Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

MWEG and their lack of a statement standing up for life

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I think this points out that the desire of pro-abortionists is to give full right to the mother to decide whether her baby lives or dies.  In this age of modern medicine, I know of no medical reason to kill a full term infant in the womb or during delivery, except to be able to do away with the child if the mother does not want it, and avoid a charge of murder. 

A C-section is a major operation with risks attached.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/c-section/about/pac-20393655

And there has been mentioned before that some women risk death if they have a natural delivery (brain aneurysm more likely blowing, for example).

In the case of a stillbirth, would you have a problem with a doctor avoiding both procedures and opting instead for an abortion technique that caused the least amount of stress to the mother's body?

If not, is there a difference for you if the baby is alive at birth, but will not survive birth or will die shortly after or can only survive with aggressive, painful medical measures being given?  Are there any cases where you would agree putting a woman through greater stress either in the delivery procedure or with recovery is more important than ensuring the baby is not aborted at that late moment? (I am imagining an example of a woman who has delayed chemo for the safety of her baby, only to find out post 24 weeks her baby will not survive birth; an abortion might leave her in better shape to handle the chemo than a C-section or even a vaginal delivery...would the less stress physically be of enough value?)

(not a challenge, curious about your point of view)

There may be an increased risk of intercranial bleeding due to hormones during pregnancy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404782/

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Calm said:

A C-section is a major operation with risks attached.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/c-section/about/pac-20393655

And there has been mentioned before that some women risk death if they have a natural delivery (brain aneurysm more likely blowing, for example).

In the case of a stillbirth, would you have a problem with a doctor avoiding both procedures and opting instead for an abortion technique that caused the least amount of stress to the mother's body?

If not, is there a difference for you if the baby is alive at birth, but will not survive birth or will die shortly after or can only survive with aggressive, painful medical measures being given?  Are there any cases where you would agree putting a woman through greater stress either in the delivery procedure or with recovery is more important than ensuring the baby is not aborted at that late moment? (I am imagining an example of a woman who has delayed chemo for the safety of her baby, only to find out post 24 weeks her baby will not survive birth; an abortion might leave her in better shape to handle the chemo than a C-section or even a vaginal delivery...would the less stress physically be of enough value?)

(not a challenge, curious about your point of view)

If there is a rare instance when a c section or vaginal delivery would truly compromise the mothers life, Laws that allow late term abortion for the life of the mother were sufficient. This would happen in incredibly rare circumstances based on all the statistics we know.

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2019 at 1:52 PM, Gray said:

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

 

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.

Word games are really tedious and unhelpful. You seem get the grasp of the desire to use synonyms, just quite don't have enough of a grasp of the language to be successful. For example, a miscarriage is the spontaneous reaction of the woman's body toward the pregnancy. An "abortion" is the overt action of the mother to murder the child within her. You see the difference?  One is a spontaneous reaction - an action that is out of the control of the mother - and the other is the result of an action of the mother. Give it some time, it will sink in.

Edited by Storm Rider
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I think this points out that the desire of pro-abortionists is to give full right to the mother to decide whether her baby lives or dies.  In this age of modern medicine, I know of no medical reason to kill a full term infant in the womb or during delivery, except to be able to do away with the child if the mother does not want it, and avoid a charge of murder. 

The ones that I have been aware of have been where a mother does not want the baby to suffer after birth so they view killing it before birth as more humane. 

However, deciding what is humane or not has nothing to do with a procedure being medically necessary. And besides that, mothers have gone to prison for killing their kids to spare them further pain from congenital defects so it’s hard to argue that euthanasia is a valid reason to end a human life. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Calm said:

A C-section is a major operation with risks attached.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/c-section/about/pac-20393655

And there has been mentioned before that some women risk death if they have a natural delivery (brain aneurysm more likely blowing, for example).

In the case of a stillbirth, would you have a problem with a doctor avoiding both procedures and opting instead for an abortion technique that caused the least amount of stress to the mother's body?

If not, is there a difference for you if the baby is alive at birth, but will not survive birth or will die shortly after or can only survive with aggressive, painful medical measures being given?  Are there any cases where you would agree putting a woman through greater stress either in the delivery procedure or with recovery is more important than ensuring the baby is not aborted at that late moment? (I am imagining an example of a woman who has delayed chemo for the safety of her baby, only to find out post 24 weeks her baby will not survive birth; an abortion might leave her in better shape to handle the chemo than a C-section or even a vaginal delivery...would the less stress physically be of enough value?)

(not a challenge, curious about your point of view)

There may be an increased risk of intercranial bleeding due to hormones during pregnancy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404782/

If the baby is dead in the womb, I assume they use whatever techniques are best for removing it.  I don't think that's at issue here.

I'm not sure why a woman who finds out she has cancer and is under the care of doctors would later find out her baby won't survive birth after 24 weeks.  The tests for fetal problems are done before 24 weeks and they find these things out then.  Since abortion is legal they can easily get one earlier in the pregnancy--no need to wait till the last minute when the child is moving around inside and clearly alive.  And, if something happens later and the baby dies in the womb, they will need to remove it, whether through vaginal delivery or c-section--I don't think that's an issue. 

I think what we are debating is the killing of a full term healthy baby during the last trimester up to and during delivery.  If a woman decides she doesn't want a child, there is always adoption.  I think we as a people should be abhored by one of our states legalizing infanticide, regardless of the excuses offered.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

 

I have carried 5 babies. I knew so much about them before they were born.  I could list things about their personalities that I knew from before their births. My mom could do it as well. 

Brigham Young said "when a mother feels life come to her infant, it is the spirit entering the body.'   And Presidident Joseph Fielding Smith said "that these little ones will receive a resurrection and then belong to us.'

 

I felt my daughter kick at 10 weeks. I thought that I was crazy. I told my ob about it. He said then let's find out. We did an ultrasound then and sure enough what I had felt and thought was movement was her moving around. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

Let me state, this is only my own opinion--but I think that this is the first stage for getting the American people  used to the idea of euthanasia of other, older people--those with disabilities , terminally ill and the aged.  That's the direction I think we are headed as there is a push to adopt Universal healthcare, which is extremely expensive and necessarily means limiting/rationing healthcare procedures, allowing some to die, so that others may live. 

But that's just my own views from considering where these ideas in the past have led.

Has incidence of euthanasia gone up in countries with national health?  In doctors office so research is hard. 

Add-on:  I see Netherlands is used as an example, but may be an exception or not. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Has incidence of euthanasia gone up in countries with national health?  In doctors office so research is hard. 

Add-on:  I see Netherlands is used as an example, but may be an exception or not. 

This is a hard statistics to find. I found this interesting article from Canada. It is still illegal in many countries that have universal healthcare. When it is made legal, the numbers rise. https://www.mercatornet.com/mobile/view/euthanasia-could-save-canada-millions-in-healthcare-costs

 In December two Quebec bioethicists argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics that combining euthanasia with organ donation would be an excellent idea which could yield top-quality organs for needy patients.

And last week researchers from the University of Calgary calculated that when euthanasia reaches the level of Belgium and the Netherlands, the country’s health system could save up to up to C$139 million every year. “Medical assistance in dying could reduce annual health care spending across Canada by between $34.7 million and $138.8 million, exceeding the $1.5–$14.8 million in direct costs associated with its implementation,” they wrote in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.”

 

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Calm said:

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/

I started reading up on adoption and abortion correlations and it seems to be a bit more complicated than first meets the eye. Here's some basic stats on adoption. Note that only 4% of unwanted pregnancies end in adoption. I can't find the stat I initially did...but it was a fairly even split between abortion and keeping the child with the remaining unwanted pregnancies. Along with that came a study on whether abortion reduced unwanted children by looking at adoption rates. I found it interesting that there was a correlation for only white women and births....but that the effect was negligible with women of color....adoption rates remained the same. They didn't mention much about reasoning, but I think part of this is likely tied to expectations and stigmas around single parents v. the stigma in many minority communities of giving away children. I think it's likely that removing abortion as an option today, wouldn't have as much of an effect on adoption demand as one would expect because the culture around unwed parenting has drastically shifted. For example in my family on my mom's side with a very very STRONG rejection of abortion as an option, there have been several unplanned pregnancies to single mothers. I believe I had one aunt give away child, my mother almost tried or contemplated it at least twice, and another aunt did as well. No one else did. And there's less expectation in my generation that "doing the right thing" would be giving up the baby....for better or for worse. Along with that, the demand for a specific type of child is greater than who is actually available...specifically a white healthy baby. Children that don't fit that criteria are harder to adopt. With babies, they try to mitigate that by reduced pricing for the adoption process for minority children. In the fostering system it means that there are a number of children who never find a home...and many foster children take years to be placed into permanent situations. 

Adoption is a good option, but from what I'm reading it likely couldn't wholly replace abortions as an option. It didn't even when it was illegal (it moved it underground to unsafe means or causes a disparity between poor and wealthy women's options). It really won't now since the option of keeping a baby when single is less stigmatized. This site (and this one)noted effective ways that have evidence of reducing the abortion rates while not introducing some of the problems/dangers correlated with no or extremely restricted access to legal abortion. 

 

With luv,

BD 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Calm said,

Quote

A C-section is a major operation with risks attached.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/c-section/about/pac-20393655

And there has been mentioned before that some women risk death if they have a natural delivery (brain aneurysm more likely blowing, for example).

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

If there is a rare instance when a c section or vaginal delivery would truly compromise the mothers life, Laws that allow late term abortion for the life of the mother were sufficient. This would happen in incredibly rare circumstances based on all the statistics we know.

I think it needs to be pointed out that c section or vaginal delivery are the only 2 options.  Alive or dead, the baby needs to come out one way or the other, so abortion doesn't reduce any trauma to the mother. 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

A C-section is a major operation with risks attached.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/c-section/about/pac-20393655

And there has been mentioned before that some women risk death if they have a natural delivery (brain aneurysm more likely blowing, for example).

In the case of a stillbirth, would you have a problem with a doctor avoiding both procedures and opting instead for an abortion technique that caused the least amount of stress to the mother's body?

If not, is there a difference for you if the baby is alive at birth, but will not survive birth or will die shortly after or can only survive with aggressive, painful medical measures being given?  Are there any cases where you would agree putting a woman through greater stress either in the delivery procedure or with recovery is more important than ensuring the baby is not aborted at that late moment? (I am imagining an example of a woman who has delayed chemo for the safety of her baby, only to find out post 24 weeks her baby will not survive birth; an abortion might leave her in better shape to handle the chemo than a C-section or even a vaginal delivery...would the less stress physically be of enough value?)

(not a challenge, curious about your point of view)

There may be an increased risk of intercranial bleeding due to hormones during pregnancy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404782/

No mom in her right mind would want her stillborn baby cut up and torn apart. It's your only chance to see your baby. My doctor said he would never recommend it to any mom dealing with a stillbirth.  It does more damage to the mom's mental state. 

 Giving birth is way easier on the mom than an abortion or a csection. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Gray said:

Interesting side note - nearly half of all late term abortions are late because women have a hard time finding access to abortion care. 

Overheard; "yeah, out of the 1793+ abortion clinics, you can never find one soon enough. I guess I'll just have to kill my baby at a later term."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Calm said,

I think it needs to be pointed out that c section or vaginal delivery are the only 2 options.  Alive or dead, the baby needs to come out one way or the other, so abortion doesn't reduce any trauma to the mother. 

I don’t want to be graphic, but the size and position of the skull makes a difference in a vaginal delivery. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t want to be graphic, but the size and position of the skull makes a difference in a vaginal delivery. 

I remember studying about D&E abortions in nursing school and almost vomiting.  For some reason I thought they were banned. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2019 at 6:46 PM, Anijen said:

Overheard; "yeah, out of the 1793+ abortion clinics, you can never find one soon enough. I guess I'll just have to kill my baby at a later term."

I guess the pro-life movement is cool with that. Everything they do seems aimed at driving up abortion rates.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2019 at 4:02 PM, cherryTreez said:

I have carried 5 babies. I knew so much about them before they were born.  I could list things about their personalities that I knew from before their births. My mom could do it as well. 

Brigham Young said "when a mother feels life come to her infant, it is the spirit entering the body.'   And Presidident Joseph Fielding Smith said "that these little ones will receive a resurrection and then belong to us.'

I felt my daughter kick at 10 weeks. I thought that I was crazy. I told my ob about it. He said then let's find out. We did an ultrasound then and sure enough what I had felt and thought was movement was her moving around. 

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

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2019 at 2:41 PM, Storm Rider said:

Word games are really tedious and unhelpful. You seem get the grasp of the desire to use synonyms, just quite don't have enough of a grasp of the language to be successful. For example, a miscarriage is the spontaneous reaction of the woman's body toward the pregnancy. An "abortion" is the overt action of the mother to murder the child within her. You see the difference?  One is a spontaneous reaction - an action that is out of the control of the mother - and the other is the result of an action of the mother. Give it some time, it will sink in. 

I'm not the one calling blastocysts "babies" for emotional effect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2019 at 1:56 PM, pogi said:

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. 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 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.

That the fetus would not live long outside of the womb does not make killing it in the womb medically necessary though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That the fetus would not live long outside of the womb does not make killing it in the womb medically necessary though.

Removing the fetus would cause it to die, making it an abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Removing the fetus would cause it to die, making it an abortion.

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.

  • 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...