Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1777779)

That's the same mindset I have - if a baby is viable at ? weeks and is wanted, there will be hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to keep that child alive. However, if that same baby isn't wanted, it's treated as biohazard material.

IMHO, it's two standards. This is either a child or not. There are measures taken to save a life or not. There shouldn't be an option of being wanted or not.

I had a friend whose wife delivered at 22 weeks, and the child is fine - now. They went through a year of hundreds of thousands of dollars for his care, and he became a March of Dimes poster boy. So, when I hear of a child being placed in a biohazard bag "coffin", please forgive me for shaking my head. I hope I never do understand that sort of logic.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1777821)

I have to doubt the 22 week number. That is the limit of our medical ability to save premature babies. I also have to mention that treating a premature baby is up to the parents. If the mother refuses treatment, the baby will not be resuscitated. Does that happen often? No, because those women want their babies. Is it wrong to refuse to give consent to treat a severely premature baby since the outcome is most often very poor? In my opinion it is not. If I had a premature baby at 22 weeks, after seeing what happens to these babies, I would choose to let the baby die. Sometimes what can be done is not the same as what should be done.

Originally Posted by ZTABullwinkle (Post 1777871)

I worked in the NICU at our local children's hopsital. I can recall seeing babies born at 20 weeks who were eventually discharged from the hospital. They went through hell, as did their parents and caregivers, but they did leave.

Maybe I missed it, but did the mother who was having the abortion realize the baby was alive? Has she spoke anymore about this? Can you imagine how she is feeling after all of this?

Originally Posted by ZTABullwinkle (Post 1777871)

Can you imagine how she is feeling after all of this?

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1777747)

LOL. Oh go ahead and disagree with me. My age is showing here -- I was in law school pre-Casey, and this isn't something I typically need to deal with work-wise. I thought in remembered that Casey modified the Roe-trimester framework somewhat but still left in intact. This is what I get for not going back and looking it up. Thanks for setting it straight.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1777877)

I'm sure you have, but they are in the minority of 20 weekers. And the majority have major deficits.

Originally Posted by ZTABullwinkle (Post 1777917)

Yes, it is definitely the minority.


The way I look at all of this, is this baby was alive when it was delivered (supposed to be aborted). Was it going to need a lot of medical intervention? Heck yes. I don't know how any human being could do what was done.

I also want to know why a doctor could be so neglient, and just losing his medical license is not punishment enough in my book.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1777959)

Florida probably has some law about dead body disposal, but come on--it's Florida! It's the most effed up state in the Union, with the exception of Mississippi and California!

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1777959)

Florida probably has some law about dead body disposal, but come on--it's Florida! It's the most effed up state in the Union, with the exception of Mississippi and California!