erasers from pencils. Plus, if this were the law, they’ll just switch to more invasive and possibly dangerous ways of aborting the fetus, risking the mother. I’d rather they take it out safely and then dispose of it, maybe in something like a panini press then toss the remains in a blender
Let’s hope this is some form of sarcasm.
It is not. When I say I have absolutely no attachment to a lump of cells that a fetus is, and that the cutoff point between that and a baby is birth (specifically, the severing of the umbilical cord), I mean it.
Of course, this leads to an absurd thought-experiment: how long would the umbilical cord last if not severed? I presume it would simply drop off eventually of its own, but…how long? A couple days maybe?
This is the danger of defining a “bright line.” Sometimes, the lines are fuzzy and unresolved. This is why the trimester compromises in the original Roe v. Wade made sense: it broadened the issue into three large zones of discussion, with gradually changing rules and spheres of public interest.
I’m confused. Isn’t the subject under discussion late abortions in which an infant is born alive and may be able to survive if she receives medical attention and support? So why are we talking about a “lump of cells”?
If that is what you mean–what if the mother doesn’t get around to having an abortion at all for whatever reason? Can’t she just wait until the child is born and kill her before the umbilical cord is cut?
'Bout two to ten days.
Google lotus birth if you want to know more. But maybe wait until after dinner.
But in this particular scenario, we’re no longer talking about a “lump of cells”, but an actual, born alive infant. (Pretty much the equivalent of a premie)
Ugh.
I think people are using disgust as a substitute for actual reasoning. To me, a fetus remains so until the mother voluntarily gives birth to it and makes the decision to grant it life outside her body. I’m in favor of legalized abortions for any reason up until birth, so if the mother wants to do what you said above, I have absolutely no problems with it. To me, fetuses are blank slates, not people, and practically interchangeable. So whatever point the mother wants to get rid of one is fine. Now that doesn’t mean that in reality, this is going to be the pro-lifer’s nightmare and mothers are going to be popping out viable babies left and right and stomping on them. Therefore, I’m fine with it being legal for the rare cases where such a later term abortion is needed
This viewpoint is silly and disgusting. Using the umbilical cord’s cutoff as the standard is about as arbitrary as one can get considering there is no substantial mental or physical difference between a fetus in the womb at nine months and one that has been given birth just after. Regardless of when you think personhood occurs, it should be objective and not be based on the subjective whims of the mother when it comes to the question of when the fetus deserves the protection due a person under the law.
I agree, however I’d say the same for the “life begins at conception” claim.