• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should doctors be able to legally kill born-alive infants?

Should doctors be able to legally kill born-alive infants?

  • Total voters
    79
The one test case will die behind bars

MrWonka said:
Why can't you answer the question? You cited one man. That man is in jail for committing the exact crime you're claiming we need more laws for. So why do we need more laws? If this person was already charged with Murder under the laws that already exist why do we need new ones?
Click to expand...

Gosnell? He was tried & found guilty of several murders, manslaughter, several felonies on dispensing drugs. He's serving essentially a life sentence, with no possibility of parole.
 
Josie said:
if the mother is dying there is no need to kill the baby to help save her. You try to save BOTH of them.
Click to expand...

Umm...no that is not always an option. Sometimes you can only save one.
 
Re: The one test case will die behind bars

southwest88 said:
Gosnell? He was tried & found guilty of several murders, manslaughter, several felonies on dispensing drugs. He's serving essentially a life sentence, with no possibility of parole.
Click to expand...

Correct. So why do we need additional laws on top of the ones he was convicted of?
 
Josie said:
And if the baby is perfectly healthy but survives a botched abortion?
Click to expand...

No women abort healthy viable fetuses.

Zero. THere is no reason to. At that point, the pain and damage from vaginal removal is worse than a live birth. If she really doesnt want it, she can put it up for private adoption for a cool $20,000.

If you dispute this, please provide the statistics to support your claim. Minnie, myself, and others have provided the stats proving my claim in many other threads here.
 
MrWonka said:
Umm...no that is not always an option. Sometimes you can only save one.
Click to expand...

As I said, you try to save BOTH of them. If the fetus is able to live outside of the womb with medical assistance, there's no need to kill him/her to save the mother.
 
Josie said:
If the fetus is able to live outside of the womb with medical assistance, there's no need to kill him/her to save the mother.
Click to expand...

If it's already outside that may be true, but there are situations where you can't remove it without endangering the mother.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I support euthanasia in extreme cases, but I don’t think it should be left up to a single doctor. It should involve a panel of doctors and a judge. It is wrong that we are more humane to our terminally ill and suffering pets than we are to people.
Click to expand...

Oh no, a 'death panel'!!!! I hope no one grabs that term and runs with it to score political points, since what you are suggesting sounds fairly reasonable.

;)
 
Lursa said:
No women abort healthy viable fetuses.

Zero. THere is no reason to. At that point, the pain and damage from vaginal removal is worse than a live birth. If she really doesnt want it, she can put it up for private adoption for a cool $20,000.

If you dispute this, please provide the statistics to support your claim. Minnie, myself, and others have provided the stats proving my claim in many other threads here.
Click to expand...

You keep saying it, but it's a fantasy world. You're assuming all mothers are rational human beings. You're assuming all mothers are emotionally and mentally stable. You're assuming all mothers think clearly. And you're also assuming there is no doctor -- ZERO -- out there who would abort a viable healthy fetus. Do you also assume that no woman would ever give birth and then throw her child in the trash can? Do you also assume that no woman would ever give birth and then suffocate their baby because they didn't want one in the first place or was scared?

I understand why you want to believe that no woman would ever do this, but, as I said, you're living in La La Land. Gosnell is notorious for late-term abortions. Do you have any evidence that those infants weren't healthy? The last time I brought up Gosnell, you changed your "It never happens --- zero" to "Well, it's rare." So it never happens or it's rare?
 
Last edited:
Wackenhut redux

MrWonka said:
Correct. So why do we need additional laws on top of the ones he was convicted of?
Click to expand...

No, I was just pointing out that Gosnell was tried & found guilty on murder, etc. I think you had mentioned that he was charged, but didn't state the verdict.

There are existing laws, we probably need to focus on enforcement, rather than pass law after law to prove that we're tough on crime, however construed. (& rhetorical jails are so much cheaper to build than the real thing …)
 
MrWonka said:
If it's already outside that may be true, but there are situations where you can't remove it without endangering the mother.
Click to expand...

Any kind of "removal" of the fetus is dangerous to the mother if the mother's health is at risk. You try to save BOTH lives. Why wouldn't you?
 
Felis Leo said:
Why not, MrWonka? Let us say that it is so rare that it only happens once per one hundred thousand abortions. Does that one healthy child not deserve the protection of the law from callous doctors who might otherwise kill it?
Click to expand...

At the expense of grieving families?

Because those are the ONLY people that would ever be affected by legislation restricting this further. NO healthy viable fetuses are aborted. So we are discussing medical necessity...a tragedy for a mother or couple who have waited 8-9 months for a new family member. They are now faced with perhaps the most difficult decision of their life with their Dr.: try extreme measures to save it or depending on the extent of the illness/damage and future pain and suffering, provide comfort care until it passes. This is the law as it stands now.

Now you would enable govt intrusion into their PRIVATE tragedy and increase their pain with questions and investigation? More $$ bureaucracy, taking up valuable Drs time, causing additional suffering for woman/couple? These would be the only results of more limitations in the law. No healthy viable fetuses would be affected. Only the people already in pain would be harmed.

Do you really feel that would be a better, more just, ethical outcome?
 
Josie said:
And if the baby is perfectly healthy but survives a abortion?
Click to expand...

what about that situation?
Who has the right to "kill" the baby in that case?
 
The new law in NYC is that an abortion may take place at any time up to time of delivery for any reason. So healthy viable fetus' can be aborted.
 
lwf said:
If by "legally kill," you mean, "remove from life-support." What about infants born alive with no brain activity?

If you are only talking about healthy infants, then my vote would be never.
Click to expand...

and i would agree with that 100%

though im not aware of any situation where its different and anybody is allowed to kill a healthy infant????
 
Integrityrespec said:
The new law in NYC is that an abortion may take place at any time up to time of delivery for any reason. So healthy viable fetus' can be aborted.
Click to expand...

Whats that have to do with the op question?
 
Lutherf said:
How did this become a Trump issue? NY passed a law that allows abortion up until birth. Virginia proposed one that would have allowed "abortion" after the baby was born. It's the Democrats that are pushing this issue, not Trump.
Click to expand...

Why do you come to this thread and post a lot of dishonest garbage?

You were provided with information in other threads, in many posts, that demonstrate your clear mischaracterizations above are wrong. Is your intent to just look stupid and uneducable? Or just to dishonestly shove your biased, inaccurate agenda down people's throats?

Let me ask: are you capable of absorbing new information?
 
AGENT J said:
what about that situation?
Who has the right to "kill" the baby in that case?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm asking. Should doctors be able to legally kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion?
 
AGENT J said:
and i would agree with that 100%

though im not aware of any situation where its different and anybody is allowed to kill a healthy infant????
Click to expand...

I am not aware of this either. I don't think it happens.
 
It's hardly necessary to kill the fetus, even if born alive

Josie said:
Any kind of "removal" of the fetus is dangerous to the mother if the mother's health is at risk. You try to save BOTH lives. Why wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

In the case of late third-trimester pregnancies, the fetus is already in distress, dying or dead, & the woman's health/life is in danger. There is no good prognosis for the fetus, even if it's born alive. The fetus @ that point was suffering genetic defects, poor to no development, or was dead. If born alive, the child's anticipated lifetime is short, before he or she dies of his medical problems.

That's why the medical recommendation is typically palliative care, until the child's medical problems kill him or her.
 
Josie said:
That's what I'm asking. Should doctors be able to legally kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion?
Click to expand...

and i asked you toi define kill and i asked you what about that situation? Who has the right to "kill" the baby in that case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom