Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[jfrog]

I found this in reading:

Anti-choicers must claim that fetuses are human beings, of course, or they really have no case against abortion. Since this claim is the cornerstone of their position, it should be critiqued in detail, from philosophical, legal, social, and biological perspectives[2]. Even though it has little relevance for the actual practice of abortion, the assertion that fetuses are human beings has a potentially great impact on the rights of women.

Another paragraph

Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human?" —as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote

And another

An alternate phrase heard by anti-choicers is: "It's a life"—another ambiguous and vague term. A fetus is certainly alive, and it might fairly be argued that a fetus is a distinct living entity (a debatable point though, because of fetal dependence on a woman's body), but this reasoning can apply to any living thing, including worms and germs. Simply calling a fetus "a life" says nothing, unless the term is meant as another way of saying "a human being," which means anti-choicers are just begging the question again.

And another

Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses.

I think it elaborates on my position quite well.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think it elaborates on my position quite well.

I would disagree with the last paragraph. Though it seems that most of us are willing to make an exception, we are actually willing to be incremental in our destruction of legalized abortions. Since these three situations actually make up less than 1% of all abortions performed, there is little grounds for an accusation of hypocracy. This is especially true when it is concidered that most of us wish to an end to all legalized abortions.

[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 Jay

I would disagree with the last paragraph. Though it seems that most of us are willing to make an exception, we are actually willing to be incremental in our destruction of legalized abortions. Since these three situations actually make up less than 1% of all abortions performed, there is little grounds for an accusation of hypocracy. This is especially true when it is concidered that most of us wish to an end to all legalized abortions.

99% or 1% or ever .1% it doesn't matter. All it takes for hypocrisy is one action that goes against your stated beliefs...

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human?" —as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote

It is an established medical fact that this "zygote" has a heart and a circulatory system that delivers blood throughout it's tiny body at 21 days of gestation. By the time most women even think they may be pregnant, this "zygote" is pumping blood throughout it's own body for oxygen and nourishment coming from the mother's placenta.

God word says that "life is in the blood". That makes this life a viable potential human being.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

99% or 1% or ever .1% it doesn't matter. All it takes for hypocrisy is one action that goes against your stated beliefs...

And you don't think it is hypocrisy for someone to say that it's not ok to abort a baby after a certain amount of time of growth in the womb "because it looks more human"?

If it is not ok later in the pregnancy, then it should not be ok in the early most important time of the pregnancy when the baby is developing.

[AreYouReady?]

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.

No. You are skewing the issue here. If pregnant lady's doctor tells her she or her baby only has a certain percentage chance of living so early on in her pregnancy, she should run...not walk..to another physician. I don't know of any physician who can accurately make those predictions.

Again, you split hairs.

[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.

[AreYouReady?]

What? That mess you just posted that blended in with my postings is a clarification?

You have your answers in quotes as if I quoted them.

I am beginning to think you are using sorcery tactics for confusion.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

No. You are skewing the issue here. If pregnant lady's doctor tells her she or her baby only has a certain percentage chance of living so early on in her pregnancy, she should run...not walk..to another physician. I don't know of any physician who can accurately make those predictions.

Again, you split hairs.

I've been nice and not accused you of little things like splitting hairs but the least you can do is actually address the issue I keep on repeatedly bringing up.

A woman that knows she has a better chance of survival if she undertakes a medical procedure that removes the unborn with a very low chance of survival. Should she undertake that procedure?

A woman that knows she has a better chance of survival if she undertakes a medical procedure that removes the unborn with no chance of survival. Should she undertake that procedure?

Is there any difference between a woman having an unborn removed with no chance of survival and having an actual abortion?