Abortion, the Pro-Life Stance, and God's Law. Abortion is Never Okay.

[Lon]

So when your god ordered the killings that resulted in the death of Amalekite foetuses, those 'unborn children' were enemies of your god.

Stuart

War ethics are always different than societal expectation. In war, especially then, the Geneva Convention was out the window. We have NO idea why women and children were killed sometimes and sometimes not. However far from home - might have been a factor. Disease might have been a factor. Try not to make your atheism a hasty and misplaced judgement. If I don't know, as a Christian, you certainly don't know. IOW, don't make the exception the rule: War should NOT inform YOUR or MY values. War should NOT inform your theology either. It IS the exception to the rule. I don't like talking about war, but do research on war atrocity, even today. Normal people doing things they normally wouldn't do, even the bad guys. Make better informed decisions and stances, Stuu.
"A 14-year-old rape victim died during childbirth in Paraguay, where it is illegal [to have an abortion] UNLESS the pregnancy poses a threat to the woman's life." :doh:
... "the baby boy is alive..."
THINK!

Here's another dream headline for the 'pro-lifers':

14-year-old rape victim dies after being forced to give birth in Paraguay

Stuart

Stuu! This is ANOTHER exception. They ALREADY have laws in place when the pregnancy endangers the mother. Paraguay may need better and more experienced doctors or something else entirely. The article is hasty too, so not all your fault, but again, don't be informed by the exceptions to the rule. Liberals are, and I don't find it exercising critical thinking skills. It is why you get "knee-jerk" and "bleeding heart." Emoting is good. Emoting without critical thinking employed? Not so good.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

No. But I think that a woman has absolute right of medical consent, so there is one 'person' that she should be allowed to have killed, the foetus inside her.

Stuart

Since "fetus" is just a term used to describe a member of the human species at a particular stage of development, what you are really saying is:

A woman should be allowed to kill another human just because she feels like it.

I don't understand why you deny a woman a right to kill a newborn, or toddler, or teenager, or adult, or an elderly person then. They are just humans at different stages of development.

Seems pretty inconsistent.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're called on this one, JudgeRightly. Put up or shut up, as science always demands, in its usual blunt manner.

The exact relationship between autotransfusion and ectopic pregnancy is...?

Stuart

Good grief, you're dense.

What almost always occurs during an ectopic pregnancy, Stuart? A RUPTURE, which causes internal bleeding, which can lead to death.

Autotransfusion prevents the death by bleeding out of the mother. And again, I point to this link

http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/fact-sheet-on-ectopic-pregnancy.html#_ftn2

for facts on ectopic pregnancies, which shows that they are survivable by both mom and baby, no abortion required.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Please link to the specific page, not to a whole page of links. That's just lazy on your part. You might also care to establish that the website you are linking to has reliable information. It looks to me like it is very unreliable.

I think you're confusing the two links I have posted so far.

This one

http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/fact-sheet-on-ectopic-pregnancy.html#_ftn2

Deals with facts on ectopic pregnancies. It has paragraphs of text followed by sources at the bottom.

This one

http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion

Has all the Scriptures dealing with abortion. It has a list of links which take you to each section on the same page, followed by all the sections.

Please pay more attention.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Yes, obviously it is. Not sure what is inconsistent about that.

Stuart

I'd have to look back. I'm not sure I said that was inconsistent. Actually, I think you are being consistent.

Just consistently wrong. None of what you have stated justifies one person killing another person.

I know you don't like analogies but I don't see how this:

An abortion is "necessary" whenever a woman decides "she would like to" have one".....

Is any different from a whole host of illogical other statements such as one like this:

A rape is "necessary" whenever a man decides that "he would like to" have one....

The logic in your statement is indefensible and I think you have proved that in our conversation.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Here's another dream headline for the 'pro-lifers':

14-year-old rape victim dies after being forced to give birth in Paraguay

Stuart

Sounds like they have a problem with their rape crime rate.

If they punished rapists appropriately, by executing them when convicted, then 14 year old girls wouldn't suffer the way that girl did.

It's a symptom of a sickness, address the sickness, and the symptoms go away.

Address the symptoms, and the sickness will only fester.

 

[Stuu]

Good grief, you're dense.

What almost always occurs during an ectopic pregnancy, Stuart? A RUPTURE, which causes internal bleeding, which can lead to death.

Autotransfusion prevents the death by bleeding out of the mother. And again, I point to this link

http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/fact-sheet-on-ectopic-pregnancy.html#_ftn2

for facts on ectopic pregnancies, which shows that they are survivable by both mom and baby, no abortion required.

So autotransfusion is a way of putting the blood back into the woman, while they remove the foetus, right?

And there is indeed a small percentage of ectopic prengancies that resolve themselves and result in a healthy birth.

What do those two facts have to do with one another? Please explain.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Since "fetus" is just a term used to describe a member of the human species at a particular stage of development, what you are really saying is:

A woman should be allowed to kill another human just because she feels like it.

I don't understand why you deny a woman a right to kill a newborn, or toddler, or teenager, or adult, or an elderly person then. They are just humans at different stages of development.

Seems pretty inconsistent.

I'm not sure what wasn't clear about my answer to that when you asked earlier.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

War ethics are always different than societal expectation. In war, especially then, the Geneva Convention was out the window. We have NO idea why women and children were killed sometimes and sometimes not. However far from home - might have been a factor. Disease might have been a factor. Try not to make your atheism a hasty and misplaced judgement. If I don't know, as a Christian, you certainly don't know. IOW, don't make the exception the rule: War should NOT inform YOUR or MY values. War should NOT inform your theology either. It IS the exception to the rule. I don't like talking about war, but do research on war atrocity, even today. Normal people doing things they normally wouldn't do, even the bad guys. Make better informed decisions and stances, Stuu.

Do you think the alleged flood was caused by your god, or not? Who is responsible for all those foetus deaths?

"A 14-year-old rape victim died during childbirth in Paraguay, where it is illegal [to have an abortion] UNLESS the pregnancy poses a threat to the woman's life." :doh:
... "the baby boy is alive..."
THINK!

Yeah, sure, that works.

Stuu! This is ANOTHER exception. They ALREADY have laws in place when the pregnancy endangers the mother. Paraguay may need better and more experienced doctors or something else entirely. The article is hasty too, so not all your fault, but again, don't be informed by the exceptions to the rule. Liberals are, and I don't find it exercising critical thinking skills. It is why you get "knee-jerk" and "bleeding heart." Emoting is good. Emoting without critical thinking employed? Not so good.

That's what I keep telling the pro-death camp here: don't emote, have actual arguments. It hasn't been so bad in this thread so far.

What Paraguay never needed was Catholicism. The number of women dying as a result of the actions of that church should be an international outrage. But, get the word church in there, and often you can get away with anything.

Stuart

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

In your judgment...

And those who steal food because they are made completely destitute by events beyond their control, they are not innocent.

Not convinced, sorry. Innocence is such a hypocritical claim by a christian. What happened to the doctrine of original sin? You don't believe in that, I guess.

It doesn't sound to me like you understand the doctrine of original sin. Babies and some others are innocent because they haven't (because they are incapable of) committing actual sins. There is a difference between original sin and actual sin.

There is nothing hypocritical about it at all, if you understand what it actually means.

Those Amalekite foetuses that were ordered killed by your god, they weren't innocent, presumably. All the foetuses whose deaths resulted from your god flooding the whole planet, not innocent?

Medical consent is the difference. The 1 year old is not part of the mother's right to decide what happens to her body, but the foetus is. So she has the right to decide, which has to go higher that some other idiot deciding that the foetus has the right to decide.

Stuart

[/QUOTE]

The fetus is not a part of the mother's body either. Do you think a woman pregnant with a boy has a penis? No. She doesn't. That's ridiculous. Because the fetus is not a part of her body.

Or are you going to say that yes. The fetus is a part of the woman's body so when she is pregnant with a boy she has a penis?

Human rights end when they impose upon another human's rights. That is why a man can do whatever he wants to do with his body....until he decides he wants to use his body to harm another person.

The same is true for a woman. She can do whatever she wants to with her body....until she decides she wants to harm another person.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So autotransfusion is a way of putting the blood back into the woman, while they remove the foetus, right?

Nope. From http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html:

Most of the doctors who have written about successful ectopic pregnancies have focused primarily on the details of one or two cases while repeating the claim that survival of the child is extremely rare and unlikely. There are a few, however, who have taken the initiative to study multiple cases, and their conclusions have been markedly different. A 1996 study from Chile, for example, found that out of 11 abdominal pregnancies, there were 7 live births with 5 of those children surviving the neonatal period.[25] Another study conducted in 2008 reviewed 158 abdominal pregnancies worldwide and found that 28% of the children survived the perinatal period but did not report on the actual number of live births.[26] These reports are consistent with a 2010 article which stated that the reported perinatal survival rate for abdominal pregnancies ranges from 5-60%.[27] With reported survival rates as high as 60%, it is difficult to imagine why so many doctors would refer to such cases with terminology approaching the miraculous. Perhaps the explanation lies in the subtle distinction between tubal pregnancies and abdominal pregnancies. A tubal pregnancy is by far the most common type of ectopic pregnancy, and it occurs when the child implants and begins to grow in one of the mother's fallopian tubes. An abdominal pregnancy is a more rare type of pregnancy in which the child grows in the mother's abdominal cavity. Most of the reports of children surviving ectopic pregnancies refer to those pregnancies as abdominal pregnancies. This has led many people to believe that there is a major distinction between abdominal pregnancies and tubal pregnancies and that only those ectopic children which implant in the abdomen can survive. For example, the Association of Pro-Life Physicians has stated that "there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived," but they followed that statement with the claim that "there are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving."[28] The error in this belief is aptly explained in a 1982 article by Dr. J. F. Clark entitled "Embryo Transfer In Vivo." In that article, Dr. Clark demonstrated that, in a tubal pregnancy, the rupture of the fallopian tube does not kill the unborn child. In many cases, the child will detach from the ruptured tube on his own and reattach on another surface in the abdominal cavity.[29] This ability of the child to detach and reattach indicates that it may eventually be possible for doctors to transplant an ectopic pregnancy into the womb.[see addendum below] Unfortunately, the current acceptance of abortion as a method of treatment has caused this avenue of research to be largely abandoned. Nonetheless, the natural ability of the child to perform this feat has made it possible for a significant number of tubal pregnancies to result in live births. It is possible to derive a rough calculation of the percentage of children who could survive a tubal pregnancy. There have been multiple studies of expectant management of ectopic pregnancies. (Expectant management refers to cases in which the doctor monitors the pregnancy closely but does not administer any direct treatment.) It has been discovered that a large percentage of ectopic pregnancies resolve on their own with the death of the child before he grows large enough to cause a rupture of the fallopian tube. In one study of 179 tubal pregnancies, it was found that 41.9% of all tubal pregnancies result in the death of the child at this stage.[30] This means that approximately 58% of the children continue to grow until they eventually rupture their mothers' fallopian tubes. Dr. Clark demonstrated that the rupture itself does not cause the death of the child and that he will subsequently implant on some other surface in the abdominal cavity. According to Dr. Clark, 42% of these children will implant on a surface that has enough of a blood supply for the unborn child to survive all the way to 28 weeks of gestation. At any point after 28 weeks, the child can be delivered alive via c-section with a very good chance for survival. (Deliveries as early as 21 weeks have been reported, but the majority of those children do not survive the neonatal period.) Given these two percentages, we can calculate that 24% of all tubal pregnancies could result in a live birth.

(for citations, follow the link)

And there is indeed a small percentage of ectopic prengancies that resolve themselves and result in a healthy birth.

What do those two facts have to do with one another? Please explain.

Stuart

It means that having an abortion, the intentional killing of the unborn baby, to end an ectopic pregnancy is not necessary, because both patients (mom and baby) can and do survive.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

I'm not sure what wasn't clear about my answer to that when you asked earlier.

Stuart

Well, I think your position is that the baby in her womb is a part of her body. But it isn't.

The parts of a woman's body all share the same genetic code and the baby in her womb has a different genetic code. The baby is not a part of the woman's body.

Also, there are sad cases where a mother dies but the baby in her womb lives. If the baby was a part of her body, it should have died when she did. But it didn't, because it isn't a part of her body.

Since you are allowing for the killing of one human by another, I don't know why you would restrict that to only those that are in the womb. Why can't newborns, toddlers, and all the rest be killed too? None of them are part of the woman's body either.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

I know exactly what autotransfusion is. You haven't explained how it is relevant.

Stuart

Stuart,

I still would be interested to hear why you referred to abortion as "harrowing" and "not an easy option".

Could you explain that please?

Thanks.

Peace.

 

[Stuu]

It doesn't sound to me like you understand the doctrine of original sin. Babies and some others are innocent because they haven't (because they are incapable of) committing actual sins. There is a difference between original sin and actual sin.

Psalm 51:5

The fetus is not a part of the mother's body either. Do you think a woman pregnant with a boy has a penis? No. She doesn't. That's ridiculous. Because the fetus is not a part of her body. Or are you going to say that yes. The fetus is a part of the woman's body so when she is pregnant with a boy she has a penis?

This whole paragraph is ridiculous. If you think the foetus isn't part of the woman's body, then try removing the foetus from the woman's body and make it not part of the woman's body. If you choose a time late in the third trimester it might work out ok, but not earlier than that. As for a woman having a penis, well if you didn't know that happens then I recommend you do more reading.

Human rights end when they impose upon another human's rights. That is why a man can do whatever he wants to do with his body....until he decides he wants to use his body to harm another person.

No, human rights do not end when they impose upon another's human rights. A person who is dying of dehydration and takes the last bottle of water available ahead of me, who is not dying of dehydration although quite thirsty, imposes on my human right to access to water. But I hope you would say that the dying person's right to survival goes ahead of my right to the water.

The same is true for a woman. She can do whatever she wants to with her body....until she decides she wants to harm another person.

In that case the 'other person' has no business invading the woman's body. Even the woman's immune system agrees with that!

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Nope. From http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html:

It means that having an abortion, the intentional killing of the unborn baby, to end an ectopic pregnancy is not necessary, because both patients (mom and baby) can and do survive.

How about some actual facts?

1 in 50 pregnancies in the US is ectopic.

Ectopic pregnancies cause about 30 maternal deaths a year in the US.

Ectopic pregnancies are almost universally nonviable; exceptions are very rare.

There is no technology that allows an ectopically implanted embryo or foetus to be moved to the womb.

(https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-do-statistics-look-like-for-ectopic-pregnancy-2371730)

Autotransfusion of blood is performed to save the woman's life while the foetus is removed. Autotransfusion makes no difference to the fact that the foetus is almost certainly going to die.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuart,

I still would be interested to hear why you referred to abortion as "harrowing" and "not an easy option".

Could you explain that please?

Thanks.

Peace.

Try reading these, for example. Some not harrowing, others a bit disturbing.

This is really worth a read, from a person who has been in the operating room with the women undergoing abortions.

Stuart

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Psalm 51:5


This whole paragraph is ridiculous. If you think the foetus isn't part of the woman's body, then try removing the foetus from the woman's body and make it not part of the woman's body.

Ok. How about removing at the moment of childbirth?

If you choose a time late in the third trimester it might work out ok, but not earlier than that.

Then why are you advocating for something that won't work out ok?

As for a woman having a penis, well if you didn't know that happens then I recommend you do more reading.

Wait, what? I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that a woman does have a penis when carrying a baby boy? Really?

No, human rights do not end when they impose upon another's human rights.

You are simply wrong.

A man can do whatever he wants to with his body right? Well, what if a man says he wants to use his body to rape a woman? Is that ok? I hope you will say no because his rights end when he infringes upon the right of the woman to not be raped.

If you truly believe that human rights do not end when they infringe on another human's rights....then rape should be legal, murder should be legal, and basically everything should be legal.

I don't think your statement squares with reality. We have laws precisely because one person's rights end when they infringe upon another's persons right.

A person who is dying of dehydration and takes the last bottle of water available ahead of me, who is not dying of dehydration although quite thirsty, imposes on my human right to access to water. But I hope you would say that the dying person's right to survival goes ahead of my right to the water.

Do you think that person has the right to kill you to make sure that they get that last bottle of water?

In that case the 'other person' has no business invading the woman's body. Even the woman's immune system agrees with that!

What a joke. Your logic is getting worse and worse.

When a woman gets pregnant, her body is doing what it is designed to do naturally.

A pregnancy is not an unnatural alien invasion.

It is the natural process for the human species to procreate.

The baby has "no business invading the woman's body" you say?

That is just ridiculous.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Try reading these, for example. Some not harrowing, others a bit disturbing.

This is really worth a read, from a person who has been in the operating room with the women undergoing abortions.

Stuart

Interesting links. A lot of what is stated actually supports the pro-life position. I mean, if having an abortion causes someone so much pain that they think they are dying and they need to get to the emergency room and it is a horrific decision....then why do it? It is not natural to kill a baby in what should be the safest place on the planet for that baby...it's mother's womb.

It is not a courageous decision to kill a baby in the womb. One of the lame excuses in the links you provided
a lady stated that she had an abortion because she wasn't in a good relationship at the time.

Well, la-tee-da. That is just self-centeredness. That is not courageous.

It is a courageous decision to give a child life and be a mother. That is courageous.

Killing babies in the womb is cowardice.

Really the only factor in the abortion debate should be: "What are the unborn?" Since they are clearly members of the human species they should not be killed.

Why don't the reasons for having an abortion listed in one of your links justify killing a 1 year old? I have too many kids already...I got laid off of work...I'm homeless...I have a mental illness....etc.

Why can't we kill those 1 year olds for the same reason? What is the difference between a 1 year old and a baby in the womb? Location and development? Those are not valid reasons to kill.

Here's an interesting read for you:

https://www.amazon.com/Unplanned-Dramatic-Planned-Parenthood-Eye-Opening/dp/1414396546

 

[Stuu]

A man can do whatever he wants to with his body right? Well, what if a man says he wants to use his body to rape a woman? Is that ok? I hope you will say no because his rights end when he infringes upon the right of the woman to not be raped. If you truly believe that human rights do not end when they infringe on another human's rights....then rape should be legal, murder should be legal, and basically everything should be legal.

Irrelevant to the point I made.

I don't think your statement squares with reality. We have laws precisely because one person's rights end when they infringe upon another's persons right.

And you have other laws where there is a hierarchy of rights.

Do you think that person has the right to kill you to make sure that they get that last bottle of water?

No, that is the point I am making, obviously.

Stuu:In that case the 'other person' has no business invading the woman's body. Even the woman's immune system agrees with that!

What a joke.

Yes. Did you laugh at it?

When a woman gets pregnant, her body is doing what it is designed to do naturally.

Humans are not designed, we evolved.

A pregnancy is not an unnatural alien invasion.

That is how the woman's body responds, when it comes to the immune system. What do you think causes morning sickness?

It is the natural process for the human species to procreate.

Sure. And getting more artificial as the years go by.

The baby has "no business invading the woman's body" you say? That is just ridiculous.

Yes, it would be, which shows you how ridiculous the point of yours was to which I was responding.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Do you think the alleged flood was caused by your god, or not? Who is responsible for all those foetus deaths?

What is the value of a human? I submit that we are only as valuable as the purpose we are made. When a whole batch of wrenches don't work. you don't keep them. They are only as valuable as what they were intended for. Worse? If YOU read the story, these people were given at their worst, not just defective. It really rests on how 'independent' you think you are as to how you view what happened. If you think you have a right to autonomy, you don't. Colossians 1:17 Even your ability to think about these things is sustained. If you sustain abortion, you aren't against God anyway. It becomes a moot point.

Yeah, sure, that works.

I said 'think.' It only 'works' if you do.

That's what I keep telling the pro-death camp here: don't emote, have actual arguments. It hasn't been so bad in this thread so far.

Pro-death? You mean you are against abortion too? That's good news if true. Can you give a brief synoptic of where you stand?

What Paraguay never needed was Catholicism. The number of women dying as a result of the actions of that church should be an international outrage. But, get the word church in there, and often you can get away with anything.

Stuart

For some reason, Latins embrace Catholicism. I'm sure somebody has done a study but I've not read it.

-Lon