Baby allegedly left to die in hospital after failed abortion - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14682391
Another horror story from the Abortionists slab.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/baby-born-alive-after-failed-abortion-left-to-die/
Doctors in a Polish hospital allegedly left a baby born alive after a botched abortion to sit unattended until it died.

Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

Witnesses told Republika Television that a baby born March 7 at Holy Family Hospital in Warsaw was ignored by hospital staff for one hour because medical tests indicated it had Down Syndrome, the Global Dispatch reported Tuesday. The baby, which had been developing for 24 weeks, was allegedly crying until its death.

Obstetricians say that it is theoretically possible, but doing so would be difficult for a premature infant.

Hospital employees insist they acted within the law. Spokesperson Dorota Jaslowska-Niemyska told the website a patient came in near the end of her 23rd week of pregnancy. She would answer no further questions when asked if the dignity of the child was respected upon its birth.

“It is confidential and I am not allowed to comment on the details of this procedure,” Jaslowska-Niemyska said.


This is the world of abortions. This is what the medical profession has become, leaving new born babies to die while surrounded by all the necessities needed to save its life, its natural instincts for survival screaming for help until its last breath. A short life condemned to die fighting alone. It was obviously a strong fighter having survived one attempt on its life but now it will just be erased from history and its life long fight against impossible odds will be forgotten. I could go on a long rant but surely this story speaks for itself.
#14682418
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is doubtful that the allegation is true.

There seems to be a single unnamed source who supposedly saw the event happen. Urban legends have just as much evidence.

Even if this particular story wasn't true the sheer volume of abortions that take place make it an inevitability that story's like this do happen whether reported or not.
#14682634
The same could be said for someone who's been involved in a car crash, that doesn't mean we should let them die screaming at the side of the road.

The whole premise of abortion is based around the dehumanisation of small babies. Not all pro abortionists follow this mindset consciously but it does affect them as is evident if this story is true, which I believe it to be.

A doctor more than anyone knows that a foetus is a human , but whether you believe a mother has the right to an abortion or not that doesn't mean a baby should be left to die crying in a hospital. Abortion is dehumanising babies, we treat them like kfc chickens now until they can be legally classified as a person.
#14682638
^ It depends on what level of pregnancy we're talking about.
If this story is true and the baby actually cried or even took a breath then it was somewhere in middle to late pregnancy and taken out by surgery.
According to law if the baby took one breath outside his mother's womb then he or she is legally a person and killing hem is punishable as a crime or if its like this then by neglection.
#14682640
Yes I'm against the morning after pill and it's not like there aren't many other forms of contraception, ones that don't screw with a woman's natural cycles and aren't linked to some cancers. I believe life begins with the formation of the individuals dna. I'll be the first to admit this is very very inconvenient but if I viewed it any other way I'd be lying to myself.

Now saying a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants is one argument but to say a foetus is not alive and isn't human goes against all medical science. Of course a foetus is alive and is just one of the many stages in a humans life.

If life doesn't start at conception then when does it start? Because the only direction the goal posts seem to be going as science progresses is backwards.

anasawad wrote:^ It depends on what level of pregnancy we're talking about.
If this story is true and the baby actually cried or even took a breath then it was somewhere in middle to late pregnancy and taken out by surgery.

As far as I know the mother had an abortion but the baby managed somehow to survive unknown to the abortionist. The mother was then rushed into hospital a few days later after going into labour where the baby was delivered and then finished off by means of exposure by the medical staff there
#14682644
If life doesn't start at conception then when does it start? Because the only direction the goal posts seem to be going as science progresses is backwards.


I dont really know the answer to that in the technical sense. Is there even an answer?

I think your position is actually quite logical its just that I dont share it. I agree with the general consensus that we simply need a cut off point. The current one seems ok.

Do you really think the morning after pill is "murder" though? Its hard to consider life as precious when it just a blob of cells. Why does combining them make them so special when they were not before.

Anyways, my friend is a mid wife has her doubts actually. She has a few stories what she describes as callus doctors who never question late abortions in any situation.
#14682646
The focus on when "life" starts is silly. Lots of things are alive and we don't blink when we kill them.

Any petri dish if human cells would have a right to life if the only thing we consider is it's technical status as a living organism.
#14682649
The focus on when "life" starts is silly. Lots of things are alive and we don't blink when we kill them.


Generally not human though ..

Any petri dish if human cells would have a right to life if the only thing we consider is it's technical status as a living organism.


Yes, in this case we do "kill" human cells a lot.

Jessup, do you have anything against stem cell and killing human cells in general?
Is it more the ending of the potential of a human being that offends? Killing the only cells that "person" has.
#14682651
You could theoretically grow a clone of someone from a skin cell. At what point in the process of doing so will the cell gain the right to life?

Also, if we are worrying about the life of an organism but only if it's human than obviously life isn't the only quality being considered. If the only two qualities being considered is if it's human and alive then we cannot kill any human cell.

If we can kill human cells then there is some third quality being considered.
#14682655
layman wrote:I think your position is actually quite logical its just that I dont share it. I agree with the general consensus that we simply need a cut off point. The current one seems ok.

Yes that's fine as long as you're not the one being cut off at that point.

layman wrote:Anyways, my friend is a mid wife has her doubts actually. She has a few stories what she describes as callus doctors who never question late abortions in any situation.

This is the ultimate problem with abortion, it is leading to the dehumanisation of babies.

mikema63 wrote:If we can kill human cells then there is some third quality being considered.

Yes there is a third quality one to which Layman has already alluded to. The living human cells in their mothers womb are in the process of growing and developing through the human life cycle, a process we all lived through in our human lives.
#14682659
That's vauge, would it still count in an artificial womb? Does it count before implantation in the uterine wall or only after? Why if it implants in the fallopian tube, dies it still have the right to life? What if it implants in some other tissue?

How exactly would you test to see if something is going through the normal human life cycle? Is it okay to abort a fetus if there is some developmental disorders? If there was a developmental disorders then it wouldn't be going through the normal human cycle by definition.
#14682663
jessupjonesjnr87 wrote:As far as I know the mother had an abortion but the baby managed somehow to survive unknown to the abortionist. The mother was then rushed into hospital a few days later after going into labour where the baby was delivered and then finished off by means of exposure by the medical staff there

Lots of children die due to exposure, malnutrition, poor sanitation and preventable diseases everyday. Why do you reserve concern for aborted fetuses? You think a cluster of cells should be protected and preserved but I haven't seen you express concern for the fully formed humans who have a much higher level of sentience.

I'm curious at what point does a fetus become a patient in the eyes of medical professionals since there is often a conflict of interest between mother and child during pregnancy.
#14682675
mikema63 wrote:That's vauge, would it still count in an artificial womb? Does it count before implantation in the uterine wall or only after? Why if it implants in the fallopian tube, dies it still have the right to life? What if it implants in some other tissue?

How exactly would you test to see if something is going through the normal human life cycle? Is it okay to abort a fetus if there is some developmental disorders? If there was a developmental disorders then it wouldn't be going through the normal human cycle by definition.

I didn't say anything about normal life cycle. If you took those cells from that petri dish and began the cloning process I would hope there would be restrictions so that it wasn't possible to simply experiment with human dna, growing humans, altering their dna, killing the results as is seen fit. This is the road abortion leads down. We're coming into an age where mankind will have the means to alter evolution and human biology to a degree that could affect the course we take as a species with the only limitations being the ones we set ourselves.

AFAIK wrote:Lots of children die due to exposure, malnutrition, poor sanitation and preventable diseases everyday. Why do you reserve concern for aborted fetuses? You think a cluster of cells should be protected and preserved but I haven't seen you express concern for the fully formed humans who have a much higher level of sentience.

I'm curious at what point does a fetus become a patient in the eyes of medical professionals since there is often a conflict of interest between mother and child during pregnancy.

I don't reserve concern for aborted foetuses. I express plenty of concern for formed humans such as the ones in the Middle East, Africa and Palestine. If you want to start a thread about the wrongs of a world where one half throws away half the food they buy while the other half teeters on the verge of starvation and I'll be more than glad to post there. I think life should be protected from conception till death with some exceptions around capital punishment and euthanasia.
Last edited by jessupjonesjnr87 on 25 May 2016 18:11, edited 1 time in total.
#14682679
So it has nothing to do with a womb. If you take exception to clumps of human stem cells in a petri dish obviously you think there is some special quality of human stem cells that is inherent to them that gives them a right to life. Since human skin cells are fine to kill it's not that it's human cells or that it's alive, and if the womb is entirely unimportant you can't claim that as a necessary quality.

Confessions extracted under torture...seems legit.[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]