Anti-abortion suction apparatus

[Annie39]

Good Evening Annie: To develop spiritually is to develop ones soul, and I think this is an endeavor that requires a good deal of work.

Thank you,
Gary

Hi Gary

You write “To develop spiritually is to develop ones soul”

Forgive me but that still sounds a bit ambiguous. There are all kinds of spiritualities. There is of course Catholic Spirituality where in the Holy Spirit leads one along. One cannot do it on one’s own. Then there is new-age spirituality and creation spirituality. Both are opposed to Catholic Spirituality. And then I just read on Fr. Z’s blog about Conscious Evolution also opposed to Catholicism. Below is a URL to an article by Fr. Mitch Pacwa regarding new age and creation spirituality.

I’m thinking that your spirituality may be very close to new age. Am I correct? As I see it, that would account for your vegetarianism. Of course I realize that there are other faiths where the majority of the people are vegetarians. Members of my family are Seventh Day Adventists.

So what form of spirituality do you follow?

originalblessing.ning.com/profiles/blogs/catholicism-vs-new-age-creation-spiritality-fr-mitch-pacwa-vs

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Hi Gary

You write “To develop spiritually is to develop ones soul”

Forgive me but that still sounds a bit ambiguous. There are all kinds of spiritualities. There is of course Catholic Spirituality where in the Holy Spirit leads one along. One cannot do it on one’s own. Then there is new-age spirituality and creation spirituality. Both are opposed to Catholic Spirituality. And then I just read on Fr. Z’s blog about Conscious Evolution also opposed to Catholicism. Below is a URL to an article by Fr. Mitch Pacwa regarding new age and creation spirituality.

I’m thinking that your spirituality may be very close to new age. Am I correct? As I see it, that would account for your vegetarianism. Of course I realize that there are other faiths where the majority of the people are vegetarians. Members of my family are Seventh Day Adventists.

So what form of spirituality do you follow?

originalblessing.ning.com/profiles/blogs/catholicism-vs-new-age-creation-spiritality-fr-mitch-pacwa-vs

Annie

Correction I thought that the article was written by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, it was written about the difference between Fr. Pacwa and Matthew Fox’s spirituality.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Hi Gary

You write “To develop spiritually is to develop ones soul”

Forgive me but that still sounds a bit ambiguous. There are all kinds of spiritualities. There is of course Catholic Spirituality where in the Holy Spirit leads one along. One cannot do it on one’s own. Then there is new-age spirituality and creation spirituality. Both are opposed to Catholic Spirituality. And then I just read on Fr. Z’s blog about Conscious Evolution also opposed to Catholicism. Below is a URL to an article by Fr. Mitch Pacwa regarding new age and creation spirituality.

I’m thinking that your spirituality may be very close to new age. Am I correct? As I see it, that would account for your vegetarianism. Of course I realize that there are other faiths where the majority of the people are vegetarians. Members of my family are Seventh Day Adventists.

So what form of spirituality do you follow?

originalblessing.ning.com/profiles/blogs/catholicism-vs-new-age-creation-spiritality-fr-mitch-pacwa-vs

Annie

Good Evening Annie: I don’t see spiritual development as being counter to most religious paths. It’s a matter of attaining a deeper synthesis with the things we believe. For instance, for a Catholic such as myself, it’s a matter of actually experiencing the presence of Christ in our daily lives rather than to simply intellectualize about it. It’s a matter of transformation that happens over time via prayer, devotional and meditative practices (such as the rosary for Catholics), and our actions in the world around us. Such things develop over time, and these are part of our spiritual growth.

As for being a vegetarian, this is just one of the ways in which I express love and kindness for the world around me. Whatever one can do to better encounter love is also perfectly conducive to Catholicism. It’s doesn’t have to be specifically prescribed to be a means by which a person gains a greater closeness to God. This just happens to be a means that works for me. It doesn’t take the place of sacraments, rituals, observances and the like. It is simply an augment for me. And for me, it’s a very powerful one.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Hockeygurl]

Unfortunately, banning the machines would only do more harm than good. These machines are also used for a number of other life saving procedures.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

There is of course Catholic Spirituality where in the Holy Spirit leads one along. One cannot do it on one’s own. Annie

Good Morning Annie: I am very cautious about the notion of our lives being lead by the Holy Spirit without a lot of effort on our own part being an integral component. Navigating this life is our work, and a good many people have done a lot of harm claiming to have been lead by this thing or that. I think that the active agent of God in the temporal world is us.

 

[Annie39]

Unfortunately, banning the machines would only do more harm than good. These machines are also used for a number of other life saving procedures.

Would you name some?

 

[Annie39]

Good Morning Annie: I am very cautious about the notion of our lives being lead by the Holy Spirit without a lot of effort on our own part being an integral component. Navigating this life is our work, and a good many people have done a lot of harm claiming to have been lead by this thing or that. I think that the active agent of God in the temporal world is us.

Okay Gary suit yourself. (<Microsoft thinks is bad grammar, I’ll not be bullied )
I do believe that I detect some Pelagianism there and maybe a little new age. Catholic doctrine teaches that we can do nothing without God. We cannot even reach out to Him he needs give us actual grace even to do this. We then co-operate with those graces to do good so in that respect works is part of our salvation. “Navigating this life is our work” is not Catholic. So I don’t know if your belief system is more Shirley Maclaine or Pelagius but I don’t intend to continue discussing this because it is off topic. I am looking for people who are equally indignant about abortion suction devices as they are about guns.

Annie

 

[mommamaree]

Would you name some?

They are used in situations where the mother discovers her baby has died, but her body does not expel the baby’s body. The doctors only have a couple of ways to remove the baby before she develops a life-threatening infection. One is inducing labor, the other is surgical removal. The doctor and patient must weigh the risks of each procedure, but banning outright the tools for survival removal of a deceased unborn child could lead to increased maternal deaths.

 

[Annie39]

They are used in situations where the mother discovers her baby has died, but her body does not expel the baby’s body. The doctors only have a couple of ways to remove the baby before she develops a life-threatening infection. One is inducing labor, the other is surgical removal. The doctor and patient must weigh the risks of each procedure, but banning outright the tools for survival removal of a deceased unborn child could lead to increased maternal deaths.

Thanks mommamaree.

I just wonder how many babies it would save if there were no suction apparatus since there is a surgery option. Grant it a percentage of mothers would lose their lives but the risk to the unborn babe is 100%. It could be debated by pro-life people I think but this topic was started to see if those against guns even for self defense would be just as upset over the suction apparatus. Me thinks not. Pity

Annie

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Thanks mommamaree.

I just wonder how many babies it would save if there were no suction apparatus since there is a surgery option. Grant it a percentage of mothers would lose their lives but the risk to the unborn babe is 100%. It could be debated by pro-life people I think but this topic was started to see if those against guns even for self defense would be just as upset over the suction apparatus. Me thinks not. Pity

Annie

Good Evening Annie: There is only one anti gun person on your thread to date, and that person is me. I am anti-abortion and anti gun and anti death penalty. It is beyond my ability to comprehend how we can make a stand on the sanctity of life and use this argument to protect unborn children whilst at the same time promoting a culture of violence in regards to the carrying of lethal weapons and the killing of incarcerated convicts. So long as we promote any of the three we are sustaining, promoting and abetting a culture of violence. You can argue about it all you like, but there are a good many people like myself who think that people who promote weapons ownership and the death penalty have little moral heft on the subject of the sanctity of life. If we really care about unborn children, we should be happy to embrace all life in the interest of being viable in our intent and consistent in our message. Life is either sacred or it is not. It’s not a matter of some lives vs. other lives, the merit of the life, it’s guilt or innocence, because all lives have both guilt and innocence, and if we promote the carrying of objects that are made specifically to take life, then we are certainly not putting all life on the same equal ground.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Annie39]

Good Evening Annie: There is only one anti gun person on your thread to date, and that person is me. I am anti-abortion and anti gun and anti death penalty. It is beyond my ability to comprehend how we can make a stand on the sanctity of life and use this argument to protect unborn children whilst at the same time promoting a culture of violence in regards to the carrying of lethal weapons and the killing of incarcerated convicts. So long as we promote any of the three we are sustaining, promoting and abetting a culture of violence. You can argue about it all you like, but there are a good many people like myself who think that people who promote weapons ownership and the death penalty have little moral heft on the subject of the sanctity of life. If we really care about unborn children, we should be happy to embrace all life in the interest of being viable in our intent and consistent in our message. Life is either sacred or it is not. It’s not a matter of some lives vs. other lives, the merit of the life, it’s guilt or innocence, because all lives have both guilt and innocence, and if we promote the carrying of objects that are made specifically to take life, then we are certainly not putting all life on the same equal ground.

Thank you,
Gary

Thanks Gary but your argument really belongs in another thread about gun control this one is about anti-suction device. As for your being the only anti-gun person LongingSoul is anti-gun and commented on the 1st page.

Annie

 

[mommamaree]

Thanks mommamaree.

I just wonder how many babies it would save if there were no suction apparatus since there is a surgery option. Grant it a percentage of mothers would lose their lives but the risk to the unborn babe is 100%. It could be debated by pro-life people I think but this topic was started to see if those against guns even for self defense would be just as upset over the suction apparatus. Me thinks not. Pity

Annie

I am shocked to hear you suggest that we should ban surgical tools that can be used to save a mother’s life, simply because such tools are also used to take a baby’s life.
Is the life of a mother worth less than that of an unborn baby? This is another example of pro-birth, as opposed to pro-life, mentality. If we are pro-life people, then we must be in support of all people, from conception to natural death, and that includes not withholding life-saving procedures from some because of an agenda to protect others. A woman who has a D&C would otherwise likely die. I myself have had two miscarriages. Thank God my womb naturally expelled my deceased baby’s body, so that I was not faced with the necessary decision to have a D&C, but I am still very thankful that the technique exists. Women used to die from this all the time. Miscarriage can be a dangerous process, just like childbirth.

 

[Annie39]

I am shocked to hear you suggest that we should ban surgical tools that can be used to save a mother’s life, simply because such tools are also used to take a baby’s life.
Is the life of a mother worth less than that of an unborn baby? This is another example of pro-birth, as opposed to pro-life, mentality. If we are pro-life people, then we must be in support of all people, from conception to natural death, and that includes not withholding life-saving procedures from some because of an agenda to protect others. A woman who has a D&C would otherwise likely die. I myself have had two miscarriages. Thank God my womb naturally expelled my deceased baby’s body, so that I was not faced with the necessary decision to have a D&C, but I am still very thankful that the technique exists. Women used to die from this all the time. Miscarriage can be a dangerous process, just like childbirth.

mommamaree, a D&C is not done with a suction device. That is a procedure where they scrape the uterine lining either due to a miscarriage or after an abortion. The suction device is used remove a live baby. A baby who is no longer alive could be removed by surgery. My mother was a delivery room nurse and if I remember correctly a D&C back in those days was sometimes used to abort 1st trimester live babies. I am not against the suction device if the babe is no longer alive nor am I against a D&C for the same reason. But I have been discussing gun-control on a couple of treads here and people are against guns for personal protection. I am shocked that anyone would be for gun-control but not for suction device control. And yes I think my children are worth my giving my life for them.

Annie

 

[mommamaree]

mommamaree, a D&C is not done with a suction device. That is a procedure where they scrape the uterine lining either due to a miscarriage or after an abortion. The suction device is used remove a live baby. A baby who is no longer alive could be removed by surgery. My mother was a delivery room nurse and if I remember correctly a D&C back in those days was sometimes used to abort 1st trimester live babies. I am not against the suction device if the babe is no longer alive nor am I against a D&C for the same reason. But I have been discussing gun-control on a couple of treads here and people are against guns for personal protection. I am shocked that anyone would be for gun-control but not for suction device control. And yes I think my children are worth my giving my life for them.

Annie

marchofdimes.com/loss/treatment-after-miscarriage.aspx

Here is a link that explains that suction is sometimes used to remove the baby after a miscarriage. It is not always merely scraping. I have cousins and friends who have had this procedure in order to avoid infection, because they did not expel the baby from their womb. They were Christian women who were grief-stricken over both the loss of their child and having to undergo such a procedure. So NO, it is not just to remove a living baby.
It is well that you would give your life for your babies. I would, too. But what I mentioned has to do with mothers whose babies have already died. No mother should be asked to give her life for her baby who has already died, because medical treatment is withheld from her. That isn’t right at all.
And more to the point: such a ban will never happen. And pro-choice people would use the attempt to ban surgical tools as evidence of people in the pro-life movement being pro-birth, and not really caring about mothers and women, a charge that they already level at us now. Why add fuel to their fire?
I really don’t see the connection you are trying to make here. Guns are meant to take a life, or at the very least, to inflict enough injury to stop an attacker. It is always used against a live person. It is not the same for suction apparatus, which can be, and often are, used for removing the remains of a deceased baby. So suction apparatus is different than guns in principle, because its target is NOT always a live person.

 

[Annie39]

marchofdimes.com/loss/treatment-after-miscarriage.aspx

Here is a link that explains that suction is sometimes used to remove the baby after a miscarriage. It is not always merely scraping. I have cousins and friends who have had this procedure in order to avoid infection, because they did not expel the baby from their womb. They were Christian women who were grief-stricken over both the loss of their child and having to undergo such a procedure. So NO, it is not just to remove a living baby.
It is well that you would give your life for your babies. I would, too. But what I mentioned has to do with mothers whose babies have already died. No mother should be asked to give her life for her baby who has already died, because medical treatment is withheld from her. That isn’t right at all.
And more to the point: such a ban will never happen. And pro-choice people would use the attempt to ban surgical tools as evidence of people in the pro-life movement being pro-birth, and not really caring about mothers and women, a charge that they already level at us now. Why add fuel to their fire?
I really don’t see the connection you are trying to make here. Guns are meant to take a life, or at the very least, to inflict enough injury to stop an attacker. It is always used against a live person. It is not the same for suction apparatus, which can be, and often are, used for removing the remains of a deceased baby. So suction apparatus is different than guns in principle, because its target is NOT always a live person.

You mentioned that you went through a D&C I told you that that is not the same thing as using a suction device.

I’m not sure why we should worry about what pro-choice folks would use against us. We can’t have thin skin. You know when my boys were little one told the other that he was stupid so he ran to tell on his brother to me. I said, well, are you stupid? He said “no” I then asked him why it bothered him so much. I don’t care if evil people say that I don’t care about women. If they told me that to my face I’d laugh at them. I recommend that you ignore whatever the pro-choice folks say about you.

I can see that you don’t get the connection, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

“it is always used against a live person.” I think that you should tell my target shooting Hubby that guns are meant only to take a life. Or my brother-in-law who has protected his wife by shooting a rattle snake or my son who carries while hiking just in case a bear crosses his path and he has to protect his lady love.

You write “So suction apparatus is different than guns in principle, because its target is NOT always a live person.”

Guns are not always used to target a live person either. Guns can be used in self-defense against an attacker, usually armed himself so at least that “live person” has a fighting chance. When the suction device is used against a live person in the womb, that child doesn’t have any chance to remain alive. He is completely defenseless. So I agree with you that guns are different from the suction device. Guns are better than suction devices.

Annie

 

[mommamaree]

You mentioned that you went through a D&C I told you that that is not the same thing as using a suction device.

I’m not sure why we should worry about what pro-choice folks would use against us. We can’t have thin skin. You know when my boys were little one told the other that he was stupid so he ran to tell on his brother to me. I said, well, are you stupid? He said “no” I then asked him why it bothered him so much. I don’t care if evil people say that I don’t care about women. If they told me that to my face I’d laugh at them. I recommend that you ignore whatever the pro-choice folks say about you.

I can see that you don’t get the connection, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

“it is always used against a live person.” I think that you should tell my target shooting Hubby that guns are meant only to take a life. Or my brother-in-law who has protected his wife by shooting a rattle snake or my son who carries while hiking just in case a bear crosses his path and he has to protect his lady love.

You write “So suction apparatus is different than guns in principle, because its target is NOT always a live person.”

Guns are not always used to target a live person either. Guns can be used in self-defense against an attacker, usually armed himself so at least that “live person” has a fighting chance. When the suction device is used against a live person in the womb, that child doesn’t have any chance to remain alive. He is completely defenseless. So I agree with you that guns are different from the suction device. Guns are better than suction devices.

Annie

Suit yourself. But the fact that your first sentence of this post states that I had stated that I had needed a D&C shows that you are not reading my posts. I don’t care about the arguments you want to engage in regarding gun control. If that is your agenda in this thread, I am out. But I stand by what I have said before, that we must be truly pro-life, for every human being, from conception to natural death. That means not banning surgical instruments that can legitimately be used in a surgery that preserves a woman’s health, and does not involve harm coming to a living baby.

 

[Annie39]

Suit yourself. But the fact that your first sentence of this post states that I had stated that I had needed a D&C shows that you are not reading my posts. I don’t care about the arguments you want to engage in regarding gun control. If that is your agenda in this thread, I am out. But I stand by what I have said before, that we must be truly pro-life, for every human being, from conception to natural death. That means not banning surgical instruments that can legitimately be used in a surgery that preserves a woman’s health, and does not involve harm coming to a living baby.

I have been reading them but I misread “A woman who has a D&C would otherwise likely die. I myself have had two miscarriages.” Sorry.

The reason (not agenda) for this thread is to attempt to get those people who are absolutly against guns even for self-protection to then stand against suction devices. Guns don’t always kill neither do suction devices. Guns are tools that can be used for good or evil just like the suction devices. Gary is the only person who was invited here who discussed this at length and even though I disagree with him, he has integrity.

Annie

 

[Hockeygurl]

The machines are used to:

1. Surgery, blood needs to be suctioned away at times and they use it when they need to irrigate the surgical area.
2. Naso Gastric tube suctioning… in cases of overdose, after abdominal surgery, or is also sometimes used for a few days in a person with acute pancreatitis.
3. Vomiting in an unconscious patient
4. Suctioning out a patient on a ventilator or who has a trach tube.
5. During a C-section to drain the amniotic fluid.
6. In a newborn infant with meconium aspiration.

just a few off the top of my head

 

[catholicmamajoy]

mommamaree, a D&C is not done with a suction device. That is a procedure where they scrape the uterine lining either due to a miscarriage or after an abortion. The suction device is used remove a live baby. A baby who is no longer alive could be removed by surgery. My mother was a delivery room nurse and if I remember correctly a D&C back in those days was sometimes used to abort 1st trimester live babies. I am not against the suction device if the babe is no longer alive nor am I against a D&C for the same reason. But I have been discussing gun-control on a couple of treads here and people are against guns for personal protection. I am shocked that anyone would be for gun-control but not for suction device control. And yes I think my children are worth my giving my life for them.

Annie

(the following post does have content that some might consider graphic, but only describes some things involved in a D and C following an incomplete miscarriage, not an elective abortion).

In the 20+ years I have worked in healthcare (the majority of those years have taken place in the hospital setting in Maternal/Newborn care) I have set-up and assisted in more than a few D & C procedures that have taken place on the weekend when I was working in Labor/Delivery/Postpartum and the outpatient surgical center was closed. In addition to the instruments that are generally used to perform a D and C, the freestanding suction machine was always hooked up and ready to go, since it was also used to clean out the uterus of any remaining tissue and blood clots. If this device were “banned” because it was also used in early elective abortions, in would likely increase the risk of sepsis in those patients who need a D and C following the demise of a baby in early pregnancy, since without it, the removal of retained tissue would be left to the use of surgical instruments, which do not thoroughly clean out the uterus and also pose risks of nicking even a small artery, which can cause permanent damage or loss of the uterus, if hemorrhage is not able to be stopped.

 

[Annie39]

The machines are used to:

1. Surgery, blood needs to be suctioned away at times and they use it when they need to irrigate the surgical area.
2. Naso Gastric tube suctioning… in cases of overdose, after abdominal surgery, or is also sometimes used for a few days in a person with acute pancreatitis.
3. Vomiting in an unconscious patient
4. Suctioning out a patient on a ventilator or who has a trach tube.
5. During a C-section to drain the amniotic fluid.
6. In a newborn infant with meconium aspiration.

just a few off the top of my head

Thank you hockeygirl that was very enlightening. For the record, I was never in favor of banning the suction devices. I started this topic and then invited some people from the threads who were in favor of banning guns to discuss the issue. Guns are also used for several activities albeit probably not as many as the suction devices but the amount of uses does not alter the fact that they are both used at times to kill. It is my contention that if a person is against guns due to the fact that sometimes they kill people, integrity would require that that person be anti-suction device. I am not against guns nor suction devices. I’m for the proper use of both.

Annie