Abortion -cpr on the fetus?

[Regina]

Oh "pro-life! pro-life!"

But do these people actually give a fuck about living children (who have already been born) living in poverty? Do you push for welfare to help the low-income struggling single mother, or do you demonise her and judge her sexual history? Are you involved with charities and organisations that do real good work helping kids and their parents?

I feel like these pro-lifers (and while I'm on the subject, anti gay adoption people too) care so much about children's rights to life and a stable home when it's convenient for their argument. Unless I can see some proof that you support anti child abuse organisations, are open to the idea of fostering, support welfare for poor families with kids, etc etc etc I don't care to hear your faux-progressive "pro-life" arguments about abortion. I really don't.

[Ravenshire]

@rex. I don't care what your options would have been. If you had a 3 year old and could not afford them could you kill them?  If you don't want the child, fine make it a ward of the state. The moral argument (this is a philosophy thread ) in play here is bodily autonomy. Once the fetus is out of you that no longer is in play

A three year old is not a fetus, ass-hat. Quit making these false analogies. When talking about living breathing people, the legal decision to carry those people to term has already been made. Like many legal decisions, you don't get to change your mind after the fact, on a whim.

[brewer]

Did you read the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002? Appears not. If born “alive” according to the Act then legally a reasonable attempt must be made. Abortions at 36 weeks are illegal except for medical reasons (varies state to state). I'll give you your 20wk viability number. If born at 20wks and “alive” for any possible attempt to continue life the birth would need to be in a hospital with a tertiary NICU facility. You can't just perform infant CPR, it won’t work to save a 20wk old life, not even for a little while. Not even for time to transport. Pay attention here, if not born in a hospital with appropriate NICU facilities it can’t be supported medically.

Not going to get into the moral debate which is what you seem to want. Debate that with the others.

Again, do you have any documented instances of your left to die or intentionally killed scenario?

Quote from you, “I am not giving an arguement from authority, I'm merely presenting my credentials to refute someone who did not have a firm grasp on embryology” That is on top of the MD reference. I think my grasp is better than yours. You can’t even use the terminology correctly. Still waiting for your MD put up or shut up documentation. PM me and it will be kept confidential. I’ll only verify its validity.

If this is another POE I think I’m done with this site.

[Ravenshire]

Oh "pro-life! pro-life!"

But do these people actually give a fuck about living children (who have already been born) living in poverty? Do you push for welfare to help the low-income struggling single mother, or do you demonise her and judge her sexual history? Are you involved with charities and organisations that do real good work helping kids and their parents?

I feel like these pro-lifers (and while I'm on the subject, anti gay adoption people too) care so much about children's rights to life and a stable home when it's convenient for their argument. Unless I can see some proof that you support anti child abuse organisations, are open to the idea of fostering, support welfare for poor families with kids, etc etc etc I don't care to hear your faux-progressive "pro-life" arguments about abortion. I really don't.

Not pro-life. Pro-birth. They have no fucks to give about the kid once it's out of mommy.

[answer-is-42]

@bennyboy. To the extent that my training is in adult medicine not neonatology you are correct. My point was that I have studied embryology. Regardless my points stand on their own. I think that overcrowding is a poor and nebulous moral arguement. That argument easily leads to the next obvious step. Killing people who reduce overcrowding too. Use a lottery so there is no age, gender, racial, socioeconomic bias. That gives you a greener earth too. Again it does not address the question that I have posed in this thread, should a fetus be delivered and attempted to be supported rahter then terminated if survival is a possibility? Is it moral not to do so? Why?

[Regina]

I just call them "anti-abortion" which is what they are.

"Pro-life" makes it sound like they give a shit about the mother's, which they don't. Forcing a woman to go through with a birth which has complications likely to kill her is not "pro-life" and I refuse to call it such.

And whenever the case of abortion comes up (or gay adoption, they're linked in this vehemently anti response) these people want to put on a face where they act like they care about the welfare of the child. But at the end of the day what to you actually do, practically, for children? These same people are silent in every real situation where a living child is genuinely suffering.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The point is that abortion in any form other than a conclusion to physical rape is wrong. We should be accountable for our own actions.

A child of rape did not choose that course of events, but you state that you're okay with aborting them. Why?

Are their lives less valuable?

[Ravenshire]

Again it does not address the question that I have posed in this thread, should a fetus be delivered and attempted to be supported rahter then terminated if survival is a possibility? Is it moral not to do so? Why?

Trying to shrink your augment, eh? I already stated that it should be fine, as long as the reviving doctor becomes responsible for the financial costs (you know, feeding, clothing, housing and education) of said kid as the mother has already exercised her legal rights and should not be held accountable for someone else abrogating them.

[Minimalist]

Not about me

Then mind your  own fucking business.  Nothing worse than a jesus-freak busy body.

[Cato]

@Cato. I never said abortion is right or wrong in this thread. What I DID say was that is t immoral to simply terminate a fetus rahter then attempting to deliver and support it out of the womb if the mother no longer wishes to be pregnant. That is as far as the bodily autonomy arguement for abortion can go

We're progressing, I think. It's a bit difficult for me to reconcile your assertion that abortion isn't right or wrong, but then say that it is immoral not to support a delivered viable fetus, as long as there is some non-zero chance for survival. As Parkers Tan eloquently stated earlier, abortion is a procedure designed to terminate the fetus. You're terms are convoluted. Perhaps you don't think all abortion is wrong, but you are suggesting that all abortion after 20 weeks is wrong. Am I correct in this assumption?