http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

i'm pretty sure that all doctors that perform abortions have done this at least twice. don't sweat it.


alternatively, if you don't want to sweat it, you could choose to understand that this article has literally nothing to do with the abortion procedure, beyond the fact that a doctor didn't do what was asked of him, which happened to be an abortion procedure.


nice thread title, though.

23 weeks is pretty ridiculously late term, isn't it? this has to have been illegal.

Renelique received his medical training at the State University of Haiti.

Guess that's how they do it in Haiti?

afaik, not even all third trimester abortion procedures are illegal everywhere--just in some states.

I still feel that this girl deserves whatever angst she's undoubtedly going through. If there is a line to be drawn for the time scale on abortions, she crossed it.

outside cases of rape, i pretty much think that should apply to all cases of anything, abortion included--if you make a decision and aren't willing to address the consequences of that decision, be it having an abortion or creating a horribly misleading thread title, then you're not being a responsible person, plain and simple.

that statement doesn't have any bearing on the legality of various procedures, however.

I think this is horrible...


wow.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. If she gets there two hours earlier, and has the abortion and the baby is burned with saline, scraped out in 3 or 4 pieces, put in a biohazard bag and thrown away everything is fine. It happens this way and now people are going to be prosecuted. Don't guess I understand.

Or even if the baby comes out alive and is set in a soiled linen closet to die and is then put in a biohazard bag and thrown away, that should be fine. Heck president Obama has even said as much.

Really don't understand why this is causing such an uproar.

medical saline is salt water with salt concentration designed to best match that within the human body. it doesn't burn.

medical saline is salt water with salt concentration designed to best match that within the human body. it doesn't burn.


so right i said twice, albeit by accident.

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I have had saline IVs and have contactlens solution. Whatever is used to burn babies to death during abortions is what I was talking about. Whatever they use does ****ing burn. I have seen pictures, and there are scarred survivors.

Legalized abortion is one of the biggest disgraces that the human race has ever come to somewhat "accept".
Anyone who thinks abortion should be legal is a total heartless piece of trash who has no regard for human life.

we're not a race, we're a species. we seem to be constantly evolving. "accept," like most terms, doesn't mean anything, so it evolves too.



Sources?

Any woman responding in this thread yet??

Well, I'm a woman and I believe in FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!!!!!!

Here in Wisconsin a mother who is just 21 and has 5 kids already, let her 2 month old baby starve to death. Whats more humane?? Or inhumane??

I have no idea if abortion was even an option to her. But I'd rather see someone like that NOT have a child (she should be spade to be honest) than to have one and torture it for 2 months.


I dont however think abortion should be a form of birth control. I am against that. We should have better sex education courses in middle school and high school....

so at what age would you recommend we stop allowing women to kill their babies? 2 years is too long but six months is fine, we got that much. seven months ok? is it ok to kill it as long as it's still inside the mother? outside but below eight months? I'm a bit confused.

it's got to be in that there bible somewhere. keep looking.


i'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but an important point to make is that people that are pro choice are never, ever (outside of legit lunatics) for the idea of abortion as such. personally, i would never advise someone directly that an abortion was the best course of action for them, but i don't think myself (quite) arrogant enough to presume that i knew enough about the world and life to be confident in making that decision for everyone, always and forever.

not sure what the bible has to do with killing a person. I thought you were a science guy anyways? what's your opinion?



so I mean, it was a living baby, and you said you were ok with this situation, so at what point is it ok to kill a baby?

i happen to think that i'm no more or less alive than a rock, since the word "alive" is a bit, well, silly to me, but i'm well aware that that's not a majority opinion.




i never said i was "ok with this situation," but rather that it had nothing to do with abortion procedures or the abortion debate at all beyond whatever sort of synapse misfirings happened within the woman's head who cut the cord and threw the baby out like it was garbage, and i don't tend to take associations made by those sorts of people into account when i'm analyzing an issue.

the long and short of it is that this story has NOTHING to do with abortion as it's meant in contemporary political debate, except that the mother in question wanted to have one, an abortion clinic and doctor made a horrific error (though not altogether different in kind from the more horrible malpractice cases out there), and that abortion is a hot button issue that the writer of that article wanted to use to make her story more exciting.

i'd suggest that the whole article speaks more to shoddy journalistic practice than the case it's describing speaks to the abortion debate. unfortunately, the OP didn't notice that as well.

well by "don't sweat it" I assumed you meant that it wasn't a big deal to you, forgive me for my misunderstanding. but the article does have quite a bit to do with abortion procedures. it seems that the abortion was perfectly legal and acceptable as long as the baby was still inside the mother, but when it came out it was some horrible mistake to kill it. what changed in those couple minutes? that's the main point. is a baby not human until it actually leaves the mother's body?

also, ignoring the facts presented in the article with the guise of it being poorly written seems a bit silly to me.

Like this is the first time something like has ever happened with an abortion procedure. Of course it has happened before. It has everything to do with the abortion debate becuase it happened in the act of aborting the pregnancy.

I should just point out that I am rabidly pro choice, think that abortions should be legal, subsidized, and encouraged. lets face it, the vast, vast majority of babies being aborted would end up being worthless drains on society just like their parents. I really don't know why I was trying to be argumentative.


it still does seem weird to me, though, for people to use the "life starts at this point" argument to rationalize the legality of abortion. like, full lung function is a human, but without, just a fetus!

1. I don't think it would've happened like this at most clinics..and I don't think this is a situation that really paralells the average abortion situation.

2. Abortions will happen regardless of whether they're legal or not...and only the wealthiest will have medically-assisted ones if they're all made illegal.

3. "Freedom of Choice" is an absolute strawman and really insignificant argument to the ethical/moral debate on abortion, imo...ending life (whether you consider it a baby or not) cannot come down to some sort of implied 14th amendment right, nor does the power to end life or the exclusive responsibility to support life for 9 months give anyone some sort of moral supercedence to end life on a mere "choice".

no worries re: misunderstanding. i actually care about shit a lot less than i seem to most often.

as to the specifics of abortion, it all comes back to that arrogance thing i mentioned before, imo. i simply don't know enough about biology, sustainability of various stages of fetal development, medical procedures, or anything like that to assume that i could really offer anything that ought to materialize in public policy. personally, as i said, i would never advise anyone to get an abortion and would probably even offer to adopt the kid of someone close to me before advising her to have an abortion, but that doesn't change the fact that i don't think myself knowledgeable enough about everything involved to be able to EVER feel like i could make that final decision for someone else, or even to offer my opinion on the matter when it's not asked of me. all that i really know about abortion is that it's an unfathomably difficult decision, and i'd probably deserve to burn in some sort of hell if i ever tried to make that decision more difficult or more stressful for someone else. it strikes me far too often that the people who tend to be the most vehement in their stance with regard to abortion (that is, on either side) generally know nearly nothing about how various medical abortion procedures are undertaken, what sorts of medical aids are necessary for fetuses in various stages of development in order for them to "survive," etc.

in general, i don't think that the public is well-served by people who don't know shit about something taking strong stances with regard to issues surrounding that something. whether it's ted stevens talking about the internet as a series of tubes, a fundamentalist zealot carrying a sign with a picture of a fetus on it, or a chick in dreads with a joint hanging out of her mouth yelling "keep your laws off my body!" without really understanding why she's saying it, it speaks to an anti-intellectual current that runs ugly and deep throughout america today, which is really the only thing i tend to care about in any sort of profound way these days. bad journalists, simplistic thinkers, political pundits, etc.--these are really the only things that piss me off anymore, beyond gutterballs spiking the river for 20BB pots.





and donkslayer--that's all well and good, but unless you're willing to offer up a definition of life that we can all agree upon, #3 as you've formulated it doesn't really amount to anything.

I ate a fetus for dinner last night. Fckn tasty with onions and a red wine reduction. Don't sweat the abortions, people. It's an alternative food source.

I suppose at it's core, abortion as a tactic is well meaning.

Just load 'em into catapults and fire them over a wall at your enemy...

oh god not this again.

If you want to outlaw abortion, then you are telling all women over the age of 13 that if they get pregnant they are automatically locked in to carrying that baby to term no matter how much of a hardship that might be (and since we have basically 50 guys and one lady in this forum regularly it is silly to think that we can honestly understand those hardships).

some people think hey too bad/tough crap. you had sex now you have a fetus inside you and the potential life of that fetus is so important that it justifies telling you what to do with your body for nine months.

Both options are lousy.....and since I dont ever have to worry about getting pregnant I am going to go with whatever women want on this one. It is their bodies and they have more maternal instincts than me anyways. And the majority of women in this country (though not a large majority) want abortion to be legal in all states. I normally have no time for the Gloria Steinhams of the world but on this one I agree with the maxim that "if men got pregnant, abortion would be a constitutional right".

That's pretty spineless even for you.

after about an hour of careful thought and consideration (read: 20 seconds of actual thought, 59 minutes and 40 seconds of jamming hardcore to the hold steady), I have come to realize that abortion is actually a wonderful free market mechanism to control populations. laizzes faire at its finest. discuss THAT bitches.

Or dice em up and put em in ceviche. Either way we all win.

I'm buying some limes after work...

Come on, no one has "the" definition of life. I personally assign ranges, and hold to task others that have some sort of self-serving relativism when they try to define life or their own ranges.

My range of intrinsic value tends to be rock<lowest forms of animated life<seeds<human zygote<higher forms of animals<inviable human fetus<viable fetus<malicious murdering human<just-born baby<relatively innocent human.

That's just mine, but I would challenge someone who has liberal tendencies to justify having a bigger moral/ethical problem with eating domesticated animals than aborting a fetus that could be viable if delivered at the time.

I agree with you totally here, none of us should presume we know enough to end a human life. Remember there are no rebuys, an abortion ends the only shot at life that person had.




Could you explain what you find "horrific" about this. Are you saying this was horrific because it happened in a location a few feet different from where it was planned?

no it shows respect for women.

I am sure we can add them to the list of people you dont respect (along with gays, blacks, immigrants, and Shawn Marion).

I cant say when life starts and I have no idea how much of a hardship pregnancy is. So, I defer to people with a more vested interest in the problem.

Have fun in Phoenix with LMD

The baby?? I agree with everything you said except your conclusion. Life trumps Choice.

Sure. The UNPC agrees with you. That is why the tax money we send abroad to "health clinics" is helping this organiztion to hold woman hostage until they abort their babies. Despite the fact that most of the world disagrees with abortion on a moral basis, the UN has brought it upon themselves to use it as population control, with the US tax payers dollars (at least now that Obama has signed the Exec Order).

The law he broke was in not allowng the baby to fully die on the table before he put him in the trash.

This is not an uncommon happening in late term abortions, born alive, left to die on a table.


Never should have let women vote

I dont even mind him that much and I bet I would like him if we hung out.

He just knows how to really get me going.

I did not conclude anything. I said that I deferred to women who, as a majority, want abortion to remain legal.

There are lots of people in our society making sure the potential baby has a voice which is good.

I'm pro choice.

I don't think abortions about three, maybe four months should be legal. If the baby has a chance of surviving outside of the womb, then abortions shouldn't be allowed.

That's my 2 cents.

yes, you deferred to women who want abortion to remain legal, and I suggest that the baby get the benefit of the doubt since his/her whole existance is on the line.

money well spent in my opinion. now if we could just get some more funding to accelerate post parturition abortions, we'd be getting somewhere.

So if they find a gay gene, and people begin aborting any baby with the gay gene...would that be good, bad or neither?

In India they abort most female babies, they want males

But who are they going to have sex with to have more abortions. This seems very short sighted.

I really dont like babies. There is a crying baby on every flight I go on. It's uncanny. Got any other selling points?

How about this one:

All concepts rely on arbitrary distinctions at some level. The concept of 'alive' is actually a useful one and there are obviously important ways that you are different from a rock that warrant the concept of 'alive'. Although I do agree that on some level you are also the same as a rock.



That there is a difference in how we are inclined to treat three cells in a dish compared to how we treat something that looks like a tiny version of a person is not strange to me at all. Where specifically to draw the line seems like a difficult question, but that doesn't mean we should just give up on making any distinction.




This is likely to become more and more of an issue, but I think it's going to ultimately happen at the conception stage, i.e. choosing the specific sperm that gives you the characteristics you want.

sure we should. I already have!