How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Meta777, Aug 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What do you think of them?
     
  2. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So are you telling me that a woman whose life is endangered should not have federal money used to abort to save her life? We know government does not pay for elective abortions,
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean like if there's a 5% chance of death if she goes through the pregnancy?

    I'm not saying one way or the other, but it sounds like it could be a little controversial.
     
  4. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Youre very big with someone else’s body. If there is any chance that a pregnancy could kill a woman, it is her decision.
     
    FoxHastings and Bowerbird like this.
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    It wouldn't be to you if YOU were the one facing the 5% chance.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, they definitely should, but I can still disagree with this post of yours:
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  7. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You are free to disagree with anything. You sound like trump.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  8. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    When abortions are done for health reasons it’s a lot more than 5%. What about my friend who’s fetus who had its brain outside the skull and would die?
    Women should be able to have abortions no matter what and It is not up to you to force a woman to be a human Incubator against her will
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pity you then, but acorns and trees are not humans are they and you can legally kill trees can't you.
     
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you did it again and it's a false argument else women who cannot become pregnant also under your demands would have no valid opinion about killing babies in the womb.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't believe there is a ban on federal money to save the woman's life if it is in imminent danger since the babies life would also end if hers does. But that being said

    How often is abortion necessary to “save the life of the mother”?

    October19,2012Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General:“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be abortedto save the mother’s life. . . . If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise thatthreaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesareansection. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will bepremature and perhaps immature depending on the length of gestation. Because it has suddenlybeen taken out of the protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is neverwillfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”C. Everett Koop, M.D., as told to Dick Bohrer, in Moody Monthly, May, 1980. Reprinted in Bohrer’s book here: http://dickbohrerbooks.com/DownloadFiles/Opinion-8.pd

    f_____Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D., “the father of Planned Parenthood,” longtime abortionadvocate whose name was used for Planned Parenthood’s sister organization, theGuttmacher Institute:“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless shesuffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely toprolong, much less save, life.”“Abortion – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” in The Case for Legalized Abortion Now(Berkeley, Calif.: Diablo Press, 1967). ______J

    asper Williams, Jr., M.D., past president of the National Medical Association:“The number of medical cases in which abortion is an indicated and appropriate part of thetreatment is practically nil. Since 1953, I have never seen a patient die who died because sheneeded an abortion and it could not be performed. I have seen patients die with sickle-celldisease. Aborting them would not have helped. Those patients could have been treated a little bitbetter by the prevention of pregnancy; but once they were pregnant, not aborting them did notmake the situation worse. The same is true of congestive heart failure... Open heart surgery isperformed on pregnant patients. Doctors now have the tools and the knowledge with which towork so that they can handle almost any disease a patient might have, whether that patient ispregnant or not, and without interrupting the pregnancy.”

    HOW OFTEN IS ABORTION NECESSARY TO SAVE MOTHER, 2Jasper Williams, Jr., M.D., Bernard Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, Past President of the NationalMedical Association, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on theConstitution Hearings on Constitutional Amendments Relating to Abortion, October 19, 1981______

    From a physician who supports legalized abortion and has performed abortions fordecades:“With diseases like lupus, multiple sclerosis, even breast cancer, the chance that pregnancy willmake the disease worse is no greater than the chance that the disease will either stay the same orimprove. And medical technology has advanced to a point where even women with diabetes andkidney disease can be seen through a pregnancy safely by a doctor who knows what he or she isdoing. We’ve come a long way since my mother’s time... The idea of abortion to save themother’s life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure -- but medicallyspeaking, it probably doesn’t exist. It’s a real stretch of our thinking.”Don Sloan, M.D. and Paula Hartz, Choice: A Doctor's Experience with the Abortion Dilemma(New York: International Publishers, 2nd ed, 2002), p. 46._____

    Mary S. Calderone, M.D., medical director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America,writing half a century ago:“[M]edically speaking, that is, from the point of view of diseases of the various systems, cardiac,genitourinary, and so on, it is hardly ever necessary today to consider the life of a mother asthreatened by a pregnancy.” “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Public Health (July 1960),pp. 948-954 at 948-9.______

    From an ob/gyn who used to perform abortions, but later became president of theAmerican Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists:“In conclusion, although serious threats to health can occur, there is always a life-affirming wayto care for mother and baby, no matter how bleak the prognosis.”Mary L. Davenport, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., “Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary?” (2009), at www.aaplog.org/american-issues-2/late-term-abortion/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary/

    HOW OFTEN IS ABORTION NECESSARY TO SAVE MOTHER, 3Five of Ireland's top gynaecologists, writing in 1992:“We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, nocircumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life ofher unborn child.” John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, “Statement byObstetricians,”The Irish Times, 1 April 1992.______

    Dr. Hymie Gordon, Director of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, October 15,1974:“In more than 25 years now of medical practice, I have come to learn that if a woman is healthyenough to become pregnant, she is healthy enough to complete the term - in spite of heartdisease, liver disease, almost any disease. As far as I’m concerned, there are no medicalindications for terminating a pregnancy.”Dr. Hymie Gordon, Director of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, October 15,1974
    chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/pba/HowOftenAbortionNecessarySaveMother.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If one views the life of the fetus as being equal to that of the mother, game theory would suggest there not be an abortion if the risk to the woman's life from pregnancy is less than 50 percent.

    Probability table:
    No abortion - 50% woman lives, fetus lives - 2 survivors
    No abortion - 50% woman dies, fetus dies - no survivors
    Abortion - 100% chance woman lives, fetus dies - 1 survivor
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    No, I invalidated your opinion because it was so wrong:"" intrude on me for a few months? Because it may cause me some discomfort during those months or pain for a few hours if I do not?"""

    I would invalidate the opinion of anyone who has so little knowledge of what pregnancy entails and says so..


    But I'm sure you'll go on and on about this point so you can ignore the facts that prove you wrong....Post # 2370...:)





    I made no demands.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So if it's strangers dying the numbers matter?

    No, the numbers never matter.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  15. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    It isn't.
     
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you can't address what I posted from medical experts?
     
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the mother is going to die then the baby is going to die so efforts should be made to save the one who can survive. However that is a very rare circumstance as I noted. We shouldn't base or entire abortion policy on a very rare circumstance for which there is already an except. It is certainly not a reason to justify the elective killing of babies in the womb, that's an entirely different matter.
     
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:


    So if it's strangers dying the numbers matter?

    No, the numbers never matter.


    I just did.


    YOU couldn't answer my question.
     
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No you are taunting the fallacy that unless you can be subject to something then you have no voice in the matter. So if as you and Renee are saying that because I can never get pregnant I can have no voice and no validity in the matter does that apply to women who cannot get pregnant?
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    "Abortion policy" is NOT based on that.

    Women do NOT have to justify their reason for having a legal medical procedure.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is one of the more specious reasons given to justify killing unborn babies.
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Tell me - what would you do if it were YOUR daughter diagnosed with early HELLP syndrome and you were told it was either her or the both the baby and her
     
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Except that probablity of foetal survival is tied to developmental age
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
    FoxHastings likes this.
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What if it is not “immanent danger”? And who is to judge what that means? Do we wait 5 seconds before the death or intervene early so the mother has a better chance of survivial?

    Does she have any say?

    Is an external threat to life any less than an internal threat? In other words the woman who is in an abusive relationship who risks murder if she does not leave - is she less at risk than the woman with cancer?
     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The doctor makes that decision of course, who else would you suggest and it is an extremely rare circumstance anyway.

    Experts Say Abortion is Unnecessary
    In fact, a number of doctors have argued that abortion is, in fact, unnecessary and even detrimental for women facing life-threatening conditions. More than 1000 medical professionals and researchers in Ireland have signed the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare, which states:

    As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

    We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

    We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.

    In 2013, Dr. Anthony Levatino, an ob-gyn who formerly performed abortions and has treated women with high-risk pregnancies, testified before a Congressional subcommittee that abortion is not a viable treatment option when a mother’s life is at risk:

    Before I close, I want to make a comment on the necessity and usefulness of utilizing second and third trimester abortion to save women’s lives. I often hear the argument that we must keep abortion legal in order to save women’s lives in cases of life threatening conditions that can and do arise in pregnancy.

    Albany Medical Center, where I worked for over seven years, is a tertiary referral center that accepts patients with life threatening conditions related to or caused by pregnancy. I personally treated hundreds of women with such conditions in my tenure there. There are several conditions that can arise or worsen typically during the late second or third trimester of pregnancy that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or “terminating” the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life saving. But is abortion a viable treatment option in this setting? I maintain that it usually, if not always, is not.

    Before a Suction D & E procedure can be performed, the cervix must first be sufficiently dilated. In my practice, this was accomplished with serial placement of laminaria. Laminaria is a type of sterilized seaweed that absorbs water over several hours and swells to several times its original diameter. Multiple placements of several laminaria at a time are absolutely required prior to attempting a suction D & E.

    In the mid second trimester, this requires approximately 36 hours to accomplish. When utilizing the D & X abortion procedure, popularly known as Partial-Birth Abortion, this process requires three days as explained by Dr. Martin Haskell in his 1992 paper that first described this type of abortion.

    In cases where a mother’s life is seriously threatened by her pregnancy, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real -life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia.

    Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. As you are probably aware, a normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke. This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well. This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care.

    During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.

    Abortion doctor Don Sloan wrote in 2002:

    If a woman with a serious illness — heart disease, say, or diabetes — gets pregnant, the abortion procedure may be as dangerous for her as going through pregnancy … with diseases like lupus, multiple sclerosis, even breast cancer, the chance that pregnancy will make the disease worse is no greater that the chance that the disease will either stay the same or improve. And medical technology has advanced to a point where even women with diabetes and kidney disease can be seen through a pregnancy safely by a doctor who knows what he’s doing. We’ve come a long way since my mother’s time. … The idea of abortion to save the mothers’ life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure — but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist. It’s a real stretch of our thinking. [1]

    Other doctors have also confirmed that abortion is not necessary to save women’s lives. As Dr. Mary Davenport has pointed out:

    Intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion. The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby. If a mother needs radiation or chemotherapy for cancer, the mother’s treatment can be postponed until viability, or regimens can be selected that will be better tolerated by the unborn baby. In modern neonatal intensive care units 90 percent of babies at 28 weeks survive, as do a significant percentage of those at earlier gestations.
    http://afterabortion.org/2016/no-medical-evidence-finds-abortion-can-save-a-mothers-life/

    It would depend on the circumstance of each would it not? What does that have to do with anything?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page