IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

Jarod said:
You should also read Samuel Busey, M.D.'s article on the subject.

I guess he was not invited to testify before Congress.
Click to expand...

Dr. James McMahon, the guy who invented the procedure, does not contend that the procedure is necessary for the health of the mother.
 
Care4all said:
May I ask, HOW you can make this decision if the Mother and the unborn child are BOTH humans and are both deserving of all Human rights alotted to humans, as you have stated above?

In this dire situation, why is the mother's life always chosen OVER the unborn child?

Even in hospitals, the rule is that the life of the mother supercedes that of the unborn child...but as I mentioned, WHY?

Even in the old testament, the life of the mother supercedes the life of the unborn child...why?

Has the determination that a BORN human being's life is more valuable than the UNBORN's life and if so, THEN doesn't that mean that a "lesser worth" is given to the unborn child, NOT making them on equal footing as you have expressed to Jarod that you feel they are equal, even in their earliest stages you put them equal....?

Just logically, the mother's life is chosen over the unborn child in MOST everyone's mind....?

I realize that abortion, in general is not a life or death situation, yet always choosing the mother over the unborn child also shows that an unborn does NOT have the same worth EVEN in your mind, no?
Click to expand...

I am not contending the rights of one over the rights of another. I agree with Jarod that abortion should be legal; however, I don't support it as a personal choice in my life.

What I do contend in this matter is the idea that the partial birth abortion procedure has any validity in the argument of mother's health. It does not.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
I am not contending the rights of one over the rights of another. I agree with Jarod that abortion should be legal; however, I don't support it as a personal choice in my life.

What I do contend in this matter is the idea that the partial birth abortion procedure has any validity in the argument of mother's health. It does not.
Click to expand...

Sure it does in rare circumstances. Such blanket statements are silly.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
I am not contending the rights of one over the rights of another. I agree with Jarod that abortion should be legal; however, I don't support it as a personal choice in my life.

What I do contend in this matter is the idea that the partial birth abortion procedure has any validity in the argument of mother's health. It does not.
Click to expand...

That was for superfreak! :)
 
Originally Posted by Superfreak
"The Partial Birth abortion law passed by the Republicans in Congress last year prohibits the procedure even in the event its required for the life of the mother."

Well, obviously I agree that it should be banned in most cases, but never at the expense of the womans life. If her life is in danger, the decision is hers.
Click to expand...

I REPEAT: TO SUPERFREAK.... in case it got lost...:)

May I ask, HOW you can make this decision if the Mother and the unborn child are BOTH humans and are both deserving of all Human rights alotted to humans, as you have stated above?

In this dire situation, why is the mother's life always chosen OVER the unborn child?

Even in hospitals, the rule is that the life of the mother supercedes that of the unborn child...but as I mentioned, WHY?

Even in the old testament, the life of the mother supercedes the life of the unborn child...why?

Has the determination that a BORN human being's life is more valuable than the UNBORN's life and if so, THEN doesn't that mean that a "lesser worth" is given to the unborn child, NOT making them on equal footing as you have expressed to Jarod that you feel they are equal, even in their earliest stages you put them equal....?

Just logically, the mother's life is chosen over the unborn child in MOST everyone's mind....?

I realize that abortion, in general is not a life or death situation, yet always choosing the mother over the unborn child also shows that an unborn does NOT have the same worth EVEN in your mind, no?
 
trog... thanks again. The AMA is clearly against the procedure in general... but they do put the following qualification in there....

"The AMA recommends that the prodcedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the bet interest of the patient."

This is my position as well. I think the procedure should be avoided at all costs... unless the alternatives are a greater risk to the woman. I also believe that the physician should be the one to make the call.
 
Superfreak said:
trog... thanks again. The AMA is clearly against the procedure in general... but they do put the following qualification in there....

"The AMA recommends that the prodcedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the bet interest of the patient."

This is my position as well. I think the procedure should be avoided at all costs... unless the alternatives are a greater risk to the woman. I also believe that the physician should be the one to make the call.
Click to expand...

IN a rare occurance I agree with the AMA! I read the entire link and found that it satates my opinon exactly. There should be an exemption for the rare occurance where the procedure is necessary for the safety of the pregnant woman.
 
"I REPEAT: TO SUPERFREAK.... in case it got lost..."

I was getting to it, I just saw Trogs response and wanted to read the AMA article first... so nana nana na na.... ;)

"May I ask, HOW you can make this decision if the Mother and the unborn child are BOTH humans and are both deserving of all Human rights alotted to humans, as you have stated above?"

If it is a situation where it is one life or the other... then obviously one has to die. The woman should have the right in that case to choose, to save the life of the child or her own.

"In this dire situation, why is the mother's life always chosen OVER the unborn child?"

It does not have to be ALWAYS... it should be up to the mother in that case.

"Even in hospitals, the rule is that the life of the mother supercedes that of the unborn child...but as I mentioned, WHY?"

I am not a doctor, so this is just a guess.... my guess is that because in the majority of the situations where it is one life vs. the other, the mother is going to be the easier life to save.

"Even in the old testament, the life of the mother supercedes the life of the unborn child...why?"

I don't know... but then again, I never really paid much attention to the old testament.

"Has the determination that a BORN human being's life is more valuable than the UNBORN's life and if so, THEN doesn't that mean that a "lesser worth" is given to the unborn child, NOT making them on equal footing as you have expressed to Jarod that you feel they are equal, even in their earliest stages you put them equal....?"

I guess to answer this... yes, I do think they are equal, the current laws do not. But as equals, when both lives are on the line, the mother is the one that should decide if it will be her or her child that lives.

"Just logically, the mother's life is chosen over the unborn child in MOST everyone's mind....?"

I am not even going to try to guess what is in "most" peoples minds.

"I realize that abortion, in general is not a life or death situation, yet always choosing the mother over the unborn child also shows that an unborn does NOT have the same worth EVEN in your mind, no?"

Again, I beleive they have equal rights. In my opinion, if the mothers life is not in danger, then the childs life should supercede her preferences.... and I don't beleive I have ever said anything to indicate otherwsie.
 
Super...the mother's life in all instances is of greater value than the unborn, and yes she can choose to forfeit her own life for her childs life, but the father can not make this decision...to let the mother die over his son or daughter.

This proves a point that I had made on the other thread...

you and others have ALSO determined that these two lives, the mother's and the unborns are not of equal value....even in your own head.

I am not saying that this makes abortion ok.

I am saying that EVEN YOU, logically....do not give the unborn Baby RIGHTS over and above the mother's human rights, when push comes to shove.
 
Jarod said:
Sure it does in rare circumstances. Such blanket statements are silly.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're still wrong.

Truth be told: Partial birth abortion is a procedure that takes days - it is not a spontaneous delivery room reaction to an emergency. PBA is used to remove a fetus that has suffered death in the womb or which can NOT survive outside the womb. Viable babies are not being 'killed' through it's use.

Use of PBA is dictated by the viability of the child outside the womb, NOT the health of the mother. The intent of the procedure is to remove the late-term non-viable fetus with the mother going through only a "miniature labor."

The American Medical Association decided to support a ban on partial-birth abortion, after a careful study failed to find "any identified circumstance" in which it is needed. That wasn't stituations with regard to health of mom, that was all situations. It was never a common procedure and remained rare because other procedures are safer.

This is my bone of contention -
The whole argument that there needs to be an exemption for the health of the mother is an argument for a non-issue with regard to this procedure. It is mere political grandstanding by the dems, but no better or worse than the mere political grandstanding of the reps in looking like they were doing something to outlaw abortion by outlawing an unnecessary procedure.
 
"you and others have ALSO determined that these two lives, the mother's and the unborns are not of equal value....even in your own head."

Care... you are testing my patience. I have stated over and over again that the two lives ARE of equal value and should be afforded the same rights. The only time that I think a woman should have a choice with regards to an abortion is when HER life is in danger. THEN she has a choice. IT does not devalue the life of the child. They are equal.
 
Superfreak said:
"The AMA states no such thing."

actually, they do... it says it quite clearly from the AMA website.
Click to expand...

No, I am sorry but I have read the entire statement, and I don't see where they say the procedure is ever required for the health or life of the mother. You are doing what the pinheads do, and interpreting that into the statement, but that isn't what they said.
 
"I am saying that EVEN YOU, logically....do not give the unborn Baby RIGHTS over and above the mother's human rights, when push comes to shove."

you are right.... I give them EQUAL rights. The babies rights do NOT supercede those of the mother. They are EQUAL.
 
"No, I am sorry but I have read the entire statement, and I don't see where they say the procedure is ever required for the health or life of the mother. You are doing what the pinheads do, and interpreting that into the statement, but that isn't what they said."

Then you are fucking blind... the following is WORD FOR WORD what they said....

"The AMA recommends that the prodcedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Sorry, you're still wrong.

Truth be told: Partial birth abortion is a procedure that takes days - it is not a spontaneous delivery room reaction to an emergency. PBA is used to remove a fetus that has suffered death in the womb or which can NOT survive outside the womb. Viable babies are not being 'killed' through it's use.

Use of PBA is dictated by the viability of the child outside the womb, NOT the health of the mother. The intent of the procedure is to remove the late-term non-viable fetus with the mother going through only a "miniature labor."

The American Medical Association decided to support a ban on partial-birth abortion, after a careful study failed to find "any identified circumstance" in which it is needed. That wasn't stituations with regard to health of mom, that was all situations. It was never a common procedure and remained rare because other procedures are safer.

This is my bone of contention -
The whole argument that there needs to be an exemption for the health of the mother is an argument for a non-issue with regard to this procedure. It is mere political grandstanding by the dems, but no better or worse than the mere political grandstanding of the reps in looking like they were doing something to outlaw abortion by outlawing an unnecessary procedure.
Click to expand...



Do you have a cite to this AMA decision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top