F
fix
Guest
You meet all types here, just like “real life”.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
Not sure of your point.
E
elts1956
Guest
Where is your empathy button?
E
elts1956
Guest
We all wear masks, but there is no real life behind them.
E
elts1956
Guest
AGAIN. Show us the sources of your statements. If you are discussing entopic pregnancies, I have seen nothing saying the Mother’s life should be sacrificed. The tube is treated as diseased and a cut is made above and below the baby wherein the child is removed and the tube repaired. Check it out.
E
elts1956
Guest
I think the secular “legal” law would be able to take that apart and put it back together to proclaim the instances of accountability. I don’t think two people could be exactly incapacitated to the same exact degree.
A
allhers
Guest
First of all let me say that I am truly sorry for the loss of the life of your child. I did
do some research on this, and just so that this will never happen to you again or anyone
else that may be reading this, please read these sites. I looked up four different ones and
each and everyone said that it is NEVER necessary to do an abortion to save the life of the Mother. They all explained why, even in your case, that it is never necessary. You still, more than likely, would have suffered the loss of your child, but abortion is not necessary, not even for what you went through…Again, please accept my sincere sympathy and know that I believe you only believed what your Doctor was telling you and they either didn’t know, or probably only did what they believed was best at that time.
I will pray that one day you will conceive and that you will bring a baby to full term, that
will be a true miracle, the miracle of life!!
This is the first site, I listed the link below. God bless you!
P: And as a medical doctor and you address for us for a few moments, the ongoing point of assertion whether explicit or implicit that is brought forward in articles and in
legislatures or in media, the assertion that sometimes **abortion is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. Is that ever true?
G: Actually it’s not. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother. **
As a matter of fact for a while… several years… I was very interested in that question in
my formative years and I would ask every obstetrician and gynecologist that I met anywhere.
And I said have you ever had a case where you had to do something to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I have not come across one case, you know. People think of in the movie, the story the Cardinal, where the woman was delivering the child and got into
complications and they crushed the baby’s head. And that is just not a part of modern
medicine. That is not necessary to be done.
Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both
mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations
like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and
perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do
anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial
incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no
way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will
lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are
the three instances, very rare, very rare, but those are not abortions. If you look at the
five ways that abortions are done, which is the only purpose is to kill the child, none of
these techniques are the methods used in these operations. So there is no such thing as an abortion necessary.
And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of
ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications,
the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into
intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no
such thing as an abortion to do that.
priestsforlife.org/media/interviewisajiw.htm
(my bold above)
A
allhers
Guest
This is the second one, with the link below also.
It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed
destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to
save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother-such as the
removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent
death-are considered indirect abortions.
They are justified under a concept called the “principle of double effect.” Under this
principle, the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently
justified by the necessity of saving the mother’s life.
Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to
protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not
considered abortion.
Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless
she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be
unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.
-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president
all.org/article.php?id=10216
It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed
destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to
save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother-such as the
removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent
death-are considered indirect abortions.
They are justified under a concept called the “principle of double effect.” Under this
principle, the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently
justified by the necessity of saving the mother’s life.
Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to
protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not
considered abortion.
Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless
she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be
unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.
-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president
all.org/article.php?id=10216
A
allhers
Guest
This was the third one, also the link is listed below.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, shocked
the general public in 1997 when he admitted that the vast majority of partial-birth
abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies. Contrary to the assertion of
abortion rights supporters that late-term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys
of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis
of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems,
young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns.
Peggy Jarman of the Pro-Choice Action League stated that about three-fourths of Tiller’s
late-term patients were teenagers who denied to themselves or their families that they were
pregnant until that fact could no longer be obscured.
T. Murphy Goodwin, M.D., a distinguished professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the
University of Southern California, has written an eloquent article describing how women are
told they need abortions for their own health, when this is patently untrue. A major reason
for unnecessary abortion referrals is ignorance, to put it bluntly, especially on the part
of physicians in medical specialties inexperienced in treating women with high-risk
pregnancies. According to Goodwin, there are only three very rare conditions that result in
a maternal mortality greater than 20% in the setting of late pregnancy. Even in these three
situations there is room for latitude in waiting for fetal viability if the mother chooses
to accept that risk.
For fatal birth defects, abortion is sometimes presented as the only option. But a better
alternative is perinatal hospice. This involves continuing the pregnancy until labor begins
and giving birth normally, in a setting of comfort and support until natural death occurs.
bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary.html
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, shocked
the general public in 1997 when he admitted that the vast majority of partial-birth
abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies. Contrary to the assertion of
abortion rights supporters that late-term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys
of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis
of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems,
young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns.
Peggy Jarman of the Pro-Choice Action League stated that about three-fourths of Tiller’s
late-term patients were teenagers who denied to themselves or their families that they were
pregnant until that fact could no longer be obscured.
T. Murphy Goodwin, M.D., a distinguished professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the
University of Southern California, has written an eloquent article describing how women are
told they need abortions for their own health, when this is patently untrue. A major reason
for unnecessary abortion referrals is ignorance, to put it bluntly, especially on the part
of physicians in medical specialties inexperienced in treating women with high-risk
pregnancies. According to Goodwin, there are only three very rare conditions that result in
a maternal mortality greater than 20% in the setting of late pregnancy. Even in these three
situations there is room for latitude in waiting for fetal viability if the mother chooses
to accept that risk.
For fatal birth defects, abortion is sometimes presented as the only option. But a better
alternative is perinatal hospice. This involves continuing the pregnancy until labor begins
and giving birth normally, in a setting of comfort and support until natural death occurs.
bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary.html
A
allhers
Guest
The fourth and final one, likewise, link below.
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot
simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through
our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is
injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the
pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never
necessary.
Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at
all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires
immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently
recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening
seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her
unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of
these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary
medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for
intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication
prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly
medically necessary, not unethical.
Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle
to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is
it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to
save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never
justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality
healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of
the severity of her disease.
We are convinced that much of the pressure physicians place upon ailing women to get a
therapeutic abortion is due to fear of malpractice suits. Two female patients have reported
to me that physicians unduly pressured them into getting an abortion because their
contraception failed and they conceived at the same time that they were taking a medication
that could be very injurious to an unborn child. The motive for prescribing an abortion in
such cases is not compassion, but completely selfish. The potential of a malformed or
mentally retarded child does not ever justify killing the child, malpractice threats
notwithstanding. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, even if
you are going to get sued if you let them live.
As we now carefully consider a scenario when the mother’s life would be truly threatened by
her pregnancy, let us remind ourselves of our two basic premises: human life begins at
fertilization, and it is absolutely wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. We
must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every
tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.
prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot
simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through
our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is
injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the
pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never
necessary.
Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at
all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires
immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently
recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening
seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her
unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of
these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary
medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for
intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication
prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly
medically necessary, not unethical.
Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle
to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is
it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to
save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never
justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality
healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of
the severity of her disease.
We are convinced that much of the pressure physicians place upon ailing women to get a
therapeutic abortion is due to fear of malpractice suits. Two female patients have reported
to me that physicians unduly pressured them into getting an abortion because their
contraception failed and they conceived at the same time that they were taking a medication
that could be very injurious to an unborn child. The motive for prescribing an abortion in
such cases is not compassion, but completely selfish. The potential of a malformed or
mentally retarded child does not ever justify killing the child, malpractice threats
notwithstanding. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, even if
you are going to get sued if you let them live.
As we now carefully consider a scenario when the mother’s life would be truly threatened by
her pregnancy, let us remind ourselves of our two basic premises: human life begins at
fertilization, and it is absolutely wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. We
must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every
tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.
prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
A
allhers
Guest
I also and pro life in every circumstance and nothing would ever convince me that an abortion is ever necessary. God is the author of life and if a child is conceived for any reason, it is God that has called forth that precious life for His own reason. I don’t believe anyone but God has the right to call that baby home, again, for His own reasons.
This part of that article says it all:
Commonly, the first phase of a late term abortion is an injection to stop the fetal heart “to ensure that the fetus is not born alive”.
HellO-O-O-O… Shouldn’t that be a hint that the “fetus” is alive?
E
elts1956
Guest
Dear Ryecroft. My sympathy is with you. Please don’t feel I am being acusatory. Believe me, I have been through two such similar situations. In my case both babies died in utero. I have the problem of rh factor and at the time I became pregnant, the serum, or other means they now have didn’t exist to save either baby. I notice you call your baby a fetus. Words make a difference. Don’t keep your grief at bay with words. You were carrying a baby. Grieve a baby, not a fetus.:hug1:
L
limerick
Guest
**Where is your empathy button?
I have always understood “empathy” to mean the imaginative identification** of oneself with with another person or with a group. How can a living human being be empathetic with a fetus? Other than the fact that they are both of human origin, there is no common ground. A living human being has all senses intact and operating at full throttle, can reason, can breathe, can navigate through life. A fetus has the beginnings of these things but cannot sense pain until at least 20 weeks’ gestation, cannot reason, cannot breathe, is largely unaware of its circumstances.
Did you mean “sympathy” button"? Or “compassion button”?
Limerick
L
limerick
Guest
**If we all wear masks, and there is no real life behind them, then where is real life? And what is the purpose of life behind a mask?
I think you misinterpreted my post to fix: we were just discussing the safety and anonymity of the online forum experience (the “mask”) - I disagree that every person wears a mask. That makes us cowards and unable to live authentically, which is a slap in God’s face.
Limerick**
A
allhers
Guest
Actually, after all the research I recently have done on the above mentioned sites that I posted, one of them, and I am not sure now which said that we now know that it is at 10 weeks that a baby can feel pain.
I wouldn’t doubt that we will find out at some point that perhaps it is even earlier.
As to your other statement about empathy, (not sure who you are talking to here), but…
There are people alive today whose mothers did try to have them aborted. I am sure that they have much empathy for the preborn child.
L
limerick
Guest
**I am not discussing entopic pregnancies. I am discussing, among other things, ectopic pregnancies. If you are interested in what your forum mates have to say about the above, just go to any post originated by ryecroft. It’s an eye-opener.
Limerick**
L
limerick
Guest
- Status