This is the sort of abortion that doesn’t happen, we are told. Late term for lifestyle reasons. (“I couldn’t possibly have an unperfect child.”) Wonder if the Canadian taxpayer paid for it. Probably.
BALTIMORE – A New Jersey abortion doctor accused of shuttling his patients to Maryland for late-term abortions is now accused of mistreating two additional patients, including a woman from Canada who received an abortion of a nearly full-term fetus. The new accusations against Dr. Steven Brigham are contained in documents filed by the New Jersey attorney general’s office, which is seeking to have Brigham’s license suspended or revoked. Brigham has agreed to stop practicing medicine until a hearing next month.
The documents show that in early August, Brigham performed an abortion for a 35-year-old Canadian who was 33 weeks pregnant. The fetus had Down syndrome.
The baby had Down syndrome. Summary execution for falling below our very high standards of what it means to be perfect.
(If you’re getting an angry tone from this post that’s because I am.)
by 
33 weeks? 33 weeks. Think about what a woman looks like when she’s 33 weeks pregnant. I could actually see the perfect outline of little feet tattooed on my skin when my babies kicked in just the right place when I was 33 weeks along.
All I really want to know is – if this SAME child contracted a disease causing Down’s like symptoms, would this (expletive deleted) person feel the right to kill that child as well? Please, PLEASE some explain this to me!
Sorry for the emotional barrage…this is just one of those aspects of our “me, Me, MEEEEEEE” world that I simply cannot handle.
I think I read somewhere that the abortion cost 21 000$ Now that I know that it was a canadian, it makes sense… sadly.
Yes, of course this happens. What is being asserted by “pro-choice” advocates is a right to kill, not just to terminate a pregnancy. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, just bring up this example (and many others like it).
At 33 weeks, that baby could have been born alive, either by induced labour or c-section, had the objective been to terminate the pregnancy. But the real objective is to kill, and we see that very clearly in a case like this.
Also, the method used to carry this out would have been extremely gruesome.
“I could actually see the perfect outline of little feet tattooed on my skin when my babies kicked in just the right place when I was 33 weeks along.”
This is anatomically possible. I’m not accusing you of lying – I’m just accusing you of allowing you desperate wish to see such an image of influencing your perceptions.
Just take a look at an ultrasound. Any ultrasound. You can see there’s a significent amount of flesh in the way, and that’s not even including the bit in front of the sensor that’s too close to image. This only makes sense: A fetus is delicate, and needs protecting from everyday bumps and falls.
Nope, not lying.
Nope, no desperate wish.
I could see it even better the third time around, especially when she was sideways and kicked right around where my waist used to be… must have been the one pleasant side effect of having my skin loosened up by the first 2 babies.
I didn’t see individual toes if that’s what you’re getting at, but definitely saw feet.
I’ve seen lots of ultrasounds…for my own 3 kids. I’ve seen fingers, toes, and yawns. I’ve seen a baby suck his thumb.
(I assume you’re at the very least an ultrasound tech or possibly an obsterician, since you do seem to be *such* a font of knowledge on all things medical…or, really, on all things in general.)
It’s sad, really, that this is the side of this entire post you’ve chosen to focus on. I was merely pointing out from my own experience that at 33 weeks, the woman was far closer to choosing infanticide than to choosing to “terminate a fetus”…
I have a picture of a friend on facebook, who had twins and near the end of her pregnancy had various contractions. She took a picture while she had a contractions and you can CLEARLY see the outline of one of the babies,( head rump, legs. )The other one was harder to see. She still had a number of weeks before 40, when the picture was taken. I do think it was between 33-36 weeks.
Suricou, if the purpose of abortion is about ending a pregnancy, was not just induce or have a ceaserian? The procedure would be just as hard on the body since an abortion at that stage is a 3 day procedure.
Speaking of infanticide… bet you didn’t know that Canadian law treats infanticide as something different from murder:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/09/23/ontario-appeal-court-hears-landmark-case-on-infanticide-laws/
33 weeks, that’s 11 weeks after Sweden’s abortion limit. And I thought our laws was lax.
I can’t believe there are actually people who defend this sort of act. I don’t understand how this is not murder. That same baby outside the womb would be given all sorts of medical care and protection. I just don’t get it.
I have read in the newspaper a while back that women in the province of Quebec are sent to the states for late term abortions, paid for by the Public Health System. So this might have been one of those.
“And I thought our laws was lax. ”
I don’t know about the canadian limits, but many countries do have an exception for serious fetal developmental abnormality. Down’s would fall into that, if such an exception exists under Canadian law. So this isn’t quite a typical case.
Canada has no limits, and in fact no law whatsoever concerning abortion (and therefore no exceptions). Kristina was referring to the limits in Sweden, where she lives.
By the way, Down’s Syndrome is not a developmental abnormality, nor is there anything about Down’s Syndrome that can justify an “exception” unless you have a very twisted view of what personhood is. See, for example, Peter Singer.
Interestingly, even Peter Singer argues that Down’s Syndrome is not so crippling as to make life not worth living. But then he goes on to argue that the abortion of a Down’s baby can be justified by the better “quality of life” of a “replacement child” who will be conceived only if the one with Down’s Syndrome dies. As I said: a very twisted view of personhood.