User Tag List

Page 25 of 56 FirstFirst ... 152223242526272835 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 375 of 834

Thread: Abortion///cont.

  1. #361
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,371
    Thanks
    1,809
    Thanked 3,544 Times in 2,102 Posts

    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1721423
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    I'm getting used to the insults and slanders of members like you, especially when 'on the ropes', so I'll take the above in my stride.
    But for a sham to promote 'entitlement to life' one minute, and then shout extremist rubbish at the thought of 'entitlement to medicare and education.... and school meals' the next is so close to a schizophrenic condition as to be worrying.
    Lon..... you don't care about children, imo.
    Lon.... I don't believe that you totally support Pro-Life.
    Lon..... I don't believe that you are committed to Human Rights.
    ..... and you're insulting post demeans you.
    I wasn't insane. That was another guy. I actually care about those kids and work in a foodbank on my off days to 'feed' those children.
    Several children are alive today because I am on the planet because I made sure to meet that need.

    Which of us is a hypocrite and fraud (either? if you are doing what you are supposed to be doing)? Sentiment doesn't get-er-done. Put your time, talent, $ where your mouth is OR all the above applies AND you know it. I AM pro-life, not a fraud. What about you?
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    Eagles Wings (May 19th, 2017)

  3. #362
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,672
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 1,263 Times in 993 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275009
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    Oh I do like to see you duck and dive, squirming back to your comfortable position of self-righteousness ..... this is fun!
    Duck and dive? It's the same question you've been avoiding all along.

    Maybe I should rephrase it. Do you think abortion should be illegal?
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  4. #363
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,672
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 1,263 Times in 993 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275009
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Google it and get back to me tomorrow. Enough feeding the animals at the TOL zoo...time to feed myself. Dinner awaits!
    Alright.

    I googled "medically necessary abortion" and this was the first link on the list: https://www.liveaction.org/news/form...of-the-mother/

    In cases where a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death or grave physical injury, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke.

    This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well.

    This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  5. #364
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 825 Times in 656 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    608836
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    Alright.

    I googled "medically necessary abortion" and this was the first link on the list: https://www.liveaction.org/news/form...of-the-mother/
    That's great when the fetus is far enough along. That's not always the case though (ectopic is an example). Though a C-section is not an abortion.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  6. #365
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,672
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 1,263 Times in 993 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275009
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    That's great when the fetus is far enough along. That's not always the case though (ectopic is an example). Though a C-section is not an abortion.
    Ok, there's a specific example - ectopic pregnancy.

    In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I believe the teaching of the Catholic Church is morally sound.

    Here's what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated:
    In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

    Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child

    The same would hold true, for example, in the case of a pregnant woman requiring chemotherapy. Though it would almost certainly kill the embryo or fetus she is carrying, it is morally licit for her to have her cancer treated. The treatment's purpose is not the intentional killing of an innocent human being. It is not an abortion.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  7. #366
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 825 Times in 656 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    608836
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    Ok, there's a specific example - ectopic pregnancy.

    In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I believe the teaching of the Catholic Church is morally sound.

    Here's what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated:


    The same would hold true, for example, in the case of a pregnant woman requiring chemotherapy. Though it would almost certainly kill the embryo or fetus she is carrying, it is morally licit for her to have her cancer treated. The treatment's purpose is not the intentional killing of an innocent human being. It is not an abortion.
    Sure its abortion...they don't allow it to remain in the womb during chemo. Do they?

    Same end result: the death of a unique human life. So, you agree that there can be moral exceptions for aborting a fetus?
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  8. #367
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,672
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 1,263 Times in 993 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275009
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Sure its abortion...they don't allow it to remain in the womb during chemo. Do they?
    I do not know. They ought to.

    Chemo in pregnancy does not necessarily harm baby, says study


    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Same end result: the death of a unique human life. So, you agree that there can be moral exceptions for aborting a fetus?
    No. I do not support the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  9. #368
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 825 Times in 656 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    608836
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    I do not know. They ought to.
    They ought to what....abort or give that innocent life a lethal dose of chemo/radiation!?
    Neither choice looks good for your argument.




    No. I do not support the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child.
    Doesn't seem to be the case. Seems you're just fine with it.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  10. #369
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,672
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 1,263 Times in 993 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275009
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    They ought to what....abort or give that innocent life a lethal dose of chemo/radiation!?
    Neither choice looks good for your argument.

    I added a link to the previous post. Chemo is not necessarily a death sentence for the unborn. Why deliberately kill them first? What's the purpose?




    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Doesn't seem to be the case. Seems you're just fine with it.
    With the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child? How so?
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  11. #370
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,672
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 1,263 Times in 993 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275009
    Did you read what the USCCB wrote about ectopic pregnancy? Treatment of a pathology is not deliberate killing.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  12. #371
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,672
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 1,263 Times in 993 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275009
    The principle of double effect is pertinent here.

    http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  13. #372
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 825 Times in 656 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    608836
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    I added a link to the previous post. Chemo is not necessarily a death sentence for the unborn. Why deliberately kill them first? What's the purpose?
    Your other link claimed the fetus' death as an "almost certainty". Seems reasonable that medical techniques aim to kill cancer cells would be detrimental to incipient life. Yes?






    With the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child? How so?
    Hou seem all too willing to take the chance.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  14. #373
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,672
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 1,263 Times in 993 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275009
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Your other link claimed the fetus' death as an "almost certainty". Seems reasonable that medical techniques aim to kill cancer cells would be detrimental to incipient life. Yes?
    I was wrong. Perhaps you held the same misconception I did about chemo during pregnancy.

    But even if the death of the fetus was a certainty, deliberately killing the fetus beforehand would be pointless.



    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Hou seem all too willing to take the chance.
    Read what the USCCB said. Treating a pathology is not deliberate killing.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  15. #374
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 825 Times in 656 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    608836
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    The principle of double effect is pertinent here.

    http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html
    The problem here is that you must admit and appeal to the unique circumstance of pregnancy...the fetus' very existence reliant upon the mother's body.

    11-day-olds do not qualify. Is it not absurd to compare the mother killing her 11-day-old to killing her fetus for medical reasons?
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  16. #375
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 825 Times in 656 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    608836
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    I was wrong. Perhaps you held the same misconception I did about chemo during pregnancy.
    Perhaps those bishops are wrong as well.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us