• 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
Josie

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,606
Reaction score
32,115
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Whether the infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion, should doctors be able to legally kill a born-alive infant?

Never
Only in rare circumstances (explain)
Always - any circumstance, if the mother agrees.
 
Josie said:
Whether the infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion, should doctors be able to legally kill a born-alive infant?

Never
Only in rare circumstances (explain)
Always - any circumstance, if the mother agrees.
Click to expand...


No. Never. Once a child has been born, at that point the mother's health is no longer at risk and she cannot claim bodily autonomy as a right to terminate the life of her child. No one has a right to commit infanticide, whether they have a medical license or are a mother.
 
This subject is so far off the rails now... thanks Republicans!
 
OrphanSlug said:
This subject is so far off the rails now... thanks Republicans!
Click to expand...

How is it Republicans' fault that Democratic lawmakers began to embrace de facto point-of-birth abortion laws apparently along with the philosophical framework of Peter Singer? This is a perfectly valid topic of discussion.

EDIT: I look forward to reading the explanations of the two voters.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
How is it Republicans' fault that Democratic lawmakers began to embrace de facto point-of-birth abortion laws apparently along with the philosophical framework of Peter Singer? This is a perfectly valid topic of discussion.

EDIT: I look forward to reading the explanations of the two voters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to have agree -- saying it's OK to kill a fully-born infant requires an explanation.

But it will not surprise me if the explanation isn't forthcoming.
 
Josie said:
Explain, please.
Click to expand...

Because Trump is misleading everyone (big surprise) on late term abortions and it has caused all sorts of hysteria, and odds are by design to have a conversation based on that emotion. Recent New York Law was not about "allow(ing) a woman going into labor to have an abortion," nor was this entire thing about trying to expand Roe v Wade.

Questions about doctors "killing" an infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion is just another round of inflammatory debate. You offer no context but are clearly leading to a conclusion.
 
Josie said:
Whether the infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion, should doctors be able to legally kill a born-alive infant?

Never
Only in rare circumstances (explain)
Always - any circumstance, if the mother agrees.
Click to expand...

The left always make it a point to say that you can't murder a fetus, which is another way of saying that once a birth takes place then there is no women's rights issues because it isn't in her body anymore. Now some are trying to argue that, yes, a woman does have the right to murder a baby, even if it is outside of her body. Still, I voted in rare circumstances because if a baby were to be terminal and suffering badly I think putting it out of it's misery is probably a good thing. I would hope that this is what the left means and the only thing the left means when they go down this road.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because Trump is misleading everyone (big surprise) on late term abortions and it has caused all sorts of hysteria, and odds are by design to have a conversation based on that emotion. Recent New York Law was not about "allow(ing) a woman going into labor to have an abortion," nor was this entire thing about trying to expand Roe v Wade.

Questions about doctors "killing" an infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion is just another round of inflammatory debate. You offer no context but are clearly leading to a conclusion.
Click to expand...

The context is obvious (well, I thought it was). This question came about from the Born Alive bill that didn't pass the Senate the other day. It would've required doctors to give the same care to babies born alive in a botched abortion that they would give to babies born naturally. It's a conversation we're having in this country today. It's not "all sorts of hysteria" since we obviously do have people who believe that, in some circumstances, the doctor CAN kill a born-alive infant (see poll results).

So what say you? Should doctors be legally able to kill born-alive infants?
 
For all the things the left will defend it's hard to understand how they cannot support preserving the life of a child in the womb and more importantly the life of a child born after a failed abortion attempt.
 
Josie said:
Whether the infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion, should doctors be able to legally kill a born-alive infant?

Never
Only in rare circumstances (explain)
Always - any circumstance, if the mother agrees.
Click to expand...

Late term abortions are almost exclusively performed when the fetus has no chance of survival in the first place. They're not killing anything at this point, they're letting it die. In fact, the more human thing to do in most of those situations would, in fact, be to put it out of its misery.
 
I support euthanizing babies under certain very limited circumstances. I haven't thought a ton about this, so there probably needs to be some refinement here but basically

1. The baby has a condition which greatly limits its lifespan.
2. The baby is suffering due to this condition, or the condition is such that the baby is missing vital parts of its brain and will never develop mentally.
3. Both the previous conditions have been confirmed in writing by at least two doctors.
4. The parents want to euthanize.

Ideally, babies would be aborted as soon as that sort of condition is discovered in the womb, but not everyone has access to prenatal screening and/or abortion services, and if a parent wants to save their baby, who is going to die anyway, undue pain and suffering, then I'm fine with that.
 
Josie said:
Whether the infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion, should doctors be able to legally kill a born-alive infant?

Never
Only in rare circumstances (explain)
Always - any circumstance, if the mother agrees.
Click to expand...

I'm strongly pro-choice...but this, no, never.
 
MrWonka said:
Late term abortions are almost exclusively performed when the fetus has no chance of survival in the first place. They're not killing anything at this point, they're letting it die. In fact, the more human thing to do in most of those situations would, in fact, be to put it out of its misery.
Click to expand...

And if the baby is perfectly healthy but survives a botched abortion?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
The left always makes it a point to say that you can't murder a fetus, which is another way of saying that once a birth takes place then there are no women's rights issues because it isn't in her body anymore. Now some are trying to argue that, yes, a woman does have the right to murder a baby, even if it is outside of her body.
Click to expand...

So if you have a 12-year-old child who is in a persistent vegetative state does the family have the right to have its feeding tube removed? Do they have a right to fill out a do not resuscitate form if both the parents and the doctor believe their child would only suffer more if they are kept alive unnecessarily?

That is essentially the scenario we're talking about here. Late term abortions are almost exclusively performed when it is known that the child is malformed and would be unable to survive outside of the womb. In that instance, it would be cruel to force a woman to carry a child to term for another month or term knowing full well it will die almost instantly at birth.

Some states are at this point moving forward with right to die legislation that will allow someone or someone's family to choose to medically end their lives so that they do not have to suffer a long and painful death. That is considered a rational and human choice. If it is the rational medical opinion of a legitimate Doctor that the child has no chance of surviving and having a meaningful life ahead of themselves and the parents agree why would you force that child to suffer a slower and more agonizing death?

Basically, Republicans are trying to force these poor infants to suffer needlessly in the hopes that the additional requirements on abortion clinics will be so high that they will be forced to close eliminating any and all avenue for a safe abortion for any reason.
 
lwf said:
If you are only talking about healthy infants, then my vote would be never.
Click to expand...

If they were healthy then their parents wouldn't have waited until the third trimester to abort. That is the problem that Republicans are trying to obfuscate. They want you to think these are all just horrible people who are waiting until the last minute to abort perfectly healthy children. In truth, these children are already doomed in virtually all cases. If a woman has carried a child to this point in pregnancy there's no rational reason to not just finish out the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption. Extraneous medical conditions are the only viable reason for this procedure.

Even if the abortion is being performed for the safety of the mothers help they would generally do everything in their power to save the child in that situation because that is what the mother wants.
 
Josie said:
And if the baby is perfectly healthy but survives a botched abortion?
Click to expand...

Doesn't actually happen. Particularly not in this day and age. And yes, I'm aware that you have 1 or 2 counterexamples from the '70s and '80s, but sorry is such an insanely unlikely scenario that you cannot justify the dumb laws you want based upon it.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because Trump is misleading everyone (big surprise) on late term abortions and it has caused all sorts of hysteria, and odds are by design to have a conversation based on that emotion. Recent New York Law was not about "allow(ing) a woman going into labor to have an abortion," nor was this entire thing about trying to expand Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug, let us be clear: Both sides of abortion debate, pro-choice and pro-life are based on emotion. At the end of practically every debate, pro-lifers basically accuse pro-choice advocates of simply wanting to kill babies. But by that same token, pro-choicers accuse pro-life advocates of simply wanting to control women's bodies. So do not let us not pretend that the overwrought emotionalism is only coming from one side of the aisle.

OrphanSlug said:
Questions about doctors "killing" an infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion is just another round of inflammatory debate. You offer no context but are clearly leading to a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Well, certainly. Doctors being allowed to legally kill born-alive children is inflammatory. Doctors being allowed to legally kill healthy fetuses right up until the moment of birth is inflammatory. But just because it is inflammatory does not mean we get to side-step the debate.

Now, just to make it clear, OrphanSlug: is it your contention that children born alive during botched abortions are well cared for in every case that it happens, and that these children are not left to die or have their lives terminated by the doctor? Because if you are saying that this never happens, why be against the passage of such a law? If it is as rare or nonexistent as people forcing polar bears to box in Death Valley, what harm is there in passing such a law prohibiting it?
 
Josie said:
And if the baby is perfectly healthy but survives a botched abortion?
Click to expand...

I confuse to be pro-choice but ....

There was a women who appeared on one of the Fox early morning shows, don't remember which one, but she claimed to be a botched abortion survivor. She appeared to be in her early twenties and appeared to be in excellent health. She explained all the things the doctors did to end her life in the womb...I bet you would never see this women appear on any liberal leaning cable show or on MSM.

Woman who survived abortion at 8 months finds birth mother | Daily Mail Online

Survivor of botched abortion tells Congress: Planned Parenthood makes sure “failures” like me don’t happen | Julie Roys

10 Abortion Survivors - Listverse

The above are just a few of the botched abortion stories...:(
 
MrWonka said:
If they were healthy then their parents wouldn't have waited until the third trimester to abort. That is the problem that Republicans are trying to obfuscate. They want you to think these are all just horrible people who are waiting until the last minute to abort perfectly healthy children. In truth, these children are already doomed in virtually all cases. If a woman has carried a child to this point in pregnancy there's no rational reason to not just finish out the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption. Extraneous medical conditions are the only viable reason for this procedure.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that all pregnant women think rationally and are mentally and emotionally stable. Gosnell is now well-known for late-term abortions and snipping the spines of born-alive infants. Are you saying every child he killed had a mother that was only going in for an illegal late-term abortion because her child was terminally ill?

Even if the abortion is being performed for the safety of the mothers help they would generally do everything in their power to save the child in that situation because that is what the mother wants.
Click to expand...

No -- because that's the child's right. The child has a right to live. It should have nothing to do with what the mother wants.
 
OlNate said:
I'm strongly pro-choice...but this, no, never.
Click to expand...

Don't worry just like with every other Republican crisis it's all fabricated. This scenario doesn't really ever happen they just want you to think it's happening a lot in order to justify horribly stupid laws that cause measurable harm. If Republicans had their way they'd build a wall around every woman's vagina and require her to ask them permission before removing it to put anything inside or take anything out.
 
MrWonka said:
Doesn't actually happen. Particularly not in this day and age. And yes, I'm aware that you have 1 or 2 counterexamples from the '70s and '80s, but sorry is such an insanely unlikely scenario that you cannot justify the dumb laws you want based upon it.
Click to expand...

Ahem -- Gosnell.
 
MrWonka said:
Doesn't actually happen. Particularly not in this day and age. And yes, I'm aware that you have 1 or 2 counterexamples from the '70s and '80s, but sorry is such an insanely unlikely scenario that you cannot justify the dumb laws you want based upon it.
Click to expand...

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?
 
MrWonka said:
Don't worry just like with every other Republican crisis it's all fabricated. This scenario doesn't really ever happen they just want you to think it's happening a lot in order to justify horribly stupid laws that cause measurable harm. If Republicans had their way they'd build a wall around every woman's vagina and require her to ask them permission before removing it to put anything inside or take anything out.
Click to expand...

lol...Republicans and walls, huh?

I know there's no danger of this, that it's hysteria and propaganda, which makes it all the easier to simply say No, not ever... :shrug: The good thing about a poll is that we can demonstrate that the sky isn't falling with numbers. It tends to end the nonsense a little quicker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom