MWEG and their lack of a statement standing up for life

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

There are billions upon billions of fetuses lost due to miscarriage. Probably more of those than actual live births in the history of humanity.

Very sad justification for abortion. I might add even evil. Because there are so many miscarriages we then should accept abortion? I do not think so.

Abortion is purposefully killing, miscarriages are not.

[Anijen]

On 2/8/2019 at 1:50 PM, Gray said:

I'm not sure what your confusion is here. Remember not every fetus is viable just because they've passed some number of weeks that marks viability for most healthy fetuses.

I'm not sure what your confusion is here. Remember most fetuses that are aborted were not because they were viable or not, but simply because they were of inconvenience to the mother.

Besides, Bluebell, Alteridem, and others make a great point; if the fetus is not viable, then why kill it if it is going to die anyway?

[pogi]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

Sometimes you do, yes.  A real world example - a woman 26 weeks pregnant, with twins. One of the fetuses had died in the womb, and the other had its brain outside of its skull. Technically removing the other living fetus would cause it to die - an abortion. But it was necessary to save the life of the mother. The fetus would not have survived long after birth anyway. That's why late term abortion is sometimes necessary.

Just curious, why would it be necessary to abort the child to save the life of the mother in this scenario?  What is the risk to the mother exactly?

Edited February 12, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

There are billions upon billions of fetuses lost due to miscarriage. Probably more of those than actual live births in the history of humanity.

 

I don't really understand this argument.  Thousands of people die in car crashes every year, but that doesn't mean that it's o.k. for someone to get in a car and purposefully run over someone.  

[pogi]

I will say this, if a late-term D&E abortion was indeed medically necessary to save the life of the mother, I would support that procedure, if and only if the child is given a lethal injection previous to the procedure.  Is that stipulation stated in this legislation however?  I don't think so.  It makes it legal for any mother, at risk or not, to kill an innocent child.  Am I mistaken about that?

Edited February 12, 2019 by pogi

[bsjkki]

Two articles I read today. http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/11/babies-slated-late-term-abortion-instead-delivered-alive/ A law protecting the life of viable fetuses. And an Teen Vogue article referenced in the first article.   https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-it-was-like-to-get-a-later-abortion

"What our country needs is the Deliver-Alive Human Being Protection Act: A law that unequivocally protects fetuses once they reach the gestational age at which they are potentially viable, currently 22 weeks. At that point, should the pregnancy put the mother’s life at risk, the pre-term delivery of the live baby is indicated—not the killing of the fetus, followed by delivery of a dead baby.

In many states that is not the law. Instead, healthy, viable fetuses may be aborted. Just last week, Teen Vogue—yes, that’s right, TEEN Vogue—exposed this reality in an article by Beth Vial telling “her abortion story.” Vial opened by noting that “New York and Virginia have made headlines for their efforts to cut the medically unnecessary regulations on later abortion,” before proclaiming “Anti-abortion advocates have been intentionally misleading the public about the policies and misrepresenting what later abortion is and why people have them. I know because I had an abortion at 28 weeks.”

Vial then spent the next ten paragraphs explaining that she has polycystic ovary syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome, and that she simply didn’t want to continue the pregnancy because “I was too sick, not ready, and I simply couldn’t afford it.” She eventually travelled to New Mexico to obtain an abortion when her baby was 28 weeks old.

If Vial’s medical condition truly made continuing her pregnancy unsafe, a pre-term delivery would be indicated, not an abortion! But New Mexico law allowed Vial to kill her healthy and viable unborn baby."

Her baby would have been adopted. Her babies adopted parents would have gladly payed all medical costs for her 28 week old baby. She didn't need to kill it. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 2/7/2019 at 2:28 PM, Anijen said:

These Hobson choice type scenarios are unrealistic. Just saw a meme were I could "only save one" Dumbledore, Dobby, Doctor Who Sirius, Fred, etc.. Why is it only one? Phhhift, I wanna save them all.

"Where to elect there is but one,
'Tis Hobson's choice—take that, or none"

You still deserve an answer. Seeking, I guess what I would do is prioritize like a triage. Are the embryos even viable (most are not viable for human life, because the thawing process)? 

You are a little out of date. The IVF clinic we used only did frozen transfers (no fresh). IVF has a per cycle success rate of 25 percent. So 250 healthy living “babies” in the freezer. 

On 2/7/2019 at 2:28 PM, Anijen said:

The six month old baby, there is no speculation she is alive and breathing. I'd save her first.

I thought it was all human life was the same, and yet you choose to save one life over 250 embryos that would eventually make it to birth. Why? If a life is a life, how can you justify leaving 250 to die to save one? I understand hard hypotheticals. Which of your children would you save, would you save a child or an elderly person. These questions are hard. However if someone asked me if I could save 250 newborns or one 15 month old toddler, there is no hesitation for me. Regret? Yes, but it’s an easy choice, I save 250. Yet you choose to save the one. After all, the only difference between an embryo and the baby is 15 months of age right? 

 

[Anijen]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I thought it was all human life was the same,

Please do NOT put words into my mouth. I have never made the argument that human life is the same. I have made the argument, that life is life. Even in my answer to you I spoke of prioritizing life (i.e. triage). I have reported your post. It is absolutely without excuse.  

Quote

and yet you choose to save one life over 250 embryos that would eventually make it to birth.

Your statistics still say 75% will die. No, I do not believe one can honestly give an exact number in your very sill Hobson choice scenario.

 

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, Anijen said:

Please do NOT put words into my mouth. I have never made the argument that human life is the same. I have made the argument, that life is life. Even in my answer to you I spoke of prioritizing life (i.e. triage). I have reported your post. It is absolutely without excuse.  

Your statistics still say 75% will die. No, I do not believe one can honestly give an exact number in your very sill Hobson choice scenario.

 

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

Make believe scenarios created to support an argument are not helpful. The issue, in reality, is what happens when a woman carrying a child at 8 months gestation - and it is inconvenient to her own life - should she have the right to kill it or choosing between either delivering the child at full term or having a C-section at the present time? 

Will this society sanction murder at the direction of pregnant women or not? That is real; that is the issue. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Storm Rider

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Anijen said:

I'm not sure what your confusion is here. Remember most fetuses that are aborted were not because they were viable or not, but simply because they were of inconvenience to the mother. 

Besides, Bluebell, Alteridem, and others make a great point; if the fetus is not viable, then why kill it if it is going to die anyway?

Removing the fetus is going to effectively kill it. But in the real world example I gave, it saved the mother's life.

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Anijen said:

Very sad justification for abortion. I might add even evil. Because there are so many miscarriages we then should accept abortion? I do not think so.

Abortion is purposefully killing, miscarriages are not.

You misread me. That's not a justification for abortion, but if every fetus is to be resurrected, then they will outnumber people who were actually born. Presumably the Celestial Kingdom will be largely composed of such souls, if that's true.

[Gray]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's not what makes something an abortion though.  That would be a birth.  A fetus is considered viable at 26 weeks.  Some babies cannot survive outside of the womb despite being in there full term due to congenital defects.  A baby in that situation is not considered to be aborted at birth just because it's defects will cause it to die once it is born.

If you remove a fetus at 10 weeks, is that an abortion? It won't survive outside the womb either

[Gray]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Just curious, why would it be necessary to abort the child to save the life of the mother in this scenario?  What is the risk to the mother exactly?

The dead fetus was septic. Apparently it was impossible to just remove the dead one without killing the living one.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't really understand this argument.  Thousands of people die in car crashes every year, but that doesn't mean that it's o.k. for someone to get in a car and purposefully run over someone.  

My point was if these are living souls to be resurrected, they will outnumber people who were actually born. So it becomes a strange proposition theologically to think they will be resurrected (and presumably given a free ticked to heaven)

[bluebell]

Just now, Gray said:

My point was if these are living souls to be resurrected, they will outnumber people who were actually born. So it becomes a strange proposition theologically to think they will be resurrected (and presumably given a free ticked to heaven)

I suppose it depends on when the soul enters the body.

Besides that, the difference between a pregnancy that ends spontaneously when it is 3 weeks along and one that is purposely ended at 26 weeks along is so extreme that comparing the two doesn’t work very well. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

The dead fetus was septic. Apparently it was impossible to just remove the dead one without killing the living one.

It was impossible for the mother to give birth?

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I suppose it depends on when the soul enters the body.

Besides that, the difference between a pregnancy that ends spontaneously when it is 3 weeks along and one that is purposely ended at 26 weeks along is so extreme that comparing the two doesn’t work very well. 

I agree there is a big difference.

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was impossible for the mother to give birth?

That I don't know - my wife related the story.

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

The dead fetus was septic. Apparently it was impossible to just remove the dead one without killing the living one.

This whole scenario doesn't make sense to me for several reasons.  Do you have a link?  Perhaps you are missing something.  

As I said before, "if a late-term D&E abortion was indeed medically necessary to save the life of the mother, I would support that procedure, if and only if the child is given a lethal injection previous to the procedure.  Is that stipulation stated in this legislation however?  I don't think so.  It makes it legal for any mother, at risk or not, to kill an innocent child.  Am I mistaken about that?"

Edited February 12, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you remove a fetus at 10 weeks, is that an abortion? It won't survive outside the womb either

If someone deliberately removed a fetus that was alive and let it die outside of the womb that would probably be considered an abortion because someone was removing the baby to specifically kill it AND a baby 10 weeks along is not viable.  

Do they do that?  Do some doctors remove the baby alive and then watch it die outside of the womb to perform an abortion??

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

This whole scenario doesn't make sense to me.  Do you have a link?  Perhaps you are missing something.  

As I said before, "if a late-term D&E abortion was indeed medically necessary to save the life of the mother, I would support that procedure, if and only if the child is given a lethal injection previous to the procedure.  Is that stipulation stated in this legislation however?  I don't think so.  It makes it legal for any mother, at risk or not, to kill an innocent child.  Am I mistaken about that?"

I don't have a link, it was related to me by my wife. Apparently the abortion had to be delayed two weeks while the hospital board reviewed it.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If someone deliberately removed a fetus that was alive and let it die outside of the womb that would probably be considered an abortion because someone was removing the baby to specifically kill it AND a baby 10 weeks along is not viable.  

Do they do that?  Do some doctors remove the baby alive and then watch it die outside of the womb to perform an abortion??

I don't know, but my point was the living fetus was not viable outside of the womb, so however they removed it and whatever they did afterwards, it was an abortion.

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know, but my point was the living fetus was not viable outside of the womb, so however they removed it and whatever they did afterwards, it was an abortion.

And in all these scenarios, what was done was to save the life of the mother. These new laws go much further than that and for all intents and purposes, allow abortion up to birth without any regard for fetal viability and do not require the life of the mother to be in jeopardy. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know, but my point was the living fetus was not viable outside of the womb, so however they removed it and whatever they did afterwards, it was an abortion.

I realize that's your point, I'm saying I disagree.  When a mother has to induce birth for a baby that has congenital defects (say, at 30 weeks for example), and the baby dies because it cannot survive outside of the womb because of those defects, that does not mean that the mother aborted the baby.

[Gray]

Just now, bsjkki said:

And in all these scenarios, what was done was to save the life of the mother. These new laws go much further than that and for all intents and purposes, allow abortion up to birth without any regard for fetal viability and do not require the life of the mother to be in jeopardy. 

What are you basing that on?

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

Quote

In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

Previously, abortions after 24 weeks were justified only in cases where the mother’s life was at risk — which was inconsistent with a part of the Roe decision, as we explain later.