Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Further,
1. All abortions are willful whether for medical reasons or not.
2. I'll give you a chance to explain but I think you are simply rationalizing your stance that all abortions are wrong by simply not calling certain acts abortions that a normal person would. For example you seem to shy away from calling a medically beneficial procedure to terminate pregnancy an abortion even though it has an identical result of a unborn baby that will never see the light of day. Care to elaborate?
|
Thank you for giving me the chance to explain. I hope you do not have your mind made up by you thinking I am rationalizing by not calling certain medical procedures willful abortions.
It depends on the medical conditions a woman has in her pregnancy. Normal people do not always know what these medical conditions are. Yes, I would not call some medically beneficial procedures to be an "abortion" as most understand what abortion is generally known to be today.
Abortions as we generally understand it today to be are the procedures taken by medical personal to remove a fetus, thereby preventing it's chance to develop and live, even up to birth. It is a gruesome death for the fetus in most cases. In partial birth abortion, the baby is snuffed before it comes out of the birth canal. Some hail President Bush as outlawing partial birth abortions, but there are medical doctors who have come forward to say that the wording of the law leaves a loophole big enough for a mack truck to drive through and does not stop partial birth abortions. That is a totally different subject so I will move on to stay on topic here.
Some
medical procedures to save the life of the mother sometimes cause the baby to die and sometimes not. I would not consider these to be abortions because the mother is not willfully trying to rid herself of her baby. These are conditions that many times rapidly develop and endanger the life of both mother and baby.
I will discuss just a couple because it is late and 7 am comes fast.
Take for instance molar pregnancies. They are technically identified as pregnancies, but bear no resemblance to a baby. Molar pregnancies have no viable genetic material that would form into a human being. The surgical removal of a molar pregnancy might be called an abortion, but in reality, there is not a viable, living human being being "aborted". This is but one example of what I call a medical procedure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydatidiform_mole
Next. Placenta Abruption.
The placenta is a structure that develops in the uterus during pregnancy to nourish the growing baby. If the placenta peels away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery — either partially or completely — it's known as placental abruption. Placental abruption can deprive the baby of oxygen and nutrients and cause heavy bleeding in the mother.
The placenta is a structure that develops in the uterus during pregnancy to nourish the growing baby. If the placenta peels away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery — either partially or completely — it's known as placental abruption. Placental abruption can deprive the baby of oxygen and nutrients and cause heavy bleeding in the mother.
Placental abruption often happens suddenly. Left untreated, placental abruption puts both mother and baby in jeopardy.
My niece had this serious complication. She nearly lost her life from loss of blood. She will never be able to have another child as they had to remove her uterus. They were unable to save the baby as the baby died in the womb. However, even if the baby did not die in the womb, the baby would have had to been surgically removed and put on life support because had they not done this medical procedure, both would have died. Sometimes the baby will die anyway because it is just too fragile to live outside the womb. Would you consider this medical procedure a willful abortion? Would you think that both should die?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pla...uption/DS00623
Let's look at toxemia and preeclampsia. Thousands of women and babies die or get very sick each year from a dangerous condition called preeclampsia, a life-threatening disorder that occurs only during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Preeclampsia and related disorders such as HELLP syndrome and eclampsia are most often characterized by a rapid rise in blood pressure that can lead to seizure, stroke, multiple organ failure and death of the mother and/or baby.
My co-worker had this illness. Her blood pressure at work suddenly went up to stroke levels and she nearly died. She started having seizures. They had to surgically remove her baby at 6 1/2 months gestation. The good news is that emergency intensive care for baby and mother was instituted and both were saved, although it was quite iffy for baby for a time. The baby was a fighter and 22 years ago, there were medical advances for a preemie such as this, but they were not always successful.
Would you have advocated that the baby stayed in the mother's womb so as to avoid what some might call a willful abortion because technically it is the removal of a fetus from the womb? I call this a medical procedure in the attempt to save mother or baby or both.
http://www.preeclampsia.org/
http://www.essortment.com/toxemia-51030.html
These are the type of conditions that I call medical procedures because in all cases I have seen, the mothers wanted these babies.
Lets not split hairs over my choice of wording about the fact that I do not believe in any abortion. Most abortions are willful, I do agree, but I do not classify all "beneficial medical procedures" to be willful abortions or even to be an abortion.
Threaded Mode
