Pro-life or Pro-choice

[WizardofOz]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If the woman had been dead Aaron, is it a scientific fact that she wouldn't have brought another life into this world two years later?

Perhaps the medical specialists at the hospital should have consulted with "Dr. Aaron" first to find out if the baby could survive? Me thinkz that they took that into consideration before they had to abort him or her to save the mother's life.

I'd like aCW's (non-existent) fan club to note that he did not answer the question.

BTW Aaron, according to this post, you're ok if an abortion is performed to save the mother's life:

Nope. You're just a deceitful hack that left out the entire quote which read as follows:

If you're OK with an abortion to save the mother that's one thing. Age of the mother-to-be should be completely irrelevant.

The National Right to Life Committee would not elaborate on its brief statement saying abortions should be allowed if they are needed to save women's lives, said communications official Jessica Rogers. A more absolute view is expressed by the American Life League, a group opposing abortion which has a statement at its web site signed by 481 doctors who agree that: "There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed. ... A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

If abortion = ending the pregnancy. Not intentionally killing the fetus.

Which type are you and your organization referring to here? I notice that there is no differentiation.

We both do agree on that don't we Aaron? If we do, you can make an apology to me anytime now where you lied and said that I'm pro choice.

You are pro-choice. Why would I apologize?

 

[Rusha]

Gosh Dr. Sandy, I wasn't aware that you consulted with the doctor's that made a informed medical decision to save the mother's life.

Neither did you. You seem to willfully forget that there have been teens and young women in crisis pregnancies who are distressed to the point of suicide due to the stress and depressing of an unplanned pregnancy. By your logic, if they are not allowed to kill their unborn child, we could end up with two deaths. My position remains the same. Support both mother and the unborn child so they both survive. Give positive intervention and support.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Perhaps the medical specialists at the hospital should have consulted with "Dr. Aaron" first to find out if the baby could survive? Me thinkz that they took that into consideration before they had to abort him or her to save the mother's life.

I'd like aCW's (non-existent) fan club to note that he did not answer the question.

And here I thought that the guy who emailed my former pastor asking if he thought homosexuality should be recriminalized was my biggest fan.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
BTW Aaron, according to this post, you're ok if an abortion is performed to save the mother's life:

Nope. You're just a deceitful hack that left out the entire quote which read as follows:

Originally Posted by WizardofOz
If you're OK with an abortion to save the mother that's one thing. Age of the mother-to-be should be completely irrelevant.

I'm quite certain that medical experts would agree with us both that the age of the mother is irrelevant when it comes to saving her life. Again, we both agree.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The National Right to Life Committee would not elaborate on its brief statement saying abortions should be allowed if they are needed to save women's lives, said communications official Jessica Rogers. A more absolute view is expressed by the American Life League, a group opposing abortion which has a statement at its web site signed by 481 doctors who agree that: "There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed. ... A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...walsh/1644839/

If abortion = ending the pregnancy. Not intentionally killing the fetus.

And here I thought I wouldn't need to explain what the NRTL said to a U of W/Madison scholar.

The National Right to Life Committee would not elaborate on its brief statement saying abortions should be allowed if they are needed to save women's lives,

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
We both do agree on that don't we Aaron? If we do, you can make an apology to me anytime now where you lied and said that I'm pro choice.

You are pro-choice. Why would I apologize?

So we don't agree that the mother's life is valuable?

You've never let me down before Aaron when I expose your fraudulent "pro life" stance, and you haven't let me down this time.

On that note: I'm done here, but can I give you a condescending pat on your rainbow colored head before leaving?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Neither did you. You seem to willfully forget that there have been teens and young women in crisis pregnancies who are distressed to the point of suicide due to the stress and depressing of an unplanned pregnancy. By your logic, if they are not allowed to kill their unborn child, we could end up with two deaths. My position remains the same. Support both mother and the unborn child so they both survive. Give positive intervention and support.

I'm glad that you agree that the doctor's that dealt with Cecily Kellog's crisis made the right decision Dr. Sandy.

 

[WizardofOz]

A prime example of aCW bloviating in this entire post.

Also, learn how to use the quote function properly.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Perhaps the medical specialists at the hospital should have consulted with "Dr. Aaron" first to find out if the baby could survive? Me thinkz that they took that into consideration before they had to abort him or her to save the mother's life.

And here I thought that the guy who emailed my former pastor asking if he thought homosexuality should be recriminalized was my biggest fan.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
BTW Aaron, according to this post, you're ok if an abortion is performed to save the mother's life:

I'm quite certain that medical experts would agree with us both that the age of the mother is irrelevant when it comes to saving her life. Again, we both agree.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The National Right to Life Committee would not elaborate on its brief statement saying abortions should be allowed if they are needed to save women's lives, said communications official Jessica Rogers. A more absolute view is expressed by the American Life League, a group opposing abortion which has a statement at its web site signed by 481 doctors who agree that: "There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed. ... A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...walsh/1644839/

And here I thought I wouldn't need to explain what the NRTL said to a U of W/Madison scholar.

The National Right to Life Committee would not elaborate on its brief statement saying abortions should be allowed if they are needed to save women's lives,

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
We both do agree on that don't we Aaron? If we do, you can make an apology to me anytime now where you lied and said that I'm pro choice.

None of the above even resembles substance. It's just you posting for the sake of it. You even repeat yourself saying nothing.

So we don't agree that the mother's life is valuable?

Of course it is. A pregnancy involves two patients.

You've never let me down before Aaron when I expose your fraudulent "pro life" stance, and you haven't let me down this time.

That's the difference between us. One of us is actually pro-life

Spoiler

It's not you.

You think if the mother is too young or was a victim of rape, she should be able to legally kill her fetus. I do not.

You're the fraud and it was proven by your own words in that thread.

On that note: I'm done here, but can I give you a condescending pat on your rainbow colored head before leaving?

You're probably used to touching people without their permission. :flamer:

 

[finalpoet]

If an individual is opposed to abortion being an option in all scenarios except for rape or incest or incest rape, is that individual pro-life or pro-choice?

Probably pro-life.
I'm pro-choice. I've gotten to the point where idc. I'm not a woman, I'm not going to tell her what to do with her body. I think men should have a say in it, personally idc. They can decide what to do with that little speck of nothing in their belly. I wouldn't call it a baby, more of a grain of salt. Feel free to throw that would be baby in the trash, again idc. That little ****** isn't meaningful to the universe.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You're the fraud and it was proven by your own words in that thread.

Still voting for the Libertarian Party candidates in elections Aaron?*

1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
https://www.lp.org/platform/

*Aaron is NOT a card carrying member of the godless Libertarian Party! How do I know? He's told me several dozen times; but that doesn't mean that Aaron, who is my bestest friend in the whooooole wide world, doesn't embrace Libertarian ideology/doctrine and hence vote for political candidates that embrace that same ideology/doctrine.

I know that it's fun for you to play pretend pro lifer in internet forums, but the political party platform that a person endorses always gives one away.

(This is where Aaron says "PROVE I voted Libertarian Party in past elections!").

I've done my work here, besides, your BFF (Art Brain) needs attention in that thread that has driven you Libertarians bonkers.

 

[Town Heretic]

Probably pro-life.
I'm pro-choice. I've gotten to the point where idc. I'm not a woman...

So it has to be about you for you to care? Then you're not a lot of things.

I'm not going to tell her what to do with her body.

It's not her body that's the issue. It's the passenger dependent upon her.

Feel free to throw that would be baby in the trash, again idc. That little ****** isn't meaningful to the universe.

How could it be when it isn't you?

 

[finalpoet]

Probably pro-life.
I'm pro-choice. I've gotten to the point where idc. I'm not a woman, I'm not going to tell her what to do with her body. I think men should have a say in it, personally idc. They can decide what to do with that little speck of nothing in their belly. I wouldn't call it a baby, more of a grain of salt. Feel free to throw that would be baby in the trash, again idc. That little ****** isn't meaningful to the universe.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I apologize for this post. It was rude and inappropriate. I mean what I said but I should've used kinder words.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Rusha]

I apologize for this post. It was rude and inappropriate. I mean what I said but I should've used kinder words.

Nah, your words demonstrate the amount of disdain you hold for the unborn. There is no way to kindly state that unborn babies have no value.

 

[Town Heretic]

I apologize for this post. It was rude and inappropriate. I mean what I said but I should've used kinder words.

You should use words that reflect your thinking. If you really don't value life within the womb then it's better to be frank about it, as morally and rationally objectionable as the sentiment is to my mind.

 

[finalpoet]

Well thank you for understanding. It just shows how much they matter to me and the rights I think they deserve. I just wasn't sure if I had seemed nearly rude.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Ktoyou]

Finish this sentence.

It is ok to kill the baby in the womb if you wanna go to hell.

 

[finalpoet]

It is ok to kill the baby in the womb if you wanna go to hell.

I'm ok with that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[glassjester]

That little ****** isn't meaningful to the universe.

What is "meaningful to the universe" ?

 

[Rusha]

What is "meaningful to the universe" ?

What is differs from person to person ... what *should be* meaningful to the universe is a mother's love and devotion to her children, including those who are unborn.

 

[The Horn]

Is it OK for the government to require the death of a pregnant woman who would not have survived giving birth and the baby would also have died ? I think not . This decision should be left to the doctors .
I'm sick of GOP "Gynoticians ", politicians who think they know as much as obstetricians and gynecologists . And these Gynoticians are mostly MEN .

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is it OK for the government to require the death of a pregnant woman who would not have survived giving birth and the baby would also have died ? I think not . This decision should be left to the doctors .

It is not ok for an innocent person to be put to death, and especially not by doctors, even if they would not otherwise survive.

The goal should always be to save the lives of BOTH the mother and the child. You don't stop to kill the baby to save the mother, nor do you stop to kill the mother to save the baby.

You do everything in your power to save both lives, and if the mother dies, but the baby survives, then it's a tragedy, or if the baby dies, and the mother survives, then it's a tragedy, or even if both die, it's a tragedy, and it's sad, but you can say you did everything in your power to save both lives, even if you didn't succeed. There is no medical reason to kill one life to save the other.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with dying, either due to natural causes or disease, or what have you. What is wrong is taking an innocent person's life intentionally. Only the Government has the right to execute judgment, and only on criminals, not on innocent people.

I'm sick of GOP "Gynoticians ", politicians who think they know as much as obstetricians and gynecologists . And these Gynoticians are mostly MEN .

My dad is an OB/GYN.

He would not teach how to perform an abortion when he taught at KCUMB. He won't do one himself.We've had to move a couple of different times because of this.

He won't do it because it's wrong.

 

[The Horn]

Judge Rightly, you father certainly knows that there are some situations where it's impossible to save the life of either the woman or the baby . But if an emergency abortion is performed, the woman could survive and have more children .

 

[JudgeRightly]

Judge Rightly, you father certainly knows that there are some situations where it's impossible to save the life of either the woman or the baby . But if an emergency abortion is performed, the woman could survive and have more children .

Why kill the baby?

Edit: In other words, Why not simply perform an emergency cesarean section and remove the baby, and then proceed with saving the mother's life. If the baby's being in the womb is causing a problem, then remove the baby from the womb and continue caring for the mother AND the baby separately. Again, there's no medical reason to kill one to save the other.

If you remove the baby from the womb, and then the baby dies of natural causes, but the mother survives, then you haven't murdered an innocent life to save the mother.

If you remove the baby from the womb, and then the mother dies from the complications, but the baby lives, then you haven't murdered an innocent life to save the baby.

If you remove the baby from the womb and then both die, then you did all you could to save both of their lives, and you haven't committed murder.

If you remove the baby from the womb, and they both live, then you haven't committed murder, you've just saved two lives instead of one.

IF YOU STOP TO KILL EITHER ONE OF THE PATIENTS, YOU HAVE COMMITTED MURDER, AND UPON DUE CONVICTION, YOU SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH.

By stopping to kill one of the patients to save the other, you have guaranteed at least one death, and you are guilty of murder.

If you kill the baby to save the mother, and the mother dies, then you have done nothing of value, and have committed murder.

If you kill the mother to save the baby, and the baby dies, then you have done nothing of value, and have committed murder.

If you kill the baby to save the mother, and the mother lives, you have still committed murder.

If you kill the mother to save the baby, and the baby lives, you have still committed murder.

There is no possible reason other than a hatred for life to stop in the middle of any life saving procedure and kill one of the patients.

Murder is wrong. That is an absolute. There is no place or time or situation where it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being.