Justice Kavanaugh’s first test on abortion comes this week

[chair]

one might argue that the unborn child's life is of greater value than the mother, as the unborn child has his whole life in front of him

to illustrate: you come across a bad car wreck on an isolated road. The car holds two occupants - a middle-aged woman and a young child. Circumstances are such that you can only rescue either the mother or the child but not both. Which do you choose?

I believe most people would choose the child.


ever watch will smith's I Robot?

The answer given many years ago is the mother should be saved. The thinking is that a newborn is a life at risk (a greater issue back then, with high infant mortality), while the mother's life is more certain.

If the two are equal, one would be tempted to do nothing that would risk either one, since that would be murder. Even though the net result would be two deaths.

What I am really driving at here is that often a false dichotomy being presented here. Either Abortion is Murder, or it is OK.

Abortion can be wrong, even criminal, without being the same as murder.

 

[Stripe]

You are speaking as a medical expert?
Perhaps as an expert on 5th century medicine?
Or an expert on midwives of the Central African Republic?

I expected this reaction. Which is why my original post included this:

We're not saying it can't happen; it can. However, it is never prior to the incident that we determine only one can survive.

In the moment, we act to save both.

Notice my point No. 2 is not dependent on No. 1. You deliver the baby. It's never necessary to stop that process in order to kill him.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Abortion can be wrong, even criminal, without being the same as murder.

How?

The only situation you have described is medical complications where only one can be saved. Are you saying it is wrong, but not murder, to act in this scenario?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

The answer given many years ago is the mother should be saved. The thinking is that a newborn is a life at risk (a greater issue back then, with high infant mortality), while the mother's life is more certain.

just a quick reference to my background - i worked for years in a regional center for neonatology, in which we devoted extraordinary resources and effort to saving the lives of sick infants, often grossly premature

it galled to me to know that just across town the planned parenthood was deliberately murdering children more developed than many of those we were struggling to save.


now i have to get back under my car :wave2:

 

[Stripe]

just a quick reference to my background - i worked for years in a regional center for neonatology, in which we devoted extraordinary resources and effort to saving the lives of sick infants, often grossly premature

it galled to me to know that just across town the planned parenthood was deliberately murdering children more developed than many of those we were struggling to save.


now i have to get back under my car :wave2:

This is such an insight into the mind of the pro-abort. They shriek about "rights" and a "woman's body," but when it comes to policy, they want to focus on rare, medical emergencies with a mind to push their emotionalism.

Reality is, they just want to kill, regardless of the situation.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

the exchange with quip yesterday was rewarding and I hope it continues - his focus was on "autonomy" - that a woman's "right" to choose to murder her child was an expression of her autonomy

apparently that "autonomy" disappears after delivery

still trying to figure that one out with him

 

[chair]

How?

The only situation you have described is medical complications where only one can be saved. Are you saying it is wrong, but not murder, to act in this scenario?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

No. I am saying that abortion in general is wrong, but not murder.

 

[Tambora]

No. I am saying that abortion in general is wrong, but not murder.

It's premeditated murder.

 

[Tambora]

the exchange with quip yesterday was rewarding and I hope it continues - his focus was on "autonomy" - that a woman's "right" to choose to murder her child was an expression of her autonomy

apparently that "autonomy" disappears after delivery

Yeppers.

Their solution to the problem is murdering children, but only before delivery.
Their solution for convenience is murdering children, but only before delivery.
Their solution for poverty is murdering children, but only before delivery.
etc.

 

[ok doser]

Yeppers.

Their solution to the problem is murdering children, but only before delivery.
Their solution for convenience is murdering children, but only before delivery.
Their solution for poverty is murdering children, but only before delivery.
etc.

curious

got to chew on this one

 

[Stripe]

No. I am saying that abortion in general is wrong, but not murder.

Why is it wrong?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

This brings us to the question of cases where lives are at stake- one can save either the mother or the baby, at the expense of the other. Who do you save?

The doctor in such cases should do everything he can to keep BOTH alive as long as possible.

He should NEVER stop to kill one or the other in the process.

Please don't hide behind the "fact" that this situation is rare or "never happens". It did happen in the past, and likely happens to this day in less developed parts of the world. Even as a thought experiment it is useful. Is the unborn child's life of the same value as that of the mother?

:blabla:

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ah, but then you need to define "person". What are the characteristics of "human life" of "person"?

Made in God's image. :think: Oh wait, you don't believe in God.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you a sovereign citizen?

Just ignore him. He's one of those odd "new ager" types of pagans.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[chair]

The doctor in such cases should do everything he can to keep BOTH alive as long as possible.

He should NEVER stop to kill one or the other in the process.



:blabla:

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

:blabla: to you as well. It is so easy to talk about what the doctor should do- but in much of the world there aren't doctors or hospitals available, and tough choices need to be made.

 

[Stripe]

:blabla: to you as well. It is so easy to talk about what the doctor should do- but in much of the world there aren't doctors or hospitals available, and tough choices need to be made.

That tough choices need to be made does not mean it is necessary to stop delivering the child in order to kill him.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is so easy to talk about what the doctor should do-

I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying. Which, honestly, is not surprising, considering your bias.

When I say a doctor should do everything he can to save both mother and child, I mean it in the strictest sense.

He should not ever stop to kill the baby or the mother, because there is never a reason to.

Not even in an ectopic pregnancy should the doctor stop to kill the baby. If necessary (and technology has advanced enough that it's starting to show that it's not necessary), the doctor should remove the baby from the mother's body, but there's no reason to stop and kill the baby. In addition, allowing the baby to reattach inside the mother's womb is increasingly an option, which takes the mother out of danger, and allows the baby to continue growing normally.

https://kgov.com/can-a-baby-survive-an-ectopic-pregnancy

Also... Do they not teach the hippocratic oath anymore in medical schools?

"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art."

-Wikipedia, Hippocratic Oath

but in much of the world there aren't doctors or hospitals available, and tough choices need to be made.

Tough choices are ALWAYS being made. But choosing to stop delivering the baby to kill it and then go on to save the mother is not a logical one. There is NEVER any reason (other than blood-lust, which isn't a reason at all) to kill a baby.

If you think there is, please, provide a specific example where you think it would be necessary to stop delivering the baby (and caring for the mother) long enough to kill it. Even if it's never happened, or is so unlikely, provide a specific example where it would be necessary to kill the baby. I posit that you cannot, because there is NEVER a situation where such is necessary.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[chair]

...
When I say a doctor should do everything he can to save both mother and child, I mean it in the strictest sense.

He should not ever stop to kill the baby or the mother, because there is never a reason to....

Is it really that difficult to understand that births didn't occur in hospitals until recently, and that until this day millions of children are born in poor countries without the benefit of doctors and hospitals?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is it really that difficult to understand that births didn't occur in hospitals until recently, and that until this day millions of children are born in poor countries without the benefit of doctors and hospitals?

So what? Location of the delivery has no bearing on if it's right or wrong to stop and kill the baby.

Would you like to address my point or are you going to continue to squirm?

 

[Stripe]

Is it really that difficult to understand that births didn't occur in hospitals until recently, and that until this day millions of children are born in poor countries without the benefit of doctors and hospitals?

You are not respecting the opposition's position.

We do not say that complications cannot arise.

We do say that complications are solved by delivering the baby, which does not require the additional step of killing him.

Also, you didn't describe why you think abortion is wrong (but not murder).

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk