Enyart calls for pro-lifers to oppose John Roberts nomination

[Crow]

Yup, you can quote Knight. But it doesn't change that he's wrong.

In real life, there are situations where all of the medical knowledge in the world can't save both patients. Just as viable babies have been cut from dying women to save the baby, dying babies are sometimes cut from the woman to save her. If you can't save both, you save the one you can. I'm just as pro life for the innocent who are born as I am for the unborn.

 

[Freak]

Yup, you can quote Knight. But it doesn't change that he's wrong.

Deal with his points! I'll expose you just like I exposed Goose (an ex-Moderator).

 

[Crow]

Deal with his points!

I have. There are some medical situations in which both patients cannot be saved. One is dying. One can possibly be saved. In that case, the one who can be saved, be it baby or mother, should be saved.

 

[Freak]

I have. There are some medical situations in which both patients cannot be saved. One is dying. One can possibly be saved. In that case, the one who can be saved, be it baby or mother, should be saved.

Why not leave it to the wisdom of God?

 

[docrob57]

did Enyart refer to himself in the third person when he titled this thread?
looks like he did.
I thought fool was the only one around here that did that.

DocRob does it too

 

[Zakath]

Why not leave it to the wisdom of God?

You're suggesting that the responsible medical personnel stand by and let both patients die? :doh:

 

[Zakath]

DocRob does it too

I'm not sure that's a good thing to admit to, rob.

 

[Crow]

You mean like we leave the fate of people in burning buildings to the wisdom of God?

Situations like this are a result of man's fall from God's will, not something that God wanted for humanity.

Heart attacks, diabetic comas, cancer, ectopic pregnancy--none of these are the will of God.

 

[Freak]

You mean like we leave the fate of people in burning buildings to the wisdom of God?

We do not choose who will die! We choose all to live and trust God. This is the point you have failed to understand, Crow.

 

[Freak]

You're suggesting that the responsible medical personnel stand by and let both patients die? :doh:

Read my response to Crow.

 

[Crow]

We do not choose who will die! We choose all to live and trust God. This is the point you have failed to understand, Crow.

Oh, I understand, Freak. I also understand that some people can't be saved.

I won't stand buy and watch two people die when I can only save one. I'll save who I can.

 

[Freak]

Oh, I understand, Freak. I also understand that some people can't be saved.

The fact is this...

We do not choose to allow one to die. We choose life for all. It is a mindset that is paramount to understanding the pro-life message

I won't stand buy and watch two people die when I can only save one. I'll save who I can.

We desire for all to have life.

 

[Crow]

Desire as we may, some lives cannot be saved. That's a fact of life.

No amount of desiring is going to change that.

 

[fool]

Murdering one patient to save another is lazy and evil.

exactly.
so killing a mother to save a child is wrong.
and killing here would include not giving her the appropriate medical treatment at the right time.
such as that stuff that Crow said.

 

[Zakath]

The fact is this...

We do not choose to allow one to die. We choose life for all. It is a mindset that is paramount to understanding the pro-life message

We desire for all to have life.

Believe it or not, Jay. The universe doesn't care one whit about what you or I, or Crow, desire.

Things happen, and we deal with them as best we may.

 

[Freak]

Desire as we may, some lives cannot be saved. That's a fact of life.

No amount of desiring is going to change that.

:down: You have bought into a liberal lie.

 

[Granite]

Yup, you can quote Knight. But it doesn't change that he's wrong.

In real life, there are situations where all of the medical knowledge in the world can't save both patients. Just as viable babies have been cut from dying women to save the baby, dying babies are sometimes cut from the woman to save her. If you can't save both, you save the one you can. I'm just as pro life for the innocent who are born as I am for the unborn.

Such situations are tragic but if we seek to preserve life you must preserve what you can when you can.

 

[Crow]

:down: You have bought into a liberal lie.

No, Freak, I've been a nurse for 27 years. That qualifies me better to know about these things than had I ben out playing Buffy the Daemonslayer.

 

[taoist]

Crow, buying into a liberal lie.

:darwinsm:

Stop it, Freak, you're killing me.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yup, you can quote Knight. But it doesn't change that he's wrong.

In real life, there are situations where all of the medical knowledge in the world can't save both patients. Just as viable babies have been cut from dying women to save the baby, dying babies are sometimes cut from the woman to save her. If you can't save both, you save the one you can. I'm just as pro life for the innocent who are born as I am for the unborn.

Crow, what would be the harm in changing our mindset so that our goal is to save BOTH patients?

Maybe we know that our technology is such that one patient will most likely die during the procedure but we still push ourselves to do everything in our power to save both. This "push" is the mother of invention! This "push" is our moral obligation.

Murder is the lazy way out.

Murder will advance nothing, it will not "push" discovery.

If abortion is murder, then abortion is murder.