So, if a baby is aborted then remains alive is killing it considered murder?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 96,00.html

[quote]Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion
Lois Rogers
A GOVERNMENT agency is launching an inquiry into doctors’ reports that up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched National Health Service abortions.

The investigation, by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH), comes amid growing unease among clinicians over a legal ambiguity that could see them being charged with infanticide.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which regulates methods of abortion, has also mounted its own investigation.

Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered. In practice, few doctors are willing or able to perform the delicate procedure.

For the abortion of younger foetuses, labour is induced by drugs in the expectation that the infant will not survive the birth process. Guidelines say that doctors should ensure that the drugs they use prevent such babies being alive at birth.

In practice, according to Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George’s hospital, London, a number do survive.

[b]“They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation,â€

I think that as soon as any child is born (alive) it should be under the same laws as any other born child.

So, if the born child later dies of neglect, then the parents should be charged for neglect. If they kill it with intent, then they should be charged for killing with intent.

well, I don't have an answer, but part of the whole abortion argument is that killing a child is wrong. Which stems from the idea that killing a human being is wrong. That seems, to me, to be the basis for all this anti-abortion stuff.

So...is it wrong to kill people?

Yes. The question here, however, seems to be when we can call a phoetus/baby a human being.
When I said "aware" I meant when the phoetus would be able to feel things like pain. That could be measured be develpoment of the brain or nervous system for example.

For example, some time ago the norwegian government ordered a research about the killing of lobsters. A lot of unwashed environmentalists say it's cruel to kook the creatures alive, wich is the normal way of preparing them for dinner. The arguement is that they would be excessively hurt by this method. The research however showed that the creatures' nervous system is too primitive to feel the pain.

Somewhere between the fertilization and birth there is a moment where the nervous system becomes so far developed that it will feel the pain of abortion. I think that abortion should be allowed untill that time. The only exception on that is that if defects are found that will certainly kill the baby after birth abortion should also be possible.

who cares if the fetus feels pain? I mean, it's going to die shortly thereafter anyway. What's a bit of pain when the ultimate nothing is looming ahead? BTW...have you ever heard a lobster scream?

At any rate, I don't think pain should be the limiting factor. There's no difference between the pain a fetus feels and the pain an ant feels when I step on it. Yet one (supposedly) morally wrong while the other isn't.

And isn't there an inherent difference between, say, throwing a living dog into a fire and shooting a child in the head with a handgun? They both wrong...and the dog feels pain whereas the kid doesn't...but what's worse?

Meh...anyway, just throwing stuff out there.