New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | April 27, 2005

Ron Bailey says the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act may have had a premature delivery.

Comments

|4.27.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Am I the only one who noticed that "functioning brain or spinal cord" isn't in the definition of a human? That speaks volumes about what the writers consider important. Feel free to insert tacky jokes about what a person with no spine or brain is qualified to do.

More important, consider that these people believe that an anencephalic fetus should be carried to term and kept alive for as long as possible despite the absence of any hope. Imagine being told your fetus has no chance of survival. Then, imagine being forced to spend months waiting to give birth to a child who will be dead within minutes of birth.

|4.27.05 @ 12:45PM|#

"Imagine being told your fetus has no chance of survival. Then, imagine being forced to spend months waiting to give birth to a child who will be dead within minutes of birth."

But, you see, that is exactly what they want to have happen. God can't, after all, perform a miracle cure if you kill the thing.

|4.27.05 @ 1:35PM|#

sluuuurp..gack..hck..hck..(belch)

|4.27.05 @ 2:37PM|#

During the recent Schiavo debacle, a VERY Catholic friend of mine were in a discussion about the whole thing.

He consistently and repeatedly summed up his point with the phrase, "It's about life."

Now I like life as much as anyone, but the community driving the - shall we say - less science-based side are going to have to deal eventually.

Right now, they're stalling on these issues hoping the Rapture happens before they have to make a tough choice.

SteveInClearwater|4.27.05 @ 8:24PM|#

I'm pretty easy going and have never filed a civil suit in my 27 years of being an adult.

But if my wife and I to to a doctor to terminate a pregnancy and that fetus is not D.O.A. I'm suing his ass for malpractice, citing the future financial damages of having to raise an unwanted child for 18+ years just for starters.