Home - List All Discussions

Right to be born (Poll)

Does a fetus have the right to be born?

by: SRUW4I5

I heard a jerk telling his girlfriend that she should have an abortion because the child doesn't have the right to be born... (Which is very evil of him)
I was curious if it's normal for people to think such horrible things.

reply from: BossMomma

I was watching the news today and they had the baby Grace trial going on. The poor girl's mother was laughing and talking with her lawyer after she had helped beat that poor child to death then stuffed her body into an ice chest. After seeing stuff like that very little surprises me.

reply from: carolemarie

I was watching the news today and they had the baby Grace trial going on. The poor girl's mother was laughing and talking with her lawyer after she had helped beat that poor child to death then stuffed her body into an ice chest. After seeing stuff like that very little surprises me.
That was horrible! That little baby said i love you as she laid there dying...it was appalling what was done to her....poor precious little angel

reply from: faithman

I was watching the news today and they had the baby Grace trial going on. The poor girl's mother was laughing and talking with her lawyer after she had helped beat that poor child to death then stuffed her body into an ice chest. After seeing stuff like that very little surprises me.
That was horrible! That little baby said i love you as she laid there dying...it was appalling what was done to her....poor precious little angel
No more appalling than serial killing three womb children. Actually I would say less appalling.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I was watching the news today and they had the baby Grace trial going on. The poor girl's mother was laughing and talking with her lawyer after she had helped beat that poor child to death then stuffed her body into an ice chest. After seeing stuff like that very little surprises me.
That was horrible! That little baby said i love you as she laid there dying...it was appalling what was done to her....poor precious little angel
No more appalling than serial killing three womb children. Actually I would say less appalling.
Wouldn't killing a preborn child be equally as bad as killing a born child or do you not really think that a born and preborn child are equal?

reply from: SRUW4I5

Who all voted that it does? (Or are people to scared to admit they think a preborn child has the right to be born?)

reply from: Faramir

I was watching the news today and they had the baby Grace trial going on. The poor girl's mother was laughing and talking with her lawyer after she had helped beat that poor child to death then stuffed her body into an ice chest. After seeing stuff like that very little surprises me.
That was horrible! That little baby said i love you as she laid there dying...it was appalling what was done to her....poor precious little angel
No more appalling than serial killing three womb children. Actually I would say less appalling.
ATTENTION MARK CRUTCHER
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
A post-abortive woman, who regrets her abortion(s), and who is involved in the pro-life work of counseling and preventing babies from being destroyed by abortion, should be able to post on this board in peace and not be continually harassed and abused.
While it is appreciated that you offer a place for this topic to be discussed, your forum has become a free-for-all, and the most vulnerable, who have stories to tell about the lessons they learned, instead of being encouraged for sharing their stories, are condemned and persecuted.
There is nothing wrong with honest debate and disagreement, but name-calling like "scanc" and "killer," should not be permitted in a civil discussion, and this conduct repels others from joining in this important discussion. And it certainly discourages others who are post-abortive, who might otherwise share the lessons they've learned.
I implore you moderate this forum, at least minimally, and prevent the rampant abusiveness that has been allowed, and which reflects poorly on the pro-life cause.

reply from: yoda

Then why do you keep bumping this thread?

reply from: sk1bianca

everyone should have the right to life. since birth is a necessary process to continue life (outside the womb), then yes, every child should have the right to be born. simple as that...

reply from: SRUW4I5

Then why do you keep bumping this thread?
Good questions aren't answered very often here from what I've seen, but maybe he'll answer anyway.
The only time he posted in this thread was when he quoted faithman to post his spam. I wouldn't call that bumping the thread, but I would like to find out why he keeps posting that spam.

reply from: faithman

Unless you have been deemed by the killer of three to be of less value than the born. Then you can be mercilessly killed.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Why should what someone thinks of another person determine whether or not they have the right to be born?

reply from: yoda

Good question, but that's the way proaborts see things. FMan was just using sarcasm, of course....

reply from: SRUW4I5

Good question, but that's the way proaborts see things. FMan was just using sarcasm, of course....
Yeah but I thought I'd ask the question and see if an "expert" here could give me an answer.

reply from: faithman

Why should what someone thinks of another person determine whether or not they have the right to be born?
Ask CM. She is the "expert" both in word and deed.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Why should what someone thinks of another person determine whether or not they have the right to be born?
Ask CM. She is the "expert" both in word and deed.
Would a moderate Pro-Lifer really be the best person for me to ask?

reply from: SRUW4I5

11/14 think people always have a right to be born and 13/14 in atleast some cases...
I guess people like that jerk really are rare. That's good.

reply from: faithman

Why should what someone thinks of another person determine whether or not they have the right to be born?
Ask CM. She is the "expert" both in word and deed.
Would a moderate Pro-Lifer really be the best person for me to ask?
the person in question is no pro-lifer. It is a serial killer of womb children, and constantly take a pro-abortion stance. At the very least it is moderatly borthead.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Why should what someone thinks of another person determine whether or not they have the right to be born?
Ask CM. She is the "expert" both in word and deed.
Would a moderate Pro-Lifer really be the best person for me to ask?
the person in question is no pro-lifer. It is a serial killer of womb children, and constantly take a pro-abortion stance. At the very least it is moderatly borthead.
Okay... what's the difference between a pro-choicer and a "borthead"?

reply from: faithman

Why should what someone thinks of another person determine whether or not they have the right to be born?
Ask CM. She is the "expert" both in word and deed.
Would a moderate Pro-Lifer really be the best person for me to ask?
the person in question is no pro-lifer. It is a serial killer of womb children, and constantly take a pro-abortion stance. At the very least it is moderatly borthead.
Okay... what's the difference between a pro-choicer and a "borthead"?

reply from: SRUW4I5

Why should what someone thinks of another person determine whether or not they have the right to be born?
Ask CM. She is the "expert" both in word and deed.
Would a moderate Pro-Lifer really be the best person for me to ask?
the person in question is no pro-lifer. It is a serial killer of womb children, and constantly take a pro-abortion stance. At the very least it is moderatly borthead.
Okay... what's the difference between a pro-choicer and a "borthead"?
About 2 letters.
Besides that? I'm Pro-Choice (I think...I keep getting told otherwise) and don't agree with her much, so theres gotta be some kind of difference.

reply from: faithman

Why should what someone thinks of another person determine whether or not they have the right to be born?
Ask CM. She is the "expert" both in word and deed.
Would a moderate Pro-Lifer really be the best person for me to ask?
the person in question is no pro-lifer. It is a serial killer of womb children, and constantly take a pro-abortion stance. At the very least it is moderatly borthead.
Okay... what's the difference between a pro-choicer and a "borthead"?
About 2 letters.
Besides that? I'm Pro-Choice (I think...I keep getting told otherwise) and don't agree with her much, so theres gotta be some kind of difference.
About 2 letters.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I asked besides that... I guess that means you think pro-choicer = borthead... So, why only "attack" certain bortheads?

reply from: faithman

I asked besides that... I guess that means you think pro-choicer = borthead... So, why only "attack" certain bortheads?
Have I missed someone? Sorry. But there are varying degreeze of bortheadism. I take every case individually on the merits. Despite the bad press, I do not paint things with the broad brush of general statments all the time. Acase in point, is the accusations that I am anti woman. Simply isn't true. Gender has nothing to do with justice for the innocent. I am most assuredly, and unapologeticly pro womb child/anti killer.
It just so happens that some killers are women. And some killers who are women are phony pro-lifers.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Every child has the right to be born as long as it doesn't kill the mother in the process.

reply from: lycan

SRUW4I5 I'm curious. Who do those initials stand for in your sig?

reply from: Rosalie

The idea that anyone has the right to be born is preposterous. There's no such right. No fetus is entitled to be carried to term and be born.

reply from: BossMomma

I was watching the news today and they had the baby Grace trial going on. The poor girl's mother was laughing and talking with her lawyer after she had helped beat that poor child to death then stuffed her body into an ice chest. After seeing stuff like that very little surprises me.
That was horrible! That little baby said i love you as she laid there dying...it was appalling what was done to her....poor precious little angel
No more appalling than serial killing three womb children. Actually I would say less appalling.
Wouldn't killing a preborn child be equally as bad as killing a born child or do you not really think that a born and preborn child are equal?
Both are equally foul in my opinion.

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: SRUW4I5

wow two people said that a fetus never has a right to be born... i wonder what kind of sickos would think that

reply from: sk1bianca

since birth is a necessary process to continue life (outside the womb), then yes, every child should have the right to be born. simple as that...

reply from: SRUW4I5

Yeah, they should be allowed to be born, but some sickos here think they should never have that right...

reply from: sk1bianca

sickos that have already been born. i guess a mother's womb is becoming one of the most dangerous places on earth.

reply from: yoda

It has been for some time.

reply from: SRUW4I5

It does sound that way. According to what I've read, more children are aborted every year than the amount of people killed in the Iraq war.

reply from: Rosalie

Yeah, they should be allowed to be born, but some sickos here think they should never have that right...
Hey sicko! They should have that right only after the woman decides to continue the pregnancy. That's when they get that right.
Nobody is obliged to continue life or to give birth so their own lineage would continue.
Fetuses do not have a right to be born.

reply from: sk1bianca

who gives you the right to breathe, eat, sleep and do all the stuff you need to preserve your life? your mother? the state? the law? someone else?
do you think you deserve it? why?

reply from: Rosalie

My mother chose to have me, my mother chose to give birth to me. At that moment, she gave me the right to life. So yeah, my mom did.
And what does deserving it has to do with anything? But personally, yeah, I deserve it. I mean to do a lot more with my life but I've already done a number of things I'm insanely proud of and that I will be proud of for the rest of my life.

reply from: faithman

My mother chose to have me, my mother chose to give birth to me. At that moment, she gave me the right to life. So yeah, my mom did.
And what does deserving it has to do with anything? But personally, yeah, I deserve it. I mean to do a lot more with my life but I've already done a number of things I'm insanely proud of and that I will be proud of for the rest of my life.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: sk1bianca

i didn't ask who gave you your right to life. i asked who gave you the right to CONTINUE your life. do you think your mother should be able to take this right away from you some time in the future? after all, she gave it to you...
aborted children don't even get a chance to do anything with their lives. do you think that's fair?

reply from: Teresa18

No. All persons have the right to life, hence the right to be born.

reply from: Rosalie

The right to continue your life is given to you by the person who chooses to give birth to you. The moment they do that, the moment they decide to have you and give birth to you, they give you the right to life. To be born, to continue to live - as long as you see fit.
Yes. I see no reason why non-sentient, physically dependent fetuses should have any rights (or chances) by default.

reply from: Rosalie

No. All persons have the right to life, hence the right to be born.
That's just your opinion. And I obviously disagree with it and I'll never support it.

reply from: Teresa18

More children are aborted in two days than the amount of U.S. soldiers killed during the Iraq war.

reply from: micah

So a zygote getting flushed up on a sanitary napkin is as sad as a US solider dying by an IED?
More children are aborted in two days than the amount of U.S. soldiers killed during the Iraq war.

reply from: sk1bianca

tough words for an ex-fetus...

reply from: Teresa18

The God-given, inalienable right to life is more than an opinion. It is a moral absolute, and it exists whether you choose to recognize it or not.

reply from: SRUW4I5

More children are aborted in two days than the amount of U.S. soldiers killed during the Iraq war.
I was including everyone killed in the Iraq war (or because of it) which supposedly totals at a few hundred thousand.

reply from: Rosalie

The God-given, inalienable right to life is more than an opinion. It is a moral absolute, and it exists whether you choose to recognize it or not.
Your god is irrelevant to me and everyone else who does not buy into your horrible religion. And THAT's true whether you choose to recognize it or not.

reply from: Teresa18

A person dies in both situations. The difference in the first situation is that, unless an abortaficient was involved, the child died of natural causes. The woman won't know that there was a concieved child and that the child died, so she won't feel sadness. She won't feel the sadness that she would feel if her son whom she has bonded with for 18+ years is killed in Iraq.

reply from: Teresa18

Ok. That would be right because there are over a million abortions per year.

reply from: Teresa18

Either God exists or God doesn't. Either my religion is true or it isn't. If God exists and my religion is true, then God exists and my religion is true regardless of whether you believe.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Ok. That would be right because there are over a million abortions per year.
It's under 5,000 abortions per day... So, it would take more than two days. There was an estimate a few years ago that by 2009 there would have been 1.1 million people killed because of the war (it included deaths due to the effects of the war). It was only an estimate, so it probably isn't right.

reply from: Banned Member

A mothers children are her first right and obligation.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I disagree. Children are a privelage not a right. If you treat them badly, you lose the privelage of having them.

reply from: micah

Very true. But you have to ask yourself, given the millions of different Gods people worship (even in Christianity), what are the odds that you've picked the right one?

reply from: Teresa18

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that you are right that there are more children killed via abortion in one year than in the total Iraq war.

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg
I disagree. Children are a privelage not a right. If you treat them badly, you lose the privelage of having them.http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: SRUW4I5

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that you are right that there are more children killed via abortion in one year than in the total Iraq war.
Oh okay. That was just my response to the two day comment.
I hope I didn't offend or hurt anyone by comparing it to the war...

reply from: Banned Member

A mothers children are her first right and obligation.
It is a womans right to have children. If you abuse that right, others have the privilege of taking those children away.

reply from: SRUW4I5

It is a privilege. If you abuse a child others have the right to take the child away from you (as long as they don't break a law to do it).

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No. Living is her first right. That's why abortion to save her life is justifiable. Children are a privilege as others have said.

reply from: Banned Member

And those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the four percent that really do have something to doe with the health or life of the woman or child?
I think if a group of doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy will kill the woman that an abortion could save her life.
Do you atleast agree with the religious people that say that instead of aborting a tubal pregnancy the whole tube should be removed? That way the woman doesn't have an abortion and won't die.

reply from: faithman

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the other four percent that are? I
the medical comunity should never be given the "right" to kill. Ever effort should be taken to save both. But if one is lost in the process, it is very unfortunant. Mordern medacine makes abortion almost completely a mute point. Abortionist is healer turned killer, and that should never be.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the other four percent that are? I
the medical comunity should never be given the "right" to kill. Ever effort should be taken to save both. But if one is lost in the process, it is very unfortunant. Mordern medacine makes abortion almost completely a mute point. Abortionist is healer turned killer, and that should never be.
Sometimes you do have to choose which one to save.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked him.
Do you atleast agree with the religious people that say that instead of aborting a tubal pregnancy the whole tube should be removed? That way the woman doesn't have an abortion and won't die.

reply from: Banned Member

Tubal pregnancy; remove the child, who cannot live in this circumstance or remove the tube with the child who cannot live in this circumstance. I see no real difference since both options cause an earlier death other than hindering the potential for future children for the sake of being able to say, "I did not have an abortion". Whether that makes you feel better or not, it does not change the outcome as I understand it.

reply from: faithman

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the other four percent that are? I
the medical comunity should never be given the "right" to kill. Ever effort should be taken to save both. But if one is lost in the process, it is very unfortunant. Mordern medacine makes abortion almost completely a mute point. Abortionist is healer turned killer, and that should never be.
Sometimes you do have to choose which one to save.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked him.
Do you atleast agree with the religious people that say that instead of aborting a tubal pregnancy the whole tube should be removed? That way the woman doesn't have an abortion and won't die.
I am not a doctor. But I still don't believe they should be given the power to purposely kill. Besides, the issue never was the "hard cases. The issue is whether a woman should be able to electively kill her child. http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html

reply from: SRUW4I5

Source: http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

From that same site:

reply from: Faramir

There is a difference in destroying the embryo and removing the tube or part of the tube.
One is a direct attack on the embryo or fetus and romoval of the tube is not, and the embryo or fetus dies as an unintended consequence, which is consistent with the principle of "double effect" and Catholic ethics.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
And those 96% should be illegal.

reply from: Banned Member

How can anyone believe that the removal of a tubal pregnancy can be preceived as a "direct attack" on the unborn child since the removal is done first in regard to the welfare of the mother and not with the detriment of the child in mind?
The intention of the medical action chould determine what is permissable or not permissable in these specific instances.

reply from: SRUW4I5

How can anyone believe that the removal of a tubal pregnancy can be preceived as a "direct attack" on the unborn child since the removal is done first in regard to the welfare of the mother and not with the detriment of the child in mind?
The intention of the medical action chould determine what is permissable or not permissable in these specific instances.
The person that said that on the Catholic site probably believes it is an attack on the preborn child.
I think whatever is best for the woman should be done since there is no way the preborn child could live.

reply from: faithman

http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html

reply from: SRUW4I5

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8120/fetusfaceah0.png

reply from: yoda

And yet, that child is a living human being, and deserves a little respect, at least...... especially since it costs nothing extra.....

reply from: scopia19822

"The right to continue your life is given to you by the person who chooses to give birth to you. The moment they do that, the moment they decide to have you and give birth to you, they give you the right to life. To be born, to continue to live - as long as you see fit."
So you will tell your daugther that? I gave you the right to life, you should kiss my boots for your very exisitance because I could have aborted you just like that? You and my mom should get together for coffee sometime.. you two would hit it off wonderfully.

reply from: SRUW4I5

And yet, that child is a living human being, and deserves a little respect, at least...... especially since it costs nothing extra.....
Unless a woman wants to risk internal bleeding she won't continue a tubal pregnancy. Since the child won't be able to live no matter what way its done, what's wrong with removing it in the way that is best for the woman (and has the lowest chance of complications)?
When it isn't a tubal pregnancy I said this: Abortion should at the very least be legal to save the life of the woman preferably in a way where both can live

reply from: yoda

I'm not aware of any surgical procedure that has any advantages that would make it "better for the mother" to treat the baby with disrespect. Are you?

reply from: SRUW4I5

I'm not aware of any surgical procedure that has any advantages that would make it "better for the mother" to treat the baby with disrespect. Are you?
What's the respectful way to do it then?
What is best for one woman isn't necassarily best for another. That's why I leave it at what's best for her.

reply from: yoda

Afford them dignity, and implement any and all appropriate life saving measures.
There is another human being to be considered, even if that human being has only a slim chance of survival. To treat that other human being like a cancerous tumor is immoral, IMHO.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Afford them dignity, and implement any and all appropriate life saving measures.
There is another human being to be considered, even if that human being has only a slim chance of survival. To treat that other human being like a cancerous tumor is immoral, IMHO.
I'm all for doing that if there is even the tiniest chance both can be saved. But in cases where they can't, I believe it should be done in the way that would have the best outcome for the one that can be saved.

reply from: yoda

There is ALWAYS the tiniest chance that both can survive. Just because no human baby has ever survived at three months is no proof that the next one cannot. It's called "giving them the benefit of the doubt", and it doesn't cost a thing. Would you really deny them simple human dignity just because no other baby that young had survived?
What about a prisoner on death row who had exhausted all appeals? Would you have that prisoner abused simply because he had no chance to avoid being executed soon?
Or what about a terminally ill patient?

reply from: faithman

Afford them dignity, and implement any and all appropriate life saving measures.
There is another human being to be considered, even if that human being has only a slim chance of survival. To treat that other human being like a cancerous tumor is immoral, IMHO.
I'm all for doing that if there is even the tiniest chance both can be saved. But in cases where they can't, I believe it should be done in the way that would have the best outcome for the one that can be saved.
this "fine point" discussion is a good and nessisary one. the thing is, that if we don't protect life, then our life is in jeaperdy. We can not give doctors the right to kill, and be safe while under their care.

reply from: SRUW4I5

There is ALWAYS the tiniest chance that both can survive. Just because no human baby has ever survived at three months is no proof that the next one cannot. It's called "giving them the benefit of the doubt", and it doesn't cost a thing. Would you really deny them simple human dignity just because no other baby that young had survived?
What about a prisoner on death row who had exhausted all appeals? Would you have that prisoner abused simply because he had no chance to avoid being executed soon?
Or what about a terminally ill patient?
I wouldn't have a prisoner abused or a terminally ill patient.
In an ectopic pregnancy the preborn has no chance of survival. It would rupture the tube it's in, which would cause internal bleeding, and leaves the woman with a 50/50 chance of surviving. Supposedly that kind of pregnancy is on the rise (and theres supposedly 100k of those a year).
Any other case we should try to make it possible for both to live. That's what I've been saying, and what I believe.

reply from: faithman

There is ALWAYS the tiniest chance that both can survive. Just because no human baby has ever survived at three months is no proof that the next one cannot. It's called "giving them the benefit of the doubt", and it doesn't cost a thing. Would you really deny them simple human dignity just because no other baby that young had survived?
What about a prisoner on death row who had exhausted all appeals? Would you have that prisoner abused simply because he had no chance to avoid being executed soon?
Or what about a terminally ill patient?
I wouldn't have a prisoner abused or a terminally ill patient.
In an ectopic pregnancy the preborn has no chance of survival. It would rupture the tube it's in, which would cause internal bleeding, and leaves the woman with a 50/50 chance of surviving. Supposedly that kind of pregnancy is on the rise (and theres supposedly 100k of those a year).
Any other case we should try to make it possible for both to live. That's what I've been saying, and what I believe.
And just how many of these women who have ectopic pregnancy, also had elective abortions before hand? the reason this is on the rise, is because elective abortion causes a woman's body to malfunction. You can not do wrong things, and expect the future to go right. It's that little reap what you sow thing.

reply from: yoda

Then why would you abuse an unborn human?
Not true, there are records of the survival of ectopic babies..
Even when it's not clear that both can live, the baby deserves to be treated with respect. That's what I'm saying.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the four percent that really do have something to doe with the health or life of the woman or child?
I think if a group of doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy will kill the woman that an abortion could save her life.
Do you atleast agree with the religious people that say that instead of aborting a tubal pregnancy the whole tube should be removed? That way the woman doesn't have an abortion and won't die.
If the entire Fallopian tube is removed, the misplaced embryo or fetus WILL DIE and the woman will have future difficulty in conceiving. If the embryo or fetus is removed without damage to the Fallopian tube, it will die, of course, but the woman's life will be saved and so will her fertility (if she is lucky.)
Why gamble with a woman's fertility in order to "not abort" a pregnancy that CANNOT BE CONTINUED anyway? Removal of a tubal or abdominal pregnancy is NOT AN ABORTION - it is the medical treatment for a pregnancy that is developing OUTSIDE THE UTERUS, a pregnancy which is DOOMED.
Why not at least give the woman another chance to have a child?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the other four percent that are? I
the medical comunity should never be given the "right" to kill. Ever effort should be taken to save both. But if one is lost in the process, it is very unfortunant. Mordern medacine makes abortion almost completely a mute point. Abortionist is healer turned killer, and that should never be.
Sometimes you do have to choose which one to save.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked him.
Do you atleast agree with the religious people that say that instead of aborting a tubal pregnancy the whole tube should be removed? That way the woman doesn't have an abortion and won't die.
I am not a doctor. But I still don't believe they should be given the power to purposely kill. Besides, the issue never was the "hard cases. The issue is whether a woman should be able to electively kill her child. http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html
You honestly don't care AT ALL about the life of the woman, do you? In the case of a tubal or abdominal pregnancy, THE PREGNANCY IS DOOMED. IT CANNOT CONTINUE without causing death or permanent, serious injury to the woman. This is one of the VERY RARE instances in which an unborn child MUST be removed from the mother, resulting in the death of the child, because the pregnancy CANNOT BE CONTINUED.
Please read what medical experts say about ectopic pregnancy:
from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm

"Ectopic Pregnancy - Alternative Names:
Tubal pregnancy; Cervical pregnancy; Abdominal pregnancy
Definition
An ectopic pregnancy is an abnormal pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). The baby cannot survive.
Causes
An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the baby starts to develop outside the womb (uterus). The most common site for an ectopic pregnancy is within one of the tubes through which the egg passes from the ovary to the uterus (fallopian tube). However, in rare cases, ectopic pregnancies can occur in the ovary, stomach area, or cervix.
An ectopic pregnancy is usually caused by a condition that blocks or slows the movement of a fertilized egg through the fallopian tube to the uterus. This may be caused by a physical blockage in the tube.
Most cases are a result of scarring caused by:
Past ectopic pregnancy
Past infection in the fallopian tubes
Surgery of the fallopian tubes
Up to 50% of women who have ectopic pregnancies have had swelling (inflammation) of the fallopian tubes (salpingitis) or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).
Some ectopic pregnancies can be due to:
Birth defects of the fallopian tubes
Complications of a ruptured appendix
Endometriosis
Scarring caused by previous pelvic surgery
In a few cases, the cause is unknown.
Sometimes, a woman will become pregnant after having her tubes tied (tubal sterilization). Ectopic pregnancies are more likely to occur 2 or more years after the procedure, rather than right after it. In the first year after sterilization, only about 6% of pregnancies will be ectopic, but most pregnancies that occur 2-3 years after tubal sterilization will be ectopic.
Women who have had surgery to reverse tubal sterilization in order to become pregnant also have an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.
Taking hormones, especially estrogen and progesterone (such as those in birth control pills), can slow the normal movement of the fertilized egg through the tubes and lead to ectopic pregnancy.
Women who have in vitro fertilization or who have an intrauterine device (IUD) using progesterone also have an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.
The "morning after pill" (emergency contraception) has been linked to some cases of ectopic pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancies occur in 1 in every 40 to 1 in every 100 pregnancies.
Symptoms:
Abnormal vaginal bleeding
Amenorrhea
Breast tenderness
Low back pain
Mild cramping on one side of the pelvis
Nausea
Pain in the lower abdomen or pelvic area
If the area of the abnormal pregnancy ruptures and bleeds, symptoms may get worse. They may include:
Feeling faint or actually fainting
Pain that is felt in the shoulder area
Severe, sharp, and sudden pain in the lower abdomen
Internal bleeding due to a rupture may lead to shock. Shock is the first symptom of almost 20% of ectopic pregnancies.
Exams and Tests:
The health care provider will do a pelvic exam, which may show tenderness in the pelvic area.
Tests that may be done include:
Culdocentesis
Hematocrit
Pregnancy test
Quantitative HCG blood test
Transvaginal ultrasound or pregnancy ultrasound
White blood count
A rise in quantitative HCG levels may help tell a normal (intrauterine) pregnancy from an ectopic pregnancy. Women with high levels should have a vaginal ultrasound to identify a normal pregnancy.
Other tests may be used to confirm the diagnosis, such as:
D and C
Laparoscopy
Laparotomy
An ectopic pregnancy may affect the results of a serum progesterone test.
Treatment:
Ectopic pregnancies cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life.
You will need emergency medical help if the area of the ectopic pregnancy breaks open (ruptures). Rupture can lead to shock, an emergency condition. Treatment for shock may include:
Blood transfusion
Fluids given through a vein
Keeping warm
Oxygen
Raising the legs
If there is a rupture, surgery (laparotomy) is done to stop blood loss. This surgery is also done to:
Confirm an ectopic pregnancy
Remove the abnormal pregnancy
Repair any tissue damage
In some cases, the doctor may have to remove the fallopian tube.
A mini-laparotomy and laparoscopy are the most common surgical treatments for an ectopic pregnancy that has not ruptured. If the doctor does not think a rupture will occur, you may be given a medicine called methotrexate and monitored. You may have blood tests and liver function tests.
Outlook (Prognosis):
Most women who have had one ectopic pregnancy are later able to have a normal pregnancy. A repeated ectopic pregnancy may occur in 10 - 20% of women. Some women do not become pregnant again.
The rate of death due to an ectopic pregnancy in the United States has dropped in the last 30 years to less than 0.1%.
Possible Complications Return to top
The most common complication is rupture with internal bleeding that leads to shock. Death from rupture is rare. Infertility occurs in 10 - 15% of women who have had an ectopic pregnancy.
When to Contact a Medical Professional Return to top
If you have symptoms of ectopic pregnancy (especially lower abdominal pain or abnormal vaginal bleeding), call your health care provider. You can have an ectopic pregnancy if you are able to get pregnant (fertile) and are sexually active, even if you use birth control.
Prevention:
Most forms of ectopic pregnancy that occur outside the fallopian tubes are probably not preventable. However, a tubal pregnancy (the most common type of ectopic pregnancy) may be prevented in some cases by avoiding conditions that might scar the fallopian tubes.
The following may reduce your risk:
Avoiding risk factors for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) such as having many sexual partners, having sex without a condom, and getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
Early diagnosis and treatment of STDs
Early diagnosis and treatment of salpingitis and PID"

reply from: faithman

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the other four percent that are? I
the medical comunity should never be given the "right" to kill. Ever effort should be taken to save both. But if one is lost in the process, it is very unfortunant. Mordern medacine makes abortion almost completely a mute point. Abortionist is healer turned killer, and that should never be.
Sometimes you do have to choose which one to save.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked him.
Do you atleast agree with the religious people that say that instead of aborting a tubal pregnancy the whole tube should be removed? That way the woman doesn't have an abortion and won't die.
I am not a doctor. But I still don't believe they should be given the power to purposely kill. Besides, the issue never was the "hard cases. The issue is whether a woman should be able to electively kill her child. http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html
You honestly don't care AT ALL about the life of the woman, do you? In the case of a tubal or abdominal pregnancy, THE PREGNANCY IS DOOMED. IT CANNOT CONTINUE without causing death or permanent, serious injury to the woman. This is one of the VERY RARE instances in which an unborn child MUST be removed from the mother, resulting in the death of the child, because the pregnancy CANNOT BE CONTINUED.
Please read what medical experts say about ectopic pregnancy:
from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm

"Ectopic Pregnancy - Alternative Names:
Tubal pregnancy; Cervical pregnancy; Abdominal pregnancy
Definition
An ectopic pregnancy is an abnormal pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). The baby cannot survive.
Causes
An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the baby starts to develop outside the womb (uterus). The most common site for an ectopic pregnancy is within one of the tubes through which the egg passes from the ovary to the uterus (fallopian tube). However, in rare cases, ectopic pregnancies can occur in the ovary, stomach area, or cervix.
An ectopic pregnancy is usually caused by a condition that blocks or slows the movement of a fertilized egg through the fallopian tube to the uterus. This may be caused by a physical blockage in the tube.
Most cases are a result of scarring caused by:
Past ectopic pregnancy
Past infection in the fallopian tubes
Surgery of the fallopian tubes
Up to 50% of women who have ectopic pregnancies have had swelling (inflammation) of the fallopian tubes (salpingitis) or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).
Some ectopic pregnancies can be due to:
Birth defects of the fallopian tubes
Complications of a ruptured appendix
Endometriosis
Scarring caused by previous pelvic surgery
In a few cases, the cause is unknown.
Sometimes, a woman will become pregnant after having her tubes tied (tubal sterilization). Ectopic pregnancies are more likely to occur 2 or more years after the procedure, rather than right after it. In the first year after sterilization, only about 6% of pregnancies will be ectopic, but most pregnancies that occur 2-3 years after tubal sterilization will be ectopic.
Women who have had surgery to reverse tubal sterilization in order to become pregnant also have an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.
Taking hormones, especially estrogen and progesterone (such as those in birth control pills), can slow the normal movement of the fertilized egg through the tubes and lead to ectopic pregnancy.
Women who have in vitro fertilization or who have an intrauterine device (IUD) using progesterone also have an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.
The "morning after pill" (emergency contraception) has been linked to some cases of ectopic pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancies occur in 1 in every 40 to 1 in every 100 pregnancies.
Symptoms:
Abnormal vaginal bleeding
Amenorrhea
Breast tenderness
Low back pain
Mild cramping on one side of the pelvis
Nausea
Pain in the lower abdomen or pelvic area
If the area of the abnormal pregnancy ruptures and bleeds, symptoms may get worse. They may include:
Feeling faint or actually fainting
Pain that is felt in the shoulder area
Severe, sharp, and sudden pain in the lower abdomen
Internal bleeding due to a rupture may lead to shock. Shock is the first symptom of almost 20% of ectopic pregnancies.
Exams and Tests:
The health care provider will do a pelvic exam, which may show tenderness in the pelvic area.
Tests that may be done include:
Culdocentesis
Hematocrit
Pregnancy test
Quantitative HCG blood test
Transvaginal ultrasound or pregnancy ultrasound
White blood count
A rise in quantitative HCG levels may help tell a normal (intrauterine) pregnancy from an ectopic pregnancy. Women with high levels should have a vaginal ultrasound to identify a normal pregnancy.
Other tests may be used to confirm the diagnosis, such as:
D and C
Laparoscopy
Laparotomy
An ectopic pregnancy may affect the results of a serum progesterone test.
Treatment:
Ectopic pregnancies cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life.
You will need emergency medical help if the area of the ectopic pregnancy breaks open (ruptures). Rupture can lead to shock, an emergency condition. Treatment for shock may include:
Blood transfusion
Fluids given through a vein
Keeping warm
Oxygen
Raising the legs
If there is a rupture, surgery (laparotomy) is done to stop blood loss. This surgery is also done to:
Confirm an ectopic pregnancy
Remove the abnormal pregnancy
Repair any tissue damage
In some cases, the doctor may have to remove the fallopian tube.
A mini-laparotomy and laparoscopy are the most common surgical treatments for an ectopic pregnancy that has not ruptured. If the doctor does not think a rupture will occur, you may be given a medicine called methotrexate and monitored. You may have blood tests and liver function tests.
Outlook (Prognosis):
Most women who have had one ectopic pregnancy are later able to have a normal pregnancy. A repeated ectopic pregnancy may occur in 10 - 20% of women. Some women do not become pregnant again.
The rate of death due to an ectopic pregnancy in the United States has dropped in the last 30 years to less than 0.1%.
Possible Complications Return to top
The most common complication is rupture with internal bleeding that leads to shock. Death from rupture is rare. Infertility occurs in 10 - 15% of women who have had an ectopic pregnancy.
When to Contact a Medical Professional Return to top
If you have symptoms of ectopic pregnancy (especially lower abdominal pain or abnormal vaginal bleeding), call your health care provider. You can have an ectopic pregnancy if you are able to get pregnant (fertile) and are sexually active, even if you use birth control.
Prevention:
Most forms of ectopic pregnancy that occur outside the fallopian tubes are probably not preventable. However, a tubal pregnancy (the most common type of ectopic pregnancy) may be prevented in some cases by avoiding conditions that might scar the fallopian tubes.
The following may reduce your risk:
Avoiding risk factors for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) such as having many sexual partners, having sex without a condom, and getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
Early diagnosis and treatment of STDs
Early diagnosis and treatment of salpingitis and PID"
OK miscreant scanc. Show one post where it says I don't care about the health of women? You are the one who slanders not me.

reply from: yoda

That's all she's got. Without slander, she would have to shut up.

reply from: rsg007

I'm not aware of any surgical procedure that has any advantages that would make it "better for the mother" to treat the baby with disrespect. Are you?
Some ectopic pregnancies can be treated with medication, which is much less invasive and much safer for the woman. Insisting surgery must be done so as not to directly attack the child or to afford it dignity is outrageously immoral since the child will die anyway. The mother's health must come first in this instance.
I've tried to get a straight opinion from you about this several times, but to no avail. Care to give one now? Or would that just elucidate further how anti-woman you are?

reply from: rsg007

There is ALWAYS the tiniest chance that both can survive. Just because no human baby has ever survived at three months is no proof that the next one cannot. It's called "giving them the benefit of the doubt", and it doesn't cost a thing. Would you really deny them simple human dignity just because no other baby that young had survived?
What about a prisoner on death row who had exhausted all appeals? Would you have that prisoner abused simply because he had no chance to avoid being executed soon?
Or what about a terminally ill patient?
It might cost the health or life of the woman. Oh, but you don't care about that, do you?

reply from: rsg007

There is ALWAYS the tiniest chance that both can survive. Just because no human baby has ever survived at three months is no proof that the next one cannot. It's called "giving them the benefit of the doubt", and it doesn't cost a thing. Would you really deny them simple human dignity just because no other baby that young had survived?
What about a prisoner on death row who had exhausted all appeals? Would you have that prisoner abused simply because he had no chance to avoid being executed soon?
Or what about a terminally ill patient?
I wouldn't have a prisoner abused or a terminally ill patient.
In an ectopic pregnancy the preborn has no chance of survival. It would rupture the tube it's in, which would cause internal bleeding, and leaves the woman with a 50/50 chance of surviving. Supposedly that kind of pregnancy is on the rise (and theres supposedly 100k of those a year).
Any other case we should try to make it possible for both to live. That's what I've been saying, and what I believe.
And just how many of these women who have ectopic pregnancy, also had elective abortions before hand? the reason this is on the rise, is because elective abortion causes a woman's body to malfunction. You can not do wrong things, and expect the future to go right. It's that little reap what you sow thing.
Proof?

reply from: rsg007

Then why would you abuse an unborn human?
Not true, there are records of the survival of ectopic babies..
In the abdomen, yes, but please provide evidence of an ectopic surviving in the fallopian tube.
Even when it's not clear that both can live, the baby deserves to be treated with respect. That's what I'm saying.
Yodavater thinks it's OK to let a woman die to try to save a fetus.

reply from: rsg007

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the four percent that really do have something to doe with the health or life of the woman or child?
I think if a group of doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy will kill the woman that an abortion could save her life.
Do you atleast agree with the religious people that say that instead of aborting a tubal pregnancy the whole tube should be removed? That way the woman doesn't have an abortion and won't die.
If the entire Fallopian tube is removed, the misplaced embryo or fetus WILL DIE and the woman will have future difficulty in conceiving. If the embryo or fetus is removed without damage to the Fallopian tube, it will die, of course, but the woman's life will be saved and so will her fertility (if she is lucky.)
Why gamble with a woman's fertility in order to "not abort" a pregnancy that CANNOT BE CONTINUED anyway? Removal of a tubal or abdominal pregnancy is NOT AN ABORTION - it is the medical treatment for a pregnancy that is developing OUTSIDE THE UTERUS, a pregnancy which is DOOMED.
Why not at least give the woman another chance to have a child?
Because these guys don't care one jot about women. Women who they know, can talk to, can see, have shared experiences with perhaps. No, they care more about an unborn child they've never met. They're basically saying they'd rather save a stranger's life, health, fertility than the woman they know/love.

reply from: faithman

Any those that advocate abortion will use anything to define what it means to "save her life".
96% of all abortions have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the child or the mother.
What about the four percent that really do have something to doe with the health or life of the woman or child?
I think if a group of doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy will kill the woman that an abortion could save her life.
Do you atleast agree with the religious people that say that instead of aborting a tubal pregnancy the whole tube should be removed? That way the woman doesn't have an abortion and won't die.
If the entire Fallopian tube is removed, the misplaced embryo or fetus WILL DIE and the woman will have future difficulty in conceiving. If the embryo or fetus is removed without damage to the Fallopian tube, it will die, of course, but the woman's life will be saved and so will her fertility (if she is lucky.)
Why gamble with a woman's fertility in order to "not abort" a pregnancy that CANNOT BE CONTINUED anyway? Removal of a tubal or abdominal pregnancy is NOT AN ABORTION - it is the medical treatment for a pregnancy that is developing OUTSIDE THE UTERUS, a pregnancy which is DOOMED.
Why not at least give the woman another chance to have a child?
Because these guys don't care one jot about women. Women who they know, can talk to, can see, have shared experiences with perhaps. No, they care more about an unborn child they've never met. They're basically saying they'd rather save a stranger's life, health, fertility than the woman they know/love.
http://www.abortionno.org/


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics