NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just recently been hearing about this, and that Obama voted against it. The Born Alive bill would basically make it law that if a fetus survives a late term abortion, it has to be treated and kept alive. I would post a link, but I can't seem to find one outside of conservative newspapers.

To those more knowledgable: is this a real issue? It won't change my vote, since at worst he was a little overzealous in protecting abortion rights, but it would be good to know.

Concerns about the bill:
- Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC) expressed concern that the bill was not "studied in a responsible way before being rushed through the Judiciary Committee." Congressional Research Service reported that the bill would amend about 15,000 provisions of the U.S. Code and 57,000 provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations. Apparently, nobody has studied the full affect that the bill would have on existing legislation. Watt commented:

"If we took our roles as lawmakers more seriously, we would examine this bill thoroughly to ensure that it serves only the intended symbolic purpose and does not result in unintended consequences...It is quite apparent that the Majority considered the political objective much more important than the legislative or substantive objective."

- Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) had three concerns:
- Considering the tremendous impact that the bill would have on tens of thousands of existing laws, Nadler said: "many implications of H.R. 4292 remain unknown. Consequently, it seems unwise to proceed so quickly."
- "Because the bill refers to the 'complete extraction or expulsion from its mother' rather than the 'complete extraction or expulsion from the mother's body,' it is unclear whether a fetus that has emerged from the uterus but is still completely or partially in the vaginal canal would fall within the bill's ambit."
- "...there is concern that the bill, if passed, would require medical professionals to provide treatment that is not mandated under existing and future applicable standards of care."
- One unexpected impact of the bill might be in the area of wills. A woman might leave her estate to be distributed equally among all of her children, with the provision that if a child pre-deceased her, that their share would be given to charity. If she had two live children and two live-birth abortions for genetic reasons, then this law might imply that she had given birth to four persons during her lifetime. Her grown children might then each receive only one quarter of her estate, instead of the half of the estate that she intended. One can imagine other variations on this theme.
- On 2000-JUL-20, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) issued a press release criticizing H.R. 4292. They asserted that extending legal personhood to premature infants who are born alive after surviving abortions constitutes an "assault" on Roe v. Wade. By providing legal rights to born-alive infants "at any stage of development," including those who had achieved viability, the supporters of H.R. 4292 are "directly contradicting one of Roe's basic tenets."
- Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), testified before the Subcommittee that providing legal personhood to premature infants who survive abortions "is an attempt to do what the U.S. Supreme Court has strictly forbidden over and over--it unduly restricts a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy."

To those more knowledgable: is this a real issue?

Late term abortions are generally considered to be a bad idea anyway unless the mothers life is in danger. I think about 1% of all abortions is such late term; the overwhelming majority is done far before something viable exists.

I do not know how many fetuses survive a late term abortion. I imagine however that most parents that had made no earlier attempt to terminate the pregnancy would be overjoyed if it did.

que debate on abortion, and American politics.

I guess that would mean people who make late abortions, still have their kids alive (even though it's supposed to be aborted). Assuming that what you said is true. I can see why Obama voted against this, who would parent these children? this born alive thing sounds pretty poorly thought out.


{translation}Obama did the right thing, this born alive bill is a bad idea{translation end}

the logic behind this bill is...:confused:

How often do born-alive late term pregnancies occur? Surely it isn't very common to abort so late in a pregnancy that the fetus could qualify as a viable premature infant.

So it's okay to kill it if you succeed right away but if it survives your first attempt to kill it then it's no longer okay to kill it any more? :confused:

Either it is okay to kill it or it isn't, whoever came up with this idea needs to make up their mind and then stick to their decision.

How often do born-alive late term pregnancies occur? Surely it isn't very common to abort so late in a pregnancy that the fetus could qualify as a viable premature infant.

from the thread title I gathered it was about killing babies :)

Either it is okay to kill it or it isn't, whoever came up with this idea needs to make up their mind and then stick to their decision.

its because if they baby lives surely it would be due to divine intervention/natural selection creating super foetuses

The Born Alive bill would basically make it law that if a fetus survives a late term abortion, it has to be treated and kept alive.

that's silly.

So it's okay to kill it if you succeed right away but if it survives your first attempt to kill it then it's no longer okay to kill it any more? :confused:

Either it is okay to kill it or it isn't, whoever came up with this idea needs to make up their mind and then stick to their decision.

It has nothing to do about killing anything. Some late term abortions result in a fetus that has been removed from the mothers body, is still alive, but will not remain alive without extensive medical care. This bill mandates that extensive medical care must be given in these situations.

Honestly, though, I don't know whether these situations really occur, how often, or if any of the fetuses involved have any chance at survival. So I'm kind of unsure about the whole thing.

I've just recently been hearing about this, and that Obama voted against it. The Born Alive bill would basically make it law that if a fetus survives a late term abortion, it has to be treated and kept alive. I would post a link, but I can't seem to find one outside of conservative newspapers.

To those more knowledgable: is this a real issue? It won't change my vote, since at worst he was a little overzealous in protecting abortion rights, but it would be good to know.

I've seen him discuss this a couple of times. The law already requires a live infant that is born - even through a botched abortion - to be treated. This bill was not necessary to ensure that. He voted against it because of the language of the bill and his sense that it was an attempt for the pro-ban crowd to make in-roads into the law.

At least, that's the sense I got.

So it's okay to kill it if you succeed right away but if it survives your first attempt to kill it then it's no longer okay to kill it any more? :confused:

Either it is okay to kill it or it isn't, whoever came up with this idea needs to make up their mind and then stick to their decision.

agreed. I'm going to err on the side of not killing them.

And even if the fetus does survive with the extensive medical care, what kind of life will the resulting baby have? How long of a life? Would they have to suffer some kind of physical or mental agony the whole way through?

There are plenty of ethical concerns here and people need to look at it from all perspectives, and ask questions like "What good is it to save a life if said life is not fulfilling?" instead of just "Can we save a life?"

the bill seems like a very bad idea.

late term abortions are done for a reason. if the baby could be born alive and live, the mother would have had an early cesarian not an abortion.

Any fetus strong enough to survive an abortion should be raised by the military and turned into an elite killing machine.

Any fetus strong enough to survive an abortion should be raised by the military and turned into an elite killing machine.

Uh, any fetus strong enough to survive an abortion would still be quite the weakling compared to the rest of us who developed and were born normally.

its because if they baby lives surely it would be due to divine intervention/natural selection creating super foetuses

http://www.matazone.co.uk/sillyimages/blog/super-benjy.gif

the logic behind this bill is...:confused:

If they can get this to pass, it paves the way for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade