Sunday, 08/17/08

Why is BAIPA so important?

Okay, I think Timbo caught me greatly up to speed on the BAIPA issue. I still don't have all the pieces but I feel like I understand it well enough to converse about it. It was constructed to provide the same rights to aborted non-viable living infants as would be provided to a viable living infant. The law in place protected a viable living infant born through an abortion method or otherwise. If there was a potential for a child to live some extended amount of time they had to be cared for.

Am I right then that the crux of the issue was, how will we care for living aborted babies while they die? There was already a protection if the child was viable, which would by age be at least 24 weeks but almost definitely not until 26 weeks gestation.

Here is my question to Tim, Micah, or any other who has been active and passionate about this issue. Why does this make you so angry? Why have I heard terms like infanticide or near-infanticide? If this provision could only apply to a dying child, why does the degree of care for that child bring such consternation? From my perspective, I would like a dying child to be cared for with more dignity and mercy than the nurse's testimony described. There is a fire and a passion around this issue, though, that appears to surpass dignity and mercy for the dying. What is it?

Comments

Bill wrote:

I have been pondering this since I posed it and I would like to take a crack at answering the question. It is the underlying issue of personhood and human rights, isn't it. You are fighting to have the unborn recognized as full persons with basic human rights from the moment of conception. Obama, in contrast, was not willing to extend legal personhood and human rights to non-viable infants even after they were born alive outside of the womb.

One step farther away from accepting the non-viable unborn as persons inside the womb, he would not even accept them as persons outside the womb.

Is the monster frame this: That it was monstrous to fail to treat even born alive (but not yet viable) infants as human beings?

Timbo wrote:

I have a lot to say in response to this post as well as in response to your comment in the previous post, but I won't have time to write anything out until later, as I have 118 orders to process (a typical day for me has been around 50 orders). So it might be a day or two before I can write a response. In the meantime, here's a thought experiment for you to consider. Imagine if, given the way the economy has been going, the Bush administration mandated that we had to reduce the number of children to two per family, with every remaining child to be executed. How do you think you would react?

Timbo wrote:

"Is the monster frame this: That it was monstrous to fail to treat even born alive (but not yet viable) infants as human beings?"

In a word, yes.

Bill wrote:

Tim, I do not think your thought experiment will be helpful. Beyond being too implausible to contemplate, it does not relate directly to the situation. We are looking at how a child is treated while they are dying.

If you are trying to help me understand your anger toward the general concept of abortion, this thought experiment might relate. Still, I don't think it would help in imparting what you are trying to communicate. There is no intuitive connection between the care for a dying infant and arbitrary government execution of living children.

I look forward to your response when you have a chance. I understand that you are busy.

Leave your comments

captcha image