Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Show More
Loading...
Flag bluehorserunning August 10, 2009 3:39 AM EDT

www.esquire.com/features/abortion-doctor...


this is an incredible article.  I hope everyone will read it.

Flag Tmarie64 August 10, 2009 10:48 AM EDT

I read it.  It was incredible.


What strikes me is the number of people who are against abortion who go to him.  It's amazing how prolifers can say... "BAN ABORTION... Unless I need one"...


His story just drives home the hypocrisy of those self-righteous prigs.

Flag faith713 August 10, 2009 2:26 PM EDT

Aug 10, 2009 -- 3:39AM, bluehorserunning wrote:


www.esquire.com/features/abortion-doctor...


this is an incredible article.  I hope everyone will read it.




Esquire magazine? Not exactly a reliable source of truth. A trashy magazine that promotes drugs and lies.

Flag Tolerant Sis August 10, 2009 3:25 PM EDT

And who, in your esteemed opinion, provides a 'reliable source of truth', Faith?  Hannity? Beck? O'Really? or that 'reliable' source of truth about drugs and lies, Rush Limbaugh?


Oh, wait, don't tell me, let me guess.  You put your whole faith in JAY-sus and his ministers.

Flag bluehorserunning August 10, 2009 4:12 PM EDT

Faith, did you even bother to read the article?


If so, what exactly do you think is untrue or unreliable about it?

Flag Tmarie64 August 10, 2009 10:33 PM EDT

Aug 10, 2009 -- 2:26PM, faith713 wrote:


Aug 10, 2009 -- 3:39AM, bluehorserunning wrote:


www.esquire.com/features/abortion-doctor...


this is an incredible article.  I hope everyone will read it.




Esquire magazine? Not exactly a reliable source of truth. A trashy magazine that promotes drugs and lies.




Did you READ the article?   Obviously NOT because if you had you would know that your comment was COMPLETELY uninformed, and made you look like a silly child in a snit.  You don't know at all what the article was about.  So, here's a thought... Don't criticize what you have zero knowledge about.


It isn't an article about changing anything.  It's simply following and talking to this doctor, his family, and his employess...  VERY christian of you.. well, actually TYPICALLY pro-life of you to condemn with NO KNOWLEDGE of what you are speaking.


Or are your "christian" values such that you believe he's not human?  Or, are you afraid you won't be able to make blanket generalizations about people if you actually LEARN something?


I found it fascinating that his wife loves him with all her heart, even though she refused to have an abortion years ago when her doctors found out her child was going to have major problems all his life.  She supports him and what he does.


His FAMILY has US Marshalls guarding them because of ignorant asses who know nothing and still cast judgment, and sentence on a man simply providing a vital, life saving service.

Flag faith713 August 11, 2009 6:35 PM EDT

Aug 10, 2009 -- 4:12PM, bluehorserunning wrote:


Faith, did you even bother to read the article?


If so, what exactly do you think is untrue or unreliable about it?



I stopped reading the article after the first page. I'm not wasting my time reading biased articles from trashy tabloid magazines.

Flag Tmarie64 August 11, 2009 10:17 PM EDT

Figures.  So, the answer is "No, I can't comment on the topic because I'm completely ignorant of the whole article."


The interview with his mom was very nice.   I don't see how something could be biased... I didn't see any pro-anything.  But then I'm not a hate filled person who does not care that a 92 year old woman who has never harmed anyone has to have US Marshalls guarding her because the right wingnut idiots would gladly harm her if they couldn't get to her son.


That's a fine bunch you identify with...  Disgusting.

Flag faith713 August 12, 2009 8:02 AM EDT

Aug 11, 2009 -- 10:17PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


Figures.  So, the answer is "No, I can't comment on the topic because I'm completely ignorant of the whole article."


The interview with his mom was very nice.   I don't see how something could be biased... I didn't see any pro-anything.  But then I'm not a hate filled person who does not care that a 92 year old woman who has never harmed anyone has to have US Marshalls guarding her because the right wingnut idiots would gladly harm her if they couldn't get to her son.


That's a fine bunch you identify with...  Disgusting.



I do not identify with their methods of violence. I do identify with their stance against the "doctors" who slaughter innocent defenseless babies in the womb....Disgusting.

Flag Marysara722 August 12, 2009 10:50 AM EDT

Aug 11, 2009 -- 6:35PM, faith713 wrote:


Aug 10, 2009 -- 4:12PM, bluehorserunning wrote:


Faith, did you even bother to read the article?


If so, what exactly do you think is untrue or unreliable about it?



I stopped reading the article after the first page. I'm not wasting my time reading biased articles from trashy tabloid magazines.



"Tabloid" magazine? --Esquire?  Way off base.  Way off topic too since the point isn't about "which" magazine the article "about" the doctor was published in.  No, the point was about "the" doctor himself and "what" and "why" he "does" what he does and the "duress" he has to "endure" under the rabid factions of the PLM.

Aug 12, 2009 -- 8:02AM, faith713 wrote:


Aug 11, 2009 -- 10:17PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


Figures.  So, the answer is "No, I can't comment on the topic because I'm completely ignorant of the whole article."


The interview with his mom was very nice.   I don't see how something could be biased... I didn't see any pro-anything.  But then I'm not a hate filled person who does not care that a 92 year old woman who has never harmed anyone has to have US Marshalls guarding her because the right wingnut idiots would gladly harm her if they couldn't get to her son.


That's a fine bunch you identify with...  Disgusting.



Well TM, there is that old adage ya know.
They say that "ignorance is bliss."


Faith << I do not identify with their methods of violence. I do identify with their stance against the "doctors" who slaughter innocent defenseless babies in the womb....Disgusting.


Your emotionalism is overreaching.  Perhaps had you did take the time to read the whole article, you would have heard from a couple who had to see Dr. Hern because Dr. Tiller was "murdered" by some radical PLer who is against the freedom of choice.
You would have then known that real-life tends to throw us curve balls that we have to deal with in the best way possible.
But I'm sure you still would insist that the woman would have to give birth.


And no, ignorance is not bliss.  Ignorance can be dangerous.


 

Flag Tmarie64 August 12, 2009 12:19 PM EDT

Faith... So, you think it's ok for a woman who very probably would die if she delivered be denied treatment?


You didn't read about the woman who was turned away by Dr. Hern because, to paraphrase what he said... "She was raped and just waited too long to make a decision"... She had waited until 35 weeks to decide she didn't want the product of her rape.


You also didn't read about the teen he turned away because she wished all abortionists would be killed, but she wanted an abortion, in spite of her "ethics".


Ignorance is STUPID... anyone who is blissful in their ignorance is stupid.  Refusal to learn is stupid.


It's easy to be judgmental when you live in a daughter free, white bread world.

Flag Marysara722 August 12, 2009 5:12 PM EDT


Now you see 'em, now you don't.
Suffice to say that a few posts were removed.


Because they were "personal attacks" instead of debating and/or discussing the thread's topic.
Please don't turn posts into a personal attack soapbox about members but instead, stick to the topic!


Consider this notice in-place of a direct email.



Carry on . . .

MSara
Bnet Community Host


 

Flag faith713 August 12, 2009 5:37 PM EDT

Aug 12, 2009 -- 12:19PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


Faith... So, you think it's ok for a woman who very probably would die if she delivered be denied treatment?


You didn't read about the woman who was turned away by Dr. Hern because, to paraphrase what he said... "She was raped and just waited too long to make a decision"... She had waited until 35 weeks to decide she didn't want the product of her rape.


You also didn't read about the teen he turned away because she wished all abortionists would be killed, but she wanted an abortion, in spite of her "ethics".


Ignorance is STUPID... anyone who is blissful in their ignorance is stupid.  Refusal to learn is stupid.


It's easy to be judgmental when you live in a daughter free, white bread world.



The majority of  the abortions are not for medically necessary reasons. Dr. Hern slaughters thousands of babies for no good medical reason.


He also hurts women in the process:


 "Another patient who required transfusion experienced a uterine perforation during the D&E procedure.  This patient’s pregnancy was advanced to 23 weeks’ gestation, and an attempt at urea amnioinfusion was unsuccessful.  A decision was made to perform the D&E without the benefit of urea, and the procedure proved to be extremely difficult.  At one point, the patient complained of abdominal pain at the same time that difficulty was experienced in removing the tissue.  A perforation was suspected, and the procedure was completed under direct ultrasound visualization without difficulty.  After the uterus was emptied, it was explored with a Kelly uterine forceps by sensation and ultrasound visualization.  A perforation site could not be identified.  The patient was observed in the recovery room, and tissue examination revealed what appeared to be mesenteric fat.  The patient showed diminished bowel sounds, fain rebound tenderness, and pallor upon standing.  Vital signs remained within normal limits, and she felt well.  She was transferred to the hospital where a laparotomy was performed revealing a 2-cm posterior wall uterine defect and an abrasion of the sigmoid colon.... "


www.drhern.com/outptsecondtriab.htm


 

Flag faith713 August 12, 2009 5:53 PM EDT

Aug 12, 2009 -- 10:50AM, Marysara722 wrote:


"Tabloid" magazine? --Esquire?  Way off base.  Way off topic too since the point isn't about "which" magazine the article "about" the doctor was published in.  No, the point was about "the" doctor himself and "what" and "why" he "does" what he does and the "duress" he has to "endure" under the rabid factions of the PLM.



 The article doesn't mention what the babies being tortured and killed have to endure:


 "A frequent problem at the beginning of this series was difficulty in removing the fetal skull from the uterus....


     Both staffing and equipment have become more extensive and specialized as we accepted the more advanced gestations.  One of the principal advantages of this procedure for patients, aside from safety, is the freedom from having to experienced unattended expulsion of a fetus that may or may not show signs of life.7 "www.drhern.com/outptsecondtriab.htm


Ignorant and sick.



Flag bluehorserunning August 12, 2009 9:50 PM EDT

Aug 12, 2009 -- 5:37PM, faith713 wrote:

The majority of  the abortions are not for medically necessary reasons. Dr. Hern slaughters thousands of babies for no good medical reason.



from the article:


You are staring at a flyer advertising the clinic's services: "Specializing in late abortion for fetal disorders. Outpatient abortion over twenty-six menstrual weeks for selected patients with documented fetal anomaly, fetal demise, or medical indications."


The opponents of legal abortion often use the phrase "abortion on demand," implying there are no restrictions at all. This characterization is untrue. It has always been illegal, even under Roe v. Wade, to perform abortions after viability without a compelling medical reason. In Kansas, for example, where Dr. Tiller practiced medicine, the law for any abortion after twenty-two weeks requires two doctors to agree that failure to abort would put the mother at risk of "substantial and irreversible harm."


He also hurts women in the process...



General surgeons that remove burst appendices from patients who would die without the surgey also occasionaly hurt their patients.  Doctors putting in subclavian lines - a relatively simple procedure - sometimes pierce their patient's lung, causing it to collapse, necessitating huge amounts of further care at best.  Doctors putting in chest tubes to drain fluid from the thorax, a procedure that is *frequently* necessary to save the life of trauma victims, also sometimes perforate their patient's lungs.


Uterine perforation is a known risk of surgical abortion, just like lung perforation is a known risk of surgical chest tube insertion.  *All* patients undergoing surgery are required to give informed consent to the procedure, meaning that they are informed not only of the risks of the procedure but of how often the negative outcomes happen, and consent to undergo the procedure anyway.

Flag mountain_man August 12, 2009 10:41 PM EDT

Aug 12, 2009 -- 5:53PM, faith713 wrote:

The article doesn't mention what the babies being tortured and killed have to endure:


Ignorant and sick.



Yes, such distortions of what these doctors are doing is ignorant and sick. They are SAVING the lives of woman and are ignorantly being accused of "killing babies." Thest sick people completely ignore the fact that these babies are not going to live and are presenting a danger to the health of the woman. No, one cannot be more ignorant or sick than to want these woment to suffer and die.

Flag faith713 August 13, 2009 8:43 AM EDT

Aug 12, 2009 -- 9:50PM, bluehorserunning wrote:


from the article:


You are staring at a flyer advertising the clinic's services: "Specializing in late abortion for fetal disorders. Outpatient abortion over twenty-six menstrual weeks for selected patients with documented fetal anomaly, fetal demise, or medical indications."


The opponents of legal abortion often use the phrase "abortion on demand," implying there are no restrictions at all. This characterization is untrue. It has always been illegal, even under Roe v. Wade, to perform abortions after viability without a compelling medical reason. In Kansas, for example, where Dr. Tiller practiced medicine, the law for any abortion after twenty-two weeks requires two doctors to agree that failure to abort would put the mother at risk of "substantial and irreversible harm." 



The truth is Tiller performed elective abortions, one of many that left a dead victim:


"Among pro-life advocates, he is famous for the cruelty with which he treats the unborn.  No case illustrates the extent of this cruelty better than the tragedy of Baby Sarah Brown, one of his many victims.  In 1993, a pregnant teenager and her parents traveled 900 miles to Tiller's office in Kansas to receive an elective late-term abortion:  




Tiller began the abortion by injecting a poisonous syringe through the pregnant teenager's uterus and into the upper left side of the unborn baby's face.  He then instructed the teenager to return the next day for the completion of the abortion.  




To everyone's dismay, the baby did not die during the intervening hours.  After the teenager began to complain of serious abdominal pains, her parents rushed her to a local hospital where the baby was eventually born—alive.  The delivery room staff felt that life-support would be futile, so they wrapped the baby in a bassinet without attendance.  The teenager and her parents quickly left the scene.


Even without medical care, the baby remained alive.  After many hours had passed, the delivery room staff decided to give her treatment.  Miraculously, she managed to survive through the entire ordeal.  "Sarah", as her adoptive parents later named her, lived until the age of 5, when she succumbed to the developmental harm done to her body during the abortion.  The KCl solution that had been injected into the side of her face had left her permanently blind and brain damaged.





Prior to the abortion, Sarah was a perfectly normal baby.  The relevant medical records indicate that she had no disabilities or deformities.  If Tiller hadn't attempted to poison her, she would be a healthy 9 year old girl with an entire life ahead of her.  Instead, she is in a grave."


www.abortionessay.com/files/Tiller.html



 


 

Flag Tmarie64 August 13, 2009 8:49 AM EDT

Just like YOU won't go to a reputable site and read an informative article... I won't go to a right wingnut site put together by liars who would rather see a woman dead.


They have NO proof of anything.  You want credibility?  Post a site that is reputable, NOT a website that is blatantly against abortion.




edited by Justme333 to conform to local guidelines

Flag mountain_man August 13, 2009 9:18 AM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 8:43AM, faith713 wrote:

The truth is Tiller performed elective abortions, one of many that left a dead victim...



Do you really expect us to believe that coming from a less than honest PL site? You automatically rejected a magazine article, so we can automatically reject your source.

Flag kat8765 August 13, 2009 9:23 AM EDT

Ok, haven't posted on here in a while but... this article is trying to sympathize with a man who aborts babies ,mostly late term at that.  And if I remember correctly, it said they don't ask why because they don't judge.  That means that they don't care if the baby is healthy and would be able to survive outside the womb, they don't care if the mother is healthy either.  Why? Because he makes lots of money doing this. Do you really think that he would risk his life and his families if he wasn't making a ridiculous amount of money.  HE is putting his family in danger.  I'm not saying that the people going around assassinating doctors are justified in any way.  They def. are not prolife because we value EVERY human life no matter what kind of life they may live.  If you have the time go read about Dr. Nathanson. He is a former abortionist who has come over to our side of the argument.  He actually is the co-founder of NARAL and coined phrased such as pro-choice (mainly to try to make abortion attractive to the womens rights movement).  He and many other doctors make some pretty schocking claims about abortion.  He even says that with medical technology today, there is absolutely no medical reason for abortion.  He has a book called "The Hand of God" which is really interesting as well.  I've heard him speak several times, he is  a wonderful voice out there for us pro-lilfers. 


 

Flag newsjunkie August 13, 2009 10:23 AM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 9:23AM, kat8765 wrote:


Ok, haven't posted on here in a while but... this article is trying to sympathize with a man who aborts babies ,mostly late term at that.  And if I remember correctly, it said they don't ask why because they don't judge.  That means that they don't care if the baby is healthy and would be able to survive outside the womb, they don't care if the mother is healthy either. 


You are absolutely incorrect. Go back, read more carefully, and try reading beyond page one next time. They most certainly do judge whether or not to do a post-viability abortion. If you had read the article you would know that, and know that they have turned women seeking very late term abortions away. The rest of your comments about Dr. Hern are products of your imagination. You're wasting your time misrepresenting what is in the article -- others here have actually read it. You and faith are taking things out of context, and posting incomplete information that is cherry-picked to support your made-up story. The information, in its proper context, does not support your claims. Your methods are typical of propagandists; we're familiar with them as we've seen the same tactics on PL websites.


Why? Because he makes lots of money doing this. Do you really think that he would risk his life and his families if he wasn't making a ridiculous amount of money.  HE is putting his family in danger.  I'm not saying that the people going around assassinating doctors are justified in any way.  They def. are not prolife because we value EVERY human life no matter what kind of life they may live.  If you have the time go read about Dr. Nathanson. He is a former abortionist who has come over to our side of the argument.  He actually is the co-founder of NARAL and coined phrased such as pro-choice (mainly to try to make abortion attractive to the womens rights movement).  He and many other doctors make some pretty schocking claims about abortion.  He even says that with medical technology today, there is absolutely no medical reason for abortion.  He has a book called "The Hand of God" which is really interesting as well.  I've heard him speak several times, he is  a wonderful voice out there for us pro-lilfers. 



Flag kat8765 August 13, 2009 11:37 AM EDT

First of all, I did read the whole thing.  I was commenting on one part but that doesn't mean that I didn't read the whole article.  I still do not sympathize with the Dr.  He performs a procedure which is unnecessary, and he puts his whole family at risk by doing so.   Once a baby is past 21 weeks, if for some reason the mothers health is an issue, the baby can be taken by cesarean and at least given a chance.  In my opinion all abortions are unnecessary but the most heinous would be late term for obvious reasons and this dr. makes a living by doing exactly that. 

Flag Tmarie64 August 13, 2009 12:12 PM EDT

Unnecessary???  So you think a woman SHOULD die even if it can be prevented?


You think a family SHOULD be forced to wait for the birth of a child that they KNOW will only live hours, or maybe days.  You think family SHOULD be forced to take on the horrendous expenses that would be piled on by the hospital trying to keep a baby that IS GOING TO DIE alive?


Yeah, it's easy to sit in your white bread, never known a REAL problem world and judge others.

Flag kat8765 August 13, 2009 2:06 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 12:12PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


Unnecessary???  So you think a woman SHOULD die even if it can be prevented?


You think a family SHOULD be forced to wait for the birth of a child that they KNOW will only live hours, or maybe days.  You think family SHOULD be forced to take on the horrendous expenses that would be piled on by the hospital trying to keep a baby that IS GOING TO DIE alive?


Yeah, it's easy to sit in your white bread, never known a REAL problem world and judge others.





What I am saying is that there is no medical reason for a late term abortion these days with our medical technology.  If a woman is at risk then she should carry the baby as long as it is safe and then the baby should be taken by cessarean. If the baby dies because if this at least it would not be intentional taking of a life. 


And yes, a baby with birth defects should not be discarded like a piece of trash.  Doctors get things wrong all of the time.  They don't know how long a baby will live or about the quality of life. There are plenty of stories about women who were told to abort and carried their babies to term only to have healty babies.  Even if the baby is not born healthy he or she should still be given the same human rights as any human being disabled or not.  How heartless to just give up on a human because they are not perfect and may only live a few hours.  A human who has a voice should not hold the power over one who does not, at any age or state of life.  And I wonder... how would you react to a family member with terminal cancer.  "Oh they are going to die anyway, why waste money and time on them"  That's basically what you are saying.  We are all going to die one day.  I guess we should just forget about healthcare all together.  What absurd reasoning!


And last, you don't know me! 

Flag kat8765 August 13, 2009 2:16 PM EDT

And one more thing while I'm all fired up:  I love how people use the word judge to refer to opinions that differ from their own. 

Flag Tolerant Sis August 13, 2009 2:23 PM EDT

Well, Kat, here's the thing.


YOU are the one trying to remove basic health care rights from women who are pregnant and are suffering from a serious problem in their pregnancy.  YOU are the one suggesting that they must consent to major surgery to give birth to a corpse or a doomed baby, possibly ending their own chances of a healthy pregnancy in the future.


We are not making those decisions for other people.  So yes, you are judging what is right or wrong for these women.  You are making health care decisions FOR THEM because of your personal inability to see shades of gray (never mind color) in the abortion debate.  For you, it's black or white, nothing in between.  That's simply not true for most healthy adults.


 

Flag bluehorserunning August 13, 2009 2:27 PM EDT

IIrc the majority of late-term abortions performed by Dr.Hern are for fetal abnormalities.  Some of them are for abnormalities that *I* personally would not abort for:  dwarfism, for example.  One of my best friends in college was 3' 11 3/4" tall, and I would not have the slightest problem having a dwarf child.  However, there are a lot of fetal abnormalities that cannot be diagnosed until late in the pregnancy and cannot be repaired, and that the zef will not survive after birth.  The zef that Hern described as having a 'cleft face - no face at all, really.'  Do you think that's going to somehow grow in, in the last few weeks of pregnancy?  Do you think that the woman should be forced to carrry that zef to term and deliver it, or even that she should have an early induction or c-section that is far more dangerous to her than an abortion is?  That child would not survive no matter what the mother did; why should she suffer any more than she has to?


As for the clinic staff not judging:  not all of their abortions are late term.  Chances are high that they do elective early abortions as well.  They're leagally required to judge in the case of late-term abortions, and it is clear in the article that they do.


As for 'Baby Sarah,' I wonder if that 'teen mother' was raped, hmmm?  And how old she was.  Given that they "traveled 900 miles," they must have been pretty desperate.  Btw. Faith - the link you posted took me to a blank page with nothing but 'Sarah Brown' at the top.

Flag kat8765 August 13, 2009 2:47 PM EDT

I see everyone's point here and I'm certainly not trying to take away the rights of anyone.  I just see the unbalance of respect for life.  A mother's rights should be equal to her unborn child plain and simple.  If women were being slaughtered by the millions so that babies could live you could be sure that ther would be an uproar.  Why is it so often that the babies rights are cast aside? Is it because it's legal to abort them so that means it must be okay.  It's just too easy to look at an unborn child as a lesser human because they don't can't voice their concern or fears or pain.  It's all about equal rights here. 


And yes it is black and white for me.  A life is a life and I have respect for them all old and young, inside and outside the womb.  There is no middle ground when it comes to a heathly adult, but when you get to someone who can't speak for themselves then they relinquish all rights and that is very scary to me.

Flag faith713 August 13, 2009 2:55 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:27PM, bluehorserunning wrote:


As for 'Baby Sarah,' I wonder if that 'teen mother' was raped, hmmm?  And how old she was.  Given that they "traveled 900 miles," they must have been pretty desperate.  Btw. Faith - the link you posted took me to a blank page with nothing but 'Sarah Brown' at the top.




Try this link to read more about baby Sarah's story:


www.truthtv.org/abortion/evidence/surviv...


 

Flag Tolerant Sis August 13, 2009 3:03 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:47PM, kat8765 wrote:


I see everyone's point here and I'm certainly not trying to take away the rights of anyone.  I just see the unbalance of respect for life.  A mother's rights should be equal to her unborn child plain and simple.  If women were being slaughtered by the millions so that babies could live you could be sure that ther would be an uproar.  Why is it so often that the babies rights are cast aside? Is it because it's legal to abort them so that means it must be okay.  It's just too easy to look at an unborn child as a lesser human because they don't can't voice their concern or fears or pain.  It's all about equal rights here. 


And yes it is black and white for me.  A life is a life and I have respect for them all old and young, inside and outside the womb.  There is no middle ground when it comes to a heathly adult, but when you get to someone who can't speak for themselves then they relinquish all rights and that is very scary to me.




A mother's life is NOT the equal of a fetus, Kat.  Imagine your own life at risk because of a pregnancy gone seriously wrong.  You have two little children who are depending on you, your husband needs you, you have a mother and father and family who all love you and would grieve your loss.  Are you telling me you would seriously lay down your own life to give a doomed fetus another few hours of 'life'?  Seriously?


Pregnancies go wrong sometimes.  Sometimes pregnancies start growing in the fallopian tubes.  If the pregnancy is allowed to continue there, the woman dies, along with the embryo.  Nobody in their right mind suggests that an ectopic pregnancy should be allowed to continue.  So when does the doomed embryo or fetus start gaining these essential rights you think it has?


In the case of a severely deformed fetus who has no chance of life, which are the vast majority of Dr. Hern's late term cases, why would you think that a mother, who might have children, parents, a loving husband, a dog that loves her, should risk death to perhaps ... PERHAPS ... give a fetus without a GI tract or without a face or without a brain a chance to gasp a first breath before it expires.  


That's absolutely barking mad.  

Flag kat8765 August 13, 2009 4:44 PM EDT
[/quote]


Who says anything about laying down a life.  I'm saying there are ways to do things without intentionally killing a child.  In the case of an ectopic pregnancy the surgery to remove the unborn baby is neccessary to save the life of the mother and the death of the baby is unavoidable.  The difference is though, that the death of the baby is unintentional.  It is not the purpose of the surgery, in this case, to end the life of the unborn.  Abortion, on the other hand, has that exact purpose.  This is just one example of a surgery of this nature but it can be applied in other situations. 


 


Now, in the case of the fetus who is malformed.  I am a Christian, so I know my feelings are deeply swayed by that fact. I believe God decides when to end a life not humans.  I do also understand that this doesn't apply to everyone so I again have to look at the laws as they stand right now for persons outside the womb. I don't care what the chance of survival is.  What if they only live for a minute, a day, a week. Where do we draw they line.  We can't we have to respcet ALL life, no matter what.  All I want to see is that the same laws are granted for persons inside the womb.  I would not agree with the killing of a disabled person who has been born, even if they are in a vegetative state.  Once we start taking away a right to live, even from the most vulnerable people, we set the ball rolling and where does it end? 

Flag Tolerant Sis August 13, 2009 5:00 PM EDT

Kat, I am going to give you a real life, real world example of the kind of 'abortion' that Dr. Hern performs.  I have a friend, Camden, who, at the age of 40 got intentionally, joyfully pregnant.  She and her husband didn't have a 'fetus', as far as they were concerned, they had a 'baby'.  We gave Camden a baby shower.  Her husband painted a nursery.  His mother pieced together a quilt for their little son who was expected.


Then, in the sixth month of her pregnancy, Camden's doctor told her and her husband that something was dreadfully, horribly wrong with the fetus she was carrying.  Her wanted, cherished baby was doomed before he was even born.  He had hydrocephaly, which meant his skull had swelled alarmingly and was full of water.  But he also was ancephalic, which meant that he had no brain.  Brain tissue was in the amniotic sac.  The only thing keeping him 'alive' was the fact that he was getting oxygen and nutrition through his connection to his mother - the umbilical cord.  There was no doubt that the baby would die at birth.


And because of the hydrocephaly, Camden would have to undergo a c-section, major abdominal surgery, which would probably have ended her hope of motherhood forever.


After many tears, prayers, and grieving, Camden and her husband decided to end the pregnancy without putting Cammie through the risk and stress of a c-section.  They went to a place not unlike Dr. Hern's clinic, and the doctor ruptured the fetus' skull, allowing him to be 'born' vaginally.


Cammie and her husband were able to hold their poor little baby boy, name him, cry, and hold a funeral for him.  They buried him next to Cammie's dad.  They dressed him for the funeral in his 'going home' outfit I gave Cammie at her shower.  It was almost too much for us, their friends, to bear, and I don't know how Cammie and her husband got through it.


A horrible, painful event, but one that would have been even more horrible and painful had Cammie been forced to carry a doomed fetus for another three months, and go under the knife to give birth to a corpse.  She would never have recovered in time to get safely pregnant again.


A year later, Cammie had Erin, a lovely, perfectly healthy baby girl, and a couple of years ago, I went to Erin's college graduation.  Last year, I went to her wedding.


Kat, you might say Cammie should have 'left it up to God', but it seems clear to me that God had already decided for Cammie's little son.  Thank God for humane, wonderful doctors like Hern who are there for people like Cammie when people like you are so ready to call them 'murderers'.

Flag kat8765 August 13, 2009 5:36 PM EDT

Sis, I understand and am deeply moved by your story.  All I am saying is that there is an enormous moral distinction between the intentional killing of a child and it's natural death.  There are other ways that her situation could have been handled without having an abortion. 


And I'm curious, how does a c-section hurt your chances of having other children?   I've had1 c-section adn 2 v-backs.  I also know lots of women who've had c-sections and gone on to have other children. I think there are risks with all pregnancies whether vaginal or cessarean.  

Flag bluehorserunning August 13, 2009 5:41 PM EDT

Faith-


that link still doesn't say anything about the mother, except that she was 15.


 


Kat-


you can believe whatever you want about god and the 'rights of god,' but if I or anyone in my family gets sick, I want treatment - despite the fact that 'god' apparently wants us to be sick.  Furthermore, I can't believe that you would be so heartless as to force a mother to carry a fatally deformed fetus to term - and deliver it in great pain - just so that it can die paifully once its maternal life support is cut off.


wrt. c-sections impairing the ability to have kids:  the mother in Sis' story was 40.  She was at the end of her reproductive years, and recovery from a c-section would have left her at 41 or older before it was safe for her to attempt conception again.  At that age, most women can practically count the days as their fertility falls off.

Flag kat8765 August 13, 2009 6:06 PM EDT

Bluehorse, I never said anything about not getting medical help if you are sick. You are reading into things. And yes I dare say that I would put life over the mothers comfort anyday. We should not be allowed to end an innocent life, period. It should not be our decision and should not be left up to the government to decide.  It's a very scary line to walk if you ask me and I'm not willing to do that.  There is really nothing else to say about this on my part. 


Have a great evening everyone!

Flag Tolerant Sis August 13, 2009 7:17 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 5:36PM, kat8765 wrote:


Sis, I understand and am deeply moved by your story.  All I am saying is that there is an enormous moral distinction between the intentional killing of a child and it's natural death.  There are other ways that her situation could have been handled without having an abortion. 


And I'm curious, how does a c-section hurt your chances of having other children?   I've had1 c-section adn 2 v-backs.  I also know lots of women who've had c-sections and gone on to have other children. I think there are risks with all pregnancies whether vaginal or cessarean.  




I don't see that distinction, Kat.  I think any god that would create a child so impaired isn't worth worshipping in any case.  And no, the only other way was major surgery that would have effectively ended Cammie's chances of being a mother.


I agree with you that any pregnancy has often life-threatening risk, which is why abortion must remain safe and legal.  I would fight with my last breath ANY law that would deny Cammie or those like her the right to control her medical care.

Flag mountain_man August 13, 2009 8:13 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:47PM, kat8765 wrote:

I see everyone's point here and I'm certainly not trying to take away the rights of anyone.  I just see the unbalance of respect for life.  A mother's rights should be equal to her unborn child plain and simple....



You made a claim yet failed to supply supporting reasons. How can something no bigger than your thumb usurp the rights of a fully grown human being? Where is the equality in that?

Flag mountain_man August 13, 2009 8:14 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:55PM, faith713 wrote:


Try this link to read more about baby Sarah's story:




How can there be any truth in a fictional story?

Flag mountain_man August 13, 2009 8:18 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 4:44PM, kat8765 wrote:

Who says anything about laying down a life.  I'm saying there are ways to do things without intentionally killing a child....



No one is killing children. That kind of emotional framing of your arguments just detracts from them.

Flag Bei1052 August 13, 2009 9:59 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 8:13PM, mountain_man wrote:

You made a claim yet failed to supply supporting reasons. How can something no bigger than your thumb usurp the rights of a fully grown human being? Where is the equality in that?



The same way a black can "usurp" the rights of a white. Or a woman can "usurp" the rights of a man.


...Oh, but you most certainly won't like either of those distinctions, as they're based on race and gender. Yet, for some odd reason, you feel it's okay to make an equally absurd distinction based on stage of development? Please... That's like saying a thirty year old deserves more protections under the law than the one year old, because the thirty year old is older. Of course, no rational human being would ever consider that to be equal, because it is most clearly not. Don't speak of equality until you learn what it means to treat all things as equal.


And just what the heck is a "fully-grown" human being? Because, obviously, a newborn isn't fully grown. Neither is a five year old nor is a ten year old nor is a fifteen year old nor is a twenty year old.


 


 

Flag Marysara722 August 13, 2009 10:26 PM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 11:37AM, kat8765 wrote:

First of all, I did read the whole thing.  I was commenting on one part but that doesn't mean that I didn't read the whole article.



This is kind of like being an English Lit teacher.  You can always tell which students did or didn't do the assigned reading work.


kat << I still do not sympathize with the Dr.  He performs a procedure which is unnecessary, and he puts his whole family at risk by doing so.


One question to ask here, er make that two. 
Do you have a medical degree and license to practice medicine?  
And does the doctor/specialist who handles penial dysfunction also putting "his whole family at risk by doing so"?
Okay so three questions sorry but why should "his whole family" be "at risk" and targeted for anything in the first place?


kat << Once a baby is past 21 weeks, if for some reason the mothers health is an issue, the baby can be taken by cesarean and at least given a chance. 


You should start your "medical" assertions prefaced with "In my opinion" ---unless of course you have a certified medical degree and a license to practice medicine.
But getting back to the above .... give it/them WHAT "chance"?  What chances are you talking about when it comes to a fetus with no face or brains?
How do you justify that?


kat << In my opinion all abortions are unnecessary but the most heinous would be late term for obvious reasons and this dr. makes a living by doing exactly that.


There, that's better about your postulation regarding your "medical" opinions and from the tone of your above remark, either a) you didn't read said article or b) there's a lack of compassion in-general or c) you have no idea/understanding of what you're "medically"  speaking about and then there's d) all-of-the-above.
But ya know, those specialists who handle penile erectile dysfunction disorders and who also prescribe Viagra™ should be barred from practicing and thus making "a living by doing exactly that."
I mean really, no proper "working" penis gives us no pregnancies and thus no need to worry about those "elective" abortions.

But do call me when you get your medical degree/license, and maybe then we can have a realistic discussion.  Until then, I'll take two aspirin and call my real doctor in the morning.


 

Flag bluehorserunning August 14, 2009 4:52 AM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 6:06PM, kat8765 wrote:

Bluehorse, I never said anything about not getting medical help if you are sick. You are reading into things. And yes I dare say that I would put life over the mothers comfort anyday. We should not be allowed to end an innocent life, period.



So you're a Jainist? Paper mask and all, to keep from inhaling innocent bugs?


No, wait, you seem to talk like a Christian...  if that's the case, I suggest you read that bible of yours and find out what your god thinks of 'taking innocent lives.'  Divine murder and genocide (including of innocents) are pretty common in the Bible - sometimes comitted by that god, sometimes at his command. 


Religion aside, just where do you draw the line?  Where is it ok to usurp your god's perogative?  shelter and clothing are apparently ok, but based on the bible I'd be willing to bet that treating epilepsy or STDs isn't.  Fertility treatments probably shouldn't be; if gods don't want a couple to have children, shouldn't they just accept that?  Or maybe the wife should sleep with her brother-in-law just to make sure her husband's 'seed' doesn't die out? And if gods had wanted us to travel at 60mph, wouldn't we have been made as fast as cheetahs?  If gods had wanted us to fly, wouldn't we have wings?  The bible clearly says that relying on doctors instead of prayer is bad, so pretty much any modern medical treatment, from ibuprophen to surgery, is not ok.  Curing leprosy is very bad - it's a punishment from God, so curing it is denying his will.  Causing a woman to abort is punishible, according to the bible, only by a fine - but relying on doctors to treat your illness causes that god to withdraw his support and leave you berift of everything you had gained and eventually lead to your death (I'm thinking of the story of King Asa here, if you were wondering.  Not to mention all of the faith healing that Jesus does. If you haven't read it, you can google it).


So where's the line?  And how do you justify wanting to change U.S. law to allign with your faith rather than the Hindi, Buddhist, or Shinto faiths?  For that matter, just *which* branch of Christianity do you think American medical law should be regulated by?

Flag bluehorserunning August 14, 2009 4:54 AM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 9:59PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 8:13PM, mountain_man wrote:

You made a claim yet failed to supply supporting reasons. How can something no bigger than your thumb usurp the rights of a fully grown human being? Where is the equality in that?



The same way a black can "usurp" the rights of a white. Or a woman can "usurp" the rights of a man.




Huh? 


You're saying that a black person taking advantage of affirmative action is the same as a zef using another person's body for homeostasis?  That a woman demanding equal pay for equal work is doing the same?  Whose body do you think Sonia Sotomayor was using when she got into college?


Wow.


Dissapointed, but not surprised.

Flag Tmarie64 August 14, 2009 7:27 AM EDT

The same way a black can "usurp" the rights of a white. Or a woman can "usurp" the rights of a man.



There's the racism AND the misogyny that I've been waiting for.


Thank you, Bei, for showing me that I was right and that deep down many plers ARE simply hate-filled and misogynistic.

Flag kat8765 August 14, 2009 9:31 AM EDT

Aug 13, 2009 -- 10:26PM, Marysara722 wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 11:37AM, kat8765 wrote:

First of all, I did read the whole thing.  I was commenting on one part but that doesn't mean that I didn't read the whole article.



This is kind of like being an English Lit teacher.  You can always tell which students did or didn't do the assigned reading work.


kat << I still do not sympathize with the Dr.  He performs a procedure which is unnecessary, and he puts his whole family at risk by doing so.


One question to ask here, er make that two. 
Do you have a medical degree and license to practice medicine?  
And does the doctor/specialist who handles penial dysfunction also putting "his whole family at risk by doing so"?
Okay so three questions sorry but why should "his whole family" be "at risk" and targeted for anything in the first place?


kat << Once a baby is past 21 weeks, if for some reason the mothers health is an issue, the baby can be taken by cesarean and at least given a chance. 


You should start your "medical" assertions prefaced with "In my opinion" ---unless of course you have a certified medical degree and a license to practice medicine.
But getting back to the above .... give it/them WHAT "chance"?  What chances are you talking about when it comes to a fetus with no face or brains?
How do you justify that?


kat << In my opinion all abortions are unnecessary but the most heinous would be late term for obvious reasons and this dr. makes a living by doing exactly that.


There, that's better about your postulation regarding your "medical" opinions and from the tone of your above remark, either a) you didn't read said article or b) there's a lack of compassion in-general or c) you have no idea/understanding of what you're "medically"  speaking about and then there's d) all-of-the-above.
But ya know, those specialists who handle penile erectile dysfunction disorders and who also prescribe Viagra™ should be barred from practicing and thus making "a living by doing exactly that."
I mean really, no proper "working" penis gives us no pregnancies and thus no need to worry about those "elective" abortions.

But do call me when you get your medical degree/license, and maybe then we can have a realistic discussion.  Until then, I'll take two aspirin and call my real doctor in the morning.


 





Wow... it's so sad to me that when I pro-lifer tries to make some valid points all you pro-choicers can do is try to use ad-hom rhetoric to get back at me.  Instead of attacking me personally MarySara, why don't you try refuting the arguement next time. Instead of spending the majority of time attacking me as a person, why don't you try to refute the arguement with some valid points of your own. 


 

Flag kat8765 August 14, 2009 9:36 AM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 4:52AM, bluehorserunning wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 6:06PM, kat8765 wrote:

Bluehorse, I never said anything about not getting medical help if you are sick. You are reading into things. And yes I dare say that I would put life over the mothers comfort anyday. We should not be allowed to end an innocent life, period.



So you're a Jainist? Paper mask and all, to keep from inhaling innocent bugs?


No, wait, you seem to talk like a Christian...  if that's the case, I suggest you read that bible of yours and find out what your god thinks of 'taking innocent lives.'  Divine murder and genocide (including of innocents) are pretty common in the Bible - sometimes comitted by that god, sometimes at his command. 


Religion aside, just where do you draw the line?  Where is it ok to usurp your god's perogative?  shelter and clothing are apparently ok, but based on the bible I'd be willing to bet that treating epilepsy or STDs isn't.  Fertility treatments probably shouldn't be; if gods don't want a couple to have children, shouldn't they just accept that?  Or maybe the wife should sleep with her brother-in-law just to make sure her husband's 'seed' doesn't die out? And if gods had wanted us to travel at 60mph, wouldn't we have been made as fast as cheetahs?  If gods had wanted us to fly, wouldn't we have wings?  The bible clearly says that relying on doctors instead of prayer is bad, so pretty much any modern medical treatment, from ibuprophen to surgery, is not ok.  Curing leprosy is very bad - it's a punishment from God, so curing it is denying his will.  Causing a woman to abort is punishible, according to the bible, only by a fine - but relying on doctors to treat your illness causes that god to withdraw his support and leave you berift of everything you had gained and eventually lead to your death (I'm thinking of the story of King Asa here, if you were wondering.  Not to mention all of the faith healing that Jesus does. If you haven't read it, you can google it).


So where's the line?  And how do you justify wanting to change U.S. law to allign with your faith rather than the Hindi, Buddhist, or Shinto faiths?  For that matter, just *which* branch of Christianity do you think American medical law should be regulated by?





Okay, as far as I know this is not about religion, I think I might have said earlier something about being a Christian but I realize that not everyone agrees with that.  I really don't think abortion is a religious issue at all.  I believe it is a humans rights issue plain and simple.  Pro-choicers choose to give the woman the right to end the life of her unborn child, a member of the family, and pro-lifers try and protect that right to live.  I really don't see how your religion babble does anything.

Flag newsjunkie August 14, 2009 10:36 AM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 9:36AM, kat8765 wrote:

Okay, as far as I know this is not about religion, I think I might have said earlier something about being a Christian but I realize that not everyone agrees with that.  I really don't think abortion is a religious issue at all.  I believe it is a humans rights issue plain and simple.  Pro-choicers choose to give the woman the right to end the life of her unborn child, a member of the family, and pro-lifers try and protect that right to live.  I really don't see how your religion babble does anything.





I have never encountered any human rights statement that includes requiring that one person, against his/her will, give over or share use of his/her body functions, organs, bodily fluids and so on to another person. Do you have a basic human right to take another person's kidney, or their blood, against their will, even if you will die without it? Or does this "right" extend to fetuses only? Do you advocate that someone else's infant child, perhaps, being able to demand and obtain your blood, or your kidney, if they need it to live? Or does a child lose this "human right" you seem to think exists when it's born?


If not from a religious belief or tradition, where did this "human right" that you say exists come from?

Flag Bei1052 August 14, 2009 11:45 AM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 4:54AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

Huh? 


You're saying that a black person taking advantage of affirmative action is the same as a zef using another person's body for homeostasis?  That a woman demanding equal pay for equal work is doing the same?  Whose body do you think Sonia Sotomayor was using when she got into college?


Wow.


Dissapointed, but not surprised.



Purposely taking what someone typed out of context? Disappointed, but not surprised. It is you we're talking about, after all, so it's not totally unexpected. Oh well... I guess I'll have to break it down for you.


If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of race, is that equality? You'd say no. If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of gender, is that equality? You'd say no. If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of age, is that equality? You'd say no. If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of stage of development, is that equality. You'd say yes? Really...??? How, exactly, does that work? Because, given your answers to the previous questions, it doesn't. Equality isn't limited to those things you want it to be limited to. Do you understand the concept of equality? No...? Didn't think so.


But, see, notice how you totally didn't even attempt to address that part of what I wrote out. No, as per usual, you completely and totally ignored it and went off on some unrelated tangent about affirmative action or equal pay or Sonia Sotomayor. Honestly. It's like you're not even trying anymore.


...And homeostasis is self-regulated. Just throwing that out there.

Flag Bei1052 August 14, 2009 11:54 AM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 7:27AM, Tmarie64 wrote:

There's the racism AND the misogyny that I've been waiting for.


Thank you, Bei, for showing me that I was right and that deep down many plers ARE simply hate-filled and misogynistic.



I'll be nice. I'll give you a chance to rescind this statement.

Flag kat8765 August 14, 2009 2:12 PM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 10:36AM, newsjunkie wrote:





I have never encountered any human rights statement that includes requiring that one person, against his/her will, give over or share use of his/her body functions, organs, bodily fluids and so on to another person. Do you have a basic human right to take another person's kidney, or their blood, against their will, even if you will die without it? Or does this "right" extend to fetuses only? Do you advocate that someone else's infant child, perhaps, being able to demand and obtain your blood, or your kidney, if they need it to live? Or does a child lose this "human right" you seem to think exists when it's born?


If not from a religious belief or tradition, where did this "human right" that you say exists come from?





Are you saying that the right to live comes from religious beliefs?


  I see this arguement over and over again about forcing someone to give organs or blood even if it will save the life of someone else.  What are you talking about?  I seriously do not see how you can compare that to an abortion. 


Example:  I, just for arguments sake, am a deadbeat mom.  My child needs a kidney and I'm a perfect match.  I really haven't had much to do with my child for 10 years so I'd  rather someone else donate and I'd rather keep my kidney to myself.  My child dosen't get a donor and dies.  Now am I directly responsible for the death of my child?  No  Indirectly? maybe.  Did I intentionally kill him? No  Abortion is intentional.  The purpose is to end a life.  As far as I know we, as innocent humans, have a right not to be intentionally killed.  I'm pretty sure there are laws against that.

Flag bluehorserunning August 14, 2009 2:35 PM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 9:36AM, kat8765 wrote:


Okay, as far as I know this is not about religion, I think I might have said earlier something about being a Christian but I realize that not everyone agrees with that.  I really don't think abortion is a religious issue at all.  I believe it is a humans rights issue plain and simple.  Pro-choicers choose to give the woman the right to end the life of her unborn child, a member of the family, and pro-lifers try and protect that right to live.  I really don't see how your religion babble does anything.




I was responding to your statement, " I believe God decides when to end a life not humans,"  and to your later statement that medical care is ok, even though according to your biblbe god causes disease as well.  I just want to know where, exactly, you draw the line in usurping your god's special priviledge in deciding the human condition.   


You say that you acknowledge that others do not believe as you do, but you still seem to want to enact national abortion laws to bring medical practice into congruence with your personal faith.  How far would you take it?  Do you think that congress was right, for instance, to hold a special session to have the feeding tube restored to a brain-dead Terri Schaivo?

Flag bluehorserunning August 14, 2009 2:56 PM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 11:45AM, Bei1052 wrote:

Purposely taking what someone typed out of context?



*snort*


Bei, I couldn't take you out of context here if I tried.  For one thing, I quoted almost the entire paragraph.  For another, everyone else here can scroll down and read the whole thread, including you entire post.  


If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of stage of development, is that equality. You'd say yes?


No, I wouldn't.  I don't hold that zefs and born humans are equal and I don't think that they should be treated equally.


But, see, notice how you totally didn't even attempt to address that part of what I wrote out. No, as per usual, you completely and totally ignored it and went off on some unrelated tangent about affirmative action or equal pay or Sonia Sotomayor.


I was thrown off by your statements about women and blacks usurping priviledge from men and whites, which is usually the way someone starts off when they want to whine about affirmative action.  Quite frankly, my interpretation of your words still makes more sense than yours, because your point seems to be so garbled.  No one here is a mind reader (especially over the computer), so you might try to formulate your meaning a little more clearly next time.


...And homeostasis is self-regulated. Just throwing that out there.


Homeostasis is the maintenance of a constant internal invironment.  An adult on a vent requires the vent for homeostasis, and a zef in a uterus requires the woman for homeostasis.  An exothermic animal regulates its internal temperature by moving between warm and cool environments; a human regulates its internal temperature by sweating or increasing its metabolism.  Both practice homeostasis.


homeostasis:


www.thefreedictionary.com/homeostasis


www.yourdictionary.com/homeostasis


dictionary.reference.com/browse/homeosta...


www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homeos...


quote:Word origin: from the Greek: homeo, meaning unchanging + stasis, meaning standing


en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homeostasis (see defn. 2)




Just out of curiosity, Bei, did you read the article that started this thread?

Flag bluehorserunning August 14, 2009 2:59 PM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:12PM, kat8765 wrote:


Example:  I, just for arguments sake, am a deadbeat mom.  My child needs a kidney and I'm a perfect match.  I really haven't had much to do with my child for 10 years so I'd  rather someone else donate and I'd rather keep my kidney to myself.  My child dosen't get a donor and dies.  Now am I directly responsible for the death of my child?  No  Indirectly? maybe.  Did I intentionally kill him? No  Abortion is intentional.  The purpose is to end a life.



No.  The purpose is to end a pregnancy.  The purpose is to free the mother from the unwilling donation of her body functions to the zef.  Why should a zef have more rights to another person's kidneys than a 10 year old?


 


Can we bring this back to Dr. Hern, or is that futile at this point?

Flag newsjunkie August 14, 2009 3:14 PM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 3:03PM, newsjunkie wrote:


Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:12PM, kat8765 wrote:


Aug 14, 2009 -- 10:36AM, newsjunkie wrote:


I have never encountered any human rights statement that includes requiring that one person, against his/her will, give over or share use of his/her body functions, organs, bodily fluids and so on to another person. Do you have a basic human right to take another person's kidney, or their blood, against their will, even if you will die without it? Or does this "right" extend to fetuses only? Do you advocate that someone else's infant child, perhaps, being able to demand and obtain your blood, or your kidney, if they need it to live? Or does a child lose this "human right" you seem to think exists when it's born?


If not from a religious belief or tradition, where did this "human right" that you say exists come from?





Are you saying that the right to live comes from religious beliefs?



NJ replies: No, I'm making no claim that an embryo fetus has a "right to live" that requires the woman carrying it to continue giving it use of her body against her will. You were saying your view on abortion didn't have to do with  religion, but instead was a "human rights" issue. Hence my questions about where you believe this human right comes from,if notr religious beliefs. Why can't you answer a simple, direct question?


According to your moral view,as expressed in previous posts on other threads, a non-implanted embryo doesn't have a right to live. Other people say it does. But you claim a "right to live" for an embryo at implantation, then take it away after birth, as per your example b elow. So, where does this particular view of "human rights" or yours come from? Personal opinion? Fine, but why should other people have to live according to your personal opinion? I think you need some basis other than your own personal opinions if you want to convince others to adopt your views and live by them.


  I see this arguement over and over again about forcing someone to give organs or blood even if it will save the life of someone else.  What are you talking about?  I seriously do not see how you can compare that to an abortion. 


Example:  I, just for arguments sake, am a deadbeat mom.  My child needs a kidney and I'm a perfect match.  I really haven't had much to do with my child for 10 years so I'd  rather someone else donate and I'd rather keep my kidney to myself.  My child dosen't get a donor and dies.  Now am I directly responsible for the death of my child?  No  Indirectly? maybe.  Did I intentionally kill him? No  Abortion is intentional.  The purpose is to end a life.  As far as I know we, as innocent humans, have a right not to be intentionally killed.  I'm pretty sure there are laws against that.





NJ Replies: Well, if you can't understand what I'm talking about, which was stated in plain English, I can't help you. It's quite simple, and as you said you've heard the argument over and over, and still can't understand it, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain.


 US Law does not equate abortion with intentional killing of another person. It is not considered murder. So your example is moot. If you wish to judge the deadbeat mom as moral, or not morally responsible for the death of her child, and the woman who has an abortion as immoral, that's your prerogative; it doesn't have any relevance in this discussion. Neither the deadbeat mom nor the woman who had a legal abortion would be considered in violation of law.

Flag mountain_man August 14, 2009 8:28 PM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:12PM, kat8765 wrote:

If not from a religious belief or tradition, where did this "human right" that you say exists come from?



Since gods do not exist, it came from our fellow humans. It is better for YOUR llife, your family, your children, if you live in a society that values human life. No religion needed and in fact, religions such as the christian one has historically held a lesser value for human lives if they are not part of the christian religion.

Flag Bei1052 August 15, 2009 12:50 AM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:56PM, bluehorserunning wrote:

*snort*

Bei, I couldn't take you out of context here if I tried.



Apparently, you didn't have to try because you did.

For one thing, I quoted almost the entire paragraph.



That prevents you from taking something out of context? 'Cuz I don't think it does.

For another, everyone else here can scroll down and read the whole thread, including you entire post.



Really? Who woulda' thunk someone could do that? Most certainly not I!

/heavysarcasm


Ummm... Yeah. I'd kinda' hope they would do that.

No, I wouldn't.  I don't hold that zefs and born humans are equal and I don't think that they should be treated equally.



...So explain to me again what you're arguing about? Because I don't think yout even know, seeing as how you decided to hop into a conversation regarding equality which you apparently don't care about.

*points to posts #40 and #48*

I guess you only care about equality when it directly suits you, huh?

I was thrown off by your statements about women and blacks usurping priviledge from men and whites, which is usually the way someone starts off when they want to whine about affirmative action.  Quite frankly, my interpretation of your words still makes more sense than yours, because your point seems to be so garbled.  No one here is a mind reader (especially over the computer), so you might try to formulate your meaning a little more clearly next time.



It wasn't "garbled" at all. Perhaps next time you could read more than just two sentences (Like the paragraph underneath it). It'll help.

...And, just for the record, that's not how people start off when they want to "whine" about affirmative action.

Homeostasis is the maintenance of a constant internal invironment.  An adult on a vent requires the vent for homeostasis, and a zef in a uterus requires the woman for homeostasis.



Why stop there? You "require" the earth for homeostasis. But do you really want to play this game? I don't, because it's idiotic, much like your "a ZEF uses a woman's body for homeostasis" quip. On some level, everything is dependant on something else, but no one cares about that when speaking of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the ability of a cell or organism to maintain some sort of internal equilibrium. That's it. Your attempt to attach more meaning to it than that is quite humorous, to put it mildly.

An exothermic animal regulates its internal temperature by moving between warm and cool environments; a human regulates its internal temperature by sweating or increasing its metabolism.  Both practice homeostasis.



And what does this have to do with ANYTHING I've typed out?

*snip links*



...Really? I mean, really?

*shakes head in shame*

Just out of curiosity, Bei, did you read the article that started this thread?



Indeed I did.

Flag bluehorserunning August 15, 2009 1:37 AM EDT

As usual, Bei, you seem to be speaking a different language than the rest of us.  'Taking someone out of context' means deliberately selecting words that are contradicted or clarified by the rest of the material and using them to imply that the author means something else.  I didn't do that, and I couldn't on this list; maybe my interpretation of your words isn't what you meant, but that's becuause your original meaning was garbled, not because I took anything out of context. 


Also, the links (and the homeothermy vs. endothermy example) were posted because you seem to have an overly-narrow view of the word 'homeostasis.'  You may not agree with me on that, but (as usual) the dictionary(s) agree with me and not you.


Now, do you have any actual comments about the OP, or are you just here to get attention?


p.s. one person nattering about equality does not a discussion make.

Flag kat8765 August 15, 2009 4:21 PM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:35PM, bluehorserunning wrote:




I was responding to your statement, " I believe God decides when to end a life not humans,"  and to your later statement that medical care is ok, even though according to your biblbe god causes disease as well.  I just want to know where, exactly, you draw the line in usurping your god's special priviledge in deciding the human condition.   


You say that you acknowledge that others do not believe as you do, but you still seem to want to enact national abortion laws to bring medical practice into congruence with your personal faith.  How far would you take it?  Do you think that congress was right, for instance, to hold a special session to have the feeding tube restored to a brain-dead Terri Schaivo?




Again, abortion is not a religious issue.  I said it was a human rights issue and instead of commenting on that and try to argue that point, you constantly go back to religion.  Why do you not believe it's about human rights?  Why do you not believe that a fetus deserves the same respect as a grown woman or any other human on Earth?  I'm really curious about your answer.


 

Flag kat8765 August 15, 2009 4:37 PM EDT

When I was reading the article I remember reading something about Dr. Hern saying that man was a malignant eco-tumor.  I found this on "Catholic Exchange"  It says this idea is what has motivated him to continue to do what he does.  I'm sure some of you will be fine with this, but this is so sick to me.  How can he say he actually cares about the women when he sees the whole human race as a malignancy on Earth. 


 


www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/090807...

Flag newsjunkie August 15, 2009 6:31 PM EDT

Aug 15, 2009 -- 4:37PM, kat8765 wrote:


When I was reading the article I remember reading something about Dr. Hern saying that man was a malignant eco-tumor.  I found this on "Catholic Exchange"  It says this idea is what has motivated him to continue to do what he does.  I'm sure some of you will be fine with this, but this is so sick to me.  How can he say he actually cares about the women when he sees the whole human race as a malignancy on Earth. 


 


www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/090807...




I guess you and lifesitenews don't understand what simile and metaphor are. Oh well.


LifeSite must think this guy* is pretty anti-people; after all he said,


"Everyone today can see that man could destroy the foundation of his existence -- his earth...."


"Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world's mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption."




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


*Pope Benedict

Flag Wmdkitty August 15, 2009 7:38 PM EDT

Aug 15, 2009 -- 4:21PM, kat8765 wrote:


Again, abortion is not a religious issue.  I said it was a human rights issue and instead of commenting on that and try to argue that point, you constantly go back to religion.  Why do you not believe it's about human rights?  Why do you not believe that a fetus deserves the same respect as a grown woman or any other human on Earth?  I'm really curious about your answer.




It is indeed a human rights issue. I have the RIGHT to decide what happens to my body, INCLUDING whether or not to lend it out as life support for a fetus, or to donate my organs.


The fetus, like the hypothetical "already-born child that needs a kidney", DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STEAL MY BODILY RESOURCES.

Flag mountain_man August 15, 2009 7:53 PM EDT

Aug 15, 2009 -- 4:37PM, kat8765 wrote:

...I found this on "Catholic Exchange" ....



Hardly a reliable source for unbiased info on OB/GYNs that save woman's lives.

Flag kat8765 August 16, 2009 12:15 AM EDT

Aug 15, 2009 -- 6:31PM, newsjunkie wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 4:37PM, kat8765 wrote:




I guess you and lifesitenews don't understand what simile and metaphor are. Oh well.


LifeSite must think this guy* is pretty anti-people; after all he said,


"Everyone today can see that man could destroy the foundation of his existence -- his earth...."


"Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world's mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption."




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


*Pope Benedict





I just love when people cherry pick and use things out of context.  Pope Benedict is speaking about peoples abuse of the Earth and how we should change our ways to that we do not abuse natural resources.  Dr. Hern thinks we are abusing the Earth but instead of changing our ways and trying to better ourselves, he'd just rather exterminate the human race.

Flag kat8765 August 16, 2009 12:17 AM EDT

Aug 15, 2009 -- 7:38PM, Wmdkitty wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 4:21PM, kat8765 wrote:




It is indeed a human rights issue. I have the RIGHT to decide what happens to my body, INCLUDING whether or not to lend it out as life support for a fetus, or to donate my organs.


The fetus, like the hypothetical "already-born child that needs a kidney", DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STEAL MY BODILY RESOURCES.





But why does the fetus not deserve the same human rights as the mother? 

Flag kat8765 August 16, 2009 12:23 AM EDT

Aug 15, 2009 -- 7:53PM, mountain_man wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 4:37PM, kat8765 wrote:

...I found this on "Catholic Exchange" ....



Hardly a reliable source for unbiased info on OB/GYNs that save woman's lives.





Oh yes so I guess esquire is the supreme authority on this.

Flag Wmdkitty August 16, 2009 12:45 AM EDT

Aug 16, 2009 -- 12:17AM, kat8765 wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 7:38PM, Wmdkitty wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 4:21PM, kat8765 wrote:




It is indeed a human rights issue. I have the RIGHT to decide what happens to my body, INCLUDING whether or not to lend it out as life support for a fetus, or to donate my organs.


The fetus, like the hypothetical "already-born child that needs a kidney", DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STEAL MY BODILY RESOURCES.





But why does the fetus not deserve the same human rights as the mother? 




I'm assuming you're female.


If someone was using your body without your consent in any other way, you'd scream and howl and demand it be stopped. But just because it's a fetus, it somehow gets special squatter's rights? Sorry, but my body is MINE, and any use of it -- by a living, breathing person, or a blob of undifferentiated cells -- is by MY CONSENT ONLY.

Flag newsjunkie August 16, 2009 2:52 AM EDT

Aug 16, 2009 -- 12:15AM, kat8765 wrote:



I just love when people cherry pick and use things out of context.  Pope Benedict is speaking about peoples abuse of the Earth and how we should change our ways to that we do not abuse natural resources.  Dr. Hern thinks we are abusing the Earth but instead of changing our ways and trying to better ourselves, he'd just rather exterminate the human race.




I know you love it when people quote out of context -- that's exactly what lifesitenews was doing to Dr. Hern.


My post was intended to show how lifesitenews, or anybody with an agenda to pronote, can  quote out of context in ordrer to paint a negative picture regarding another person, in this case, the doctor. It's a dishonest tactic typical of propagandists. Hern's words don't mean he thinks "exterminating the human race" is a solution any more than the pope's comments mean he thinks such a horrible thing. To claim that because somebody acknowledges that population growth or human activity can result in environmental degradation, or threatens the environment, is out to "exterminate the human race" is ridiculous.

Flag Tolerant Sis August 16, 2009 7:47 AM EDT

Actually, a ZEF does use the mother's body for homeostasis.  Fetuses are entirely dependent upon their mother's body for endothermy, for instance, and this function is extremely limited in the young neonate, too.  Fetuses are dependent upon mom for glucose, calcium, Vitamin D, and most mineral homeostasis.  If mom is fasting or starved, the fetal homeostasis for these essential nutrients shuts down.


Fetuses are dependent upon the mother for oxygen exchange, a fundamental homeostatic function, and for waste exchange, another fundamental homeostatic function.


In short, there is nothing the fetus can do to sustain its own homeostasis that doesn't involve the active participation of its mother. 


This all changes at birth, which is why birth is the bright line.

Flag kat8765 August 16, 2009 3:41 PM EDT

Aug 16, 2009 -- 7:47AM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Actually, a ZEF does use the mother's body for homeostasis.  Fetuses are entirely dependent upon their mother's body for endothermy, for instance, and this function is extremely limited in the young neonate, too.  Fetuses are dependent upon mom for glucose, calcium, Vitamin D, and most mineral homeostasis.  If mom is fasting or starved, the fetal homeostasis for these essential nutrients shuts down.


Fetuses are dependent upon the mother for oxygen exchange, a fundamental homeostatic function, and for waste exchange, another fundamental homeostatic function.


In short, there is nothing the fetus can do to sustain its own homeostasis that doesn't involve the active participation of its mother. 


This all changes at birth, which is why birth is the bright line.





Yes, I understand this completely. I am not trying to argue with the science of a developing fetus at all.  I also understand how an unplanned pregnancy can make a women feel.  If a women is without a support system, she can feel like that having a baby would cause her own death, in a way.  Her life that she had planned for herself would be dead and in it's place would be the unknown.  I understand all this and in a way I can understand how you could compare it to being forced to give blood or let others use your body. 


I do think that maybe the pro-lifers out there could do a better job at sympathizing with the women in these situations.  I'm not saying that we don't care, I am saying that we don't do a very good job at showing it because we focus so much on the life of the child. 


In saying all that, I think that pro-choicers have tried to make young women feel that an abortion can make them "un-pregnant," that it will restore them to who they were before their crisis. But a woman is never the same once she is pregnant, whether the child is kept, adopted, or killed. Abortion may be a kind of resolution, but it is not the one the woman most deeply longs for, nor will it even preserve her sense of self. 


I don't know... just some thoughts

Flag Bei1052 August 16, 2009 7:31 PM EDT

Aug 16, 2009 -- 7:47AM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Actually, a ZEF does use the mother's body for homeostasis.  Fetuses are entirely dependent upon their mother's body for endothermy, for instance, and this function is extremely limited in the young neonate, too.  Fetuses are dependent upon mom for glucose, calcium, Vitamin D, and most mineral homeostasis.  If mom is fasting or starved, the fetal homeostasis for these essential nutrients shuts down.


Fetuses are dependent upon the mother for oxygen exchange, a fundamental homeostatic function, and for waste exchange, another fundamental homeostatic function.


In short, there is nothing the fetus can do to sustain its own homeostasis that doesn't involve the active participation of its mother. 


This all changes at birth, which is why birth is the bright line.



Actually... No.


*Bangs. Head. On wall*


Dear God/Lord/Jeezuz/Buddha/Allah/whomever. Stop insulting my intelligence. Living things do not "use" other living things for homeostasis anymore than you "use" the earth for homestasis (Didn't I say this once already?). Homeostasis is a property of living things and refers to the mechanisms by which a cell or an organism maintains some sort of internal equilibrium, of which is achieved most often by chemical processes inside of the cell or organism. That's all. Nothing more and nothing less. Get it? A mother does not regulate a ZEF's internal environment; a ZEF doesn't that all on its own. Trying to change that and make it something it isn't doesn't make much sense. At all.


...I don't even know why I bother sometimes.

Flag Justme333 August 16, 2009 11:34 PM EDT

A couple of posts have been removed.  The subject of this debate board is abortion, not each other.  Consider this post as notification instead of a private message, and try to not make this personal.


 


Justme333
Beliefnet Community Host
Abortion Debate Board

Flag bluehorserunning August 16, 2009 11:56 PM EDT

www.newsweek.com/id/212017/page/1


He doesn't do abortions as late as Dr. Hern, and the writing isn't as evocative; still interesting, though.

Flag Tolerant Sis August 17, 2009 9:44 AM EDT

Bei,


I know you don't understand biology particularly well, but this is simple fact.  Once a fetus is born, it engages in gas exchange with the wider environment; it starts metabolizing on its own; it makes its own vitamin D and eliminates waste.  That is far different from requiring another human person's body to perform these homeostatic functions.  


Endothermy is one of the last homeostatic functions that the young human can perform, and young neonates are not good at regulating internal body temperature until they are about six months old.  


The inability to perform basic life functions on one's own puts one in a twilight world of life versus nonlife.  For example, biologists do not consider viruses 'alive' (even though they have some characteristics of life) because they are unable to perform too many life functions independently.  


I know the facts disagree with your ideology, but that's the way it is.


In terms of 'why you bother' to state things that are not true, I can't imagine either, but I am sure you have some reason.

Flag faith713 August 17, 2009 9:50 AM EDT

Aug 16, 2009 -- 11:56PM, bluehorserunning wrote:


www.newsweek.com/id/212017/page/1


He doesn't do abortions as late as Dr. Hern, and the writing isn't as evocative; still interesting, though.




Carhart is just as sick as Hern and Tiller. Here is what he said:


 


    "I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound... I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds. So somewhere in that period of time-obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and they don't die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all-so that probably is not sufficient to kill the fetus. But I think removing the brain contents eventually will... My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the fetus and terminate the pregnancy."
    -LeRoy Carhart, testifying under oath in 1997 about what he does to facilitate abortion, quoted in theAsheville Tribune.

    "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: it bleeds to death as it is torn from limb to limb... The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off."
    -LeRoy Carhart, as quoted by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in Carhart v. Stenberg

    "This act covers every D&E [dilation and evacuation] that I did. Everything that I do to cause an abortion is an overt act. . . The fetuses are alive at the time of delivery. [There is a heartbeat] very frequently."
    -LeRoy Carhart, testifying under oath that language in the partial-birth abortion ban act bans more than just partial-birth abortion, Carhart v. Ashcroft (April 1, 2004).

    "Well, I was telling Ms. Smith at lunch today that we're talking about a fetus that's not only been dead for 48 hours, but we're talking about a fetus that has been dead for 48 hours in essentially a warming oven or crock pot. It has been kept at a hundred degrees for 48 hours. And that's enough temperature to cook meat. So we are not only dealing with a fetus that has been dead in my practice, we are dealing with a fetus that's both dead and soft-so it's much more pliable."
    -LeRoy Carhart, testifying under oath on the safety of his abortion methods, in a deposition taken forCarhart v. Ashcroft, April 1, 2004.

    Carhart said at least once a month, an entire fetus is expelled from the mother during a D&E he is performing. "The fetuses are alive at the time of delivery," he said. There is a heartbeat "very frequently."
    -LeRoy Carhart, The Associated Press, April 1, 2004, "Doctor: Law Would Outlaw Many Abortions"

    blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=b...

Here is another article about Carhart:




"After I posted quotes from an interview with Dr. LeRoy Carhart comparing the murder of late-term abortion Dr. George Tiller to Martin Luther King, I got this comment from Alveda King, niece of the slain civil rights leader.


“For LeRoy Carhart to mention the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who worked through peaceful and non-violent means, in the same breath with that of George Tiller, whose work ended peace and brought violence to babies in the womb, is offensive beyond belief,” she said.  “The analogy is just wrong.


“Dr. Carhart also speaks of hate crimes,” she added.  “I would simply ask him, is it not hateful to regard an entire class of people as non-human because they’re unwanted?”





 

Flag newsjunkie August 17, 2009 10:49 AM EDT

faith,


The vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks, and do not involve the methods discussed in your most recent post.  Abortions after viability are done only in cases of severe threat to the woman, or severe fetal abnormality. Prior to 24 weeks, the fetus is not likely to have the ability to feel pain (source).


I don't think it's "sick" to perform an abortion on a viable fetus in order to save the woman's life, or protect her health when her pregnancy has gone terribly wrong. However, if a woman choses to continue the pregnancy despite serious threats to her health, survival, or that of her fetus, I support her choice.


I don't think it's sick to allow a grieving woman/couple who wants to prevent the suffering of a terribly malformed fetus, e.g. one with no brain, to abort it rather than giving birth and having the baby die within minutes/hours. To me that's not "sick" -- that's compassionate. I realize there are women who face this situation and choose to give birth rather than abort, and I support their choice.


IMO, it requires an incredible lack of compassion to foist your own wishes on other people regardless of the heartache and misery it causes them.

Flag faith713 August 17, 2009 3:57 PM EDT

Aug 17, 2009 -- 10:49AM, newsjunkie wrote:


faith,


The vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks, and do not involve the methods discussed in your most recent post.  Abortions after viability are done only in cases of severe threat to the woman, or severe fetal abnormality. Prior to 24 weeks, the fetus is not likely to have the ability to feel pain (source).



Some information about your source:


"One author, Susan J. Lee, a medical student, is also a lawyer who for eight months from 1999 to 2000 worked in the legal department at NARAL, an abortion rights group. Another author, Dr. Eleanor A. Drey, performs abortions and is medical director of an abortion clinic."


www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=23...


Other sources state the fetus may feel pain after 11 weeks:


"In fact, there is a steadily increasing body of medical evidence and literature supporting the conclusion that a fetus may feel pain from around 11 to 13 weeks, or even as early as 5.5 weeks.3 Indeed, there is some evidence that fetal suffering may actually be more intense due to the uneven maturation of fetal neurophysiology.4 A British survey of neuroscientists showed that 80% of the neuroscientists participating in the survey felt that pain relief should be given to a fetus for abortions after 11 weeks gestation.5


 


Aug 17, 2009 -- 10:49AM, newsjunkie wrote:

 I don't think it's "sick" to perform an abortion on a viable fetus in order to save the woman's life, or protect her health when her pregnancy has gone terribly wrong. However, if a woman choses to continue the pregnancy despite serious threats to her health, survival, or that of her fetus, I support her choice.



What about the millions of babies that are tortured and suffer agonizing deaths during an abortion? There is no reason for it:


"Dr. Harlan Giles, who performs second trimester abortions up to the point of viability, testified:


I do not think there are any maternal conditions that I'm aware of that mandate ending the pregnancy that, also, require that the fetus be dead or that the fetal life be terminated. In my experience for twenty years, one can deliver these fetuses either vaginally or by cesarean section for that matter depending on the choice of the parent...


And I cannot think of a fetal condition or malformation, no matter how severe, that actually causes harm or risk to the mother of continuing the pregnancy.


In most cases mothers carrying an abnormal fetus such as with Down's syndrome, anencephaly, the absence of a brain itself, dwarfism. Other severe even lethal chromosome abnormalities, those mothers if you follow their pregnancy have no higher risk of pregnancy complications than for any other mother who's progressing to term for a delivery." (Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, No.C-3-95-414, U. S. District Court, Southern District, Ohio (1995) ).www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/al... 



Aug 17, 2009 -- 10:49AM, newsjunkie wrote:


IMO, it requires an incredible lack of compassion to foist your own wishes on other people regardless of the heartache and misery it causes them."




Do you think it's compassionate to rip someone's legs and arms off because of their mother's choice?

Flag mountain_man August 17, 2009 4:15 PM EDT

Aug 17, 2009 -- 3:57PM, faith713 wrote:


Do you think it's compassionate to rip someone's legs and arms off because of their mother's choice?




No, which is why no one does it simply on a whim. These late term abortions are done only to save the mothers life. That you and others are trying to politicize the pain and suffering of the woman and her family is even more repugnant. I have to go wash my monitor now.

Flag Tolerant Sis August 17, 2009 4:24 PM EDT

Faith,


I can't comment on your assertion that some neurologists believe that pain medication should be given to 11 week old fetuses, since you failed to provide the citation, but I can tell you that the vast majority of neurologists do not believe that the fetus is capable of perceiving pain before the third trimester, because the perception of pain requires functional thalamocortical connections, which the fetus does not have prior to the 29th or 30th week of gestation. 


jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/...

Flag newsjunkie August 17, 2009 4:35 PM EDT

Aug 17, 2009 -- 3:57PM, faith713 wrote:


Aug 17, 2009 -- 10:49AM, newsjunkie wrote:


faith,


The vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks, and do not involve the methods discussed in your most recent post.  Abortions after viability are done only in cases of severe threat to the woman, or severe fetal abnormality. Prior to 24 weeks, the fetus is not likely to have the ability to feel pain (source).



Some information about your source:


"One author, Susan J. Lee, a medical student, is also a lawyer who for eight months from 1999 to 2000 worked in the legal department at NARAL, an abortion rights group. Another author, Dr. Eleanor A. Drey, performs abortions and is medical director of an abortion clinic."


www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=23...


Other sources state the fetus may feel pain after 11 weeks:


"In fact, there is a steadily increasing body of medical evidence and literature supporting the conclusion that a fetus may feel pain from around 11 to 13 weeks, or even as early as 5.5 weeks.3 Indeed, there is some evidence that fetal suffering may actually be more intense due to the uneven maturation of fetal neurophysiology.4 A British survey of neuroscientists showed that 80% of the neuroscientists participating in the survey felt that pain relief should be given to a fetus for abortions after 11 weeks gestation.5


You respond to a JAMA article with quotes from a PL website. Typical. Your standard of evidence and mine are totally different.


Aug 17, 2009 -- 10:49AM, newsjunkie wrote:

 I don't think it's "sick" to perform an abortion on a viable fetus in order to save the woman's life, or protect her health when her pregnancy has gone terribly wrong. However, if a woman choses to continue the pregnancy despite serious threats to her health, survival, or that of her fetus, I support her choice.



What about the millions of babies that are tortured and suffer agonizing deaths during an abortion? There is no reason for it:


"Dr. Harlan Giles, who performs second trimester abortions up to the point of viability, testified:


I do not think there are any maternal conditions that I'm aware of that mandate ending the pregnancy that, also, require that the fetus be dead or that the fetal life be terminated. In my experience for twenty years, one can deliver these fetuses either vaginally or by cesarean section for that matter depending on the choice of the parent...


And I cannot think of a fetal condition or malformation, no matter how severe, that actually causes harm or risk to the mother of continuing the pregnancy.


In most cases mothers carrying an abnormal fetus such as with Down's syndrome, anencephaly, the absence of a brain itself, dwarfism. Other severe even lethal chromosome abnormalities, those mothers if you follow their pregnancy have no higher risk of pregnancy complications than for any other mother who's progressing to term for a delivery." (Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, No.C-3-95-414, U. S. District Court, Southern District, Ohio (1995) ).www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/al... 



Aug 17, 2009 -- 10:49AM, newsjunkie wrote:


IMO, it requires an incredible lack of compassion to foist your own wishes on other people regardless of the heartache and misery it causes them."




Do you think it's compassionate to rip someone's legs and arms off because of their mother's choice?





I'm not going to respond to such a disingenuous and nasty remark. Obviously you're not interested in reading my views -- it's clear from that last childish remark and the material you lifted from the USCCB website that precedes it that you didn't bother to read or consider what I've already written. It is impossible to engage in rational discussion with a person who chooses to hear only what they want to hear and blocks out, or worse, mischaracterizes what people with a different opinion have to say.


Have a wonderful day. 

Flag bluehorserunning August 18, 2009 4:28 AM EDT

Aug 17, 2009 -- 4:15PM, mountain_man wrote:


Aug 17, 2009 -- 3:57PM, faith713 wrote:


Do you think it's compassionate to rip someone's legs and arms off because of their mother's choice?




No, which is why no one does it simply on a whim. These late term abortions are done only to save the mothers life. That you and others are trying to politicize the pain and suffering of the woman and her family is even more repugnant. I have to go wash my monitor now.




MM, I hate to correct you, but that is not strictly true.  Very late term abortions are also done when the patient's health is in danger, when the patient was raped (especialy with very young women or girls, who often hide their assault and then their pregnancy out of fear of the perpetrator), or when the fetus is severely abnormal.


Faith, in cases like those abortion is the most compassionate option available.  It's definitely not the outcome anyone wanted, and no:  it's not nice.  It's not pleasant.  Dr. Hern describes it as acutely unpleasant, even to him.  The simple fact of the matter is that the good of the fetus is in conflict with the good of the woman, and the woman is capable of vastly more suffering than the fetus is.


 


p.s."A British survey of neuroscientists showed that 80% of the neuroscientists participating in the survey felt that pain relief should be given to a fetus for abortions after 11 weeks gestation.5"


Can be translated as "this survey was not scientifically conducted and the results are not generalizable to the community of neuroscientists, or even Brittish neuroscientists, as a whole."  It could have been an internet poll on the website of 'Brittish neuroscientists for life' for all we know, since you listed it simply as "other sources" without a link.

Flag mountain_man August 18, 2009 11:02 AM EDT

Aug 18, 2009 -- 4:28AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

Aug 17, 2009 -- 4:15PM, mountain_man wrote:

No, which is why no one does it simply on a whim. These late term abortions are done only to save the mothers life. That you and others are trying to politicize the pain and suffering of the woman and her family is even more repugnant. I have to go wash my monitor now.



MM, I hate to correct you, but that is not strictly true.  Very late term abortions are also done when the patient's health is in danger, when the patient was raped (especialy with very young women or girls, who often hide their assault and then their pregnancy out of fear of the perpetrator), or when the fetus is severely abnormal.



Like I said, they are not done on a whim. These people would have you believe that a woman 8.5 months pregnant can just walk in and have the kid yanked out. As usual, they could not be further from the truth.

Flag Tmarie64 August 18, 2009 12:39 PM EDT

And, BHR, you are incorrect about this doctor... He turned away a rape victim who waited too long to decide what to do.  He would not abort her fetus.  
Others may do that, but he would not.


Bottom line... someone has to be in SERIOUS medical danger before late term abortions are done.  AND... No one's arms and legs are "ripped off".

Flag bluehorserunning August 18, 2009 3:28 PM EDT

Aug 18, 2009 -- 12:39PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


And, BHR, you are incorrect about this doctor... He turned away a rape victim who waited too long to decide what to do.  He would not abort her fetus.  


Others may do that, but he would not.



I read that passage (along with the rest of the article that I submitted).  However, Hern did and does do abortions for girls who have been raped; he refused in that particular case because she had waited until she was pretty much full-term to decide that it was 'too much' for her to go through with.

Flag mountain_man August 18, 2009 6:25 PM EDT

Aug 18, 2009 -- 3:28PM, bluehorserunning wrote:

I read that passage (along with the rest of the article that I submitted).  However, Hern did and does do abortions for girls who have been raped; he refused in that particular case because she had waited until she was pretty much full-term to decide that it was 'too much' for her to go through with.



Which only reinforces the point we have been making; he did not do abortions just because the woman chose to one a whim. They needed a sound medical reason.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook