Thanks Bob

[PKevman]

So how can you support a candidate who says:
Medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child, except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life, are impermissible.

Because he never says anything about intentionally murdering the unborn child. Abortion is not the only medical procedure out there you know. He is saying that ANY medical procedure that results in the death of the child unless it is inadvertent and happens in the process of trying to SAVE life is IMPERMISSABLE.

He openly says that the only time it is permissible for the child to die is if it is an unintended consequence of trying to save the mama's life. Now every time I've pressed you on this question you've always been against that. You've always said save both save both or none and Alan Keys is openly supporting a procedure directed at mainly saving the mother.

You're seeing what you want to see, that is all. Abortion is INTENTIONAL murder of a child.

He didn't demand one, you offered.

I offered to look at the information he gave. He demanded a timetable. That is what happened. :doh:

No I couldn't have. Because you refused to discuss it.

I did no such thing. I pointed you to THIS and there was little attempt on your part to discuss it. Instead you attempted to shift the discussion to a semantical argument on what Ron Paul means when he mentions making exceptions for murder. I still think my brother Turbo does a great job below:

If “abortion” means to deliberately and actively kill a pre-born baby (as the word has come to mean in the past forty years), then no.

If “abortion” means to remove a baby (that may not be viable) from his/her mother, then yes.

When there are complications during a pregnancy (at any stage), a doctor should recognize that he is treating two patients and his goal should be to save both. Sometimes that isn’t possible. Typically in these cases, the options are to save either the mother, or neither: Because the baby needs the mother to live, if the mother dies, the baby will die too.

So what it boils down to is a triage situation. If a mother’s life is at stake, her baby may need to be removed to save her. But there is no reason to dismember or burn or poison the baby. The goal should be to save the baby. When that is impossible, the baby can at least be made comfortable and shown love until he or she dies, just as we (should) do with other terminal patients.

The baby may not be viable, but “viability” is coming earlier and earlier. Even when doctors try and fail to save patients, there are lessons learned that help save future patients. If our culture didn’t regard unborn babies as disposable, maybe we would be able to re-implant ectopic pregnancies by now.

Some people (namely “fool”) accuse pro-lifers of using double-speak for wanting to dissociate these triage situations, when a non-viable baby is removed intact. But because the word “abortion” has become synonymous with setting out to kill the baby, ripping it to pieces, etc., I see it as double-speak to insist on using the term “abortion” for these cases. On June 20th, my wife was induced to go into labor to reduce risk to both her and our baby. Her pregnancy was “aborted.” But should we go around telling people that she had an abortion? I think not, because everyone who heard that would misunderstand our meaning. (Sorry, fool.)

Ultimately, the “life of the mother” argument is a red herring trotted out by pro-aborts. They argue in favor of therapeutic abortions when what they’re really promoting elective abortions. Don’t fall for it. Back when abortion was illegal, mothers were not being forced to die along with their babies when there were complications.

 

[sopwith21]

Two people are falling off of a cliff. You reach out your hand to try to save both. You are unable to save both because you aren't strong enough. At no point do you deliberately let go, but one slips from your grasp. You didn't murder either one intentionally. One died unintentionally in the process of trying to save both.

Don't misrepresent me again.

Once again, you are attempting to debate intent rather than the actual occurrance of what is taking place. You're no longer concerned with what actually occurs, but only with how you felt when it happened. The baby is dead either way.

A few pages ago you adamantly stated that the only acceptable outcome was to save both lives. Now you are supporting a candidate who says that if the baby dies while saving the mother, oh well, its okay as long as you didn't really mean it.

 

[PKevman]

Once again, you are attempting to debate intent rather than the actual occurrance of what is taking place. You're no longer concerned with what actually occurs, but only with how you felt when it happened. The baby is dead either way.

A few pages ago you adamantly stated that the only acceptable outcome was to save both lives. Now you are supporting a candidate who says that if the baby dies while saving the mother, oh well, its okay as long as you didn't really mean it.

Well I guess if it helps you feel better you can stick your head in the sand and ignore the obvious.

I'll repeat myself since you are being so thickheaded.

There's a big difference between setting out to save two patients, and ONE dying INADVERTENTLY, and intentionally killing one in a supposed attempt to save the other.

Agree, disagree?

Of course intent has everything to do with the issue, when intent to murder is the issue versus intent to save lives and inadvertently losing one.

Enjoy the sand, though, because I'm sure you'll gloss over this.

 

[PKevman]

Stephen and Stephen Dale THIS appears to be a decent thread to discuss the death figures in Iraq

 

[sopwith21]

You're wrong. You are free to wear whatever you want, but you have to WEAR SOMETHING.

Then you're not free to wear what you want, are you?

NO they are not fighting a straw man.

Okay. We agree that those 3,200 people are not "fighting a straw man," that in fact, the evils they are fighting are indeed very real and dangerous.

Is it then possible that there could be other very real, genuine, authentic dangers to our liberties also being posed by government that you are not yet aware of?

You don't have to ask permission to decide what clothes to put on

Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a t-shirt in the Capital building. Stephen Downs was arrested for wearing a "Give Peace A Chance" t-shirt in Crossgate Mall in Albany, New York. Jeff and Nicole Rank were arrested in West Virginia for wearing t-shirts saying "Love America, Hate Bush" (their lawsuit concluded in August). Mike Ferner was arrested in Chicago for wearing a "Veterans for Peace" shirt at the Jesse Brown Medical Center where his clothing was considered "a protest."

I could give you several hundred more examples but you wouldn't believe them, either.

NO! I am not willing to drive without my driver's license.

Why not?

Having to get a driver's license doesn't STOP me from being free to drive where I want to drive, so your argument has fallen apart!

Having to get a state license to operate a church doesn't stop people in China from being free to worship, either... all they have to do is get the license and then they're "free." Right?

Whoops! You misquoted him! Keyes ACTUALLY said:

"Medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child, except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life, are impermissible."

I know what Keyes said and so do you. The difference is that I'm willing to admit it.

 

[PKevman]

I know what Keyes said and so do you. The difference is that I'm willing to admit it.

That's rich. Only after you have added your own spins to it of course, and ignored the whole absence of the term "abortion" and the PRESENCE of the term INADVERTENT.

 

[sopwith21]

There's a big difference between setting out to save two patients, and ONE dying INADVERTENTLY, and intentionally killing one in a supposed attempt to save the other.

Agree, disagree?

With the first dead baby we say "Gotcha" and with the second dead baby we say "Oops." I suppose we could call that a "big difference" if it helps us sleep better.

But what happened to the whole "saving them both is the only way" thing?

 

[PKevman]

Inadvertent: "happening by chance or unexpectedly or unintentionally ; "with an inadvertent gesture she swept the vase off the table"; "accidental poisoning"; "an accidental shooting"


Abortion: Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.

Arms aren't ripped off and brains aren't sucked out inadvertently Stephen. Those are intentional actions!

 

[sopwith21]

Stephen and Stephen Dale THIS appears to be a decent thread to discuss the death figures in Iraq

There's an easier way to do this:

You pick a number that you feel is the appropriate and realistic number of innocent men, women and children that you think have died in Iraq. Any number you like. We'll work from there.

BTW, for the sake of fairness, your number should not be less than THIS.

 

[PKevman]

With the first dead baby we say "Gotcha" and with the second dead baby we say "Oops." I suppose we could call that a "big difference" if it helps us sleep better.

But what happened to the whole "saving them both is the only way" thing?

Please show where I have ONCE deviated from defending a doctor trying to save them both. You can ignore what I'm actually saying if you like, and continue to post what you WANT for me to be saying, or we can have a discussion.

Was it here?

There's a big difference between setting out to save two patients, and ONE dying INADVERTENTLY, and intentionally killing one in a supposed attempt to save the other.

No....

Perhaps here?

Of course intent has everything to do with the issue, when intent to murder is the issue versus intent to save lives and inadvertently losing one.

Maybe here.........

So you don't see the difference between intentionally murdering a baby through abortion and a baby inadvertently dying while the doctor tries to successfully deliver the baby and save the life of the mother?

Maybe it was in my analogy that you ignored completely where you would go to support your claim?

Two people are falling off of a cliff. You reach out your hand to try to save both. You are unable to save both because you aren't strong enough. At no point do you deliberately let go, but one slips from your grasp. You didn't murder either one intentionally. One died unintentionally in the process of trying to save both.

Do you really know what "Inadvertently" means?

 

[PKevman]

There's an easier way to do this:

You pick a number that you feel is the appropriate and realistic number of innocent men, women and children that you think have died in Iraq. Any number you like. We'll work from there.

BTW, for the sake of fairness, your number should not be less than THIS.

After all you're right and incapable of being wrong on this subject, so why discuss it with others who might have more or different information on it?

 

[sopwith21]

Arms aren't ripped off and brains aren't sucked out inadvertently Stephen. Those are intentional actions!

Oh, ya think? Yes, yes, certainly the intent is different, and we hope the dead baby understands that we can still vote for the guy who said his death was permissible as long as we didn't do it on purpose.

But what ever happened to the whole "saving them both is the only way" thing?

 

[sopwith21]

After all you're right and incapable of being wrong on this subject, so why discuss it with others who might have more or different information on it?

You're stalling. Give us a number and we'll start from there. Any number you like.

 

[PKevman]

Oh, ya think? Yes, yes, certainly the intent is different, and we hope the dead baby understands that we can still vote for the guy who said his death was permissible as long as we didn't do it on purpose.

But what ever happened to the whole "saving them both is the only way" thing?

Whatever happened to showing where I ever said saving them both wasn't the only way?

Are you being intentionally dense or do you NOT understand the difference between intentionally killing someone and someone inadvertently dying while you are trying to save their life and the life of their mother?

 

[PKevman]

Inadvertent: "happening by chance or unexpectedly or unintentionally ; "with an inadvertent gesture she swept the vase off the table"; "accidental poisoning"; "an accidental shooting"


Abortion: Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.

Arms aren't ripped off and brains aren't sucked out inadvertently Stephen. Those are intentional actions!

 

[PKevman]

Two people are falling off of a cliff. You reach out your hand to try to save both. You are unable to save both because you aren't strong enough. At no point do you deliberately let go, but one slips from your grasp. You didn't murder either one intentionally. One died unintentionally in the process of trying to save both.

 

[PKevman]

But what ever happened to the whole "saving them both is the only way" thing?

Two people are falling off of a cliff. You reach out your hand to try to save both. You are unable to save both because you aren't strong enough. At no point do you deliberately let go, but one slips from your grasp. You didn't murder either one intentionally. One died unintentionally in the process of trying to save both.

 

[PKevman]

Two people are falling off of a cliff, a mother and a child. You reach out your hand to try to save them and catch the mother's hand. The child is much further down, clinging to her mother's hand. The ONLY chance you have to save them both is to pull up the mother, because you are stretched out on your belly as it is, and you could never reach the child. But the mother has a good grip on her child, so you set about trying to pull up the mother. At NO POINT have you abandoned the child or set out to intentionally kill the child to make it easier to pull the mother up. Even if the mother loses her grip and she is the only one you save.

Since you refuse to understand the situation, maybe you will understand it if I illustrate.

 

[PKevman]

Inadvertent: "happening by chance or unexpectedly or unintentionally ; "with an inadvertent gesture she swept the vase off the table"; "accidental poisoning"; "an accidental shooting"


Abortion: Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.

Arms aren't ripped off and brains aren't sucked out inadvertently Stephen. Those are intentional actions!

 

[PKevman]

Oooops sorry Dr. Keyes. You didn't even say inadvertent. You said UNINTENDED!

"Medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child, except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life, are impermissible."