Maryland Abortion Doctors Charged With Murder
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
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".
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.
Is it POSSIBLE for the baby to have a say? Anencephaly: FAQ about anencephaly
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because I think it's stupid to dismiss any and all abortion.
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."
I didn't see where you said that, but I agree.
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?
Ya like Tay Sachs that strikes about one in 500 billion people! :lol: (did I exaggerate?)
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.
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?
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.
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.