Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow... I actually reply and you have a problem with the formt? How would you like it? I can even color code each response if you would like?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

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.

Why not? My whole philisophy is that the unborn is developing into a human and that it's not quite there yet. With that assumption it makes perfect sense to say its close enough to a human at these late stages to be protected but not close enough at these early stages to be protected.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

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.

I've not denied it's alive. I've denied that it's a human being and apparently you deny its a human being also. It can't be both a human being and a potential human being.

[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.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

I hardly think misconstruing somebody else's posts is being nice.

Saying you are splitting hairs is not being disrespectful.

Your questions are very generic and you are assuming I should make somebody else's decision for them.


However, I will attempt to answer your revised questions below to the best of my ability.

Originally Posted by jfrog

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?

If it were me, I would have to be near death for this to happen...and by that time, the decision would have been taken out of my hands. My doctor and my family would make that decision if I had not already specified. That being said...in a near deathly existence, the unborn with a very low chance of survival outside the womb would likewise die along with me if it were chosen for me not to have the baby removed.

So...allowing both mother and baby with a low chance of survival... dying together would prove ...what???

Originally Posted by jfrog

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?

How would she know she doesn't have a good chance of survival? Is she deathly sick when this chance of survival is brought to her attention? Otherwise, how can any doctor make this assumption and be accurate?

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

I am going to assume that you are talking about the mother making a decision to have her baby removed and that baby has no chance of surviving.

It depends on a lot of things.

Is the mother healthy when she made the decision to remove the baby? If she is healthy with no emergency medical problems whatsoever and she chooses to remove the baby, then yes, it would be an abortion. But how does this question fit into my assertions that medical procedures to deliver babies because of the mother's medical emergencies are not intentional abortions, but early deliveries if there is a good chance that the baby will survive?

If the baby has little to no chance of survival what good comes of it to allow both to die? What difference would it make if one calls this scenario a
medical procedure or a therapeutic abortion? The unborn would still be removed and the mother *might* make it through.

I'm sorry but there are no simple answers to the questions you pose.

There are so many variables to your questions that it is impossible to answer them accurately.

I look at these questions through the eyes of a medical professional and would never give a point blank answer without some facts as to the condition of both mother and baby.

It would be deceptive for a physician to tell a pregnant woman in her early pregnancy that she might die when there is no medical evidence to base that on. I would run to the next doctor had one told me that.

For one who chose to terminate her pregnancy because she "thought" she might die, well I would have to agree that it would be an abortion.

Women should think about these possible scenarios before they find themselves in compromising conditions. Women are the ones who bear the babies, the shame other people heap upon them, the financial cost and sometimes the ultimate cost. They should think before they decide to be with any man.

Men don't bear the cost like the women do and shouldn't place women in these compromising conditions for their moment of pleasure unless they plan to marry them and stick it out till death do they part.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Wow... I actually reply and you have a problem with the formt? How would you like it? I can even color code each response if you would like?

It's confusing for your answers to be in quotes. It looks like your answers are quoting me, when they are answers, not questions.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Why not? My whole philisophy is that the unborn is developing into a human and that it's not quite there yet. With that assumption it makes perfect sense to say its close enough to a human at these late stages to be protected but not close enough at these early stages to be protected.

So you admit to hypocrisy? A "zygote" as you call it...will eventually develop into a human if you leave it alone.

But for the record, it is no longer a zygote by the time it implants itself into the uterus.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I've not denied it's alive. I've denied that it's a human being and apparently you deny its a human being also. It can't be both a human being and a potential human being.

Splitting hairs again.

yes, it can. What would it turn into if left in the womb to grow? A flying pig?

The embryo has all the human DNA and genetics of it's parents.

I am amused at the absurdity of your reasoning.

So since you deny it is a human being, it's ok to kill the embryo that has the potential of becoming a human being. Even frozen embryos have been protected by the courts.

..And it was said that black people were only 2/3 human or such nonsense as that.. so it was ok for the master's to work them, beat them and do anything they wanted to do.

Hmmm....you never know if governments somewhere in the world may pass a law declaring you are not a human being....

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

1. I automatically question the no chance of survival (this is based in part on the many many who were told this only to deliver babies in spite of the prediction) My first course of action would be to get another opinion.

2. However, assuming you are correct that there is "no chance"... I view this in similar way as when a doctor tells a patient he is terminal and he has only a few days to live. We can nurture, support and pray for this individual, or simply tear him apart limb by limb and call it a noble event.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

1. I automatically question the no chance of survival (this is based in part on the many many who were told this only to deliver babies in spite of the prediction) My first course of action would be to get another opinion.

2. However, assuming you are correct that there is "no chance"... I view this in similar way as when a doctor tells a patient he is terminal and he has only a few days to live. We can nurture, support and pray for this individual, or simply tear him apart limb by limb and call it a noble event.

I can agree with those two opinions. However I must note that in the case of no chance of survival I would imagine it's easier and less risky to perform an abortion than to cut the woman open to deliver the child. So while I can understand and respect your opinion that it's different I can also understand and respect a woman that did choose the easier option for herself when there was no chance either way for the unborn.