Baby Deaths in Australia; Born alive and gasping for air.
Deliberately left to die and 'legal'.
Senator Babet’s proposal to the Australian Senate to save aborted but live babies. The video is below and the transcript at the end of the Substack.
Click picture below.
The following list provides the names of the Australian politicians who voted against Senator Babet’s plea to protect live babies from being left to die. So many females. Criminal.
OPINION
The Sanctity of Life and the Role of the Medical Profession
The sanctity of life is a principle that holds life as inherently valuable and worthy of protection. It is a concept rooted in religious, philosophical, and ethical traditions, emphasising the intrinsic worth of every human being. This principle plays a crucial role in guiding the medical profession, which is tasked with preserving, protecting, and improving human life. The relationship between the sanctity of life and the medical profession is complex, encompassing a range of issues including medical ethics, patient care, and the evolving challenges of modern medicine, challenges made significantly more complex by the tyranny of Covid Governments .
The sanctity of life is a belief that life is sacred and should be preserved whenever possible. Human life as a gift from a higher power or nature, and it also has strong resonance in secular ethics. The principle asserts that human life has an inherent dignity that demands respect, regardless of the individual's age, health, or social status. This belief underpins many of the moral frameworks that guide decisions about life and death, including those made in medical settings. The love of humans is the spirit of this sanctity.
The medical profession is fundamentally concerned with the care of human life. Physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers are dedicated to the well-being of their patients, guided by the Hippocratic Oath and other ethical standards that prioritise life and health. The medical profession’s commitment to the sanctity of life is reflected in its core responsibilities: to prevent illness, alleviate suffering, and prolong life.
One of the most direct ways the medical profession upholds the sanctity of life is through the preservation of life. This includes not only emergency interventions, such as surgery and resuscitation, but also long-term care strategies that manage chronic illnesses and promote overall health. The development of medicines, natural health care and advanced medical technologies exemplifies the medical community's dedication to extending life and improving its quality.
While preserving life is paramount, the medical profession also recognises the importance of alleviating suffering, even when it may not be possible to cure a disease. Palliative care, pain management, and compassionate end-of-life care are critical aspects of medicine that honour the sanctity of life by ensuring that patients live with dignity. This aspect of care reflects an understanding that the quality of life is as important as its duration.
The sanctity of life also presents the medical profession with profound ethical dilemmas. Issues such as euthanasia, abortion, and the allocation of scarce medical resources force healthcare professionals to navigate complex moral landscapes. For instance, in cases of terminal illness, the question of whether to continue life-sustaining treatment or allow a patient to die naturally, an issue I will discuss in another Substack, is deeply challenging. These decisions require balancing respect for the sanctity of life with compassion for the patient’s suffering and autonomy.
As medical science advances, the challenges to the sanctity of life become more nuanced. Technological innovations such as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence in healthcare, and life-support systems push the boundaries of traditional medical ethics. The role of the medical profession is to engage with these developments thoughtfully, ensuring that the sanctity of life remains central to the practice of medicine, even as the definition of life itself may evolve.
The medical profession must remain steadfast in its dedication to these principles, ensuring that the care of life, in all its forms, remains its highest priority. However, let’s examine the scenario in which a full-term baby being born alive after an abortion attempt has been left to die while gasping for air. Laws that would allow this to occur seem to directly contradict the principle of the sanctity of life. Once a baby is born alive, it should be entitled to the full protection of the law and provided appropriate medical care, regardless of the circumstances of its birth. Denying life-sustaining treatment to a newborn merely because it survived an abortion appears to make a judgment that its life is not worth saving. This is deeply troubling from an ethical perspective. While the abortion debate itself involves complex considerations around bodily autonomy, viability, and the moral status of the foetus, it's hard to justify failing to provide care to a baby that has already been born and is struggling to survive on its own. At that point, the baby is unambiguously a distinct human life that should have its own legal and moral rights.
Medical professionals have an ethical duty to preserve life and reduce suffering where possible. Allowing an infant to die from lack of care, especially in a medical setting, seems to violate the most basic tenets of medical ethics and human rights.
The gasping for air indicates the baby is struggling to breathe and likely experiencing distress. If this occurs in a hospital or clinic, it's hard to fathom how healthcare workers could stand by and do nothing. It runs counter to their professional obligations and the core imperative to first do no harm. What emotions, feelings, thoughts and reactions could be going on within the doctors and nurses minds to allow this to happen? Have they been so conditioned by the jabbing deaths of Covid that there is no feeling? From a public policy perspective, a law permitting medical neglect of an infant based on the fact it survived an abortion could have very disturbing implications. It arguably represents a devaluation of human life and a failure to protect the most vulnerable. Many would consider a baby born alive to be entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of whether its birth was intended.
While the ethics of abortion itself are subject to heated debate, laws allowing born infants to be denied care are very difficult to justify ethically. Once born, a baby should be treated as an individual patient entitled to all available life-sustaining treatment, love and palliative care if necessary.
Anything less undermines the core principles of medical ethics, human rights and the intrinsic value of human life. It can only occur in a society without values.
Senator Babet’s Speech:
Matters of public importance and urgency. The first one is in the name of Senator Babet. Senator Babet has submitted a proposal under Standing Order 75 today. It is listed as item 12 on today's order of business for consideration of the proposal.
Supported, I believe, with the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whip. I call on Senator Beet to move the motion.
Thank you, President. I move the motion. President, in this country, every single week, at least one baby is born alive after a failed abortion. In some states and territories, there is no legal requirement for that living human being to receive any medical care. The baby is often placed in a metal tray and left to die slowly.
President, I cannot, for the life of me, understand how we can speak every single day in this place about the importance of human rights while allowing the most vulnerable human beings to be treated like garbage. Now, whatever one's view is on the merits or otherwise of abortion, once there has been a birth, medical practitioners are dealing with a living human being—a person, an Australian—who should have the same rights under the law as you or I.
Senator Antic, Senator Canavan, and I have a bill before the Senate right now called the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022. If passed, it would ensure care is provided to every child born alive after a failed abortion. This bill is also supported by Senator Roberts. This should not be a contentious or controversial concept. It is the very minimum of decency, the very least that we should do as people who like to think of ourselves as civilized.
Now imagine, for a moment, if the Senate rejected such a proposal. What would it say if you shrugged your shoulders and turned your back on a newborn baby, unmoved by his or her cry and unconvinced by his or her humanity? A society is ultimately judged not by its GDP but by the way in which it cares for its most vulnerable, and there is none more vulnerable than a newborn baby. A society that refuses to care about the suffering and death of babies is one that is destined to fall. To be unmoved by the plight of a helpless child, especially when it is within your power to render aid and assistance, is to lose your own humanity. It is evidence of a sickness at the very core of one's own being.
What kind of darkness has overtaken the hearts of people when they can march through city streets chanting for the right to kill a baby in the womb while remaining silent on the rights of babies born alive and left to die? I think abortion should be unthinkable. I want more than a change to the laws of this land; I want a change in the hearts of the Australian people, where abortion disappears—not because politicians made it illegal, but because our consciences were reawakened and we agreed that it was abominable.
Queensland midwife Louise Adset gave evidence at a parliamentary inquiry in Queensland yesterday, where she shared a distressing example of a mother who decided to abort her baby at more than 21 weeks. She said the process took all day, and the baby was only delivered during the early hours of a night shift. This baby moved vigorously, gasped for breath, and had a palpable heart rate, making it clear that this baby was alive. This baby boy fought for his life for five hours before taking his final breath. She added that this is not an uncommon occurrence. Fighting back her tears, she said these babies deserve better. They deserve to have the same rights that all of us human beings have—unwanted, unacknowledged, unloved.
To her credit, Louise is one of the few nurses who does whatever she can to provide some kind of dignity and comfort to these vulnerable babies. It should not be controversial to invite my fellow Senators to join with me in affirming that a baby born alive after a failed abortion is, at the very minimum, given care and comfort. To do anything less than this is to forsake our own humanity, even as we deny them theirs.
I was going to conclude by saying, "God forgive us if we fail to do this," but I must say this: As much as I believe in God's mercy, I don't think that God Himself could forgive us for getting this one wrong. I hope that my fellow Senators in this place stand with me to decry the practice of abortion, especially late-term abortion where a baby could survive outside of the womb if born. This is a tragic thing, this is a horrible thing, this is an evil thing, this is a disgusting thing, and it's something that I will never be okay with.
The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senator Babet be agreed to. Those of that opinion, say "Aye." Those against, say "No." I think the "Noes" have it. Is a division required? Division is required; ring the bells for four minutes.
Lock the doors. So the question is, that the motion as moved by Senator Babet on the urgency motion be agreed to. The "Ayes" shall move to the right of the chair, the "Noes" to the left. I appoint Senator O'Sullivan as Teller for the "Ayes" and Senator Urquehart as Teller for the "Noes."
Order. There being 18 "Ayes" and 32 "Noes," the matter is resolved in the negative.
Ian Brighthope
Thank you for taking the time to write about this issue Ian.
Incomprehensible 😔