How about an albino?jeremiah said:
Enyart calls for pro-lifers to oppose John Roberts nomination
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
- Status
Meanwhile, every three seconds a child dies due to malnutrition or preventable diseases, which means thousands of children have died needlessly while this thread has been dragging on. I hope that the commitment to life expressed by many here extends to the post-born as well. Frankly, I hear a lot of "tough luck, not my problem, let their parents take care of them and not rob me of my hard earned money to help them" these days.Freak said:
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/facts/index.htm
And a couple more died while you were typing your post.Holly said:
Knight said:
Let's look at the definition of abortion:
1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion .
3. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
4. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
5. An aborted organism.
6. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.
Removing a 5 week ruptured tubal pregnancy which will otherwise kill the mother in short order is an abortion. Removing a non-viable fetus when removing a ruptured placenta which will otherwise kill the mother within minutes is an abortion. A "miscarriage" is an abortion. This is why I very carefully defined two cases in which I consider abortion to be acceptable when I addressed the issue--because people use the term "abortion" promiscuously.
Elective abortion is murder. That's when one decides that one does not want their child and has it killed.
Removing a ruptured placenta or a tubal pregnancy is not murdering a child. It's dealing with a medical emergency in the only manner we have at our disposal. You have two choices. Let the mother die or try to save the mother's life. These aren't areas where bedrest and medication will help, and this is why I defined them so narrowly--so as not to be confused with abortion because there's a risk to the mother that she finds unacceptable. I am speaking about straight out life and death in a matter of a very short time--minutes in the case of a placenta previa that's begun hemorraging, a few hours at most in the case of a tubal pregnancy.
That's where Freak jumped in with the "wisdom of God." And you jumped in with him.
Here's what I say. We do what we can with what's available to us now. Just as the medical profession treated severe infections to the best of their ability before the development of antibiotics, we do the best we can. In the case of that 5 week tubal pregnancy, we remove it to save the mother's life. And someday, when we have the means to do so, we'll save the baby too, but at this time we cannot, just as we can't reattach a severed head which would be technically easier. And in the case of the ruptured placenta where the mother is bleeding to death before our eyes, we remove that pregnancy too. We try to save the baby even if we can't, and one day when we have the means, we save that baby too.
Those are both abortions, Knight. And I am perfectly willing to assist in those two instances. That's working to save the life we can save, even if we cannot save both.
So, what would you have us do?
I have already said what I would have the medical community do. In fact, I think I have said it about 15 times.Crow said:
One more for good measure.
Do everything in their power to save both lives.
Currently, that isn't the case.
drbrumley, I work as a nurse. The common use of the word abortion is crap. What most people think of when they hear "abortion," and why I defined the circumstances so narrowly, is an elective abortion, just killing a baby for one's convenience.drbrumley said:
Unfortunately people transfer their hatred of elective abortion, which is evil, to situations in which the mother's life is in eminent danger and yes, I have heard Christians say to let the mother die rather than remove a dying fetus that cannot be saved in the case of a tubal pregnancy and a medical emergency like a placenta previa that is ruptured and hemmoraging. And that is one of the tools that the "pro-choice" bunch uses as a scare tactic to convince people that if they don't illegalize elective abortion that women will die becasue their doctors won't be able to treat medical emergencies.
That's pure BS, of course. Before Roe vs Wade, physicians removed tubal pregnancies and dealt with other obstetrical emergencies.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Interesting...
What about a woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy or childbirth?
American Life League's (www.all.org) medical advisors say the answer is a simple, unequivocal "no"— and any claim to the contrary is bogus. And many other doctors across the country agree. American Life League circulated a statement (3/00) concerning this position to a select number of doctors around the country. More than 100 physicians have signed the statement — including former abortionists Bernard Nathanson and Beverly McMillan. The statement reads, "I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn [unborn] child's life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."
What about a woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy or childbirth?
American Life League's (www.all.org) medical advisors say the answer is a simple, unequivocal "no"— and any claim to the contrary is bogus. And many other doctors across the country agree. American Life League circulated a statement (3/00) concerning this position to a select number of doctors around the country. More than 100 physicians have signed the statement — including former abortionists Bernard Nathanson and Beverly McMillan. The statement reads, "I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn [unborn] child's life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."
Knight said:
An Albino in one of nine black robes. Nope sorry, it hurts just to imagine it! He would stick out like a sore thumb. No I really think my argument is impeccable! A pro- life Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. She would "shine" more brightly than an albino's skin.
It is the politically correct "choice".
drbrumley said:
They're using the common term, not the medical term.
Most of the reasons people give for abortion are crap. Eclampsia can be treated, and if a placenta previa has not hemorraged, that can be treated too. But there are the few legitimate cases. Those are the ones that are used by those who wish to keep elective abortion legal to justify the continued practice of all abortion.
A tubal pregnancy is doomed. If you're "lucky," the fetus dies early enough that it can be passed out of the body without intervention. If it doesn't, you're faced with a situation that you have to treat. The tube doesn't have room for that fetus to grow. It will rupture and the mother will bleed to death, killing the baby with her.
Here's where you get into the "grey" area. Some non-tubal ectopic pregnancies implant on the liver and bowel--about 2%. This is dangerous to the mother, but babies have survived and been delivered by C-section alive in these rare instances as there is room within the abdominal cavity for these feti to grow. In that case, everything should be done to keep the mother and the child alive. Some people want to abort these babies surgically, but they do have a chance at life and should be given that chance.
While I am on a satiric roll..... this statemnet, Abortion-Roe v Wade-, "is the settled Law of the Land. As this thread alone indicates, it is hardly settled, and Laws can and OFTEN are changed.
Is Rorerts trying to say that its 5 to 4 passage, and its many 5 to 4 upholdings of various aspects, means "settled"? I thought they said this man is so smart! Or is it because he says that with a winky winky, that makes him so smart, and the rest of us stupid because we talk straightforwardly?
This apparently, would have to be what he means. Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy? are wrong each time they voted against abortion, on the very basis that it was at the time of each vote the "Settled law of the land. So if he joins the court and Roe v Wade is challenged, then he could not join with them and vote against Roe v Wade because it is after all the Settled.......... Land! He can not make himself a party to any Unsettling.
Who is he winking at, that is the question?
Is Rorerts trying to say that its 5 to 4 passage, and its many 5 to 4 upholdings of various aspects, means "settled"? I thought they said this man is so smart! Or is it because he says that with a winky winky, that makes him so smart, and the rest of us stupid because we talk straightforwardly?
This apparently, would have to be what he means. Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy? are wrong each time they voted against abortion, on the very basis that it was at the time of each vote the "Settled law of the land. So if he joins the court and Roe v Wade is challenged, then he could not join with them and vote against Roe v Wade because it is after all the Settled.......... Land! He can not make himself a party to any Unsettling.
Who is he winking at, that is the question?
That's the statement that bothers me most about the guy. The settled law of the land, based upon an idiotic interpretation of the right to privacy, can and should be changed. What does a SCOTUS judge do if he doesn't consider the law of the land on a constitutional basis? We could just as soon plop an ashtray in his chair if all he's going to do is sit there.jeremiah said:
- Status