posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The bill that Obama voted against was to force doctors to provide medical care to "pre-viable" fetuses. In other words fetuses that could NOT
survive, even if given life support.
That is an incorrect interpretation of a "pre-viable fetus".
Obama's rationale is based upon his definition of a "pre-viable fetus". His opinion is that a pre-viable fetus is not afforded the same protections
as a fetus brought to term (9 months). So therefore, he says, protecting pre-viable fetuses would prevent abortions.
His statement "I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if
this is a child
, then this would be an antiabortion statute" is particularly cold, imo.
Those are the cold, hard facts.
This is the definition of a pre-viable fetus, from
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF ABORTED PRODUCTS OF CONCEPTION SPECIMENS
Dr. D.K. Kalousek
Previable fetus: Developing human from the beginning of the ninth week post-conception until gestational viability is reached (18 developmental or 20
Notice the word HUMAN. And notice the very short (2 week ) period declared by this definition. How unlucky for a fetus to be aborted during this 14
day period, if Obama's rule were to be followed!
Another view on this is presented by
The only possible link between the previable fetus and the child it can become is the pregnant woman’s autonomy. This is because technological
factors cannot result in the previable fetus becoming a child. Thus, the link between a previable fetus and the child it can become can be established
only by the pregnant woman’s decision to confer the status of being a patient on her previable fetus. Therefore, the previable fetus has no claim to
the status of being a patient independently of the pregnant woman’s autonomy. In our view, the pregnant woman is free to withhold, confer, or,
having once conferred, withdraw the status of being a patient on or from her previable fetus according to her own values and beliefs. The previable
fetus is presented to the physician solely as a function of the pregnant woman’s autonomy.
Notice that this does not prohibit the female from obtaining an abortion. It in no way removes her right of decision on whether to abort. The issue
here is whether the fetus can survive, or, should abortion be an automatic death sentence.
I say no. Let the woman decide to abort. But we as human beings have the responsibility to exercise compassion as the only spokesperson the fetus has.
We have a duty to protect a fetus that can live outside the womb, whether or not the woman wants us to. Her rights end when she decided to have it
removed from her womb with malicious intent.
[edit on 13-10-2008 by jsobecky]