Beto O’Rourke on Third-Trimester Abortions: Should be Decision the Woman Makes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cathoholic said:
Can you at least AFFIRM the NEED legally for abortionists to transfer any babies born alive to a hospital asap so the babies get the life-saving care they need
Click to expand...
I would go further and require that any procedure for which there is a significant likelihood of a child born alive should only be done in a hospital.
 
dvdjs . . .
I would go further and require that any procedure for which there is a significant likelihood of a child born alive should only be done in a hospital.
Click to expand...
So it looks like “C”. (“significant liklihood” of course puts it back to the subjective realm).

The Amish who deliver babies at home and have no intention of tranferring a baby to the hospital
would be “criminals” with dvdjs’ principles,
and the abortionist would be the “law obeyer”.

Why?

Because with the abortionists abortions (and the dvdjs PRINCIPLE),
there was NOT a “SIGNIFICANT LIKLIHOOD”
of the baby being born alive with the abortionist.

But there IS a significant chance of being born alive with the Amish.

dvdjs’ “laws” give the abortionist a pass,
and criminalize the Amish (unless they transfer the healthy baby to the hospital and introduce the unneccesary risk to the baby, of hospital-aquired infections).

Way to go dvdjs.

Dvdjs couldn’t even give a straight yes to what I asked him. (And on the Feast of the Annunciation no less.)

To readers here. Please remember this and keep it in the back of your mind whenever you read a dvdjs post. Draw your own conclusions as to how he thinks in this realm.

Objectively speaking.
Remember to take into consideration what people say.
But ALSO take into consideration what people DO.
And how they apply their principles.
 
Last edited:
You seriously don’t see why people are outraged by third trimester abortion.? Even pro choice are squeamish re the gruesome act.While early trimester abortions by and large are the most frequent,just the mere fact that infanticide is being embraced is repugnant to most people.Yes ALL abortion is wrong evil and a grave matter.Does that negate the grotesque nature of third trimester and beyond?.They aren’t mutually exclusive.
 
Jeanne_S said:
You seriously don’t see why people are outraged by third trimester abortion.?
Click to expand...
I see that outrage as a significant problem.

As Catholics we believe that life starts at conception and that all life is to be protected. If we allow that it is more gruesome to kill a person after birth or in the later stages of gestation we have conceded a major point that works against Catholic pro-life teaching. If we do not uphold this teaching, who will?
 
Cathoholic said:
The Amish who deliver babies at home and have no intention of tranferring a baby to the hospital
would be “criminals” with dvdjs’ principles,
Click to expand...
Criminal? You jump from should to criminal. Why?
Cathoholic said:
dvdjs’ “laws” give the abortionist a pass,
Click to expand...
What are these laws that you ascribe to me?

I would welcome a serious discussion. But I am not interested playing games on this serious matter.
 
Cathoholic to dvdjs . . .
Can you at least AFFIRM the NEED legally for abortionists to transfer any babies born alive to a hospital asap so the babies get the life-saving care they need
Click to expand...
“legally”. That’d be a “law”.

dvdjs reply? . . .
I would go further and require that any procedure for which there is a significant likelihood of a child born alive should only be done in a hospital.
Click to expand...
.

dvdjs now?
What are these laws that you ascribe to me?
Click to expand...
.

And this is just what I have come to expect.

(Bold above my addition)
 
Last edited:
How about considering the necessity to walk abortion back? Those that are ardently pro lifecalready understand the sanctity of life at any stage.Those who have become inured to the evil of abortion won’t readily recognize this fact.If we don’t react with outrage at the most gruesome acts of abortion,arguing that all abortion is wrong gets us nowhere.The envelope has now been pushed to a point that most everyone is uncomfortable with embracing.
 
Jeanne_S said:
How about considering the necessity to walk abortion back?
Click to expand...
I fear that this approach is likely to be self-defeating. It is by no means clear that such a walk doesn’t come to an abrupt, terribly premature end: acceptance protection of life at this stage of gestation because termination is gruesome, but not earlier when it is not. If that is the end, then we will have scarcely not really changed the abortion outlook. The “gruesome” argument is about our sensibilities, no about the sanctity of life.

This walk also tends to treat people involved in late-term abortions in a manner that lacks compassion for those who are facing difficult decisions about the end of life care for a wanted, but non-viable child.
 
Hold on,your last statement is very troubling.Who decides if a baby is non viable? That’s another grey area where doctors consider all manner of issues with in utereo baby worthy of that title.Additionally ,why would aborting such a baby be considered compassionate.God is the author of all life,so it seems prudent to let these babies be born and see what the condition is after birth. It been cited on numerous cases where often times babies labeled as non compatible with life do indeed survive .
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
Who decides if a baby is non viable?
Click to expand...
Physicians. These cases are often very clear.
No lung development - the child can live in the womb but will die in minutes once born.
Heart defects that will be fatal if treated by surgery, with small success rates, followed when successful by a later heart transplant. Sometimes coupled with other challenges that keep the baby off the transplant list.
I think that I would want the baby born and baptized before it died; that perspective may be old-fashioned and legalistic. But I can understand that other people, who are good, will have other perspective on what to do in these situations.
 
are You a lawyer. Your reasoning sounds very legalistic.It the law :cry:
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
So you are fine with terminating these pregnancies
Click to expand...
Did you not read what I would prefer? I am not fine with any of this.
My point, however, is that these situations are difficult - they are not as black and white as often implied - and the people involved in dealing with them should be treated with compassion, not as though they are uncaring or fond of the gruesome.
 
I edited my response as I in fact missed your last statement
Your premise is based on legalise …The whole I’m personally opposed but since it’s the law I won’t get in the way of others’ choices,am I correct…?
 
Jeanne_S said:
The whole I’m personally opposed but since it’s the law I won’t get in the way of others’ choices,am I correct…?
Click to expand...
No.
First and foremost, I think that the wedge issue over late-term abortion is ill-conceived. It may limit the ability to enculturate a pro-life ethos. Moreover the scorched earth rhetoric, is unfair to many of the people involved; it should also be recognized that many religious people may come to a different conclusions about the best course of action in these situations because they have a different moral perspective, not because they are simply evil.
 
dvdjs . . .
Physicians. These cases are often very clear.
No lung development - the child can live in the womb but will die in minutes once born.
Heart defects that will be fatal if treated by surgery, with small success rates, followed when successful by a later heart transplant. Sometimes coupled with other challenges that keep the baby off the transplant list.
Click to expand...
This is deflecting away from third trimester abortions. That is the topic of the thread dvdjs.

Why not address the topic at hand?

.

dvdjs . . . .
I think that I would want the baby born and baptized before it died; that perspective may be old-fashioned and legalistic.
Click to expand...
I know that I would want the baby born and baptized immediately if there are any potential issues. And immediate transfer to a hospital for evaluation by a real physician (not an “abortionist” that might have an “MD” after her name but can’t maintain hospital privleges or doesn’t want them because they do not want to be held to a higher standard in a court of law and/or they are just too lazy) along with the team the physician works with.
 
Last edited:
So am I to infer from your comments,that we as Catholics shouldn’t impose our religious beliefs upon other denominations or even those without a particular faith,out of respect for their beliefs.?
If so,aren’t we called to be the eyes,ears voice and hand of Christ in this world.
 
I disagree,protecting life in the womb until birth is a God given right regardless of ones religious beliefs. If we fail to make our voices heard in rejection of abortion,then we not only fail the most vulnerable among us,life in the womb,as Christians we fail God as well.
 
Who said anything about harsh words,certainly not I.
 
Last edited:
7_Sorrows said:
Wow! And we know his position on abortion so does he does still proclaim to be Catholic? He certainly would not be alone if he does and someone who does not follow Church teaching.
He didn’t sound proud of his Catholic
upbringing anyway.
Click to expand...
See that’s where you are wrong. O’Rourke is a faithful Catholic who speaks the truth. The Church just hasn’t caught up yet. But it will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top