Hillary Clinton Thread

[meltzerboy]

Hillary Clinton has defended partial birth abortions. lifenews.com/2016/02/16/hillary-clinton-defends-partial-birth-abortions-happy-bill-clinton-vetoed-bill-to-ban-them/
Now when a child is ready to be born, does Judaism believe it is OK to take a knife and stab the child in the head since her umbilical cord hasn’t been cut yet?

The hard-and-fast rule according to Orthodox Jewish law is that abortion is permitted (actually required) ONLY to save the life of the mother, and NOT for matters of the mother’s physical or psychological health, neither in cases of rape, incest, or severe congenital deformities of the unborn baby, or when there are two unborn babies and the sicker weak baby who is dying in utero is “threatening” the life of the stronger healthy baby. And while there are Orthodox rabbis who make allowances for health, rape, incest, severe deformities, and the two-baby dilemma, in NONE of these instances is an abortion REQUIRED according to Jewish law.

A further consideration is that an abortion to save the mother’s life may occur at ANY time during her pregnancy, whether early or late. However, in cases of very late delivery, it seems to me that if one is truly interested in saving the life of the mother rather than only killing the baby, a C-section is the appropriate means to do so. IOW, an abortion MUST be for the explicit purpose of saving the mother, and not for any other reason.

With the above strict standards in mind, depending on the meaning of partial-birth abortion, if ANY part of the child’s head or torso is already outside the mother’s own body, then abortion is prohibited since the baby’s right to life is EXACTLY EQUAL to that of the mother according to Jewish law.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I said I was done, period, discussing abortion, but I will answer this question since no one else seems able or willing to do so. The necessity for a partial birth abortion is very rare, but it does happen. A fetus older than 20 weeks can die while still inside the mother’s womb. Usually when the fetus dies in the womb, labor ensues, but not every single time, and in those cases, the fetus must be removed or it will endanger the life and health of the mother.

“The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated — and the more controversial — the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman’s cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as “dilation and evacuation,” less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman’s ability to bear children in the future.”

Some mothers choose to have one performed when the child is suffering from hydrocephalus. I realize this violates the dignity of the human person according to Catholic teaching, but it does not according to other religions, and the US is a country in which freedom of religion dominates. No one is forced to abort a child with hydrocephalus.

Again, it was the Supreme Court that banned a Nebraska case trying to outlaw partial birth abortions:

“Yes. In the year 2000, the court struck down a Nebraska law banning any abortion procedure that ‘partially evacuates fetal material through the cervix into the birth canal.’”

npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin

Now, I’m done with abortion talk. Enough is enough.

Thanks for the reply.It is fine that you are done discussing abortion,however,the discussion will never be finished until all lives matter in and outside the womb.Keeping the dialogue going ,will eventually sink in and hopefully affect a change towards defending life.This is the very least we as Christians can do

 

[Lily_Bernans]

since when is it necessary to deliver a baby breech, except the head, and then jab a sharp device into the head and suck the brains out? If the baby is far enough along (say 27 weeks) then why can’t an emergency c-section be done instead? Why must the baby be killed? What medical condition would REQUIRE the death of the baby in such a horrific way?

The death of the fetus inside the womb, gross fetal abnormalities that didn’t become apparent until later, extreme illness of the mother like cancer, diabetic coma, eclampsia, etc. Once actual eclampsia develops, the only treatment is delivery of the baby. Some mothers - and fathers, because the mother is usually unconscious - choose a partial birth abortion over a C-section.

A partial birth abortion is safer for the life and health of the mother than a C-section.

None of the above necessarily reflect my views, only saying that sometimes a partial birth abortion is done to save the life of the mother, and some parents choose it.

 

[Monkey1976]

The death of the fetus inside the womb, gross fetal abnormalities that didn’t become apparent until later, extreme illness of the mother like cancer, diabetic coma, eclampsia, etc.

A partial birth abortion is safer for the life and health of the mother than a C-section.

Point of order: If the child dies of natural causes in the womb, that isn’t an abortion. Kindly toss that red herring back into the sea.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thanks for the reply.It is fine that you are done discussing abortion,however,the discussion will never be finished until all lives matter in and outside the womb.Keeping the dialogue going ,will eventually sink in and hopefully affect a change towards defending life.This is the very least we as Christians can do

I won’t change my views about the legality of abortion, and I wouldn’t have one. If you can’t convince me, then think how impossible it will be to convince those who would have abortions. Here, you’re mostly preaching to the choir.

And, no Supreme Court is likely to overturn something it made constitutional.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The death of the fetus inside the womb, gross fetal abnormalities that didn’t become apparent until later, extreme illness of the mother like cancer, diabetic coma, eclampsia, etc.

A partial birth abortion is safer for the life and health of the mother than a C-section.

A lot of the reasons you cite do not warrant this barbaric practice.You r first post cited the clinical reasons for a PB abortion,however they still occur for reasons totally unrelated to the safety of the mother.Kermit Gosnill,(who you say you aren’t aware of) was routinely performing this type of abortion on healthy babies.His targets by and large were poor minority women.He did his evil deeds in the filthiest of conditions and these are the infants your relative Fr.Pavone asked to take possession of in order to properly bury their remains.
So while this procedure may have initially been reserved for the most extreme cases,as you can see,it is far more common a practice.To turn away from the dialogue ,to try and shut it down ,is being negligent in the efforts to stop this practice.

 

[jediliz]

Eclampsia is treatable and does not require the horrific death of a child…if necessary, a c-section is done. The baby does NOT HAVE to DIE.

so, if a woman has cancer…the baby must die? What happens if the woman still succumbs to cancer AFTER she has her baby aborted to “save her life”?

I’d rather be like Saint Gianna…She chose to save her daughter, who later became a doctor herself.

 

[Monkey1976]

I won’t change my views about the legality of abortion, and I wouldn’t have one. If you can’t convince me, then think how impossible it will be to convince those who would have abortions. Here, you’re mostly preaching to the choir.

And, no Supreme Court is likely to overturn something it made constitutional.

Except for the 120 or so instances listed here…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Eclampsia is treatable and does not require the horrific death of a child…if necessary, a c-section is done. The baby does NOT HAVE to DIE.

so, if a woman has cancer…the baby must die? What happens if the woman still succumbs to cancer AFTER she has her baby aborted to “save her life”?

I’d rather be like Saint Gianna…She chose to save her daughter, who later became a doctor herself.

“Once eclampsia develops, the only treatment is delivery of the baby (if eclampsia occurs prior to delivery). Eclampsia can also occur after delivery (up to 24 hours postpartum, typically). Rarely, eclampsia can be delayed and occur up to one week following delivery. There is no cure for eclampsia.”

emedicinehealth.com/eclampsia/page5_em.htm#eclampsia_treatment

I am done discussing abortion.

 

[jediliz]

Slavery was overturned. They were born, but not considered full persons. Even after the 13th amendment, they still had a hard time getting full rights.

Humans in the womb need FULL protection and there is no right to abortion in the constitution. The founding fathers would be horrified at the thought.

 

[zz912]

I said I was done, period, discussing abortion, but I will answer this question since no one else seems able or willing to do so. The necessity for a partial birth abortion is very rare, but it does happen. A fetus older than 20 weeks can die while still inside the mother’s womb. Usually when the fetus dies in the womb, labor ensues, but not every single time, and in those cases, the fetus must be removed or it will endanger the life and health of the mother…

Removing a baby who has died naturally is not an abortion. Why you keep pretending it is, I don’t know. You’re obviously smart enough to understand the difference, yet you keep pretending you don’t know.

Nevertheless, there is NO INSTANCE where it would be safer for the mother to deliver the child all the way except for the head, and then jam scissors into the skull and vacuum out the brains of the dead child. The shoulders are wider than the head and once they have passed the birth canal, the baby will almost fall out. In fact, the doctor has to forcibly HOLD the baby’s head inside the birth canal to complete the brain vacuuming.

So there is NO INSTANCE where this procedure is ever needed, even for a baby who has died naturally.

“The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated — and the more controversial — the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman’s cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as “dilation and evacuation,” less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman’s ability to bear children in the future.”

There is no reason why the child cannot be delivered if the mother is in danger. None. There is NO MEDICAL NECESSITY to kill the child instead of delivering it.

Some mothers choose to have one performed when the child is suffering from hydrocephalus. I realize this violates the dignity of the human person according to Catholic teaching, but it does not according to other religions, and the US is a country in which freedom of religion dominates. No one is forced to abort a child with hydrocephalus.

Because it is not necessary. It is far safer to deliver the baby than to kill it, especially by PBA. There is NO medical necessity to hold the baby’s head inside the birth canal and vacuum out his/her brains. If the “doctor” stopped holding the baby’s head inside, it would come out naturally. And freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can violently kill another person just because your religion allows it.

Again, it was the Supreme Court that banned a Nebraska case trying to outlaw partial birth abortions:

The same Supreme Court which handed down the Dred Scot decision…

And Obama’s words are being twisted. While it’s true he voted against some “born alive” bills, he did so because they would restrict a woman’s right to an abortion, but he supported George Bush’s 2002 bill:

This is false. The Illinois law mirrored the federal one.

Now, I’m done with abortion talk. Enough is enough

I can see how it would upset you that your favored candidate’s support for intrinsic and unmitigated evil is discussed.

 

[Monkey1976]

“Once eclampsia develops, the only treatment is delivery of the baby (if eclampsia occurs prior to delivery). Eclampsia can also occur after delivery (up to 24 hours postpartum, typically). Rarely, eclampsia can be delayed and occur up to one week following delivery. There is no cure for eclampsia.”

emedicinehealth.com/eclampsia/page5_em.htm#eclampsia_treatment

I am done discussing abortion.

I must be missing something - exactly where in that treatment plan does it call for the child to be killed? Premature delivery in an effort to save the lives of both mother and child is also not an abortion.

Still waiting to hear just what medical reason there is to kill a child that would otherwise survive premature birth.

 

[zz912]

The death of the fetus inside the womb, gross fetal abnormalities that didn’t become apparent until later, extreme illness of the mother like cancer, diabetic coma, eclampsia, etc. Once actual eclampsia develops, the only treatment is delivery of the baby. Some mothers - and fathers, because the mother is usually unconscious - choose a partial birth abortion over a C-section.

A partial birth abortion is safer for the life and health of the mother than a C-section.

None of the above necessarily reflect my views, only saying that sometimes a partial birth abortion is done to save the life of the mother, and some parents choose it.

A PBA is NEVER safer than simply allowing the child to be born. The abortionist must forcibly keep the baby’s head in the birth canal to perform a PBA.

A PBA is NEVER done to save the mother’s life. It’s done to kill the child. If the mother’s health was actually a concern, allow the baby to be born.

 

[zz912]

“Once eclampsia develops, the only treatment is delivery of the baby (if eclampsia occurs prior to delivery). Eclampsia can also occur after delivery (up to 24 hours postpartum, typically). Rarely, eclampsia can be delayed and occur up to one week following delivery. There is no cure for eclampsia.”

emedicinehealth.com/eclampsia/page5_em.htm#eclampsia_treatment

I am done discussing abortion.

So DELIVER the baby. You don’t kill the baby!

Amazing we have to actually state this. And if you’re done discussing it, then stop posting. You don’t control how others post and if we wish to continue discussing Clinton’s unmitigated support for evil, we will do so.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I can see how it would upset you that your favored candidate’s support for intrinsic and unmitigated evil is discussed.

Sanders is my favorite candidate.

It’s not at all upsetting, but it is tiresome to go over and over and over and over and over the same issue, whether it’s abortion or another issue.

I just have no interest in continuing.

 

[zz912]

Sanders is my favorite candidate.

It’s not at all upsetting, but it is tiresome to go over and over and over and over and over the same issue, whether it’s abortion or another issue.

I just have no interest in continuing.

So don’t continue. No one is forcing you. We’ll continue the discussion about Clinton and her horrific support of intrinsic evil.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Point of order: If the child dies of natural causes in the womb, that isn’t an abortion. Kindly toss that red herring back into the sea.

thanks for clarifying that! we have not been discussing babies who have died in the womb, but babies living and developing in the womb.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

So don’t continue. No one is forcing you. We’ll continue the discussion about Clinton and her horrific support of intrinsic evil.

Exactly! No one is forcing me. Just like no one is forcing a woman to have an abortion! Thank you for proving my point. Just because an evil exists doesn’t mean any woman has to participate in it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

thanks for clarifying that! we have not been discussing babies who have died in the womb, but babies living and developing in the womb.

Sometimes conjoined twins exist and one develops normally and one does not. In that case, the one who does not develop normally often has to be aborted through a partial birth abortion or it will kill the other twin. Would you rather one live or none live?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Sometimes conjoined twins exist and one develops normally and one does not. In that case, the one who does not develop normally often has to be aborted through a partial birth abortion or it will kill the other twin. Would you rather one live or none live?

If the are conjoined,how is it that they are separated without lengthy intricate surgery,while I assume one is nearly born in order to save the healthier one?