Why Stop At Birth?

[Stripe]

That does not mean that a situation outside those bounds might exist that makes it necessary.

"Outside those bounds"?

They are the "bounds" you described! You're the one who brought up life of the mother to defend childkilling:

What about a case where only the mother could live?

Within those "bounds," it is never necessary to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.

If a situation arises where the best course of action is to end the pregnancy, you deliver the child. It is never necessary to stop delivering the child in order to kill her.

"Bounds."

 

[Kit the Coyote]

"Outside those bounds"?

They are the "bounds" you described! You're the one who brought up life of the mother to defend childkilling:



Within those "bounds," it is never necessary to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.

If a situation arises where the best course of action is to end the pregnancy, you deliver the child. It is never necessary to stop delivering the child in order to kill her.

"Bounds."

Very well if you going to insist on it, I'll do the homework. Here are few conditions that could be fatal if a child is carried to term and delivered by a normal birth or C-Section.
Ectopic pregnancy where a baby embeds outside the womb
Preeclampsia where the mother's blood pressure continues to increase throughout the pregnancy leading to possible strokes
Life-threatening worsening of pre-existing or chronic conditions such as heart conditions, liver disease, kidney disease, etc.

Shall I go on?

 

[Stripe]

Here are few conditions that could be fatal if a child is carried to term.

Is reading your second language? We are not talking about situations where the baby is carried to term. We are talking about emergency situations where the best course of action might be to deliver him.

Shall I go on?

No. You should go have a long lie down and think things through carefully.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Is reading your second language? We are not talking about situations where the baby is carried to term. We are talking about emergency situations where the best course of action might be to deliver him.

No. You should go have a long lie down and think things through carefully.

I believe we had already agreed to that. Though in my research I do find there are times where you could not deliver the baby and labor MUST be stopped to prevent killing the mother. In most of those cases, you would proceed to a cesarian.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I believe we had already agreed to that. Though in my research I do find there are times where you could not deliver the baby and labor MUST be stopped to prevent killing the mother. In most of those cases, you would proceed to a cesarian.

Cesarean is just another way to DELIVER a baby.

Cesarean is not a way to KILL a baby.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Very well if you going to insist on it, I'll do the homework. Here are few conditions that could be fatal if a child is carried to term and delivered by a normal birth or C-Section.
Ectopic pregnancy where a baby embeds outside the womb
Preeclampsia where the mother's blood pressure continues to increase throughout the pregnancy leading to possible strokes
Life-threatening worsening of pre-existing or chronic conditions such as heart conditions, liver disease, kidney disease, etc.

Shall I go on?

I recommend you start at the beginning of this thread, and read up to where Kiwi dropped out.

I already addressed those issues.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Cesarean is just another way to DELIVER a baby.

Cesarean is not a way to KILL a baby.

Correct.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Correct.

Then why say this:

Though in my research I do find there are times where you could not deliver the baby and labor MUST be stopped to prevent killing the mother.

Just because labor is stopped doesn't mean you kill the baby.

There is NEVER a valid reason to stop caring for BOTH mother and child long enough to kill either.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Then why say this:



Just because labor is stopped doesn't mean you kill the baby.

There is NEVER a valid reason to stop caring for BOTH mother and child long enough to kill either.

For some reason, Stripe appears to be trying to limit the conditions being discussed. It seems he wants us to talk about doing an abortion as a response to an emergency during labor or delivery. If I understand him correctly. I agreed with him that you would not perform an abortion under those circumstances.

 

[JudgeRightly]

For some reason, Stripe appears to be trying to limit the conditions being discussed.

He's not trying to limit anything.

He's stating, as an absolute, that there is no circumstance nor valid reason to ever kill a baby.

You know what an absolute is, right?

It seems he wants us to talk about doing an abortion as a response to an emergency during labor or delivery. If I understand him correctly. I agreed with him that you would not perform an abortion under those circumstances.

He's not talking about just those circumstances.

He's talking about ALL circumstances.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

If we are discussing emergency cases, I did find one case where a mother was diagnosed with severe preeclampsia. The normal approach is to treat the symptoms as best as possible until labor can be safely induced and this was what they were working for. But when the patients liver and kidneys both failed and she started having seizures the doctors concluded that a normal delivery or cesarean was no longer possible and an abortion was the only option.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

He's not trying to limit anything.

He's stating, as an absolute, that there is no circumstance nor valid reason to ever kill a baby.

You know what an absolute is, right?



He's not talking about just those circumstances.

He's talking about ALL circumstances.

The medical reasons why you might need an abortion to save the mother's life or health was what I was trying to address. I fear there are very few absolutes when it comes to medicine and biology.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If we are discussing emergency cases, I did find one case where a mother was diagnosed with severe preeclampsia. The normal approach is to treat the symptoms as best as possible until labor can be safely induced and this was what they were working for. But when the patients liver and kidneys both failed and she started having seizures the doctors concluded that a normal delivery or cesarean was no longer possible and an abortion was the only option.

In that case, abortion is NOT the only option, despite what the doctor said. Deliver the baby, via cesarean, if necessary, and continue caring for both mother and child separately.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

In that case, abortion is NOT the only option, despite what the doctor said. Deliver the baby, via cesarean, if necessary, and continue caring for both mother and child separately.

The mother would not have survived the operation and the baby's chances were poor. They were twins and one was already dead due to complications of her condition.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The medical reasons why you might need an abortion to save the mother's life or health was what I was trying to address. I fear there are very few absolutes when it comes to medicine and biology.

"All circumstances" means ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

If the baby's being in the mother's womb is going to kill the mother, then you remove the baby, and continue caring for both.

That applies to EVERY circumstance where the baby's continued presence in the mother's womb will kill the mother.

If the baby dies afterwards while caring for him, then it's a tragedy, but you didn't become a murderer.

If you stop and kill the baby, either before, during, or after delivery, you are a MURDERER, because killing an innocent person is called MURDER.

It is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to kill an innocent person.

That means that there are NO circumstances, no times, no places, no methods, no reasons, no people, no actions, in, through, or by which it is ok to kill an innocent person, and that includes babies, because babies are the most innocent people on the planet.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The mother would not have survived the operation

So, therefore.... kill the baby?

and the baby's chances were poor.

So, therefore.... kill the baby?

They were twins and one was already dead due to complications of her condition.

So therefore... kill the baby?

...

...

Do you see the problem yet?

There is a BLOODLUST to kill the baby, without giving it a chance. YOU have fallen victim to it.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

"All circumstances" means ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

If the baby's being in the mother's womb is going to kill the mother, then you remove the baby, and continue caring for both.

That applies to EVERY circumstance where the baby's continued presence in the mother's womb will kill the mother.

If the baby dies afterwards while caring for him, then it's a tragedy, but you didn't become a murderer.

If you stop and kill the baby, either before, during, or after delivery, you are a MURDERER, because killing an innocent person is called MURDER.

It is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to kill an innocent person.

That means that there are NO circumstances, no times, no places, no methods, no reasons, no people, no actions, in, through, or by which it is ok to kill an innocent person, and that includes babies, because babies are the most innocent people on the planet.

Simply removing a baby from the womb before viability is simply not an option. No matter how you do it you will KILL the baby. Some babies will never be viable, they suffer from conditions that if they do not kill the baby before birth, it will die within hours of birth.

In response to a politician saying exactly what you are saying here:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."


Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.


"There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy," she says.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Simply removing a baby from the womb before viability is simply not an option.

So, therefore... kill the baby and become a murderer?

No matter how you do it you will KILL the baby.

If your goal is to care for and allow the baby to live for as long as possible, and the baby dies in the process of caring for it, you did not kill the baby, the baby died.

It would be a tragedy, of course, but at least you didn't become a murderer.

Some babies will never be viable, the suffer from conditions that if they do not kill the baby before birth, it will die within hours of birth.

So, therefore... kill the baby and become a murderer?

In response to a politician saying exactly what you are saying here:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event." Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy," she says.

So what?

ACOG is a pro-abortion group. Of course they would say that abortions are necessary.

ACOG is not God, though, and HE says that killing an innocent person is called MURDER.

Who do you believe, Kit, ACOG or God?

(I find it interesting that you didn't provide a source for the above quote. Would you please provide a source for it?)

 

[Kit the Coyote]

ACOG is a pro-abortion group. Of course they would say that abortions are necessary.

ACOG is not God, though, and HE says that killing an innocent person is called MURDER.

Who do you believe, Kit, ACOG or God?

(I find it interesting that you didn't provide a source for the above quote. Would you please provide a source for it?)

Based on my current beliefs on the divine and available credentials? ACOG.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

 

[JudgeRightly]

Based on my current beliefs on the divine and available credentials? ACOG.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

So then you reject God's authority and place man over God.

That's called idolatry, Kit. It means you've broken God's law.

If it was judgement day, and you were standing before God, do you think He would find you innocent or guilty for breaking His law?