 |
The question is badly stated. It's a setup. Now, why can't you ask me how it's poorly worded and how could it be better stated? No, of course you won't.Quote:
Not lecturing but questioning. The answer to 1 cannot be no and then answer 2 yes. At least not and be consistent in your thinking. It is a plain contradiction.
So how many cases do we have for those? You're just like the dufus, exaggerating a problem to make a crisis you use for an excuse to box people into a corner so you can blast them. Your hypothetical questions are not simple at all. Your tactics reminds me of the kooks who shoved gross pictures of lungs after asking if you smoked back in the day. Forgive my rudeness if you are not intentionally mocking the many people and their families faced with really tough medical choices for loved ones both babies and elders with no resources or knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
How the hell would you care for an infant that had immediate special needs, with no resources and no job or education? Don't answer because you would holler for help until you could do better. Hope someone is there for you, I would hope someone is there for anybody and everybody who needs that kind of help, but I seriously doubt reasonable good humans would fall into the situation of what your questions elude too.
Bet you got no evidence of it, anecdotes MAYBE, or lies by the anti crowd. But if you aren't there to help for the long term care and expenses, then you should probably mind your own business. I get you're against abortions, so am I but once there is conception its all hands on deck to help people through it, and to late to condemn. To answer your question, helps starts with conception and facts to make reasonable choices and for that you need a good doctor from the start to care for mom and baby, and NOT a bible thumping blame gamer. Your questions make no sense without data, and FACTS.
END OF RANT... for now.
Tal, listen to the Virginia governor's press conference and you will understand the questions. There are several thousand third trimester abortions in the U.S. every year, so they are not rare. Yes, the long term care of a child with serious mental/physical problems is difficult, but killing the baby is not the answer. I regret that seems to be your position. If we are going to kill the baby in the womb, then why not kill the baby post birth?
WG, the questions weren't the problem, your answers were. They were poorly thought out, and rather than acknowledge that, you want to change the direction of the conversation. I find that true of most liberals. You don't really think through the implications of what you believe. The question concerning third trimester abortions is a major question in the national abortion debate and was very simply and clearly worded. The first question actually came from a comment you made about thirty posts ago: "a CT scan reveals the baby is majorly deformed, then what should that pregnant woman do?"
Again, I'm glad I don't have that one on my conscience. There are many, many women in the world who have had an abortion and never get over it emotionally. They are also victims of the abortion scam.
I will be happy to hear your recommendations on how to better word the questions. I would be even happier to see you explain how you can answer question 1 "no" and then answer question 2 "yes".
Oh how we wish it were so, stop defending the indefensible TalQuote:
END OF RANT... for now.
That's not my position nor did Latham say it was his. The missing FACT here is the viability of the infant due to medical reasons. Read the actual legislation. It doesn't call for the gross procedure you described, but for a still birth. In these cases the doctor and the family have to make that decision not a bible thumper. Maybe YOU a fellow of means can think it merely difficult but for others with less resources and high hopes of a good outcome that ain't going to happen. What's your solution for such a family faced with bad options?Quote:
Tal, listen to the Virginia governor's press conference and you will understand the questions. There are several thousand third trimester abortions in the U.S. every year, so they are not rare. Yes, the long term care of a child with serious mental/physical problems is difficult, but killing the baby is not the answer. I regret that seems to be your position. If we are going to kill the baby in the womb, then why not kill the baby post birth?
I seemed to have missed your simple answer to an emotion complex question. Please refresh my memory with your answer.Quote:
WG, the questions weren't the problem, your answers were. They were poorly thought out, and rather than acknowledge that, you want to change the direction of the conversation. I find that true of most liberals. You don't really think through the implications of what you believe. The question concerning third trimester abortions is a major question in the national abortion debate and was very simply and clearly worded. The first question actually came from a comment you made about thirty posts ago: "a CT scan reveals the baby is majorly deformed, then what should that pregnant woman do?"
The problem I have with pro-lifers is you want abortions illegal, but provide no love, support, or services for those children you wish to force others to have. The most despicable part is your targets are poor women without means or resources, and you don't want to give that either. It would seem to me you would encourage young women to seek and get the best medical care they can get and proper guidance to properly raise the baby through maturity. You don't, instead many like yourself advocate marry the bums and stay off the public dole that takes your money and gives to them. You have no intention of stepping up and following through, so abandonment would be the word I use that exposes your harsh hypocrisy of FORCING your Christian "VALUES", since birth is the beginning of the journey of life.Quote:
Again, I'm glad I don't have that one on my conscience. There are many, many women in the world who have had an abortion and never get over it emotionally. They are also victims of the abortion scam.
If life is as sacred as you say doesn't it behoove you to take responsibility and step up and support that baby to maturity? No you cannot force anything on educated females who don't need your help to make their decisions, just the ones with no means can you bully, harass, seek to control. I got no thing against you pro lifers, but the half a$$ way you go about is incompetent hypocrisy and willful ignorance of the facts of the human condition.
Evolve a little why don't you and at least be truthful about your intentions, which apparently is cry beetch and moan about the lack of morality according to YOU.
I will be happy to hear your recommendations on how to better word the questions. I would be even happier to see you explain how you can answer question 1 "no" and then answer question 2 "yes".
You do realize that "still born" is a euphemism for the delivery of a dead baby? And for the baby to be dead in the context of abortion, it has to be killed prior to delivery. How do you suppose that happens?? For that matter, does it even bother you a little that someone has to do something to kill the baby first? Suppose you are the doctor and you are told, "The mother has decided she does not want this baby, so we need to kill it before it is delivered." How would you go about doing that, and what kind of grisly monster would you become in doing so?Quote:
It doesn't call for the gross procedure you described, but for a still birth
If it makes you feel better to justify the killing of unborn babies because, in your incorrect view, pro-lifers don't care about these children, then that is your right. However, if you will get out a little, you will find that nearly all pregnancy support centers are run and financed by pro-lifers and they do great work in supporting these moms both before and after birth, so your accusation is ridiculous. To state that pro-lifers "provide no love, support, or services for those children you wish to force others to have," is an outrageous lie. Sorry, but that is the correct term.Quote:
If life is as sacred as you say doesn't it behoove you to take responsibility and step up and support that baby to maturity? No you cannot force anything on educated females who don't need your help to make their decisions, just the ones with no means can you bully, harass, seek to control. I got no thing against you pro lifers, but the half a$$ way you go about is incompetent hypocrisy and willful ignorance of the facts of the human condition.
In another age, when people actually thought before they spoke, it would have been suggested that a return to sex within marriage would solve about 95% of this problem. But in our culture, where sex is worshiped as god, then we cannot be bothered with the inconvenience of honoring life.
In another age people had sex outside of marriage and used methods to avoid pregnancy, left or had a child in secret, and gave it away, or induced a miscarriage. So what do you do about the women with means who has the good sense to visit her OBY/GYN to prevent unwanted pregnancies even when married?
Indefensible is FORCING your value system on others.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Why would I care? If they want to avoid pregnancy, then fine with me.Quote:
So what do you do about the women with means who has the good sense to visit her OBY/GYN to prevent unwanted pregnancies even when married?
I'd still love to know why you think it is all right to kill a baby in the womb?
Science has evolved and the need for abortions have gone down steadily year after year especially among teens. Is that not a good thing?
That's not killing a baby in the womb?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I don't know what you are referring to.Quote:
That's not killing a baby in the womb?
Of course you don't.
http://americanpregnancy.org/unplann...cal-abortions/
No, I won't take your link and read another useless article. State your case if you have one.
If you are trying to say that not becoming pregnant is somehow the same as killing a baby in the womb, then that is such an incredibly ludicrous argument that I can only hope that is not what you meant.
Now if you are referring to such things as the "morning after pill", or devices intended to prevent implantation, then we have something to talk about.
I'd still like to hear why you have concluded it is OK to kill a baby as long as it is still in the womb.
Medical abortion procedures are available for terminating a pregnancy during the early weeks of the first trimester.For women seeking a medical abortion procedure, a sonogram is recommended to determine if the pregnancy is viable (uterine, non-ectopic pregnancy) and for accurate pregnancy dating.Methotrexate & Misoprostol (MTX)
MTX is a medical abortion procedure used up to the first 7 weeks (49 days of pregnancy). This procedure is not as commonly used as in the past because of the availability of mifepristone.
- Methotrexate is given orally or by injection during the first office visit.
- Antibiotics are also given in order to prevent infection.
- Misoprostol tablets are given orally or inserted vaginally about 3 to 7 days later. This can be done at home.
- This procedure will usually trigger contractions and expel the fetus. The process may take a few hours or as long as a few days.
- A physical exam is given a week later to ensure that the abortion procedure is complete and to check for complications.
Methotrexate is primarily used in the treatment of cancer and rheumatoid arthritis because it attacks the most rapidly growing cells in the body. In the case of abortion, it causes the fetus and placenta to separate from the lining of the uterus. Using the drug for this purpose is not approved by the FDA.
What would you suggest? A woman just doesn’t skip down to her doctor for a pleasure abortion or maybe because her clothes don't fit well anymore.Quote:
I'd still like to hear why you have concluded it is OK to kill a baby as long as it is still in the womb.
By Dr. Jen Gunter (I am an OB/GYN board certified in two countries. I did a 5 year residency in which I trained to do abortion up to about 24-25 weeks. I developed other skills after residency out of necessity. I have been an OB/GYN for 28 years and, including my residency, I provided abortion services for 16 of those years. I have not provided abortion services for the past 13 years.
For 3-4 of the 6 years that I practiced in Kansas there was no gestational age limit. I could let you put two and two together, but as there is so much abortion misinformation I’m going to spell it out. That means I could have done an abortion at any gestational age — even right up to the due date.
No one ever called me to terminate a healthy pregnancy or even a pregnancy with minor abnormalities. First of all, with no indication insurance won’t pay so it is $20k cash.)
Who has abortions at 24 weeks and beyond?
Women who are very ill around 24 weeks where the fetus is not expected to survive and delivery is needed and avoiding a c-section (for her own health's sake) is preferable. It may also be when there are fetal anomalies and a vaginal delivery is not possible, or, when it is.
Let me explain.
High blood pressure in pregnancy can lead to severe maternal and fetal health issues. It can require a very premature delivery to save the life of the mother. A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.
A lethal birth defect at 32 weeks. The plan is to let the fetus succumb after delivery. The pregnancy has anencephaly or any one of a thousand other catastrophic chromosomal or cellular collisions that can conspire against you in pregnancy. The pregnant person thought they could make it to their due date, but they just can’t take it anymore. Or maybe their blood pressure is sneaking up and the idea of risking their life for a non viable pregnancy is not what they want or their doctors recommend. They choose an induction of labor, which in this situation is an abortion because the pregnancy is being terminated.
Triploidy or mirror syndrome or a massive cystic hygroma or any other birth defect that can affect how the fetus is positioned and how it molds and bends to deliver vaginally. If you don’t know what these terms mean, then you are not qualified to discuss abortion at or after 24 weeks, so stop.
Now.
In these situations (tripoidy, mirror syndrome etc.) the fetus can be lying lengthwise (not head or buttocks down) so labor is not an option. A c-section is needed for delivery. Maybe there are also health reasons a c-section is less than ideal. Maybe the pregnant person just doesn’t want a c-section for a non-viable pregnancy. If a person who is skilled to do a D & X is available, the c-section can be avoided.
There are, of course, other cases. I tweeted about the above scenarios, but realized everyone who wasn’t a well-trained OB/GYN wouldn’t understand. So, now you know why we “just can’t do a c-section” in these cases — or if we did why a c-section would STILL BE AN ABORTION.
So what does that have to do with wealthy women using birth control to avoid becoming pregnant? That was the origin of this question and it was posed by you. You do realize that the procedure above is only used AFTER a women is pregnant?
Still waiting to hear why you believe it is OK to kill a baby in the womb. I mean if you have a belief, then stand up and defend it. Don't just ignore it.
That sort of was my point, as your attitude and beliefs only extend to poor women after they are pregnant, but have nothing to say about women of means, who use they above posted procedure after they are pregnant. Please explain the difference.
There are only two options. Kill the baby or give birth. That being the case, there is only one option in my opinion and that is to give birth. Which would you suggest? BTW, if the question is worded poorly, it's on you. Your question.Quote:
What would you suggest?
Practically all abortions are elective, meaning the woman had no compelling medical reason to have the abortion. I wouldn't suggest it is an easy decision. Many of them are agonizing. That's life. The men who went ashore on D-Day didn't just "skip down" to France for a holiday. It was a tough decision but the right decision.Quote:
A woman just doesn’t skip down to her doctor for a pleasure abortion or maybe because her clothes don't fit well anymore.
Guys, abortion is the destruction of a human life. There is no other way to see it. That doesn't mean much to you and I get that, but it means something to me.
There is only one person on this thread who has made that distinction and that is you. Don't put your problems on me. I feel the same about both groups and have not said a word to the contrary. If you want to discuss this, it would be good if you would separate your imaginings from what has actually been posted.Quote:
That sort of was my point, as your attitude and beliefs only extend to poor women after they are pregnant, but have nothing to say about women of means, who use they above posted procedure after they are pregnant. Please explain the difference.
You can always tell when someone has run out of truth. They resort to making things up.
That is NOT true!!!! Please read the comments I posted about this by Dr. Gunter.Quote:
Practically all abortions are elective, meaning the woman had no compelling medical reason to have the abortion.
Again, please read Dr. Gunter's comments about this.Quote:
There are only two options. Kill the baby or give birth.
Sorry, but it is true. In Florida, for instance, 98% were for "personal choice". Now I understand that "personal choice" does not equate with "easy choice", but the point is that they are not medically necessary.
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States
I have no idea where your comments by Dr. Gunter are, but if the doc can come up with a third result for an abortion other than a delivered baby or a dead baby, I'd love to know what it is.
I really think you know what the truth is, but you just don't like it.
I'm sure I could come up with stats that will belie yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You aren't keeping up. Scroll back to my post that's two before this one. It's not far away. It starts out with "What would you suggest?" Or to make it easier for you to find, I could repost it. (How does it feel to be talked down to?)Quote:
I have no ideas where your comments by Dr. Gunter are, but if the doc can come up with a third result for an abortion other than a delivered baby or a dead baby, I'd love to know what it is.
I really think you know what the truth is, but you just don't like it.
"a third result for an abortion"??? That's not the topic in dispute!
I'd love to see them.Quote:
I'm sure I could come up with stats that will belie yours.
I read your quote from the doc. You do realize that anecdotal evidence is not considered nearly so valuable as statistics. It could certainly be argued that Gunter had a vested interest in justifying what he/she had been doing for five years.
Have you ever read a description of a D & X abortion? Just so you will know what your beloved doctor has been doing, here it is. "The abortion practitioner instrumentally reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus' feet, and pulls the feet down into the cervix. The reason this is done is not as a medical necessity, but to avoid actually birthing the baby. If the baby were fully born, killing it would be considered murder. The fetus is then pulled down the birth canal until it has been entirely birthed except the head. Surgical scissors are forced into the base of the fetal skull while the fetus is lodged in the birth canal. This blind procedure risks maternal injury from laceration of the uterus or cervix by the scissors and could result in severe bleeding and the threat of shock or even maternal death. A suction apparatus is introduced into the hole in the base of the skull and the fetus' brains are removed through aspiration. The baby is then born dead."Quote:
If a person who is skilled to do a D & X is available, the c-section can be avoided.
I guess that is fine with you. It is not with me.
As to the third option not being the topic in dispute, this is from your post a little earlier. It sure seemed that Doctor Gunter was going to settle that issue. You can phrase it any way you want, but the only way to have an abortion is to kill the baby. You think that is excusable. Well, in some extremely rare cases it is, but for the other 99% I can't see it.
Again, please read Dr. Gunter's comments about this.Quote:
There are only two options. Kill the baby or give birth.
As the good doctor explained (you musta skipped over that part),"In these situations (tripoidy, mirror syndrome etc.) the fetus can be lying lengthwise (not head or buttocks down) so labor is not an option," thus the dismemberment that you abhor. It isn't done "just because" and "for gits and shiggles."Quote:
I guess that is fine with you. It is not with me.
From webmd:
Late-Term Abortion: Dilation and Extraction
If you’re having an abortion further along in your pregnancy, you may have to find a specialized, experienced provider to do a dilation and extraction procedure, or D&X. This is a procedure that doctors usually reserve for when there is a serious problem with the fetus or medical complications related to the mother.
So it is your position that it is much better to kill and dismember the baby than to perform a C-section?? Wow.
At any rate, according to your doc, that is not what happens. The article goes on to say, "In these situations (tripoidy, mirror syndrome etc.) the fetus can be lying lengthwise (not head or buttocks down) so labor is not an option. A c-section is needed for delivery. Maybe there are also health reasons a c-section is less than ideal. Maybe the pregnant person just doesn’t want a c-section for a non-viable pregnancy. If a person who is skilled to do a D & X is available (my emphasis), the c-section can be avoided.
When we have reached the place of suctioning out a baby's brain, then I'm not sure what else can be said.
I really cannot figure out what you are advocating for. You said abortion for all reasons in the third trimester, which amounts to unlimited abortion. It is hard for me to fathom how anyone who has any knowledge at all of God could have such a position. Is that what you are after?
No, again you don't read. I suspect you "spot-read" what appeals to you for future arguing, twist the information you are given, and skip over the rest that doesn't fit on your agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I guess I'll have to bow to all your experience with and knowledge of abortions. Or you and I will have to meet for pie and coffee someday.
Uhm... you wrote it.
Quote:
thus the dismemberment that you abhor. It isn't done "just because" and "for gits and shiggles."
I would fear for my life! (<:Quote:
Or you and I will have to meet for pie and coffee someday.
remember (and it wasn't that long ago) when the Dems said that they wanted abortion safe ,legal ,and rare ? Now I guess they mean that applies when a baby is born alive after a botched abortion or when the baby is ready to be born. il duce Cuomo signed a NY abortion bill that legalizes it through the entire pregnancy ...and the Dems in NY went into joyous celebration.Northam of Virginia signed a law allowing new-borns to be wacked .The Senate Dems blocked a unanimous consent that would protect newborn babies from that fate . Late term abortions were supposed to be exception case where the life of the mother was at risk. What the Dems have done is codify into law the practices of Kermit Gosnell .New York’s law authorizes the destruction of a 39 week old human being, with fingernails, hair and a distinctive face. Who can say this human being is not worth protecting? And if a life in the womb is not worth protecting, what about a life outside the womb?Under the new law ,a child born alive in a botched procedure isn’t protected.New York’s law is a terrible affront to the dignity of human life. If we can kill a baby in the womb, early in it's development, what’s to stop it's killing at any stage, including after birth?If the baby survives the abortion, as sometimes happens, no problem. The baby can be left alone, neglected to die.The new law says health care practitioners that are not physicians may also terminate the child within the womb. It removes abortion from New York’s state criminal code, meaning if a baby in utero was to die from an assault on a woman there could be no severe prosecution. Furthermore, the New York law allows young girls of every age to have an abortion without parental consent.After signing the legislation ,il duce Cuomo ordered the Freedom Tower spire, the Tappan Zee Bridge , the Kosciuszko Bridge, and the Alfred E. Smith Building, to be lit up in celebratory pink.
...especially those children at the Texas-Mexico border -- and the U.S. babies whose parents can't afford them.Quote:
If we can kill a baby in the womb, early in its development, what’s to stop its killing at any stage, including after birth?
of course you have no evidence that is happening . Are you supporting the killing of babies ?
Babies have died at the border, and they die every day in this country because of adults' neglect and inability to care for them. And NO, I don't support the killing of babies.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
you are equating deaths due to disease at the border with the legal infanticide the US participates in ? 54 million babies lives intentionally snuffed in the US since 1973 . Rare ?
How many babies and children died because medical care was refused, because of awful living conditions? Why were US babies' lives "snuffed"? -- "we changed our minds"?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
do you have the stats ? I don't . I can't imagine that it is close to 45 million We are in Mao and Stalin mass murder territory .
In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Compared with 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions for 2015 decreased 2%. Additionally, from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).
Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13)
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductiveheal...s/abortion.htm
***************
ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS
- Based on the latest state-level data available, approximately 882,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2017—down from approximately 885,000 abortions in 2016 and 913,000 abortions in 2015.
https://www.abort73.com/abortion_fac...on_statistics/
While you are correct Tom you will never get the women's rights movement to admit they are mass murderersQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
True. Sadly, the dems and feminists have never been willing to place the life of a baby above their own political agenda. When Bill Clinton said abortions should be rare, that was just a talking point. From what I have seen, they basically don't care. Even women claiming to be Christians will not oppose this terrible practice.
What's really unfortunate is repub Christian conservatives trying to control and keep women and minorities in there place by any means necessary. Save your rhetoric for your parishioners, in your little communities and enjoy your lives and stay out of everyone else's. Obviously women think they know what's best for them and no longer want your old right wing advice on the subject.
I concur because abortions are becoming unnecessary, and late term abortions are rare.
So that means the NY governor has to boost the numbers, once again you are defending the indefensible, one to too many TalQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I wasn't asking abortion stats . I was asking a quantification of the proposal that a significant number of babies and children died because medical care was refused, because of awful living conditions? Those numbers cant be quantified . I can say affirmatively that since Roe ;45 million babies were killed in the US by abortion(and that is a conservative estimate ;I've seen numbers as high as 60 million plus .)
Beating people over the head won't change that Clete, never has. Baby steps in the right direction though may get us both where we want to be.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 PM. |