Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think abortions are willful whether the mother wants the baby or not. The will is only taken away if its known both the mother and baby won't make it through pregnancy. If that's not the case then there definetely exists a choice (a willful decision).

Well...I've finally gotten my point across.

However, I would have to question any mother's motives who says they want their baby, then has an abortion done. This is a case that actions speak louder than words.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Well...I've finally gotten my point across.

However, I would have to question any mother's motives who says they want their baby, then has an abortion done. This is a case that actions speak louder than words.

You're point? Your point was that only mothers who are in a predicament such that both them and their baby would die without an abortion are the only choiceless women? I don't think that was your position at all...

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You're point? Your point was that only mothers who are in a predicament such that both them and their baby would die without an abortion are the only choiceless women? I don't think that was your position at all...

Nope. That is not my point! Now you are twisting my post into something that I never said. I already posted earlier that women have a choice...you go look it up what I said those choices are. Do not be so deceptive here in your attempt to portray me as a hypocrite, which I believe you have been trying to do since your very first post to me, despite your denials that your post was not a personal attack on me. Maybe I did not overreact. Maybe my instincts about you were correct from the very beginning.

I will try to explain this for others who may be reading this but not posting, because I think frog is a lost cause in this thread.

My point is that when a woman is deep into her pregnancy, 6, 7 or 8 months along, sometimes physiological changes happen and the woman develops conditions such as eclampsia, DIC, Placental Abruption or others. These conditions can become so severe, very grave and life threatening that the baby must be taken in order to save the life of the mother and baby. If the mother does not survive, then the baby surely will not survive either.

Now frog has been twisting my statements about "medical procedures" which is the removal of the baby from the uterus under these conditions by changing the definition of medical procedure by calling it an abortion. You are so very wrong in your thinking and understanding the difference between medical procedures and abortions. If this is the case, then every OBGYN physician would be offended at you because you would be inferring that they are abortionists. Most OBGYN physicians value the sanctity of life and have nothing to do with abortion.

Abortion, at it's crudest definition, would be the termination of pregnancy so that the child will never "see the light of day" in your own words. Whether it is 21 days gestation with a fetal heart beat or further along in it's fetal growth cycle, it is human from the beginning of it's conception. It takes a human female egg and human male sperm to fertilize that egg in the natural way that God intended. If left alone, in less than one month the baby has a heart and circulatory system that is beating and circulating blood throughout it's tiny body. That makes it human from day one, not further along when it begins to "look more" human.

At the latter stages of pregnancy, if illness develops, the removal (medical/surgical procedure) of the baby from the uterus is medically described as delivery, not abortion of the newborn or neonatal newborn for premature babies. This is the attempt to save the life of both mother and baby, not to kill the baby as one would do in an abortion. Big difference.

The physicians do everything within their power to try to save the life of the newborn, which is in stark contrast of what abortionists do when they terminate a woman's pregnancy.

Would frog consider a woman who elects to deliver her baby by cesarean section before natural labor starts... to be an abortion? After all...that is the termination of a pregnancy in its crudest definition.

Not all pregnancy terminations are willful abortions, it has to be willful in the sense that there is an attempt to kill the baby.


You misconstrued my postings and have attempted to blow smoke in people's eyes about my stance from the very get go.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Nope. That is not my point! Now you are twisting my post into something that I never said. I already posted earlier that women have a choice...you go look it up what I said those choices are. Do not be so deceptive here in your attempt to portray me as a hypocrite, which I believe you have been trying to do since your very first post to me, despite your denials that your post was not a personal attack on me. Maybe I did not overreact. Maybe my instincts about you were correct from the very beginning.

I will try to explain this for others who may be reading this but not posting, because I think frog is a lost cause in this thread.

My point is that when a woman is deep into her pregnancy, 6, 7 or 8 months along, sometimes physiological changes happen and the woman develops conditions such as eclampsia, DIC, Placental Abruption or others. These conditions can become so severe, very grave and life threatening that the baby must be taken in order to save the life of the mother and baby. If the mother does not survive, then the baby surely will not survive either.

Now frog has been twisting my statements about "medical procedures" which is the removal of the baby from the uterus under these conditions by changing the definition of medical procedure by calling it an abortion. You are so very wrong in your thinking and understanding the difference between medical procedures and abortions. If this is the case, then every OBGYN physician would be offended at you because you would be inferring that they are abortionists. Most OBGYN physicians value the sanctity of life and have nothing to do with abortion.

Abortion, at it's crudest definition, would be the termination of pregnancy so that the child will never "see the light of day" in your own words. Whether it is 21 days gestation with a fetal heart beat or further along in it's fetal growth cycle, it is human from the beginning of it's conception. It takes a human female egg and human male sperm to fertilize that egg in the natural way that God intended. If left alone, in less than one month the baby has a heart and circulatory system that is beating and circulating blood throughout it's tiny body. That makes it human from day one, not further along when it begins to "look more" human.

At the latter stages of pregnancy, if illness develops, the removal (medical/surgical procedure) of the baby from the uterus is medically described as delivery, not abortion of the newborn or neonatal newborn for premature babies. This is the attempt to save the life of both mother and baby, not to kill the baby as one would do in an abortion. Big difference.

The physicians do everything within their power to try to save the life of the newborn, which is in stark contrast of what abortionists do when they terminate a woman's pregnancy.

Would frog consider a woman who elects to deliver her baby by cesarean section before natural labor starts... to be an abortion? After all...that is the termination of a pregnancy in its crudest definition.

Not all pregnancy terminations are willful abortions, it has to be willful in the sense that there is an attempt to kill the baby.

You misconstrued my postings and have attempted to blow smoke in people's eyes about my stance from the very get go.

Hopefully that helps clarify.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Well...I've finally gotten my point across.

However, I would have to question any mother's motives who says they want their baby, then has an abortion done. This is a case that actions speak louder than words.

Certain death scenarios for all involved is the only realm I can think a woman is without a choice. Say the doctor gives her a 40% chance to live with an abortion and her and her baby both a 20% chance to live without an abortion. That's a choice wouldn't you say?

Or let's say she has a will surely live with an abortion and will surely die without one. But the baby will surely live if she doesn't have one. That's still a choice and there's no trying to save both patients in this scenario...

Or let's say she has a 80% chance of living with an abortion and her and her baby both have a 35% chance of living without an abortion. She still has a choice here too.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Certain death scenarios for all involved is the only realm I can think a woman is without a choice. Say the doctor gives her a 40% chance to live with an abortion and her and her baby both a 20% chance to live without an abortion. That's a choice wouldn't you say?

Or let's say she has a will surely live with an abortion and will surely die without one. But the baby will surely live if she doesn't have one. That's still a choice and there's no trying to save both patients in this scenario...

Or let's say she has a 80% chance of living with an abortion and her and her baby both have a 35% chance of living without an abortion. She still has a choice here too.

It is scenarios like the last bolded one where I say medical procedures exist but even though it's not a choice of whether she wants the baby or not its still a choice about whether to have an abortion or not. It all goes back to what I was saying about those that count them as murder. In the scenario that a person equates them to murder it would be hypocritical for them to choose an abortion only for a better chance of survival for themselves.

Those are the kind of medical procedures where I say a woman still can have a willful abortion.

[Titus2woman]

All this talk about people deciding when a fetus becomes a human is just so much blabber... Since we don't make humans what we think is irrelevant. God either makes a human when egg meets sperm or he makes one when it breathes it's first breath, we may never know which one but most of us seem to believe it is at conception. I just can't fathom a God who says "Now that you have wonderful medical interventions that can most likely save a baby born at 24 weeks it becomes human then'. Or 'Well... yes, fetuses become more attractive to adult humans at about 18 weeks gestation so it is then they will become human'- Pish-posh. In less developed countries any baby born before 35 weeks is at serious risk of death simply from prematurity.

So with those thoughts in mind I agree with those who believe a fetus is a person at conception. And no I don't have any trouble identifying a cell mass as human. It contains every particle of DNA necessary to become a full person and will if not interrupted.

I simply believe that there are times when a woman's right to live or her right to not be victimized trumps a fetuses right to live. I don't try to fool myself into believing that it is not really 'a person' that is being killed as there is nothing else it would have been if not killed. I still believe that there are times when it may be killed and God would not disagree. I do not believe God sees death the same way we do as evidenced by the fact that 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. That is 20% God could save if he chose.

And I do not only support removing a fetus when it would have a better chance of life outside the womb. For certain reasons I believe it is a woman's right to have a fetus removed if it will for 100% certain die.

I strongly believe that we should set standards for what trumps the life of an unborn and we should give it the weight that any such terrible thing deserves, not treat is like another day at the office. Abortion on demand is horrible and should be repealed. Trying to justify by saying it's too hard to know who is a candidate is just hot real... We insert ourselves into all kinds of other medical decisions and make people get extensive documentation including psychiatric evaluation and serious medical screening before such simple things as weight loss surgery or other controversial procedures.There is no reason it could not be done for elective TOP when an emergent situation is not presenting.

We need to bust the myth that it won't work or it's an all or nothing deal where there will either be no elective TOP ever for anyone anywhere or there will be at will abortion to the tune of millions a year. It is this attitude and stonewalling that has kept Christians from making any legal headway because most people are not crazy enough to think for one minute that they would let their wives, mothers, sisters, aunts. cousins, or friends die carrying a baby that can not live, or make a child carry a child of rape or incest or any of the other reasonable reasons for terminating a pregnancy.

So it is not just a political position while fetuses are killed for reasons as simple as 'this isn't a good time, I have another semester in college', 'we didn't want a pregnancy until after the big wedding'... 'my dress won't fit if I'm pregnant', 'My husband and I only wanted two kids, three is too many' or any of the other really lame reasons I've heard over the years. We have some patient that have had six... count 'em SIX terminations... 'the pill makes me nauseous'... 'I don't like using condoms' ... 'he refuses to wear a condom'...

Time for reality or bust... so far IMO the Church has chosen bust.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

All this talk about people deciding when a fetus becomes a human is just so much blabber... Since we don't make humans what we think is irrelevant. God either makes a human when egg meets sperm or he makes one when it breathes it's first breath, we may never know which one but most of us seem to believe it is at conception. I just can't fathom a God who says "Now that you have wonderful medical interventions that can most likely save a baby born at 24 weeks it becomes human then'. Or 'Well... yes, fetuses become more attractive to adult humans at about 18 weeks gestation so it is then they will become human'- Pish-posh. In less developed countries any baby born before 35 weeks is at serious risk of death simply from prematurity.

So with those thoughts in mind I agree with those who believe a fetus is a person at conception. And no I don't have any trouble identifying a cell mass as human. It contains every particle of DNA necessary to become a full person and will if not interrupted.

I simply believe that there are times when a woman's right to live or her right to not be victimized trumps a fetuses right to live. I don't try to fool myself into believing that it is not really 'a person' that is being killed as there is nothing else it would have been if not killed. I still believe that there are times when it may be killed and God would not disagree. I do not believe God sees death the same way we do as evidenced by the fact that 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. That is 20% God could save if he chose.

And I do not only support removing a fetus when it would have a better chance of life outside the womb. For certain reasons I believe it is a woman's right to have a fetus removed if it will for 100% certain die.

I strongly believe that we should set standards for what trumps the life of an unborn and we should give it the weight that any such terrible thing deserves, not treat is like another day at the office. Abortion on demand is horrible and should be repealed. Trying to justify by saying it's too hard to know who is a candidate is just hot real... We insert ourselves into all kinds of other medical decisions and make people get extensive documentation including psychiatric evaluation and serious medical screening before such simple things as weight loss surgery or other controversial procedures.There is no reason it could not be done for elective TOP when an emergent situation is not presenting.

We need to bust the myth that it won't work or it's an all or nothing deal where there will either be no elective TOP ever for anyone anywhere or there will be at will abortion to the tune of millions a year. It is this attitude and stonewalling that has kept Christians from making any legal headway because most people are not crazy enough to think for one minute that they would let their wives, mothers, sisters, aunts. cousins, or friends die carrying a baby that can not live, or make a child carry a child of rape or incest or any of the other reasonable reasons for terminating a pregnancy.

So it is not just a political position while fetuses are killed for reasons as simple as 'this isn't a good time, I have another semester in college', 'we didn't want a pregnancy until after the big wedding'... 'my dress won't fit if I'm pregnant', 'My husband and I only wanted two kids, three is too many' or any of the other really lame reasons I've heard over the years. We have some patient that have had six... count 'em SIX terminations... 'the pill makes me nauseous'... 'I don't like using condoms' ... 'he refuses to wear a condom'...

Time for reality or bust... so far IMO the Church has chosen bust.

Here's a few simple facts:
God has never said when a fetus becomes human. He's never said it's at conception. He's never said it's at first breath. He's never even said it's not somewhere in between.

God has said it's wrong to murder but nowhere is it written that abortion equates to murder. God has never even said it's wrong to abort an unborn. To sum it all up, the scriptures and God himself are both totally silent when it comes to the issue of abortion.

2ndly, my position has nothing to do with moving the goal posts for when a fetus becomes human. Medical advancements that can allow a fetus to leave the womb early and still survive don't mean I need to start classifying that fetus as a human just because we found a way to let it leave the womb. It's still a fetus in this case, it's just a fetus living outside the womb. It will still become a human at the same developmental milestones as a fetus living inside the womb.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Here's a few simple facts:


Medical advancements that can allow a fetus to leave the womb early and still survive don't mean I need to start classifying that fetus as a human just because we found a way to let it leave the womb. It's still a fetus in this case, it's just a fetus living outside the womb. It will still become a human at the same developmental milestones as a fetus living inside the womb.

The fact that it is a BABY and not a fetus outside the womb at any gestational age that we can make it live disproves what you are saying... When exactly was the last time you walked up to a mother with a 35 week infant in her arms and said "cute fetus"?

Also if it is a fetus until the normal time of delivery (approx 40 weeks) may we then kill it when it is outside the womb even if it needs no medical interventions to live? Your thinking on this one is scary frog.... very scary and I am not a strict pro-lifer by any means...

Edited to remove snipey comments before anyone reads them.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

The fact that it is a BABY and not a fetus outside the womb at any gestational age that we can make it live disproves what you are saying... When exactly was the last time you walked up to a mother with a 35 week infant in her arms and said "cute fetus"?

Also if it is a fetus until the normal time of delivery (approx 40 weeks) may we then kill it when it is outside the womb even if it needs no medical interventions to live? Your thinking on this one is scary frog.... very scary and I am not a strict pro-lifer by any means...

Edited to remove snipey comments before anyone reads them.

I would consider a 35 week old whether inside the womb or outside the womb a human being. But I understand the crux of your question and so let me try to answer it. I am against the killing of anything that can live outside the womb whether it be inside or outside the womb. It makes no sense to me to allow the killing of something that either is or will become human which can be born and live without the mother.