who supports right to choose

[snuffy65 1]

He didn't diagnose. Given the information provided: a 5 month pregnant woman with a clot in her lung, is a partial-birth abortion ever a medical necessity? Answer: no. If there's more information you'd like to provide, I can add to the scenario for him.

The fact remains, you still won't answer the question. Why not deliver the baby alive?

Cause going through labor and doing surgery (like a C section) would be highly risky with somone with a lung blood clot.

Yes you can say why not risk the mother's life for a chance to keep the babies. But I wouldn't want to force someone to make that decision one way or the other.

And why every arguemnt I have with somebody about abortions ends with me argueing partial birth abortions? Because thats the only small part of pro choice option that you can remotely argue about.

Edited March 29, 2008 by snuffy65

[gadgetlady 4]

Cause going through labor and doing surgery (like a C section) would be highly risky with somone with a lung blood clot.

This is going back aways, but OK . . .

A partial birth abortion at 5 months (which was the scenario presented) is a situation where the baby is partially delivered, intact, and then stabbed in the skull so the brains can be suctioned out. The baby is still delivered intact. There's no medical difference for the mother if the baby is delivered alive or dead. Why not preserve the baby's life?

Edited March 29, 2008 by gadgetlady

[snuffy65 1]

This is going back aways, but OK . . .

A partial birth abortion at 5 months (which was the scenario presented), is a situation where the baby is partially delivered, intact, and then stabbed in the skull so the brains can be suctioned out. The baby is still delivered intact. There's no medical difference for the mother if the baby is delivered alive or dead. Why not preserve the baby's life?

The method may involve puncturing the head of the fetus and removing the brain. This is done to allow for an easier vaginal delivery of the fetus.

Try getting info other then some evangelical site. And just FYI, I only support partial birth abortions under extreme situations and would like to see a cap on when somone can have an abortion under any circumstance.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes you can say why not risk the mother's life for a chance to keep the babies.

I wouldn't say that at all. If a mother's life is physically threatened if she carries the baby to term, then the abortion is taking one life to save another. But that's not the situation in this scenario at all.

And why every arguemnt I have with somebody about abortions ends with me argueing partial birth abortions? Because thats the only small part of pro choice option that you can remotely argue about.

In this instance, someone claimed that a friend of hers had to have a partial birth abortion at 5 months. I asked why not deliver the baby alive instead of dead, since she was delivering an intact baby either way. (She wouldn't answer).

[gadgetlady 4]

Try getting info other then some evangelical site.

Not sure what you mean here. I didn't get the information about partial-birth abortion from an evangelical site. Prior to partial-birth abortion as a method of late-term abortion, the other primary methods (prostaglandin and saline) had the "unfortunate" result of not always killing the baby. The mother went through labor and delivery just like in a regular delivery, but only after the chemical was introduced to the womb (it wasn't always successful at killing the baby; there are many abortion survivors -- children who had abortions attempted against them but survived -- alive today). Partial-birth abortion eliminated the existence of accidental survival.

And just FYI, I only support partial birth abortions under extreme situations and would like to see a cap on when somone can have an abortion under any circumstance.

How do you resolve this against believing a woman should have the right to choose? Where would you draw that line?

[snuffy65 1]

In this instance, someone claimed that a friend of hers had to have a partial birth abortion at 5 months. I asked why not deliver the baby alive instead of dead, since she was delivering an intact baby either way. (She wouldn't answer).

And I answered you. An aborted fetus is less strenious on somone then pulling alive baby out or having a C section. Ask a doctor.

As for when a limit could be made? I don't know. If we did pro lifers will get an inch and try to take the mile. Thats why there has been nothing done about partial birth abortions.

Where did you get the information then?

[gadgetlady 4]

And I answered you. An aborted fetus is less strenious on somone then pulling alive baby out or having a C section.

So for the sole purpose of lack of vaginal stretching, a life is taken (brutally, I might add, by stabbing a baby in the base of his or her neck and sucking out the brains)? Because all that's different is the circumference of the head. The limbs and body are delivered normally and everything else would be done the same way.

As for when a limit could be made? I don't know. If we did pro lifers will get an inch and try to take the mile. Thats why there has been nothing done about partial birth abortions.

Actually, in 2007 the US Supreme Court upheld a Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which had been signed into law in 2003.

Where did you get the information then?

A doctor.

[snuffy65 1]

And so like all the other pro lifers you want to take it to the extreme. You will say "If partial birth abortions are illegal then why not make abortions over the second trimester illegal?

"Then you would say fetus in 2nd trimester is not much different then the third trimester why not make abortions in the 2nd trimeseter illegal".

You would then work your way down till all abortions are illegal and that jacking off in a tissue would get men arrested.

Oh but I forgot, god will burn those men.

No thanks, I think women should have their right to choose.

Edited March 31, 2008 by snuffy65

[hnladue 7]

Every sperm is sacred, Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Monty Python's the Meaning of Life

[snuffy65 1]

Every sperm is sacred, Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Monty Python's the Meaning of Life

lol, I forgot that one!

[gadgetlady 4]

And so like all the other pro lifers you want to take it to the extreme. You will say "If partial birth abortions are illegal then why not make abortions over the second trimester illegal?

"Then you would say fetus in 2nd trimester is not much different then the third trimester why not make abortions in the 2nd trimeseter illegal".

I'm not sure I understand your point. I've made no secret of the fact that I want all abortions to be illegal.

You would then work your way down till all abortions are illegal and that jacking off in a tissue would get men arrested.

Talk about extremes! Um, no, sperm that has not been joined with an egg to create life is not life. It is a part of a man, containing all of his DNA and his alone. Just like the egg is a part of a woman. Once the are joined, they create a separate being with his or her own DNA, separate from both mom and dad. I hope you understand that; I can explain if you need me to.

[snuffy65 1]

I'm not sure I understand your point. I've made no secret of the fact that I want all abortions to be illegal.

I know, but if you read my post earlier this is what all pro lifers result to at the end of every abortion debate. They have to bring partial birth aborstions then work their way down.

If sperm is just sperm and a egg is just an egg why is it all the sudden special? The chemical reaction now makes it illegal to not discard it? You saying mothers are killing babies when they take some birth control pills causeing the wall of the uterus to not be able to hold onto the fetilize eggs? If the morning after pill is killing babies wouldn't that make it the worst drug in the world's history?

Talk about extremes! Um, no, sperm that has not been joined with an egg to create life is not life. It is a part of a man, containing all of his DNA and his alone. Just like the egg is a part of a woman. Once the are joined, they create a separate being with his or her own DNA, separate from both mom and dad. I hope you understand that; I can explain if you need me to.

Can't understand sarcasm can you? And this is the crux of the matter. Spiritually, I would say this might be the start of life. Legally I say no. It doesn't even have a social security number.

Problem is no one knows when life starts, but no one is forcing you to have abortions. I agree abortions are bad and should not be taken lightly. I have the option ( and take that option) to express my views against abortions. However I consider the end decision is with the woman and the man (if present) to decide on their own. Why can't pro lifers leave it at that?

Edited April 1, 2008 by snuffy65

[gadgetlady 4]

I know, but if you read my post earlier this is what all pro lifers result to at the end of every abortion debate. They have to bring partial birth aborstions then work their way down.

The issue of partial birth abortion was brought up because a woman on this thread said she had a friend for whom a partial-birth abortion was medically indicated. She claimed that her friend didn't want to have the abortion and it broke her heart to do so. I asked her why, since partial-birth abortion is no different from delivering the baby alive, except for the fact that you stab the baby in the base of the skull and suction out the brains, why this woman didn't attempt to preserve the life of her baby -- especially if she was so opposed to the abortion. She never answered.

You brought up the same issue using a quote from that discussion, claiming that it was less strenuous for a woman to have a partial-birth abortion than deliver normally because the baby's skull would be crushed. I then asked why we would deem it reasonable to take a life to prevent some vaginal stretching, and you didn't answer.

As to your claim that all pro-lifers start at partial-birth abortion and work their way backwards, that's ludicrous. We have been fighting for the pro-life cause long before the partial-birth abortion procedure even existed. Our arguments are not contingent on what the gestational age of the baby is, but rather that the baby, from conception, is a human being separate from the mother.

If sperm is just sperm and a egg is just an egg why is it all the sudden special?

A sperm, left alone, will not eventually be an adult one day. An egg, left alone, will not eventually be an adult one day. A fertilized egg will. Therein lies the difference. At the time of conception, a separate being is created with separate DNA, a separate circulatory system and a separate heartbeat (at about 18 days), separate brain waves (at 42 days), etc. No other human being will ever have the same DNA as this tiny human being.

Can't understand sarcasm can you? And this is the crux of the matter.

(The crux of the matter is that I can't understand sarcasm?)

While I did understand it to be sarcasm, there was also a point there, which is evidenced by your questioning above how a sperm alone and an egg alone are different from the result of their union. While you might have thought it cute and/or sarcastic to talk about men masturbating into tissues, clearly you also considered it a relevant argument.

Spiritually, I would say this might be the start of life. Legally I say no. It doesn't even have a social security number.

What someone believes spiritually is of no consequence. Not everyone believes in spiritual things, the presence of a soul, etc. These are not sound things on which to make a legal decision. What DOES matter is what MEDICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY is the start of life.

And the existence or lack of a social security number is equally inconsequential. I didn't have an SS # until I was 5 years old. Was I not a human being until that point? Heck, illegal aliens don't have an SS# as adults!

I agree abortions are bad and should not be taken lightly.

Why? Why are they bad? Why shouldn't they be taken lightly?

I consider the end decision is with the woman and the man (if present) to decide on their own.

Fathers have ZERO rights in the abortion decision. If the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, she can have an abortion anyway. If the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't, she can have the baby and he's still liable for child support.

Why can't pro lifers leave it at that?

I don't understand why you don't understand this. It is for the same reason that the "If you don't believe in slavery, don't own a slave" argument doesn't hold Water. It is because we are talking about the fundamental right to life of a human being who doesn't have the opportunity to defend his or her own rights in a court of law.

[snuffy65 1]

the don't beleive in slavery then don't own a slave comment doesn't work here cause people have varying opinions on when life begins.

you

[gadgetlady 4]

the don't beleive in slavery then don't own a slave comment doesn't work here cause people have varying opinions on when life begins.

People defended slavery by saying that a black person was 3/5 of a person. All we have to do to deny people rights is define them as something less than a person. We need to learn the lessons of history.