I second that. This breaks my heart.

Mother and all individuals involved need to go to prison. The Mother was almost 6mo. if she wanted to abort the baby, she should have done it long before she did. The all knew they were taking a fully developed baby's life and that is not right, And then throw it away like a piece of garbage what the hell is wrong with these people.

I myself am pro-choice, but this (20+wks) is not an abortion, this was a murder.

Most people in the country seem to think you can only have an abortion during the early months of a pregenency. You are legally allowed to have an abortion upto the moment of a full term delivery if it is determined the mothers "emotional" health might be at risk. This story brings to light the rediculousness of our abortion laws. It's ludicrous that the doctor could kill the baby himself and it would be considered legal and moral, but if the baby was killed by anyone else it is considered murder and shocking. The fact that we allow people to murder babies in the first place is what is shocking. Most people just dont take the time to think about what is really happening in the country. When an article like this comes into the news it shocks people. what shocks me is if the doctor got there earlier he could have killed the baby himself and all would have been just fine. I dont understand how our nation is so divided about this. We cry out against child abuse and yet is is legal to murder our infants. Our nation is hypicritical!!

Thank you. 23 weeks is viability. They should all be charged with murder. All three people are responsible for murder. The baby was born alive, period. This wasn't an abortion, but murder. The stupid girl could have waited another 3 months and given the baby up for adoption. What an evil person! What evil people! Money talk I guess. Abortion is big business. Only $1200 to snuff out a life, legally. What a deal for the doctors. Hope you enjoy spending that money in hell.

This is so horrible. I agree with another poster, "determine if his liscense will be revoked" WTH that should be automatic mandatory and save the court that part of the trial. This is out and out murder. And since when can an abortion be performed AFTER 12 wks of pregnancy? They did'nt mention anything about that which is against the law if I remember correctly. This whole story makes me sick!!

Abortion is murder--period. And to think we have a new President who wants to pass the FOCA which will remove all restrictions on abortions in every state. God help America!

One of the pioneers of family planning and the woman who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain, Marie Stopes, was a racist and an anti-Semite who campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

The feminist also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist) , Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.

Ominously, The Galton Institute website promotes its support and funding initiative for “the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries.” In other words, the same organization that once advocated sterilizing black people to achieve racial purity in the same vein as the Nazis is now bankrolling abortions of black babies in the third world.

A lot has been made of the ideals of Martin Luther King in light of the inauguration of the first black President. What would the legendary civil rights campaigner have thought of Obama’s action to ensure funding for the abortion of black babies? Here’s what his niece, Dr. Alveda King had to say about the matter at a conference last August.

“The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of."

Fetus..Baby...HUMAN.

Human's have babies..which started out as chromosomes....all semantics.

It's easier to say "fetus"...sounds inhuman...semantics...

Why not say... let's abort 1000 chromsomes....feel better.

It's called development, gestation, pregnancy....LIFE.

Pro-choice is a chose to terminate...exterminate.

Was Adolf pro-choice?

Maybe the pro-choicers will start yelling "foul"..when forced steralization is mandatory in the U.S.

China is just a population experiment.

Makes me sick. This so called Doctor needs to lose his license and his freedom!

Why was Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique delayed so long in arriving at the clinic?

Why did the clinic not have another medical professional on hand at the clinic in his absence, thus forcing nonmedical personnel to intervene?

How many other babies have been born alive due to "botched" abortions since this July 20, 2006 incident?

What has happened to these babies?

As a pro-life person, I consider these important questions.

The woman went there to abort her child. She chose an abortion over either birthing and giving up for adoption or raising the child herself. So now, the child is dead... isn't that what she paid for? It should not matter whether the doctor killed the child thru medical procedures or it died in the hands of non-medical staff after she birthed it. She wanted it dead. It is dead. She got exactly what she went there for.

I'm so sick of hearing these people whine about abortion. Not everyone should have children and if they are stupid enough to get pregnant when they do not want a child, then abortion should be a choice they are permitted to have if they want to. But if they choose it, then they should realize that they are killing a living being and not whine about it afterwards.

I'm certain that everyone will now say that she should have had the child and given it up for adoption. Sure, if the child was a healthy white child, there is a waiting list for them and it probably would have been the better choice. If it was of a minority or mixed heritage, then it would most likely become a ward of the state and could have spent it's life in the "system". There is no small supply of these babies already in the system waiting for someone to come along and adopt them. In the meantime, they are raised in foster care or government programs that are not nurturing in nature so not giving the individual care a child needs to be both mentally and physically healthy.

Who are you, or anyone else including the subhuman girl that paid 1200 bucks, to decide who lives or dies? What is the difference between killing a baby in the womb and killing a month old? There is no difference! I am sick to death of "pro-choicers" saying they have the right to kill!

So if you were the product of such irresponsible behaviour ("if they are stupid enough to get pregnant when they do not want a child") should your mother have killed you?

Oh, and the baby was a he or she, not IT!

This is what's coming with the Freedom of choice act.

should your mother have killed you?

If she had, I doubt that I would know the difference.

There is no difference!

One's a fetus. One is a baby. Seems like a bit of a difference. I'm betting that the person who changes its diapers sees a difference.

I am sick to death of "pro-choicers" saying they have the right to kill!

It's a fetus--not a life. It's not killing.

Really, cause that live baby that was born seemed like a life to me!

Justify this any way you may, but it does not make it right.

The baby at age 23 weeks was very much formed and alive. What happens is disgusting. The doctor has to use a sonagram to see and he uses forceps to grab the babies leg and pull it down into the birth canal and out of the vagina. the doctor then has to grab both legs of the baby by hand and deliver the baby all the way upto the head. Then with the babies head still in the vagina he uses a pair of scissors to puch a hole in the back of the babies head,(if he does this with the baby all the way out it is MURDER) with the scissors inthe back of the babies head he/she opens the scissors to make a larger hole to get a suction tube in the hole and suck the babies brains out and then he/she collapses the head and pulls the bbie out. Thanks to Barack Obama the 20% of the babies that survive the procedure, his bill insures that those babies are set on a table in the linen room until they suffocate...approx 20 to 45 minutes after delivery. Sick sad and disgusting murderers. Did you get the fact that if the head is out it is murder? It should be plain murder and Bush outlawed this procedure.

The child has started to develop the moment the sperm and egg fuse. Hence your argument of having cut off dates is meaningless.

I agree Kuromi. Abortion not something any one desires, but it is necesarry as a fundamental choice in the slippery slope of women's rights.

What an awakening for this girl/woman. It's this kind of a story that freaks people out and skews the facts about abortion. There definitely needs to be more sensitivity from the people who assist with this.

What a laughable argument! What is the difference? Early or late? Is it more of a person from week 4 to week 5? You should not give a damn about this baby if you are for abortion. Why does killing a child in a womb differ from tossing it in a plastic bag? You absent logic tells just how idiotic your position is and should disgust and offend anyone with a functioning cortex.

President Obama just gave a speech admonishing people on wall street for not taking responsibility for their actions. So, please, tell us all when people are actually people so we know when we don't have to take responsibility for our actions? Is it week 3 or 4? 9 or 10? I find it appalling that in a country with the track record as ours we are still trying to define what a person is. Absolutely disgusting.

If you want this horrific practice sactioned, then fine. But enough with the excuses. You want it legal so you can do whatever the hell it is you please. Or was this young girl at risk of death, as people in your camp so often love to assert?

disgust and offend

That's your logical argument? You're offended and disgusted, so it is logically reprehensible? I think that you should make friends with a dictionary.

President Obama just gave a speech admonishing people on wall street for not taking responsibility for their actions.

Why is it that anti-choice people believe giving birth to a child that the mother doesn't want to give birth to is a responsible action? It's a painful and expensive action, but so are most mistakes. That's what makes them mistakes. Having an abortion is the responsible action. Waiting until week 23 is certainly reprehensible, but that does not mean that all abortion is.

You should not give a damn about this baby if you are for abortion.

Abortion is about terminating a fetus--not a baby. Again, I recommend you seek understanding in the form of a dictionary.

I guess if certain beliefs can be called "Anti-Choice", others should be called "Anti-Life"!

Zom Zom,

how fitting it is in these times that you present me a bankrupt idea. this time in logic. perhaps you did not understand what i was inferring when i included an example of arbitrary definition so clean and clear you could eat off it. how many times have we declared some class of person as not a person? but, this time, i suppose we have it right?

you may call me anti-choice, but you are anti-logic.

a mistake is indeed just a mistake, but where an abortion factors in here is slide of hand trick belonging to a new york city swindler.

You have an argument by analogy. Arguments by analogy are inherently fallacious (meaning: the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises). What does that mean? You got: It means that your argument is illogical (as in: not following the rules of logic).

you may call me anti-choice, but you are anti-logic.

I am? If you care to present an argument that isn't fellacious, I'll be happy to tear it down, for you. Your comment was an ad hominen argument, by the way. Also inherently illogical.

I guess if certain beliefs can be called "Anti-Choice", others should be called "Anti-Life"!

Well, it's pretty easy to prove that a person can have a choice to abort. If you have scientific proof that a fetus is a life, the world would love to see it. Because the scientific community certainly isn't aware of your "findings."

Zom Zom,

What's strange is that you see an argument where there is none. even more strange is the fact that you have been able to group me based on an absent argment into the anti-choice. Look back and tell me if i presented any argument against abortion or if i criticized the reason being given for it.

Additionally, if there was a "test" that "proved life," would that change your belief? No. As I said before, it has nothing to do with anything other than you simply wanting to be able to do whatever it is you want to do.

Here are your quotes:

you may call me anti-choice,

his time in logic. perhaps you did not understand what i was inferring when i included an example of arbitrary definition so clean and clear you could eat off it. how many times have we declared some class of person as not a person? but, this time, i suppose we have it right?

The first one seems to indicate that you are anti-choice, by claiming that I was refering to you when I said "anti-choice."

In the second one, you claim that you have presented a logical position, which is a claim that I went on to refute.

So... I win :)

Additionally, if there was a "test" that "proved life," would that change your belief? No.

Now who is puting words into whose mouth? Yeah, sure it would, if there was a logical, scientifically proven test.

Yes.

You win.

Goodbye.

(to see the "logically, scientific test" that you are an imbecile, please see your previous posts.)

(to see the "logically, scientific test" that you are an imbecile, please see your previous posts.)

Ah hah! Now I see the logic behind your arguments. "Zom zom disagrees with me, and makes rational points, while I insult people. Therefore, I must be smarter than him."

That's some water-tight reasoning.

Zom Zom-- "Fetus" is the Latin word for "baby."

And "Opressor" is Latin for "Boss." That doesn't mean that, when we say "Opressor," we are talking about bosses. When we are using fetus, we are using it as a word in English, which means something seperate from the Latin word. That's why we don't italicize it.

Response to ZomZom's comment...It is your argument that "isn't fellacious".

Abortion is about terminating a fetus--not a baby. Again, I recommend you seek understanding in the form of a dictionary.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines fetus as...in humans, the unborn young, from the end of the eighth week to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. Fetus is a latin word, meaning pregnancy...a giving birth...childbearing...offspring.

Baby is defined as a very young boy or girl, an infant (infant is defined as young in the earliest period of it's life...from latin, infans...one unable to speak). Also defined as the youngest member of a family or group. Baby is a middle english word, taken from Baba...imitative of indistinct speech...nursery word for a baby and for various relatives.

Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary defines fetus as in humans, the child in utero from the third month to birth. Prior to that time it is called an embryo. Baby is defined as an infant (Latin from infans...one unable to speak).

If you follow your own direction to "seek understanding in the form of a dictionary", you should be able to understand that the distinction you are trying to make, between a fetus, and a baby, does not exist. A fetus is simply a baby (infant) that has not yet left the mother's uterus. That "birth" can take place at any point after the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and it is still the same infant (one that is unable to speak) and has simply changed environments. Since these youngest members of society are unable to speak for themselves, others must speak up for and protect them. The clinic and person who killed the baby in this story should be charged with murder.

Please provide a medical source that defines life in a manner that covers a fetus. Go nuts. You won't find it.

That's why our courts, time and again, rule that abortion is legal. Secular science cannot and does not define a fetus as a living, human being.

Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (copy 1977 by FA Davis Co.) defines Life as

1. State of being alive; quality manifested by metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptations to environment; state in which the organs of an animal or plant are capable of performing all or any of their functions. 2. Time between birth OR inception (beginning of something; origin) and death of an organism. Biologically, unitary life begins at the moment of conception and ends at death. However, for legal and other reasons, the definition of when life begins has been subject to a variety of interpretations. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that life is a continuum which can be arbitrarily BUT NOT LOGICALLY indicated as having begun at some point in time or development past the moment of conception. 3. The sum total of those properties which distinguish living things (animals or plants) from nonliving inorganic chemical matter or dead organic matter.

Our courts did not, apparently, take the true medical definition of "Life" into consideration when they legalized unlimited abortion rights, or in acutality, they apparently considered some "life" less valuable or sacred than other life.

"It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics."

There are other clinics like this out there? And the National Organization of Women knew about them before this?

What a proud, proud day for the liberal movement in America. 36 yrs of your pissing and moaning about "rights" and "choice" are nothing more than infanticide. You have never had a constitutional right to an abortion. The time to choose whether you want to have a baby is before you are inseminated not after. If you don't want to get pregnant and you can't keep your legs together, take a pill or wear a patch or get an implant and then wear a condom on top of that.

Rape, incest, life of the mother. Compassionate reasons to end a pregnancy. Abortions performed as retroactive birth control are murder, when adoption is so readily available.

"Rape, incest, life of the mother. Compassionate reasons to end a pregnancy. Abortions performed as retroactive birth control are murder, when adoption is so readily available. " - Well said, Tom!

As that rarest of political creatures -- a liberal who believes abortion is murder -- I've never read my position stated more clearly or concisely. Abortion should NEVER be a substitute for birth control, especially when access to birth control is so very easy and open in this country. It should ALWAYS be the action of last resort, undertaken only in the direst of circumstances to preserve the health of the mother.

And for all you pro-choicers who say a "fetus" is not "alive" -- please be honest with yourselves if you can't be honest with everyone else. What you really mean is that this living creature doesn't look or function as a full grown, voting, tax-paying adult and can't speak for itself so it doesn't qualify as "alive."

KJR,

Why did you post your definition so many times? Whatever. Here. I'll show you how it doesn't apply to fetuses, over and over.

State of being alive; quality manifested by metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptations to environment;

Fetuses can reproduce? They don't even begin to turn into a gender until week 6.

state in which the organs of an animal or plant are capable of performing all or any of their functions

What about zygotes? Those don't have organs. Is there a critical mass? How many organs have to function (or be present at all). Late-term abortion isn't legal in this country, and a fetus' organs do not perform their functions.

Time between birth OR inception

Your own definition doesn't clarify whether it covers fetuses or not. How is that supposed to be a rational argument?

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that life is a continuum which can be arbitrarily BUT NOT LOGICALLY indicated as having begun at some point in time or development past the moment of conception.

Is there any logic to actually support that claim, or is it just thrown in there for fun?

Tom,

You have never had a constitutional right to an abortion.

Actually, the Supreme Court says that women do. Since translating the constitution is their job, women specifically do have a constitutional right to an abortion. You seem to be confused about how laws work.

The time to choose whether you want to have a baby is before you are inseminated not after.

Your moralizing bores me. What you don't have is a constitutional right to tell other people who they can and can't sleep with.

Abortions performed as retroactive birth control are murder, when adoption is so readily available.

Forcing a woman to give birth to a creature she doesn't want so that you can feel morally superior is torture, when abortion is so readily available.

Liberal,

As that rarest of political creatures -- a liberal who believes abortion is murder

Having it in your screen name does not, a liberal, make you.

What you really mean is that this living creature doesn't look or function as a full grown, voting, tax-paying adult and can't speak for itself so it doesn't qualify as "alive."

Well, no. What we mean is that it does not constitute an independent life.

However, even if it did: you're right. We still wouldn't care, because a fetus isn't a member of our society, and does not partake of, nor contribute to, the world in which the rest of it live. We owe it nothing, and treat it as such. It has no experience, it has no participation. It is just a lump of tumorous flesh, gestating inside a woman who is a member of our society.

A fetus is alive, but no more than a plant. To say a fetus is human is comparative to people who believe that they should not eat vegetables or fruit freshly picked or cut - because they believe they are "living."

I'm amazed at the rancor against a woman because she chooses abortion. This is no different than in history when women were tortured, persecuted, and killed for being educated, spiritual, or having different beliefs from the mainstream. I won't go into the details of a history lesson, but it's evident even today. The extreme oppression of women still happens in the world today, and this is is a subtle example right here in our "civilized and modern" society.

To say a fetus is human is comparative to people who believe that they should not eat vegetables or fruit freshly picked or cut - because they believe they are "living."

Strange comparison...not sure what you are trying to say, but a fetus is absolutely human...that is not a question...unless you are talking about the fetus of some other mammal, like a lion fetus, or a dog fetus, or something.

I think she meant "person," rather than "human."

thanks Z

Hmmm "Z"...but it seems like you mean't "human"...

"You're incorrect, about that. We advocate a woman's right to terminate a gestating fetus--a growing, tumerous mass of cells.

That's not "a human being" any more than is a pile of ear-wax."

Why would I take webster's deffinition over a live baby breathing and crying in front of you. I think Obama should be forced to kill a 23 week old baby, since he is the cheerleader for Planned Parent Murderers Inc.

Put the Doctor in jail and then let's see how many Doctors are willing to stab babies in the back of the head with a pair of scissors. The difference between the head on a 23 week old baby and one that is 35-37 weeks old? NOTHING

Have you ever heard of an ectopic (tubular) pregnancy? It's when the egg is fertilized and attaches itself to somewhere other than the cervix, generally to the fallopian tube. The fertilized egg cannot develop normally and receive nutrition in these locations. There is no procedure that can move a fertilized egg from one of these locations to the uterus. There is no choice but to abort. If not detected and dealt with soon enough, there is an extremely high chance of death for the mother. So please do not incite such horror for "every mother who aborts".

I'm in no way saying that this was the case in this story, it clearly was not, but please do not lump all abortions in the same category.

Vince1 - why should only the mother have to look at the fetus for an hour? What about the father?

Also, for those who believe all parties should be prosecuted - if the father knew, he should be prosecuted too.

@Vince1-

Since you never have been nor will you ever be pregnant, you cannot judge what a woman's situation is and what she should or shouldn't have to do. I am as disgusted as anyone else at late-term abortion and do not support it in any way. But regarding first trimester abortions, unless you have walked in those shoes you have no idea what you're talking about.

@GK-

You took the words right off of my keyboard!

Yeah, and all the heartless people that tell her she should do it! Make them look at the baby, make them look at the heart beat!

I never gassed any jews either but I can tell you it was wrong.

GK-298121

why should only the mother have to look at the fetus for an hour? What about the father?

I agree completely. The father should also be allowed to have a say in whether his child is aborted or not. It seems that a woman gets to decide if she wants to be a mother or not but a man has no choice.

The man had choice when he decided not to use a condom or to abstain from sex. That was his choice.

Stella, as someone who went through the intense emotional pain of an ectopic pregnancy, I can tell you it's not even CLOSE to being an abortion. "Choice" is not involved at all, I assure you, because I would have chosen to save my pregnancy at any cost. Mine ruptured at just 4 weeks, but I would have given ANYTHING if medical science could have found a way to save that tiny clump of cells that was on its way to becoming my baby. Maybe doctors and scientists should spend more time tyring to figure out how to rescue a much-longed-for ectopic pregnancies instead of wasting their time perfecting techniques to end perfectly viable, untroubled pregnancies.

Stella is just simply trying to rationalize a wrong. I was commenting on the story and not ectopic pregnancies. I hate to admit it but I agree with a liberal on this. Thank you Liberal in favor. This mother killed her baby and that is murder.

As a responsible father of two, I can comment on this (Holly your're an idiot) and as any father would tell you, the day you find out that you will become a father and the delivery day are the happiest days of our lives. Once you see your child enter the world, all problems seem to fade away and you become a more responsible person.....assuming you've been raised properly yourself.

I've never committed murder, stole or broken any laws other than speeding but I have been able to serve on a jury so I can judge this as well.

I am not a over the top christian but I am a person who's parents taught right from wrong very well. If you have issues determining right from wrong, please seek an established non-cult religious organization to get some council on this please since you were never taught at a young age. I consider myself in the middle of the road on most topics but this one.

If you choose to have sex and get pregnant there are much better ways to not be a mother. Adoption, abandon the child at the hospital what ever........ but why choose murder?

Comment on this. But before you do, think about it and if you are confused speak to someone who has their head screwed on correctly.

vince - this is my reply to your utterly ridiculous postings, since you are a man this really has zero to do with you but i'll tell you my story anyway - my very good friend was 2 1/2 months pregnant when she was diagnosed with aggressive stage 3 non hodgkins lymphoma, she already has one child and wanted this one, but the doctors basically told her if she carried on with the pregnancy she would DEFINATELY die, in fact she may not make it all the way through the pregnancy so the baby could die with her, or she coiuld abort the baby and start immediate radiotherapy and chemotherapy and have a decent chance at living and being around for her husband and 3 year old child - she aborted, because she wanted to live, and she wanted to be around for her existing child - are you really going to call her murderer, if you do you are no christian and will not be welcomed by god!!!!! seriously is she a murderer????, why should she be denied life, why should her 3 year old be denied a mother just because you have an opinion. i think she was right to do what she did - but understand this, she is stil upset about it, she is incredibly sick with chemo at the moment and im sure does not need inconsiderate 'christians' like you giving her a hard time!!!!

As a responsible father of two, I can comment on this (Holly your're an idiot) and as any father would tell you, the day you find out that you will become a father and the delivery day are the happiest days of our lives.

To make you happy is not a woman's responsibility. She owes you nothing.

If you have issues determining right from wrong, please seek an established non-cult religious organization to get some council on this please since you were never taught at a young age.

Thousand years old books are a pretty crummy place to look for factual information. Try thinking for yourself, instead. Read philosophy, and literature. Read writings that are relevant today, not those that were relevant to a bunch of people who died before two thousand years ago.

If you choose to have sex and get pregnant there are much better ways to not be a mother. Adoption, abandon the child at the hospital what ever........ but why choose murder?

There is no secular reason to claim that abortion is murder.

Comment on this. But before you do, think about it and if you are confused speak to someone who has their head screwed on correctly.

If you believe that a magical wizard lives in the sky and will transport you to la-la land after you die, it is difficult to consider your head "screwed on correctly."

Zom, you miss the point entirely. Slow down and reread what I wrote. If you have questions please ask and I'll be happy to explain any confusing words.

Now, I only pointed out religion to people who do not know right from wrong. After rereading you should have seen that I believe you can learn this from good parenting.

You must go around breaking laws and doing what ever you want to whom ever you want since you have no guidelines to follow. Why live by any rules since they all must be nonsense to you.

I can't believe you would take my story about fatherhood and make it seem that I would use someone for my own happiness. Shame on you. I hope you find your soul mate someday and know what it means. It's a bipartisan (meaning man and woman) decision to have children and once the decision has been made it's a bipartisan responsibility and enjoyment. No one person can make another do this and be happy about it. We share the joy everyday and we also share the work it takes to raise children. But it really isn't work when you stop to think about what you are doing.

Stop the man bashing and look at the real story. This really should be a hate crime but you wouldn't follow that rule either.

I do believe in God but unlike you I push my beliefs on no one. I merely pointed out the non-cult religion is a good place to look for morality if one lacks this. Again slow down and point to each word as you read and if you have any questions consult the librarian where you read what ever you think is relevant to today's society.

Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly are a few good authors to start with to look for what makes sense in today's world.

Hometowngirl

You too need to reread. I, unlike you have commented on the story and not the issue. Did you read the article? I would never fault anyone for a medically sound reason for abortion. I find abortion wrong when used as a contraceptive. I sympathize with your friend and have never and would never fault anyone in her situation.

Since we are commenting on things not covered in this particular article I would like to add that I think Obama is going to make Bush look like a Scholar by the end of his 4 years.

May God help us through these Obama years...........If there isn't a supreme being what do the atheists look to for hope during these trying Obama years? It's not the stock market for sure. Must be such a fulfilling life and then that's it I guess.

Now, I only pointed out religion to people who do not know right from wrong. After rereading you should have seen that I believe you can learn this from good parenting.

And I was pointing out that teaching people about magical sky wizards does not teach them what right and wrong are.

I merely pointed out the non-cult religion is a good place to look for morality if one lacks this.

And I merely contended that any religion can offer any good advice to anyone, on any subject.

You must go around breaking laws and doing what ever you want to whom ever you want since you have no guidelines to follow.

There are far better guidelines than religion. I like to use Kant, mostly.

I can't believe you would take my story about fatherhood and make it seem that I would use someone for my own happiness.

I used your words to point out that your reasoning had nothing to do with whether or not women should have children.

No one person can make another do this and be happy about it.

Artificial ensemination works, and single women employee it all the time.

Stop the man bashing and look at the real story.

I'm not bashing men (I am one). I'm bashing the intolerance of people who believe that they have the right to take rights away from other people, and to torture women and force them to have children, because it makes them feel morally superior.

Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly are a few good authors to start with to look for what makes sense in today's world.

That's a joke, right? Here a good link about the kind of lies and nonsense those three imbeciles spew to demonstrate just how crazy they are.

Here’s another.

My 2 Cents-338890

The man had choice when he decided not to use a condom or to abstain from sex. That was his choice.

Oddly enough, that's the same choice women have.

A child is as much the father's as the mother's. If a couple can't agree on whether to abort or not let the party who doesn't want the abortion foot the bill for bringing the child to term and be solely responsible financially and physically for the care and rearing of the child.

This way if a man doesn't want a woman he had impregnated to have an abortion he would have to take custody of the child upon birth and raise that child as a single parent. Conversely, if a man wants a woman he has impregnated to have an abortion and she doesn't she gets to be solely responsible for the child.

If you did this people would be alot more careful and use contraception more thus reducing the need for abortion.

If you are a Demrat and/or you voted for obamanation then you have no right to feel bad.....you did this.

The chance of surivival is small, but very real nevertheless. I say this as the mother of a 23 weeker who is now nearly 10 year old - a healthy girl and gifted student. If her lungs had filled with air, it means she had even more lung development than mine did at birth.

Abortion is not such a carefree and easy choise as you would liek it to seem like.

How can anyone logically argue that abortion is ethically and morally acceptable?

Because your "rah rah, this disgusts me!" perspective isn't an ethical nor morally acceptable argument.

You know what Zom Zom, the fact that the baby was breathing makes it a human being & has all the rights to live as anyone else & this was murder pure & simple!!!!!

No matter how you want to argue for abortion it falls very flat...

the fact that the baby was breathing makes it a human being

I was responding to this statement:

How can anyone logically argue that abortion is ethically and morally acceptable?

I was not talking, particularly, about this instance.

ZomZom...

The point is...this botched abortion simply illustrates very clearly and painfully, that abortions are performed on a regular basis, in which the aborted infant is a human being already capable of living outside the womb. Logically it follows that we have legalized the murder of infants based on the single criteria that they are still inside the womb, without regard for their ability to live outside the womb. If you believe that women should have the unlimited right to choose abortion, you have the right to your opinion, but just know and acknowledge what it is that you are saying is OK. If you believe that the unborn do not deserve any rights, as they are completely reliant on the mother for survival...then acknowledge that there are others in society who are also completely reliant on others for survival...ie: young infants after birth, critically ill patients under medical caregivers, elderly in nursing homes...yet we still value their lives as not to be taken by another...and maybe you will find the logic to see that all human life is to be valued...and it is not to be extinguished simply for the convenience of another.

Logically it follows that we have legalized the murder of infants based on the single criteria that they are still inside the womb,

No, it doesn't. A fetus is not an infant.

in which the aborted infant is a human being already capable of living outside the womb.

So you're ok with abortions during the first trimester (which is when it is generally legal)? Good.

then acknowledge that there are others in society who are also completely reliant on others for survival.

What makes you think that a fetus counts as someone in our society? It doesn't. Have you ever met a fetus? Does it pay taxes? Have you ever sat it on your lap and played with it? A fetus is less a member of our society than is my cat.

.yet we still value their lives as not to be taken by another...and maybe you will find the logic to see that all human life is to be valued...and it is not to be extinguished simply for the convenience of another.

Wrong. It is not logical to conclude that "We care for old people, therefore a fetus is a member of our society."

"Have you ever met a fetus?

I carried four of them...felt them kick and move in response to pressure on my abdomen, or loud noises. Heard their heart beats and saw them suck on their fingers on ultrasound...counted their fingers and toes, and felt very connected to them...loved them...well before they left my womb. Yes, I have met a fetus.

Does it pay taxes?

No...neither does my pet, my minor child, or some of my neighbors...whom are all very much alive and considered individual lives.

"Have you ever sat it on your lap and played with it? A fetus is" less a member of our society than is my cat."

They sat "within" my lap...and if you consider "played with it" to include tapping on my abdomen to be answered with a kick or movement...Yes... and so did my older children "play with it".

Any Other Questions?

Yes: What makes you think that it is more deserving of rights than my cat?

I'm not claiming that a fetus isn't living tissue--of course it is. I'm claiming that it isn't an independent life. Talking about playing with a fetus is like me talking about playing with my gall bladder. Just because I don't have complete, conscious control over it does not make it an independant thing. And, while a fetus is gestating, it isn't an idependant thing, either. It's just your body growing a weird, fish-looking lump.

You certainly benefit taxwise from having children, even if they don't pay taxes now.

Their movements are more reactions as opposed to active engagement. No different than looking over your shoulder at being elbowed or jumping at a popped balloon. How many times are babies compared to small animals?

Rebekah...I don't think so...and regardless, reactions are independent responses...it is not I (the mom) who decides to move, or kick a foot, or suck on fingers...it is the baby, or "fetus" who responds or reacts, independent of the mom. Active engagement would be responding independently to a stimuli.

ZomZom... Make up your mind...and let me know next time your gall bladder "kicks" you, in response to a loud noise in the room.

It's a fetus--not a life. #1.15 - Fri Feb 6, 2009 4:13 PM EST

"I'm not claiming that a fetus isn't living tissue--of course it is." #6.8 - Fri Feb 6, 2009 5:14 PM EST

Those two quotes are non-contradictory.

A life and living tissue are seperate things. My finger is living tissue. My finger is not a person.

let me know next time your gall bladder "kicks" you, in response to a loud noise in the room.

My stomach rumbles in response to the smell of food.

My stomach rumbles in response to the smell of food.

Thats because it is innervated with nerve endings, which recieve impulses from your brain, which has received nerve impulses from your sense of smell neurofunctioning...and so your brain/nervous system is functioning and you experience the results of that as an individual...and not dependent on any other person's functioning. Again, let me know if your stomach decides to do something on its own...independent of the rest of your body and brain.

And living is defined as possessing life...same thing. Your finger is never going to be living on it's own...and say,... move to California without you, it is a part of the living human being that is you...separated from you, it is dead and without the ability to ever function or live on it's own.

Your finger is never going to be living on it's own...and say move to California without you, it is a part of the living human being that is you...separated from you, it is dead and without the ability to ever function or live on it's own.

Hrmm... sounds exactly like a non-viable fetus. Which was my point the whole time.

And living is defined as possessing life.

You forgot the part where I said "living tissue," not simply "living." Living tissue is not the same as life, which you yourself agreed to with the finger comment. What about when cells are grown in a culture? Those are a life, just because it is living tissue.

What about organs for organ donations? Those are kept in a living state, after the person has died, but before implantation. Are they lives, or simply living tissue?

A non-viable fetus becomes a viable fetus...and the gestational age of viability is a constantly changing variable...with each new medical breakthrough, a fetus that was not viable outside the womb yesterday...now can be viable outside the womb. Your finger is never going to be viable if separated from you...not today, not next week, not ever...it begans to die the moment you separate it from your body. Not so, even for a non-viable fetus. As long as it's heart is beating...it continues to maintain life on it's own...separate from any other living person. Sometimes that is for minutes... hours...days, before the baby passes away, due to it's prematurity (immature development). I think you clearly know and understand all of this, and for whatever reasons, you keep trying to cloud the issue and make indefensable arguements, which can mislead others who are not so knowledgeable on this subject.

and the gestational age of viability is a constantly changing variable...with each new medical breakthrough, a fetus that was not viable outside the womb yesterday...now can be viable outside the womb. Your finger is never going to be viable if separated from you...not today, not next week, not ever...

Science advanced enough that we can build a machine that, after a finger has been severed, could keep it full of nutrients, with everything it needs to continue functioning, for quite some time.

That's all that you're claiming about how science can make a fetus "viable." I'm not denying that a viable, developed fetus isn't a baby (although I'd still contest that isn't a person).

However, being able to be kept alive on machines is not the same thing as viability. A heart, removed from your body, can be put into machines that will keep the tissue functioning. That does not make the heart (or finger) a life. Nor does it make a fetus a seperate life.

it begans to die the moment you separate it from your body.

Death is inevitable. All living things are in the slow process of dying, at all times. It's called aging (Well, not those weird little polyps that were recently discovered to be immortal, but other living things).

it continues to maintain life on it's own

A non-viable fetus does not maintain its own life. That's what makes it non-viable: It cannot live by relying on its own body (isn't viable).

for whatever reasons, you keep trying to cloud the issue and make indefensable arguements,

I simply point out that it isn't as clear cut as you pretend that it is. And, I think, that you are making an indefensable argument that every fetus is an independent life, which I whole-heartedly disagree with.

I'm not denying that a viable, developed fetus isn't a baby. #6.15 - Fri Feb 6, 2009 7:21 PM EST

Abortion is about terminating a fetus--not a baby. Again, I recommend you seek understanding in the form of a dictionary. #3.5 - Thu Feb 5, 2009 5:31 PM EST

Again you are contradicting yourself...and it was that comment that you posted yesterday (requesting others use a dictionary to understand that a fetus is not a baby) that first brought me to enter this newsvine discussion. If you have come to understand that a fetus is a baby...maybe there is hope that you will also come to understand, in time, that a fetus is a life...deserving protection. I fully understand that there are abortions performed that are medically necessary, and situations such as rape and incest that require a doctor/patient decision concerning mom's well being,...but I do not support abortion as birth control for the convenience of the mother. And as I stated earlier, this article clearly shows that elective abortions are performed on viable infants for no other reason than birth control. The one in this story led to murder of the live born infant, and this clinic and the person who killed this baby should be prosecuted for murder.

Again you are contradicting yourself...and it was that comment that you posted yesterday

You're right. I need to clarify my terms. When I say "fetus," I am referring (in that post) specifically to a non-viable fetus. I was not trying to defend late-term abortion, so I wasn't making the distinction.

We do not "routinely" keep children alive after 20 weeks they do not have any lung development. If a 22-25 weekersurvives they "routinely" have major complications. (not all, but most) I am not for late term abortions, but this child did not haVe a chance being born at a clinic. it would have required extensive neonatal intensive care and it's chances would have been small. It is sad that this girl did not wait and deliver the child at term and give it up for adoption. A doctor never should have agreed to do this procedure at this stage of the pregnancy for convenience.

Laws should be changed, and that doctor should no longer be in practice.

agreed, i am totally pro choice, i wouldnt personally have an abortion but i wouldnt stop anyone else, but i am against late term abortions, i believe under 99% of circumstances the abortion should be done within the 1st trimester, but in some cases and these should be special cases only a later abortion could be done, this case illustrates good reason to be against late term abortion, if the baby was alive and breathing then yes it was murder - at 5 1/2 months she should not have been allowed an abortion just because she didnt want it anymore, she had over 3 months to make this decision!!

Your story brought tears to my eyes! I can't believe that this "mother" could go through what she did at 23 weeks.. I have 3 children of my own and never in a million years could I do that and at 23 weeks.. please! This chick needs to be prosecuted just like the Dr and the owner she is just as guilty!

She absolutely need to prosecuted. all of them. It is horrible what happened to that little baby and all I can think about is my baby. They were born at the same gestational age, and they gave my baby a 30% chance of survival the first day, and once she made it past day 3 her chances went up to like 50%. The little baby in this story had a chance at life even if it was slim. My daughters chances were slim too, but she made it home from the hospital and she is a happy, smart, 3 year old.

hold off here. The mother made a mistake but did not commit a crime. She trusted the people at the clinic and they failed her and her baby. I am pro life one hundred percent and do not condone abortion but charging the mother is ridiculous she was exercising her legal rights and was in no position to influence the situation. She was medicated and had just given birth. You can bet she was in shock at having seen the child and will see that little face the rest of her life.

my question is if this woman saw the baby, saw it breathe, then why did she do nothing and just sit and watch it be chucked in a plastic bag???

I am not Pro-Choice but your comment is right on target Amazed!

Thank you. I think the whole thing is nauseating, but the point of the matter is this mother wanted her baby dead, and is now capitalizing on it. Is there anything more disgusting than this? I'd have a hard time finding it.

You are welcome. As I stated in a paragraph below, my daughter is about to give birth to their first child so this has really hit close to home. Because her husband is a Marine and was deployed in January, I have the honor and privilege of being her birthing coach. With today's technology we can see their tiny faces & limbs, hear the heartbeat and to watch their acrobatics in the womb - it is just wonderful to get to know the baby before she even arrives. I am so sickened and just really would like to see this group come to justice - the young mother included!

abortion makes women look irresponsible-there are so many choices before it even gets to that point

It only makes women look "irresponsible" to people who have no idea what a woman has to go through to get an abortion, or to people who don't understand how big a responsibility giving birth to a child is. The choice is very simple: Do you want to be pregnant or not? If you find that you are, staying that way, when you don't want to be, is not a responsible decision. It's just procrastination and fear.

That said, this lady, if she didn't want a child, should have aborted long before the fetus was possibly viable.

So then you acknowledge that at least there should be limits on legalized abortion...and they should not be legal after the fetus is viable? Consider that 30 years ago, most babies born before 28 weeks gestation would never survive. Now, medical advancements have brought that age of viability down to 22-23 weeks gestation. In another 30 years...how do we know??? We are playing God in thinking we can decide when life should be protected...based on and determined by our human ability to sustain it's survival outside the womb.

So then you acknowledge that at least there should be limits on legalized abortion...and they should not be legal after the fetus is viable?

There are limits on legalized abortion.

n another 30 years...how do we know???

Forget thirty years. Even right now, science is advanced enough that every single sperm is a potential life that can be raised in a lab. That does not make it murder every time a woman menstrates, nor does it make me a mass murderer every time I jerk off.

The potential to become one thing is not the same as being that thing. Anyone born in this coutnry can, eventually, be elected President of the United States.

Just because you could be, doesn't mean that you are.

Zomzom, Your responses in #6.6 and #10.3 are just futile attempts to twist facts and loose the focus of the points that were made. A lot of smoke and mirrors...but no substance to truthfully address or refute the statements made. If you know of a lab where they can take sperm and "raise them in a lab" to a viable life... without first bringing about "conception" (the sperm joining with an ovum), and then "implanting" the zygote (or developing embryo) into a woman's uterus... you really are informed.

I was claiming that science can take a sperm and egg and make a life out of it (It's called artificial ensemenation). Are you denying that it exists?

Simply attacking me, personally, is not an argument. If you care to attempt to refute any of my claims--feel free.

no but there will be a judgment of a higher power one day!

Not soon enough for this abomination!

Everyone envolved are all the people that agree that abortion should be legal. Killing the baby before it is born or killing the baby after it is born, is still killing the baby. Unfortunately we have too many people that have either had an abortion or convinced someone else to have one and they refuse to admit they were wrong!!!!!

There is no "choice" for the baby involved.

Because the "baby" is a fetus that lacks volition, independant will, and the ability to posses moral agency.

Oh, okay Zom Zom (aka Dum Dum) wants to talk about moral agency now- lol!

Fetus means little one. A newborn falls under the same definition you just gave. oh and by the way an embryo is considered by science to be and organism by the same deffinition an organism belongs to a species now if you are human and you "have" and embryo then by the "accepted" definition you "have" a human being. please not all all of us Pro-lifers are uneducated.

organism belongs to a species now if you are human and you "have" and embryo then by the "accepted"

No, it isn't. Can you find a single, reputable source to support that? First: There is no accepted, scientific definition of "life." The closest to a definition of "organism" that we have is something along the lines of: "The word "organism" may broadly be defined as an assembly of molecules that function as a more or less stable whole and has the properties of life."

You will notice that the definition of organism relies on the definition of life. Any scientific definition of life that you find, you will discover, does not include fetuses.

Please, feel free to refer to some sources if you have any.

Oh, okay Zom Zom (aka Dum Dum) wants to talk about moral agency now- lol!

Yes, I will. "Moral agency" is what ethicists use to talk about things that are able to act in a manner that can be ethically evaluated. For instance, a knife has no moral agency, but a person wielding one does. As something that can neither comprehend, nor interact with, the world of its own volition, a fetus lacks moral agency.

Zom Zom (aka Dum Dum)

The wit! Oh, how you slay me! How come so few people are anti-abortion? It's such a classy perspective, held by such intelligent, thoughtful people.

well Zom Zom enjoy your classy outlook on the murder of children. I am glad you are so high minded and intelligent to understand why your position is superior to all those silly religious types that believe a baby in the mother is still a baby.

I am glad you are so high minded and intelligent to understand why your position is superior to all those silly religious types that believe a baby in

Me too, thanks!

Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (copy 1977 by FA Davis Co.) defines Life as

1. State of being alive; quality manifested by metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptations to environment; state in which the organs of an animal or plant are capable of performing all or any of their functions. 2. Time between birth OR inception (beginning of something; origin) and death of an organism. Biologically, unitary life begins at the moment of conception and ends at death. However, for legal and other reasons, the definition of when life begins has been subject to a variety of interpretations. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that life is a continuum which can be arbitrarily BUT NOT LOGICALLY indicated as having begun at some point in time or development past the moment of conception. 3. The sum total of those properties which distinguish living things (animals or plants) from nonliving inorganic chemical matter or dead organic matter.

Our courts did not, apparently, take the true medical definition of "Life" into consideration when they legalized unlimited abortion rights, or in acutality, they apparently considered some "life" less valuable or sacred than other life.

• 3

#3.18 - Thu Feb 5, 2009 9:14 PM EST

Zom Zom

I'm pretty jaded and can be mean spirited, but you are one cold-hearted emeffer!

State of being alive; quality manifested by metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptations to environment;

Fetuses can reproduce? They don't even begin to turn into a gender until week 6.

state in which the organs of an animal or plant are capable of performing all or any of their functions

What about zygotes? Those don't have organs. Is there a critical mass? How many organs have to function (or be present at all). Late-term abortion isn't legal in this country, and a fetus' organs do not perform their functions.

Time between birth OR inception

Your own definition doesn't clarify whether it covers fetuses or not. How is that supposed to be a rational argument?

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that life is a continuum which can be arbitrarily BUT NOT LOGICALLY indicated as having begun at some point in time or development past the moment of conception.

Is there any logic to actually support that claim, or is it just thrown in there for fun?

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that life is a continuum which can be arbitrarily BUT NOT LOGICALLY indicated as having begun at some point in time or development past the moment of conception.

"Is there any logic to actually support that claim, or is it just thrown in there for fun?"

It's in the Medical dictionary's definition of life...which you asked for...write the authors and ask them. Better yet, ask any scientist or medical doctor for a definition of life, and if a fetus qualifies as life...you are arguing an indefensable argument. Furthermore, definitions are just labels, and we too often label others in society in an attempt to remove their individual respect and dehumanize. Basically, that is what you are attempting do with your line of argument. You are misleading yourself...your choice...I am just attempting to prevent you from misleading others on this newsvine.

That one, little line, wasn't the only one place where I showed that your definition does not apply to fetuses.

You're the one claiming that a fetus is a life. That puts the burden of proof on you. Labels are also what we use to identify objects in the world. They are not always bad things. And, frankly, anti-choice people label a fetus as a "life," usually, as an attempt to dehumanize women who get abortions.

OK, just for the sake of attempting to respect that you actually are searching for truth, I am answering you one last time...

Fetuses can reproduce? They don't even begin to turn into a gender until week 6.

The definition of "life" includes the ability of the lifeform to have the capacity to reproduce itself...the human unborn "fetus" carries that capacity to reproduce. The human species, as in all species, must reach physical maturity before reproduction is possible. Infants and children also cannot, at that period of their development, reproduce...I do not think that we do not consider them to be "life". Just as the unborn baby, infants and children carry the capacity to reproduce at physical maturity.

What about zygotes? Those don't have organs. Is there a critical mass? How many organs have to function (or be present at all). Late-term abortion isn't legal in this country, and a fetus' organs do not perform their functions.

What about zygotes? The fertilized ovum constitutes the beginning of life...if it implants in the uterus, it becomes a sustainable pregnancy...which carries a life within. At this point (zygote) the organs are not yet fully developed...so they cannot yet perform a function. A female child's ovaries also do not perform the function of producing ovum, until the child is physically mature...we still consider her a "life". And I do not think that "late term abortion isn't legal in this country" is an acurate statement. However, a fetus is developed with organs by 12 weeks, I believe, so it is not only late term abortions that we are considering here.

Time between birth OR inception. Your own definition doesn't clarify whether it covers fetuses or not. How is that supposed to be a rational argument? "

"Birth" is defined (The American Heritage Dictionary) as the beginning of existence; any beginning or origin. It is another word for the scientific meaning of origin or inception. Do you understand that differnce from the common use we use, that refers to the moment an infant emerges from the womb (medical; delivery of the infant)?

Do you understand that differnce from the common use we use, that refers to the moment an infant emerges from the womb (medical; delivery of the infant)?

Actually, the "common" version is the "medical" version. And we consider that one the "birth" for a pretty good reason.

The definition of "life" includes the ability of the lifeform to have the capacity to reproduce itself...the human unborn "fetus" carries that capacity to reproduce.

Nonsense. Either it can reproduce or it can't. Having the potential to be able, eventually, to do a thing, is not the same as being able to do the thing.

.I do not think that we do not consider them to be "life"

I wouldn't, either, but your definition seems to.

However, a fetus is developed with organs by 12 weeks, I believe, so it is not only late term abortions that we are considering here.

Your definition wasn't simply "Has organs." It was "state in which the organs of an animal or plant are capable of performing all or any of their functions"

A non-viable fetus, by definition, does not have organs capable of performing their functions. That's why it isn't viable.

"all OR any of their functions"

So, again, I ask: If we cut out someone's heart (let's say, for these purposes, a dead person who donated their organs) and hooked it up to a machine that kept it pumping, would that count as a life?

Do donated organs constitute slavery?

What about before they have any organs. Is it a life at the moment of conception, when it is simply 1 cell?

What about before they have any organs. Is it a life at the moment of conception, when it is simply 1 cell?

YES, it is a life.

I agree, the mother is at fault here as well, abortion at 5 months shouldnt be allowed just because the mother doesnt want it anymore, she should have done it 3 months ago if she just 'didnt want it'. she went looking for a doctor to kill her baby (im pro choice and even i believe its a baby at this point), she also sat there and watched someone else shove it in a plastic bag, she also didnt report it as the remains were found over a week later, and now she wants compensation - why ?? the clinic did exactly what she paid them to do so why should she be compensated now? strip the doctor of his license

MoeMel

I personally don't agree with abortion but regardless of that I think both sides have the same view of the horrific nature of this crime.

I don't think they have the same view. The president of the Broward County Nat'l Organization of Women chapter said in this article that she knew there were clinics out there like this. Instead of saying "We want these clinics shut down and the persons responsible for this barbaric behaviour brought to justice" they say "We try to steer women clear of them".

I agree with everything you said 110%. That little girl had a chance and they just discarded her like she was trash. My baby weighed 1lb 5oz and was 12 1/4 inches long at birth. At 3 years old she is now 3 1/2 feet tall and weighs 42 pounds. No one would ever guess her early beginnings. And I dont understand why the mom is suing 3 years later. Why because she may have blown her only chance at being a mom. You dont decide to abort at 23 weeks, you are halfway into the pregnancy by then. You feel life inside you. I just dont get it. That far along, why not adopt out. Give someone a chance at being parents who can not have biological children. There were other options.

I agree, they should all have to rot in prison so they can think about what they have done to this helpless child for the rest of their lives!

If you are "all for abortion rights" than why do you care? Seriously, i'm curious...

the girl wanted the baby...oh i'm sorry Zum Zum, "fetus" dead, gone, out of her.

Why do you care how that was accomplished? Why do you care what avenue they took to perform this abortion?

Rachel, I get that your pro-life and trying to make a point (that or your seriously messed up...), But not all pro-choice people believe in aborting 23 week old fetuses.... it's all a matter of opinion on both sides as to when you believe that a fertalized egg becomes a feeling, sentient being. (Some say immediatly, some say heartbeat, some say brain function... etc.) So yes, pro-choice people do care how and when it is accomplished. I'm hard pressed to find people who agree with 23week abortions... and very hard pressed to find someone who doesn't care what "avenue" they took to perform the abortion.

Rachel, I said I was pro-choice, I did not say I was pro-murder. I became pregnant at 16 and had to think about having an abortion. I chose not to. I was lucky enough to be in a situation where I could raise my child. Not everyone has the same resources I did. For those women, not to mention victims of rape ad incest and women whose babies are not viable or could kill the mothers, they should have the option of not continuing with the pregnancy. An abortion should be done as early as possible, to protect against atrocities like this from occurring. A baby at 23 weeks is viable. I don't agree with abortions after the first trimester except for medical reasons. What happened to this child was wrong, no matter what side of the pro-life/pro-choice coin you agree with. This shouldn't be a debate about whether or not abortion is wrong. This should be about how a so called doctor left that poor woman lying there to deliver a child, then watch that child's murder.

Meamomma,

WELL SAID!!

you realise that pro choice people are not pro abortion?? i am pro choice but i wouldnt want an abortion or would i want to see anyone else have an abortion, but i believe its the womans right to have the choice and while just not wanting the baby and using at it birth control is not a good excuse, there are very valid reasons for abortions like my friend with cancer, it was either abort and have a shot at life or keep the baby and die leaving a 3 year old motherless????

agreed, lower limits need to be set apart from exceptional circumstances

sorry katie but just because you have an opinion doesnt make you right, im not saying you are wrong, just that your not right either. i believe that while it is a mass of cells it is not a baby, it is not a baby until it looks like one and is formed - your opinion is that life begins at conception - we clearly have 2 conflicting opinions which means we are neither wrong or right, and since we will never know he is wrong or right the woman should still have a choice, but with limits in my opinion.

No matter which angle you look at it abortion KILLS a human life

I don't grant your premise that a fetus, at an early stage, is a human life. Nor does the supreme court. Nor do doctors.

Here's an idea don't have sex

You're boring me.

Zom - I admire your continued efforts to argue this topic with science and logic. You have made repeated attempts to light the candle instead of cursing the darkness. Alas, your well intentioned efforts fall on the deaf ears of the zealots who troll these threads. They foam EVERYWHERE that the word 'abortion' appears and troll endlessly wherever any opinion differs from theirs. They are neither learned nor experienced and ignoring them is always a good move. If you ARE a licensed provider of medical services with real credentials, may I suggest Sermo or similar restricted blog where you can feel free to express your position as a man/woman of science and be entirely free from the maniacal ravings you are encountering here.

Thanks, Last.

I know. I'm not arguing because I think that I'll win. I'm arguing because a lot of people read newsvine, from both sides of the debate. I just want to make sure that my side is here, too.

Plus: beating my head against a wall is theraputic.