Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Creyn, Feb 5, 2009.
The mother and the owner of the clinic should both be charged with murder.
I had a similar first reaction... the same one I have about any mother who chooses to murder her baby, but after a second reading of the story, it appears she had a change of heart after the baby was born. The part where it says "she was confronted with a human life"
And after the incident, she's one of the people suing the clinic, who did nothing to help her baby, born alive.
Yes, I read all that as well and still hold by my opinion that she should be charged with murder. She went into that clinic. She did nothing to stop the person from killing her baby once she had given birth to it and supposedly "had a change of heart". It would be the same as a person setting up a bomb to go off and a couple minutes before it goes off having a change of heart. If they don't stop the bomb, they are still guilty.
I'd more inclined to believe her "change of heart" was along the lines of "I can make a boat load of money off this".
A mother who just had a baby is in no position to get up off the table and stop someone from anything. But you need to have had children to know that.
I was witnessed he birth of both of my children. If anyone attempted to kill one of them, I can guarantee that my wife certainly would have done something to stop them.
We are also talking about a woman that gave birth to a small, 23 week old child. She was artifically dialated. She did not go through a long, terrible labor.
The amount of labor has nothing to do with it. Women are incapacitated at the point. Add to that the conflict that was still going on with the mother.It is a known fact that when mothers see their child during a sonogram they often change their mind. For you to assume the worst possible motives is nothing but poor opinion on your part. And my wife disagrees with you. Especially if she had been given an epidural.
Not a single recounting of this has mentioned an epidural, though they mention other medications given in detail. Women are not as incapacitated as you seem to think. It was fully in this woman's power to hold her child and not give the child to the owner. It is stated in the articles that I've read that the owner came back into the room after Williams gave birth. In fact, Williams herself says that the owner was able to come in and knock the baby to the ground. Williams wasn't able to issue a protest in all this? She wasn't able to hold her child? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
It isn't going far to assume this woman has bad intentions. She's already admitted to wanting to murder her child.
Sorry that your wife doesn't agree with me. My wife does. I guess mine cancels yours out .
My girlfriend's son was born at 23/24 weeks. He was 1 lb. 5 oz. He's now just beginning to walk at 18 months old.
What happened is just disgusting. The mother who would decide to abort a baby at that age (at any age but at the threshold of viability?) is so absolutely wrong but then to have a live child and have someone decide to just put it in a bag and toss it? That's disgusting. Given a few more weeks, that baby could have absolutely made it and there would be thousands waiting in line for her.
This world has the most messed up priorities.
Yea it is. For you do not have any way of knowing. Just poor assumptions.
"Viability" is such a horrible term too... As I shared on another related thread, since abortion is legal until the attending physician's estimation of "viability," if that physician is an abortion doctor, of course he'll decide a baby's not yet "viable." But if the doctors you're dealing with are trying to save a baby of the same gestational-age, like in the case of accidental early labor, obviously he or she is viable, and they'll do everything they can to save him or her.
And, ask a parent of a three-year-old whether their kid is "viable outside the womb", and the answer's 'no'. Because children require assistance to keep them alive.
Whether that assistance is just feeding, changing and bathing, or whether that assistance includes a ventilator, NO child under a certain age is "viable outside the womb". So it seems to me the only difference between "viable" and "not viable outside the womb" is whether a baby is wanted or not, and the justification and rule for determining abortion's legality is flawed from the beginning.
They all were there with the intention of killing the baby. And the baby was killed.
Nobody should face charges. The baby was just as much a baby two seconds before he/she took that breath.
Abortion is legal. As long as it is, then it's pretty stupid to charge someone with murder during an abortion if the baby dies.
What did the woman expect would come out of her? A cantaloupe?
I agree. The NRLC needs to stop focusing on modes and kinds of abortion, and go after Roe vs. Wade—fiercely.
I completely disagree. Charging and prosecuting someone of murder in this case would be a step in the right direction. It would give precedent that we are indeed dealing with a living baby. To ignore this murder and allow the guilty to get off, would be more condoning of their practice.
It is completely absurd and disgusting to fail to recognize that the child was alive and viable after the delivery. Murder charges no doubt should be brought. sick
I don't see the difference in what the abortion doctor did & what mother's do when they abandon their baby in a dumpster.
I hope the doctor gets the death penalty. The mother should get charged too, as an accomplice. She might have been sedated, but the fact remains she went in there to kill her unborn child. If a person gets behind the wheel of a car & they happen to be drunk & they hit & kill someone, then they get charged with that person's death. The mother shouldn't have put herself in that situation to start with.
You've missed her point. In the end, it really doesn't matter when and where the baby is killed. Once the idea is accepted that it can be killed at a certain time in a certain place, it's utter foolishness to be outraged that it be killed at another time in another place.
And I agree.
You may agree but I did not miss the point. I disagree with it. If the child is born alive the whole process should end and the child should be given every reasonable measure to live. Objecting to that is just disgusting.
And it is not surprising that the mother would have a change in heart once she sees the child born. And it is absurd to deny such.
Agreed. Also, at the point that the child is born alive, the mother that had a change of heart should do everything in her power to protect that child. To think that the mother has no power to protect her child is disgusting.
Any mother that did not have a change of heart and as such did nothing to stop the murder of their child is also disgusting.
Really? Break that down for me. Just how is it disgusting?