Neither is this, so what's your point?
Why Stop At Birth?
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
I have to question the veracity of that article, but will certainly check into it further.
glorydaz
Well-known member
My "point" is that it looks like the rules may be changing again, and I want to be up to speed.
Do you blame me for wanting to know what is allowable and what isn't?
Am I not allowed to make observations about possible rule violations?
Am I forbidden to warn others of possible rule violations?
I speak of Truster's warning.
How is his post any different ....what makes it NOT SUBSTANTIVE?
How can we post here unless we understand the RULES?
Babies survive ectopic pregnancies. It might be more common to survive that situation than not.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Look a little further... http://americanrtl.org/files/docs/Journal-Surg-Gyn-Obst-1917p578-579ectopic-transplant.pdf
"Does it not look possible..." he says, that baby that begins in the tube can be transplanted into the uterus.
Anything is possible...flying without an airplane might seem possible, too.
glorydaz
Well-known member
How? There is no room to grow in a fallopian tube. Transplant them to the uterus? I'm not seeing any documented cases of that being done.
Not sure how. They can survive without help. Even undiagnosed.
glorydaz
Well-known member
There are two or three examples of a baby growing outside the womb... the abdominal cavity, for instance, when the women didn't even know they were pregnant. They had no pain from a baby trying to grow in the fallopian tube that would inevitable rupture.
I'd say "undiagnosed" equates to lack of symptoms of pregnancy, and those were so rare that they shouldn't even be brought up as an example in the anti abortion argument. They are flat out flukes. Period.
So, are we so desperate to stand against abortion that we dare to suggest ectopic pregnancies must be endured by a woman in spite of the facts? I certainly hope not. :sigh:
Nobody has said that.
Furthermore, the ectopic pregnancy argument is raised by people trying to defend late-term abortion.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Good, I'm glad to hear that.
Then that just shows how stupid they are. Just scoff at them.
I think the important thing is that abortion is seen as the answer to ectopic pregnancies when medical investigation and advance might save these mothers and kids.
However, pro-aborts only have an eye for justifying childkilling.
So, if a fetus becomes a danger to the mother, she should risk her life to carry it to term? Are you serious?
Also, at a larger scale, if you neither condone contraceptives nor legalized abortions for unwanted children, how do you ever implement population control? We have grown to 7 billion on this planet AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER SPECIES!! Numerous species have gone extinct just in the last century as a direct result of human overbreeding. And right-wingers just seem to want to preach abstinence and wash their hands off addressing the actual problem. Help the beings that are already born!
Try reading the thread before reacting. :up:
We don't.
Keep the easy questions coming. They're, well, easy. :idunno:
What's taken us so long?
That's a rhetorical question. It's Darwinists, socialists and pro-aborts who have retarded the human population.
And you want to kill the unborn.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if a baby is in a burning house and the mother would have to put herself at risk to rescue it, do you think she would hesitate? Are you serious?
nobody has mentioned contraceptives in this thread so far
of course we don't condone legalized murder of children, regardless of whether they are wanted or not
| [MENTION=20895]Amyrich[/MENTION] if a mother decides she no longer wants to be burdened with an infant or a toddler, should she be allowed to kill it? if not, why not? |
by raising the standard of living
some have benefited, some haven't
cite?
is there any reason not to consider abstinence?
explain
human beings?
Two people have already responded to you, and I completely agree with what they said. But allow me to respond directly.
Using dehumanizing terms to refer to a baby is a very liberal thing to do.
When is a baby ever a threat?
What sane mother wouldn't want to see her child live to be able to grow up?
Are you?
I think contraceptives should be used only by married couples (man + woman) if they decide they want to have fun in the bedroom, but don't want children.
If people are using contraceptives outside of marriage, then it's an indication that society has some serious issues.
Abortion may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.
If a mother doesn't want her child, then why not give him or her up for adoption?
Don't punish the child just because they're inconvenient. How cruel are you?
We don't.
God said to man, "be fruitful and multiply."
Higher population density = better standard of living
Lower population density = poorer standard of living
Just under 7.7 billion currently.
God said to man, "have dominion over the earth."
And we've gotten better at preserving nature in the last 500 years, in case you haven't noticed.
In other words, you want to raise the man-given rights of nature over the God-given rights of man?
Oh?
The problems of society are caused by people NOT being abstinent until marriage. They're caused by the degradation and abolition of laws that have been in place for the past 3500 years.
We've effectively legalized adultery, murder, theft, and perjury.
And the society we see today is the result.
Rather, promote human rights, denigrate animal (and plant) rights.
Using dehumanizing terms to refer to a baby is a very liberal thing to do.
When is a baby ever a threat?
What sane mother wouldn't want to see her child live to be able to grow up?
Are you?
I think contraceptives should be used only by married couples (man + woman) if they decide they want to have fun in the bedroom, but don't want children.
If people are using contraceptives outside of marriage, then it's an indication that society has some serious issues.
Abortion may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.
If a mother doesn't want her child, then why not give him or her up for adoption?
Don't punish the child just because they're inconvenient. How cruel are you?
We don't.
God said to man, "be fruitful and multiply."
Higher population density = better standard of living
Lower population density = poorer standard of living
Just under 7.7 billion currently.
God said to man, "have dominion over the earth."
And we've gotten better at preserving nature in the last 500 years, in case you haven't noticed.
In other words, you want to raise the man-given rights of nature over the God-given rights of man?
Oh?
The problems of society are caused by people NOT being abstinent until marriage. They're caused by the degradation and abolition of laws that have been in place for the past 3500 years.
We've effectively legalized adultery, murder, theft, and perjury.
And the society we see today is the result.
Rather, promote human rights, denigrate animal (and plant) rights.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
thanks for nothing, "progressives"
this is what you get when you elevate man's law over God's law
Kit the Coyote
New member
There are cases where the mother's immune system actively attacks the child. Viability of the child is a major issue. Cases where the child's organs develop outside the body or never develop at all.
None of which pose a significant added risk to the mother's life. Are you just saying things for the sake of it now?
Kit the Coyote
New member
The complications of a mother's immune system attacking the child can have significant risk to the mother. the rest was addressing the viability of the child which is one of the medical reasons for an abortion.