Comments on: Did Barack Obama vote to withhold treatment to infants surviving abortion?

By: Ann

Ann — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:20:06 +0000

Anyone,
Is the Hippocratic Oath still taken by all doctors practicing medicine? If so, are there any ethical exceptions to the oath?

By: irishgrl

irishgrl — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:36:33 +0000

Pfft. you are discussing semantics, and “mother” has more than one meaning. Not all mothers innately protect their children either. As to your belief re: medical measures to sustain the “life of the baby” who pays for these measures? you? I didnt think so. There is a HUGE difference between a choice and an opinion.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but fortunately, nobody is bound by it.

By: Ann

Ann — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:01:41 +0000

I firmly believe that the ONLY person who has the right to decide what to do with their own offspring is the MOTHER. Not you, not me, not the State.
irishgrl,
The woman who aborts her own offspring is hardly entitled to be called a “mother”. Mothers innately protect their children. I believe I mentioned in my last post that choice was paramount for the woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. My personal hope is that the choice would be for life, however, it is not my choice to make. Women are going to have abortions regardless if they are legal or not, regardless of your opinion or mine, or the state. As to a child surviving an abortion attempt, I firmly believe every medical measure should be taken to sustain the life of the baby.

By: irishgrl

irishgrl — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:54:42 +0000

Ken, I agree with you. Completely.
Ann, I firmly believe that the ONLY person who has the right to decide what to do with their own offspring is the MOTHER. Not you, not me, not the State.

By: Ann

Ann — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:59:07 +0000

Minty,
Thanks for your response. Religion does not enter the equasion for me when it comes to saving a life – I just think it is the right things to do in a civilized world. Fetuses who survive abortion deserve the right to life IMHO just as I deserve the right to life if a doctor can save me from a horrible, life threatening car accident.
Regarding abortion – choice is paramount and elevates a way of thinking to look at all different options, be completely informed of the emotional impact that could last a lifetime or have no effect, and finally be fully aware of what they are doing rather than consider it a trivial matter that has no meaning. Either choice will have it’s own set of consequences and the woman should be well aware of that.

By: minty

minty — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:49:56 +0000

Something to consider is that this baby would probably not have to be saved if the decision was made to deliver it normally and naturally rather than through a failed abortion attempt on it’s life. I think every fetus deserves this same right.

I think your argument is with abortion itself then. If abortion is wrong, then of course every effort must be made to resuscitate the victims.
For myself, I support a woman’s right to have an abortion. And I think the proposed resuscitation of unformed, crippled fetuses is just awful.
The dividing factor, imho, is religion.

We support bills that protect individuals from hate crimes – what makes this any different?

I don’t think hate crimes legislation has anything to do with this. For the record, I am not a fan of hate-crimes legislation, but that’s another subject (lol).

By: Ann

Ann — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:56:09 +0000

for every fetus saved this way, how many fully-developed persons could have been treated and cared for?
Minty,
Someting to consider is that this baby would probably not have to be saved if the decision was made to deliver it normally and naturally rather than through a failed abortion attempt on it’s life. I think every fetus deserves this same right. What distinguishes one fetus from another when it comes to the right to life? We support bills that protect individuals from hate crimes – what makes this any different? In both scenarios, someone feels they have the right to “get rid of” those who are an inconvenience or make them uncomfortable in some way. Should that be a random choice?

By: minty

minty — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:45:38 +0000

The youngest infant that I have found an account for is 21 weeks. Why would anyone vote against this

“Saving” a five-month old, mutilated fetus from an abortion sounds horrifying. I can only imagine the life of pain and disability the unwanted baby would face, should the effort succeed. As well as the astronomical cost – for every fetus saved this way, how many fully-developed persons could have been treated and cared for?
However, if I were still religious, the bill would make sense. Then the ideas that only God must choose who lives or dies, and that God works in mysterious ways, take precedence.

By: ken

ken — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 02:31:40 +0000

Warren said in post 121965: The bill defines a term (born alive infant) which designates an entity with certain rights, one of which is medical care. Correct one of many rights. How have you ascertained it was this one right that Obama had a problem with? The point of the legislation was to define who was entitled to care. If medical care were the only concern of the legislation, there were other ways to word it without having to deal with the all the other issues that would be brought up. This bill does far more than simply define who was entitled to medical care. But one has to BE an infant first and this law defined a circumstance which was not clearly covered. It also defined circumstances that should not be covered (ex. non-viable fetuses)

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:43:12 +0000

The bill defines a term (born alive infant) which designates an entity with certain rights, one of which is medical care.
The point of the legislation was to define who was entitled to care. Even widow or widower is defined in IL law. In law, entities are defined so that courts can judge complaints based on law.
Once a born alive infant is defined then medical care follows. Obama once said in an interview that of course he would not withhold care from an infant. But one has to BE an infant first and this law defined a circumstance which was not clearly covered.
He now has said that he would have voted for the BAIPA at the federal level because there was no federal abortion law. However, he wants to enact one – FOCA. The logical conclusion is that if FOCA was in place, he would have opposed the federal BAIPA.