Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion

I did not originally post the quote you attriburted to me, AnnaK did. I was only responding to the quote.

 

"Post birth abortion" = murder!!!

 

Pre-birth abortion equals murder. Ask Scott Peterson....he'll tell you all about it.

 

The only mental confusion here is your being able to follow the story. Doctor Gosnell is charged with murdering two women and at least 7 babies. So, while you pro-death individuals are attacking pro-life supporters, a grand jury has found enough evidence to say that your post is wrong. The question is if the aborted fetus could not have lived after being born, then why did the doctor have to cut their spinal cords?

But, let's take a look at your stance. You claim that a "fetus" does not deserve to live, even after being born alive, because he/she can not survive outside the mother's body. So, by your statement, if a mother gives birth to a pre-mature baby it should not be allowed to live either. Is it actually your opinion that a baby born pre-mature should not be given any medical assistance and allowed to die?

 

What seems impossible to communicate here is that this decision is none of your business. You demand the freedom to make your choices the way you think is right, but then you would deny others the freedom to make theirs. Can you really not see the problem here? Try turning it around, so that someone else is forcing their decision on you, but not allowing you any choice. NOW can you see the problem?

The real issue here is, at what point, under what circumstances, do the people actually directly involved no longer have any say in what they're permitted to do? And if the number of possible different circumstances is too large for some law to specify every one of them, does that mean personal judgement is illegal (unless it's YOUR judgment, of course)?

 

Flint, you are making the same mistake that fiddler made. You think this thread is about the general topic of Abortion. It is not. This is about the specifics of late term abortions where the fetus was actually born alive. Planned Parenthood is opposing a variant of the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act," in the state of Florida, This at the same time that a Dr Gasnell is under indictment for murder for the deaths of two women and at least seven babies in Philidelphia. The babies were born alive, and the Doctor murdered them by cutting their spinal cords with scissors. So, do you really think that someone should be free to kill a living baby?

The reason that I linked the topic to Pre-mature Births is that the only difference is the intent. The Doctor that works to assist a Pre-maturely born baby has the intent of protecting life. But the Doctor that kills an aborted fetus that was born alive has the intent of taking life. In any other topic the intent to take life is considered Murder.

 

My intent was to respond to exactly that issue.

Yes, and they are doing so on the grounds that the actual fact situation matters, that a one-size-fits-all law is unable to address specifics on the ground, and that there are more concerned and more qualified people there on the ground to handle each specific situation case by case. NOTE that Planned Parenthood is neither recommending a decision for them, nor asking to be part of that decision.

We have terminology problems here, I think. I do not know any of the facts in Gasnell's case. Do you? I'm not talking about what he is accused of under a one-size-fits-all law, I'm asking what he faced and what he did about it, and why. You know, relevant stuff.

To hear some of our contributors tell it, a "living baby" is a term that describes just about anything from conception to sometime late in infancy. AnnaK points out that infants born without brains, which much be kept breathing with machinery, are "living babies". Should someone kill them? Absolutely!

Again, as many have pointed out, the actual facts matter. You seem to be hand-waving them away in favor of uninformed (and uninformable) platitudes. If a baby is born prematurely but is healthy, normal, not suffering crippling deformity, etc, then most parents and doctors will fight like hell to save it. I think some of us get tired of reading that with today's technology, late-term abortions are almost never due to a change of mind - nah, I guess I don't want a child after all, that sort of thing. They are due to the discovery of very serious defects and other medical conditions, which generally result in a short, painful life. So should heroic measures be deployed (at heroic prices!) to keep lost causes in severe pain as long as possible?

Of course, not all cases are like that. Not all cases are fairly simple premature births. Not all cases are anything in particular. This is why judgment must be left to those most concerned and qualified. And not to a bunch of slogan-swinging legislators.

 

I apologize. I forgot that I was talking to a Liberal.

Let's take the Dr. Gasnell issue. You admit that you do not know the case. So, here is an article that sums it up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/20doctor.html?_r=0

As you see, the good doctor was killing babies without any concern whether it could survive on it's own.

Now, you are concerned about a child born without a brain, but how is that any different any other person being kept alive on life support. The family can make the decision to discontinue life support. So, that is really not an issue. The key fact is that a doctor must first attempt to give the child a chance to live.

What about the other side of the arguement? What if the aborted baby has the ability to live? Shouldn't that baby be protected from having his/her spinal cord cut? For that matter, what about the Pre-mature baby whose lungs have not fully developed? Should that family have the right to keep that baby on life support until the lungs develope further? And if that baby has the right live, shouldn't an aborted live birth have the same right to life?

 

No problem. When talking to a liberal, you need facts and logic. Slogans will generally not work well.

Yes, of course I see the problems here. The doctor was unqualified, the abortions he was performing were illegal (which means no oversight), the clients were immigrants, conditions were substandard, and there wasn't much respect for life at all.

Neither you nor the article seem to notice something I (as a liberal, so you can skip this part) would consider relevant. These clients are described as "minority and immigrant." They don't know the laws in many cases, probably don't have the resources to go where the operation they want is legal, probably never did know their options, and ended up going to this unqualified butcher. Yes, that particular case is horrifying, and (if you remember) reflects the NORM before abortion was legalized.

And for my part, I forgot I was talking to a conservative. If you are taking the position that people attempting to abort late-term brainless babies should play the odds of an unsuccessful abortion, which necessarily will put them in hock for the rest of their lives so that the brainless body can suffer under heroic medical procedures for an extra day or two, then we must agree to disagree. My own will prohibits this. No life support. Let me die naturally.

Why? Why can't the doctor and the parent together look at all relevant facts and make an informed decision, whatever it might be? Now, if you were the parent, and it was your decision to do everything possible to keep the baby breathing despite any deformity, that would be your right and your decision. But in that case, you wouldn't have been trying to abort it in the first place. So you are kind of assuming your conclusions here.

If only biology were so black and white. If I had been born seriously deformed, or in lifelong pain, and only able to survive with the aid of machinery, would I be happy that I had been "saved"? Or would I be calling Dr. Kevorkian ASAP?

Yes, absolutely. The family has the right to do whatever they want, though in practice this might be limited by what they can afford.

You switched horses in midstream there. The decision is up to the parent, advised by the doctor. The decision is not up to the fetus, and certainly not up to YOU.

And I notice you carefully avoid noticing, once again, that such late-term abortions are almost never capricious. No woman carries a pregnancy through 8+ months if she does not want the baby, unless (as in the Gasnell case) she simply does not know her options. These late abortions are always done for sufficient medical reasons. And this simply does not seem to penetrate. Those who have been on the spot can see that an abortion is not, and never was, what the woman wanted. The decision to abort at that late date is made for VERY compelling reasons.

But you're not alone. Clearly that critical point is also lost on the Florida lawmakers.

 

Have I ever mentioned that progressive leftist losers suck? Hummm, have I? Kind of obvious, don't you think?

 

This situation shows just how money grubbing and depraved Planned Parenthood really is!!!!

Liberals------------------tell me what is the difference between what PP will do and what the two killers of the one year old baby in Ga a few days ago. In both cases it results in a dead child. Or the killer of the kids at Sandy Hook for that matter.

 

All of this ranting for nothing, You are wrong. When a child comes out of the womb and is alive, and it is either killed or let to die, that is murder.

It doesn't matter if it happens 1 time or 1 million.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, its only 8 per year, (*)(*)(*)(*) them, its ok to let them be murdered.

 

LOL! From my experience reading your posts, that's the only thing you ever mention. Kind of like a broken record.

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jury-shown-graphic-photos-of-babies-gosnell-aborted

This would be legal under PP world view.

 

It's 8 TOTAL dating from the '70s if I read the post correctly. And if they're "survivors", they WERE NOT MURDERED.

 

For God's sake! That wouldn't be legal under ANYBODY'S world view and if you don't know that, you need to educate yourself. This doctor was OBVIOUSLY an aberration - a sick man - who did horrible things but he's being tried for his crimes - just like the dentist who exposed 7000 patients to hepatitis and HIV will be. I can't believe anybody would take this freak of nature and use him to stereotype ALL doctors who provide late term abortions. Will you stereotype all dentists because of what one dentist did?

 

Sweetheart, remember the thread your posting in. PP is arguing FOR this type of act.

 

I know exactly what I'm posting in. PP isn't arguing for ANYTHING except that the decision be left up to the family and the doctor. Who else has the knowledge to make such a decision in their entirely unique, private circumstances?

I heard the lady being questioned saying that PP thought these decisions should be left up to the family and the doctor. If you have anything else that I've missed, I'd like to see it.

 

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/

8 in just this office alone....

The woman from planned parent hood couldn't' even answer the question.

 

No, that is 8 in total not per year

It is RARE

And since ultrasounds rarer - just as mistaken gestational age is rarer.

But the real stopper for late term abortions - RU486

When women do not have to wait, when access is a couple of pills sourced off of the internet then abortion becomes between her and her and there is not even a medical officer involved

And we will see more of women taking this illegal and dangerous option as abortion becomes more and more difficult to obtain

 

Ah! Thank-you for bringing up this case - he is what you would get if you made abortion illegal

He operated without oversight of government authority and the over sighting authorities should be ashamed

How many women did he also kill?

 

Its not rare, it happens. You have not proven otherwise. If it didn't there would not be laws against this.

But just for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles, even if it was 1, that is too many.

The philly abortion doc killed at least 8 just in his office alone.

 

And how many in each of all the other offices in Philadelphia? How many were PP? Was this Dr. Gosnell associated with PP? In what capacity? Did they know who he was or ever refer patients to him? If PP DID recommend a policy, would Dr. Gosnell have known about it or followed it? Dr. Gosnell was in business solely to end a pregnancy with a dead fetus and he apparently did whatever was necessary to accomplish that. Do you believe this is what happens with EVERY doctor who has a patient in trouble? My family member's own doctor performed hers in the hospital she was in. Why would he or any PP doctor recommend a patient to a Dr. Gosnell? If it was a situation they didn't feel competent to handle, they would send them to someone like Dr. Tiller for the best results.

You surely don't think what was found in Dr. Gosnell's office - fetus body parts in jars and fetal remains lying around - are found in PP offices? Or in any other legitimate doctor's office? Dr. Gosnell is a sick (*)(*)(*)(*) who should never have been allowed near a doctor's office or patients and they're taking care of him.

ALL women who have late term abortions aren't patients of "abortion doctors" or PP. They go to OB-GYNs spread all over the country. When these situations come up, these doctors do the abortion themselves if they feel they can or they refer them to another doctor who is skilled in these late-term abortions (like Dr. Tiller) to make sure they get the best and most competent care. Do you know of any doctor who ever recommended a patient to Dr. Gosnell?

You're using this Dr. Gosnell to tar all doctors with his actions. Does that mean we should tar all dentists with the actions of the one who exposed 7000 patients to hepatitis and HIV? He was a dental surgeon - should we try to get all dental surgeons' offices closed down or start shooting them in their churches and through their kitchen windows?

It wasn't her place to answer the question. They were asking her questions she didn't have the knowledge or authority to answer in a hearing and they knew that. That's why they kept asking her like she could speak for the entire PP on policy that she didn't know about.

 

that makes no sense.

Abortion is legal, and still we have this doctor doing this. So your logic is crap.

- - - Updated - - -

[/QUOTE]

Planned parent hood was asked what would happen with the baby, sitting there alive on the table, and the woman said it would be left up to the mother,

She didn't say..."it would be taken care of and given the same rights as you and me" she couldn't answer the damn question.

And as we can see,you too believe a born child can be killed after it comes out of the womb. liberals are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sick, that is a fact.

 

If an abortion happens, and the baby survives, and its out of the womb, do you believe they should let the baby die? yes or no?