More gas for the abortion debate...
 

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb042705.shtml

Born Alive
Who decides: parents or politicians?
Ronald Bailey


Last week, Michael Leavitt, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, declared that his agency is going to "aggressively enforce" the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. The act defines an infant as a "member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." The act further defines "born alive" to mean any infant who "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." When he signed in the legislation in 2002, President George W. Bush declared, "This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive—including an infant who survives an abortion procedure—is considered a person under federal law." The law entitles such newborns to emergency medical care and to protection against child abuse.

............................................................

That's what I'm screaming, but I'm getting a little bored. It's time to take it up a notch. I haven't heard anyone called a nazi in ages.

Why not keep pregnant women on shelves, like they did in slave ships, until they produce a kid they can trade for their release. Then the village can raise the child. :rolleyes:

Seems to me that if a child/fetus/whatever can either: feel pain OR has developed a will to survive then he/she is entitled to protection. However unpopular that opinion might be.

I don't see the problem with this Act, signed in 2002. Three years ago.

Can someone explain what the disagreement is about?

And you're going to prove that how? Particularly when you have the DeLay style crowd who can divine medical fact from their religious convictions.

You can't - at least I can't offer any guidance.

My point wasn't that I DO know its that those who advocate choice don't know either nor do they even bother to ask what I think is a pretty important question.

So....you advocate putting in legislation to protect something we cannot confirm or deny? Should legislation also be passed to protect animals in case one develops consciousness? Why not? Equally valid and relevant.

Careful, we might have to get out of the government business altogether if you want them to understand what they're trying to legislate. :cool: