Post Reply
Page 4 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 4:44PM #31
kat8765
Posts: 70
[/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? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 5:00PM #32
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

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'.

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 5:36PM #33
kat8765
Posts: 70

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.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 5:41PM #34
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 6:06PM #35
kat8765
Posts: 70

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!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 7:17PM #36
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

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.

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 8:13PM #37
mountain_man
Posts: 39,755

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?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 8:14PM #38
mountain_man
Posts: 39,755

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?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 8:18PM #39
mountain_man
Posts: 39,755

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.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 13, 2009 - 9:59PM #40
Bei1052
Posts: 986

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.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook