- Jul 22, 2017
- 2,982
- 3,087
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Born Alive Abortion Survival Bill
- Thread starter Introverted1293
- Start date
- Jul 22, 2017
- 2,982
- 3,087
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
To be perfectly honest, there was, but I erased it. I thought the argument that I presented was stupid. So, I just erased it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN
My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
- Jul 1, 2007
- 17,849
- 5,477
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Most fetuses that would be old enough in trimester, to be born alive. There's usually medical reasons for an abortion. Also, there's a huge chance of brain damage and other medical issues with the born babies born before 25 weeks.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 28,197
- 17,033
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I would question the motivation behind the bill.
While I think any sensible person would want a baby born after an abortion attempt to receive the proper medical care, I question how often that situation actually happens? (where a baby is born alive after an abortion attempt, and is left to die on the table)
It's become something of a disingenuous political strategy for politicians to attempt to malign people from the other side by writing long-winded legislation (with semantically loaded bill names to evoke emotion) aimed at very rare occurrences with the goal of convincing the public that "oh, if these guys are writing a whole bill dedicated to it, it must be happening all the time, how horrible!"
From what I understand, that scenario is exceedingly rare. There's not a perfect source of data nationwide as not every state has the same reporting requirements.
However, based on the data that is out there.
The CDC reported that between 2003 and 2014, there were 143 infant deaths as a result of induced termination. Of those, 97 of them were cases where the procedure was being performed due to health issues of the mother (which would be justified abortions even by conservative standards). In all cases, medical intervention was attempted to save the life of the infant that was born alive.
Minnesota reports in more granular detail. In 2017, there were over 10,000 abortions, only 3 resulted in an infant being born alive, and of those 3, only 1 was neglected.
And there's already laws in place that criminalize wanton neglect of an infant born alive.
So, I see this as a PR tactic (aimed at shaping public opinion) that's simply "providing a solution to a rare problem for which there's already a solution in place".
While I think any sensible person would want a baby born after an abortion attempt to receive the proper medical care, I question how often that situation actually happens? (where a baby is born alive after an abortion attempt, and is left to die on the table)
It's become something of a disingenuous political strategy for politicians to attempt to malign people from the other side by writing long-winded legislation (with semantically loaded bill names to evoke emotion) aimed at very rare occurrences with the goal of convincing the public that "oh, if these guys are writing a whole bill dedicated to it, it must be happening all the time, how horrible!"
From what I understand, that scenario is exceedingly rare. There's not a perfect source of data nationwide as not every state has the same reporting requirements.
However, based on the data that is out there.
The CDC reported that between 2003 and 2014, there were 143 infant deaths as a result of induced termination. Of those, 97 of them were cases where the procedure was being performed due to health issues of the mother (which would be justified abortions even by conservative standards). In all cases, medical intervention was attempted to save the life of the infant that was born alive.
Minnesota reports in more granular detail. In 2017, there were over 10,000 abortions, only 3 resulted in an infant being born alive, and of those 3, only 1 was neglected.
And there's already laws in place that criminalize wanton neglect of an infant born alive.
So, I see this as a PR tactic (aimed at shaping public opinion) that's simply "providing a solution to a rare problem for which there's already a solution in place".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 41,946
- 19,927
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
There's more fun to be had with this - one side or the other can tack on an unrelated amendment that is anathema to the other side to get them to vote the original bill down. They can then campaign on how so-and-so voted against the Born Alive bill.
Upvote
0
- Nov 15, 2006
- 49,808
- 17,951
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
According to the CDC it is a real and present issue. Babies being born alive and left without medical intervention to die.
Upvote
0
- Jan 19, 2005
- 7,891
- 4,440
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Where does it state that there was no intervention? I only see numbers relating to those born with signs of life yet still died. Nothing about what actions were taken.
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 22,590
- 13,959
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Playing fast and loose with “real and present” given that the link in the photograph is borked, is five years old, based on an 11 year window of data (the “freshest” of which) is eight years old and still only shows less than fifteen post-termination deaths per year.
So, where’d you find this gem?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
