Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

MWEG and their lack of a statement standing up for life

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

It was intended to demean the powerful position of their own name - is that is sexist then it is sexist - my objective was to belittle. They do take on SOME hot topics - Jess Sessions is not hot; Immigration reform is very hot and ideas need to be discussed; Midterm elections - all elections - are hot; projecting civil discourse is valuable. However, tell me how you are going to be an advocate for civil discourse if you openly admit that you avoid divisive topics?  And now we come around to my comment on flowers, cookies, (Think Hillary Clinton here) etc. Being civil is hard when there are challenging topics to discuss. Choosing to avoid difficult topics is weak. 

I agree they should speak out on the tough issues.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are in a fertility clinic on fire. There is a six month old baby in next to a freezer that contains 1000 human embryos. There is only time to take one or the other. Which do you choose?

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

I would never harm a baby, I would never harm an unborn baby, I place them in a higher priority than say a dog (and I LOVE dogs), I would not purposefully go out to harm any life, not even an insect. However, I would not suffer a single pang of guilt slapping a mosquito sucking blood from my arm. I would feel guilty hurting a dog and I think my remorse would be huge if I harmed a baby...

Now comes the; "would you kill an animal?" argument. I believe again babies are higher than animals. I believe some animals are an important food source. It is hard to eat an animal (say a chicken) when it is still alive. Please do not apple/orange the discussion of babies equating with animals, it is a silly argument no matter how many Harvard/Princeton professors advocate it.

Quote

How many embryos would it take before you would take the fridge over the baby? 

Again a Hobson's choice question... I will exhaust every possibility to save both.

 

Quote

What if your beloved family dog was unconscious by the freezer? Which would you take?

You said the dog was unconscious, is the dog saveable?  If not I'd save the embryo's and come back for the dog. I refuse to think there is only one choice. 

Oh, and I love dogs.... love love love

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I know I mourn every time one of my skin cells dies.

Nehor, I love your style of humor. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/5/2019 at 7:53 PM, Gray said:

What does the abortion debate have to do with ethical government?

Not sure how you missed this:

Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).[79][78] By law (Hyde Amendment), federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions (except in rare cases),[80] but some opponents of abortion have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services allows other funds to be reallocated for abortions.[57]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

There does not seem to be a shortage of parents who would adopt babies.

There is often in the case of medically disabled babies, however...or there used to be.  Not up on current stats.  Perhaps the internet and greater access has helped here, at least in the US.  I hope so.

Just an observation that I think can affect discussion of abortions of fetuses with medical anomalies.  I am all for providing the education (and I would add decent and cheap safe sex and birth control supplies) and all forms of support for adoption (I mentioned this in an earlier post, iirc, but understand how pulling out one comment may be interpreted as challenging the whole post and wanted to be clear, if redundant).

Came across this website for helping special needs children get adopted.  Services like this one could be promoted, supported, and greatly expanded in my view:

https://www.spence-chapin.org/

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/7/2019 at 11:13 AM, cherryTreez said:

babies breath in the womb. Have never watched an ultrasound? 

They are alive and have their own personalities.  

I'm not sure how you would determine that they had their own personalities. Yes they breath, but of course the Biblical writers didn't know that. Technically an unfertilized egg is alive too.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/7/2019 at 9:57 AM, jpv said:

Fair enough, as long as you stop equivocating the medical need for an emergency delivery or C-section with the medical need for a late-term abortion.

There are medical needs for late term abortion.

Is there a medical need for a vasectomy? Usually not. Should the government step in and tell men they can't have them?

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/6/2019 at 2:17 PM, Anijen said:

And neither do I. I am making the distinction that both are life.

So are skin cells.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Gray said:

There are medical needs for late term abortion.

Is there a medical need for a vasectomy? Usually not. Should the government step in and tell men they can't have them?

CFR = name one single medical need for a late term abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

CFR = name one single medical need for a late term abortion.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e3a72ff3878c

 

Quote

pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion  - American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Quote

Jen Villavicencio, an obstetrician-gynecologist in the Midwest, explained that, in the vast majority of cases in which a woman becomes seriously ill late in pregnancy, doctors are working to save both the woman and the fetus. But in rare situations, it’s clear the fetus will not survive, and then the patients and their loved ones must make a decision about whether to put a sick woman at further risk with a delivery.

 

 

Interesting side note - nearly half of all late term abortions are late because women have a hard time finding access to abortion care. So many late term abortions are a result of political meddling by the pro-life movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#Reasons_for_not_seeking_earlier

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e3a72ff3878c

Interesting side note - nearly half of all late term abortions are late because women have a hard time finding access to abortion care. So many late term abortions are a result of political meddling by the pro-life movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#Reasons_for_not_seeking_earlier

I went back to your cited document - let's add more information to the context rather than mislead:

"Numerous groups that oppose abortion, including the National Right to Life Committee, allow for exceptions when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Many also accept it in cases of incest or rape."

"Jen Villavicencio, an obstetrician-gynecologist in the Midwest, explained that, in the vast majority of cases in which a woman becomes seriously ill late in pregnancy, doctors are working to save both the woman and the fetus. But in rare situations, it’s clear the fetus will not survive, and then the patients and their loved ones must make a decision about whether to put a sick woman at further risk with a delivery."

Everything stated in your quote above does not equate to a requirement for an abortion. What should be required, as Dr. Jen Villavicencio has stated, is doctors working to save both the woman and the fetus. Then, in rare situations, when it is clearly a choice of endangerment to the live of the mother and the child's life is clearly not viable, an abortion is the procedure of choice to save the mother.

As the grandfather of a 1.4 ounce granddaughter at birth, I can tell you that a it is extremely rare that the child's life is not viable. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I went back to your cited document - let's add more information to the context rather than mislead:

"Numerous groups that oppose abortion, including the National Right to Life Committee, allow for exceptions when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Many also accept it in cases of incest or rape." 

"Jen Villavicencio, an obstetrician-gynecologist in the Midwest, explained that, in the vast majority of cases in which a woman becomes seriously ill late in pregnancy, doctors are working to save both the woman and the fetus. But in rare situations, it’s clear the fetus will not survive, and then the patients and their loved ones must make a decision about whether to put a sick woman at further risk with a delivery."

Everything stated in your quote above does not equate to a requirement for an abortion. What should be required, as Dr. Jen Villavicencio has stated, is doctors working to save both the woman and the fetus. Then, in rare situations, when it is clearly a choice of endangerment to the live of the mother and the child's life is clearly not viable, an abortion is the procedure of choice to save the mother.

What's the issue? You're not contradicting anything I said, or indeed my own position on the matter.

 

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

As the grandfather of a 1.4 ounce granddaughter at birth, I can tell you that a it is extremely rare that the child's life is not viable. 

Something like 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage (natural abortion), so that's not true, assuming by child you mean fetus, embryo or blastocyst.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e3a72ff3878c

"Jen Villavicencio, an obstetrician-gynecologist in the Midwest, explained that, in the vast majority of cases in which a woman becomes seriously ill late in pregnancy, doctors are working to save both the woman and the fetus. But in rare situations, it’s clear the fetus will not survive, and then the patients and their loved ones must make a decision about whether to put a sick woman at further risk with a delivery."

This makes no sense.  The mother will have to deliver the baby either way.  Abortion doesn't make the baby evaporate.  

Quote

pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion  - American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

What medical condition requires late term abortion based on "evidence-based care" in order to save a mother?   There is none. All of these conditions may happen and may be required to be induced early, but they don't need to kill a viable baby to get it out to save a mother's life.  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.    

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

As I recall when reading up on this group, Mormon women for Ethical Govt. was formed as a response to Donald Trump's winning the Presidency.  They are made up of mostly Democrat women with most likely only a handful of Republicans,  and those republicans would be 'never trumpers'-- those who don't like Trump.

What I've seen is they speak out on the issues which interest them, and true to the reason they were formed, these are issues where they can oppose the President, such as the Government shutdown.  I'm certain they did not speak up on this issue because I believe when I read about their group, they stated they didn't take a stand on abortion.  I believe that's because they know full well that the church does not support abortion and probably a majority of their members do. They don't want that pointed out.  This bill in New York isn't even about abortion--it is a way to legalize infanticide because it allows for a baby which has been born to be killed--if the Mother wants it.  There is no way this women's group who want to be known as 'mormons' can publicly support this, so the only other option is to oppose it, and that will get them in hot water with their members/donors who are pro-choice.  I suspect that many of them would not approve of the bill, IF they actually knew what it allows for, but they are not aware and likely wouldn't believe it, if they were told. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Something like 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage (natural abortion), so that's not true, assuming by child you mean fetus, embryo or blastocyst.

Viability is considered 24 weeks gestation by most,  but there can be viability as early as 21 weeks.  Late term abortion kills viable babies.   Most miscarriages don't happen after the age of viability.  Most happen before a women even realizes she is pregnant. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, alter idem said:

As I recall when reading up on this group, Mormon women for Ethical Govt. was formed as a response to Donald Trump's winning the Presidency.  They are made up of mostly Democrat women with most likely only a handful of Republicans,  and those republicans would be 'never trumpers'-- those who don't like Trump.

What I've seen is they speak out on the issues which interest them, and true to the reason they were formed, these are issues where they can oppose the President, such as the Government shutdown.  I'm certain they did not speak up on this issue because I believe when I read about their group, they stated they didn't take a stand on abortion.  I believe that's because they know full well that the church does not support abortion and probably a majority of their members do. They don't want that pointed out.  This bill in New York isn't even about abortion--it is a way to legalize infanticide because it allows for a baby which has been born to be killed--if the Mother wants it.  There is no way this women's group who want to be known as 'mormons' can publicly support this, so the only other option is to oppose it, and that will get them in hot water with their members/donors who are pro-choice.  I suspect that many of them would not approve of the bill, IF they actually knew what it allows for, but they are not aware and likely wouldn't believe it, if they were told. 

I had not heard the bolded above.  Can you provide a reference (not doubting you, just want to have a reference to point to if I shared it with others).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I had not heard the bolded above.  Can you provide a reference (not doubting you, just want to have a reference to point to if I shared it with others).

What the New York law does is strip all existing regulations that protect babies born alive during botched abortions. It was section 4164. It is gone. All laws gave a baby in the womb any legal status were stripped.

New York Consolidated Laws, Public Health Law - PBH § 4164. Induced viable births

Search New York Codes

« Prev
 
Next »
 


 

1. When an abortion is to be performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy it shall be performed only in a hospital and only on an in-patient basis.  When an abortion is to be performed after the twentieth week of pregnancy, a physician other than the physician performing the abortion shall be in attendance to take control of and to provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion.  The commissioner of health is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to insure the health and safety of the mother and the viable child, in such instances.

2. Such child shall be accorded immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York, including but not limited to applicable provisions of the social services law, article five of the civil rights law and the penal law.

3. The medical records of all life-sustaining efforts put forth for such a live aborted birth, their failure or success, shall be kept by attending physician.  All other vital statistics requirements in the public health law shall be complied with in regard to such aborted child.

4. In the event of the subsequent death of the aborted child, the disposal of the dead body shall be in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/public-health-law/pbh-sect-4164.html

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Viability is considered 24 weeks gestation by most,  but there can be viability as early as 21 weeks.  Late term abortion kills viable babies.   Most miscarriages don't happen after the age of viability.  Most happen before a women even realizes she is pregnant. 

Time to viability varies wildly depending on the individual case. Half of late term abortions are a result of meddling by the pro-life movement. Most abortion rights opponents don't seem to differentiate based on viability though.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

“Women carrying children with life-limiting conditions need to be cared for in a way that not only maximizes maternal health, but also honors the life of their child.  Delivering a child intact and then administering the appropriate medical care for that child – whether that be palliative care or active treatment – is the medically appropriate and ethical thing to do.  This scenario is one that every OB/GYN faces.  Given that 85% of OB/GYNs do not perform abortions, third-trimester abortions do not need to be legal in order to optimally care for women and their children, no matter what the circumstances.

–  Christina Francis, M.D., Chair of the Board, AAPLOG

 

“There is never a reason to take the life of an unborn child since there is no maternal condition that requires the death of the fetus to save her life. The infant may need to be delivered prematurely and die as a result of that, but it is not necessary to take the infant’s life. Further, if a fetus has an adverse prenatal diagnosis all patients should be offered perinatal hospice care since this is far better for maternal health than any elective abortion. Perinatal hospice allows the parents to be parents and provide all the love they can for their child.”

  –  Dr. Byron Calhoun, perinatologist

 

You can always find extremist groups to quote to make your point for you, I'm not sure what the point of that would be, as you only convince the already convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, pogi said:

This makes no sense.  The mother will have to deliver the baby either way.  Abortion doesn't make the baby evaporate.  

What medical condition requires late term abortion based on "evidence-based care" in order to save a mother?   There is none. All of these conditions may happen and may be required to be induced early, but they don't need to kill a viable baby to get it out to save a mother's life.  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.    

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.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Viability is considered 24 weeks gestation by most,  but there can be viability as early as 21 weeks.  Late term abortion kills viable babies.   Most miscarriages don't happen after the age of viability.  Most happen before a women even realizes she is pregnant. 

I agree.  It's only considered miscarriage before 20 weeks--  Death after 20 weeks to before delivery it is called a 'stillbirth' or 'stillborn'.  The cut off is viability.  The technical term for miscarriage is 'spontaneous abortion', but that would not be a correct term for a stillbirth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, 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.

My issue is that we don't need to perform an abortion to save the life of a mother, viable or not.  If it dies, it dies, we don't need to kill it to protect the mother as you claim.  That is NOT "evidenced based" medicine. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

This article was well researched and addresses another concern from the New York law. If 85 percent of Obgyn’s do not perform abortions in New York, under the new law will these doctors be able to refuse to provide this service.  https://www.americamagazine.org/rha2019

What does calling abortion a “fundamental human right” mean?

The R.H.A. sets out the law’s purpose to secure for every pregnant woman a “fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.” The law also says that the state shall not “discriminate, deny or interfere” with these rights in any other regulations.

This has raised concerns about how this “fundamental right” may be asserted in the future against hospitals, doctors and other medical professionals who object to abortion in conscience. An official with the New York State Catholic Conference said that the law “foresees a time in New York when it’s a crime to be pro-life.” New York State Right to Life, a state political party and lobbying group, argues that this language opens the door to “restrict efforts by pro-lifers…and prohibit any limits on abortion.”

The R.H.A. does not contain any explicit provision requiring anyone to perform or provide abortions, but neither does it explicitly provide any exemption for conscientious objection by health care professionals regarding abortion.”

This could set up religious freedom battles in the future. 

 

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I had not heard the bolded above.  Can you provide a reference (not doubting you, just want to have a reference to point to if I shared it with others).

 

https://nypost.com/2019/01/31/the-abortion-debate-the-rha-legalizes-infanticide/

 

From the article;

 

Quote

But it gets worse. New York’s new law also removes protections for babies born alive after an abortion — meaning they could be left to die after birth — by rescinding a portion of New York’s public-health law. Let me be clear: New York has legalized infanticide.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18205428/virginia-abortion-bill-kathy-tran-ralph-northam

From the article;

Quote

The bill began inspiring outcry among abortion opponents nationwide after its sponsor, Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, said in a committee hearing on Monday that it would technically allow abortion until the point of birth, if a doctor agreed it was necessary.

Gov. Northam, a Democrat, was asked about the bill in a radio interview on Wednesday, and his response only added to the controversy. Appearing to discuss what would happen if a child was born after a failed attempt at abortion, he said, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...