05-21-2011, 12:52 AM
(05-20-2011, 11:37 PM)Alram Wrote: I don't know what kind of intellectual gymnastics can be used to justify either the killing or the failure to provide medical care for children who survive attempted abortions.
In the extraordinary case that a viable baby is born as the result of a failed abortion, yes, it would be unethical to "leave them to die." But do we actually have evidence of this happening?
Your second source is clearly advocacy rather than science (http://abortsa.com/index.html - not exactly where I'd go for my medical data) but even they count less than 0.1% of all abortions, for the one region and year they have anything resembling good data. But even this is suspect at best - the South Australian Health Department, when phoned up, really said "Oh, yeah, we totally left those babies to die"? It seems obvious that this is editorializing, and we have no idea what is actually being described.
From your Wisconsin report, 0.4% does not even refer to "children who survive attempted abortions" but rather, to the number of abortions where chemically induced abortion was tried, and failed, thus requiring surgery. Is there some reason to suspect this refers to something else?
I'm not convinced. The overwhelming majority of abortions happen at a time in pregnancy where the chances of the baby being viable at all, let alone after an abortion, are vanishing. The chances of anti-abortion websites portraying abortion providers as heartless murderers, on the other hand, approaches unity.
-Jester