Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Abort, abort!

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A doctor's license was revoked Friday in the case of a teenager who planned to have an abortion but instead gave birth to a baby she says was killed when clinic staffers put it into a plastic bag and threw it in the trash.

The doctor, Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique, also is the subject of a criminal investigation. Renelique was not present when the baby was born, but the Florida Medical Board upheld Department of Health allegations that he falsified medical records, inappropriately delegated tasks to unlicensed personnel and committed malpractice.

Joseph Harrison, the attorney representing Renelique at the license revocation hearing in Tampa, said Renelique has not decided whether to appeal.

The state attorney's office, meanwhile, said its criminal investigation into the incident is ongoing and no charges have been filed. A fetus born alive cannot be put to death even if its mother intended to have an abortion, police said when the incident occurred in 2006.

The baby's mother, Sycloria Williams, sued Renelique, the clinic and its staff in January, seeking damages.

She alleges in her suit that "she witnessed the murder of her daughter" and said she "sustained severe emotional distress, shock and psychic trauma which have resulted in discernible bodily injury."

"This is not about a pot of gold," said Tom Pennekamp, her attorney. "What this is about is right and wrong and making a statement, making sure it doesn't happen to other young women."

According to the suit, Williams, then 18, discovered while being treated for a fall that she was 23 weeks pregnant. She went to a clinic to get an abortion on the morning of July 20, 2006, after receiving medication and instructions the previous day.

Renelique was not at the clinic, however, and Williams was told to wait for him. She was given two pills and told they would make her ill. When she complained of feeling ill, clinic staff members gave her a robe and told her to lie down in a patient room, the suit says.

Renelique was still not present when Williams "felt a large pain" and delivered a baby girl, according to the suit.

"The staff began screaming and pandemonium ensued. Sycloria watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed."
Don't Miss

A clinic co-owner entered the room and used a pair of shears to cut the baby's umbilical cord, the suit said. She "then scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw bag and the baby in a trash can."

Staff at the clinic did not call 911 or seek medical assistance for Williams or the baby, the suit said.

Renelique arrived at the clinic about an hour later and gave Williams a shot to put her to sleep. "She awoke after the procedure and was sent home still in complete shock," the suit said.

Police were notified of the incident by an anonymous caller who told them the baby was born alive and disposed of.

"The complainant [Williams] observed the baby moving and gasping for air for approximately five minutes," according to a police affidavit requesting a search warrant for the clinic.

Two search warrants found nothing, but officers executing a third warrant "found the decomposing body of a baby in a cardboard box in a closet," the suit said.

I'm always curious what someone who supports abortion thinks when the read an article like the one above. I've never been able to understand how those people seem to be able to partition their minds when it comes to a fetus. For most of them, the only thing that seems to differentiate the difference between whether something is just a clump of cells or a human being is whether the mother wills it to be. It's almost never because of something scientific or quantifiable, like development or viability or anything. If the mother decides she wants an abortion, then it's automatically a parasitic clump of cells that do not deserve protection and if the mother decides she wants to keep the baby, then it's afforded the protection right from the start.

In the case of the article, does it matter whether the they aborted the fetus or actually delivered it and then smothered it to death? If all that's important is the mother's decision about whether to terminate the pregnancy, you would think it's all kosher no matter what. I find it pretty offensive that the seacow is suing in the first place. She wanted to kill the kid from the start. Is she upset now that its death was a little more distressing than she had hoped? Oh, if only they had vaccu-sucked its brain out while it was still up her hoo-ha, it would have been so much cleaner. To me, it feels like it's the same damn thing. Either both instances would be murder or both would be perfectly morally justifiable.

On a sidenote, who the fuck names their daughter 'Sycloria'? It sounds like a intestinal parasite that causes explosive diarrhea. It's no wonder that she turned out to be a sue-happy babykiller with a name like that. Her parents might as well have named her Chlamydia because they thought it sounded pretty.


( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 7th, 2009 01:46 pm (UTC)
I believe in abortion, just not THAT late. I didn't even know people (in the US) could elect to abort after the point when the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb. That story is all kinds of WTF.
Feb. 7th, 2009 01:56 pm (UTC)
That's the dirty little secret that most people don't think about when we talk about abortion in the states. Most people think that Roe V Wade made only early abortions legal. In actuality, there were no restrictions. You could have any abortion at any point no matter what the viability of the fetus.

Since that decision, state laws have sometimes tried to reign in so-called 'late term abortions' with limited success. The loophole in those statutes is that there must be an exception for the 'health' of the mother. Abortion providers have interpreted that to mean not only physical health but mental and emotional as well. They argue that it's impossible to not adversely affect mental health by making a woman have a baby she doesn't want, even if the baby is viable and full term. So really, there are no limits at all.
Feb. 7th, 2009 02:06 pm (UTC)
Wow, you learn something new everday.
Feb. 7th, 2009 04:49 pm (UTC)
I know that late trimester abortions happen but I do wonder if it was a legit clinic. Most of the legal abortions that occur in late pregnancy are because something is wrong with the mom or fetus. Are there other articles on this situation?
As for you question I believe that until the fetus can survive on its own that it is not an independant person. Thats the kicker for me and is my own opinion. When you are the host and the child is living off of your body then you should have the right to remove it.
I do know that historically in some countries a person was not considered to be or named until they lived at least three months .That was mostly cause so many small children did not survive.
Medically the part of the brain that makes you a person does not begin to form until at least six months in the womb and it is what makes your consciousness.
Anyhoo I really do not have too much time to delve into this and may return later today...

Feb. 7th, 2009 08:11 pm (UTC)
but what exactly does that mean? for a breast-fed baby, the baby attaches to the mother ever 1-2 hours to survive. no child under 2 years would have any luck surviving without constant intervention from another. a child borne at 5 1/2 months can survive under respiratory care and intravenous feeding, and that number is being pushed back. so is your cut off 5 1/2 months or 2 years?
Feb. 8th, 2009 12:55 am (UTC)
"ut what exactly does that mean? for a breast-fed baby, the baby attaches to the mother ever 1-2 hours to survive. no child under 2 years would have any luck surviving without constant intervention from another."

The thing is that a baby does not need breast milk to survive they do just as well on cows or goats milk. When its inside of you living off of your bodily resources it interferes with your rights as a sentient human being. A fetus is not sentient until at least six months.
The British did research into this in 2000 if your read the literature fetuses begin to develop a minimal brain stem at 7 weeks, but are not capable of consciousness until the third trimester and most likely remain unconscious until birth. As one brain scientist puts it: "the fetus and neonate appears incapable of ... experiencing or generating 'true' emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity."

a child borne at 5 1/2 months can survive under respiratory care and intravenous feeding, and that number is being pushed back. so is your cut off 5 1/2 months or 2 years?

I love the cut off question. I support all abortions because I really believe that no one can tell a person what the right decision is. No one. A wanted child is far more precious than just saving a life. Most pro lifers seem only interested about
their cause than to support these children when they are born..
A woman can make her own decision and not you or I have the right to do it for her.

Feb. 8th, 2009 04:54 am (UTC)
How does that work exactly? I'm sure you've heard that there is a far greater demand for newborns by adoptive parents than there are newborns available. These children aren't being killed because they're unwanted. If every single abortion in the US was stopped tomorrow, all of those kids could have homes found for them easypeasy. There are many more people who want to adopt than there are kids.
Feb. 8th, 2009 06:29 pm (UTC)
I`ve been on the protest lines for abortions and there are a few women that are pro life that will actually talk to you civilly. I`ve found the majority are pro-life but not pro-life to the quality of life. It always seems to be lets make sure the mom has the baby not address her
*loss of income or education
* be pro womans programs so that these kids are born into a home where the mom can afford the child

There is no compensation for the risk of carrying a child to term. As for the adoption of kids.There would not be enough adoptive parents out there.There are on average 1.37 Million legal abortions per year. Thats not even counting the illegal ones.
If abortion was made illegal tomorrow you`d never find homes for the cases that are drug addicted. What about the thousands of crack addicted babies born all the time in the states? You think the average Joe would adopt them??
Feb. 8th, 2009 07:00 pm (UTC)
I'm afraid that you have no clue what you're talking about as far as the adoption numbers are like. There would be enough people to adopt every single infant. The demand is so heavy, most people are forced to go overseas. Where there isn't enough demand to meet supply are adoptions of _older_ children. So if all aborted fetuses were carried to term and then put up for adoption, all of them would be found homes easy enough. It's only a problem with they're not given up until they're 5 or 7 or 10.

Each year, over a quarter of a million couples seek info on adopting from foster care. That's already pretty extreme since almost all of the foster care kids are in that unlikely to be wanted category for being older. The number who would adopt an infant is almost certainly many times higher than that. The national adoption center says that according to research they did, 500,000 women a year seek to adopt at least a single child, and many more than one. I have no clue why they don't list men as well, but you can probably toss a few more onto there if you include men as well. Remove those abortions in which the fetus wasn't going to be viable no matter what or in those situations where it's medically necessary, and I don't think it'd be hard to find a home for every baby.

Even if the number is off though, like, lets say that of the 1.3 million babies, there were only 1.2 million people who wanted them and would meet the qualifications to adopt....why would you not say that we would only abort those .1 million who were unwanted rather than just shrugging and saying oh well, better abort all 1.3 million.

Edited at 2009-02-08 07:09 pm (UTC)
Feb. 8th, 2009 04:51 am (UTC)
If you take a look at wiki, they summarize the abortion info for the US and several other european countries. Around one and a half percent of abortions in the US occur after viability has been reached. Another source gives me 1.3 million abortions per year in the US, which means around 20,000 fetuses killed who could have survived on their own outside the womb.
Feb. 8th, 2009 06:33 pm (UTC)
Thats is with the intervention of the hospital. Of the 20000 how many would have been severely disabled? Are you willing to pay more tax money to support the millions of mouths that are going to be added to the population? How about the money and care for the women who would be forced to carry these kids?
Abortion is not an easy issue.
Feb. 8th, 2009 06:57 pm (UTC)
Why would it require anything else? It's a well known fact that there are people willing to adopt infants, even those with disabilities. Still, lets put that aside. You seem to want to focus on those kids who might be disabled. Lets put that aside for the moment. We can just make all abortion of those _healthy_ viable kids illegal. That should certainly be kosher, right?
Feb. 8th, 2009 07:22 pm (UTC)
You seem to not want to answer the question of how do you compensate the woman that takes the financial hit to carry an unwanted child to term.
Now on a personal level I would not have a abortion after three months. Thats my choice but I do support the choice of someone that has an abortion after that because each circumstance is different.
You also have to define what is healthy and viable. Are you against abortions that are performed where the mother`s life may be in danger? If the mother is not on medical do you support the tax rise that occurs cause as child may need assistance in a hospital? Who pays for it all?
I`m not focusing on anything I really do not believe that abortion is a black and white issue. Having had to get an illegal one and been sterilized by that procedure gives you a different perspective. If you make it illegal for someone to have an abortion after a certain time What about the women who die trying to get illegal abortions? Is their life somehow "less valuable " cause they made a mistake?
Feb. 8th, 2009 07:31 pm (UTC)
Why would you compensate the woman at all? We're simply saying that she has no right to kill another viable human being due to her own selfishness if there is someone willing take to take care of that human being.

As for if the mother's life is at risk, then I figure it's that old legal adage of two men drowning with a single life preserver. It's been written into the law of many states that if you kill someone for that life preserver, it's not murder. The reason being is that each person has the right to try to survive, even if by surviving they impinge on the survival chances of another human being. So if there is an equal chance of death, then an abortion is justified.

As for medical costs, that's easy too. The adoptive parents to be pay for it. Ta da. Most would only be way too happy to and I'm sure you could write it in so that it's through the adoptive parents' insurance. After all, insurance pays for the healthcare of adoptive infants right now as it is.

As for the women who die getting illegal abortions, I feel the same way about them as people who die trying to get illegal surgery right now. There are plenty of procedures that are illegal in the united states and by that I mean medical procedures. Plenty of people still seek to have them done though most actually fly outside the country for it. If one of those people died in the middle of such a procedure, it would have been their choice to take on that risk. They knew it was illegal and they made their deicision.
Feb. 8th, 2009 09:06 pm (UTC)
You need to compensate the mom because she is the one with lost opportunities as well as wages during her pregnancy.It is the number one reason that women have for not getting paid as much as men because being the one to bear the child you can only work so long before you have to take time off. Plus there are thousands of women that get fun things like high blood pressure and other pregnancy caused issues.
As for being covered by the adoptive parents medical.Have you chatted with a HMO ?? Most will not cover a person until they are actually adopted by a family. A fetus inside of a woman thats about to be adopted into another family is not considered to be part of that family. That fetus is not considered to be a person until it is actually born. Read the fine print of any HMO provider the medical coverage is solely on the mother and most read that the embry,zygot,egg is a belonging of the mother`s body.

"As for the women who die getting illegal abortions, I feel the same way about them as people who die trying to get illegal surgery right now."

Cause of course the life of the fetus far outweighs the womans..
So your pro life in only some instances...

Feb. 8th, 2009 10:30 pm (UTC)
Why would I have to compensate the mom? I wasn't the one who fucked her and got her pregnant. If I were, then she might have justification to seek compensation from me just as now she could seek compensation in the form of child support.

It also wouldn't matter what the HMO thought because the law would change. If you made a fetus a person while still in the womb as part of making abortion illegal, then the adoption could occur prior to birth. That would automatically mean the kid is covered by the adoptive parent's insurance carrier. Two birds, one stone.

It's the last part of what you said that really makes no sense. I can't figure out if you really didn't read and understand what I had said earlier or you're just reading from some of naral's talking points blindly. Since I acknowledged that if the life of the mother were at stake, abortion would be justified how in the world could I be valuing the life of the fetus more than the mother? Eh? Doesn't make much sense, does it? As for choosing to have an illegal medical procedure, you assume all the risks when doing so. There are plenty of individuals today who travel abroad for banned medical procedures. Some of them have cancer or other illnesses and they believe the only treatment is available abroad. Maybe they have a bad kidney and simply want to go to some third world country and buy some poor person's kidney. If they die in the middle of that illegal procedure, it's their own fault. They chose to persue it.

Feb. 7th, 2009 06:20 pm (UTC)
What did she think was going to happen - the baby would get humane euthanasia? Really?

She's so caring and compassionate!

Feb. 8th, 2009 04:19 pm (UTC)
I think I believe in abortions up to 3 months along. I don't know if I'm really certain about it all. I know I believe in the right to an abortion, but I know that I personally wouldn't get one. I thought I was pregnant when I was about 22 and living at home. I knew my mother would throw me out and disown me if I was but I realized that I couldn't consider an abortion - turned out just to be a hormonal problem.
Feb. 8th, 2009 07:40 pm (UTC)
If you take the stance that anything human is a life, and therefore should not be killed, logically, you should be against abortion at any point.

If you believe, however, like I do, that the important thing isn't if something is 'human' or not, but if it is... sentient... for lack of a better word. I think most people can agree that a clutch of cells isn't equal to a born, human child (unless you're arguing that it has value because it has the potential to become a child). Which begs the question, when does it become a 'being', as it were? Clearly, this is not an on/off process, but something gradual.

Norwegian law (and certain US states, if I remember correctly) allows for legal abortions throughout the first trimester. This because before the end of the first trimester, we can be reasonably sure that the embryo isn't sentient (for a given value of sentient). Abortions AFTER the first trimester can be applied for, and are considered on a case-by case basis.

Obviously, the woman in that story is mentally disturbed, but I don't see a contradiction in assigning value to a zygote/embryo/fetus (depending on state of development) according to whether or not you want to have it. If you wanted to have a child, then the embryo you are carrying is going to become a child, and thus has value in potentia. If you don't want to have a child, the embryo will never become a child, and has no value. Fetuses are a different matter, because as you point out, at one point they are no different to a born child.

It is, however, a complicated matter, not least of all because it involves morals, which people can never agree on.
Feb. 8th, 2009 07:48 pm (UTC)
Do you find it odd or disturbing that Norway would have a more restrictive abortion policy than the US, at least on a federal level? I'd think that most people around the world would think I was joking or just outright lying if I said that US federal law allows for an abortion at any point during the pregnancy. After all, I imagine the perception is that a large chunk of our population is very anti-abortion yet many European nations actually restrict abortion after viability has been reached and the US as a whole, doesn't.

As for assigning value (human being vs clump of cells), it's not about whether it's unusual or unreasonable that a person's opinion changes based on their perception. It's whether that should be the _legal_ difference. The same 8-month old fetus is either a valueless clump of cells or a baby with rights depending on whether or not the mother chooses to have it aborted. That can't be right. It should legally be either one or the other, and not change simply based on one person's whim.
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )


domo costume
In the darkness the trees are full of starlight
Facebook Page

Latest Month

July 2016


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Teresa Jones