<p>I don’t understand how someone can be anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment. What am I missing? Sanctity of life, my ***. </p>
<p>Here’s hoping Justice Stevens can hang in there until we have a Democrat in the White House.</p>
<p>
The answer to this is obvious. Timothy McVey murdered 168 people to earn the right to die. An unborn child has committed no crime and like anyone else who has not committed a crime should not be put to death.</p>
<p>Once they start chanting “sacrifice the mother to save the baby” they kind of lose me on the sanctity of life issue. Even more so when they enact policies that increase the infant mortality rate.</p>
<p>Or–if you believe what they say–they’d save 100 fertilized embryos in the lab instead of 10 children in the attached pre-school if there were a fire. After all, the fertilized embryos are life just as valuable as any other human being. Not.</p>
<p>“Or–if you believe what they say–they’d save 100 fertilized embryos in the lab instead of 10 children in the attached pre-school if there were a fire.”</p>
<p>Where is your reference for this happening or an organization who has this as a philosophy?</p>
<p>That’s the position, isn’t it, collegialmom? That an embryo is a human being from the moment of fertilization? So why wouldn’t they save 100 human beings over 10?</p>
<p>Oh wait…you mean they only give lip service to that when it suits their political purposes? They wouldn’t actually put it into practice in real life? </p>
<p>Pick a lane.</p>
<p>Excuse me, but I don’t understand the tone here. I think we can all have our own opinions without so much bitterness. </p>
<p>This is just an Internet forum, and I would really suggest that we have a bit more mutual respect. I am not your enemy, I just have a different outlook.</p>
<p>I never thought about embryos vs children. I have never heard anyone say that they would save embryos over children. But then, as I have mentioned before, I am not part of any organizations, and just came to my conclusions concerning abortion because of my personal experiences. </p>
<p>I wish you well, and hope that your interactions generally are peaceful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a hot-button issue, that’s why I stay clear of the merits of abortion. I figure that it’s a moral issue for each individual to decide, based on their religious faith or whatever. I respect all sincere positions as it would be presumptuous in the extreme to force my moral views on someone else.</p>
<p>That’s why I stick strickly to the politics of the issue. The government should stay out of people’s lives to the greatest extent possible and should never, under any circumstances, impose religious beliefs. If Jerry Falwell or the Pope can convince all Americans to stop having abortions, bully for them. Just don’t make it a state-sponsored religious edict.</p>
<p>Thanks. I have no religious basis for my feelings about this, and totally understand both sides. In addition, I have little interest in the politics, so I guess I should just not be involved. I guess coming at things only as one person not trying to rally anyone, I had forgotten how intense it can be. Oh well. I can’t take the heat, so I will stay away from the fire.</p>
<p>Collegialmom, I think you might take some time to examine your own tone. I am not the only one who has dispensed heat.</p>
<p>I doubt you’re in the habit of giving out uniquely identifying information about people you know to any random stranger over the Internet who asks for it. For you not to respect that simple and reasonable boundary, to ask over and over for this information after I explained why I couldn’t give it, was hostile. </p>
<p>In addition, you were sarcastic when I described the sentiment of some people on this board as “pro-choice, anti-abortion.” I think if you want to cast aspersions about other people’s convictions, to set yourself up as the arbitrar of what they really believe, you could have a little thicker skin when people respond in kind.</p>
<p>I am not saying these things to make you feel worse, but to illustrate that respect is a two-way street.</p>
<p>I was asking for the condition of the person, and asked you to even PM me. You were making a big point about the necessity of a surgical procedure with basically no facts being given, not a very valid way to present an argument.</p>
<p>How was I sarcastic? Please point this out.</p>
<p>I did not say personal things about you, but somehow you cast me as a radical right winger. My opinions about you personally were either nonexistent or I kept them to myself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you really believe this is what I was saying, it’s pretty clear you didn’t read much of what I wrote. That’s ok, of course. </p>
<p>You were actually the one making a big point of insisting that C-section was the safest option for her, despite the fact that she died–and the fact that the AMA says that C-section in extraordinary cases may not always be the safest option.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, no, I was describing your style of argument, not you personally.</p>
<p>“You were actually the one making a big point of insisting that C-section was the safest option for her, despite the fact that she died–and the fact that the AMA says that C-section in extraordinary cases may not always be the safest option.”</p>
<p>I made the point that it sounds as if she was unfortunately too ill to survive any procedure, because the safety profile of an emergency c-section is very good to save the life of the mother in many instances. Getting the baby out is very quick, and the mother can be stabilized quickly. I would think it takes longer to do the late trimester abortion, and there is the very real complication of bleeding in an already compromised pregnant woman. The AMA statement does not say that late trimester abortions generally are safest for the mother in emergency situations. I think that you have brought up a complicated case that cannot really have conclusions drawn about it without more facts. I assume that is being sorted out by her family and the doctors.</p>
<p>As to how radical right wing people think, I doubt that they all think alike. Anyhow, I don’t have much experience with them, maybe you know them better and are more qualified to comment about me than I am. Which is fine, if it makes you feel better about this thread!</p>
<p>I don’t have time to read this entire thread, so I hope my comment will be helpful and not redundant.</p>
<p>I heard an interview with a doctor on the radio today. She explained that the first priority in an emergency situation (such as an abrupted or separated placenta) is to empty the uterus completely and quickly. She thought it was unconscionable of Congress, which is obviously not composed of doctors, to mandate which procedure a doctor may use. </p>
<p>She pointed out that while “saving the mother’s life” is important, “saving the mother’s health” is no less important, tho Congress has made it so. She didn’t want to have to explain her decisions to a prosecutor in court after the fact, nor did she want to have to delay action in the operating room until the mother’s life was in fact in danger. “Unacceptable” was the term she used.</p>
<p>I was happy to hear such a clear and concise summary of best medical practice.</p>
<p>
The doctor you cited was confusing heatlh and life. </p>
<p>If a woman’s life is endanger then so his her health.<br>
If a woman’s health is in danger, it does not mean her life is in danger.
If a woman has a partial birth abortion, the child’s life is extinguished.</p>
<p>The Federal Act has an exception for the mother’s life and that is sufficient to balance the interests of the child and the mother. </p>
<p>Phrases such as mother’s health are merely code for the mother has changed her mind. That’s why an exception for the mother’s life is adequate and appropriate.</p>
<p>
Oh, really? How about we legislate that a man’s health is irrelevant? Or, balance the consideration of it with the the priority that a few strangers give it.</p>
<p>Since when is it the courts’ job to determine the worth of life and health?</p>
<p>
Knock yourself out.</p>
<p>Did it occur to you that there is a human being who is killed during the partial birth abortion? His/her skull is crushed as part of the “medical” procedure. If the only consequences to the mother are damaged health, then saving the child’s life is appropriate. </p>
<p>If you have to choose between killing one person or injuring another, the most logical choice is injury, not death.</p>
<p>
It isn’t. It is the job of the legislature elected by the people.</p>
<p>Hello, this is not about changing your mind about being pregnant. This is about an emergency where the pregnancy endangers the health, future ability to bear children, and even life of the mother. That’s why the doctor specifically used the example of a placental separation. She has been in that situation, called to the hospital in an emergency, and felt that when this bill takes effect, it will legislate what she can do, and that is not right.</p>