Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile
I know two couples who had a child at 5 months. Both are alive and doing well, but a third couple's child has some challenges. Just sayin'.
While I would be considered pro-life, I think the point that you'd have to kill a child (as opposed to giving normal suctioning the lungs etc) would be the point of viability. What I see as the norm is that, if a pregnancy's wanted, any and all medical care would be given to the baby. If the pregnancy's unwanted, the baby gets no care at all.
|
You're mixing two issues here. While I agree with you that this case is horrific, comparing the decision to treat or not treat a severely premature baby with a partial birth abortion is fallacious. Caring parents can reasonably make the decision NOT to resuscitate a severely premature baby. That doesn't mean the pregnancy was "unwanted." Also, women who are choosing to have late term abortions are not having them because they just couldn't be bothered to do it earlier, "so what the hell." I don't think that there are any methods that leave infants to die of exposure.
Anyway, if you need to have a late term abortion, there are more humane ways to do this than what this man was doing. He was basically pithing these babies like you would a rat. I'm disturbed by his thought process. There are legitimate reasons for late term abortions, but luckily they are rare and many women still choose not to have them. But....that is their choice.
Hybrid Mode
