End of Roe Vs Wade?

annabenedetti

Well-known member
Removing the baby from the woman's body will end the baby's life, but it's not murder unless you intentionally kill the baby.

Letting a dying person die =/= killing a dying person

The embryo isn't dying until you remove it.

This is why even the stricter abortion laws have exceptions, and this is one exception you seem to be in agreement with.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The embryo isn't dying until you remove it.

The mother is dying. The way to save the mother is either remove the baby or transplant the baby to the uterus (see below).

Murdering the baby is not a valid option.

This is why even the stricter abortion laws have exceptions, and this is one exception you seem to be in agreement with.

There's no exception to be had.

Outlaw abortion (the killing of the baby in the womb), no exceptions.

Removing the baby to save the mother is not murder. Stopping to kill the baby while removing him from his mother IS murder.

Oh, and also, there is record of a successful transplant of an embryo from a woman's fallopian tube to her uterus, all the way back in 1917... (which is exactly what I was thinking of earlier).

(The link to the article .pdf is broken. I have notified them, so hopefully they can restore the link.)
 

Hoping

Well-known member
The mother is dying. The way to save the mother is either remove the baby or transplant the baby to the uterus (see below).
Murdering the baby is not a valid option.
There's no exception to be had.
Outlaw abortion (the killing of the baby in the womb), no exceptions.
Removing the baby to save the mother is not murder. Stopping to kill the baby while removing him from his mother IS murder.
Oh, and also, there is record of a successful transplant of an embryo from a woman's fallopian tube to her uterus, all the way back in 1917... (which is exactly what I was thinking of earlier).

(The link to the article .pdf is broken. I have notified them, so hopefully they can restore the link.)
What a great article.
Thanks.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
The mother is dying. The way to save the mother is either remove the baby or transplant the baby to the uterus (see below).

Murdering the baby is not a valid option.

"Removal" is a euphemism. The "removal" causes the death of the embryo.

The law makes room for this, but the extreme personhood ideology has itself boxed into a corner. In order to allow for the exception, great lengths are gone to in order to classify the death of the embryo as a "removal." Or to see the "removal" as a lesser evil than administering methotrexate, when both of them effect the death of the embryo.

This isn't about whether these new laws allow, or don't allow, for this exception. It's that the personhood movement doesn't acknowledge it as an exception because to do so destroys the "no exceptions" purity litmus and this just cannot be allowed to happen.

Oh, and also, there is record of a successful transplant of an embryo from a woman's fallopian tube to her uterus, all the way back in 1917

Oh please. A century old case study which hasn't been replicated and has no technological proof. Science is all about replication. If they could have replicated such a feat, don't you think they would have? Modern technology would be all over this. If it was possible. So far, it's not. There are multiple possibilities here, and here's one: the ectopic pregnancy could have been a twin. This happens. The ectopic "transplant" didn't survive and was reabsorbed by the mother but the twin survived.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Never believe anyone who is not cross-examined."
Is it immoral for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol? If you say "yes" yet believe in her body her choice, then your logic is inconsistent.
Or smoke? Or use drugs?

Or for that matter, after they're born, does the mother have the bodily autonomy to do these things, or anything else, that might impinge upon her health and well being, as it regards her ability to be a good mom?

Do the kids have those rights? That impose obligations on the mother?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"Removal" is a euphemism. The "removal" causes the death of the embryo.

NO, Anna, I'm talking about THE LITERAL REMOVAL OF THE BABY. I'm not using it as a euphemism. I mean EXACTLY what I say.

REMOVING the baby IS NOT MURDER unless you INTENTIONALLY STOP TO KILL THE BABY.

The law makes room for this,

The law allows for the murder of the baby.

This "exception" means a baby is killed, not just dies. That makes it murder.

but the extreme personhood ideology

There is nothing "extreme" about it. The baby, from the moment of conception, is a living human being. That's a fact.

Quit exaggerating.

has itself boxed into a corner.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

In order to allow for the exception, great lengths are gone to in order to classify the death of the embryo as a "removal."

What if we use the term "delivery" then. Does that make any difference to you?

Delivering the baby prematurely is not murder. It's just delivering the baby! The baby may not survive the premature delivery, which is done to save the mother, BUT IT'S NOT INTENTIONALLY MURDERING THE BABY!

Or to see the "removal" as a lesser evil than administering methotrexate, when both of them effect the death of the embryo.

One is the intentional act of killing the baby, the other is simply delivering the baby. Woe to you who calls good evil and evil good!

This isn't about whether these new laws allow, or don't allow, for this exception. It's that the personhood movement doesn't acknowledge it as an exception because to do so destroys the "no exceptions" purity litmus and this just cannot be allowed to happen.

Once again, because you can't seem to get it through your thick skull:

An "exception" means a child intentionally killed. A physician should never postpone his efforts to save the mother in order to take time out to kill the child. If a doctor can only save the mother and not the child also, that is a tragedy, but it is not an intentional killing. Unintentional, unavoidable, and accidental death is not the same as intentional killing.

The effort to abolish abortion, like a personhood amendment, provides for no exceptions. But what if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? The doctor's goal should be to save mom and the baby if possible. The goal should never be to kill the mother to save the baby, nor to kill the child to save the mother.

Oh please. A century old case study which hasn't been replicated and has no technological proof. Science is all about replication. If they could have replicated such a feat, don't you think they would have? Modern technology would be all over this. If it was possible. So far, it's not. There are multiple possibilities here, and here's one: the ectopic pregnancy could have been a twin. This happens. The ectopic "transplant" didn't survive and was reabsorbed by the mother but the twin survived.

It's far more likely that the doctor actually did what he said he did, that what he did is repeatable, and that society as a whole was being lured into Darwinian eugenics, which led to no one being interested in actually trying to repeat his accomplishment for the past 100 years.


Sadly at that time Margaret Sanger was 36 years old, the over-population myth was devaluing children, and America's medical community was being seduced by Darwinian eugenics. Thus, with the ensuing war against children, there has been a 100-year delay in the fulfillment of Dr. Wallace's prediction that, "I have not the least doubt that many such transplanted ectopic pregnancies will be reported in the near future." Dr. Wallace also predicted "failures in this as in other transplantation procedures, but there is not the [same level of] danger involved in this transplantation that there is in many others." And whether the baby is able to be successfully transplanted, or whether he or she dies, what is crucial before God, before man, and for the sake of the parents, is that every effort is made to love and protect both mom and this little one.

Long ago, abortion meant the termination of the pregnancy. Today, abortion means terminating the baby. Abortionists, like at Christ Hospital near Chicago, do not consider their job done when the baby is removed from the mother. For in what has been called the dreaded complication, when the baby survives the abortion procedure, most abortion clinic workers since the 1960s have not instinctively provided nourishment and medical care for these infants. Rather, they either make sure that the baby dies from a lack of care, or they actively kill the baby. So, abortion refers to the baby, not the pregnancy. For this reason in March 2013, Planned Parenthood testimony at a Florida legislative hearing argued in favor of the right to terminate the baby after he or she survives what can now be called a failed abortion. For even though the woman is no longer pregnant, and the baby clearly is not a part of her body, still, the job isn't done until the baby is dead. (See also, from the Feb. 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" The wickedness is so intense, that it exposes the superficiality and impotence of the failed abortion regulation strategy. The power and vision for victory will come only from the strength obtained by standing upon eternal truths.)

 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
NO, Anna, I'm talking about THE LITERAL REMOVAL OF THE BABY. I'm not using it as a euphemism. I mean EXACTLY what I say.

REMOVING the baby IS NOT MURDER unless you INTENTIONALLY STOP TO KILL THE BABY.



The law allows for the murder of the baby.

This "exception" means a baby is killed, not just dies. That makes it murder.



There is nothing "extreme" about it. The baby, from the moment of conception, is a living human being. That's a fact.

Quit exaggerating.



Saying it doesn't make it so!



What if we use the term "delivery" then. Does that make any difference to you?

Delivering the baby prematurely is not murder. It's just delivering the baby! The baby may not survive the premature delivery, which is done to save the mother, BUT IT'S NOT INTENTIONALLY MURDERING THE BABY!



One is the intentional act of killing the baby, the other is simply delivering the baby. Woe to you who calls good evil and evil good!



Once again, because you can't seem to get it through your thick skull:

An "exception" means a child intentionally killed. A physician should never postpone his efforts to save the mother in order to take time out to kill the child. If a doctor can only save the mother and not the child also, that is a tragedy, but it is not an intentional killing. Unintentional, unavoidable, and accidental death is not the same as intentional killing.

The effort to abolish abortion, like a personhood amendment, provides for no exceptions. But what if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? The doctor's goal should be to save mom and the baby if possible. The goal should never be to kill the mother to save the baby, nor to kill the child to save the mother.



It's far more likely that the doctor actually did what he said he did, and that society as a whole was being lured into Darwinian eugenics.


Sadly at that time Margaret Sanger was 36 years old, the over-population myth was devaluing children, and America's medical community was being seduced by Darwinian eugenics. Thus, with the ensuing war against children, there has been a 100-year delay in the fulfillment of Dr. Wallace's prediction that, "I have not the least doubt that many such transplanted ectopic pregnancies will be reported in the near future." Dr. Wallace also predicted "failures in this as in other transplantation procedures, but there is not the [same level of] danger involved in this transplantation that there is in many others." And whether the baby is able to be successfully transplanted, or whether he or she dies, what is crucial before God, before man, and for the sake of the parents, is that every effort is made to love and protect both mom and this little one.

Long ago, abortion meant the termination of the pregnancy. Today, abortion means terminating the baby. Abortionists, like at Christ Hospital near Chicago, do not consider their job done when the baby is removed from the mother. For in what has been called the dreaded complication, when the baby survives the abortion procedure, most abortion clinic workers since the 1960s have not instinctively provided nourishment and medical care for these infants. Rather, they either make sure that the baby dies from a lack of care, or they actively kill the baby. So, abortion refers to the baby, not the pregnancy. For this reason in March 2013, Planned Parenthood testimony at a Florida legislative hearing argued in favor of the right to terminate the baby after he or she survives what can now be called a failed abortion. For even though the woman is no longer pregnant, and the baby clearly is not a part of her body, still, the job isn't done until the baby is dead. (See also, from the Feb. 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" The wickedness is so intense, that it exposes the superficiality and impotence of the failed abortion regulation strategy. The power and vision for victory will come only from the strength obtained by standing upon eternal truths.)

As a medical professional with some experience in the matter I see no reason why an ectopic pregnancy couldn't be successfully implanted in a receptive uterus.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
NO, Anna, I'm talking about THE LITERAL REMOVAL OF THE BABY. I'm not using it as a euphemism. I mean EXACTLY what I say.

REMOVING the baby IS NOT MURDER unless you INTENTIONALLY STOP TO KILL THE BABY.


Delivering the baby prematurely is not murder. It's just delivering the baby! The baby may not survive the premature delivery, which is done to save the mother, BUT IT'S NOT INTENTIONALLY MURDERING THE BABY!

Shouting doesn't help your argument.

Leaving your baby outside in freezing temperatures is not murder unless you intentionally stop to kill the baby before leaving it outside in freezing temperatures.

Once again, because you can't seem to get it through your thick skull:

If I were to say the same back to you, I'd be banned for disrespecting a mod, so I'm gonna end my participation in the conversation with this:

the science is clear: ectopic pregnancies are not viable, there’s currently no way to transplant them, and if left alone, they can and do result in a pregnant person’s death.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
You say that as though the mother’s life matters …

I know, right? There are those in the 'no exceptions' camp who'd rather the mother hemorrhage from a burst tube than to stop the tube from bursting in the first place, and those in the 'no exceptions' camp who'd commence with an abortion before the tube burst, while semantic-dancing through the self-delusion that they're not doing what they're doing. You see that in the woman quoted in the article I linked above.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
That doesn't make them rights.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Wrongfully so.



Begging the question. They aren't rights to begin with.
It does under law and rightfully so, so it doesn't even need saying on my part. Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child summarily covers it. Frankly, anyone purporting to value children's welfare and well being would not have a single problem with it.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I know, right? There are those in the 'no exceptions' camp who'd rather the mother hemorrhage from a burst tube than to stop the tube from bursting in the first place, and those in the 'no exceptions' camp who'd commence with an abortion before the tube burst, while semantic-dancing through the self-delusion that they're not doing what they're doing. You see that in the woman quoted in the article I linked above.

Sigh. The glee in being able to scorn and control women through their sex lives seems to be the real motivator.

IF this were truly about saving the lives of children, the GOP and their misogynist groupies would be for reducing or eliminating the cost of healthcare as well as supporting birth control and sex education. Free tubal ligations would also be a top priority.

They do not have the moral high ground to preach abstinence considering their support of trump and the GOP.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Sigh. The glee in being able to scorn and control women through their sex lives seems to be the real motivator.
Yes this is a common refrain of the fourth wave feminist who is adamant that women should be allowed to be whores
IF this were truly about saving the lives of children
It is
, the GOP
Your favorite whipping boy
and their misogynist groupies
They exist only in your fevered imagination
would be for reducing or eliminating the cost of healthcare
I'm all for reducing or eliminating the cost of healthcare. I heartily recommend that every leftist train in the field of healthcare and volunteer their services for free.

Starting with you rusha 😁
as well as supporting birth control
Condoms can be bought in bulk for 20 cents each
and sex education.
Should be part of biology class in high school
Free tubal ligations would also be a top priority.
Start training. Get certified. Provide them.
They do not have the moral high ground
Those who recognize the evil of murdering the unborn child hold the moral high ground
to preach abstinence
Abstinence should be the norm for unmarried couples
considering their support of trump and the GOP.
You don't really give a crap about abortion. You don't give a crap about unborn children being ripped to pieces in utero.
This is only about your hatred for Trump and the GOP. Because you're sick.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It does under law and rightfully so,

It shouldn't, because needs aren't rights.

so it doesn't even need saying on my part.

Because it's not true.

Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child summarily covers it.

The United Nations doesn't trump God.

Frankly, anyone purporting to value children's welfare and well being would not have a single problem with it.

False.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
Sigh. The glee in being able to scorn and control women through their sex lives seems to be the real motivator.

IF this were truly about saving the lives of children, the GOP and their misogynist groupies would be for reducing or eliminating the cost of healthcare as well as supporting birth control and sex education. Free tubal ligations would also be a top priority.

They do not have the moral high ground to preach abstinence considering their support of trump and the GOP.

Women, homosexuals, non-Christians, minorities. They want social control. Could backfire on them, though. They think there will be a red wave in November. I don't think so.
 
Top