Pro-abortion arguments...those who are pro-choice, what do/did you really believe?

[LittleDeb]

in your vast experience of what exactly? you haven’t looked very far, as this happens routinely in ectopic pregnancy

And pro-life doctors hold that it is the tube that is diseased not a defective baby. They remove the diseased tube and sadly the death of the baby is the result. Their work is toward preventing another ectopic pregnancy by removing the tube + working towards being able to implant the zygote/embryo. At this point most have been too injured by the diseased tube and won’t survive. Try talking to those in your field who want life instead of those with a death agenda.

 

[Sr_Sally]

I think my time as a pro-choice person was simply from lazy thinking and the herd mentality that media induces–as Puzzleannie described. I simply hadn’t thought about it too much and since everyone talked about 1st trimester babies as being ‘blobs of tissue’ that’s what I thought too. Of course in 1973 I was only 10, so I didn’t think about it at all then. During my 20s and early 30s, the pro-life movement was either pretty quiet or doing crazy things like bombing clinics which made it easy to disregard their talk.
Since my marriage and the births of our children I came more and more to see the sanctity of all life. Interestingly, my thought process went from being against Capital punishment and euthasia fo the elderly ill or handicapped to realizing that the unborn baby deservered protection too.
Really I am a product of my times and I see a similar path taken by many my age. Thanks be to God.

 

[st_lucy]

sure, examples where “pro-lifers” are for death:
condoms to help prevent HIV/AIDS
So you idea of promoting sex by the use of condoms is a better way of preventing HIV/AIDS than say teaching absence? I wounder why you think that humans cannot control themselves? And have you thought of how that train of thought really degrades the human body?
abortion when necessary to save the mother’s life
Like stated before there are ways of saving the mothers life without having to pull apart a child’s limbs or suck out his brain.
contraception for women whose life would be threatened by pregnancy
I am sorry but anyone who push the BC or other type of birth control to help those women whose life would be threatened by pregnancy is not looking out for the women’s best interest. BC, IUDS etc. are very harmful to the human body. All I have to say to Dr. like you is thanks but no thanks.

 

[jack_hawkins]

And pro-life doctors hold that it is the tube that is diseased not a defective baby. They remove the diseased tube and sadly the death of the baby is the result. Their work is toward preventing another ectopic pregnancy by removing the tube + working towards being able to implant the zygote/embryo. At this point most have been too injured by the diseased tube and won’t survive. Try talking to those in your field who want life instead of those with a death agenda.

That is medically nonsense - sorry
if you knew about ectopic pregnancy, you would realise this - same reply goes for church mouse

 

[jack_hawkins]

And what exactly is your experience and where does your knowledge come from?

By this statement alone you have proved YOU are the uniformed one. I do know the science very well behind NFP and I am very familiar with the risk of contraception, especially the BC pill. Like it says in your signature, John 8:32 “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

yes, that’s not a very wise statement to make before you know the facts
this sort of garbage is precisely why any discussion with “pro-life” fanatics is doomed to failure. for some reason people like you think after reading a few “pro-life” propaganda sites you are an expert - well you’re not!!!
I suggest you learn the real facts
I am a doctor for what it’s worth

 

[church_mouse]

That is medically nonsense - sorry
if you knew about ectopic pregnancy, you would realise this - same reply goes for church mouse

What is it that you think we don’t know about ectopic preganancy? I’m a nurse and many ethical physicians express what I have written in the above post. If you truly are a doctor please clairfy how this is medical nonsense.

 

[wabrams]

yes, that’s not a very wise statement to make before you know the facts
this sort of garbage is precisely why any discussion with “pro-life” fanatics is doomed to failure. for some reason people like you think after reading a few “pro-life” propaganda sites you are an expert - well you’re not!!!
I suggest you learn the real facts
I am a doctor for what it’s worth

Basically, your whole arguement boils down to people who are pro-life are ignorant and you’re an MD, pro-choice, so your all knowing?

 

[love4mary]

jack hawkins,take a look at a 4D ultrasound some time. You will see the most incredible images of a Human Life growing in the womb.

When I was 16, I made bad and unmoral decisions with my life. I chose to have pre-marital sex and got pregnant. I was NOT told by my doctor that what was growing in my womb was a human baby, I saw no ultrasounds, I was given no information such as this. I was fed the lie that because the “cells” growing were not “viable”, then there was no problem with terminating the pregnancy and that because of my young age, it was the best thing for me to do to secure a future for myself.

We are still being fed lies today. Lies about contraception not killing embryo’s, condoms preventing AIDS (condoms break or slip off or leak), rape victims should not have to carry to term a rapist baby, that one really hits home to me as my daughter who is now 26 was conceived through a date rape, the health of the mother. The list of lies goes on and on.

The instant sperm penetrates egg, a human life starts. There is no difference in Murdering a baby in the womb from Murdering a baby sleeping in a cradle. ITS STILL MURDER!!

I apologize for going on a rant about this, but abortion is a very sensative issue for me, I have to live everyday with my “choice” that I made when I was a teenager, now all I want to do is try and inform anyone and everyone that what is growing in a womb is truly a Child of God and only God can decide whether that child will be born or join Him in heaven a little early.

 

[jack_hawkins]

I take it “ethical physician” is code in the same way “pro-life” is?
First of all, why do you equate ectopic pregnancy with ectopic pregnancy if you are truly a nurse?
Have you heard of tubal preservation?
The use of methotrexate?
Any comments on the above?

 

[jack_hawkins]

jack hawkins,take a look at a 4D ultrasound some time. You will see the most incredible images of a Human Life growing in the womb.

I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick altogether. If you look at what I’ve said, has anything given you the idea that i don’t respect human life. Just because I don’t agree with the fanatics, doesn’t mean that I am pro-abortion. It’s a false dichotomy.
Lies are being fed to the susceptible by the “pro-life” campaign for sure - so I would advise anyone to look into with a healthy degree of scepticism. Fanatics of any description are bad news.

 

[st_lucy]

yes, that’s not a very wise statement to make before you know the facts
this sort of garbage is precisely why any discussion with “pro-life” fanatics is doomed to failure. for some reason people like you think after reading a few “pro-life” propaganda sites you are an expert - well you’re not!!!
I suggest you learn the real facts
I am a doctor for what it’s worth

I have a real hard time when people like to throw this out to others. It’s kind of like when a women has to tell people “well, I am a lady” If you were really a lady you really wouldn’t have to point it out to others.

So here is why I am really weary about Dr.'s who like to point out that they are in fact Dr.'s and know better. I tend to have spontaneous miscarriages, so before I knew this I kept going to different Dr.'s who would recommend BC’s to treat my very long periods after a miscarriage. I would argue with them of how I don’t believe in being on BC for my own health. Cancer runs very high in my family so I am not going to take any risks. Not one of these Dr.'s who kept trying to push BC ever once tried to take a look at what was really happening to me. I would have very long menstrual cycles and tell this to the Dr’s who of course would suggest BC’s. Nothing else. Finally I was very weak and so a friend told me to go to a NFP Dr. who diagnosed me and has since brought my cycle back to normal.

I guess my point is I don’t wont to hear a Dr. telling me I am a Dr and i know better. But I am your Dr and I wont to just tell you the facts. I am just as able as you are to look up the facts. Being a Dr does not give you the power to play God with my life or with anyone’s life. When a Dr (and unfortunatlly too many Drs are either A)unaware of the dangers BCs poses or B)don’t care) prescribes BCs without doing the proper research he is most defiantly over stepping his boundaries.

A Dr first responisblity is to protect and save not harm and kill.

 

[church_mouse]

I take it “ethical physician” is code in the same way “pro-life” is?
First of all, why do you equate ectopic pregnancy with ectopic pregnancy if you are truly a nurse?
Have you heard of tubal preservation?
The use of methotrexate?
Any comments on the above?

Yes, I have heard of tubal preservation and methotrexate. Suctioning out the human embryo from the tube or administering methotrexate are a direct attack on the innocent human baby and intrinsically immoral. The end is the same as salpingectomy, the means are different morally and ethically speaking.

 

[Island_Oak]

Ahh. Then we should repeal the laws making murder and rape illegal as well,s ince those immoral behaviors have been with us “from the beginning” and it is not effective to legislate morality!

Your flip response fails to recognize or address the key stumbling block in the abortion debate–whether and when the unborn should be accorded **legal **recognition as persons entitled to full protection of their rights under the law and the circumstances/timing under which others in society incur obligations of protection/harm avoidance toward them.

Do you think that “belief” in science and logic should be the standard from which decisions about abortion are made?

Science and logic are not dependant on “belief” to explain their theories.

Natural law has already created that duty at the moment of conception. She has a responsibility for the life within her. she has a responsibility for the actions she took to create that life, as does the man who assisted her in doing so!

My mistake–I have been laboring under the delusion that tremendous controversy continues to surround the issue of when human life begins and is entitled to legal protection. I guess that’s a settled issue in your world. (And let’s not forget that not all pregnancies occur through voluntary action.)

Certainly not, but why limit this to babies that have already been born ? If the parents think that the child they brought into the world is exposing themselves to mortal peril, why not just kill the child AFTER birth?

Once again you ignore the line in the sand of pre-post birth–(even “viability”) and the acquisition of legal rights. I am not advocating for a negation of finding natural rights in the pre-born nor find the current paradigm to be ideal–but you can’t ignore the quandry the issue presents when you are considering drafting laws for a secular society.

Ah, this sounds so familiar! these are the same arguments that were made in the controversy about whether woman should be considered property instead of persons, and whether blacks should be considered the same way! It really does open a can of ethical worms, does it not? If women are given the right to vote, what will come next!? If blacks are allowed to sit at the same counters as whites, and go to the same schools, what will they want next? Should we continue to persist in sin because we are afraid of the consequences of freedom?

Your argument above misses the mark again because you ignore the critical distinction between recognizing /denying rights based on gender or race and recognizing the rights or the pre-born–that being–with race or gender no other individual is required to sacrifice their safety or health in order to recognize and protect the rights in the target class. With the pre-born, the rights of another individual (the mother) are unavoidably implicated by (and in some cases made subserviant to) the needs of the pre-born child. THAT does present a moral and legal dilema when we do not have a universally accepted ethic as to when human life begins.

 

[LittleDeb]

That is medically nonsense - sorry
if you knew about ectopic pregnancy, you would realise this - same reply goes for church mouse

Been there done that. Glad you weren’t the doctor. My dear friend is now single so she doesn’t know if she will have a chance to conceive using her remaining tube. But at least she knows she doesn’t run a risk of a second ectopic like most women where the doctor leaves the diseased tube behind.

Your “science” is suggesting that multiple “defective babies” are causing multiple ectopic pregnancies in women. Talk about medical nonsense. I will try not to let a few ignorant doctors color my attitude toward the medical practice. Just like I would hope you would not let a few ignorant pro-lifers color yours.

If you had answered that yes there are surely some ectopics caused by the tube, but that you differ on the opinion that ALL are caused by a defective tube, then you would have been showing a reasonable response. That you responded it was just nonsense without explanation shows that you are not open to correction. A doctor not open to correction concerns me.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Yes, I have heard of tubal preservation and methotrexate. Suctioning out the human embryo from the tube or administering methotrexate are a direct attack on the innocent human baby and intrinsically immoral. The end is the same as salpingectomy, the means are different morally and ethically speaking.

well that shows that you don’t understand the rationale for treatment then doesn’t it? it exposes the “pro-life” stance as ludicrous
you favour a treatment that reduces the chance of future conception and you label that “pro-life”?
that’s what happens when you don’t understand the science

 

[jack_hawkins]

Been there done that. Glad you weren’t the doctor. My dear friend is now single so she doesn’t know if she will have a chance to conceive using her remaining tube. But at least she knows she doesn’t run a risk of a second ectopic like most women where the doctor leaves the diseased tube behind.

Ok, you still don’t understand the whole process, yet venture to offer an opinion

Your “science” is suggesting that multiple “defective babies” are causing multiple ectopic pregnancies in women. Talk about medical nonsense

please don’t insert absolute twaddle into the conversation! what are you on about? because I haven’t the faintest clue

I will try not to let a few ignorant doctors color my attitude toward the medical practice. Just like I would hope you would not let a few ignorant pro-lifers color yours

most if not all extreme “prolifers” are ignorant - not just some

If you had answered that yes there are surely some ectopics caused by the tube, but that you differ on the opinion that ALL are caused by a defective tube, then you would have been showing a reasonable response. That you responded it was just nonsense without explanation shows that you are not open to correction. A doctor not open to correction concerns me.

I don’t know where you get this odd idea I’m not open to correction - and you have got the wrong end of the stick
do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is, first of all? it seems you don’t
I wish you would keep to what I have said, not what you think I have said - where on earth have I said anything about defective tubes at all in this thread? the mind boggles…

 

[jack_hawkins]

I have a real hard time when people like to throw this out to others. It’s kind of like when a women has to tell people “well, I am a lady” If you were really a lady you really wouldn’t have to point it out to others.

actually, the two scenarios are not equivalent at all, which is obvious when you think of it
I was asked on what basis I offered my opinion - so it was a direct answer to a direct question. not at all like someone averring to be “a lady” (which is such an outdated notion as to be useless)
I find it very interesting as to why you find this a problem
does professional knowledge frighten you?
the fact is there is a lot of plain nonsense put out by the “prolifers”, and the scientist in me violently objects

 

[st_lucy]

Your flip response fails to recognize or address the key stumbling block in the abortion debate–whether and when the unborn should be accorded **legal **recognition as persons entitled to full protection of their rights under the law and the circumstances/timing under which others in society incur obligations of protection/harm avoidance toward them.

SO in your opinion when does one become entitled to full protection? Is it at birth at 18 at 40 or 80? And when does one have not full protection/

Science and logic are not dependant on “belief” to explain their theories.

So what exactly is? This seems confusing if science and logic doesn’t do it than does ones own feelings work?

My mistake–I have been laboring under the delusion that tremendous controversy continues to surround the issue of when human life begins and is entitled to legal protection. I guess that’s a settled issue in your world. (And let’s not forget that not all pregnancies occur through voluntary action.)

So I guess in your world if that if a controversy starts to debate weather human life begins when one turns five than we should all follow suit in that train of thought. If I remember right wasn’t there a time when people in a small African country were the majority of occupants were in the thought that one of the minority tribes were cockroaches and were therefor though unworthy of life. So your thought all should have fallen suit gone with this theory until it was proven wrong.

Once again you ignore the line in the sand of pre-post birth–(even “viability”) and the acquisition of legal rights. I am not advocating for a negation of finding natural rights in the pre-born nor find the current paradigm to be ideal–but you can’t ignore the quandry the issue presents when you are considering drafting laws for a secular society.

But you are ignoring the minority that is being killed because you think we are imposing on those who can scream the loudest.

Your argument above misses the mark again because you ignore the critical distinction between recognizing /denying rights based on gender or race and recognizing the rights or the pre-born–that being–with race or gender no other individual is required to sacrifice their safety or health in order to recognize and protect the rights in the target class. With the pre-born, the rights of another individual (the mother) are unavoidably implicated by (and in some cases made subserviant to) the needs of the pre-born child. THAT does present a moral and legal dilema when we do not have a universally accepted ethic as to when human life begins.

Since when is it a right to be able to kill another? If the situation happened in questionable situations. Why does the mothers rights come before the child’s? Why is the mother more important than the child’s?

 

[st_lucy]

does professional knowledge frighten you?
the fact is there is a lot of plain nonsense put out by the “prolifers”, and the scientist in me violently objects

No but I do find that these type of Drs do tend to be frightened by patients who do know more than them.

There is even more nonsense put out by “pro-choice” Dr and the human in me tends to violently object to their lies.

 

[church_mouse]

well that shows that you don’t understand the rationale for treatment then doesn’t it? it exposes the “pro-life” stance as ludicrous
you favour a treatment that reduces the chance of future conception and you label that “pro-life”?
that’s what happens when you don’t understand the science

It only shows that there is a moral treatment and an immoral one. I’m sorry that you are unable to see the difference.