Abortion worse than the Holocaust

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hasikelee said:
Hey Elric…you do know that the Alan Guttmacher institute stated there is no medical reason for an abortion, right?
Click to expand...
I dont know what that is.

Are they talking from the unborns point of view, or the mothers?
 
bmmckinney said:
Elric,

I’m not sure if you mentioned the condition of the mother in your situation but I am very aware of the fact that many poorly trained doctors tell women to have an abortion when they have only risk factors. I don’t know of a condition nor does modern science that would kill a woman in pregnancy if she didn’t have an abortion. Can you elaborate? If you aren’t able to thats ok but the medical consensus is very clear that there aren’t any known pregnancy issues where abortion of a living baby is necessary. Even OBGYN’s who perform abortions will state this.
Click to expand...
I never said it was an abortion, it was in the delivery room.

I was given minuites/seconds to consider what to do.
 
bmmckinney said:
Elric,

I’m going to give you a fair opportunity after I call you out as someone who isn’t prolife. See I can speak as a national prolife leader who is very aware that you are arguing exactly how established prochoicers argue, they provide blanket statements but don’t back up their tough rhetoric.

What I want you to do is provide us with specific not just general instances or conditions of pregnancy that an abortion is ok, its fair to put you on the spot its what I train college students to do all the time against prochoice students on campus at our project, guess what, I haven’t in all my prolife work heard of a good reason so you could be the first.

So you know where I am coming from medically I have a BS in Health Policy Adminstration and a specialization in that of reproductive medical health so I know far more about fertility/pregnancy issues then most people.

I will tell you that you can easily verify the following statements in any medical/embryonic/OBGYN textbook.
  1. There is no medical reason that a living unborn child should ever need to be aborted.
  2. Only a baby who has DIED inside of their mother in the uterus would need to go through the procedure of an abortion, but only at a hospital, not abortion clinic, it isn’t classified as an abortion because the baby is already dead.
  3. An ectopic pregnancy is the ONLY situation where a mother AND child will die, any thing else is a controllable risk factor that can be removed or lessened significantly. An ectopic pregnancy is removed by going through the woman’s belly button, down and then carefully removing the unborn baby alive in his or her amnionic sac to avoid poisioning the woman to death.
Now Elric, if you are just prochoice they don’t be afraid to say you are, if its something you or anyone else agrees with you should be proud of your beliefs! In fact you should even be able to defend such beliefs without problem in front of photos or video of an abortion procedure’s effect on an unborn baby.
Click to expand...
After the consesus of choose the child over the mother and your post (Blanket statments?), there isnt any necessary reason that I could give that you would be satisfied with. How exactly could I argue this with you?
 
DanteAlighieri said:
I agree, and I apologize if my argument above detracted from the thread.

The Holocaust – and any other instance of so-called “ethnic cleansing” (a euphemism that makes my skin crawl) – was an unspeakably evil moment in human history. Abortion is unspeakably evil in its own right, but to say one or the other was worse is quite moot.

However, from a statistical analysis standpoint, it’s obvious that abortion has killed far more people in total, as well as per year (on average).

HOLOCAUST:
6 million Jews killed in 12 years (1933 to 1945) = 500,000 per year.

ABORTION:
46 million babies killed in 34 years (since Roe) = 1,352,941 per year.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that abortion is “worse”, because it doesn’t take into account the sheer barbarism and coldly mechanical nature of the Final Solution, which is truly creepy to contemplate.

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
Which is worse?.. Look at all the numbers!!.. Whats going on here?! What is the point in rambling off all the numbers? What if the total Abortion count was 2 or 3. 2 or 3 in the history of the world. I know people that would say “That would be great! all those babies saved”
It only took one sin for the fall of man. 1 Abourtion is no different than the insainly huge numbers that are fact.
To try to compair one tragity to another for the point of finding out which one is worse is… To be frank is stupid and pointless. A horrable act is a horrable act in itself. to say “it’s not as bad as this” or “it’s worse than that” does nothing but take away from the true heartbreak that comes from being subjected to such horrable acts.
Ex. Which Mortal sin is worse that I commited, A, or B? It dose not matter which is worse. Eather one by it self Cut me off from Gods saving grace.
 
Elric said:
After the consesus of choose the child over the mother and your post (Blanket statments?), there isnt any necessary reason that I could give that you would be satisfied with. How exactly could I argue this with you?
Click to expand...
A false dichotomy as this is the case in less than 1% of all abortions performed. And in only a handful of these cases is the Mother in danger if imminent death. You dont base law on the exceptions-you make the law and have provisions for the exceptions. Even the Church allows for abortions to save the mothers life if it meets the criteria of the “double effect” doctrine
 
estesbob said:
A false dichotomy as this is the case in less than 1% of all abortions performed. And in only a handful of these cases is the Mother in danger if imminent death. You dont base law on the exceptions-you make the law and have provisions for the exceptions. Even the Church allows for abortions to save the mothers life if it meets the criteria of the “double effect” doctrine
Click to expand...
Slight correction. The “double effect” doctrine allows for a medical procedure that will result in the death of the unborn child, if it is unavoidable. They key is the intent of the procedure is not to kill the child, it is a side effect of a necessary medical procedure. It does not allow abortion, because with abortion the intent is to kill the child. Abortion is never morally permissable b/c by definition it is the direct, intentional killing of an innocent, ie. muder.

God Bless
 
proudnifi said:
I don’t know if this will help. But something that some people (not all) kinda miss is that Pro-Life people see no difference between abortion and walking into a third-world orphanage and killing the kids to protect them from a bad life.

I know this doesn’t address all of the mercy/compassion arguments that are used to support “keep abortion legal”. But the time to worry about the child’s possible “bad life/living conditions” was before conception - once there’s a pregnancy the child’s life is a done deal. If abortion is used, the child is killed “for it’s own protection”. 😦
Click to expand...
Actually, what is the difference? It would actually make more sense (morality aside) to wait and see which children will be disabled or unwanted before deciding to kill them.

The Romans had a better (more logical and more moral) solution for unwanted babies, exposure. There was a public place in every town where unwanted babies were left. Anyone who wanted could claim the babies. If the baby was unclaimed, and survived until the 3rd day (proving its healthiness) the state would take the child and provide for it.

God Bless
 
bilop said:
Slight correction. The “double effect” doctrine allows for a medical procedure that will result in the death of the unborn child, if it is unavoidable. They key is the intent of the procedure is not to kill the child, it is a side effect of a necessary medical procedure. It does not allow abortion, because with abortion the intent is to kill the child. Abortion is never morally permissable b/c by definition it is the direct, intentional killing of an innocent, ie. muder.

God Bless
Click to expand...
That is a much better explantion than mine. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Elric said:
I dont know what that is.

Are they talking from the unborns point of view, or the mothers?
Click to expand...
The Alan Guttmacher institute is a behemoth in the field you are debating right now. It is a highly respected organization closely affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

guttmacher.org/

The point of view is in regards to the mother.
 
Elric said:
I never said it was an abortion, it was in the delivery room.

I was given minuites/seconds to consider what to do.
Click to expand...
Elric, you do know the logistics of an abortion, right?

If your dilemma occurred in the delivery room, it is a completely moot point to abort. Either way, the baby will still be removed from the mother.

Even cesareans have good survival rates, so that could have been an option, too, unless your wife had a pre-existing condition that put her in a very high risk category.
 
hasikelee said:
The Alan Guttmacher institute is a behemoth in the field you are debating right now. It is a highly respected organization closely affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

guttmacher.org/

The point of view is in regards to the mother.
Click to expand...
Highly respected by who? They are the propaganda arm of one the most vile and evil organizations in the history of the world. They deserve no respect.
 
Elric,

I laid it out very simple for you to provide a medical reason you say your wife had an abortion. Frankly I don’t believe you now. Either you are a complete liar or you are in denial because you now know there is a chance that if there was indeed an abortion, it was NOT necessary.

So if you have lied to us about that abortion which now I am going to assume is the case then you are responsible for your actions and the effect it has had on other people. I would advise you of that one on one talk with the priest to talk about this.

It isn’t right to not disclose truths when it is necessary to prove a statement. If someone asks me a question about abortion that I don’t know the answer to, which is rare except maybe a certain statistic but I can easily tell them a place like the Alan G. institute to find out, then I will be honest and say I don’t know.

The tactic of playing emotional cards because one can’t debate the issue is called facism and is usually composed of lies by the arguer that fall apart at any indepth look.

If there REALLY was an abortion look into why it was done. I’m betting my buttom dollar that if there was and you get the condition a prolife doctor will medically explain to you why that abortion wasn’t necessary. If this is the truth you would need to consider again talking to the priest and praying for and then bringing charges against that doctor.
 
bmmckinney said:
Elric,

I laid it out very simple for you to provide a medical reason you say your wife had an abortion. Frankly I don’t believe you now. Either you are a complete liar or you are in denial because you now know there is a chance that if there was indeed an abortion, it was NOT necessary.

So if you have lied to us about that abortion which now I am going to assume is the case then you are responsible for your actions and the effect it has had on other people. I would advise you of that one on one talk with the priest to talk about this.

It isn’t right to not disclose truths when it is necessary to prove a statement. If someone asks me a question about abortion that I don’t know the answer to, which is rare except maybe a certain statistic but I can easily tell them a place like the Alan G. institute to find out, then I will be honest and say I don’t know.

The tactic of playing emotional cards because one can’t debate the issue is called facism and is usually composed of lies by the arguer that fall apart at any indepth look.

If there REALLY was an abortion look into why it was done. I’m betting my buttom dollar that if there was and you get the condition a prolife doctor will medically explain to you why that abortion wasn’t necessary. If this is the truth you would need to consider again talking to the priest and praying for and then bringing charges against that doctor.
Click to expand...
As I already stated, I never said it involved an abortion. It was in regard into a debate over which which life you choose to save, the mother or the child. Where I chose the mothers, perhaps you misunderstood the context it was made in.

If there was an abortion involved in the experience I described, I would have said as much. But there wasnt and I never said or hinted that there was.
 
To make the jungle sound beating more bad and wicked drums,
Melbourne (Australia), where I live has the highest rate of abortion in the world. One out of four pregnancies end in the killing of the baby.
I have tried to work out why…cultural, economic, but nothing makes sense…of course it don’t
Now a new bill is being submitted to the Victorian parliament to withdraw all criminal sanctions to abortion, this means abortionists can do things that a surgeon or general Doctor cant do, they will be totally except from any law!! and can do anything they want, scot free!!
Pray this is defeated please
 
venite_angeli said:
At the risk of inflaming the argument further (and I know this post is going to get jumped on):

When a child is going to be born into poverty, into hunger, and want, when a child is going to be born into abuse, violence, exposure to alchohol and drugs, when a child is going to be born to a mother that doesn’t want him, isn’t physically or mentally able to care for him the way he deserves - isn’t it then a better choice not to let the child be born, to suffer?

I’m not advocating abortion for the sake of abortion. I’m appalled at the number of people, especially young people today, who seem to think that legalised abortions is nothing more than a licence to go out and have as much unprotected sex as they like, because they know that “if worst should come to worst” they can have an abortion, and that will “fix things”. This isn’t a rough generalisation, I know at least one girl personally who has gone through almost that exact thought process.

But surely, it’s not fair to a child to bring him into a world where he’s not wanted and will be neglected and abused, or starved through lack of money and resources. The world is full of starving people, is it so wrong to make an informed decision not to add to the suffering?

Just to take it back to the original post, abortion vs. Holocaust:
The Holocaust was brought about by one man who decided that Jews deserved to die, for no better reason than that they were Jews. That one man is responsible for millions of deaths, in cold blood. Auschwitz boasted - yes, boasted - its ability to “dispose of” 10,000 people in 24 hours, at its prime. In addition, the Jews were starved, overworked, beaten, shot at, had gruesome experiments performed on them in some cases, had their belongings and their families ripped from them, and were generally made to feel sub human.
Abortion, in many cases, is brought about by mothers who have made the decision that for whatever reason, they are not ready or in a position to have a child. Though the statistics are startling when stated baldly like that, when you bring it back to the person who decides, it’s a lot less horrifying than the things Adolph Hitler did. At least the aborted babies aren’t tortured, or brought into a world where life is more horrifying than death would be.

This is one point of view. Please consider it fairly.
Click to expand...
Sick thinking and not Catholic
 
proudnifi said:
Looks like this thread has veered off course, but the situation of mom’s life vs baby’s life is not very common. Anyway, if I’m not mistaken, if it comes down to mom’s life being in danger, it’s often ok to take the baby out early. It’s clear that a dead mom isn’t usually conducive to healthy pre-born baby (common sense).
Click to expand...
My Dear Lord,
Where did the catechists go wrong…cry for you:blush:
 
46 million kids have been MURDERED???:mad: :mad: :mad: Ugh, how could anyone do that??But at least we can know this,the babies will go to Heaven and be baby angels, and God will look after them and deal with their horrible parents.
 
Teeliumtrozzle said:
46 million kids have been MURDERED???:mad: :mad: :mad: Ugh, how could anyone do that??But at least we can know this,the babies will go to Heaven and be baby angels, and God will look after them and deal with their horrible parents.
Click to expand...
Not enough my friend, we have to fight as Catholic warriors to stop this genocide.
Catholic Jihad, here we come :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top