Grace and peace? Is that what your writing "that's absurd and ridiculous. On the contrary, it is propaganda" implies?
Your assertion (assertions) is what it is (are what they are). Plus, what you said regarding the assertions of me and others here in this thread ~ pretty much those exact words ~ actually applies to yours (and those of others). We will agree to disagree on that, I'm sure.
"Medical science has progressed to the point where an abortion is never necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother" is 100% untrue.
In... your opinion. Understood. But such has been stated, and not just by me here:
“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life.” (Alan Guttmacher. “Abortion Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.”
The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, California: Diablo Books), 1967, page 3)
“The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.” (Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General. “How Often is Abortion Necessary to ‘Save the Life of the Mother’?” October 19, 2012)
“The situation where the mother’s life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: The birth of a healthy child.” (Bernard Nathanson, M.D. Written statement to the Idaho House of Representatives’ State Affairs Committee, 16 February 1990. Also quoted in “Exceptions: Abandoning ‘The Least of These My Brethren.'” American Life League booklet, 1991, page 22)
On top of what I said, though, Jim, "medically necessary
to preserve the life or the health of the mother" is very ambiguous and terribly subjective ~ to the point that it can mean just about anything, and
intentionally so.
Do a little research, for example, on ectopic pregnancies.
Do you somehow think that a pregnancy in which the child (fetus) develops outside the uterus (in a fallopian tube) is a common occurrence or anywhere close to it? Only about 1-2% of pregnancies are ectopic, thankfully. Further, though, ectopic pregnancy is a very
objective thing, and I would support removal of the embryo in that particular situation; we would agree on that, I think. But using that to expand to an all-encompassing degree ~ covering all pregnancy difficulties ~ is a problem. To that point, the recent Supreme Court decision, while generally speaking a good, even great, thing, is having unintended consequences, and this particular point is one of them.
Claiming that "It might be surprising to many to learn the percentage of pregnant women who have miscarriages who then choose to go on with the pregnancy and actually give birth to a still-born child" clearly shows that you have no idea what you're writing about.
I don't think you understand me correctly. Induced labor is a treatment option in many cases. Your next statement regarding miscarriage leads me into this; read on.
A miscarriage is "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, especially spontaneously or as the result of accident."
Well, really rejection, rather than a true expulsion; the mother's womb is no longer able to support the child. Certainly a tragedy, although thankfully rare. The only thing I ever meant to convey was the death of the child before birth, and thus, ultimately, a still-born child. And, one of the treatments in such a case is induced labor, as I said. If the baby dies at least 14 weeks into the pregnancy, while many women would not prefer this option, it is actually safer than an operation to remove the deceased child. Generally speaking, no surgery (not going under the knife, so to speak) is always safer than... surgery (going under the knife).
And a placenta is not a carcass! It is an organ in that nourishes the fetus through the umbilical cord.
Sure. The placenta contains the child during pregnancy. I do not confuse or conflate the two.
If you want to discuss medical issues you should at least learn the fundamentals of the topic that you're discussing!
LOL! I'll let this one go...
Grace and peace to you, Jim.