ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your example of "crushing the head while the body is mostly delivered" is partial birth abortion and that's illegal. Also, I don't support partial birth abortion. However, you're right about the potassium chloride thing and I didn't know that that's what you meant by "burning". My mistake. Moreover, I am pro-choice, I support improving abortion procedures to eliminate any potential pain that an unborn child might feel. Even so, the amount of pain a fetus can actually feel is still a pretty contested subject.The article is about 3rd trimester abortions - some as late as 36 weeks. Those are viable babies - meaning, they could have been killed inside the womb, partially outside, or fully outside the woman's body. There is no "commonly accepted" practice this late in the term. One method essentially entails crushing the head for easier removal (while the body is mostly already delivered). Another, is to inject potassium chloride (one of 3 drugs administered in death penalty cases - the other 2 are given first because just giving potassium chloride by itself is deemed too painfully inhumane). Although, here's a detailed case involving someone who conducted at least hundreds of procedures basically slitting the throats of the child after birth.
Yeah, I think a woman's right to choose is more important than a unborn child's right to live. Would I prefer that women not get abortions, particularly so late? Sure I do. But I think women should have the choice. And as I mentioned earlier, I think women should also have the choice to induce birth rather than have an abortion so that viable children have a chance. However, it's my understanding that, currently, women can only make that choice for medical reasons not personal ones which is a problem.Yes, you've argued that circumstances in the article only bothered you in relation to the mother's health. At 36 weeks a normal baby can live without the mother, so you believe that a baby, delivered early, can be ethically/morally killed. You're no longer arguing regarding fetus does not equal life. You're arguing that life can be extinguished because the bab's life is somehow owned by the mother. Meaning, a few weeks before it's "due" to almost a year after it's born, it should be able to be killed by the mother. If this is not true, then please distinguish the difference between a premature living baby removed from the womb and a 3 month old after birth. Reaching in and killing it so it comes out dead as opposed to pulling it out and killing it are the same thing.
You're not protecting the mother's rights by telling her what to do and I don't believe in telling women what to do with regards to abortion. Your argument is simply a pro-life argument that's telling me that my reasons for being pro-choice aren't good enough for you. But the thing is, I don't care if they are.I've never argued that if health concerns are on the table then choices may have to be made. But, nothing in the posted story leads us to believe there were any health concerns. Barring new information, the "other" options you reference don't exist. Kill the baby or don't kill the baby. It's likely that the health problems and injuries sustained by the mother were caused by attempting to kill the child while partially delivered. They could have protected the child's rights and the mother's both by delivering it alive instead of dead.