At what point does abortion become infanticide?

Published on June 15, 2005 By dharmagrl In Current Events

I'm a little confused.

Most doctors agree that the fetal age of viability is 24 weeks. An infant born at 24 weeks gestation stands a resonable chance of surviving if given the appropriate medical care and attention.

So, if the age of viability is 24 weeks, why is partial birth abortion not considered infanticide?

If the fetus is not viable due to some genetic defect of malformation, why is it necessary to kill it before it's born (remember I'm not talking about early stage abortion, as in first trimester - I'm focusing on late second and thrid trimester terminations)? Why can't that infant be delivered and allowed to die naturally?

If the D&X (dilation and extraction, the medical term for the monstrosity that is partial birth abortion) is necessary because of a medical condition that the mother is suffering from, why not perform a C-section and place the infant in the NICU? If it's after the age of viability (which most D&X's are), is not extracting the contents of the fetal cranium (that's sucking it's brans out in layman's terms) infanticide? The child was living whilst it was in utero, and it has a reasonable chance of surviving should it be delivered - so why is killing it not considered murder?

If that child had been born alive - if it's entire body had been delivered, the unbilical cord clamped and cut - if that had taken place and THEN the contents of it's cranium suckled out...THEN it would be considered murder.

Seems to be the only difference between infanticide and a legal partial birth abortion is a couple of inches.

And we think that we live in a civilized society....

Comments (Page 1)

Death_By_Beebles

on Jun 15, 2005

And we think that we live in a civilized society....

As long as people have the mindset that "sex doesn't make babies, it just makes me feel good" you'll have people screaming for their abortion rights. Sex makes babies, and it takes two to tango. As long as people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, there will always be unnecessary abortion.

It's a "My actions only affect me" mindset that has me disgusted with "civilized" people.

Peace,

Beebes

dharmagrl

on Jun 15, 2005

As long as people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, there will always be unnecessary abortion.

Some people view abortions as their way of taking responsibility for what they did.

I used to be all for abortions, but as I age my thinking changes....and now I'm not so pro-choice.

However, I cannot think of any circumstance under which a partial birth abortion is necessary....and I'm disgusted that we not only tolerate such a procedure, but we call it 'legal' and 'necessary'.

I honestly don't know how the physicians who perform D&X's can sleep at night.

bakerstreet

on Jun 15, 2005

They refuse to consider it infanticide because they believe anything that limits abortion is a tool pro-lifers can use to restrict abortion. Listen to their language, you'll probably hear some of it here. They'll say time and again that they don't agree with it, and that there should never be abortions, but in the end nothing can hamper a 'woman's right to choose'.

To me, it is a lot of empty talk, excusing the practice by implying that it is some natural, self-apparent freedom; as though abortion is some kind of civil right. It's laughable. The kind of abortion you describe is NO DIFFERENT than killing a newborn, and should be punished in the same way.

dharmagrl

on Jun 15, 2005

The kind of abortion you describe is NO DIFFERENT than killing a newborn, and should be punished in the same way

And that's exactly my point. That fetus is viable, it has a good chance of surviving should it be delivered whole and intact, so why is it okay to kill it in such a horrible manner and call it legal?

bakerstreet

on Jun 15, 2005

What bugs me as well is at one time we were beginning to punish murderers, drunk drivers, the negligent, etc., for killing women who were pregnant as though they had killed two. Now, it is next to impossible to do that because any such ruling creates a 'life at conception' precedent that most pro-abortion folks don't like to set.

Dr Guy

on Jun 15, 2005

Now, it is next to impossible to do that because any such ruling creates a 'life at conception' precedent that most pro-abortion folks don't like to set.

And hence the reason NARAL was so livid when Peterson was charged with double murder.

Moderateman

on Jun 15, 2005

#2 by dharmagrl
Wednesday, June 15, 2005

used to be all for abortions, but as I age my thinking changes....and now I'm not so pro-choice.

carefull, you are letting "conservative" thinking cloud your judgement.

I hate and abhor abortion, but I support a womans right to make what I consider a bad decision.

mick_k

on Jun 15, 2005

I personally am against abortion but also respect the right to choose. But in this case it's going to far. Does it really take you almost 6 months to decide you are not ready to have a child?

stutefish

on Jun 15, 2005

Moderateman, I'm all about people (including women) having the right to make bad decisions--except when those decisions have bad consequences for other people.

For me, the abortion question has never been a question of "choice". I'm totally pro-choice. Anything that men are allowed to do, I fully believe women should be allowed to do as well.

But men aren't allowed to kill babies. It's not a right for men. It's not a freedom for men. It's not a privilege for men. So why should it be a right or privilege for women?

When "pro-life" advocates try to justify abortion, all of their reasons boil down to this: women should be allowed to determine a creature's humanity based entirely on their own convenience. Like I said, I'm pro-choice. But nowhere else in the vast realm of human experience do we consider that a creature's humanity is something we have a choice about. Why should inconvenient pregnancies be an exception?

Here's an idea: Africa is extremely inconvenient. Why not just declare all Africans "not human" and abort them?

Moderateman

on Jun 15, 2005

9 by stutefish
Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Moderateman, I'm all about people (including women) having the right to make bad decisions--except when those decisions have bad consequences for other people.

For me, the abortion question has never been a question of "choice". I'm totally pro-choice. Anything that men are allowed to do, I fully believe women should be allowed to do as well.

But men aren't allowed to kill babies. It's not a right for men. It's not a freedom for men. It's not a privilege for men. So why should it be a right or privilege for women?

When "pro-life" advocates try to justify abortion, all of their reasons boil down to this: women should be allowed to determine a creature's humanity based entirely on their own convenience. Like I said, I'm pro-choice. But nowhere else in the vast realm of human experience do we consider that a creature's humanity is something we have a choice about. Why should inconvenient pregnancies be an exception?

Here's an idea: Africa is extremely inconvenient. Why not just declare all Africans "not human" and abort them?

although you are much more articulate than I, we are saying in essence the same thing.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 15, 2005

stutefish:

For me, the abortion question has never been a question of "choice". I'm totally pro-choice. Anything that men are allowed to do, I fully believe women should be allowed to do as well.

But men aren't allowed to kill babies. It's not a right for men. It's not a freedom for men. It's not a privilege for men. So why should it be a right or privilege for women?

I'd go along with this if men were capable of pregnancy and giving birth. But they're not.

bakerstreet

on Jun 15, 2005

"But men aren't allowed to kill babies. It's not a right for men. It's not a freedom for men. It's not a privilege for men. So why should it be a right or privilege for women?"

Exactly.

"I'd go along with this if men were capable of pregnancy and giving birth. But they're not."

So, you're saying that the ability to make a child gives you the right to kill a child? Takes two to tango, unless you are "immaculate".

Having a baby doesn't give you the right to kill it, neither should concieving one.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 15, 2005

I'm saying that this whole "same rights" thing doesn't fly when the obligations and consequences are not the same. As far as child bearing goes, men and women are not equal.

drmiler

on Jun 15, 2005

#13 by Texas Wahine
Wednesday, June 15, 2005

I'm saying that this whole "same rights" thing doesn't fly when the obligations and consequences are not the same. As far as child bearing goes, men and women are not equal.

Ahhh but Tex, baker makes VERY valid points at the end.:

Spc Nobody Special

on Jun 18, 2005

I'll go one further, why 24 week viability? When I had pneumonia in March, I wasn't viable without a s--tload of machinery. Why say that being human, alive, and wrong to kill starts when you can live without aid?

Turn off the heartpumps boys, it's not called euthanizing the old folks anymore.....it's aborting an 80 year old fetus! A woman's right to choose!

As far as I'm concerned, abortion is killing, period.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!