Live Baby thrown in Garbage at Abortion Clinic

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bells Staff Member

    Because one is murder and one is not.

    Personally speaking, I don't think you should be allowed to have an abortion at 21 weeks or after unless there is something severely wrong with the fetus that would result in not surviving to term.. thereby saving the mother the horror of being forced to carry a child to term knowing it would die by 34 weeks (as one example) due to some abnormality.. again, as an example. But that's just me and my own opinion.

    One is legal (eg abortion) and one is not legal (placing live child in plastic bag and throwing it out).
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. swarm Registered Senior Member

    In regards to the 21 week fetus, most babies that premature have extensive heath issues from it. There is more to life that just being kept alive.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Yes. But putting it in a plastic bag is not exactly the best way. From what I can understand, she had barely been able to react to having given birth when someone ran in, cut the umbilical cord and then put the baby in a plastic bag while it was still breathing.

    That is not acceptable by any measure.

    And yes, the woman is suing. She may have gone in to have an abortion, but she gave birth and then watched as they cut the umbilical cord with shears before putting the baby in a plastic bag and in the bin. That would be traumatic for anyone to witness, let alone the individual who delivered the child before the planned abortion.

    Once that child was born and breathed, it was alive and they killed it. They had a duty to provide medical aid to that child and to the mother. Instead, they placed it in a plastic bag and threw it away. They didn't even call for an ambulance. Yes, the little girl's death will be listed as being "severe prematurity", but that does not mean that their actions are in any way correct. They should have provided her with medical care, they should have called an ambulance, the doctor should have been there as he was required to be there and the care for the mother should not have fallen upon unregistered individuals.. They should not have falsified the reports and they should not have then stored the child's corpse in a cardboard box in the back of a cupboard. There are so many things wrong with all of this that it's hard to even know where to start.

    And for those who think that the mother was going to abort the baby anyway so she shouldn't be suing or that it's somehow not as bad.. I'll leave you with this..

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    The child was alive *before* being born, it was no more 'alive' after being prematurely given birth to. It was no more developed, no less dependent on sustinence. This is why I find your outrage so fascinating. Apparently killing the child is less reprehensible as long as it is done out of sight, out of mind. That it's not such a big deal while the child is concealed away in the womb, but as soon as it slides out of that magical birth canal into plain focus, it is a human with a full set of rights that medical staff have an obligation to provide with life support. That's horribly arbitrary.

    And to be honest, I roll my eyes at the claims of mental trauma being alleged. Perhaps the next time I'm eating my steak and see a 'Meet your meat' video clip, I'll claim emotional distress. Because it's such a crime to see the consequences of my actions being broadcast before my eyes, instead of being hidden away in a dirty alley out of sight and mind. How dare someone expose me to the harsh reality of what goes on behind the scenes!

    I re-iterate: If you can't look someone in the eyes and kill them, you shouldn't get someone else to kill them for you.
  8. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member


    I agree. If that child was born alive (which it was) you have to help it. The child didn't survive an abortion, it survived a birth. Not helping it was infanticide.
  9. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Wait, WHAT?!

    So bystanders are morally obligated to provide whatever care necessary to preserve the life of a born 21 week old fetus, but a woman is entitled to with-hold essential care from an unborn 21 week old fetus?

    That's hypocrisy right there.
  10. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    a born fetus?? If its born, its no longer a fetus.
  11. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Technically correct. What I was trying to point out is that both are *equally developed* in regards to gestation time. The only difference between the two was that one had been forced out of the womb early due to a botched abortion procedure, whereas the other had not. Had the operating staff not fucked up, that child would have been mercilessly killed while still in the mother's womb without a tear shed from any of the outraged individual's on this thread.

    Why are babies, even grossly undeveloped ones who have not even completed 22 weeks of gestation, entitled to a full set of rights when they slide out of the birth canal prematurely? I mean honestly, is the birth canal magical? Please clue me in, because from where I'm standing the 'it was born' observation is completely arbitrary. What's the defining difference between a fetus who has only undergone 22 weeks of gestation, and a just born baby who has only undergone 22 weeks of gestation?
  12. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    you're right, it is hypocritical. I didn't even know there were still states that would perform abortions at that late a stage without the mother's life being in danger.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Bystanders? They were the staff at the clinic. They weren't bystanders. This isn't about people witnessing a car accident on the freeway.

    The child was born. It was alive. They picked it up and put it in a plastic bag and threw it in the bin. They weren't morally obligated to provide medical care. They were legally obligated to.

    With one exception. It drew breath.

    I guess you missed the part where I said I didn't think abortions at that stage of a pregnancy should be allowed unless there was a risk to the mother's health or that later tests revealed severe abnormalities in the fetus which would kill it in the mother's womb before the end of the gestation period..

    But that's just me personally.

    And yes, as soon as that baby was born, it gained 'live human being' status and all the rights that come with it. And yes, even though the woman had gone for an abortion, the very simple fact that the child was delivered prior to the completion of the abortion did not absolve the clinic, the doctor or its staff of their duties and obligations.

    So you're telling me you wouldn't find the vision of a baby being picked up, alive and wriggling and placed in a plastic bag and thrown in a bin to be traumatic? I suspect the great majority of the human population would find such a thing highly traumatic to witness such a thing.

    So when you go out to feast on that big steak, you go out into a paddock and kill your cow of choice after looking it in the eyes?

    One is born and one is not. It is illegal to kill a child.. a born child. So once that child came out of the birth canal, it was alive.. it drew breath.. And it would appear, may have been breathing on its own for several minutes before it was placed in a plastic bag and thrown out with the rubbish by the medical staff who should have known better. Once that child is born, it attains live status and protection under the law, so much so that killing it equals murder. Arbitrary? Yep. Damn right it is. But that's how it is.
  14. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Wow, I must admit I wasn't expecting you to agree. I'm glad you can see the hypocrisy.

    So? Why should they be morally and legally obligated to provide a born child that has undergone 21 weeks of gestation with life sustaining care, whereas a pregnant woman is not obligated to provide her 21 week old fetus with life sustaining care?

    I re-iterate, the child was alive before being born. Passing through the magical birth canal does not confer you with the magical 'life' status. This isn't law, it's basic biology.

    Why should they be legally obligated to provide a born child that has undergone 21 weeks of gestation with life sustaining care, whereas a pregnant woman is not legally obligated to provide her 21 week old fetus with life sustaining care?

    So? Like a 21 week old fetus, *it couldn't breath unassisted*, which is precisely why it died. That distinction is bullshit and arbitrary.

    Which is bullshit. No wonder pro-lifers are so pissed.

    No doubt they would. But so what? If I hire a hitman to kill my ex-wife, and the incompetent blows her brains out in front of my eyes, would you be concerned about my 'trauma'? If you find the death of a baby traumatic, then perhaps you shouldn't be hiring someone else to kill it.

    Ideally I would have. However, I have witnessed enough of factory farms and slaughterhouses to know that I cannot in good conscience eat meat, which is why I don't.

    Personally, I believe that all meat-eaters should be obligated to view a factory farm and slaughter house at least once in their lives. And if it traumatises them? Tough fucking luck. I re-iterate, if you find the death of something traumatic, then perhaps you shouldn't be hiring someone else to kill it.

    Ho hum. Arbitrary.

    Ho hum. The child was alive prior to emerging from the birth canal, and it could not breathe unassisted. Just like a 21 week old fetus.

    Great. Even you acknowledge it. So you're going to become pro-life now?
  15. Bells Staff Member

    I don't know. I guess if I go to a hospital or a clinic, and I collapse, I expect the medical staff there to come to my aid. Strange, I know.

    They weren't bystanders. She was in a patient room on a patient bed. And yes, they were obligated to provide care for that child as soon as it came out. What they did instead was put it in a garbage bag and throw it away.

    Maybe. But at law, once that child is out of the womb and breathing, it is alive. And that child, breathed on her own. So yes, legally, she was born alive.

    Err because they work in and run a health clinic? I don't know.. what do you think?

    Yes she went there for an abortion. But she gave birth instead and they had an obligation to provide care for that child. They should have called an ambulance. The doctor who was meant to be there should have been there. They shouldn't have falsified the medical records to try to cover their tracks.

    Doesn't matter. It was breathing for several minutes before one of the clinic's owners rushed in with shears, cut the umbilical cord and stuffed the baby in a plastic bag before throwing it in a bin. It was breathing when it was placed in the plastic bag.

    Why do I get the distinct impression that you are simply arguing for argument's sake about this..

    Do you actually think that nurses and medical staff have zero obligation towards a patient if something happens to that patient in the clinic they work on, while they are on duty?

    Pro-lifer's should remember that when women miscarried in the past, they had no qualms with the fact that the sometimes still breathing babies were treated in the same way. Without a single peep from them about it.

    So hiring a hitman to kill your wife, a living, breathing individual, is the same as paying for an abortion? Righteo.


    Ever seen a loved one die? Hear their last gasp of breath, look in their eyes at the sheer terror? Death is traumatic in and of itself.

    While she may have gone there for an abortion, she did not go there to give birth and then see the child thrown into a garbage bag while it was still alive and then thrown in the bin.

    Yep. Pretty much.

    Ah but this one did breath unassisted. For several minutes apparently. So what does that tell you?

    What makes you think I am not? I just don't impose my beliefs upon others. I don't think I could ever have an abortion. In fact, I did not when I was encouraged to. But that does not mean that I would impose my feelings about it on other women. Abortion is something that each woman has to decide for herself. They shouldn't be forced either way. I am pro-choice. I would suggest you learn the difference.
  16. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    About as strange as offering medical aid to someone about to get the electric chair. This child was marked for death, but then *oops*, it accidentally slides out of the birth canal and now the medical staff should be obligated to *save* it?

    Where does the law explicitly state that a child still in the womb is not alive? And why does the legal definition of 'alive' trump the biological definition?

    She couldn't breathe on her own, otherwise she wouldn't have died! The very fact that premature babies can't breath on their own is why they are connected to a respirator.

    Legally, yes. My problem is with the inconsistency of both the law, and also the moral stance of pro-choicers. One minute the medical staff were obligated to kill the child, the next they were obligated to save it. What was the defining difference? Having passed through the magical birth canal? Even though such a passage occurred prematurely and only because the medical staff messed up the procedure?

    You keep bringing up the concept of 'breathing', so let's look at a hypothetical scenario. A baby is born prematurely with lungs so stiff that it does not take even one half-assed 'breath'. As a result, it is rushed to a respirator and has air forced in and out of its lungs. It remains on a respirator for the next few months.

    While on the respirator, would it be appropriate for the woman to kill that baby? Could the medical staff suction it to pieces with a vacuum? After all, it has never taken a breath, all of its breathing has been done for it by a machine. Does it cease to be 'alive' and desrving of human rights because it can't breath unassisted? And does the same apply for adult humans who require a respirator?

    Is a fetus that should have been aborted a patient? If it is indeed a patient, shouldn't its best interests be considered while it is residing in the womb?

    Oh wait, I forgot. It isn't breathing, it is receiving oxygen through the placenta, so it has no rights.

    Morally speaking, YES.

    You asked me whether I killing my own meat, and I gave you an answer which really made you look silly because I stand by my convictions. And I re-iterate: If you can't look something in the eyes while killing it, don't hire someone else to kill it for you.

    Indeed. It's especially traumatic to the individual who is undergoing the process. Anyone who wants to kill a child should not hide themselves away from the suffering and death they are causing. That's dehumanising and irresponsible.

    Perhaps if people were confronted with the consequences of their actions more often, they would behave in a more responsible and ethical fashion. Maybe we should make it compulsory for all women about to undergo an abortion to view the procedure in all its glory, instead of trying to trivialise it by labelling the fetus a 'parasite' and 'a clump of cells'.

    And I did not hire that assassin to blow my ex-wife's brains all over my blue suede shoes. Pity me.

    It wasn't capable of breathing unassisted, any more than a fish out of water is capable of breathing unassisted (although it certainly tries to breath). The fetus laboured for breath, but most likely due to lack surfactant on the lungs, failed to take what are considered proper breaths.

    Nothing whatsoever. Engaging in laboured and insufficient 'breathing' gives no indication of an organism's life value. It's just another arbitrary distinction used to legitimise the killing of an unborn infant. You might as well just argue that the born baby has a full set of rights because it doesn't have an umbilical cord.

    Yes, we should allow women to 'decide'. And if they choose to murder their unborn offspring, they can suffer the consequences. Jail time.

    See, I'm also pro-choice. But freedom does not = freedom from consequences.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2009
  17. swarm Registered Senior Member

    The fetus was born, but at that age it was not viable. Even in a well equipted neo natal intensive care unit, it would have not been expected to survive. The 22 week old example is notable because it is such an exception to the rule and it is quite likely to have major heath issues, heart problems, detached retinas, etc.

    Thinking this was a viable baby which could have been kept alive in the place where it was delivered is deluded. There is no chance that a clinic like that could have kept this fetus live.
  18. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    In just one sentence, you've concisely stated what I've been trying to explain on this thread for at least half a dozen posts. The viability of a fetus at 21 weeks of gestation, and a just born baby who has only undergone 21 weeks of gestation, is the same.

    So why should one be entitled to more rights than the other? Their development is equal. The only difference is that one relies on a placenta to remain viable, whereas the other relies on life support machines to remain viable.

    All I ask is that pro-choicers remain consistent. If killing a 21 week neonate in the womb is OK, then killing a born baby who has only completed 21 weeks of gestation should also be OK.
  19. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Wow SAM, that really puts it in perspective, what a sobering image.
    I've always argued that abortion is wrong, that killing a baby before it's born is no different to killing it after it's born, that born/unborn is an arbitrary distinction.
    But, I'd never seen a fetus in the flesh like that, I can now see that it should be legal to kill them. I guess I didn't realise they were so brown, like I said that image really makes you think.
  20. swarm Registered Senior Member

    No they are not the same. A healthy fetus at 21 weeks which is still in its mother will continue to grow into a healthy baby.

    A fetus outside its mother at 21 weeks will die. If, and this is a big if, it is born inside a modern neo natal ICU and it is very lucky it may live to where it is able to survive on its own after several weeks of further development. But it is not viable on its own by any stretch of the imagination and will most likely die even in a neo natal icu or at the very least sustain serious injury.

    A 21 week fetus born away from emergency support on the floor of some clinic will just die.
  21. Astra Registered Member


    Are you freaking serious? If you'd do any research what so ever you might realise the baby is brown because IT'S A BROWN BABY!. That is an African-American.
  22. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    That's no problem. I'll come watch abortions if you insist.

    My view is, nothing has the right to live inside me and use my body if I do not wish it to.

    When medical science comes up with a technology that will allow an unwanted fetus to be removed alive and brought to term inside someone else or an artificial womb, instead of being killed, sure, I will use that if I get pregnant by accident.

    Until then, sorry, dude, it goes in a plastic bag.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    My internal parts belong to me and I decide what I do with them.
  23. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    The effect of working in an abortion clinic?
    As opposed to a person working in an abattoir?

    Human life has value. Whatever.
    You're assigning it a value above all else, which is entirely different argument.

    Want to fight about that, or are you insistent upon fighting about a human doing a job he's done a thousand times before?
    Go on. Give me whatever you have to defend your biological imperative.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page