View Single Post
      12-15-2007, 11:59 AM   #19
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA


Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev View Post
Although, I'm no fan of Obama, I don't see anything wrong with him being opposed to this law. In the actual text of the law, which can be found here, it defines alive as "a beating heart, clear sign of voluntary muscle movement, and pulsating umbilical cord". Obviously, this is not a good definition, because non-viable deliveries at 2nd trimester can still satisfy the criteria of being "alive" by the congress. However, they are considered medically "non-viable" by ACOG, the American College of OB/GYN. In this grey area, what are we supposed to do? Apparently, the author of the article is suggesting that we need to aggressively resuscitate and treat them as if they were viable pregnancies...... Did we determine how long do we resuscitate for? Did they have a specific protocol in mind to expand the NICU beds all over the country to accomodate these "babies"? Last time I checked, they didn't pass any compendiums to pay for the care of these "alive babies". So, who's gonna pay?

It's easy to pay lip service to your faith. However, someone out there has to deal with the mess that you created.

This is the problem when you have a bunch of religious fanatics with no medical knowledge running the damn country and telling how doctors with specialized training should do their job......
How would a baby be dealt with that was not a victim of abortion, but was born with the same physical condition?