Enyart calls for pro-lifers to oppose John Roberts nomination

[Nathon Detroit]

They're using the common term, not the medical term.

Does a successful abortion ever end without the death of the baby? So, medical term or common term it's still a horrible mindset.

And Crow I would highly reccommend that you alter your wording or at very least be more explanatory initially and we probably wouldn't even be discussing this right now.

After all re-read your first post on this topic and see if you can see what I mean....

I'm not even to the far far right on abortion--I believe that if the fetus cannot survive long enough to be viable because a pregnancy will be fatal to the mother and an abortion might save the mother's life, go for it. Don't let two people die to prove a point about one. Preserve innocent live whenever you can and save who you can save even if you can't save both.

"Go for it"?

"Go for it"????? :vomit:

If "Go for it" doesn't sound elective I have no idea what would.

And just for the record, why say "fetus" when you mean baby?

 

[Freak]

That's where Freak jumped in with the "wisdom of God." And you jumped in with him.

The "wisdom of God" calls for believers to save all life. This is something you lack--wisdom.

 

[Freak]

And just for the record, why say "fetus" when you mean baby?

Exactly! I'm glad you see this too.

Is a fetus a baby, Crow. Yes or No?

I think there's more to Crow's line of thinking to this issue of abortion then meets the eye. :think:

 

[Crow]

Does a successful abortion ever end without the death of the baby? So, medical term or common term it's still a horrible mindset.

And Crow I would highly reccommend that you alter your wording or at very least be more explanatory initially and we probably wouldn't even be discussing this right now.

After all re-read your first post on this topic and see if you can see what I mean...."Go for it"?

"Go for it"????? :vomit:

If "Go for it" doesn't sound elective I have no idea what would.

And just for the record, why say "fetus" when you mean baby?

I use fetus, Knight, because a unborn child is a fetus. I'm from the medical field.

Go for it means just that. Do everything you can and do what you can do to save who you can save. With all effort that you can put forth and not sit there timorously while a woman bleeds to death.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

With all effort that you can put forth and not sit there timorously while a woman bleeds to death.

:bang:

 

[Crow]

:bang:

Ok, what part is it that you don't understand?

 

[Freak]

I use fetus, Knight, because a unborn child is a fetus. I'm from the medical field.

In our day and age it would be prudent, for a believer in Christ, to call a fetus a baby. Do you know why, Crow?

 

[Crow]

In our day and age it would be prudent, for a believer in Christ, to call a fetus a baby. Do you know why, Crow?

I use the terms interchangably, as people in the medical field do, Freak. They mean the same thing.

At this point in time, there is no way to save a tubal pregnancy. If there were, of course we should save the mother and the child.

If a woman has a ruptured placenta previa and the baby is not yet viable, there is no way to save the baby. The baby cannot survive without a live mother, and the mother is going to die if the placenta is not removed--she would bleed to death in a matter of minutes.

I agree that the mindset should be to save both. But if that is impossible, I don't believe that God has preordained that both die. I believe that he wants us to save both, but if we can't, save who we can.

 

[jeremiah]

Ok, what part is it that you don't understand?

I am finding it difficult to disagree with either you or Knight. I think that I agree with you, but also some of your expressions made me wonder? Your wording is the only thing I might find suspect, but I really liked that word 'timorously', especially since I had to look it up.
I think your point really boils down to medical triage, and trying to act quickly and decisively, in a medical emergency.
For example, you wouldn't want skin color nor would you want the word "abortion" to prejudice you, or traumatize you into the wrong actions, or decisions when determining medical triage. I think that is your point, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that?
Except maybe Freak. :chuckle:

 

[Crow]

I am finding it difficult to disagree with either you or Knight. I think that I agree with you, but also some of your expressions made me wonder? Your wording is the only thing I might find suspect, but I really liked that word 'timorously', especially since I had to look it up.
I think your point really boils down to medical triage, and trying to act quickly and decisively, in a medical emergency.
You wouldn't want skin color nor would you want the word "abortion" to prejudice you, or traumatize you into the wrong actions, or decisions when determining medical triage. I think that is your point, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that?
Except maybe Freak. :chuckle:

Yes. In a medical situation as I described, you go for it. You jump into it because seconds make the difference between life and death. We use terminology like "grab that" "jump on it" "I need this belly cut and I need it yesterday." If you hesitate, someone may die unnecessarily as a result. You run, not walk. You have no time to vacillate. You do whatever is necessary to preserve life, and if that means not pretending that you will save a pregnancy of 5 weeks duration, so be it. Babies of 16 weeks get delivered in seconds and put in incubators, even though you know you can't save them that early. Sometimes all you can do is keep them alive long enough for the parents to say goodbye. Sometimes you can't even do that, but you try.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ok, what part is it that you don't understand?

It's what I DO understand that makes me bash my head against the wall. :bang:

Crow, again you use the strawman argument . . . "With all effort that you can put forth and not sit there timorously while a woman bleeds to death."

Nobody, I repeat NOBODY is advocating that we stand by and let a woman "bleed to death".

Can we please send the strawman back to OZ? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes. In a medical situation as I described, you go for it. You jump into it because seconds make the difference between life and death. We use terminology like "grab that" "jump on it" "I need this belly cut and I need it yesterday." If you hesitate, someone may die unnecessarily as a result. You run, not walk. You have no time to vacillate. You do whatever is necessary to preserve life, and if that means not pretending that you will save a pregnancy of 5 weeks duration, so be it. Babies of 16 weeks get delivered in seconds and put in incubators, even though you know you can't save them that early. Sometimes all you can do is keep them alive long enough for the parents to say goodbye. Sometimes you can't even do that, but you try.

If all of this is true and I have no reason to doubt you, I suggest you don't use the term "abortion".

Because what you are describing isn't abortion as it is understood by those that engage in this debate.

You could argue that you are using "abortion" in a more medically correct way but I submit to you that is awful strategy even if you are in the industry and even if you "know better".

 

[Crow]

Knight, can you explain to me what this means?

Should one leave the decision up to God? Is abortion ever right?

I've given my explaination. Yes, there are instances when abortion or whatever sugar coated term anyone wants use to describe it is necessary.

 

[Crow]

If all of this is true and I have no reason to doubt you, I suggest you don't use the term "abortion".

Because what you are describing isn't abortion as it is understood by those that engage in this debate.

You could argue that you are using "abortion" in a more medically correct way but I submit to you that is awful strategy even if you are in the industry and even if you "know better".

I can see that some of the people here do not understand the medical term. I'll try to remember that in the future, but the people here should also realize that if they stick to their definitions they are going to have a tough row to hoe if they wish to convince others that overturning Rowe vs Wade is not going to put the lives of women at risk because it is going to deny them care in medical emergencies.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, can you explain to me what this means?

Freak later clarified himself and I have no reason to doubt his clarification.

I've given my explaination. Yes, there are instances when abortion or whatever sugar coated term anyone wants use to describe it is necessary.

Your "explanation" and your use of the term abortion only gives justifcation for your enemy.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I can see that some of the people here do not understand the medical term. I'll try to remember that in the future, but the people here should also realize that if they stick to their definitions they are going to have a tough row to hoe if they wish to convince others that overturning Rowe vs Wade is not going to put the lives of women at risk because it is going to deny them care in medical emergencies.

So you are against overturning Roe vs. Wade?

 

[Crow]

Freak later clarified himself and I have no reason to doubt his clarification.

Your "explanation" and your use of the term abortion only gives justifcation for your enemy.

I disagree. One of the things that has been thrown up consistantly when discussing abortion with those who want to keep it legal is that it would deny women in the situations I cited the medical care they need in an emergency.

Treating tubal pregnancies was necessary and done prior to Rowe vs Wade--something the enemy omits in their pitch, and something that we should be able to address. But what do you think that tossing in "leave it to the wisdom of God" is going to signify to those who aren't Christian? Think on that one--abortion isn't an exclusively Christian issue. They're going to think that they'll be left for dead.

 

[Crow]

So you are against overturning Roe vs. Wade?

I think that it should be overturned, and never should have been enacted in the first place.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I can see that some of the people here do not understand the medical term. I'll try to remember that in the future, but the people here should also realize that if they stick to their definitions they are going to have a tough row to hoe if they wish to convince others that overturning Rowe vs Wade is not going to put the lives of women at risk because it is going to deny them care in medical emergencies.

Even by your own definitions no woman would be denied medical care in emergencies if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. Women weren't denied medical care prior to Roe vs. Wade in medical emergencies so why would they be denied now?

There is this giant strawman on your back which is a bit ironic knowing your TOL username . . . :crow:

 

[Crow]

Even by your own definitions no woman would be denied medical care in emergencies if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. Women weren't denied medical care prior to Roe vs. Wade in medical emergencies so why would they be denied now?

There is this giant strawman on your back which is a bit ironic knowing your TOL username . . . :crow:

You are misreading what I said. I said that people will have difficulty convincing others that Rowe vs Wade is not necessary if they aren't able to convey that emergency medical care was done prior to it's enactment.