Point-by-point disscusion

[Felicity]

You have presented a scenario at the very end of the pregnancy wherein the mother will die in childbirth whether the fetus lives or not. I cannot make her decision.

I am sorry...from where I'm sitting, it appeared that you said you were talking about third trimester abortions for the health of the mother...and I just don't "get" that so I was asking you to explain your position.

Your extreme example occurs how often?

I was talking about elective late second trimester abortions--like 21-25.5 weeks..viable--fetus' and no reason necessary to kill it. You are the one that said 3rd Tri-for maternal health.

What I was talking about below is the woman choosing to abort if pregnancy or childbirth will endanger her health or life. I was not talking about the eleventh hour situation you post here.

Well--it was quite confusing how you presented it.

I will try to answer anyway. If the woman is going to die anyway, there is no reason to abort based on endangering her life. There is only reason if she chooses to abort. Do I see any reason why she should abort? No. An exception to this, to me, would be if the fetus is known to be brain dead, or has any other profound condition that will kill it anyway.

Alright?

'kay--though I do recognize you have still--in this answer--given the dying woman the right to kill a baby before she shuffles off this mortal coil...whether you see any reason in it or not. Why should anyone have that right?

 

[tryreading]

I am sorry...from where I'm sitting, it appeared that you said you were talking about third trimester abortions for the health of the mother...and I just don't "get" that so I was asking you to explain your position.

I was talking about elective late second trimester abortions--like 21-25.5 weeks..viable--fetus' and no reason necessary to kill it. You are the one that said 3rd Tri-for maternal health.

Well--it was quite confusing how you presented it.

'kay--though I do recognize you have still--in this answer--given the dying woman the right to kill a baby before she shuffles off this mortal coil...whether you see any reason in it or not. Why should anyone have that right?

I thought you meant abortion at the very end of the pregnancy, in your scenario. Like the last week, which would have been an extreme example.

Yes, I said third trimester for the woman's health or life, or late second trimester.

I was confusing? You really do confuse the issue, but I don't want to argue terms.

She already has the right, but you were asking me personally for a reason.

 

[thatguymd]

Let me start by dropping the whole bodily resources vs. other resources point. Steen has now given me the answer I'm looking for so there is nothing to be furthered in the debate by addressing this point. I could make a few more points regarding it but they are no longer needed and it appears that I may have offended a few people. I in no way meant to demean what a woman goes through during pregnancy and if I came across this way I sincerely apologize. While I myself haven't been pregnant, many of my friends have just gone through pregnancies (I even got to be in the room when one was in labor) and knowing what they go through, I know it can be tough (labor in particular).

As for the analogy I presented for Steen, he is correct. I could go on and attempt to argue that any move the gambler makes to ignore the debt would be suicide. However, one of the premises used in the analogy is that as long as the result of an action was not your intent that the result of the action was forced on you (no matter how obvious the result may have seemed). It is not a premise I agree with but one I accepted in order to present the analogy.

I thought that perhaps the analogy would cause the premise to be attacked but it was held on to. Well done Steen.

Never the less, there are just a couple more questions remaining to finish off this point of the debate. I have not heard the bodily resources argument before and feel I need to get your full understanding of this point. Here are the questions:

Say there is a mix up in the hospital and a doctor takes your kidney out when he was not suppose to do it. Since he took your bodily resources against your will, should the penalty for this type of malpractice include the death penalty?

Someone comes to your door and asks for a pint of blood, you say no, and then we pistol whips you to knock you unconscious. When you wake up you are tied down and a pint of blood is currently being taken from you, but you notice that he left his pistol on the night stand in reach of your tied up hand. You are able to move your hand just enough to get the gun and rotate your hand to shoot him. Is it okay to fire?

I know the second scenario is far fetched but what ifs are to demonstrate the extent of the point. Besides, I don't think the questions present too much of a challenge but are needed to get the full spectrum of your view on this point. If you answer like I think you might we should be able to move on to one of the two other major points of contention fairly soon.

 

[steen]

As for the analogy I presented for Steen, he is correct. I could go on and attempt to argue that any move the gambler makes to ignore the debt would be suicide.

Not if he leaves the country. He has choices.

I have not heard the bodily resources argument before and feel I need to get your full understanding of this point. Here are the questions:

Say there is a mix up in the hospital and a doctor takes your kidney out when he was not suppose to do it. Since he took your bodily resources against your will, should the penalty for this type of malpractice include the death penalty?

Huh? I am not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about those who cause the loss of your bodily resources? I don't think the death penalty ever should be used, and I see it as civil damages more than anything. In the abortion case, I guess that would apply to the prolifer who prevented the woman from obtaining an abortion. That likewise would be the person causing the unwanted use of her bodily resource.

Someone comes to your door and asks for a pint of blood, you say no, and then we pistol whips you to knock you unconscious. When you wake up you are tied down and a pint of blood is currently being taken from you, but you notice that he left his pistol on the night stand in reach of your tied up hand. You are able to move your hand just enough to get the gun and rotate your hand to shoot him. Is it okay to fire?

Yes. Your body is inviolate. You are also justified in the case of rape, f.ex., or even with kidnapping. Same thing.

I know the second scenario is far fetched but what ifs are to demonstrate the extent of the point.

That's OK. I understand that to clarify the questions on the boundaries, it is really only the extreme cases on the edge that clarify the edges.

 

[doughgirl]

I said, "Liberty is Liberty Steen."

Steen said in response...."And worth dying to defend, yes."

You mean murdering to defend, right? You are murdering the unborn child.

You do not have a clue. And the pathetic thing is you don't care. And you mock those who do care about life.

You redefine human beings in dehumanizing terms, typical of pro-abortion side. Your movement uses terms like "fetus' or "product of conception" and you can pretend all you want but it still doesnt change the truth. Abortion is murder. You talk about the womans right to choose........here is what you're choosing, a live child or dead child. Pro-lifers work hard to ensure a live child. Your side performs the procedures to make sure they'll end up dead.

It's funny that people much more important in the pro-choice movement than you Steen, highly visable people even admit that its a baby. How you can remain in denial is beyond me.

"Faye Wattleton, then the executive director of PP appeared on the Phil Donahue show with Randall Terry of Operation REscue. When Terry said, "It's not a frog or a ferret being killed, its a baby," Wattleton responded, "I am aware of that. I am fully aware of that." It was PP's position....that yes we know its a baby but we just dont care. They have the same opinion today.
They are not in denial but it seems you are. They recognize the scientific fact that it is a baby in the mothers womb.

You are the one in denial.


(Donahue: Transcript #3288, 6 September 1991.)

 

[Felicity]

I thought you meant abortion at the very end of the pregnancy, in your scenario. Like the last week, which would have been an extreme example.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=189413&postcount=67

Look at the post above. In what you quote--I make it clear what I was talking about. Look at your response. You make the parameters of what YOU are talking about clear. I went with you from there. That's not confusing--what is confusing is the backpeddaling and avoiding an answer.

I was talking about late second trimester--21-25.5 weeks...YOU started talking about third trimester...and that abortion at that stage was for the health of the mother. So YES--after YOU switched the perameter to third Tri--I asked what health issue would lead one to an induction abortion where the kid had to be killed for the mother's health? You still haven't answered except to say that "the woman opted for abortion, right?..."

Yes, I said third trimester for the woman's health or life,

So...what's the answer? You said, "If the woman is going to die anyway, there is no reason to abort based on endangering her life. There is only reason if she chooses to abort. Do I see any reason why she should abort? No. An exception to this, to me, would be if the fetus is known to be brain dead, or has any other profound condition that will kill it anyway."

So...You've answered "no reason to abort if she's going to diae anyway..." and still maintain thet she still should be allowed to abort "if she chooses to abort."

Now...for your position to be consistant with what you have said so far--you need to offer a "health reason" a woman needs to kill the fetus before inducing labor to expell a dead baby in the third trimester. THAT was your original statement and one you maintain when you say "What I was talking about below is the woman choosing to abort if pregnancy or childbirth will endanger her health or life. I was not talking about the eleventh hour situation you post here."

Choice is not a health reason--I am asking for you to offer a maternal medical condition that justifies the death of a viable baby because you YOURSELF say a the mother's health is a reason it is justifiable to abort at those stages of pregnancy.

Please be aware that a viable fetus in the late SECOND TRIMESTER 21-25.5 weeks--NEEDS NO HEALTH REASON TO ABORT.

 

[thatguymd]

Okay maybe aren't quite ready to move on (and I was itching to go back to the heart of the matter). I was ready for the response to the last question but not the other two.

Allow me to elaborate on what I was planning to do with the analogy. I was thinking I would argue further that a debt could be serious enough that the bookie could tell him straight out that ignoring the debt is suicide. That he will be watched to make sure he doesn't try anything.

I then assumed you would still say that regardless of the circumstances that he can still attempt to ignore the debt no matter how likely the result of his action is - as long as it isn't a 100% chance of the result. Therefore, even if he gets shot trying to leave the country and knew it was by far the most likely result, he still had the choice of trying.

Is there any way to clarify why a doctor taking your kidney is civil damages even though he took your bodily resources? I was asking the question to see if it was still punishable by death to take bodily resources even after it already took place or if they could only he killed during the act of taking the bodily resources.

 

[steen]

I said, "Liberty is Liberty Steen."
Steen said in response...."And worth dying to defend, yes."
You mean murdering to defend, right? You are murdering the unborn child.

you have seen enough evidence by now to know that you are outright lying.

You do not have a clue. And the pathetic thing is you don't care. And you mock those who do care about life.

Ad hominem claptrap.

You redefine human beings in dehumanizing terms,

your claim is false.

typical of pro-abortion side.

more lies.

Your movement uses terms like "fetus' or "product of conception" and you can pretend all you want but it still doesnt change the truth.

Exactly. these are scientifically accurate and correct descriptors; not the hysterical and emotional hyperbole that anti-choice fundies spew in their deception.

Abortion is murder.

]You are STILL lying.

You talk about the womans right to choose........here is what you're choosing, a live child or dead child.

nope. You are spewing emotional platitudes and revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

Pro-lifers work hard to ensure a live child.

You work hard to enslave women to your misogynistic findie oppression policies.

Your side performs the procedures to make sure they'll end up dead.

No child is involved on abortions, your prolife lies and emotional histrionics none withstanding.

It's funny that people much more important in the pro-choice movement than you Steen, highly visable people even admit that its a baby. How you can remain in denial is beyond me.

I don't care what others say. "Baby" is a developmental stage that begins at birth, your emotional claptrap and unstable rants none withstanding.

...They are not in denial but it seems you are. They recognize the scientific fact that it is a baby in the mothers womb.

You are again lying. The scientific definition for "baby" includes only stages after birth. You are again lying about science, as I have come to expect by prolifers. In fact, I get very surprised when prolifers are NOT lying, thanks to liars like you.

 

[steen]

Allow me to elaborate on what I was planning to do with the analogy. I was thinking I would argue further that a debt could be serious enough that the bookie could tell him straight out that ignoring the debt is suicide. That he will be watched to make sure he doesn't try anything.

I then assumed you would still say that regardless of the circumstances that he can still attempt to ignore the debt no matter how likely the result of his action is - as long as it isn't a 100% chance of the result. Therefore, even if he gets shot trying to leave the country and knew it was by far the most likely result, he still had the choice of trying.

That also. It also is not a bodily resource. he still has the option of doing nothing, of not meeting the debt. That IS a choice for him. The pregnant woman has no such choice. If she does absolutely nothing, the pregnancy continues.

Is there any way to clarify why a doctor taking your kidney is civil damages even though he took your bodily resources? I was asking the question to see if it was still punishable by death to take bodily resources even after it already took place or if they could only he killed during the act of taking the bodily resources.

Well, for one, nobody was killed, which makes the death penalty dunious.

 

[thatguymd]

The analogy can still be taken to the extent of any form of ignoring the debt is suicide ("Your gonna pay up one way or the other" - if you will). This is why I thought the only reason the analogy can be flawed is to stick with the claim that any action is not agreeing to the result as long as the result was not desired. I thought that was the premise I accepted (of sex not agreeing to pregnancy in any way) in order to make the analogy.

As for the other question maybe I can ask a different one to get to the same point. Assume the other scenerio I painted earlier (the pint of blood and the gun) only this time you wake up too late and he has already made off with the pint of blood. When you press charges, is the death penalty allowed? My point is to make sure that bodily resources being forcefully taken only has the option of being punishable by death while the it is being taken and not after the fact.

 

[tryreading]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=189413&postcount=67

Look at the post above. In what you quote--I make it clear what I was talking about. Look at your response. You make the parameters of what YOU are talking about clear. I went with you from there. That's not confusing--what is confusing is the backpeddaling and avoiding an answer.

I was talking about late second trimester--21-25.5 weeks...YOU started talking about third trimester...and that abortion at that stage was for the health of the mother. So YES--after YOU switched the perameter to third Tri--I asked what health issue would lead one to an induction abortion where the kid had to be killed for the mother's health? You still haven't answered except to say that "the woman opted for abortion, right?..."

So...what's the answer? You said, "If the woman is going to die anyway, there is no reason to abort based on endangering her life. There is only reason if she chooses to abort. Do I see any reason why she should abort? No. An exception to this, to me, would be if the fetus is known to be brain dead, or has any other profound condition that will kill it anyway."

So...You've answered "no reason to abort if she's going to diae anyway..." and still maintain thet she still should be allowed to abort "if she chooses to abort."

Now...for your position to be consistant with what you have said so far--you need to offer a "health reason" a woman needs to kill the fetus before inducing labor to expell a dead baby in the third trimester. THAT was your original statement and one you maintain when you say "What I was talking about below is the woman choosing to abort if pregnancy or childbirth will endanger her health or life. I was not talking about the eleventh hour situation you post here."

Choice is not a health reason--I am asking for you to offer a maternal medical condition that justifies the death of a viable baby because you YOURSELF say a the mother's health is a reason it is justifiable to abort at those stages of pregnancy.
Please be aware that a viable fetus in the late SECOND TRIMESTER 21-25.5 weeks--NEEDS NO HEALTH REASON TO ABORT.

I didn't say anything about viable or not, but here is one health reason to abort:

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=5&q=http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm&e=42



I know a woman doesn't need a health reason to abort in the second trimester, it is a matter of choice at that time.

 

[tryreading]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=189413&postcount=67

Look at the post above. In what you quote--I make it clear what I was talking about. Look at your response. You make the parameters of what YOU are talking about clear. I went with you from there. That's not confusing--what is confusing is the backpeddaling and avoiding an answer.

I was talking about late second trimester--21-25.5 weeks...YOU started talking about third trimester...and that abortion at that stage was for the health of the mother. So YES--after YOU switched the perameter to third Tri--I asked what health issue would lead one to an induction abortion where the kid had to be killed for the mother's health? You still haven't answered except to say that "the woman opted for abortion, right?..."

So...what's the answer? You said, "If the woman is going to die anyway, there is no reason to abort based on endangering her life. There is only reason if she chooses to abort. Do I see any reason why she should abort? No. An exception to this, to me, would be if the fetus is known to be brain dead, or has any other profound condition that will kill it anyway."

So...You've answered "no reason to abort if she's going to diae anyway..." and still maintain thet she still should be allowed to abort "if she chooses to abort."

Now...for your position to be consistant with what you have said so far--you need to offer a "health reason" a woman needs to kill the fetus before inducing labor to expell a dead baby in the third trimester. THAT was your original statement and one you maintain when you say "What I was talking about below is the woman choosing to abort if pregnancy or childbirth will endanger her health or life. I was not talking about the eleventh hour situation you post here."

Choice is not a health reason--I am asking for you to offer a maternal medical condition that justifies the death of a viable baby because you YOURSELF say a the mother's health is a reason it is justifiable to abort at those stages of pregnancy.

Please be aware that a viable fetus in the late SECOND TRIMESTER 21-25.5 weeks--NEEDS NO HEALTH REASON TO ABORT.

Another health reason:

Eisenmenger's syndrome and pregnancy.


Two additional cases of successfully managed Eisenmenger's syndrome (ES) during pregnancy are described. A review of the literature on this subject revealed 115 reported cases, of which only 44 (including our two cases) were felt to be adequately documented, representing 70 pregnancies. These formed the material for statistical evaluation. Fifty-two per cent of all patients died in connection with pregnancy. Thirty and three-tenths per cent of all pregnancies results in maternal death. Maternal mortality in first, second, and third pregnancies was not significantly different. A high incidence of maternal death was assoicated with hypovolemia, thromboembolic phenomena and preeclampsia, but mortality was not higher in the toxemia than in the non-toxemia group. Cesarean sections and other operations are associated with extremely high maternal mortality during pregnancy. Thirty-four per cent of all vaginal deliveries, three out of four cesarean sections, and only 1 out of 14 pregnancy interruptions (the only one by hysterotomy) resulted in maternal death. Abortions are significantly safer than any kind of delivery (p less than 0.05). Ventricular septal defect (VSD) is the most frequent underlying shunt defect. Maternal mortality in association with VSD is higher (60%) than in association with atrial septal defect (ASD) (44%) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) (41.7%). The majority of maternal deaths occurred during or within the first week after delivery. Only 25.6 per cent of all pregnancies reached term. At least 54.9 per cent of all deliveries occurred prematurely. Thirty and two-tenths per cent of all infants showed intrauterine growth retardation. This represented almost half of all new borns with available information. Perinatal mortality reached 28.3 per cent and was significantly associated with prematurity (p less than 0.001). Pregnancy is contraindicated in patients with ES. Abortion is the treatment of choice, once pregnancy has occurred. Where interruption of pregnancy is refused, utmost care must be taken to assure maternal and fetal survival. A protocol for the management of such pregnancies is discussed on the basis of available information.

(my underlining)

Gleicher N <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Gleicher+N%22%5BAuthor%5D>, Midwall J <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Midwall+J%22%5BAuthor%5D>, Hochberger D <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Hochberger+D%22%5BAuthor%5D>, Jaffin H <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Jaffin+H%22%5BAuthor%5D>.

 

[tryreading]

This is a better link to the information below:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=503376&dopt=Abstract

 

[ngdawg]

Another article on this syndrome:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/4/1680_51817.htm
And what Eisenmenger's is:
http://www.rjmatthewsmd.com/Definitions/Eisenmengers_syndrome.htm

 

[steen]

The analogy can still be taken to the extent of any form of ignoring the debt is suicide ("Your gonna pay up one way or the other" - if you will).

Not necessarily. You still have several chices.

This is why I thought the only reason the analogy can be flawed is to stick with the claim that any action is not agreeing to the result as long as the result was not desired.

but you really can't find much that is anaolgous to abortion. You can do things like the smokign and lung cancer, ot the drinking and liver cirrhosis, but outside of physical conditions, you run off on tangents.

I thought that was the premise I accepted (of sex not agreeing to pregnancy in any way) in order to make the analogy.

That is the premise, yes, but your analogies keep having actual choices involved.

As for the other question maybe I can ask a different one to get to the same point. Assume the other scenerio I painted earlier (the pint of blood and the gun) only this time you wake up too late and he has already made off with the pint of blood. When you press charges, is the death penalty allowed?

Nobody died, so no.

ly resources being forcefully taken only has the option of being punishable by death while the it is being taken and not after the fact.

Yes, in the sense that deadly force is only allowed when the exploitation is going on. I don't see a premise for a legal death penalty, but I do see self-defense with deadly force.

 

[Felicity]

I didn't say anything about viable or not,...

This is a silly game you're playing...whatever...:roll: You knew what was being discussed and the number of late abortions of a NONviable fetus are MINISCULE portion of an already small number of the 4,000 abortions performed every day in the United States.

The point is the JUSTIFICATION for the purposeful killing of a fetus in the late second trimester and third trimester of pregnancy falls to the MOST RARE situations. Pro choicers are always howling about how "rare" these late abortions are and yet the justification pro-choicers use for why they should be legal is even MORE rare. Have your cake and eat it to. It just doesn't make sense. One could say it's hypocritical.

...but here is one health reason to abort:

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start..._pba1.htm&e=42

[/QUOTE]


Hey tryreading...here's an obvious question for you...How come, when I supplied a little bit of info on a fairly common disability called Trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome), your response was that you (and I quote) "don't need to know about it"...? Yet apparently you do have the ability to look stuff up concerning medical issues and feel there is some importance in it.... Just an observation....


Oh...and BTW--the next paragrapg in that article--that you DIDN'T quote says, "There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. " Interesting...


In the case of hydrocephaly--a caesarian is necessary--the alternative is the "partial birth abortion" procedure. Now a days women ELECT to have cesareans and doctors often are more than willing to perform them because they have control over the birth process and can anticipate problems before they become emergencies. Caesarians are an option, killing the fetus is NOT necessary. The hydrocephaly your article describes is the MOST severe cases (the article even mentions that ) but hydrocephalus is treatable in most cases.

Lastly--that's a fetal reason--not a maternal reason

As for Eisenmenger's....I have never denied that a woman has a right to preserve her life even from her fetus if she could die. However this syndrome ALSO does not require the purposeful killing of the fetus. Perhaps early induction that may occur before a child can survive...but a lethal injection or a collapsed skull prior to delivery? Not necessary.

And BTW...Another very rare situation. Are you so naive to think that all the late abortions done in the US are for situations such as these? Then why the fuss about defining it legally that way? Why the fuss about requiring a tragic physical situation to be present to allow medical intervention that may result in the death of the fetus?

 

[tryreading]

This is a silly game you're playing...whatever...:roll: You knew what was being discussed and the number of late abortions of a NONviable fetus are MINISCULE portion of an already small number of the 4,000 abortions performed every day in the United States.

The point is the JUSTIFICATION for the purposeful killing of a fetus in the late second trimester and third trimester of pregnancy falls to the MOST RARE situations. Pro choicers are always howling about how "rare" these late abortions are and yet the justification pro-choicers use for why they should be legal is even MORE rare. Have your cake and eat it to. It just doesn't make sense. One could say it's hypocritical.

Hey tryreading...here's an obvious question for you...How come, when I supplied a little bit of info on a fairly common disability called Trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome), your response was that you (and I quote) "don't need to know about it"...? Yet apparently you do have the ability to look stuff up concerning medical issues and feel there is some importance in it.... Just an observation....


Oh...and BTW--the next paragrapg in that article--that you DIDN'T quote says, "There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. " Interesting...


In the case of hydrocephaly--a caesarian is necessary--the alternative is the "partial birth abortion" procedure. Now a days women ELECT to have cesareans and doctors often are more than willing to perform them because they have control over the birth process and can anticipate problems before they become emergencies. Caesarians are an option, killing the fetus is NOT necessary. The hydrocephaly your article describes is the MOST severe cases (the article even mentions that ) but hydrocephalus is treatable in most cases.

Lastly--that's a fetal reason--not a maternal reason

As for Eisenmenger's....I have never denied that a woman has a right to preserve her life even from her fetus if she could die. However this syndrome ALSO does not require the purposeful killing of the fetus. Perhaps early induction that may occur before a child can survive...but a lethal injection or a collapsed skull prior to delivery? Not necessary.

And BTW...Another very rare situation. Are you so naive to think that all the late abortions done in the US are for situations such as these? Then why the fuss about defining it legally that way? Why the fuss about requiring a tragic physical situation to be present to allow medical intervention that may result in the death of the fetus? [/QUOTE]

I'm not being hypocritical. You are clouding the issue. You asked for an example of abortion being necessary in the third trimester to protect the health and/or life of a pregnant woman. I gave you two examples. You probably already knew about these medical issues anyway, so I'm not sure why you wanted examples from me.

The examples are rare, but that is not relevant to the question. Third trimester abortions are rare also, like you said.

Hydrocephaly can definitely be a maternal risk. I read the information I posted, from a reputable source, and it said so. The information is from a doctor.

"...early induction that may occur before a child can survive." This is your suggestion. This is abortion.

Oh...and BTW--the next paragrapg in that article--that you DIDN'T quote says, "There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. " Interesting...

I was trying to answer your challenge. The above is not pertenant to the answer.

To your last paragraph, I was not requiring anything, but responding to your question. These two maternal health issues exist, and they can both occur in the third trimester, if I interpreted right.

 

[tryreading]

This is a silly game you're playing...whatever...:roll: You knew what was being discussed and the number of late abortions of a NONviable fetus are MINISCULE portion of an already small number of the 4,000 abortions performed every day in the United States.

The point is the JUSTIFICATION for the purposeful killing of a fetus in the late second trimester and third trimester of pregnancy falls to the MOST RARE situations. Pro choicers are always howling about how "rare" these late abortions are and yet the justification pro-choicers use for why they should be legal is even MORE rare. Have your cake and eat it to. It just doesn't make sense. One could say it's hypocritical.






Hey tryreading...here's an obvious question for you...How come, when I supplied a little bit of info on a fairly common disability called Trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome), your response was that you (and I quote) "don't need to know about it"...? Yet apparently you do have the ability to look stuff up concerning medical issues and feel there is some importance in it.... Just an observation....


Oh...and BTW--the next paragrapg in that article--that you DIDN'T quote says, "There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. " Interesting...


In the case of hydrocephaly--a caesarian is necessary--the alternative is the "partial birth abortion" procedure. Now a days women ELECT to have cesareans and doctors often are more than willing to perform them because they have control over the birth process and can anticipate problems before they become emergencies. Caesarians are an option, killing the fetus is NOT necessary. The hydrocephaly your article describes is the MOST severe cases (the article even mentions that ) but hydrocephalus is treatable in most cases.

Lastly--that's a fetal reason--not a maternal reason

As for Eisenmenger's....I have never denied that a woman has a right to preserve her life even from her fetus if she could die. However this syndrome ALSO does not require the purposeful killing of the fetus. Perhaps early induction that may occur before a child can survive...but a lethal injection or a collapsed skull prior to delivery? Not necessary.

And BTW...Another very rare situation. Are you so naive to think that all the late abortions done in the US are for situations such as these? Then why the fuss about defining it legally that way? Why the fuss about requiring a tragic physical situation to be present to allow medical intervention that may result in the death of the fetus?

The Eisenmenger's can easily involve a viable fetus. Abortion in this case is recommended, by several sites I looked at, and even by a site owned by the Catholic church.

You asked for an example of a third trimester abortion performed to protect the woman's health, and this is an example. If it is impossible for this to be necessary in the third trimester, in your opinion, please provide proof.

The two problems I mentioned are relatively rare. But so is the occurence of third trimester abortions in this country. Hypocritical of you never to mention that.

Hydrocephaly is definitely a maternal indicator for abortion in some cases, according to the information. No offense, but I am going to take the word of the medical article.

Yes, any procedure can be performed for the wrong reasons.

I don't know why you do this: "Are you so naive to think that all the late abortions done in the US are for situations such as these?" I answer a question you pose. Implying that I believe something unrelated that is false is a game, is it not?

"Perhaps early induction that may occur before a child can survive..." This is your suggestion. This is also abortion.


(My previous post was unintended-I mistakenly submitted before finishing and editing)

 

[steen]

Other reasons for 3rd trimester abortions (off the top of my head. The need is so well-established that I can't even be bothered looking it up) are ecclampsia, placenta abrupta, ruptured uterus after past c-section, need for chemotherapy, pericarditis, abdominal ectopic pregnancy.

All of these kill women.

 

[Felicity]

Tryreading...I'm simply trying to get you to "trythinking" about the position you hold and to consider what the position actually means in every sense. It's not just a simple--"her body her choice"--and if it is that simple to you, you should acknowledge the truth of exactly what you are supporting.

 

[tryreading]

Tryreading...I'm simply trying to get you to "trythinking" about the position you hold and to consider what the position actually means in every sense. It's not just a simple--"her body her choice"--and if it is that simple to you, you should acknowledge the truth of exactly what you are supporting.

I think about the issue, was tryanswering your questions.

Abortion is not a simple issue to me. I think it must be simpler to you because you see it in black and white. The woman's rights have to be an issue too, though, in my opinion.

I am against abortion. But my dilemma is I am also for a woman having complete control over her body. This is contradictory, of course, but there it is. I don't believe a woman should have an abortion except in rare cases, but I also believe she can't be forced to grow another human being in her belly. Would you force her? And how can she be forced? (Both rhetorical).

I don't like abortion, at any stage, and am not 'for' it. I get queasy, almost nauseous, when I read about partial birth abortion. But this procedure is sometimes necessary. Maybe it is used more often than absolutely needed, which is wrong.

I started posting on this thread because its original premise was very interesting, not one of the 'Why are pro-abortionist satanists so stupid and evil' threads. I added information from your cited sources because I wanted thatguymd to have as much information as possible. I was not saying you deliberately left out pertinent information, although maybe you thought I was. Of course by those posts I was implying it, from your angle. We all post from sources intending to prove our points, and sometimes nothing more, but providing a link keeps us honest. If you look back you'll see that I posted this with as little bias as I could, not trying to talk thatguy into anything, or change his mind, but feeling that he should know as much as possible about his subject.

 

[Felicity]

I am against abortion. But my dilemma is I am also for a woman having complete control over her body. This is contradictory, of course, but there it is.

Have you thought why you value this woman's "control over her body" is of more value in your position than the life of the aborted human? What is your rationale for making that judgemant?

I don't believe a woman should have an abortion except in rare cases, but I also believe she can't be forced to grow another human being in her belly. Would you force her? And how can she be forced? (Both rhetorical).

I honestly think rape is the only instance that could be considered "force." And then you are back to the question I posed above.

I don't like abortion, at any stage, and am not 'for' it. I get queasy, almost nauseous, when I read about partial birth abortion. But this procedure is sometimes necessary. Maybe it is used more often than absolutely needed, which is wrong.

So are you for restrictions that can assure it is not abused and used only when necessary? if yes--like what? If no--why not?

I started posting on this thread because its original premise was very interesting, not one of the 'Why are pro-abortionist satanists so stupid and evil' threads.

I hope you don't find any of my posts like that. I don't believe that is how I present any of my positions.

I added information from your cited sources because I wanted thatguymd to have as much information as possible. I was not saying you deliberately left out pertinent information, although maybe you thought I was.

No--that has never been my point. I'm just attempting to make clear what the pro-choice position ACTUALLY means--beyond the first blush of seemingly offering "freedom" to women.

If you look back you'll see that I posted this with as little bias as I could, not trying to talk thatguy into anything, or change his mind, but feeling that he should know as much as possible about his subject.

I think maybe your attempt was interpreted by me as avoiding the ALL facts of the issue--perhaps in an attempt to appear unbiased and neutral (but it seemed "uninformed" to me.).

 

[thatguymd]

Now that we are done exploring bodily resources I want to move back to the main point. At first when I asked if a person was in the fetus' postion would it be okay to kill him (if not there needs to be a difference), you mentioned that the difference is that a fetus is forcing you to use your bodily resources. And that is the only difference needed because if a person was in the midst of forcing you to use your bodily resources you could kill them as well.

However, the fetus has another attribute specific to it's situation that I believe cancels out your answer to my question. The fetus is being forced TO take the bodily resources. In fact, if you had to blame someone for the current situation the fetus would be the least of anyone to blame. In no other forceful use of your resources would this be true. Because of this I believe that if you afford the rights of any other person to the fetus you still should not be allowed to kill the fetus. Therefore, it still becomes necessary to demonstrate why the fetus cannot be afforded the rights of any other person.

I am guessing that this would then point the finger back to some sort of developmental stage, correct? If it does, what is that stage? If not, why not?

 

[tecoyah]

If a person was inside another person then yes, the person they are inside of has control over what happens to the one inside them.....primarily because....well....they are inside of them.If I was inside some woman right now (in the literal sense....heh) I would hope to all that is Holy to be killed quickly and efficiently. As this is a rediculous anology though....I will say no more.

As far as the developmental stage for cutoff, I dont know, and honestly...I really dont care as long as no law is broken. It is not my life, it is not my child, it is not my descision.....and it is not yours. I know a woman who sees anyone who eats meat as a murderer...seriously. She is a freakin' nutcase in many ways....but, at least she does not go around telling strangers not to eat meat, and I have NEVER heard her call someone a murderer in anger.

 

[steen]

However, the fetus has another attribute specific to it's situation that I believe cancels out your answer to my question. The fetus is being forced TO take the bodily resources.

Hmm, interesting point. Kudos for coming up with a new one.

In fact, if you had to blame someone for the current situation the fetus would be the least of anyone to blame.

but it is not a mater of blame, only of use.

In no other forceful use of your resources would this be true. Because of this I believe that if you afford the rights of any other person to the fetus you still should not be allowed to kill the fetus.

Whether the user is deliberate or not, forced use is still slavery.

Therefore, it still becomes necessary to demonstrate why the fetus cannot be afforded the rights of any other person.

Other than the non-sentience, non-sensate tissue deal, regardless of fault, there is no allowed forced use of bodily resources; slavery is illegal.

I am guessing that this would then point the finger back to some sort of developmental stage, correct? If it does, what is that stage? If not, why not?

Stages are irrelevant. Bodily autonomy is relevant. Regardless of whether the fetus or embryo is at "fault," there still is no right to use bodily resources against a person's wishes.