My problem with abortion

[BobCatholic]

I learned in science class that doctors can detect heart beats around 18 days after conception. Brain waves can be detected around 40 days. Abortions are performed on average between 7 and 11 weeks. Let’s do some 1st grade math. 7 weeks = 49 days. If a heart beat, a sign of LIFE, can be heard around 18, and brain waves, the second sign of LIFE, around 40, doesn’t that make abortion murder?

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

You’re right, science is on the side of the pro-lifers. That’s why you will see the pro-aborts denying science.

 

[vz71]

What exactly is an “indirect abortion”? Just search CAF or Google (be sure to leave the quotes in place).

What is described does not involve the abortion the laws cover and has always been an option.

I am uncertain the point of arguing these when the law clearly does not outlaw them.

 

[brumano]

An indirect abortion may be needed to save the woman’s life in cases where nothing medically can be done to save the baby. Those are common, everyday occurrences such as ectopic pregnancies or life-threatening miscarriage with a baby still alive.

I consider it an insult to accuse me of gloating, but I will overlook your obvious bias against me for…what reason again?

Those are’nt common and neither are ectopic pregnancies. The baby dies during the embryonic stage of their life by a natural cause in the case of an ectopic pregnancy they are almost always fallopial which means that the embryo has implanted on one of the fallopian tubes. The baby is no longer viable and the procedure that becomes necessary to save the mother is done in a hospital surgical suite, not an abortion clinic where the millions of unborn have died from elective abortions. The other example that you make up is another false justification that only exists in the judgementaslism of the pro abortion faction. Before the abortionists controverted medical terminology and demanded that every unsuccessful pregnancy would be called abortion, spontaneous or truamatic miscarriages were called exactly that and if the truama to the mother resulted in the loss of her baby was not accidental and was due to the crime or the gross negligence of another human being, that person was held culpable for the loss of life that they inflicted.
Abortion apollogists (justifiers) have been steadily retreating over more than forty years to a position they hope will protect them against the evidence of fact and the truth about what abortion really is. That last position is called indirect abortion, the baby is just as dead of course, but the abortion practitioner is required to manufacture some link of causality to the life and health of the mother.

 

[seekerz]

What is described does not involve the abortion the laws cover and has always been an option.

I am uncertain the point of arguing these when the law clearly does not outlaw them.

The poster I was responding to was implying that the medical reasons for indirect abortion do not exist. I would imagine that’s a good enough reason as any to argue. Besides, specific law are you referring to?

 

[seekerz]

Those are’nt common and neither are ectopic pregnancies. The baby dies during the embryonic stage of their life by a natural cause in the case of an ectopic pregnancy they are almost always fallopial which means that the embryo has implanted on one of the fallopian tubes. The baby is no longer viable and the procedure that becomes necessary to save the mother is done in a hospital surgical suite, not an abortion clinic where the millions of unborn have died from elective abortions. The other example that you make up is another false justification that only exists in the judgementaslism of the pro abortion faction. Before the abortionists controverted medical terminology and demanded that every unsuccessful pregnancy would be called abortion, spontaneous or truamatic miscarriages were called exactly that and if the truama to the mother resulted in the loss of her baby was not accidental and was due to the crime or the gross negligence of another human being, that person was held culpable for the loss of life that they inflicted.
Abortion apollogists (justifiers) have been steadily retreating over more than forty years to a position they hope will protect them against the evidence of fact and the truth about what abortion really is. That last position is called indirect abortion, the baby is just as dead of course, but the abortion practitioner is required to manufacture some link of causality to the life and health of the mother.

On second thoughts…let’s start with a really simple question: what is your definition of “not common”?

 

[vz71]

The poster I was responding to was implying that the medical reasons for indirect abortion do not exist. I would imagine that’s a good enough reason as any to argue. Besides, specific law are you referring to?

I concede the point.
However I have found including the word abortion in anything acceptable simply provides a point of argument for those that wish it to be the order of the day.

I have found it better to hang with the semantics in the technicality that it is not truly an abortion, even if the effect leads to the death of an unborn.

 

[seekerz]

I concede the point.
However I have found including the word abortion in anything acceptable simply provides a point of argument for those that wish it to be the order of the day.

I have found it better to hang with the semantics in the technicality that it is not truly an abortion, even if the effect leads to the death of an unborn.

I understand that and find it perfectly reasonable among lay people. However - laws aimed at regulating medical activities have to be precisely and accurately worded otherwise confusion and harm could conceivably result.

 

[brumano]

I understand that and find it perfectly reasonable among lay people. However - laws aimed at regulating medical activities have to be precisely and accurately worded otherwise confusion and harm could conceivably result.

There were laws, ethical codes, humanitarian and religious mores that regulated medical practices. Those laws were systematically taken down; confusion and immeasurable harm have already resulted, no one is under any obligation of any sort to take a well let’s wait and see opinion on this; it is literally genocide and it’s in full progress, how do you propose that society protect the lives of all of it’s members against this death mill that must be fed more and more lives at all times? Think about that for second thoughts, let me know what you come up with.

 

[seekerz]

There were laws, ethical codes, humanitarian and religious mores that regulated medical practices. Those laws were systematically taken down; confusion and immeasurable harm have already resulted, no one is under any obligation of any sort to take a well let’s wait and see opinion on this; it is literally genocide and it’s in full progress, how do you propose that society protect the lives of all of it’s members against this death mill that must be fed more and more lives at all times? Think about that for second thoughts, let me know what you come up with.

Go to the advanced search function, search for posts by Seekerz with the keyword:abortion - that should tell you all you need to know about “what I come up with”. If you want to have a coherent debate after doing that, I’ll be happy to oblige.

 

[brumano]

Go to the advanced search function, search for posts by Seekerz with the keyword:abortion - that should tell you all you need to know about “what I come up with”. If you want to have a coherent debate after doing that, I’ll be happy to oblige.

well I tried but I started getting sick after the post where you try to justify the legalization of abortifacients as a self defense justification for women to prevent pregnancies from criminal acts. You have’nt come up with anything I see. There really isn’t any coherent debate to be had about this issue, there never really has been; if the pregnancy or the birthing of the baby creates a direct risk to the life of the mother it is only then that the baby can be aborted. That is what the church has allowed and that is what the church still allows; everything else in abortion is absolutely immoral and is condemned.

 

[seekerz]

well I tried but I started getting sick after the post where you try to justify the legalization of abortifacients as a self defense justification for women to prevent pregnancies from criminal acts. You have’nt come up with anything I see. There really isn’t any coherent debate to be had about this issue, there never really has been; if the pregnancy or the birthing of the baby creates a direct risk to the life of the mother it is only then that the baby can be aborted. That is what the church has allowed and that is what the church still allows; everything else in abortion is absolutely immoral and is condemned.

You have NEVER seen me justify legalization of any abortifiacient; they are all, to my knowledge, legal in the US and I know of no country in which they are illegal where I have supported their legalization. What I did do, was point out licit uses of drugs with a potential abortifacient effect.

My life experience suggests that there are are lots of straightforward and truthful ways to oppose abortion. I also make it a point to never participate in conversations where my comprehension of the dialog is inadequate, because obviously, I can’t argue what I don’t comprehend.