Why is it OK to kill a woman, but not a baby?

Originally posted by riley
Thankyou.. I'm still confused however how they managed to get stats on records that aren't supposed to be public.
Now perhaps you could explain to me how a woman's medical business should be anyone else's apart from her own?

It's usually via voluntary questionnaire, not medical records, per se.

As for your question...the part people generally object to isn't about the woman's personal medical business - but rather, the matter of another human being's business not being taken into consideration.

That's the argument, at least.

(you know my thoughts on this...just trying to answer your question objectively )

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
It's usually via voluntary questionnaire, not medical records, per se.

okie dokie then.. I admit there a many abortions not done for medical reasons [though I wouldn't assume instead that they're trivial] but all the stats prove is that they exist.. seekers point seemed to be focusing more on the 'other women' which is already being discussed in the thousand other threads here anyway.

As for your question...the part people generally object to isn't about the woman's personal medical business - but rather, the matter of another human being's business not being taken into consideration.

That's the argument, at least.

When it comes to the crunch though it puts the woman competing for basic rights with a fetus [usually in the first trimestor] she does not want to carry so her rights would be relinquished for the duration of the pregnacy. This in essence demotes her from human being to incubator. Someone demanding a woman to carry a pregnancy that threatens her health life [against her will] would border on abusive to me.. someone also thinking they have a right to impose on her medical business to me is also the same thing as it could compromise not only her rights but her health. I'm not sure what prolifers want.. 'Prove you're nuts and couldn't cope, prove you were raped [yeah right- it's rarely provable anyway], prove you have an ectopic pregnancy, prove it's seriously deformed.. [then how deformed does it have to be?] etc etc'.. I'm guessing we're talking abortion restrictions which is not possible without officals sifting through medical records. How can people talk about the right to life if they're willing to forfeit the quality of the mother's? It's a contradiction.

(you know my thoughts on this...just trying to answer your question objectively

)

Thankyou. [I suspect would've taken several more pages for others to say the same thing.]

[edit on 17-9-2005 by riley]

Why is it OK to kill a woman, but not a baby?

I doubt anybody can do a procedure that would entail killing off a baby or a mother without permission from the woman herself. Mother's sacrifice their own life in everyday around the world in order for their baby to live , and also mother's make decisions everyday around the world for the baby to be aborted in order for her to live. so it's not ok to kill herself or her baby without her ok.

They don't want to save the life of the mother by aborting the child.

Tough minoodles of them then huh, and i've also never heard of that kind of statement before.

I guess i'd like to know where it comes from and if you could provide evidence to back up that accusation.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by TrueLies]

[edit on 17-9-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
But what most pro-lifers want seems to go way beyond that.
They don't want to save the life of the mother by aborting the child.

None of the pro-life people I know think that way. I am pro-life
and I don't. Why do you say 'most pro-lifers want ...' ?
How do you know what most want?

Originally posted by dollmonster
why is it OK to kill everyone except babies? Have you ever noticed how many pro-lifers are staunch supporters of capital punishment?

Again ... none of the pro-lifers I know are in favor of the death penalty.
Myself included - Pro-life - which means anti-death penalty.

Are ya'll making sweeping stereotypical generalizations? hmmmm??

Originally posted by riley
Sometimes the fetus gets concieved in the fallopian tube.
That is a death sentence.

That's a tubal pregnancy that ends with a tubal ligation.
It's NOT considered an abortion. It's a totally separate
medical procedure. Ectopic pregnancy, as previously
stated and I agree with.



[edit on 9/17/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by riley
Sometimes the fetus gets concieved in the fallopian tube.
That is a death sentence.

That's a tubal pregnancy that ends with a tubal ligation.
It's NOT considered an abortion. It's a totally separate
medical procedure. Ectopic pregnancy, as previously
stated and I agree with.

Terminating a preganancy is abortion.. regardless of how different the procedure is it is still ending the life of a fetus is it not? True, some pro-lifers might like consider it not abortion because if they didn't they would be condoning something they are meant to be against which would be hypocritical. You can't change facts just because they are politically uncomfortable.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
Terminating a preganancy is abortion.. regardless of how different the procedure is it is still ending the life of a fetus is it not? True, some pro-lifers might like consider it not abortion because if they didn't they would be condoning something they are meant to be against which would be hypocritical. You can't change facts just because they are politically uncomfortable.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by riley]

Thing of it is though, if you have an ectopic pregnancy, it's not about the "right to choose."

Obviously the child must come out. It's too bad we don't have the technology to re-implant the baby where he/she belongs or keep such a young fetus in an incubator.

I might add that having an abortion increases the chance of ectopic pregnancy. And abortion is NOT safe--too many times it kills the mother.

So I'd say the pro-abortion crowd has no problem sacrificing women's lives for their agenda.

Originally posted by Amethyst
I might add that having an abortion increases the chance of ectopic pregnancy. And abortion is NOT safe--too many times it kills the mother.

As does any surgery. It's like anything - it's safe for most patients, unless you're a high risk category to begin with. D&C (for excessive menstrual bleeding, for example) carries the exact same risks.

That's why it's the mother's right to accept those risks.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Amethyst
I might add that having an abortion increases the chance of ectopic pregnancy. And abortion is NOT safe--too many times it kills the mother.

As does any surgery. It's like anything - it's safe for most patients, unless you're a high risk category to begin with. D&C (for excessive menstrual bleeding, for example) carries the exact same risks.

That's why it's the mother's right to accept those risks.

Thing of it is though, you typically have surgery so you don't die, or to improve your condition. With the exception of tubal pregnancies, abortion is a surgery that is COMPLETELY unnecessary.

Notice you said mother. Mother of what, if you don't think the unborn baby is human?

"believe the thought is that in childbirth anything can happen and that God will decide the outcome in the end. After all medical attempts to save both have failed the question comes down to who will survive. I think pro-lifers are saying that we should not make that choice of mother or child but let fate determine. I also think that most mothers would choose to die to let their child live."
----------------------------------------------
then why not let fate determine the outcome when it pertains to c-sections? why force women to have them at the word of doctors, who by the way, many seem to reject when the doctor's medical opinions lash with their personal agendas.


------------------------------------------
No, what came across to me is that you simply don't know enough about abortion to make informed, reasoned judgements on the procedure itself. I would simply encourage you to stick with the Corporate Jesus, faith based initiative of "God says abortion is evil", and stop trying to use logic to prove your point, because you look like a wretched fool unequivically stating, in no uncertain terms...
------------------------------------------
most of us are that uninformed, which is why it is best to allow the doctor and his patient decide what the best treatment is for any medical condition!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

there are at least three laws either being appealed, or in legislatures waiting to be voted on at the moment that give no consideration to the health of the mother.
bush's ban on late term abortions...most members of congress are as uninformed about medicine that the rest of us, but ya, they see no need to any women ever needing one of these, although doctors say there is, so well, it's okay to ban them. Bush is so set that he and his freinds in congress is right, he's refusing to insert anything in this law to make it constitution...to heck with any women who's life might have been saved through this proceedure. so it's going back to his reorganized supreme court. again, I've read two cases where I kind of get the impression that people seem to think they can force women to get c-sections to safe the life of the baby, why are the doctor's more trustworthy in these cases?

there's also a law being challange in the supreme court that demands that minors get parental okay before getting one. If I had a daughter, I sure the heck would want to know that she had an abortion, at least then I wouldn't be griping at her to do her chores and risking her life! but, if I ain't around, and a doctor determines that she needs it or her health will suffer greatly, I'd get danged peeved off it they didn't do it for her!

then there is the total ban on abortion in the ohio legislature, again, no mention of the welfare of the mother.

where in the constitution, does is state that you can prefer the life of one member (any member) or society above the other, and thus support his right to life when it will cause the premature death of the second member?
it doesn't!

=============

"With the exception of tubal pregnancies, abortion is a surgery that is COMPLETELY unnecessary. "

=============

are you sure about that one? sure enough to accept your share of the responsibility for any women who may prove you wrong is she dies if bush's cronies he has in the supreme court do manage to tip the balance and allow these laws to be enforced?
right now, the guilt of those aborted babies, if there justly is any, is on the mother, and well, the father, since he's had his role in the creation of that child also....pass laws that deny medical proceedures and well, if lives are lost that should have been saved, well, that is a national guilt.

it took over 1000 people to expose and evict one of bush's cronies from FEMA, how many lives will it take to evict one from the Supreme Court.

a fetus, by it's very nature, infringes upon the rights of it's mother. I've known women who have ended up in bed the last months of pregnacy. others have turned into raving lunatics pratically. who, other than the mother, has the right to say weather those infringements are too much? you? are you gonna go and live in her house for three months, feed her other kids, do the laundry, clean her house? do the shopping, and all that fine crap that makes a house a home while she's bedridden? a your willing to replace the wages she lost because she can no longer work even?
and are you willing to make it your career for the next 16 years or so, if she happens to die needlessly due to the denial of a medical proceedure that would make all of it avoidable?

didn't think so!







[edit on 3-10-2005 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Amethyst


Thing of it is though, you typically have surgery so you don't die, or to improve your condition. With the exception of tubal pregnancies, abortion is a surgery that is COMPLETELY unnecessary.

So? I'm not seeing your point. Plastic surgery is often completely unnecessary. It's the choice of the patient.

Notice you said mother.

for ease of reference, and since I initially used quotes which included the term "mother". That's all. Nothing else.

Originally posted by dawnstar
then there is the total ban on abortion in the ohio legislature, again, no mention of the welfare of the mother.

Abortion is not safe. Those who promote it obviously don't care about the life/health of the mother. "Health" has such a broad meaning nowadays.

where in the constitution, does is state that you can prefer the life of one member (any member) or society above the other, and thus support his right to life when it will cause the premature death of the second member?
it doesn't!

Where in the Constitution does it say a woman has the right to kill her unborn child? It doesn't!

"Abortion is not safe. Those who promote it obviously don't care about the life/health of the mother. "Health" has such a broad meaning nowadays. "

cutting someone open, and screwing around with someone's heart is really pretty much a dangerous proceedure, but how many lives has heart surgery saved?


"Where in the Constitution does it say a woman has the right to kill her unborn child? It doesn't! "

where in the constitution, does is say a person has the right to have heart surgery, is doesn't!! but, they take money from our paychecks every week and put into afund called medicare, and well, use it to provide that operation for others, in hopes that it will save their lives...
if they can do this, what right do they have to deny a proceedure that might save mine?

what is all boils down to is who's life our government deems to be more worthy of life, the baby, or the mother....only (and this is assuming that the gov't will ever recognize a fetus as equal in stature as the born) the constitution clearly states that we are all equal...they can't hold one above the other! and if they did this, well, now the daughter I just had, is held at a higher esteem than she will be when she reaches childbearing age, what, you willing to demote her rights, granting the fetus full rights to murder their host?


[edit on 3-10-2005 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by dawnstar
what is all boils down to is who's life our government deems to be more worthy of life, the baby, or the mother....only (and this is assuming that the gov't will ever recognize a fetus as equal in stature as the born) the constitution clearly states that we are all equal...they can't hold one above the other! and if they did this, well, now the daughter I just had, is held at a higher esteem than she will be when she reaches childbearing age, what, you willing to demote her rights, granting the fetus full rights to murder their host?


[edit on 3-10-2005 by dawnstar]

Have you considered that, hm, maybe they're EQUAL? Unless by "equal" you mean mother's "rights" trump baby's. In which case, if the baby is equal to the mother you translate it as baby-trumps-mother.

Feminism and the pro-abortion movement USE women for their own agendas.

Abortion is anti-woman.

99% of the time a woman conceives because she was screwing around. Then again, pro-aborts are against personal responsibility. You play, you pay. Even the "easy" way out, abortion, comes with a hefty price. It could be your fertility, it could be your LIFE.

Women are being exploited by the abortion industry. So yeah, I'm concerned about BOTH.

My son is very lucky. I recognized his right to life from day one. Then again, I'd been married to his father seven years when he was conceived....

have you considered....that in much of the world, it is still a reality that women have no choice but to screw around with her husband, and well, if you take the christian doctrine at it's word, God doesn't give her that right!!

What I am saying:

that IF YOU CONSIDER the two equal, if the issue is truly the health of the mother, then it falls in the same category as all other laws up holding the right to defend ourselves.....
should we make it illegal for police officers to use tasers or guns, when the criminal is acting a hostile manner?
should we sit around and twiddle our thumbs and let fate decide our future while north korea aims nukes at us and begins entering the launch codes?
should we condemn women for using that same primal instint when she aborts a fetus to save her life?

[edit on 3-10-2005 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by dawnstar
have you considered....that in much of the world, it is still a reality that women have no choice but to screw around with her husband, and well, if you take the christian doctrine at it's word, God doesn't give her that right!!

The Bible says that the wife's body belongs to her husband AND that the husband's body belongs to his wife.

What I am saying:

that IF YOU CONSIDER the two equal, if the issue is truly the health of the mother, then it falls in the same category as all other laws up holding the right to defend ourselves.....

[edit on 3-10-2005 by dawnstar]

Define "health."

You make it sound like the baby is the intruder. First off, the baby didn't just crawl up in there and decide to take residence solely to inconvenience the mother. Secondly, a woman's body is DESIGNED to nurture an unborn child. What do you think reproduction entails? What are we reproducing? Why, I think it's humans!

it's designed to walk also, so why do I have so much trouble sometimes walking? oh, ya, sometimes, there is imperfections either there from birth, or developed over time, that makes the body not able to do what it was designed to do!

the wife's body is the husbands...you stated if yourself!! so, when it comes to reproduction, according to the christian religion, the wife HAS NO CHOICE, it it given to the husband to make, who's life an well being isn't at stake regardless of his decision.

Originally posted by dawnstar
the wife's body is the husbands...you stated if yourself!! so, when it comes to reproduction, according to the christian religion, the wife HAS NO CHOICE, it it given to the husband to make, who's life an well being isn't at stake regardless of his decision.

Did you miss the part where I said "the husband's body is his wife's" on purpose, or was that an accidental oversight?

Funny thing is...it was my husband who determined that we should have only one child, and he had a vasectomy. And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having more children.

And would you please define "health"? What do you mean by "health"?

I could barely walk the last two weeks of my pregnancy--but you know what, my son is MORE than worth it! If anything, pregnancy is oftentimes a temporary discomfort...seldom if ever does it threaten a woman's life.