I Am Pro-Abortion

[OCTOBER23]

Looks like miss Pretzal has an agenda.

 

[Stripe]

Can you provide evidence to support that?

You need evidence for something so straightforward? :AMR:

Let's imagine a scenario. A mother is three months pregnant, has a complication that means her baby inside her will almost certainly lead to her dying in the next short while. Doctors decide to deliver the baby.

In your mind, at what point should the doctor stop delivering the baby so that he can kill him?

In my mind, the baby should be delivered and all care be given to him. Who knows, perhaps medical advances will one day allow for such babies to survive and grow to adulthood.

However, we will never know while it is standard practice to kill them.

 

[Quetzal]

You need evidence for something so straightforward? :AMR:

Let's imagine a scenario. A mother is three months pregnant, has a complication that means her baby inside her will almost certainly lead to her dying in the next short while. Doctors decide to deliver the baby.

In your mind, at what point should the doctor stop delivering the baby so that he can kill him?

In my mind, the baby should be delivered and all care be given to him. Who knows, perhaps medical advances will one day allow for such babies to survive and grow to adulthood.

However, we will never know while it is standard practice to kill them.

I have already posted that I agree with what you are proposing, Rusha brought up the same point. If there is even a very small chance of the child surviving, I believe all of those avenues should be considered.

 

[Stripe]

I have already posted that I agree with what you are proposing, Rusha brought up the same point. If there is even a very small chance of the child surviving, I believe all of those avenues should be considered.

Then why do you think abortion is necessary?

 

[Quetzal]

Then why do you think abortion is necessary?

I think it is necessary in those extreme, but rare cases, in which the baby is not developed enough to survive on it's own and is causing the mother to be in mortal danger.

 

[Stripe]

I think it is necessary in those extreme, but rare cases, in which the baby is not developed enough to survive on it's own and is causing the mother to be in mortal danger.

Why not care for both? Why the need to kill the baby?

 

[Quetzal]

Why not care for both? Why the need to kill the baby?

If a mother is only 5-6 weeks pregnant and a complication occurs placing her in danger, it is (currently) not possible to save the baby. It is simply too soon.

 

[Stripe]

If a mother is only 5-6 weeks pregnant and a complication occurs placing her in danger, it is (currently) not possible to save the baby. It is simply too soon.

You'll have to read what I ask more carefully. :up:

 

[Quetzal]

You'll have to read what I ask more carefully. :up:

The question still stands, one that you are seemingly avoiding. I have provided, what I feel, are concise, clear statements with evidence to support it. You have not. If you don't have any, that's okay too. We can simply agree to disagree.

 

[Stripe]

The question still stands.

What question?

 

[Quetzal]

Can you provide evidence that there is never a time when aborting a pregnancy is needed to save the mother?

 

[Stripe]

Can you provide evidence that there is never a time when aborting a pregnancy is needed to save the mother?

You need evidence for something so straightforward? :AMR:

If we have a mother whose life is in danger and the baby is delivered, there is never a need to stop delivering the baby so that his spinal cord can be severed.

Abortion is never necessary to save the mother's life.

And this is a distraction, any way. Pro-aborts use it to hide from the fact that they endorse the killing of a baby even one of an age at which they concede personhood.

 

[Quetzal]

Can you provide evidence to support that?

You need evidence for something so straightforward? :AMR:

If we have a mother whose life is in danger and the baby is delivered, there is never a need to stop delivering the baby so that his spinal cord can be severed.

What if the baby is not fully developed? Delivering the baby will not allow it to survive and keeping it will not allow the mother to survive. Is delivering the baby to its inevitable death acceptable? Or, is the mother forced to keep the child until term, thus killing her?

 

[Stripe]

What if the baby is not fully developed?

That is the situation we are talking about.

Is delivering the baby to its inevitable death acceptable?

I wouldn't say it is "acceptable." Can you imagine what a mother who has to go through such an ordeal would think if you used that word to describe her situation?

It is a tragedy, but it is not murder.

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[quip]

It is a tragedy, but it is not murder.

So, Tripe what's the practical difference between an abortion....and an abortion?

Perhaps, the hours...perhaps days... the insufficiently developed baby suffers?

 

[alwight]

No baby.

At conception, the baby is alive. Abortion kills a baby; it ends his life.

It's a single cell Stripe, it isn't a baby outside your head unless perhaps you claim it has a soul?:think:

You apparently arbitrarily bestow a single human cell with an equal value to an adult woman? :idunno:

Nope. It is not arbitrary to call a living human being a person. It is arbitrary to call a living human being a non-person based on a physical trait — as you do — like size, location, detectable heartbeat, skin color, nationality or religion.

Your accusations are projection; you endorse murder, which makes you as bad as a murderer.

Stripe it is a single cell, get over it.

Sorry Stripe but you really don't get to shrug away your supposed ongoing human tragedy that easily, what a crock.

The shrugging you imagined of the tragedy you admit to ignoring, while endorsing the murder of babies even you would concede are people? That tragedy?

There is no tragedy, the demise of single cells, even human cells are of no demonstrable consequence.

So now you try to dump your own callous and heartless nature onto me with a hastily contrived guilt trip scenario?

Nope. You freely admit that you endorse murder, even of babies you concede are people.

Nonsense, if I ever were to accept the death of foetus that was arguably a person then it would be after due consideration of all the specific circumstances not because it went against someone's dogmatic beliefs on abortion.

However I wasn't talking about a confirmed pregnancy or a later term miscarriage this is still shortly after conception when nobody knows, before the embryo either embeds or more likely fails to. Which for you apparently still involves a "tiny human being" rather than a few cells representing a possible potential human being before it has developed.

So you expect me to take responsibility for that of which I have no knowledge? Who is creating the guilt trip again?

Now you're just being stupid, there is obviously a clear chain of predictable established events here, it's no good pretending you don't know what typically happens just after conception. Two thirds of zygotes will fail quite naturally, which you seem to think are all murder-able babies, but nevertheless you are apparently totally unmoved by their plight, while choosing to accuse me of murder, come on. :doh:

It seems reasonable to me that a person is rather more than just a few albeit human cells.

And it seems reasonable to me that a human being is a person no matter how small. And my position is justifiable, given that I do not run the risk of endorsing murder, while you happily concede that you do condone murder, even for babies that you concede are people.

Then it must be a soul belief then, since there is absolutely nothing else in the material world that might make a single cell function as anything other than a single cell. You presumably think that each zygote has a soul and it's a soul that makes it a baby for you, right?
Then two thirds of them will perish, but you don't worry about that bit of course, it's natural.

It It's about the right for a woman to choose what will happen to her own body, and when she has babies, not my rights nor yours.

You failed biology, right? A baby has his own body. A mother has her own body.

What does a zygote have Stripe?

I do? How did you arrive at that conclusion, are you a mind reader?

Nope. Just a plain old words reader. It's telling that you would accuse me of mind reading, however, given that you did exactly that to accuse me of not caring about babies dying when I would have had no knowledge they even existed.

I just followed your lead on the mind reading bit Stripe, but clearly you don't have any concerns at all for all those countless "babies" that perish naturally, only the odd one or two that you deem to have been murdered.

Yes, there are usually time limits, after which a more justifiable argument will be required, say a medical problem.

And these are the words.

You endorse the murder of babies even after you concede that they are people.

I don't think I ever specifically did any such thing but unlike you I grieve when babies are needlessly lost or indeed if both mother and baby are.
I believe it's much more courageous and justifiable to make tough choices hopefully for the least worst outcome than to feebly cling to a doctrine that you think absolves you from any blame if ever such choices turn out to be bad ones. You simply hide behind your dogma and shout "murder" at people who only have honest and honourable intent as you let countless "babies" perish quietly, un-mourned. lain:

I think it's rather good that these days women no longer have to die because of a pregnancy problem, although one woman did die during pregnancy recently in Ireland where all abortions are banned. If she had lived in England she would be alive today, but you perhaps find it tragic too, but a price worth paying? lain:

The woman, Savita Halappanave, had blood poisoning. The hospital might have been negligent in not delivering the baby soon after the condition came to light — which is what routinely happens in Ireland — but there would never be a need to stop halfway through the delivery of a child to sever his spinal cord.

Your appeal that murder should be allowed because of medical risks is nonsensical. It also ignores the fact that abortion procedures are a grave risk to mothers.

I won't go into the specific details but the above case sparked a considerable abortion debate in Ireland which I hope will result in a relaxation of their abortion laws.
What is nonsensical is to ensure the return of backstreet abortions, at least Irish women can come to England if they want to choose what happens to their own bodies rather than risk that.

 

[Stripe]

It isn't a baby.

Yes, he is.

There is no tragedy, the demise of single cells, even human cells are of no demonstrable consequence.

You're a heartless wretch.

What does a zygote have?

Personhood.

I won't go into the specific details.

Of course you won't. You prefer to stick with emotional manipulation based on a warped presentation of the facts.

but the above case sparked a considerable abortion debate in Ireland which I hope will result in a relaxation of their abortion laws.

Of course you do. However, the fact is that Ireland's laws do not need changing for a woman and a baby in this situation to be properly treated.

 

[Delmar]

No where near the same percentage of pro-lifers who would be fine with murdering the baby to save mom's life.

I don't do negative rep, but if I did...

 

[Delmar]

about 100X more.

What say you? Any debate regarding abortion to save the mother's life?

There was a time when abortion was just plain against the law. At some point states started passing laws to allow an exception for saving the ilfe of the mother, but such exceptions were not really needed. I defy you to find me a single case where a doctor was charged for ending a pregnacy to save a woman's life.