The Unprogressive Progressive

[Jennifer123]

She was not ill. No matter how much she ate, it just wasn’t enough to keep them both alive. And it was the doctors she went to who told her that she could not carry to term without them both dying. Termination is ‘getting her good medical treatment’ in some cases, and this was one of them.

I’m glad she did make that choice instead of trying to bet on a medical miracle.

I don’t want to ridicule your example here and it sounds like your friend had quite a struggle, she will be in my prayers.

I just find this very hard to believe, that a woman could not eat enough to support her baby. The notion that a pregnant mother has to eat for two is an “old wives’ tale” - it is just not true. The extra calories needed are indeed a necessity but in total it is actually very little. Even starving women in thrid world countries bring their babies to term. Here in this country we have plenty of prgrams like WIC to provide women with assistance in feeding themselves and their children.

Just because someone is a doctor does not mean they too don’t have ideological positions in regards to life choices.

Regards though to your friend, I don’t doubt that this has been hard for her.

 

[Mirdath]

I just did all I’m obligated to do – when you failed to back up your claim

The burden of proof in this case is on you.

So long as you were saying ‘I don’t believe you, let’s see one’ that’d be right. But you changed tacks and said ‘there exists no such thing’. Now your position is a positive assertion as well, and with that the burden of proof falls on both of us. Since you’re dissatisfied with what I’ve said so far, I’ll get to mine just below.

More smoke. You said there are abortions to saved the mother’s life, I challenged you to produce one, and you failed.

I did; and you seem not to appreciate anecdotal evidence. So, I have two words for you: ectopic pregnancy. They are the leading cause of death due to pregnancy in the first trimester. The only way to ‘cure’ it is to abort. Your proof, m’sieur, courtesy of the US government’s National Institute of Health.

Careful. Your tongue may turn black over that one.

It’d match my clothing! But no dice

Then it isn’t a right at all, is it? It’s merely a privilige that can be revoked at will. If “society” established the privilige to live, cannot society withhold it – from Jews, Blacks, or Catholics?

Why is God required to give us rights? Cannot we have them based merely on our existence?

 

[Jennifer123]

I don’t believe there’s a right to life that is given by God. There is one established by society.

Unfortunately this is where we are headed as a society and the results will be very frightening. If we can kill our own children for convenience and research, then there really is no logical limit for governments to say who can live or die.
We sadly are seeing this in our lifetimes with euthanasia, assisted suicide, and abortion, all cynically labled as “choice”. It has got to be hard as an old person with a terminal illness who has medical care stripped bare because they won’t take the suicide exit, as we are seeing in Europe.
Human beings will no longer have inherent rights but rights only granted by “society”. If only the progressives knew what they are getting us all into.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So long as you were saying ‘I don’t believe you, let’s see one’ that’d be right. But you changed tacks and said ‘there exists no such thing’. Now your position is a positive assertion as well, and with that the burden of proof falls on both of us. Since you’re dissatisfied with what I’ve said so far, I’ll get to mine just below.

Sorry – you don’t get to make up the rules as you go along. I didn’t say there was no such thing – I said you can’t produce a diagnosis.

I did; and you seem not to appreciate anecdotal evidence.a

And a brass band played Whoda Thunkit!

Would you accept anecdotal evidence of women going insane because of abortions? Even if I said, “My best friend” was one of them?

Of course not!

So why expect me to accept your anecdotes?

So, I have two words for you: ectopic pregnancy. They are the leading cause of death due to pregnancy in the first trimester. The only way to ‘cure’ it is to abort. Your proof, m’sieur, courtesy of the US government’s National Institute of Health.

You’re actually wrong – but I see I have led you to do a little reseach. An ectopic pregnancy means a pregnancy outside the womb. Some, but not all, ectopic pregnancies involve the baby developing inside the fallopian tube, and the currently only known remedy is removal of the tube. While the child dies, it was doomed from the first and nothing can save it.

Now did your friend have two ectopic pregnancies?

Why is God required to give us rights? Cannot we have them based merely on our existence?

Who said God is required to give us rights? We have rights. They are a part of our common humanity – like our arms and intellects. To deny that is to deny the whole concept of human rights and replace then with “priviliges.”

As I said, if “society” grants these priviliges, then “society” can withhold them – so that people like Jews, Catholics, Blacks and so on never get the “privilige” of life.

 

[Mirdath]

Sorry – you don’t get to make up the rules as you go along. I didn’t say there was no such thing – I said you can’t produce a diagnosis.

As long as both sides stay civil, debate can resemble a game of Calvinball more than anything else. Rules are introduced, changed, and dropped all the time. I’ve accepted your position as a hypothetical at least once; that doesn’t invalidate my statements. Rhetoric should be interesting and entertaining, not stuffy and dull – and if playing games with logic can help that out, why not do it?

Would you accept anecdotal evidence of women going insane because of abortions? Even if I said, “My best friend” was one of them?

Of course not!

Sure I would. I’m well aware that that sort of thing can happen – people react to shocks differently, and some just can’t handle even minor ones on the order of a blood draw.

You’re actually wrong – but I see I have led you to do a little reseach. An ectopic pregnancy means a pregnancy outside the womb. Some, but not all, ectopic pregnancies involve the baby developing inside the fallopian tube, and the currently only known remedy is removal of the tube. While the child dies, it was doomed from the first and nothing can save it.

Research? I already knew about them, it was just a matter of finding a page for your perusal.

However, that doesn’t answer the question I’d posed: is the procedure for saving someone from death by an ectopic pregnancy – ie, removal of the developing fetus (abortion) and the tube – good?

Now did your friend have two ectopic pregnancies?

One of them was, in fact. The other is the one I have used as an example here; she was too underweight to carry to term. It’s not that she didn’t want children – she’s hoping for one or two now, though she’s older – but she could not have carried either of those two pregnancies to term and lived.

Who said God is required to give us rights? We have rights. They are a part of our common humanity – like our arms and intellects. To deny that is to deny the whole concept of human rights and replace then with “priviliges.”

The document you’ve used as a reference so far is quite explicit: ‘endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights’.

As I said, if “society” grants these priviliges, then “society” can withhold them – so that people like Jews, Catholics, Blacks and so on never get the “privilige” of life.

Then it’s a society that isn’t worth living in. And who gets to fix that? We do. We’re part of it, if it is less than good it is on our shoulders to make it as perfect as we can. But making a simple blanket statement that controls the lives of half the population is not going to fix anything any more than declaring them chattel (as women were, until very recently) will. Every pregnancy is unique, and every mother; drawing generalities beyond mere physical mechanics is counterproductive and disrespectful to both mother and child.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As long as both sides stay civil, debate can resemble a game of Calvinball more than anything else. Rules are introduced, changed, and dropped all the time. I’ve accepted your position as a hypothetical at least once; that doesn’t invalidate my statements. Rhetoric should be interesting and entertaining, not stuffy and dull – and if playing games with logic can help that out, why not do it?

As much as you would like to think the contrary, the rules of logical debate are not subject to be changed at your whim.

Sure I would. I’m well aware that that sort of thing can happen – people react to shocks differently, and some just can’t handle even minor ones on the order of a blood draw.

So now you accept an argument that you rejected? That abortions can negatively affect the mother’s health?

Research? I already knew about them, it was just a matter of finding a page for your perusal.

You didn’t know much about them, though, did you?

However, that doesn’t answer the question I’d posed: is the procedure for saving someone from death by an ectopic pregnancy – ie, removal of the developing fetus (abortion) and the tube – good?

The process is not an abortion. It is an example of double effect – the intent is to save the mother, not to kill the child. The inevatable death of the child (whether surgery is performed or not) is not willed but simply not preventable.

One of them was, in fact. The other is the one I have used as an example here; she was too underweight to carry to term. It’s not that she didn’t want children – she’s hoping for one or two now, though she’s older – but she could not have carried either of those two pregnancies to term and lived.

Once again, your track record is not one to inspire confidence in your anecdotes.

The document you’ve used as a reference so far is quite explicit: ‘endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights’.

So what? Two of the men attending the convention were Diests, and both worked on the Declaration. That doesn’t mean their phraseology affects the proposition itself.

Then it’s a society that isn’t worth living in. And who gets to fix that? We do. We’re part of it, if it is less than good it is on our shoulders to make it as perfect as we can. But making a simple blanket statement that controls the lives of half the population is not going to fix anything any more than declaring them chattel (as women were, until very recently) will. Every pregnancy is unique, and every mother; drawing generalities beyond mere physical mechanics is counterproductive and disrespectful to both mother and child.

Indeed, a societh that murders four times as many innocent children as died in the Holocaust may well be considered a society not worth living in.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s revisit this:

Mirdath said: Then it’s a society that isn’t worth living in. And who gets to fix that? We do.

Who is “we?” You certainly aren’t in a fixing mode – you’re in a making-worse mode. You defend the killing of the most innocent and helpless human beings.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by vern humphrey
An 11 year old? You do like to base moral rules on the most extreme cases, don’t you?

Just out of curiosity, how many 11 year olds got pregnant last year?

Let’s rephrase that – “what do you suggest for an underage girl who is pregnant?”

Ok, Vern. There seems to be some confusion here.
If you re-read my post # 95, you will see that I am 100% against abortion in all cases!
I used an 11 year old as an (obviously poor) example because you seemed to suggest that could be an exception and I was affirming that there is no exception.
Are we on the same page now?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ok, Vern. There seems to be some confusion here.
If you re-read my post # 95, you will see that I am 100% against abortion in all cases!
I used an 11 year old as an (obviously poor) example because you seemed to suggest that could be an exception and I was affirming that there is no exception.
Are we on the same page now?

Yes, we are.

And please accept my deepest apologies for misinterpreting your post.

 

[catsrus]

Vern,

 

[Mirdath]

As much as you would like to think the contrary, the rules of logical debate are not subject to be changed at your whim.

Or yours

So now you accept an argument that you rejected? That abortions can negatively affect the mother’s health?

Look closely. I never rejected that. Abortions are a medical procedure, and sometimes even the most perfunctory medical procedures can cause harm. I have to take antibiotics whenever I go to get my teeth cleaned because otherwise I’m at physical risk.

You didn’t know much about them, though, did you?

I knew quite a bit; my memory’s like carved ivory, though – shiny and nice, but with holes. It’d been a while since I’d read up on them.

The process is not an abortion. It is an example of double effect – the intent is to save the mother, not to kill the child. The inevatable death of the child (whether surgery is performed or not) is not willed but simply not preventable.

It is the surgical removal from the mother’s body of a developing fetus. It is an abortion. However, I’ve no argument with double-effect – in fact, that’s one of the principal points I’ve been making throughout the thread. Abortion for hedonistic convenience is rarer than you might think; from what I know, very, very few mothers or doctors actually want to get rid of a developing child. Other than the occasional crazy, in most cases it’s not something one wants to do; it’s something one feels must be done for physical, financial, social, or other reasons. The intent is to save the mother, not to kill the child – however, your idea of what constitutes ‘saving’ the mother’s life may vary considerably from what a doctor may think, or, most importantly, what that woman might think.

Once again, your track record is not one to inspire confidence in your anecdotes.

The incidents I’ve recounted are the only anecdotal evidence I’ve ever given on this board. And the source for them is sitting right next to me right now.

Who is “we?” You certainly aren’t in a fixing mode – you’re in a making-worse mode. You defend the killing of the most innocent and helpless human beings.

Making worse for you? I’m sorry, are you bitter because a woman didn’t carry your child to term once? Or are you dissatisfied because you can’t bear children yourself? Or maybe you just don’t understand that not everyone’s life is as easy or prosperous as yours is?

I’m not trying to make anything worse – I’m trying to defend women who have precious little in the way of defense. I’m saying that they should be able to determine how they live, and that you have no right to self-importantly impose your moral code on them or anyone else. You are not the final arbiter of morality, and if you are not taking in, helping, sheltering, and most importantly personally caring for and helping these women and their children, you have no business saying what they should and shouldn’t do. All your righteousness helps nothing save your own ego and sense of superiority, unless you have the works to show for it. And nobody in this world has the kind of works to go with that much self-righteousness.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Or yours

I don’t advance my rules – I go by the accepted rules of logical debate.

Look closely. I never rejected that. .

So you’re willing to accept that abortions may do more harm to the mother than good?

So back to the question of an underage girl being spirited away for an abortion withouit her parents knowing. Given that we accept there is a risk to her mental health, how can she, underage as she is, give informed consent to this risky procedure?

It is the surgical removal from the mother’s body of a developing fetus. It is an abortion.

Nope – it’s removal of the diseased fallopian tube. The removal of the developing child is an unwanted but unpreventable result.

However, I’ve no argument with double-effect – in fact, that’s one of the principal points I’ve been making throughout the thread. Abortion for hedonistic convenience is rarer than you might think; from what I know, very, very few mothers or doctors actually want to get rid of a developing child.

Is this more anecdotal evidence? Only an vanishingly-small number of mothers have abortions because their life is at risk. All the risk must be chalked up to, as you put it, hedonistic convenience.

Other than the occasional crazy, in most cases it’s not something one wants to do; it’s something one feels must be done for physical, financial, social, or other reasons.

Sounds like “coinvenience” to me!!

And you agree that killing, say a 3-year old for those same reasons would not be morally acceptable, do you not?

The intent is to save the mother, not to kill the child – however, your idea of what constitutes ‘saving’ the mother’s life may vary considerably from what a doctor may think, or, most importantly, what that woman might think.

The intent of an abortion for “physical, financial, social, or other reasons” is to “save the mother?”

How does an abortion for financial reasons “save” the mother?

The incidents I’ve recounted are the only anecdotal evidence I’ve ever given on this board. And the source for them is sitting right next to me right now.

Then ask her what the diagnosis was.

Making worse for you?

Making things worse for society by killing the most helpless members.

I’m sorry, are you bitter because a woman didn’t carry your child to term once? Or are you dissatisfied because you can’t bear children yourself? Or maybe you just don’t understand that not everyone’s life is as easy or prosperous as yours is?

No, I’m not bitter – nor has any member of my family ever had an abortion. Nor can you say my life has been easy – living as I have in some of the most primative conditions on earth for years at a time.

Are you bitter? Tell us why.

I’m not trying to make anything worse

You’re certainly succeeding at making things worse, whether you’re trying or not.

Answer this – if this were a debate over lyinching Blacks, and you were taking the affirmative (that it’s okay to lynch them) would you not agree that’s making things worse?

– I’m trying to defend women who have precious little in the way of defense.

And I am defending the children – who are wholly innocent and have no one to defend them.

I’m saying that they should be able to determine how they live, and that you have no right to self-importantly impose your moral code on them or anyone else.

And I say the innocent children have a right to live and that you have no right to self-importantly impose your moral code on them or anyone else. Yet you willingly condem them to death.

You are not the final arbiter of morality,

Nor are you – the difference between us is that I don’t advocate and defend the killing of the most helpless and innocent amongst us.

and if you are not taking in, helping, sheltering, and most importantly personally caring for and helping these women and their children, you have no business saying what they should and shouldn’t do.

In point of fact, I do a lot of that.

But your argument is specious – you might as well say that if you don’t “take care” of sexual predators, you have no business saying what they should and shouldn’t do.

All your righteousness helps nothing save your own ego and sense of superiority, unless you have the works to show for it. And nobody in this world has the kind of works to go with that much self-righteousness.

Whereas your self-righteousness kills. And the fruit of your works is death.

 

[Mirdath]

So you’re willing to accept that abortions may do more harm to the mother than good?

They may, of course. So can carrying to term.

So back to the question of an underage girl being spirited away for an abortion withouit her parents knowing. Given that we accept there is a risk to her mental health, how can she, underage as she is, give informed consent to this risky procedure?

Okay, you’ve made this funny enough for me to bite

I’ve only ever heard of one case in which someone was ‘spirited away’ for an abortion. It’s about as likely as killing yourself by picking your nose – extremely isolated incidents may occur, but that’s just how the world works. I do not support forced abortions, period, or enforced unavailability of them.

But unfortunately, underage or no, nobody can give a more informed consent than she can. Is that enough? If it isn’t enough, how could she be considered to have given ‘informed consent’ to parenthood? That’s a far greater burden than abortion is for a child-mother.

Nope – it’s removal of the diseased fallopian tube. The removal of the developing child is an unwanted but unpreventable result.

It’s both. The developing fetus is removed from the mother’s body and discarded. It’s the only cure for ectopic pregnancies; the fallopian tube is diseased because it has a fetus growing inside it. How is that process not an abortion with extra surgery and suffering added to it?

Is this more anecdotal evidence? Only an vanishingly-small number of mothers have abortions because their life is at risk. All the risk must be chalked up to, as you put it, hedonistic convenience.

Hedonistic convenience. Like being disowned and shunned for having brought a child into this world out of wedlock? Like being unable to work, or working but not being able to earn enough to support a child? Like forcing an eleven-year-old to bear a child and somehow raise a son or daughter alone, uneducated, desperate, and never having a chance at living her own life? And these are just a few possible issues. Every single pregnancy, every mother, is different – and this is why anecdotal evidence counts, so long as it is not used to make a blanket statement. It would seem that your ideas of what the quality of a woman’s life should be is a throwback to the Scarlet Letter days, or further back and still more brutal. Aren’t you lucky to never have to deal with such a question first-hand?

And you agree that killing, say a 3-year old for those same reasons would not be morally acceptable, do you not?

You’ve asked practically identical questions before, and I’ve answered those.

The intent of an abortion for “physical, financial, social, or other reasons” is to “save the mother?”

How does an abortion for financial reasons “save” the mother?

Say the mother is dirt-poor and unemployed (an all-too-common circumstance for women who have abortions). When she gets out of the hospital she’s going to have a huge bill hanging over her head, and no way to pay it. No way to pay for food, for diapers, for future doctor visits – or for her own necessities: rent, water, electricity, gas. In a situation like that, the mother may have been managing to just scrape by – but with the introduction of a baby, she can’t, not any more. They’ll both die. Maybe not immediately, but the rest of their lives have already been compromised.

Then ask her what the diagnosis was.

I’ve already told you. One count of severe malnutrition, one ectopic pregnancy.

Making things worse for society by killing the most helpless members.

Unborn fetuses are not members of society. Women are – and yeah, you’re right – they’re the most helpless members of society, and they’re being killed. Killed by your cheap charity, imposed moral code, lack of compassion, and wilflful negligence and ignorance.

Answer this – if this were a debate over lyinching Blacks, and you were taking the affirmative (that it’s okay to lynch them) would you not agree that’s making things worse?

Lynchings would be worse, and unquestionably evil – just as your passive lynching of mothers is.

And I am defending the children – who are wholly innocent and have no one to defend them.

Defending the children? Like the eleven-year-old you’d sentence to unwilling motherhood? Is she not wholly innocent and deserving of protection? And don’t tell me ‘oh, someone will take care of her and the child!’. That girl quite possibly could not go back to her parents; what if her father is also the father of her infant? You aren’t that person who will raise and take proper care of that child and her baby, let alone all in such circumstances. And ‘I would if I could’ is no excuse.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I don’t want to ridicule your example here and it sounds like your friend had quite a struggle, she will be in my prayers.

I just find this very hard to believe, that a woman could not eat enough to support her baby. …Regards though to your friend, I don’t doubt that this has been hard for her.

I too sympathize, yet question what kind of medical advice this poor woman was given. Medical malpractice leaves some doctors encouraging abortion if the pregnancy outcome seems complicated or risky. If a woman is truly unable to support a pregnancy, then wouldn’t the pregnancy terminate naturally through miscarriage? I don’t know your friend’s situation but IV’s can keep women with hyperemesis (or other GI problems) hydrated and nourished.

Mirdath, I am truly sorry for your friend’s losses. But don’t let her story cloud you from thinking clearly about this issue. You probably don’t have all the facts straight about her story, and you know only that which she told you, and maybe that which her doctor told her–which may not be the whole story. Something about the story doesn’t make sense, and I think some you are missing some relevant facts.

In any case, knowing someone who’s had an abortion sometimes clouds the real issue. Either the fetus is alive or it’s not; Mirdath you already acknowledged fetuses have life. Either the fetus is human or it’s something else–Mirdath you acknowleged back on page one the fetus of a human mother is a human fetus.

Then the debate is really about what human life deserves protection and what human life doesn’t. Mirdath believe her friend’s life deserved protection, while her friend’s unborn offspring did not. I believe both deserve protection, because* both* are human lives.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

GG:

Do you consider premature babies (26-32 weeks) human?

At the very least they’ve started on that path They’re out of the womb and no longer directly dependent on their mothers for absolutely everything, even if they have other health issues that require assistance*.*

Wasn’t there something on that path before?

The most critical difference is that a human being can live without being physically attached to the mother. The only other one that comes to mind right now is the presence of a conscience*.*

Someone born below 32 weeks can’t live with-out the physical attachment to the mother. That’s why life support is necessary.

So, you would consider the 38 human organism in the womb not a human being (and therefore not deserving of any special protection) because of the physical attachment to the mother but on the other hand you would consider the 26 week old prematurely born infant on a respirator and intravenous fluids a human being (and therefore deserving of special protection).

Pretty much. Even you should admit that people develop both physically and spiritually at different rates.

Are you aware that universally, those born at 28-30 weeks need life support? Do you think that they are premature because they are as developed as a 38 week fetus? Thiry eight week fetus can be scheduled for an elective C sec. Prematurity is due to a woman’s body being unable to support a pregnancy not the maturity of the fetus.

]

GG:

Is it viability or the umbilical cord?

Mirdath:

It’s ‘living outside the mother’.

Your real estate argument (location, location, location) says nothing about the intrinsic humanity of a 30 week premature product of conception ( or parasite as you prefer). A thirty week old can’t live without being attached to the mother, that’s why it requires life support in a neonatal intensive care unit costing tens of thousands of dollars.

*Here in the SW women, cross the border to have their infant at an American hospital. Why do American citizens owe a premature 30 week old product of conception (or parasite if you prefer) of an illegal alien any care except a warm corner to die? *

 

[Riley259]

I’ve seen pictures like that before. Thanks for trying to prove your point by grossing me out – fortunately I have a very strong stomach. That doesn’t make me interested in seeing it though; keep your gore-pornography to yourself, please.

Fetuses are in the species homo sapiens sapiens; however, they are not human beings as I use the term. They are incapable of independence from the mother, and indeed leech nutriment from her. They are just as much human as are teratomata until viability outside the womb is possible.

Were gestation accomplished in artificial wombs, things might be different (and I’d have a lot to reconsider); but it is not, it still requires the use of a fully-grown human woman, often at great risk to her health and life.

Oh, please. Gore pornography?! These are real pictures not something manufactured in an editing room. These things really happened to these babies and your blindness to this is astounding. Your logic on what is a human and what is not is so flawed as to not even warrant a response…denial is a beautiful thing, isn’t it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve only ever heard of one case in which someone was ‘spirited away’ for an abortion. It’s about as likely as killing yourself by picking your nose – extremely isolated incidents may occur, but that’s just how the world works.

There is a famous abortion mill in Kansas City where literally thousands of under-age girls were brought for abortions. You don’t watch the news?

I do not support forced abortions, period, or enforced unavailability of them.

If you support abortions for underaged girls, you support forced abortions – unless it’s your position that someone who is too young to consent to sex can legitimately be said to consent to a major trauma while under great mental stress.

And be thrown back in the same environment where she got raped!

Hedonistic convenience. Like being disowned and shunned for having brought a child into this world out of wedlock?

And if it did happen, would you say she would be better off dead? Because that’s what happens to the child.

Like forcing an eleven-year-old to bear a child and somehow raise a son or daughter alone, uneducated, desperate, and never having a chance at living her own life?

I repeat, how many 11-year olds get pregnant each year?

And why should such a girl be “alone, uneducated, desperate, and never having a chance at living her own life?” If she comes to our church, she’ll be cared for.

Aren’t you lucky to never have to deal with such a question first-hand?

In point of fact, I have dealt with it first-hand. My aunt was a foundling – a wagon driver found her biological mother actually digging a grave to bury her, and convinced her to give him the baby. My brother was born with a cleft palate and a harelip – and his mother died from shock, leaving my father a single parent in the midst of the Depression with a small daughter and an infant who would take years of expensive surgery. My daughter was advised to get an abortion because a test showed her child might have Down’s Syndrome.

Say the mother is dirt-poor and unemployed (an all-too-common circumstance for women who have abortions). When she gets out of the hospital she’s going to have a huge bill hanging over her head, and no way to pay it. No way to pay for food, for diapers, for future doctor visits – or for her own necessities: rent, water, electricity, gas. In a situation like that, the mother may have been managing to just scrape by – but with the introduction of a baby, she can’t, not any more. They’ll both die. Maybe not immediately, but the rest of their lives have already been compromised.

Why is murder always your solution to problems?

Unborn fetuses are not members of society.

Says who? I know many a mother who loves her unborn child as intensely as she does its older siblings.

Women are – and yeah, you’re right – they’re the most helpless members of society, and they’re being killed. Killed by your cheap charity, imposed moral code, lack of compassion, and wilflful negligence and ignorance.

No, that would be your cheap charity – the cheapness that says it’s better to kill the baby than to help the mother and child.

Defending the children? Like the eleven-year-old you’d sentence to unwilling motherhood? Is she not wholly innocent and deserving of protection?

Yep – yet you would abort her, when she can hardly give informed consent, then throw her back into the same environment where she was raped before – and where her rapist goes free to prey on her again and again.

And don’t tell me ‘oh, someone will take care of her and the child!’. That girl quite possibly could not go back to her parents; what if her father is also the father of her infant? You aren’t that person who will raise and take proper care of that child and her baby, let alone all in such circumstances. And ‘I would if I could’ is no excuse.

And don’t tell me ‘oh, someone will take care of her and the child!’ Because it is you, not me, who would abort her, conceal everything and send her right back to be raped again.

 

[Mirdath]

If a woman is truly unable to support a pregnancy, then wouldn’t the pregnancy terminate naturally through miscarriage? I don’t know your friend’s situation but IV’s can keep women with hyperemesis (or other GI problems) hydrated and nourished.

Not always.

Mirdath, I am truly sorry for your friend’s losses. But don’t let her story cloud you from thinking clearly about this issue. You probably don’t have all the facts straight about her story, and you know only that which she told you, and maybe that which her doctor told her–which may not be the whole story. Something about the story doesn’t make sense, and I think some you are missing some relevant facts.

There’s no thinking clearly about this issue, no matter your opinion on it. It’s base and visceral, and let’s face it, universally physically unappealing – much like the point of childbirth.

In any case, knowing someone who’s had an abortion sometimes clouds the real issue. Either the fetus is alive or it’s not; Mirdath you already acknowledged fetuses have life. Either the fetus is human or it’s something else–Mirdath you acknowleged back on page one the fetus of a human mother is a human fetus.

The fetus is potentially human. The mother is undeniably human. She is capable of making decisions and exercising her free will, for right or wrong; the fetus is not. Would you argue that a five-year-old, since it is undeniably alive, human, and conscious should have full responsibility for deciding the path of his or her entire life?

Then the debate is really about what human life deserves protection and what human life doesn’t. Mirdath believe her friend’s life deserved protection, while her friend’s unborn offspring did not. I believe both deserve protection, because* both* are human lives.

If we lived in utopia, I’d agree with you. Sadly, we don’t, or at least not all of us – sometimes we have to decide between two ills. Deserves has nothing to do with it.
Gabriel Gale:

Wasn’t there something on that path before?

Proto-human. The human in this question, the mother, is more valuable.

Someone born below 32 weeks can’t live with-out the physical attachment to the mother. That’s why life support is necessary.

Once the child is born, the mother is no longer in direct danger from the presence of the fetus. That’s why I draw the line where I do. Nobody’s advocating late-term abortion – in fact, nobody’s advocating having them at all! I’d much rather see a world in which nobody felt them necessary.

Another point is, who’s going to pay for that life support? Considering the demographics of women who have abortions, many of them wouldn’t be able to afford it. And most of those who are so up in arms about abortion either won’t or can’t.

Are you aware that universally, those born at 28-30 weeks need life support?

Very aware.

Do you think that they are premature because they are as developed as a 38 week fetus? Thiry eight week fetus can be scheduled for an elective C sec. Prematurity is due to a woman’s body being unable to support a pregnancy not the maturity of the fetus.

There doesn’t have to be a ‘why’ for prematurity. It just happens sometimes, and can spring from a combination of factors. Some women just don’t carry long, and many are prone to miscarriage, which is also dangerous to their survival (blood loss, toxic shock, etc, etc) and their ability to conceive and bear later.

Here in the SW women, cross the border to have their infant at an American hospital. Why do American citizens owe a premature 30 week old product of conception (or parasite if you prefer) of an illegal alien any care except a warm corner to die?

We don’t owe the fetus anything. We owe the mother haven and help as another human being. That sentiment stands larger than life right in the middle of our largest port: Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. To deny anyone shelter is uncharitable, unchristian, and unamerican. And here we don’t even enforce child support on the fathers very well at all.

Riley259:

Oh, please. Gore pornography?! These are real pictures not something manufactured in an editing room. These things really happened to these babies and your blindness to this is astounding. Your logic on what is a human and what is not is so flawed as to not even warrant a response…denial is a beautiful thing, isn’t it?

It is pornographic. It’s not art, and it’s intended to arouse a visceral emotional response. That’s the very definition of pornography. It’s the same basic idea as anti-surgery protestors (perhaps extreme Christian Scientists) picketing outside a cardiovascular unit with gigantic images of a torn-open human torso. It’s disgusting, immature, and an embarrassment for the rest of us. It also happens to be against forum rules.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is pornographic. It’s not art, and it’s intended to arouse a visceral emotional response. That’s the very definition of pornography. .

If your eye cannot bear to see what your hand has done, you should have stayed your hand.

I’ll offer you another challenge – print out these pictures and frame them. Hang them above your computer monitor. And every time you type a defense of abortion, look up and see what you’re defending.

And I will do the same – I will hang up pictures of the girls I and my group have helped, and I will look up at them when I type an entry.

 

[Mirdath]

There is a famous abortion mill in Kansas City where literally thousands of under-age girls were brought for abortions. You don’t watch the news?

Nope. I get my news online, and I’ve heard nothing about that.

If you support abortions for underaged girls, you support forced abortions – unless it’s your position that someone who is too young to consent to sex can legitimately be said to consent to a major trauma while under great mental stress.

Shouldn’t she be allowed to consent somewhere in this process?

Not only that, you’re saying abortion is a ‘major trauma’ while giving birth to an 8-lb child at age 10 isn’t?

And be thrown back in the same environment where she got raped!

Like, perhaps, her own home? And if not, are you advocating purdah (near-total seclusion and confinement) for women and girls?

And if it did happen, would you say she would be better off dead? Because that’s what happens to the child.

Deciding that is up to her. I haven’t said she should go one way or the other. You have.

I repeat, how many 11-year olds get pregnant each year?

Far more than you’d ever want to know.

And why should such a girl be “alone, uneducated, desperate, and never having a chance at living her own life?” If she comes to our church, she’ll be cared for.

Nobody’s said she should. Forcing her to give birth to a baby the size of her own torso is hardly caring for her.

Is your church ready to support an influx of millions of desperate women and children with nothing, no possessions, and no hope? Why are you on the internet? Obviously you have something better to do – those women are waiting for your care, and they probably can’t afford a bus ticket to your well-off church.

In point of fact, I have dealt with it first-hand. My aunt was a foundling – a wagon driver found her biological mother actually digging a grave to bury her, and convinced her to give him the baby. My brother was born with a cleft palate and a harelip – and his mother died from shock, leaving my father a single parent in the midst of the Depression with a small daughter and an infant who would take years of expensive surgery. My daughter was advised to get an abortion because a test showed her child might have Down’s Syndrome.

Get pregnant, then you can claim first-hand experience.

Why is murder always your solution to problems?

I mentioned an alternate earlier in the thread: move gestation entirely ex utero, and contracept. But woops, you wouldn’t stand for that, would you? You haven’t presented any solutions whatsoever other than saying ‘don’t have sex and don’t get raped!’, and there will not be any truly perfect solutions in the foreseeable future. Pregnancy in vitro is the best we could do right now, but it’s not happening; it doesn’t have much in the way of moral or financial support.

Says who? I know many a mother who loves her unborn child as intensely as she does its older siblings.

If you think that many or most women who have abortions don’t love their children born or unborn, you’re horribly mistaken.

No, that would be your cheap charity – the cheapness that says it’s better to kill the baby than to help the mother and child.

Ideally, I would help both. Sometimes one can’t, and then I choose the next best option – letting the mother decide, and supporting her decision – rather than setting them adrift.

Yep – yet you would abort her, when she can hardly give informed consent, then throw her back into the same environment where she was raped before – and where her rapist goes free to prey on her again and again.

I have said no such thing. Please, show me where I said anything condoning rape or cutting young women – or anyone else, for that matter – loose in dangerous environments.

And don’t tell me ‘oh, someone will take care of her and the child!’ Because it is you, not me, who would abort her, conceal everything and send her right back to be raped again.

You’re wrong, you’re obviously not reading my posts, and you’re not making sense.