what if the aborted fetus is born alive

Are many very premature babies actually "born" or do the doctors perform cesarian (sp?)?? If the mothers were left to actually give birth to the babies they would not survive the physical stress of being born.

Just wanting to clarify if people mean "born" or "sugically delivered by doctors" when they say babies can survive if they are 'born' at x number of weeks.

I've never heard of a caesarian taking place to remove a terminated foetus.

I meant with people who don't want to terminate the pregnancy. With regard to the argument of pro-lifers that if a baby was born naturally premature at x weeks it could survive. Therefore abortions shouldn't be permitted at this time. But I doubt that babies delivered naturally this early would survive the birth. So it's only because of quite intense medical intervention that they would survive. (Sorry I'm having one of those days where I can't seem to explain things very well - I shouldn't really be on here today!!)

lol, not a possibility seeing as how I'm a woman..

Okay I'll ask you the other question which gets asked.

A pregnant mother who wishes to carry out the child gets stabbed in her womb, and as a result the child dies instantly. Say this happened to you. Would you be happy for the defendent to be charged with grevious bodily hamr? If not what should the charge be?

yes but the point once it is "surgically delivered by doctors" it could actually survive if it were put on a life support system. Is it morally right to let it die since to anybody's standard's it is a live human being and we're just letting it die because it wasn't wanted in the first place. That said prematurely "born" babies (i.e those that are wanted) often develop either cerebral problems (mentally retarded etc...) or spinal deformities (the spinal bones don't interlock together properly) i think i've said this before but i can't remember if it was on a similar thread or not

Okay I'll ask you the other question which gets asked.

A pregnant mother who wishes to carry out the child gets stabbed in her womb, and as a result the child dies instantly. Say this happened to you. Would you be happy for the defendent to be charged with grevious bodily hamr? If not what should the charge be?

i dont do law or anything...but i suppose that it is arguable that the perpetrator of the crime goes down for murder (the baby is living in the womb).but wouldn't other factors come into play - like if the woman was visibly pregnant (ie huge bump) or not - because then the guy could plead either involuntary or voluntary manslaughter?

i dont do law or anything...but i suppose that it is arguable that the perpetrator of the crime goes down for murder (the baby is living in the womb).but wouldn't other factors come into play - like if the woman was visibly pregnant (ie huge bump) or not - because then the guy could plead either involuntary or voluntary manslaughter?

My point is that many pro-choice people think that they should be able to do what they like with the child but then if someone comes along and stabs the unborn child, they think they should be done for murder. You can not have two views simultaneously!

So because she wants the child then of course she's going to go for manslaughter. SHE WANTED THE CHILD!.. merf?

Then you should have said.. "If the mother does not wish to carry the child." You said she wanted the child. So because she wants the child then of course she's going to go for manslaughter. SHE WANTED THE CHILD!.. merf?

You see. So really those who do believe in abortion are murderers. The logic can't work both ways. Merf??

hahahaa!! cool it, boys!

Of course it can. If she WANTED the baby and someone stabbed her killing the baby then it could be considered manslaughter.. she wanted the child! If she didn't and she got an abortion she obviously didn't want the child.. so therefore its not manslaughter.

So it's not considered murder if she doesn't wants it but if she does want it is considered murder? So what is murder? A bit like playing God really.

What if I was an extreme Hindu and found that my child is a girl and wanted a boy? If I got rid of it would that be justified because I did not want it?

So if I steal something that later I did not want (maybe I was mistaken of the nature of the goods) and then decided to sell them off I can't be found guilty of theft using the logic of your statement above. Because it can't be theft because I did not want them!