Obama '08?

Re: okie (Post 3619611)
okie style republicans would deny that same baby a warm blanket claming "welfare" is un-american.

okie wrote:

If you consent to a baby dying, what does that make you, cyclops?

A realist, babies die every day. Nothing new there.
Cycloptichorn

What if that birth occurred after a failed attempt at a late term-abortion and witholding such "treatment " was deliberate?

Definition of "late-term"

A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 12 completed weeks' gestation as "late".[1][2] Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[3][4] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]

The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly between pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area".[6]

[edit] Incidence of later abortion
Data source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

* Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[7]

* England and Wales: In 2005, 9% of abortions occurred between 13 to 19 weeks, while 1% occurred at or over 20 weeks.[8]

* New Zealand: In 2003, 2.03% of induced abortions were done between weeks 16 to 19, and 0.56% were done over 20 weeks.[9]

* Norway: In 2005, 2.28% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 1.24% of abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, and 0.20% over 21 weeks.[10]

* Scotland: In 2005, 6.1% of abortions were done between 14 to 17 weeks, while 1.6% were performed over 18 weeks.[11]

* Sweden: In 2005, 5.6% of abortions were carried out between 12 and 17 weeks, and 0.8% at or greater than 18 weeks.[12]

* United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there is no exact data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[14]

Quote:

What if that birth occurred after a failed attempt at a late term-abortion and witholding such "treatment " was deliberate?

Is such late-term abortion legal? I had thought that past the third trimester, you generally could not do this, unless the mother's life was at stake.

What does 'forced to assent' mean?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What if that birth occurred after a failed attempt at a late term-abortion and witholding such "treatment " was deliberate?

Is such late-term abortion legal? I had thought that past the third trimester, you generally could not do this, unless the mother's life was at stake.

What does 'forced to assent' mean?

Cycloptichorn

Well, as cicerone has so uncharacteristically researched for us, such late term events are - as I stated - uncommon, but real - potentially more than a thousand each year in this country.

"Forced to assent" means forced by government management of health care services or entitlements to participate in or assist in the performance of such actions. As I said, this issue is not before us yet, but it is a likely development. The issue has already been raised by the country's Catholic hospitals.

"Forced to assent" means forced by government management of health care services or entitlements to participate in or assist in the performance of such actions. As I said, this issue is not before us yet, but it is a likely development.

I would wager that 95% of those thousand or so abortions were life-or-death situations for the mother. Are you and others claiming that Catholic hospitals and others should be able to refuse to perform abortions in such life-or-death situations?

Cycloptichorn

No, the evidence is to the contrary. Most involve deliberate abortions performed "for the mental health of the mother" or other like reasons.

Evidently you prefer to evade the question. OK by me.

I think you are evading the issue. Would you consent to the death through asphyxiation of a new-born infant if the medical team knowingly and deliberately failed to clean out the infant'a airway immediately after birth?

Are you asking, during a delivery, would I assent to the allowed asphyxiation of a new-born infant during the normal delivery process? No, I would not consent to that.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Are you asking, during a delivery, would I assent to the allowed asphyxiation of a new-born infant during the normal delivery process? No, I would not consent to that.

Cycloptichorn

Well then, if you will go back to the original issue that sparked this discussion, you will see that adovcates of unlimited abortion "rights" insist that laws requiring the provision of normal medical treatment to live "foetuses" born in attempts at late term abortion are themselves a violation a woman's rights. In short, that no legal barrier should be created to prevent their deaths during or after the procedure.

It is clear that such cases are the exception and not the rule, but they do occur. The core legal issue is the child's (or the foetus', depending on your point of view) rights to the legal protection of life. It, of course, is a hot button issue for advocates of "free choice". The controversy is a reminder that , on such hotly debated political issues, truth and common sense are often the first casualties.

That is just another generalization that does not stand up to reality. Not all who believe in abortion agree to all manners of women's rights.