Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

honeychile stated her opinion and she has been picked on ever since.

Either you're reading a different thread or you're hypersensitive.

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

We all have a right to believe what we believe and should be able to state that belief without being picked on.

Hence the discussion in this thread.

So stop "picking on us" for responding to honeychile.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I'm having trouble understanding the uproar. What's the difference, in this specific case, between ending the baby's life while in the womb and ending the baby's life outside of the womb if the goal is accomplished?

That's a really good point. I think the uproar comes from the fact that the doctor didn't show up and someone with no medical expertise dealt with the situation and then just threw the baby out.

My belief is that abortions shouldn't be allowed after the point of when a baby can be delivered and have a possibility of living.

I posted earlier about a family friend who delivered prematurely. She delivered at 27 weeks, and that little girl is now 11 years old.

ETA: Also, the article didn't state why the woman was having an abortion. If she was having it because she didn't want the baby anymore, I have HUGE issues with that. If it was a matter of keeping the woman alive because of a difficult pregnancy, then I have a huge issue with the way it was carried out. Although, if it were the latter, I'd think it'd happen in a hospital and not an abortion clinic. (I know of a woman who had to abort mid-pregnancy because it was a chance of her dying and possibly the baby dying. She had other kids also. The abortion was very hard on everyone in their family and I believe they had a private funeral and the baby's body is buried in the cemetary.)

[ZTABullwinkle]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

That's a really good point. I think the uproar comes from the fact that the doctor didn't show up and someone with no medical expertise dealt with the situation and then just threw the baby out.

My belief is that abortions shouldn't be allowed after the point of when a baby can be delivered and have a possibility of living.

I posted earlier about a family friend who delivered prematurely. She delivered at 27 months, and that little girl is now 11 years old.

ETA: Also, the article didn't state why the woman was having an abortion. If she was having it because she didn't want the baby anymore, I have HUGE issues with that. If it was a matter of keeping the woman alive because of a difficult pregnancy, then I have a huge issue with the way it was carried out. Although, if it were the latter, I'd think it'd happen in a hospital and not an abortion clinic. (I know of a woman who had to abort mid-pregnancy because it was a chance of her dying and possibly the baby dying. She had other kids also. The abortion was very hard on everyone in their family and I believe they had a private funeral and the baby's body is buried in the cemetary.)

27 months? Wow, that is a long pregnancy.

sorry, I couldn't resist!

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Either you're reading a different thread or you're hypersensitive.



Hence the discussion in this thread.

So stop "picking on us" for responding to honeychile.

Thank you for your statement, it proved my point...

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

Thank you for your statement, it proved my point...

And this statement proves mine.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

This story does point out the slippery slope that is picking a single point at which life outside the womb is possible. Most of those I know who call themselves pro-choice draw the line at abortion after the child is viable outside the womb. That line keeps getting earlier and earlier.

I posted somewhere else on GC that I believe the answer is establishing a point in gestation beyond which abortion is no longer legal across the board. Beyond that point, if there is a threat to the mother's life, determine another option (such as an emergency c-section). At this point with modern technology, I'd personally say legalize abortion up to 22 weeks. Beyond that, the baby is likely viable outside the womb.

I understand that there can be serious complications for the baby if born premature, but at least give the baby a chance at life. The thing that horrifies me about late term abortions is that we wouldn't go around jamming scissors into newborns' heads...why do it to a baby in utero that CLEARLY feels the pain?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

I'm very pro-choice but 23 weeks? I've known babies to be born premature at those weeks and have survived. I've heard of partial birth abortion but I alway assumed that meant 4 or 5 months. (although a family friend gave birth at 5 months and that little girl is about 10 years old now)

But that's not what disgusts me about this story. Where was the doctor? Why was someone with no medical experience dealing with this?

I think we are getting a very skewed story. A 23 week fetus will NOT live without immediate medical treatment, and nearly all 23 week babies born prematurely without the aid of an attempted abortion will die regardless of medical treatment. Whether or not this is murder is VERY debatable. Why this woman was given a cervical dilator before the physician arrived is a necessary question to answer. As for the employee who thought it wise to dispose of the baby as described, a lack of education may be the answer.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The trimester framework was thrown out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, the Court retained the viability aspect of the test but made it something of a moving target. They said that prior to the point of viability, the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body [I paraphrase], after the point of viability, however, the state's interest in protecting life kicks in and the state can do whatever it deems necessary, even proscribing abortions altogether. The Court, of course, left us with an exception which probably eats the rule -- when the health of the mother is in question, the state's interest in protecting life yields to that. What this "health" interest is, no one really knows.

I usually will hesitate to disagree with MC on legal issues, but this was my understanding as well, that the plurality in Casey threw out the trimester framework. Other than what you've posted, though, I don't think a whole lot more came out of the case (as noted by your last sentence).

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

I have a problem with this thread and that goes beyond the original horrific story.

This country has been divided along lines of Pro Life and Pro Choice since the Roe v. Wade decision so many years ago.

honeychile stated her opinion and she has been picked on ever since. We all have a right to believe what we believe and should be able to state that belief without being picked on.

A couple of things on this:

1) The country was already divided before Roe v. Wade. All you have to do is look at the Griswold decision, or the immense amount of press and publicity prior to Roe to see that this has divided the nation for a number of years. I would agree that it's become even more of a public issue since Roe (especially with the ridiculous tradition of screening Supreme Court justices by their views on abortion).

2) Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where honeychile has been picked on in this thread. Were posts deleted? In any event, I think any time you express your opinion on something as controversial as abortion, you have to expect that you'll be "picked on" to some extent, because people are so polarized on the issue.

[honeychile]

FYI, I don't think I've been picked on in this thread.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honeychile

FYI, I don't think I've been picked on in this thread.

LOL! I didn't think you did. That's why we're like

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Whether or not this is murder is VERY debatable.

That's kinda where I'm stuck. If it was an abortion and abortion is legal, then it's not murder to finish the abortion.

[Kappamd]

Um, I don't think that just because the INTENT was an abortion, that this should not be considered murder. Every ethics class I've ever taken, including one that spent about 6 weeks debating the ethics of abortion, has taught me that even THE MOST LENIENT theories about when life begins say that it is at birth (well aside from some crazy theory that says we don't actually become human until age 2). This child was born, and then purposely left to die. =Murder to me.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The trimester framework was thrown out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, the Court retained the viability aspect of the test but made it something of a moving target. They said that prior to the point of viability, the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body [I paraphrase], after the point of viability, however, the state's interest in protecting life kicks in and the state can do whatever it deems necessary, even proscribing abortions altogether. The Court, of course, left us with an exception which probably eats the rule -- when the health of the mother is in question, the state's interest in protecting life yields to that. What this "health" interest is, no one really knows.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I usually will hesitate to disagree with MC on legal issues, but this was my understanding as well, that the plurality in Casey threw out the trimester framework. Other than what you've posted, though, I don't think a whole lot more came out of the case (as noted by your last sentence).

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 honeychile

While I consider myself pro-life, I really don't accept 100% of their literature without doubt.

Based on my experience, that is a wise approach with any type of group, whether pro-life, pro-choice or pro-/anti-anything.

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

honeychile stated her opinion and she has been picked on ever since. We all have a right to believe what we believe and should be able to state that belief without being picked on.

I don't think anyone has picked on her, and I'm glad to see that she doesn't feel that way either. Many of us disagreed with one statement that she made (about society accepting this), and I, at least, did so to reassure her, not pick on her. But in any event, simply disagreeing with someone =/= picking on them.

BTW, I saw in the paper that the doctor's license was suspended.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

Um, I don't think that just because the INTENT was an abortion, that this should not be considered murder. Every ethics class I've ever taken, including one that spent about 6 weeks debating the ethics of abortion, has taught me that even THE MOST LENIENT theories about when life begins say that it is at birth (well aside from some crazy theory that says we don't actually become human until age 2). This child was born, and then purposely left to die. =Murder to me.

We don't know that the baby was actually alive for long. A precipitous delivery with no neonatal staff present to resuscitate a 23 week baby would result in a very quick death by the baby. That is poor planning and unfortunate, but not murder. Disposing of the baby in the manner described was abhorrent. Does some poor office worker in an abortion clinic deserve to go to prison for murder because of poor judgement? If the baby had been born then cut into a million pieces, then yes, it would be murder. The baby in question would have died even if the worker had called 911. No one would have been able to intubate and resuscitate a
a baby that premature on a standard EMS team.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

That's kinda where I'm stuck. If it was an abortion and abortion is legal, then it's not murder to finish the abortion.

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.