Abortion///cont.

Lon

Well-known member
I'm getting used to the insults and slanders of members like you, especially when 'on the ropes', so I'll take the above in my stride.
But for a sham to promote 'entitlement to life' one minute, and then shout extremist rubbish at the thought of 'entitlement to medicare and education.... and school meals' the next is so close to a schizophrenic condition as to be worrying.
Lon..... you don't care about children, imo.
Lon.... I don't believe that you totally support Pro-Life.
Lon..... I don't believe that you are committed to Human Rights.
..... and you're insulting post demeans you.
I wasn't insane. That was another guy. I actually care about those kids and work in a foodbank on my off days to 'feed' those children.
Several children are alive today because I am on the planet because I made sure to meet that need.

Which of us is a hypocrite and fraud (either? if you are doing what you are supposed to be doing)? Sentiment doesn't get-er-done. Put your time, talent, $ where your mouth is OR all the above applies AND you know it. I AM pro-life, not a fraud. What about you? :think:
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Oh I do like to see you duck and dive, squirming back to your comfortable position of self-righteousness ..... this is fun!

Duck and dive? It's the same question you've been avoiding all along.

Maybe I should rephrase it. Do you think abortion should be illegal?
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Google it and get back to me tomorrow. Enough feeding the animals at the TOL zoo...time to feed myself. Dinner awaits!

Alright.

I googled "medically necessary abortion" and this was the first link on the list: https://www.liveaction.org/news/for...lly-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother/

In cases where a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death or grave physical injury, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke.

This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well.

This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
That's great when the fetus is far enough along. That's not always the case though (ectopic is an example). Though a C-section is not an abortion.

Ok, there's a specific example - ectopic pregnancy.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I believe the teaching of the Catholic Church is morally sound.

Here's what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated:
In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child


The same would hold true, for example, in the case of a pregnant woman requiring chemotherapy. Though it would almost certainly kill the embryo or fetus she is carrying, it is morally licit for her to have her cancer treated. The treatment's purpose is not the intentional killing of an innocent human being. It is not an abortion.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Ok, there's a specific example - ectopic pregnancy.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I believe the teaching of the Catholic Church is morally sound.

Here's what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated:


The same would hold true, for example, in the case of a pregnant woman requiring chemotherapy. Though it would almost certainly kill the embryo or fetus she is carrying, it is morally licit for her to have her cancer treated. The treatment's purpose is not the intentional killing of an innocent human being. It is not an abortion.

Sure its abortion...they don't allow it to remain in the womb during chemo. Do they?

Same end result: the death of a unique human life. So, you agree that there can be moral exceptions for aborting a fetus?
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
I do not know. They ought to.

They ought to what....abort or give that innocent life a lethal dose of chemo/radiation!?
Neither choice looks good for your argument.




No. I do not support the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child.
Doesn't seem to be the case. Seems you're just fine with it.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
They ought to what....abort or give that innocent life a lethal dose of chemo/radiation!?
Neither choice looks good for your argument.


I added a link to the previous post. Chemo is not necessarily a death sentence for the unborn. Why deliberately kill them first? What's the purpose?




Doesn't seem to be the case. Seems you're just fine with it.

With the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child? How so?
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
I added a link to the previous post. Chemo is not necessarily a death sentence for the unborn. Why deliberately kill them first? What's the purpose?

Your other link claimed the fetus' death as an "almost certainty". Seems reasonable that medical techniques aim to kill cancer cells would be detrimental to incipient life. Yes?






With the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child? How so?
Hou seem all too willing to take the chance. :idunno:
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Your other link claimed the fetus' death as an "almost certainty". Seems reasonable that medical techniques aim to kill cancer cells would be detrimental to incipient life. Yes?

I was wrong. Perhaps you held the same misconception I did about chemo during pregnancy.

But even if the death of the fetus was a certainty, deliberately killing the fetus beforehand would be pointless.



Hou seem all too willing to take the chance. :idunno:

Read what the USCCB said. Treating a pathology is not deliberate killing.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
The problem here is that you must admit and appeal to the unique circumstance of pregnancy...the fetus' very existence reliant upon the mother's body.

11-day-olds do not qualify. Is it not absurd to compare the mother killing her 11-day-old to killing her fetus for medical reasons?

Where's this leading?

Will you somehow argue that the treatment of a pregnant woman's pathology may indirectly and unintentionally cause the death of an unborn child... therefore women should be allowed to kill their unborn children deliberately and directly for any reason at all?
 
Top