The right to abort. The right to ask for the aborted to be adopted instead. These are the same thing!

[Jack]

So fetus is indeed the correct term. Thank you for making my point for me.

'fetus'
Synonyms: foetus, embryo, unborn child, unborn baby, baby,

Are you sure you're not a Liberal?

You do not know that is where she would have gone.

So you advise women to risk burning in Hell to kill their babies?

As I said, the fetus was going to die anyway. She wouldn't have murdered anything. It was already dying.

You're playing God.

I am saying that God would be okay with her saving herself if there is no chance the fetus will survive. She isn't murdering anything. It is already dying with no hope for survival.

You don't know that! Doctors are not God!

They still get alot of stuff right. To not believe doctors would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No pun intended. I trust my medical doctor to know what's going wrong with me at any given moment. Can they get something wrong, sure. Can they say that a fetus is going to die and it really wouldn't have, we may never know the answer to that question, but I do not think God would hold anyone to responsible if they are making the best decision with the information given. You will think differently, of that I have no doubt.

Well this I know, doctors have killed lots of patients who would have lived, but the docs still got paid!

My God is merciful, yours not so much apparently.

My God is merciful to those who are merciful to babies.

As I said and will keep saying, we are at an impasse. Neither of us is going to change our minds and we'll just keep repeating ourselves.

This is good. Lots of info about the corrupt Health Care Industry is coming out.

“Years after completing my medical training, I encountered one of my favorite public health professors, Harvard surgeon Dr. Lucian Leape. at a national surgeons' conference. He opened the gathering's keynote speech by looking out over the audience of thousands and asking the doctors to 'raise your hand if you know of a physician you work with who should not be practicing because he or she is dangerous.'

Every hand went up.”
― Marty Makary, Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won't Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care

 

[PinSeeker]

That is not at all what he is saying.

It is the necessary implication of what he (and you, apparently) are saying.

...I hope that medicine does advance to the point where medical abortions are no longer necessary.

I hope society advances to the point where it comes to perfect unity in understanding that aborting human beings is an absolute abomination.

Right now, in order to save the life of the mother if the fetus or pregnancy is killing her, medical abortion is what we got...

Ah, so the baby is a murderer; I see. And to prevent this murder of the mother, we have to murder the child. Self-defense. I mean, I speak in absurdities to accentuate the absolute absurdrity of your assertions...

...especially if the fetus is not to the point of viability.

Regardless of a person's stage of development, he or she is still a person. As Dr. Suess put it, "A person is a person no matter how small" (Horton Hears a Who).

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Naomanos]

'fetus'
Synonyms: foetus, embryo, unborn child, unborn baby, baby,

Are you sure you're not a Liberal?

Yep!

Your own words there say that fetus can be used. As a medical professional, I use the term for the stage of pregnancy. You as a non-medical person can use whatever term you feel you need to.

So you advise women to risk burning in Hell to kill their babies?

I advise women to make the best possible choice based on the information given to them. If the fetus is going to die, they are not murdering anything.

You're playing God.

Hardly. I am not God and never claimed to be. In the instance I gave several posts ago, the fetus did indeed die. It was already dying. She wouldn't have murdered anything, nor did she need to die and leave behind her other children and husband.

You don't know that! Doctors are not God!

Doctors are not God, this is true, but they are pretty sure when using diagnostic tools whether or not a fetus is going to die based on the symptoms of the fetus and the woman. There are some pregnancy problems that I have listed before which are death sentences for the fetus. These are facts and you cannot dispute them, try as you might.

Well this I know, doctors have killed lots of patients who would have lived, but the docs still got paid!

Yes, these things happen. It is a risk with medicine. This is not news to anyone who is an adult.

My God is merciful to those who are merciful to babies.

He is also merciful to those who have had to make a tough decision to either abort the fetus that they are carrying because it will die anyway or die along with that fetus which will die when the woman dies.

This is good. Lots of info about the corrupt Health Care Industry is coming out.

Again, not news to anyone who is an adult. Everything can get corrupted, but it doesn't mean that all who are in medicine are corrupt. I am a medical professional and no one would ever call me corrupt. I treated all my patients with the same level of care and attention that I would treat my own family with and did all I could to save lives. Sometimes, that life just couldn't be saved. It was through no fault of my own.

 

[Naomanos]

It is the necessary implication of what he (and you, apparently) are saying.

However, that is not what we mean.

I hope society advances to the point where it comes to perfect unity in understanding that aborting human beings is an absolute abomination.

So I guess you too are against medical abortions that save the mother's life?

Ah, so the baby is a murderer; I see. And to prevent this murder of the mother, we have to murder the child. Self-defense. I mean, I speak in absurdities to accentuate the absolute absurdrity of your assertions...

What I stated isn't absurd. It is real-life situations that happen. I have seen it myself. As I asked above, are you against medical abortions that save the life of the mother?

Regardless of a person's stage of development, he or she is still a person. As Dr. Suess put it, "A person is a person no matter how small" (Horton Hears a Who).

And in situations where that person (fetus) is dying and cannot be saved, does the other person that is carrying the fetus need to die along with it?

 

[Naomanos]

All I am doing is repeating myself over and over again. I seriously dislike doing that. It is clear no one is changing anyone's mind here with these arguments.

I will always support medical abortions to save the life of the mother. Both do not need to die.

I am done. God bless you all!

 

[Behold]

I have said it before and I guess I have to repeat myself again. I do not support abortions for birth control reasons. Only medical abortions that save the life of the mother.

I didnt quote you and then Post that "FYI".
I posted it just as "FYI" for members to consider.

I previously read what you wrote., and i understand your point.
There is a distinction that has to be made regarding using abortion as a "Post pregnancy" Contraception procedure, and saving the mother's life if the Fetus, the baby, is going to cause them both to die.

This is a very difficult situation, its similar to your mother going into a coma......brain dead, "eyes fixed and dilated" , where she is "brain stem only", and the family is left watching this because she just keeps on going., month after month, into years.
So, "do you pull the plug" or do you keep "hoping for the miracle".
I personally lived that nightmare for a long time.

So ....some situations are just one of those "you can't use the example to prove the rule", and leave it there.

 

[Jack]

Yep!

Your own words there say that fetus can be used. As a medical professional, I use the term for the stage of pregnancy. You as a non-medical person can use whatever term you feel you need to.

I like the term "baby". Libs love "fetus". It's not so uncomfortable for Libs.

I advise women to make the best possible choice based on the information given to them. If the fetus is going to die, they are not murdering anything.

Doctors are not God. They are WRONG many times. To kill a baby because doctors say so is murder!

Hardly. I am not God and never claimed to be. In the instance I gave several posts ago, the fetus did indeed die. It was already dying. She wouldn't have murdered anything, nor did she need to die and leave behind her other children and husband.

You don't know that. Doctors are not God!

Doctors are not God, this is true, but they are pretty sure when using diagnostic tools whether or not a fetus is going to die based on the symptoms of the fetus and the woman. There are some pregnancy problems that I have listed before which are death sentences for the fetus. These are facts and you cannot dispute them, try as you might.

You can't prove any of that. Who you gonna quote, doctors? lol

Yes, these things happen. It is a risk with medicine. This is not news to anyone who is an adult.

It's a BIG risk!

He is also merciful to those who have had to make a tough decision to either abort the fetus that they are carrying because it will die anyway or die along with that fetus which will die when the woman dies.

Many brainwashed folks take the word of doctors over the Word of God.

Again, not news to anyone who is an adult. Everything can get corrupted, but it doesn't mean that all who are in medicine are corrupt. I am a medical professional and no one would ever call me corrupt. I treated all my patients with the same level of care and attention that I would treat my own family with and did all I could to save lives. Sometimes, that life just couldn't be saved. It was through no fault of my own.

I know some good folks in Health Care, but they are in the minority. Like Politicians.

 

[PinSeeker]

However, that is not what we mean.

I am well aware that that's not what you mean, Naomanos. But it is the inevitable outcome of the lines of reasoning you are employing. And that outcome is what makes those lines of reasoning limited and wrong. There is a great irony in what you say here, that "that is not what we mean." I would implore you to give some thought to that.

So I guess you too are against medical abortions that save the mother's life?



What I stated isn't absurd. It is real-life situations that happen. I have seen it myself. As I asked above, are you against medical abortions that save the life of the mother?



And in situations where that person (fetus) is dying and cannot be saved, does the other person that is carrying the fetus need to die along with it?

There are a lot of things that could be said to this. Here are three:

1) Such situations are very rare, and not anywhere close to being what would be considered commonplace.

2) The language that is most often used in these cases is, not "saving the life" of the mother but "preserving the health" of the mother, which is very, very subjective/ambiguous (purposely so) and can mean so many things to so many people that it becomes meaningless; almost anything can satisfy "preservation of the health of the mother."

3) Even in these rare situations, the most accurate determination that can be made is that the mother's life is endangered (as well as the child's) and that the mother may -- may, which also necessarily means may not -- lose her life. Pretty much 100 percent of the time, there is at least some possibility of survival, and while that possibility exists, every possible human/medical effort should be made to achieve that outcome. It should never -- never -- be an option to "compromise" with death, but only to fight against it, for both the mother and the child. Will there be failures to preserve either or both? Of course, and that is surely tragic. But the fight to preserve life should never be compromised or "mitigated" at the expense of either.

To answer your question -- as if it should still be necessary for me to do so after having said what I've said in the last couple of posts -- yes, I am against abortions for any reason, because it is at best compromising with death, in the... "middle" (?), preserving one human being at the expense of another, and at worst, murder.

What I stated isn't absurd.

That's not what I said, Naomanos. I did not say that what you stated is absurd. What I said was, the reasoning you used to support your statements/assertions lead to absurd conclusions.

I am done. God bless you all!

I hope so, for all of us.

God bless you, too. Grace and peace to you.

 

[Jim B]

It is up to the person assessing the abortion, to verify that adoption is impossible.

Where does this come from? Nobody is required to verify that adoption is impossible. In most cases, the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb.

 

[Jim B]

I am well aware that that's not what you mean, Naomanos. But it is the inevitable outcome of the lines of reasoning you are employing. And that outcome is what makes those lines of reasoning limited and wrong. There is a great irony in what you say here, that "that is not what we mean." I would implore you to give some thought to that.


There are a lot of things that could be said to this. Here are three:

1) Such situations are very rare, and not anywhere close to being what would be considered commonplace.

2) The language that is most often used in these cases is, not "saving the life" of the mother but "preserving the health" of the mother, which is very, very subjective/ambiguous (purposely so) and can mean so many things to so many people that it becomes meaningless; almost anything can satisfy "preservation of the health of the mother."

3) Even in these rare situations, the most accurate determination that can be made is that the mother's life is endangered (as well as the child's) and that the mother may -- may, which also necessarily means may not -- lose her life. Pretty much 100 percent of the time, there is at least some possibility of survival, and while that possibility exists, every possible human/medical effort should be made to achieve that outcome. It should never -- never -- be an option to "compromise" with death, but only to fight against it, for both the mother and the child. Will there be failures to preserve either or both? Of course, and that is surely tragic. But the fight to preserve life should never be compromised or "mitigated" at the expense of either.

To answer your question -- as if it should still be necessary for me to do so after having said what I've said in the last couple of posts -- yes, I am against abortions for any reason, because it is at best compromising with death, in the... "middle" (?), preserving one human being at the expense of another, and at worst, murder.


That's not what I said, Naomanos. I did not say that what you stated is absurd. What I said was, the reasoning you used to support your statements/assertions lead to absurd conclusions.


I hope so, for all of us.

God bless you, too. Grace and peace to you.

Abortion is not murder. That is nothing but propaganda! An abortion is a valid medical procedure that is performed when a fetus cannot survive independently of its mother.

Your statement that "I am against abortions for any reason, because it is at best compromising with death, in the... "middle" (?), preserving one human being at the expense of another, and at worst, murder" flies in the face of logic, compassion, and sound medical practice.

Why don't you realize that every pregnancy does not result in a viable fetus?

Saying that "Pretty much 100 percent of the time, there is at least some possibility of survival" is simply wrong." It's obvious that you know nothing about the risks associated with pregnancy. Not every fetus is capable of surviving separate from the mother!!!

 

[Jack]

In most cases, the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb.

Only God knows that.

Abortion is not murder. That is nothing but propaganda!

Such irony!

An abortion is a valid medical procedure that is performed when a fetus cannot survive independently of its mother.

Your statement that "I am against abortions for any reason, because it is at best compromising with death, in the... "middle" (?), preserving one human being at the expense of another, and at worst, murder" flies in the face of logic, compassion, and sound medical practice.

Why don't you realize that every pregnancy does not result in a viable fetus?

Saying that "Pretty much 100 percent of the time, there is at least some possibility of survival" is simply wrong." It's obvious that you know nothing about the risks associated with pregnancy. Not every fetus is capable of surviving separate from the mother!!!

Christians don't have to kill their babies. They pray and God helps!

 

[Gottservant]

To the OP, does this poll take into account situations where there is no chance for the fetus to live and either it or the pregnancy is killing the mother? I'm talking about medical abortions to save the life of the mother.

I am all for adoption, but the fetus needs to be part the point of viability for there to be an adoption.

The law is the law, if that mother may die, but the child be adopted, that's what we should pray - we may not force the mother to die, but we can certainly pray the child live.

The point is that we don't need to give up our priorities, because someone makes a blanket ban on life (a ban on children, who need to be heard).

 

[Gottservant]

Where does this come from? Nobody is required to very that adoption is impossible. In most cases, the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb.

That's not true. The number of abortions currently far outweighs the number of needed abortions.

You can tell me all day long, that it was going to die anyway and I am not going to change my prayer, to be anything other than it does (live).

 

[Jim B]

The law is the law, if that mother may die, but the child be adopted, that's what we should pray - we may not force the mother to die, but we can certainly pray the child live.

The point is that we don't need to give up our priorities, because someone makes a blanket ban on life (a ban on children, who need to be heard).

This is madness! What are you trying to say?

 

[Jim B]

That's not true. The number of abortions currently far outweighs the number of needed abortions.

You can tell me all day long, that it was going to die anyway and I am not going to change my prayer, to be anything other than it does (live).

What is your basis for saying that the number of abortions currently far outweighs the number of needed abortions?

You can pray and pray and pray, but that won't change reality. If a fetus has malformed lungs or a malformed heart, for example, it will not survive.

 

[BarneyFife]

What I find very interesting is that there are no statistics to be found on the rate of occurence for medical emergency abortions.

Look high and low...

You won't find it.

And it just seems to me that those who use the possibility of such occurrences as justification for the vast availability of abortions for convenience would be eager to provide statistics supporting their case...

If there were any.

But all you get is a lot of professional opinions and anecdotes.

Not a single stitch of data.

The following is a perfect example:

Fact Check-Termination of pregnancy can be necessary to save a woman’s life, experts say

Contrary to claims made online, certain medical conditions may require the termination of a pregnancy to avoid fatal complications for the mother.

www.reuters.com

It is written purely from the point of view that provision for medical emergency abortion is absolutely imperative, so there's no bias or conflict of interest. All systems are go but it's just a big no-show.

Just see if you can find statistics on the frequency of abortions for cancer treatment hazards, embryonic fluid infection, preeclampsia, etc.

I'd love to see some. Then we could have a meaningful discussion about how to deal with it. In the meantime, we're just going to have to watch the fight for control of the floodgates.

Politics truly ruin everything.
.

 

[BarneyFife]

They avoid the word baby because the speak English! In the English language the dictionary defined a baby as:

1. an infant or very young child

2. a newborn or very young animal.

When you use the word ‘baby’ to describe a fetus you portray yourself as being illiterate and incapable of rational thought.

.
Exactly when does a fetus become a baby, Stan?

When the head is sticking out, but the torso and limbs are still in the birth canal, is the thing part-baby and part-parasite?

(It seems that this is just one more thing upon which reproductive-healthcare-rights folks can't quite reach a consensus.)

Of course, you won't recognize this as hyperbole for the purpose of provoking thought but, hey, I understand, you've got people to insult and bitter thoughts to ponder.

Why do women who want to have babies always call them "my baby" in utero?

When you denounce people who use words you narrowly and ultra-literalistically view as incorrect as being illiterate and incapable of rational thought, you portray yourself as being mean and unloving.

Surely that's not your intention.
.

 

[PinSeeker]

Abortion is not murder.

Call it what you want; it is the deliberate termination of an innocent human being.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Your statement that "I am against abortions for any reason, because it is at best compromising with death, in the... "middle" (?), preserving one human being at the expense of another, and at worst, murder" flies in the face of logic, compassion, and sound medical practice.

Logic: Well, your "logic," which is quite the reverse of logic, as well as simple bio-logic (science).
Compassion: Arguing for every effort to be made to preserve the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all human beings is a lack of compassion in your view? Well, again, your "logic" at work...
Sound medical practice; What you're saying even contradicts, however inadvertent, the base of all medical practice, what we know as the Hippocratic Oath. And again, your "logic" at work...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Why don't you realize that every pregnancy does not result in a viable fetus?

A "viable fetus..." Ugh. A healthy baby/child...

Not every pregnancy is successful, for sure. But that does not somehow justify, Jim, heading off the possibility that any one pregnancy might or might not be successful for one or both or more involved.

We all would like any one pregnancy to be successful for all involved. "Cutting our losses," as it were, Jim, should not be an option with regard to life.

This world is far from a perfect place. That will one day no longer be true, but, unfortunately, is not the case yet.

Grace and peace to you.