Maryland Abortion Doctors Charged With Murder


gerryh
#181
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Well, that makes it so much easier to understand since you put it that way. I should have guessed the baby not being human is a monkey or a rhinocerus!


No no no.... when you bring that up, then they use the "potential" human argument.
 
L Gilbert
#182
[QUOTE=JLM;1530905]
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post


That won't fly! Instinct to survive is not a matter of comprehension. Failure to communicate is not permission to kill the child!

Since when were we talking about instinct? You said, "When you decide to have an abortion, what does the fetus get to decide? and who is acting on his/her behalf?"
to which I replied,
"Give the fetus all the available information from conception to death and then let it decide for itself if it wants to live? What an odd idea."
And you queried, "what's odd about that?"
Besides, how can you measure the survivability instinct in a fetus?
 
JLM
#183
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

No no no.... when you bring that up, then they use the "potential" human argument.

Yeah, there's a few of us on here who are quite familiar with all the ramifications of the subject and really don't need anything "explained" to us! Being a man I'm really not all that interested in deciding what women should do, but I keep running into the problem- "the subject doesn't have a say".
 
L Gilbert
#184
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

lmao...ya...ok.... I'll just keep this off to the side for future use. That would be when you support the murder of fellow humans through war.

You'll be stowing it away never to be seen again then. i think there are better ways of dealing with issues than warring over them. War is wasteful and stupid, like MOST abortions.
 
JLM
#185
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

[Besides, how can you measure the survivability instinct in a fetus?

Until we can, maybe we should leave it alone!
 
L Gilbert
#186
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yeah, there's a few of us on here who are quite familiar with all the ramifications of the subject and really don't need anything "explained" to us! Being a man I'm really not all that interested in deciding what women should do, but I keep running into the problem- "the subject doesn't have a say".

Is it POSSIBLE for the baby to have a say? Anencephaly: FAQ about anencephaly (external - login to view)

Personally, I think it's flatout inhumane to dismiss ALL reasons for abortion and subject a human being to a short life of torture just because of some ignorant sense of morality or because of some some other personal viewpoint.
 
petros
#187
Where the waters get murky is Human Rights and the Rights of the Person.

Charter Rights apply to the Person but not the human.

The definition of human needs to be squared up.

It's undeniable that we are humans from conception but legally as Persons that doesn't come until post birth.
 
gerryh
+1
#188
I just LOVE these idiots that use rare genetic diseases as a justification to kill perfectly healthy baby's.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#189
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Until we can, maybe we should leave it alone!

In most cases, I'd suggest we do leave it alone..

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I just LOVE these idiots that use rare genetic diseases as a justification to kill perfectly healthy baby's.

If that's what you'd call "healthy" then go ahead and mock all you like. But it's not me that's the idiot.
 
gerryh
+2
#190
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

In most cases, I'd suggest we do leave it alone..

If that's what you'd call "healthy" then go ahead and mock all you like. But it's not me that's the idiot.



As I said, why bring up rare genetic diseases to justify abortion. Very VERY few abortions are preformed because of these diseases. The vast majority of abortions are preformed for selfish, self centered reasons that have nothing to do with the baby what so ever.
 
L Gilbert
#191
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

As I said, why bring up rare genetic diseases to justify abortion.

Because I think it's stupid to dismiss any and all abortion.
Quote:

Very VERY few abortions are preformed because of these diseases.

True. But that's no reason to dismiss abortion altogether. Which was my point. And if you had read and UNDERSTOOD my posts, you'd have realised that.
Like I said earlier, " My wife and I are both pro-choice and both of us consider late term abortions to be despicable and inexcusable.
We are both also pro-life. ANY life is precious and should not be stopped except for an extreme reason; survival being one of them, suffering for another."
Quote:

The vast majority of abortions are preformed for selfish, self centered reasons that have nothing to do with the baby what so ever.

I didn't see where you said that, but I agree.
 
Kreskin
#192
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

So we've got an unemployed, homeless, pregnant woman with terminal cancer?

Were these facts suddenly available when she was 33 weeks pregnant, or did she have ample time to put her ducks in order during the pregnancy? I actually don't believe that's possible. Pregnant women have blood tests done at he beginning of the pregnancy for obvious reasons. An abnormal white blood cell count would have been further explored ... so it would not take 33 weeks to identify terminal cancer.

Yes, most of the facts, deaths and eviction came out on week 32. In week 33 it was discovered that she had in fact been raped. She was too scared to speak up because of her Preacher father. Does it pass the social engineer's misery index? Can she move on to go or is further interrogation required?
 
JLM
#193
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I just LOVE these idiots that use rare genetic diseases as a justification to kill perfectly healthy baby's.

Ya like Tay Sachs that strikes about one in 500 billion people! (did I exaggerate?)
 
L Gilbert
#194
Interesting survey on polls: Abortion (external - login to view)
 
Ariadne
#195
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Yes, most of the facts, deaths and eviction came out on week 32. In week 33 it was discovered that she had in fact been raped. She was too scared to speak up because of her Preacher father. Does it pass the social engineer's misery index? Can she move on to go or is further interrogation required?

What a strange tale. So her father was a Preacher - presumably living in a home supplied by the church. The daughter was presumably either living at home with her parents, or living independently with her husband. If she was living with her parents in the church owned home, why did the church put her on the street? Furthermore, why didn't the church rally behind her and help her out after her husband and parents died ... why didn't the church make sure she was not homeless in those circumstances? Also, if she was married, where did the rape come into it ... was she so afraid of her father that she couldn't communicate with her husband? If she was pregnant, presumably receiving proper medical care, why didn't blood tests reveal white blood cell count abnormalities? That would be the first clue that something was wrong and cancer is certainly one of the diseases that are looked for when that happens. Was the child born naturally? I would be very surprised that a fetus like that to a mother with that illness would be born normally or that the medical community would put the mother at further risk by requiring the pregnancy to continue. Nature would either take it's course or a pregnancy like that should be terminated. However, the woman had responsibilities throughout the pregnancy ... one or more of which would have changed her circumstance ... like blood tests, ensuring that her husband had life insurance, etc.

This almost sounds like a story from the Jehovah Witnesses or the National Enquirer. I almost expect the last line of the story to include God's intervention where the mother and baby were miraculously cured.
 
L Gilbert
#196
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Ya like Tay Sachs that strikes about one in 500 billion people! (did I exaggerate?)

Still looking for stats but you mentioned Down's syndrome back a while. Most Down's patients are fine, but they are usually diagnosed with Trisomy 21. Trisomy 13 and 18 are extremely sad cases: "What are trisomy 18 and trisomy 13?
Trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 are genetic disorders that include a combination of birth defects including severe mental retardation, as well as health problems involving nearly every organ system in the body. Unfortunately, 90 percent of babies born with trisomy 18 or 13 die by age 1. It is important to note that 5 to 10 percent of babies with trisomy 18 or 13 do survive the first year of life. Therefore, these disorders are not universally fatal and, in the absence of any immediate life-threatening problems, accurate predictions of life expectancy are difficult to make. There are a few reports of babies with trisomy 18 or 13 surviving to their teens, however, this is unusual.

Trisomy 18 is also called "Edwards syndrome," named after the physician who first described the disorder. Trisomy 13 is called "Patau syndrome," in honor of the physician who first described it. "

Found some stats.

Anencephaly, about 1 in 1000 births Ban abortion for that one? Because?

Trisomy 18, 6 in 1000 Ban abortion for those 6? Because?

Trisomy 13, 2.6 in 1000 Ban abortion for those 2.6? Because?

Spina Bifida, 5 in 1000 Ban abortion for those 5? Because?

Cystic Fibrosis, 0.4 in 1000 Ban abortion for that 0.4? Because?

Tay Sachs? I'll accept your statistic but you have to be aware that although the incidence of it is that rare in the general population, "the genetic mutations that cause this disease are more common in people of Ashkenazi (eastern and central European) Jewish heritage than in those with other backgrounds. The mutations responsible for this disease are also more common in certain French-Canadian communities of Quebec, the Old Order Amish community in Pennsylvania, and the Cajun population of Louisiana." - http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/tay-sachs-disease
So we ban abortion even for these higher risk populations? Because?
 
JLM
#197
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Still looking for stats but you mentioned Down's syndrome back a while. Most Down's patients are fine, but they are usually diagnosed with Trisomy 21. Trisomy 13 and 18 are extremely sad cases: "What are trisomy 18 and trisomy 13?
Trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 are genetic disorders that include a combination of birth defects including severe mental retardation, as well as health problems involving nearly every organ system in the body. Unfortunately, 90 percent of babies born with trisomy 18 or 13 die by age 1. It is important to note that 5 to 10 percent of babies with trisomy 18 or 13 do survive the first year of life. Therefore, these disorders are not universally fatal and, in the absence of any immediate life-threatening problems, accurate predictions of life expectancy are difficult to make. There are a few reports of babies with trisomy 18 or 13 surviving to their teens, however, this is unusual.
Trisomy 18 is also called "Edwards syndrome," named after the physician who first described the disorder. Trisomy 13 is called "Patau syndrome," in honor of the physician who first described it. "
Found some stats.
Anencephaly, about 1 in 1000 births Ban abortion for that one? Because?
Trisomy 18, 6 in 1000 Ban abortion for those 6? Because?

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I have NEVER said that ALL abortions should be bannned, as I'm a great believer in "there is an exception to every rule". Potential death of the mother is one. Debillitating disease to the infant may well be another, as the world continues to get more populated with sicker an sicker people, we are very soon going to run out of resources to treat everybody. But to abort solely because it's the mother's right to do so is garbage!
 
Ariadne
+2
#198
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I have NEVER said that ALL abortions should be bannned, as I'm a great believer in "there is an exception to every rule". Potential death of the mother is one. Debillitating disease to the infant may well be another, as the world continues to get more populated with sicker an sicker people, we are very soon going to run out of resources to treat everybody. But to abort solely because it's the mother's right to do so is garbage!

I completely agree. Abortion is certainly a woman's right, but with that right comes responsibilities. Additionally, there are exceptions to the rule. That said, in the Maryland case, with the woman that was 33 weeks pregnant, the procedure was initiated in one state and concluded in another state (because the doctor had legal issues, it had to be done in two states). It's highly unlikely that a woman with a good argument for late term abortion had to resort to this process - more likely, she simply changed her mind and found a doctor to accommodate her.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#199
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I have NEVER said that ALL abortions should be bannned, as I'm a great believer in "there is an exception to every rule". Potential death of the mother is one. Debillitating disease to the infant may well be another, as the world continues to get more populated with sicker an sicker people, we are very soon going to run out of resources to treat everybody. But to abort solely because it's the mother's right to do so is garbage!

Hey, all I did was respond to this crap:
"I just LOVE these idiots that use rare genetic diseases as a justification to kill perfectly healthy baby's." -Gerry

"Ya like Tay Sachs that strikes about one in 500 billion people! (did I exaggerate?)" - You

If you count up all the numbers of babies diagnosed with those afflictions, the medical reasons for abortion aren't all that rare. They're only RELATIVELY rare.
 
bluebyrd35
#200
[QUOTE=JLM;1530840]
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post


Bluebyrd- When you decide to have an abortion, what does the fetus get to decide? and who is acting on his/her behalf?

I already had one. Not a problem. It was spontaneous....you know the kind god causes LOL. As a result the next time I became pregnant was with RH. twin girls. I have already told you their story.

That fetus did not resemble anything much and it was 3 months. Why would you even imagine a piece of tissue could even decide what it's destiny should be. In this case my body decided to eject it.

Getting a glimpse of the lives the average person, it seems I have had a rather rich and marvelously varied life experience. If time permits maybe I will write a book for my child and grandchildren. I surely hope reincarnation is part of the plan, otherwise, god or however one sees spirit will be dealing with a great many stunted souls at life's end.
 
petros
+1
#201
What kind of tissue? Human or some other animal?
 
bluebyrd35
#202
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What kind of tissue? Human or some other animal?

Well, anyone with a modicum of intelligence, knows that human tissue is animal. Only those who accept humans are favoured over all, by a nutcase god, would believe otherwise.
 
petros
-1
#203
Did you keep it in the freezer? What does God have to do with killing your own offspring?
 
bluebyrd35
+2
#204
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Did you keep it in the freezer? What does God have to do with killing your own offspring?


You know it might be wise to learn about terms. Spontaneous means just that. Not induced, not intended. unless one believes in a biblical god, as you seem to. In that case, caused by god.!! I now declare your god a murderer.

I understand only the christian god was entitled to judge.....so in judging me, are you not declaring yourself as god?? In that case I accuse you as the murderer of my second child!! See how stupid belief can be??

In any case, the tissue was scooped out of the toilet and delivered to my doctor,who confired the obvious.
 
petros
#205
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

In any case, the tissue was scooped out of the toilet and delivered to my doctor,who confired the obvious.

And then you put in the freezer?
 
bluebyrd35
+1
#206
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

And then you put in the freezer?

If there is an all encompassing spirit out there, anywhere, you are doomed LOL. Murderer!! Criss, why would anyone save a decaying bit of tissue in a freezer?? Is that what you would do if you were female?? Talk about womb envy. Get used to the idea,, you cannot bear a child. Just because you never can, doesn't mean to say all those who can, wish to!! Suck it up!!
 
petros
#207
I suggest you read the article this thread is based on.
 
Ariadne
#208
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

I already had one. Not a problem. It was spontaneous....you know the kind god causes LOL.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

You know it might be wise to learn about terms.

I doubt many women that experience miscarriage refer to it as an abortion. I think there's quite a difference.
 
gerryh
-1
#209
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I doubt many women that experience miscarriage refer to it as an abortion. I think there's quite a difference.


I'm having trouble figuring out what she/he/it has for children.
 
petros
#210
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I'm having trouble figuring out what she/he/it has for children.

Twin Herefords (possibly Charolais) from what I've gathered.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts