Doctors in denial

  • Thread starter Thread starter John1956
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
when you say address the circumstances, what do you envision?
Click to expand...
a lot of things, more than i could explain in one reply, but the #1 thing i envision is a massive wave of pro-life people pouring energy, airtime, funding and noise into hashing out such visions to help her circumstance without other futile distractions
 
Jonatello said:
a lot of things, more than i could explain in one reply, but the #1 thing i envision is a massive wave of pro-life people pouring energy, airtime, funding and noise into hashing out such visions to help her circumstance without other futile distractions
Click to expand...
I don’t quite see what you are saying, I think because I am not sure what you mean by hashing out.

Also, this is not a good part of your plan to lead off with because it’s kind of like saying I heard my brother say triskaidekaphobia, when asked to use triskaidekaphobia in a sentence. Could you just give a couple of parts of your plan instead of the whole thing?
 
St_Francis said:
I don’t quite see what you are saying, I think because I am not sure what you mean by hashing out.

Also, this is not a good part of your plan to lead off with because it’s kind of like saying I heard my brother say triskaidekaphobia, when asked to use triskaidekaphobia in a sentence. Could you just give a couple of parts of your plan instead of the whole thing?
Click to expand...
i don’t want to hi-jack this thread/post by turning it into an economics debate, so i that’s why i haven’t gone into specifics of my feelings…

but i think i did make an important and complete point/suggestion for starters (whether you agree or disagree).

The point is that i’d like to see a gargantuan shift in the focus/energy/resources of the pro-life masses away from protesting roe-v-wade etc and toward finding solutions and hope for scared parents-to-be. I know this branch of the movement already exists (and i remind my pro-choice friends of this every time they forget), but it remains an “also” rather than the driving force, and i believe far more baby-saving could be accomplished if that fear side of the equation had our full priority.

oh and maybe hashing out wasn’t the proper term: i just meant “brainstorming, debating if necessary, working toward” but all focused around “how do we make sure pregnancies aren’t as terrifying”
 
Jonatello said:
I don’t want her to have her baby killed, but yeah I’d rather her not also die in the process. It’s called love and mercy.
Click to expand...
I see that you too have the position to have safe conditions for the mother to allow her baby to be killed. Not a very pro-life position in my humble opinion.

John
 
DaddyGirl said:
I wasn’t arguing, as you can see upon re-reading…I was saying it as a sad reality. And even though that “argument” makes you sick, it is indeed a reality. Women used to try to give themselves abortions (I assume some still do?) or have some non-doctor stranger do it, in ways like that…and die. It’s a fact, clearly recorded in articles and books and interviews, etc…it’s real. What people want to take from or do with that knowledge is something else.
Click to expand...
Before Roe v Wade, it was said that thousands of women died each year due to illegal abortions. This was a lie, as explained by former abortionist and NARAL founder Dr Bernard Nathanson.

So should we allow hundreds of thousands of babies to be killed each year in order to save the lives of a few women?
 
John1956 said:
I see that you too have the position to have safe conditions for the mother to allow her baby to be killed. Not a very pro-life position in my humble opinion.

John
Click to expand...
what i said is both lives are to be valued, in response, and only in response, to specific statements you made which suggested otherwise.

if we care about life, callously avoiding the underlying reasons they choose abortion in favor of just throwing scared women into even scarier situations is not life-giving in the least.

do i believe in the idea of safe abortions? nothing that kills a child can be really deemed safe. do i believe its good that women feel safe having abortions? no, because abortions are never truly safe.

but in terms of fighting for a situation in which desperate women are tempted to end 2 lives vs fighting for a situation in which women are less desperate in the first place, i believe the pro-life thing to do is focus on the latter.

there is a caveat: i believe its important for hospitals to have the know-how and capabilities to provide safe-as-possible-to-mother abortion conditions, but ONLY for those increasingly rare occasions when the mother’s physical well-being is in severe danger. There should never be enough demand for an entire industry or specialization.
 
Jonatello said:
i believe its important for hospitals to have the know-how and capabilities to provide safe-as-possible-to-mother abortion conditions, but ONLY for those increasingly rare occasions when the mother’s physical well-being is in severe danger. There should never be enough demand for an entire industry or specialization.
Click to expand...
You are providing more “pro-choice” jargon.

If the mother’s life is in danger, and the doctor says he needs to kill the baby to save the mother, then it’s time to fire that doctor and hire one competent enough to treat both patients (mother and baby) at the same time.

John
 
John1956 said:
You are providing more “pro-choice” jargon.

If the mother’s life is in danger, and the doctor says he needs to kill the baby to save the mother, then it’s time to fire that doctor and hire one competent enough to treat both patients (mother and baby) at the same time.

John
Click to expand...
Look, if its never necessary to save/protect the mother from serious harm, I’m fine with never having anything in place to do so. There’s an enormous difference between me and pro-choice with that. The thing is, I don’t buy that such a situation would never arise.
 
Jonatello said:
Look, if its never necessary to save/protect the mother from serious harm, I’m fine with never having anything in place to do so. There’s an enormous difference between me and pro-choice with that. The thing is, I don’t buy that such a situation would never arise.
Click to expand...
It is never right to kill one person so that another’s life can be saved. For example, it woud not be right to kill someone so his organs could be used to save the lives of others, would it?
 
St_Francis said:
It is never right to kill one person so that another’s life can be saved. For example, it woud not be right to kill someone so his organs could be used to save the lives of others, would it?
Click to expand...
generally i agree…but legally, i think its treading on very dangerous ground to be able to force a mother to die or be severely harmed for a baby who may or may not survive anyhow…especially when there may be others who depend on her as well. i feel such physical peril is the only occasion when we have to leave it to the mother and family involved.

lack of this kind of exception is even more problematic when universally applied to all people of all places and eras. what about a family alone on the wild frontier, wild streets of some desperate society with no community-based safety net or other fringes of the civilized world, with a sick father (malaria), 3 children, and the pregnant mother they all depend on might not make it through the pregnancy. there’s a liquid solution she can take though (developed back in 2017 ad) which will cause the baby inside her to die and allow her to live on and care for her family.

it still may not be the correct choice, especially if they should trust in God…but to me its beyond the bounds of society’s place to force such trust in God on her and keep her from saving herself.
 
Jonatello said:
what i said is both lives are to be valued, in response, and only in response, to specific statements you made which suggested otherwise.

if we care about life, callously avoiding the underlying reasons they choose abortion in favor of just throwing scared women into even scarier situations is not life-giving in the least.

but in terms of fighting for a situation in which desperate women are tempted to end 2 lives vs fighting for a situation in which women are less desperate in the first place, i believe the pro-life thing to do is focus on the latter.

.
Click to expand...
Jonatello I appreciate your thoughtful comments and the dialogue. One myth that I think should be destroyed is that most women seeking abortion are “desperate” or “scared” or have no options. Unfortunately the pro-abortion media has so dehumanized and sanitized this hideous procedure that many, if not the majority of women think little more about the procedure than having a wart removed. It’s not a big deal and in some cases is little more than after the fact birth control.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers clearly push abortions (follow the money!) and don’t let women know about the options of going through the pregnancy and the kind of support available whether or not the woman keeps the baby or puts him/her up for adoption. They help the woman justify the abortion as getting rid of a small problem with a simple procedure. It’s just human nature to want something to go away quickly and by not giving information about fetal development, fetal pain, or the reality that human life is being destroyed they make the decision easier. No wonder PP fights against laws that require a woman to truly have this information, the options and/or an ultrasound so they can see there is a child inside of them, not a ‘blob of tissue’ as unborn babies have been described.

I agree with you that education about life is the key. You don’t even have to push a religious approach when science itself demonstrates that life begins at conception.

Lisa A
 
Jonatello said:
i think its treading on very dangerous ground to be able to force a mother to die or be severely harmed for a baby who may or may not survive
Click to expand...
Nobody is forcing a mother to die when a good competent doctor is working to save her and her baby.

John
 
Jonatello said:
generally i agree…but legally, i think its treading on very dangerous ground to be able to force a mother to die or be severely harmed for a baby who may or may not survive anyhow…especially when there may be others who depend on her as well. i feel such physical peril is the only occasion when we have to leave it to the mother and family involved.

lack of this kind of exception is even more problematic when universally applied to all people of all places and eras. what about a family alone on the wild frontier, wild streets of some desperate society with no community-based safety net or other fringes of the civilized world, with a sick father (malaria), 3 children, and the pregnant mother they all depend on might not make it through the pregnancy. there’s a liquid solution she can take though (developed back in 2017 ad) which will cause the baby inside her to die and allow her to live on and care for her family.

it still may not be the correct choice, especially if they should trust in God…but to me its beyond the bounds of society’s place to force such trust in God on her and keep her from saving herself.
Click to expand...
Suppose there is a pregnant mother of three other toddlers who needs a heart transplant right away or she will die before the baby reaches viability.

Would it be right to kill someone who matches her for his heart to save her life? Would it be all right if he was in a coma? Would be all right if he were expected to die in a year from some other problem?
 
LisaA said:
Jonatello I appreciate your thoughtful comments and the dialogue. One myth that I think should be destroyed is that most women seeking abortion are “desperate” or “scared” or have no options. Unfortunately the pro-abortion media has so dehumanized and sanitized this hideous procedure that many, if not the majority of women think little more about the procedure than having a wart removed. It’s not a big deal and in some cases is little more than after the fact birth control.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers clearly push abortions (follow the money!) and don’t let women know about the options of going through the pregnancy and the kind of support available whether or not the woman keeps the baby or puts him/her up for adoption. They help the woman justify the abortion as getting rid of a small problem with a simple procedure. It’s just human nature to want something to go away quickly and by not giving information about fetal development, fetal pain, or the reality that human life is being destroyed they make the decision easier. No wonder PP fights against laws that require a woman to truly have this information, the options and/or an ultrasound so they can see there is a child inside of them, not a ‘blob of tissue’ as unborn babies have been described.

I agree with you that education about life is the key. You don’t even have to push a religious approach when science itself demonstrates that life begins at conception.

Lisa A
Click to expand...
Hi Lisa, thank you for your fair tone. I also agree that we don’t need to appeal to religious bias when there’s plenty of universal, secular, and scientific truth to go on.

Unfortunately I drastically disagree with the claim that most women seeking abortions aren’t scared. Such a claim certainly is not consistent with what I’ve seen time and time again, nor do I believe it passes the common sense test.

Abortion is a very invasive procedure. Such invasion is scary to most people. Not to mention it is expensive. Nothing I have seen this side of quantum reality suggests most women who go for abortions aren’t scared more by the alternative.

Why have an abortion if pregnancy doesn’t scare you?

I have known enough pregnant young women, most of whom were visibly scared and shaken, many of whom were driven to consider abortion because of that fear. I’ve only met one girl who successfully came off stoic or nonchalant about having an abortion. She seemed to have other psychological issues too, but I still didn’t fully buy the facade.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Just want to point out…that my perception is that people who DO use NFP to not get pregnant in order to “space out” their children–or not have any more–are, in effect, practicing “planned parenthood”.

But that’s another forum category, I do believe…
Click to expand...
uh and how is “natural family planning” all that different then saying “planned parenthood”? The point is “planned parenthood” has underlying meaning to it that does not fit in accord with the principles of NFP.

Soccer and futbol mean the same thing. We all use soccer here because if I say “futbol” people are more than likely to think I meant “football”. The difference in terms adds clarity.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Just want to point out…that my perception is that people who DO use NFP to not get pregnant in order to “space out” their children–or not have any more–are, in effect, practicing “planned parenthood”.

But that’s another forum category, I do believe…

So why mention it here?
Click to expand...
 
Jonatello said:
generally i agree…but legally, i think its treading on very dangerous ground to be able to force a mother to die or be severely harmed for a baby who may or may not survive anyhow…
Click to expand...
What mother, in her right mind, would kill one of her children to save her own life?

A good human being sacrifices them-self for another. Twisted and perverse humans sacrifice others for there own (perceived) gain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top