Aborted baby boy survived for nearly two days

[Still Waters]

A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly two days later.

The 22-week infant later died in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy.

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.

However the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabria hospital, and was left by doctors to die.

He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

Read more...

[Queen in the North]

Good God that's awful.

[ohio traveler]

This will surely alarm the pro-choice crowd. The article used the word " baby " instead of " glob of cells ".

[eqgumby]

This will surely alarm the pro-choice crowd. The article used the word " baby " instead of " glob of cells ".

Dude, globs of cells don't survive outside the womb for 20 hours and have umbilical cords still attached. That's just gross.

I'm not a rabid pro-lifer, but that seems like an awfully late-term abortion.

EDIT: 22 weeks is what they said the baby was at, which is way to early for a viable birth, but man, that is awfully late for an abortion. They DID say it was for a suspected disability, I assume a severe one.

Edited April 28, 2010 by eqgumby

[Poopie]

life begins at conception. Sounds like murder to me.

It's sickening how some people legitimize these acts because of inconvenience...

Edited April 29, 2010 by Poopie

[Jack_of_Blades]

life begins at conception. Sounds like murder to me.

Disagree. I have never talked with or had a beer with a zygote.

It's sickening how some people legitimize these acts because of inconvenience...

Yeah the child was better off living a disabled meaningless existance. I mean after all

letting it suffer for 50 years is the far more humane thing to do.

As much as I'm pro-choice I must admit that this is a fairly late-term abortion. Which

is something I don't exactly support.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Jack_of_Blades

[Doc Socks Junior]

Disagree. I have never talked with or had a beer with a zygote.

So, your definition of alive is something you can talk to? So, barely any animals are alive, and certainly nothing on a cellular level. Interesting world you live in there.

[Startraveler]

Until we start considering killing a cell or an animal murder, it doesn't really matter if they're biologically alive or not. As always, these arguments tend to mix the social and biological to the point that the conversation breaks down. Jack of Blades seems to favor a social definition of personhood (with all the attached rights), others here prefer a biological argument (though I don't imagine most of you would actually extend the argument to all life, suggesting--to me, at least--that there's more than a hint of a social argument in there anyway).

I fall in the camp that agrees a zygote or a fetus meets the criteria for being biologically alive; I just don't consider it a person at that point in the life cycle, any more than I can consider a stem cell to be a person (e.g. with human rights).

Edited April 29, 2010 by Startraveler

[Doc Socks Junior]

Until we start considering killing a cell or an animal murder, it doesn't really matter if they're biologically alive or not. As always, these arguments tend to mix the social and biological to the point that the conversation breaks down. Jack of Blades seems to favor a social definition of personhood (with all the attached rights), others here prefer a biological argument (though I don't imagine most of you would actually extend the argument to all life, suggesting--to me, at least--that there's more than a hint of a social argument in there anyway).

I fall in the camp that agrees a zygote or a fetus meets the criteria for being biologically alive; I just don't consider it a person at that point in the life cycle, any more than I can consider a stem cell to be a person (e.g. with human rights).

So (I'm just trying to understand your view) does "potential" personhood count for anything?

[danielost]

Disagree. I have never talked with or had a beer with a zygote.

Yeah the child was better off living a disabled meaningless existance. I mean after all

letting it suffer for 50 years is the far more humane thing to do.

As much as I'm pro-choice I must admit that this is a fairly late-term abortion. Which

is something I don't exactly support.

you have never talked with or had a beer(at least i hope not) with a new born. so it must just be a globe of cells too.

[Startraveler]

So (I'm just trying to understand your view) does "potential" personhood count for anything?

Not unless you consider m********ion to be morally equivalent to genocide.

[Doc Socks Junior]

Not unless you consider m********ion to be morally equivalent to genocide.

A spermazoid has nothing to do with a zygote, or indeed a fertilized egg. The comparison is rather inexact.

[Startraveler]

You're simply drawing a distinction between how much potential for life something has. Sure, a given sperm has a vastly smaller chance of leading to a life than an already-fertilized egg but both have potential, given the right circumstances, to result in life. But how to play those numbers is a nuance for you to figure out because I don't consider "potential" life (regardless of the probability) to be particularly relevant.

[danielost]

You're simply drawing a distinction between how much potential for life something has. Sure, a given sperm has a vastly smaller chance of leading to a life than an already-fertilized egg but both have potential, given the right circumstances, to result in life. But how to play those numbers is a nuance for you to figure out because I don't consider "potential" life (regardless of the probability) to be particularly relevant.

maybe this is why god killed the one man in the bible for spilling his seed on the ground instead of getting his wife/his older dead brothers wife/ pregnate and giving his older brother a child via the rules of that society.

[Doc Socks Junior]

You're simply drawing a distinction between how much potential for life something has. Sure, a given sperm has a vastly smaller chance of leading to a life than an already-fertilized egg but both have potential, given the right circumstances, to result in life. But how to play those numbers is a nuance for you to figure out because I don't consider "potential" life (regardless of the probability) to be particularly relevant.

Okay, so your comparison was inexact. Hyperbolic, to prove a point. Anyway, I'm saying that a fertilized egg, since it, with normal care, will become a human, should be afforded rights. And, actually, the vaunted legal system agrees. In several states (or all, I'm not exactly sure) if you kill a pregnant mother, you're responsible for a double homicide.

Sometimes the laws makes me laugh.

[Startraveler]

Anyway, I'm saying that a fertilized egg, since it, with normal care, will become a human, should be afforded rights.

But if you're explicitly making the argument that a fertilized egg isn't human ("will become a human"), then why should it be given human rights? I fully agree that when it becomes human (I would here use the terminology "attains personhood") it should be given human rights. But the argument for doing so beforehand is tenuous.

And, actually, the vaunted legal system agrees. In several states (or all, I'm not exactly sure) if you kill a pregnant mother, you're responsible for a double homicide.

Perhaps, though I don't base my personal philosophies on the caprices of state legislators.

That said, if you look at some of the justifications offered for those laws, they can be a bit odd. For example, here's the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit shooting down an argument made against a Georgian feticide law:

Smith also contends that the feticide statute is unconstitutional because there is no unlawful taking of a human life, and because the statute contradicts the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). The former contention is frivolous. There is no constitutional impediment unique to the prohibition of conduct that falls short of the taking of a human life. The latter contention is equally without merit. The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade--that an unborn child is not a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment--is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.

There's no real philosophical stake there in the notion that an unborn child is a person. Instead, it's just an argument that 1) a state can prohibit what he did (regardless of whether he did the equivalent of taking a human life) and 2) states can "prohibit the destruction of a fetus." True enough, but it doesn't resolve the ambiguity we're discussing here. Indeed, if you merely want to treat a fetus as something to which a mother essentially has property rights, then it probably should be a crime to injure it; but that doesn't suggest that the mother herself can't consent to have a medical professional perform an abortion. So the mere fact that these sorts of state laws exist (and have been upheld in court) doesn't necessarily lend credence to the philosophical notion that the unborn should be considered persons or members of society, even if that's what certain state legislators believed in crafting the law.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Startraveler

[Doc Socks Junior]

But if you're explicitly making the argument that a fertilized egg isn't human ("will become a human"), then why should it be given human rights? I fully agree that when it becomes human (I would here use the terminology "attains personhood") it should be given human rights. But the argument for doing so beforehand is tenuous.

I was just trying to speak from the opposite point of view. I myself believe that the fetus (fertilized egg, zygote, etc.) is a person. I am aware that that's only my view. There are certainly many other viewpoints around.

Perhaps, though I don't base my personal philosophies on the caprices of state legislators.

That said, if you look at some of the justifications offered for those laws, they can be a bit odd. For example, here's the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit shooting down an argument made against a Georgian feticide law:

Smith also contends that the feticide statute is unconstitutional because there is no unlawful taking of a human life, and because the statute contradicts the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). The former contention is frivolous. There is no constitutional impediment unique to the prohibition of conduct that falls short of the taking of a human life. The latter contention is equally without merit. The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade--that an unborn child is not a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment--is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.

There's no real philosophical stake there in the notion that an unborn child is a person. Instead, it's just an argument that 1) a state can prohibit what he did (regardless of whether he did the equivalent of taking a human life) and 2) states can "prohibit the destruction of a fetus." True enough, but it doesn't resolve the ambiguity we're discussing here. Indeed, if you merely want to treat a fetus as something to which a mother essentially has property rights, then it probably should be a crime to injure it; but that doesn't suggest that the mother herself can't consent t have a medical professional perform an abortion. So the mere fact that these sorts of state laws exist (and have been upheld in court) doesn't necessarily lend credence to the philosophical notion that the unborn should be considered persons or members of society, even if that's what certain state legislators believed in crafting the law.

This is a very good point. The variances of legislation, and legislators, in general, make them a bad supporting argument.

So, when does it attain personhood then, in your opinion? At birth? When it feels pain? Recognizable shape?

Edited April 29, 2010 by socrates.junior

[Startraveler]

So, when does it attain personhood then, in your opinion? At birth? When it feels pain? Recognizable shape?

Any choice here is going to arbitrary so I would just go with birth, when it's undeniably distinct from the mother. Some, going back to Roe, are fascinated by the reaching of "viability" for a similar arbitrary reason, but that's more of a moving target with advances in medical science, etc. Birth is pretty unambiguous. And it has the advantage of being a very visceral bit of symbolism of one entering society.

[danielost]

Any choice here is going to arbitrary so I would just go with birth, when it's undeniably distinct from the mother. Some, going back to Roe, are fascinated by the reaching of "viability" for a similar arbitrary reason, but that's more of a moving target with advances in medical science, etc. Birth is pretty unambiguous. And it has the advantage of being a very visceral bit of symbolism of one entering society.

i'd becareful using her since she is now a prolifer.

[Startraveler]

I'm talking about the legal decision, not the woman.

[Siara]

I'm not a rabid pro-lifer, but that seems like an awfully late-term abortion.

EDIT: 22 weeks is what they said the baby was at, which is way to early for a viable birth

5 months? That's not so early. Is there any limit on how late they can do an abortion in Italy?

[Jack_of_Blades]

you have never talked with or had a beer(at least i hope not) with a new born. so it must just be a globe of cells too.

You misunderstood me. You see I was using humor to (in part) state my belief; which is that a parasitic glob of

cells has no rights until it is it's own person. It would be like someone demanding rights for my tapeworm.*

So, your definition of alive is something you can talk to? So, barely any animals are alive, and certainly nothing on a cellular level. Interesting world you live in there.

Interesting that you chose to hone in on the talking part rather than the drinking beer part. What is to say that I don't

talk to animals?*

*Underlined is Sarcasm

[danielost]

You misunderstood me. You see I was using humor to (in part) state my belief; which is that a parasitic glob of

cells has no rights until it is it's own person. It would be like someone demanding rights for my tapeworm.*

Interesting that you chose to hone in on the talking part rather than the drinking beer part. What is to say that I don't

talk to animals?*

*Underlined is Sarcasm

now an unborn child is a parasite. is the baby of an animal that lays eggs also a parasite. what about animals that have life birth after said baby hatches from an egg inside of mom, such as the great white.

Edited April 29, 2010 by danielost

[Doc Socks Junior]

You misunderstood me. You see I was using humor to (in part) state my belief; which is that a parasitic glob of

cells has no rights until it is it's own person. It would be like someone demanding rights for my tapeworm.*

Interesting that you chose to hone in on the talking part rather than the drinking beer part. What is to say that I don't

talk to animals?*

*Underlined is Sarcasm

Yes, I didn't realize it was sarcasm. At all. Of course, by your own definition, we shouldn't consider children or teenagers human...

After all, they're the basic equivalent of tapeworms until after college. Sometimes later.

And, I'm pretty sure a tapeworm is a parasite. Slightly different than the offspring of someone. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the sarcasm just...slipped by me.

[eqgumby]

So (I'm just trying to understand your view) does "potential" personhood count for anything?

You have "potential" persons in your pants...where we draw the line on that is the real issue.