Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Aborted babies born alive

According to an article in the Sunday Times – Britain (November 27, 2005) a British government agency is investigating reports that up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched abortions. Abortions in England are allowed up to 24 weeks, but a former professor of obstetrics and gynecology commented that “They can be born breathing and crying at 19 week’s gestation.” He continued saying, “I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine.”

Judging from the article, the doctor didn’t seem to mind the fact that 19 week old babies were being aborted. Rather the “sub-standard medicine” appeared to consist of the fact that doctors were not adequately insuring that the babies were in fact dead before removing them from the womb.

The doctors seemed to be concerned that they could be charged with infanticide if the babies who lived through their abortions died shortly thereafter as a result of the abortion. In other words, many of these doctors appeared to be much more concerned about their own potential legal liability than they were about the fact that many people believe they are killing babies.


Kevin said...

Wow. So scientifically/medically doctors are saying that a baby can sustain itself at 19 weeks. Why is it ok to kill this baby? Is some conciousness imparted upon natural birth or cesarean section? Is citizenship granted at birth and therefore the lives of citizens are the only things that should be protected? Because the baby cannot choose to leave its mother's womb does that mean it's ok for its mother to choose to kill it? I don't get it... maybe I'm uninformed..

Ed Merwin, Jr. said...

It is the attitude shown by these medical doctors that has also spilled over into the opposite time of life. It seems to me that more and more we read, and hear, about the importance of a "quality of life". If a, usually, senior citizen feels that he/she can no longer enjoy that "qualilty" then they should be allowed to terminate their existence. Either end of the spectrum to me looks scary.

Lauren said...

Wow. I've heard many debates about abortion, but I have never heard anyone even bring up the fact that babies can still live after a botched abortion at 19 weeks. It outrages me that the doctors are more concerned about their liability than by killing an unborn child--1.3 million babies are aborted each year and they are concerned about their own immoral careers! How can one keep insisting that an unborn child isn't a baby when they can breathe and cry at that age, not to mention that they have their own unique DNA at conception? I agree with Ed Merwin when he says that people are overly concerned with the importance of quality of life. Is ending a child's life to preserve a woman's ''quality of life'' justified simply because a woman doesn't want a baby or doesn't feel that they can handle the responsibility of a child or the changes they bring about? Should they be allowed to abort a baby because it is their right? What about the rights of the child? Don't they have the right to live their life? It is just my opinion, but I think that if a woman isn't willing to take responsibility for a child, she shouldn't be having sex; and in the case of a child being procreated from a rape, well, just because a child isn't conceived out of love doesn't mean that the child can't be born out of love and given to a family who could love them and give them a life.

Kylie said...

I have heard of things such as this happening before. The whole concept is unbelievableto me, but what scares me the most is that the only legal way for the child's life to be taken after this mishap abortion is starvation. Yes, it is very legal and it happens all thie time. I just don't understand how taking a human life isn't labled murder as it should be and I don't think I ever will...

Melissa said...

I think it is down right terrible that abortion is legalized in the first place. It is a horrible way of slapping God in the face and telling Him that we won’t allow His creation to live because the person who is having the child just doesn’t want it. I personally think that if doctors are more worried about saving there own futures instead of helping a future, doesn’t that completely go against what being a doctor is all about?
Would it not be considered murder, for killing a 19 week old baby if it can breathe, hear, and cry? 50 babies a year is a small amount considering the millions that are never getting the chance to live in the world each year. It is still an amount that should never exist born, or unborn. Babies are human beings that keep growing to become children, children grow into adults. I wonder if the doctors ever think about what it would be like, to be pulled out of their mothers and killed? I think if they had a choice to live or die they would chose to live. Why can’t unborn babies have a choice, shouldn’t they have one? If we would let all the unborn babies live that were going to be aborted, how many of those babies would commit suicide when they were older? Chances are hardly any. Everyone who is pro choice doesn’t understand the real meaning of life or existence. We were all created to be loved cared for and wanted. What a shame to just through a way generations in a trash can and call it ok, shame on the world.

Katie Robinson said...

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act states that:*
"Person", "human being", "child", and "individual" as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

In a press release, Mike Leavitt, secretary of Health and Human Services, said, "Congress had received testimony that some infants who had been born alive after unsuccessful abortions were left to die. . . . The Act reaffirms the legal principle that all infants born alive are entitled to the full protection of the law. . . . We took the first of these educational steps today by notifying relevant entities that we aggressively enforce federal laws that protect born-alive infants. We issued clear guidance that withholding medical care from an infant born alive may constitute a violation of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and the Medicare Conditions of Participation."*

I think it’s interesting that only now have we finally passed an act to prohibit killing babies after unsuccessful abortions. We are supposed to be this advanced society that protects people’s rights and freedoms, but instead we just change the definitions of things just enough to get our way and pass things on technicalities rather than thinking about the millions of “fetuses” that are rotting because we want to be able to do what we want and not pay the consequences. It’s sickening.
I don't understand the difference between a fetus and a baby when the only thing that changes the definition is a layer of skin and some membrane tissue.

* From the National Right to Life website

AmeliaDeBono said...

I think it is interesting that even after babies have been born alive after an abortion doctors don't acknowledge that the fetus is truly a baby. But more than that, it makes me wonder if that child actually has human rights. Abortion is an interesting issue and one that has resulted in so much debate.

Anyway my question is, would an aborted baby born alive have the rights of a baby born after nine months by normal means. hm. To answer my own question I looked at the Constitution of the united States. It says that anyone who is born or natuarlized on American soil is therefore a citizen. but of course, this baby hasn't been born. It has been forced out of the womb. So since the baby has not been born can it truly have any rights of its own. I would say yes. Baby's who are born by C-section still have rights even though they have not been born the "natural way".