Also, like... An extremely fringe suggestion. "Imagine having a baby dying in you and it being illegal to remove it"
It wouldn't be illegal. If the baby dies, you would still go through a similar process (probably) but the life of the baby no longer has consideration because it dies.
However, if it's dying, as in not dead yet, it could possibly be extracted for incubation as you state, or other procedures could be utilized in an attempt to save the child.
Further, in another fringe style case where the mother could die during child birth, you usually know these risks very early on. In a situation where things turn for the worse, a surgical extraction in a controlled and sterile environment has the potential to save both lives.
However making exceptions at this point shouldn't be on the table. Curbing this behavior at the root by stopping it is important.
Future exceptions can be made later on. It's clear that they pushed abortion much too far and it became a pillar of their entire political foundation, and it shouldn't have.
People need to ask themselves why they cling so ardently even when the exceptions for the fringe cases they continuously cite are accounted for. It's obvious there is a reason at play. You can look at it as a wedge issue or something darker, but either way it's nefarious.
You can't just extract an 8 week old. This situation happens all the time. Future miscarriages are spotted and, scary word coming, aborted. Example, the baby doesn't have a functioning heart (can't be identified until 6-8 weeks). It saves the baby from suffering, it saves the mom from suffering, it saves everyone from suffering. The sooner it happens the easier it is for everyone. The baby is going to die, it's a matter of how much you're willing to let it suffer. This law ensures it WILL suffer. If you're cool with that seems counterintuitive, but OK, that's your prerogative.
It's a pretty easy diagnosis, yes. It's not an easy decision. But nor is letting a baby suffer then die in you. But it is necessary. History and science say the baby will not "heal itself."
Did you read one half of that paragraph and knee jerk a response without the second bit?
"or other procedures could be utilized in an attempt to save the child"
Also:
"This situation happens all the time"
False.
The natural order is that a child is born, free from these fringe defects that you attempt to outline.
I used to think like you, until I finally realized that the point of constantly citing these fringe cases is not to defend those who might encounter these adversities (see: literally this part of my post that you conveniently ignored: "even when the exceptions for the fringe cases they continuously cite are accounted for. ")
But rather to use those fringe cases as a shield to protect their agendas and/or create a wedge issue.
There are two sides to this extreme: The left extreme wants to be able to kill babies. The right extreme says no under any circumstances.
But by continuing to allow them to use these fringe cases as a shield to protect ALL abortions, you are expanding the side that supports no abortions under any circumstances further into center.
You are actively hurting the people who may face these adversities in their lives, by using them as a shield to protect all abortion.
Sounds like an issue with unhealthy mothers that needs to be discussed if it happens so often. Also the claim "happens all the time" reminds me if the many stories of mothers who say they were heavily recommended to abort because some issue was detected, ignored it and had a healthy baby anyway making them wonder how many of these docs are corrupt and have an abortion quota that they're supposed to meet.
Also, like... An extremely fringe suggestion. "Imagine having a baby dying in you and it being illegal to remove it"
It wouldn't be illegal. If the baby dies, you would still go through a similar process (probably) but the life of the baby no longer has consideration because it dies.
However, if it's dying, as in not dead yet, it could possibly be extracted for incubation as you state, or other procedures could be utilized in an attempt to save the child.
Further, in another fringe style case where the mother could die during child birth, you usually know these risks very early on. In a situation where things turn for the worse, a surgical extraction in a controlled and sterile environment has the potential to save both lives.
However making exceptions at this point shouldn't be on the table. Curbing this behavior at the root by stopping it is important.
Future exceptions can be made later on. It's clear that they pushed abortion much too far and it became a pillar of their entire political foundation, and it shouldn't have.
People need to ask themselves why they cling so ardently even when the exceptions for the fringe cases they continuously cite are accounted for. It's obvious there is a reason at play. You can look at it as a wedge issue or something darker, but either way it's nefarious.
You can't just extract an 8 week old. This situation happens all the time. Future miscarriages are spotted and, scary word coming, aborted. Example, the baby doesn't have a functioning heart (can't be identified until 6-8 weeks). It saves the baby from suffering, it saves the mom from suffering, it saves everyone from suffering. The sooner it happens the easier it is for everyone. The baby is going to die, it's a matter of how much you're willing to let it suffer. This law ensures it WILL suffer. If you're cool with that seems counterintuitive, but OK, that's your prerogative.
It's a pretty easy diagnosis, yes. It's not an easy decision. But nor is letting a baby suffer then die in you. But it is necessary. History and science say the baby will not "heal itself."
Did you read one half of that paragraph and knee jerk a response without the second bit?
"or other procedures could be utilized in an attempt to save the child"
Also:
"This situation happens all the time"
False.
The natural order is that a child is born, free from these fringe defects that you attempt to outline.
I used to think like you, until I finally realized that the point of constantly citing these fringe cases is not to defend those who might encounter these adversities (see: literally this part of my post that you conveniently ignored: "even when the exceptions for the fringe cases they continuously cite are accounted for. ")
But rather to use those fringe cases as a shield to protect their agendas and/or create a wedge issue.
There are two sides to this extreme: The left extreme wants to be able to kill babies. The right extreme says no under any circumstances.
But by continuing to allow them to use these fringe cases as a shield to protect ALL abortions, you are expanding the side that supports no abortions under any circumstances further into center.
You are actively hurting the people who may face these adversities in their lives, by using them as a shield to protect all abortion.
Sounds like an issue with unhealthy mothers that needs to be discussed if it happens so often. Also the claim "happens all the time" reminds me if the many stories of mothers who say they were heavily recommended to abort because some issue was detected, ignored it and had a healthy baby anyway making them wonder how many of these docs are corrupt and have an abortion quota that they're supposed to meet.
My girlfriend was born with a hole in her heart. Today, she is healthy (though requires medication), active and enjoys her life.
If a doctor had caused her to be aborted, I would never have been able to spend years to now with her, and years to come with her.
This is one of the fringe cases constantly brought up by these people, even.
That's not the same and you know it. Happy she's been able to heal through technology and medicine.
That's just gross. Healthy young mothers miscarry constantly.