Do you think if a baby survives a botched abortion, they should be given medical care to live?

Question

Someone will adopt the baby, if the mother still doesn't want it, so that is not the issue. Do you think babies who survive the attempt on their lives, should be able to sue their birth-"mothers" for negligence? Obama doesn't think so, in a covered-up document produced by him in his college years, as President of Harvard Law Review, which he never wrote one article for, before becoming the President of it, that's why I would like opinions on what you think?

Article about it, and thanks:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html

PS, also, should babies have any rights?

Answer 1

Anytime a baby is viable outside the womb, it is called murder, or attempted murder, no matter how leftists try and dress it up. Not that I am against allowing them to kill themselves off.

Answer 2

I think they should, but I also think the quality of life they may or may not have should be taken into account as well. I'm not sure how I feel about the baby suing the "birth" mother for negligence, as abortion is legal and how can you hold the woman accountable if the medical procedure that a licensed doctor performs doesn't work? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of abortions but some mothers have reasons for why they don't want to give birth to a child - if the abortion doesn't work, I don't see how she can be at fault. Unless you're saying that because she was negligent by having unprotected s*x in the first place...but what if she were raped? Anywho, that's my opinion.  

Answer 3

Yes, that's why I support Universal Health Care.

Answer 4

How else should the baby live if it doesn't receive medical care?

Answer 5

Betcha your question get removed by the Yahooo Censors.  I had 3 of the botched abortion baby rights questions removed.  Guess babies just can't get respect from anyone on the left.  Babies from botched abortions SHOULD be given care and all the rights of the Constitution despite what Barack Obama said.  He is on tape as saying the cost of another doctor would be too costly for the woman.  Shows how he values human life.  He said he wouldn't burden his daughters with a "mistake."  Not the words of a truly compassionate man.

Answer 6

No. That's what happened to george w bush and look at all the suffering he's brought upon the world.

Answer 7

Pretty nearly all human beings think that except Obama.

Answer 8

I think it is sad we live in a Bush-Clintonian age of politics where people find it complete fair game to try to score political points off such things.

Honestly.

I think the Clinton way of triangulating his position as leadership is disgusting too.

Answer 9

"Someone will adopt the baby, if the mother still doesn't want it, so that is not the issue." - no, that's not true, there are far more children who need homes than people willing to adopt. This myth is perpetuated by pro-birthers.

Yes, they should be given medical care.

I wonder what opponents of Universal Health Care have to say about that?

Answer 10

I do, but Obama doesn't.

Answer 11

I don't believe that there is any law that gives anyone the "right" to "free" medical care regardless of age or circunstance.  And its a good chance that the baby can't pay and the mother doesn't want to.

If you wish to set up a fund to pay doctors and hospitals to provide free patient care, then i encourage you to do so.   Once it is established and large enough, I'm sure the medical community will take as much from it as you allow to provide post botched-abortion care.  (They will probably need to get a release form from the mothter but they can figure out how to do that)

It is suprising how haveing money to spread around can solve so many problems in our society like this one.

Answer 12

This is generally the position the courts take.  This seems to be non-news.

Different posters appear to be conflating two different issues.

The law review articles is not about attempted abortion, but instead injury due to negligence, not deliberate acts, during pregnancy, like injury sustained in a car accident when the mother was driving.

The other issue people are mixing in has to do with Obama's voting against certain abortion legislation, and falsely presuming that his doing so was because it provided babies the right to protection if they survive a late-term abortion.  He correctly has pointed out that the existing law provided such protections, and voted against the newer legislation due to OTHER constraints it would put on the woman's rights.

In reporting on abortion-rights opponents’ criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

On the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

It's been said that, if it weren't for lack of context, there would be no news.

You have to consider the source.

One source of these claims is Jerome Corsi, who has also written that McCain made his wealth through the Mafia and that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush Administration.  

Another source of these claims is Jill Stanek, who says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions.  She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use.  She claims that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

Nurse Jill Stanek claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room.  The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama's position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct.  The investigation concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."  Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that her testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance her anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.

Don't extremist conservatives think it might hurt their cause to put out stuff that's so easily debunked? or do they not think their audience would feel its intelligence is being insulted?

Answer 13

Of course they should. There can be no debate about whether or not a baby is really "just a fetus" once it is out of the womb--alive--and living and breathing on its own.