Why Stop At Birth?

glorydaz

Well-known member
Neither is this, so what's your point?


My "point" is that it looks like the rules may be changing again, and I want to be up to speed.
Do you blame me for wanting to know what is allowable and what isn't?

Am I not allowed to make observations about possible rule violations?
Am I forbidden to warn others of possible rule violations?

I speak of Truster's warning.
How is his post any different ....what makes it NOT SUBSTANTIVE?

How can we post here unless we understand the RULES?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Unless, of course, a case like you already mentioned....an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is growing in the fallopian tube. That is obviously a case of the life of the mother being endangered and no hope for the baby, either.

Babies survive ectopic pregnancies. It might be more common to survive that situation than not.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Babies survive ectopic pregnancies. It might be more common to survive that situation than not.

How? There is no room to grow in a fallopian tube. Transplant them to the uterus? I'm not seeing any documented cases of that being done.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Not sure how. They can survive without help. Even undiagnosed.

There are two or three examples of a baby growing outside the womb... the abdominal cavity, for instance, when the women didn't even know they were pregnant. They had no pain from a baby trying to grow in the fallopian tube that would inevitable rupture.

I'd say "undiagnosed" equates to lack of symptoms of pregnancy, and those were so rare that they shouldn't even be brought up as an example in the anti abortion argument. They are flat out flukes. Period.

So, are we so desperate to stand against abortion that we dare to suggest ectopic pregnancies must be endured by a woman in spite of the facts? I certainly hope not. :sigh:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Are we so desperate to stand against abortion that we dare to suggest ectopic pregnancies must be endured by a woman in spite of the facts? I certainly hope not. :sigh:

Nobody has said that.

Furthermore, the ectopic pregnancy argument is raised by people trying to defend late-term abortion.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Good, I'm glad to hear that.

I think the important thing is that abortion is seen as the answer to ectopic pregnancies when medical investigation and advance might save these mothers and kids.

However, pro-aborts only have an eye for justifying childkilling.
 

Amyrich

New member
Saying it doesn't make it so.



Doesn't change the fact that it's a baby.

Listen to yourself. Even you call it a child.

Abortion is wrong because it's a baby, and it's always wrong to kill a baby.



There are no valid reasons.

If you think otherwise, feel free to name some.

So, if a fetus becomes a danger to the mother, she should risk her life to carry it to term? Are you serious?

Also, at a larger scale, if you neither condone contraceptives nor legalized abortions for unwanted children, how do you ever implement population control? We have grown to 7 billion on this planet AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER SPECIES!! Numerous species have gone extinct just in the last century as a direct result of human overbreeding. And right-wingers just seem to want to preach abstinence and wash their hands off addressing the actual problem. Help the beings that are already born!
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So, if a fetus becomes a danger to the mother, she should risk her life to carry it to term?

Try reading the thread before reacting. :up:

Also, at a larger scale, if you neither condone contraceptives nor legalized abortions for unwanted children, how do you ever implement population control?

We don't.

Keep the easy questions coming. They're, well, easy. :idunno:

We have grown to 7 billion on this planet AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER SPECIES!!
What's taken us so long?

That's a rhetorical question. It's Darwinists, socialists and pro-aborts who have retarded the human population.

Help the beings that are already born!

And you want to kill the unborn.
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
So, if a fetus becomes a danger to the mother, she should risk her life to carry it to term? Are you serious?

if a baby is in a burning house and the mother would have to put herself at risk to rescue it, do you think she would hesitate? Are you serious?

Also, at a larger scale, if you neither condone contraceptives

nobody has mentioned contraceptives in this thread so far

nor legalized abortions for unwanted children

of course we don't condone legalized murder of children, regardless of whether they are wanted or not


[MENTION=20895]Amyrich[/MENTION]

if a mother decides she no longer wants to be burdened with an infant or a toddler, should she be allowed to kill it?

if not, why not?



, how do you ever implement population control?

by raising the standard of living


We have grown to 7 billion on this planet AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER SPECIES!!

some have benefited, some haven't

Numerous species have gone extinct just in the last century as a direct result of human overbreeding.

cite?

And right-wingers just seem to want to preach abstinence

is there any reason not to consider abstinence?

and wash their hands off addressing the actual problem.

explain

Help the beings that are already born!

human beings?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Two people have already responded to you, and I completely agree with what they said. But allow me to respond directly.

So, if a fetus

Using dehumanizing terms to refer to a baby is a very liberal thing to do.

becomes a danger to the mother,

When is a baby ever a threat?

she should risk her life to carry it to term?

What sane mother wouldn't want to see her child live to be able to grow up?

Are you serious?

Are you?

Also, at a larger scale, if you neither condone contraceptives

I think contraceptives should be used only by married couples (man + woman) if they decide they want to have fun in the bedroom, but don't want children.

If people are using contraceptives outside of marriage, then it's an indication that society has some serious issues.

nor legalized abortions

Abortion may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

for unwanted children,

If a mother doesn't want her child, then why not give him or her up for adoption?

Don't punish the child just because they're inconvenient. How cruel are you?

how do you ever implement population control?

We don't.

God said to man, "be fruitful and multiply."

Higher population density = better standard of living

Lower population density = poorer standard of living

We have grown to 7 billion on this planet

Just under 7.7 billion currently.

AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER SPECIES!!

God said to man, "have dominion over the earth."

And we've gotten better at preserving nature in the last 500 years, in case you haven't noticed.

Numerous species have gone extinct just in the last century as a direct result of human overbreeding.

In other words, you want to raise the man-given rights of nature over the God-given rights of man?

And right-wingers just seem to want to preach abstinence and wash their hands off addressing the actual problem.

Oh?

The problems of society are caused by people NOT being abstinent until marriage. They're caused by the degradation and abolition of laws that have been in place for the past 3500 years.

We've effectively legalized adultery, murder, theft, and perjury.

And the society we see today is the result.

Help the beings that are already born!

Rather, promote human rights, denigrate animal (and plant) rights.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
The problems of society are caused by people NOT being abstinent until marriage. They're caused by the degradation and abolition of laws that have been in place for the past 3500 years.

We've effectively legalized adultery, murder, theft, and perjury.

thanks for nothing, "progressives"

this is what you get when you elevate man's law over God's law
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
Fully treatable and particularly aggressive? That's pretty odd, but one thing I do know, from what I've been reading, is that babies can survive just fine during a mother's chemo and radiation. I'm quite sure it is very rare that a baby cannot be brought to the age of viability before the mother's life is in danger.

Unless, of course, a case like you already mentioned....an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is growing in the fallopian tube. That is obviously a case of the life of the mother being endangered and no hope for the baby, either.

There are cases where the mother's immune system actively attacks the child. Viability of the child is a major issue. Cases where the child's organs develop outside the body or never develop at all.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There are cases where the mother's immune system actively attacks the child. Viability of the child is a major issue. Cases where the child's organs develop outside the body or never develop at all.
None of which pose a significant added risk to the mother's life. Are you just saying things for the sake of it now?
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
None of which pose a significant added risk to the mother's life. Are you just saying things for the sake of it now?

The complications of a mother's immune system attacking the child can have significant risk to the mother. the rest was addressing the viability of the child which is one of the medical reasons for an abortion.
 
Top