Posted on 06/22/2004 5:45:15 PM PDT by wagglebee
Leading doctors today called for a major overhaul to avoid babies being born alive after abortions.
Pregnancy expert Professor Stuart Campbell has demanded rules should be tightened after it was revealed that at least nine babies are known to have survived terminations in recent years.
He said injections that were supposed to end their lives in the womb failed to do so - and he called for stricter regulations to be enforced on the methods of abortion.
Professor Campbell said that all abortions carried out after 18 weeks of pregnancy should include an injection, followed by drugs, to induce labour and a stillborn child.
Some consultants only give the injection in abortions after 22 weeks. Others, he claims, do not use it at all.
Professor Campbell, who worked as an obstetrician at St George's Hospital-Tooting, and pioneered 4D scanning of babies in the womb at the Create Health Centre for Reproduction and Advanced Technology in London, said: "It is really unfair on the nurses and the parents to see the baby making some sort of movement after birth.
"If after 18 weeks you just induce labour (without an injection first) a large number would be born with a heartbeat and most of them will survive with a heartbeat and will make movements.
"Certainly from 18 weeks they should inject the heart to stop it from beating, but not everyone does this. Guidance should be given by the Royal College.
"There are cases where the injection does not work but this is very rare."
One baby with Down's Syndrome was to be aborted at a hospital in the home counties but lived. It was transferred to St George's Hospital, where it received neonatal intensive care and survived. It is believed to have been adopted.
Next week a motion is being tabled at the British Medical Association conference that babies should be entitled to all the intensive care that babies born prematurely receive. Consultant obstetrician-Jim Thornton said in the past babies were born alive after abortion more regularly but "people didn't make a fuss and pretended not to realise the baby was born alive".
He said that if a baby were to be born alive and viable then it must be given medical help but there was a "grey area" where babies born in this manner at 22 or 23 weeks were on the cusp of being able to survive. Only 17 per cent of babies born normally at 23 weeks survive.
Professor Thornton, of City Hospital, Nottingham, said: "Once it is born, you can't kill the baby but the law doesn't say anything about to what degree you resuscitate it.
"The way it is dealt with is by sensible doctors and sensible nurses keeping it under their hat and allowing the baby to pass away peacefully."
Professor Campbell does not believe that a baby born in this way should be kept alive at all costs.
"What paediatricians do is spend resources keeping a baby that is going to die, alive. It is absolute nonsense. It does show that is up to us (obstetricians) to make sure the baby is not moving."
Guidance issued by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists states that a legal abortion must not be allowed to result in a live birth.
But Professor Campbell says it does not make clear at what stage it is necessary to stop the heartbeat before abortion.
What about the fairness to the baby?
"The way it is dealt with is by sensible doctors and sensible nurses keeping it under their hat and allowing the baby to pass away peacefully."
Sensible? SENSIBLE?! God help us.
That's true for some. But a lot of them are bad doctors, and abortion is their last opportunity to practice "medicine." It's usually an all cash business. And at $300 per dead baby, a "doctor" can make quite a bit of money on a busy Saturday, bouncing from room to room.
I've heard several former abortionists relate their personal experiences.
" "It is really unfair on the nurses and the parents to see the baby making some sort of movement after birth."
Yeah, you need to get God out of your face. Then it will all be just peachy.
There are three sins in the Old Testament that called God's heavenly wrath down upon entire societies: widespread sodomy, child sacrifice and worship of a satanic diety.
We have one and two down cold. And our courts are working overtime on number three.
This is sick.
What is worse is I am hearing people on the radio here in Iowa DEMANDING that the US government open up ESC research.
After all, isn't it better to use the dead babies for something? I mean the whole recycling thing. (Yes, that is about the pitch the speaker was trying to sell).
I keep asking myself "How long will God allow this nation to survive?"
One of the main arguments put forward in favor of abortion by the anti-life crowd is that it's not really a baby. It's part of the mother's body and can't survive by itself.
Logic ought to suggest to these people that if babies do survive after botched abortions, then it really is human life and ought to be cared for and cherished.
But no. Their solution? Well we just need to try harder to kill them. Hell, the darn baby could stand up and run out of the clinic and they'd chase after it with a scalpel or a metal bar to try and finish it off.
This shows in clear daylight what abortion truly is: infanticide. Murder has been decided upon and it must be carried through, come what may.
Well, look at all of the clinical language the guy's using. He's apparently trying to hide behind the idea that it's not a "beautiful infant," it's merely a procedure that should be done "properly."
And note his comment about the "unfairness" to people if they see movement because the baby has not been properly killed first.... That's just psychotic.
This sort of story exposes the plain evil behind the abortion industry. Note that the propriety of the abortion itself is no longer in question -- it's now just something that has to be done properly. In presenting abortion that way, it skips by the vital question of whether it should be done at all. And thus satan marches on.
The abortion industry in the U.S. is a wonderfully capitalistic enterprise.
I wouldn't be so quick to blame it on the courts.....
I'll bet the line of women standing at the door to take in these precious babies would be longer than anyone could even guesstimate.
Unless I am mistaken, God will not forgive the unrepentant. These butchers are the opposite of unrepentant, they are actually looking for more effective ways to commit murder. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, every murderer on death row has the benefits of years of appeals based upon the idea that the method of execution is cruel and inhumane. Is that what this society has denegrated too? Are we to afford a mass murderer with more rights than a baby?
It is money but not how much the doctors get. The article is from the UK. Obviously socialized medicine and the left have stolen the souls of these doctors and turned them into monsters. Hitler must be smiling in Hell at how well his agenda is working now.
The question remains how long God would allow such abomination before destroying the society engaged in it. The people pushing for this are twisted, deranged, and demented beyond description. They seem to have no sense of just how grotesque what they are demanding is.
A change of heart to the degree you speak of is, with God, certainly possible. However, for an athiest (as these are, though few would admit it), these conversions are rather rare. The recent one that comes to mind is Whittaker Chambers. Obviously St. Paul's conversion is better known; however, Paul was a devout Jew not a non-believer or athiest.
Doesn't this present clear evidence to counter the whole 'viability' argument?
That the child being aborted would not be 'viable' if allowed to be born.
Here's nine cases of abortions done between 18 and 22 weeks, and DESPITE BEING INTENTIONALLY POISONED, lived past the 'birthing' process.
The left needs to get this message, or they will never again be a party of power until they get right with this issue.
If you really look at the left, every single problem they currently have deals with the fact that they are on the wrong side of every moral issue. The fundamental and first one being abortion.
As I suggested, brush up on your accounting. "Income" IS profit/loss. What you're talking about is "Revenue", which has no direct bearing on profit/loss, and means absolutely nothing in terms of claiming that an organization is "making money". There are companies and other organizations out there with billions in annual revenue, which are still operating at a loss, because their expenses are even higher; these outfits are certainly NOT "making money".
Given its overall size, PP is essentially a break-even operation. If the people running it were interested in making money, they'd quickly redeploy the organization's balance sheet to more profitable activities.
BTW I'm no fan of PP. While I'm all in favor of unfettered access to contraceptives and abortions, PP's primary mission seems to be spreading socialism, using reproductive issues just as a hook to rope people into its broader political agenda. They'll never get a dime directly from me, and I don't approve of the government funding them either.
See my post #79.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.