And that's why I'll never understand why people kill little babies who were not born yet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This baby was aborted due to genetic problems. Not saying I would do the same, but isn't that they ONLY reason you are allowed to have a late term abortion? The article doesn't go into detail about the problems with the fetus but it may not have survived anyway. Some people would rather not continue a pregnancy if it meant carrying the baby to term, giving birth and then having the baby die three days later.

Does it make it any better that they tried to kill the baby and threw him away and he was still alive suffering pain, being cold, hungry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This baby was aborted due to genetic problems. Not saying I would do the same, but isn't that they ONLY reason you are allowed to have a late term abortion? The article doesn't go into detail about the problems with the fetus but it may not have survived anyway. Some people would rather not continue a pregnancy if it meant carrying the baby to term, giving birth and then having the baby die three days later.

I thought there is a time frame after genetic results are received to choose to abort but I was thinking it is early on not late term. Does anyone know when exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This baby was aborted due to genetic problems. Not saying I would do the same, but isn't that they ONLY reason you are allowed to have a late term abortion? The article doesn't go into detail about the problems with the fetus but it may not have survived anyway. Some people would rather not continue a pregnancy if it meant carrying the baby to term, giving birth and then having the baby die three days later.

Does it make it any better that they tried to kill the baby and threw him away and he was still alive suffering pain, being cold, hungry?

Well yes. I think that it is a valid reason to have an abortion. But if the baby survived the abortion, they should not have left him to die. Is that what you mean? I'm not sure the doctors knew he was alive until much later.

[Anonymous]

Apparently some people believe that the baby still is not a person because the intent was to abort even if the baby took a breath. Are you not a real living being and deserve rights if only for 1 to 3 days. How can anyone predict the viability. also we aren't a 3rd world country that picks babies to live or die. Someone needs to do a scientific study to determine when the baby can react to pain and maybe if we have the technology to determine when the baby can have cognitive abilities. I think science should solve this issue not a court and some crazy pro choice nut cases.

[Anonymous]

I had a second trimester abortion because my baby had a fatal condition. We knew about the condition earlier in the pregnancy, but couldn't determine the severity, so we waited because we were hoping she could be saved. When she got bigger it became clear her condition was even worse than initially thought and she was given zero chance to survive due to lack of lung tissue. We choose a later abortion in an attempt to reduce/eliminate any chance that our baby would suffer and because I couldn't handle carrying to term and watching her die. Until you walk in my shoes, you really don't undestand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a relative who works in a NICU. She said she could never make sense of the fact that they would be spending tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of dollars keeping pre-term babies alive in one end of the hospital, while they were aborting babies of the same gestational age in the other end.

This is really laughably ignorant, considering the number of second trimester abortions in this country is tiny and not usually performed in a hospital unless there's a medical necessity to save the mother's life. Maybe she's delusional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a relative who works in a NICU. She said she could never make sense of the fact that they would be spending tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of dollars keeping pre-term babies alive in one end of the hospital, while they were aborting babies of the same gestational age in the other end.

In some third world countries the number of incubators is limited and doctors have to choose whose premie is worth the effort of saving

I love such random comments...

That's not a random comment. There are some super preemies for whom a cold assessment of health and gestational age would indicate that spending millions of dollars on their care is perhaps not the wisest decision, just as there are elderly people who probably shouldn't have extreme measures to save their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a second trimester abortion because my baby had a fatal condition. We knew about the condition earlier in the pregnancy, but couldn't determine the severity, so we waited because we were hoping she could be saved. When she got bigger it became clear her condition was even worse than initially thought and she was given zero chance to survive due to lack of lung tissue. We choose a later abortion in an attempt to reduce/eliminate any chance that our baby would suffer and because I couldn't handle carrying to term and watching her die. Until you walk in my shoes, you really don't undestand.

I'm really sorry for your loss. This was my biggest fear when pregnant and I can't imagine the pain and heartache.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a relative who works in a NICU. She said she could never make sense of the fact that they would be spending tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of dollars keeping pre-term babies alive in one end of the hospital, while they were aborting babies of the same gestational age in the other end.

This is really laughably ignorant, considering the number of second trimester abortions in this country is tiny and not usually performed in a hospital unless there's a medical necessity to save the mother's life. Maybe she's delusional?

I'm pro-choice, but abortion advocates have ensured that there are essentially NO limitations on abortion in this country. Why was there such a fight over "partial birth abortion" if it isnt used? What is the article about? Who's delusional here?

[Anonymous]

"Until you walk in my shoes, you really don't understand."


This. I also had to end my very much wanted pregnancy at 20 weeks because of a massive infection in my uterus. Later-term abortions make up a very small percentage of abortions performed, and they are not performed for "convenience." Pregnancy isn't always sunshine and rainbows - tragic situations can and do occur and heatrbreaking choices sometimes have to be made. These choices are between a woman, her family, her medical team, and God - they are no one else's business. I wouldn't wish what I went through on my worst enemy. I will be forever grateful for the compassionate and skilled doctors and nurses who helped me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a relative who works in a NICU. She said she could never make sense of the fact that they would be spending tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of dollars keeping pre-term babies alive in one end of the hospital, while they were aborting babies of the same gestational age in the other end.

This is really laughably ignorant, considering the number of second trimester abortions in this country is tiny and not usually performed in a hospital unless there's a medical necessity to save the mother's life. Maybe she's delusional?

I'm pro-choice, but abortion advocates have ensured that there are essentially NO limitations on abortion in this country. Why was there such a fight over "partial birth abortion" if it isnt used? What is the article about? Who's delusional here?

Just because there are no limitations doesn't mean that second and third trimester abortions are in wide use or practice. I think there are about three practitioners who will do a third trimester abortion.

[Anonymous]

If you feel bad, why not start a group to adopt unwanted babies? If you can guarantee adoption for unwanted babies, I'm sure they'll be less abortions.

But I think we all know that won't happen. People harp about saving babies, but nobody wants to take care of them after "saving" them.

And for people who claim to be "pro-life" and illegalize abortions... What are you going to do with the women who want to get an abortion? Throw them in jail? Fine them? (most of them are poor women).

Best solution is to keep it legal, offer counseling to avoid it, and every effort to support the mother during and after (if she changes her mind) birth (through childcare, food, education).

If America offered free childcare, birth control, and reproductive education to every women AND MEN, we could eliminate abortions that's not needed due to medical reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This baby was aborted due to genetic problems. Not saying I would do the same, but isn't that they ONLY reason you are allowed to have a late term abortion? The article doesn't go into detail about the problems with the fetus but it may not have survived anyway. Some people would rather not continue a pregnancy if it meant carrying the baby to term, giving birth and then having the baby die three days later.

I thought there is a time frame after genetic results are received to choose to abort but I was thinking it is early on not late term. Does anyone know when exactly?

The baby was aborted at 22 weeks, which is second trimester. The third trimester starts at 26 weeks, and after that it is considered "late term abortion."

I will say I am shocked that a baby born at 22 weeks could breathe on its own for 24 hours. Many babies born past 30 weeks have breathing issues; its not until 36 weeks plus that the lungs are matured enough to breather without assistance.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Obama was one of the only members to vote against the bill which would mandate giving babies born alive after an abortion proper medical care?

Happened at Christ Hospital in IL.

He was one of the only members to vote against it.

You are misrepresenting Obama's position here. While Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he voted against a a bill that would give aborted fetuses that showed signs of life full legal protections even if doctors believed they could not survive. Obama's vote was in committee and the bill was defeated in that committee. However, Obama's position was not in support of withholding medical care in such circumstances. Rather, the bill would have impacted the legality of abortions in Illinois. Indeed, the bill was later amended to make clear that it would not affect the legality of abortion and was passed into law. Obama was not in the Illinois Senate at that time, but says he would have supported it.

Your claim that Obama was "one of the only members to vote against it" is disputable. Obama was in the majority, otherwise the bill would have passed. So, he certainly was not one of the only members of the committee.

Jeff, I'm sorry, but you are wrong about several crucial facts.

Obama did not just vote against a law in committee in Illinois.

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed on the federal level overwhelmingly, and was signed into law by then-president Bush. Obama's position was, and is, in the vast minority.

When the Illinois law was revised to exactly match the federal version (after failing to pass the previous year), Obama voted against it again.
Obama's record, including his personal speeches about his position, is available here:

http://bornalivetruth.org/timeline.php

The line "he is not against withholding medical care to infants who survive abortions; he is afraid such a law would undermine abortion rights" is incoherent and empty. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is federal law now. And Obama has been outspoken against it. Here is a summary of his statements over the years, compiled by Jill Stanek, the nurse who witnessed an infant slowly die in an Illinois hospital:

http://www.wnd.com/2008/01/45553/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you feel bad, why not start a group to adopt unwanted babies? If you can guarantee adoption for unwanted babies, I'm sure they'll be less abortions.

But I think we all know that won't happen. People harp about saving babies, but nobody wants to take care of them after "saving" them.

And for people who claim to be "pro-life" and illegalize abortions... What are you going to do with the women who want to get an abortion? Throw them in jail? Fine them? (most of them are poor women).

Best solution is to keep it legal, offer counseling to avoid it, and every effort to support the mother during and after (if she changes her mind) birth (through childcare, food, education).

If America offered free childcare, birth control, and reproductive education to every women AND MEN, we could eliminate abortions that's not needed due to medical reasons.

More than half of all abortions are performed on women who were using birth control the month they got pregnant.

Birth control guarantees a demand for abortions; it does not prevent them.