So, if a baby is aborted then remains alive is killing it considered murder?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 96,00.html

[quote]Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion
Lois Rogers
A GOVERNMENT agency is launching an inquiry into doctors’ reports that up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched National Health Service abortions.

The investigation, by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH), comes amid growing unease among clinicians over a legal ambiguity that could see them being charged with infanticide.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which regulates methods of abortion, has also mounted its own investigation.

Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered. In practice, few doctors are willing or able to perform the delicate procedure.

For the abortion of younger foetuses, labour is induced by drugs in the expectation that the infant will not survive the birth process. Guidelines say that doctors should ensure that the drugs they use prevent such babies being alive at birth.

In practice, according to Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George’s hospital, London, a number do survive.

[b]“They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation,â€

I think that as soon as any child is born (alive) it should be under the same laws as any other born child.

So, if the born child later dies of neglect, then the parents should be charged for neglect. If they kill it with intent, then they should be charged for killing with intent.

Abortion is a nasty business, but it's -often- necessary. They could change the period in which abortion is allowed to make for less of these accidents, tho.

born alive. So, under your definition the child is not alive until it is removed from the wound?

@ Rinox: Under what circumstances is it often nessary?

What do you want me to define?

Well, I guess this sentence. You are saying, to reinterate, that as soon as a child is born(alive) it should be under the same laws as a normal born child.

Im wondering about your usage of the word "alive". To me it sounds like your saying that if its "alive" then it has legal rights because obviously if it where born dead it doesnt matter. But you used the term "born alive".

My question is do you considered a baby who is "alive" to have legal rights or the "alive" baby doesnt have rights until it leaves the womb?

Because the baby is "alive" in womb and if your saying it has rights because its "alive" the in has rights in the womb as well. I will assume you meant that as soon as the baby is removed from the womb(a critical criteria) that it then has legal rights.

Am I correct in my assumption?

Yep, thats sounds about right.

As i see it. When the child leaves the womb, it is no longer part of that person (as before).

But the baby is already fully grown (as baby), when it leaves the womb. That moment seems too arbitrary for me. I think a phoetus becomes a living being on it's own as soon as it's brains are well enough developed to actually become aware. It's rather hard to tell that moment though. But as soon as it becomes a living being it deserves rights.

bah, you can't measure awareness. I can't guarantee for a fact that some of these yokel cowboys near me are actually self-aware and not running purely on instincts and alcohol.

Anyway, imo if some health service fucks up an abortion, they should be liable for it and any damages. How the hell do you screw up an abortion and the kid gets born alive? I mean...isn't an abortion all about killing the baby and forcing birth pretty much immediately? It's not like you feed the person a pill, tell them to go home, and if nothing dead comes out call back in 3 weeks, right?

Anyway, abortion is a pretty charged topic, so I'm not sure how much I'll be commenting on this.

You can't "measure" awareness, but with what's known about the evolution of the human brain it should be possible to determine when a phoetus would become aware.

I measure it by how independant the entity is.

A fetus (sp?) is highly dependant on the mother in order to suvive. A newly born child can still survive without the mother. Therefore, i see the entity being more privelaged the more independant it becomes.

Yes i know, i cant spell independant or fetus.

I have to agree with Satis on this statement. There are plenty of people walking around that arent self aware. In fact, I bet everyone of us on this board , most of the time, is not self aware but autonomious. Even me. We are habit forming creatures, we go through the motions. The majority of society is "asleep". Its even stated in the bible. We wake up, go to work, eat, sleep, poop, rinse repeat without ever really stoping and becomeing "self aware".

And you cant measure that because awareness is only possible through the person.

Now when the baby is born its brain is functioning at a level of survial only, keeping its vital organs going which is a inbreed human ability. One does not need to be conscience to remain alive.

Moving on,

since you can measure awareness, and obviously the baby lacks intellect, is there any other biological attributes that the baby has at birth that could be measured?

Nervous system? physical development of its brain?

If not, then your only measurement is like derf stated which is, "once it leaves the womb".

Btw, Im not trying to start a debate if abortion is right or wrong, Im sure we all know where each other stands.

well, I don't have an answer, but part of the whole abortion argument is that killing a child is wrong. Which stems from the idea that killing a human being is wrong. That seems, to me, to be the basis for all this anti-abortion stuff.

So...is it wrong to kill people?

Yes. The question here, however, seems to be when we can call a phoetus/baby a human being.
When I said "aware" I meant when the phoetus would be able to feel things like pain. That could be measured be develpoment of the brain or nervous system for example.

For example, some time ago the norwegian government ordered a research about the killing of lobsters. A lot of unwashed environmentalists say it's cruel to kook the creatures alive, wich is the normal way of preparing them for dinner. The arguement is that they would be excessively hurt by this method. The research however showed that the creatures' nervous system is too primitive to feel the pain.

Somewhere between the fertilization and birth there is a moment where the nervous system becomes so far developed that it will feel the pain of abortion. I think that abortion should be allowed untill that time. The only exception on that is that if defects are found that will certainly kill the baby after birth abortion should also be possible.

who cares if the fetus feels pain? I mean, it's going to die shortly thereafter anyway. What's a bit of pain when the ultimate nothing is looming ahead? BTW...have you ever heard a lobster scream?

At any rate, I don't think pain should be the limiting factor. There's no difference between the pain a fetus feels and the pain an ant feels when I step on it. Yet one (supposedly) morally wrong while the other isn't.

And isn't there an inherent difference between, say, throwing a living dog into a fire and shooting a child in the head with a handgun? They both wrong...and the dog feels pain whereas the kid doesn't...but what's worse?

Meh...anyway, just throwing stuff out there.