Steve Waldaman, the editor of Belief Net, writes that this ad produced by BornAliveTurth.org “doesn’t prove what it intends to prove.” Links to a FactCheck.org “Before the law: a baby who had a pulsating umbilical cord but who would not – in the view of the doctors – survive would be allowed to die. After the law: the question of viability would be removed from the equation. If they were born, then they were deemed to be alive. Period. As a result of the redefinition, doctors would need to treat any living baby that was produced through an abortion the same as one produced through an intentional birth, including taking urgent steps to keep it alive.” … the pro-life forces argue that the doctor in charge happens to be an abortionist, someone with a vested interest in claiming that the baby was not viable. For an abortionist to admit that the baby was viable he would be admitting that he failed at the basic task of performing a successful abortion – a profound conflict of interest. This strikes me as a very legitimate concern on the part of the pro-life advocates. They argued that its “alive”-ness should simply be assumed: if the baby is alive, it’s then a case for the neo-natal doctor. … But try saying that out loud: “I believe that babies that are still alive should be allowed to quietly die. ” It’s actually a defensible position. If you support mercy killing for terminally ill patients, for instance, you’d feel totally comfortable with allowing non-viable babies brought forth during an abortion to die, too. meaningful difference between saying that a candidate favors a situation that results in death and saying he wants to murder infants.
