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 2)

Dr Guy

on Jun 19, 2005

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!

Post Partum abortion.

bakerstreet

on Jun 19, 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. "

Wrong. This isn't the jungle. The law, flawed though it is, recognizes that men are just as responsible for a pregnancy, and yet they have no say in whether or not their child is aborted.

The "consequences" pans out to be a human life. If a woman can "opt-out" of the life she carries, then there's no reason anyone should be obligated to accept pain or risk to preserve any life.

Women can place children for adoption, they need not kill them. An abortion is simply the act of killing someone out of fear or dread or dispair. As has been said, if you are going to allow people to kill kids out of convenience, why stop at birth?

The saddest part is that people who opt for abortions can later have more kids. Otherwise we'd have a chance of natural selection weeding out this deranged disrespect for human life.

Sorry if I seem offensive, but people claiming that some esoteric, Liberal concept of women's rights trumps the rights of a child to be born makes me physically ill.

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!