Enyart calls for pro-lifers to oppose John Roberts nomination

[taoist]

Crow, what would be the harm in changing our mindset so that our goal is to save BOTH patients?

Greetings, Knight,

Excuse me for butting in, but I believe your premise is faulty. The goal IS to save BOTH patients. But patients don't sit around politely waiting for a solution before developing a condition that requires choosing between one death or two. Choosing life sometimes means choosing more lives than none.

That's the truth.

In peace, Jesse

 

[Nathon Detroit]

exactly.
so killing a mother to save a child is wrong.
and killing here would include not giving her the appropriate medical treatment at the right time.
such as that stuff that Crow said.

You're not listening.

I am not saying that we do nothing and let the mother die.

I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying is . . . we do everything possible to save both. It's very likely that based on our current technology that the baby will die during the procedure. It is sad and tragic when a baby dies. But it is evil and wicked when doctors and nurses murder babies.

If we change our mindset to the mindset of life we may eventually discover ways to save both patients. Yet if we are lazy and murder patients we will never discover any new technologies or procedures to deal with such circumstances.

 

[Crow]

Crow, what would be the harm in changing our mindset so that our goal is to save BOTH patients?

Maybe we know that our technology is such that one patient will most likely die during the procedure but we still push ourselves to do everything in our power to save both. This "push" is the mother of invention! This "push" is our moral obligation.

Murder is the lazy way out.

Murder will advance nothing, it will not "push" discovery.

If abortion is murder, then abortion is murder.

Knight, In most situations I agree with you. In the cases I cited, there is no way. It's been tried.

There is no way that a tubal pregnancy can be saved. You might want to check with Becky on this, we've had this discussion. You cannot save that baby becase you want to, any more so than you can save someone who had had their head cut off because you want to. Cannot be done.

In a placenta previa that breaks or ruptures before the fetus is viable, that mother is going to bleed to death in a matter of minutes. Unless that placenta is removed, she dies. Quickly. It's nice to think that we can try to save both, but the cold hard reality is that without a placenta that fetus is going to die, and without a mother, that fetus is going to die as well.

Standing and watching a woman bleed to death does not advance discovery. We know the effects of exsanguination upon the human body. Until the technical expertise to grow a new placenta in a matter of minutes is developed or vascular microsurgery far advanced from what we have now is developed, there is nothing that can be done in these cases. Medicine can do all sorts of nifty things, and sometimes there is a tendency to think that if it's not being done it's because no one's trying. Most of the time it's because it just can't be done.

Take intrauterine surgery on feti. It isn't being done today because someone just now decided that it's a good idea. It's being done now because microsurgical techniques have finally been developed that make it possible.

Techniques like that, and the technology that may someday make it possible to save feti in an abrupto or a tubal do not come from an OR where a woman is bleeding to death. It comes from a research center and from animal studies, the same as microsurgery did. Medicine isn't Ben Casey. You can't develop complex techniques on the fly because you wish to. It's cool to see the techniques that put a finger back on. It's difficult to remember that many years in the dog lab had to pass until the techniques were sufficiently developed and that first finger was reattached. We cannot apply knowledge and technique if we don't have it yet.

Nope, Knight, on this you and I disagree. If you can't save both it's wrong not to save who you can.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Crow your not listening.

I realize that the baby cannot be saved (at least not currently with the technology we have).

I get it.

I get it.

I get it.

However, the mindset of murdering the baby as a medical procedure is evil. If murder is evil, then murder is evil.

The not so subtle difference is intent. If you intend to save both patients but cannot, there is no murder! Just as there is no murder in the attempt to separate conjoined twins.

Yet if your mindset is murder, then your mindset is murder.

 

[Crow]

Crow your not listening.

I realize that the baby cannot be saved (at least not currently with the technology we have).

I get it.

I get it.

I get it.

However, the mindset of murdering the baby as a medical procedure is evil. If murder is evil, then murder is evil.

The not so subtle difference is intent. If you intend to save both patients but cannot, there is no murder! Just as there is no murder in the attempt to separate conjoined twins.

Yet if your mindset is murder, then your mindset is murder.

Having seen these things done, they aren't done with the intent to murder. In the case of a previa, the mother could have legally murdered this child if she wanted to prior to that. Instead she chose to carry the child and now a baby she wants to have is being lost. It's a heartbreaking situation all the way around, and the doctors do what they can--they save the mother.

In the case of the tubal pregnancy, there's nothing that can be done as well except to save the mother. These operations aren't being performed by people who have chosen to be abortionists. These operations are usually being performed by people who have spent their careers preventing miscarriages.

I've seen the aftermath of losing a pregnancy because it was tubal. The woman was devastated and somehow blamed herself and also had to face the fact that her chances of conception in the future were now lower. These aren't babies whose mothers have decided to kill them, these are wanted babies who cannot be saved no matter what we do.

And to stand by and do nothing and attribute that to "God's wisdom" is evil as hell.

 

[erinmarie]

I know someone, who although I'm not comfortable with speaking to her after finding this out, is a close family member. She found out early on in her third pregnancy that she had a low-lying placenta, which carries the chance of turning into previa. She chose to end the pregnancy (and called it a "miscarriage"), because she didn't want to be on bedrest, or even partial bedrest for the remainder.

At the time I was disgusted, and kind of hurt in a way that someone I've known my whole life would be so selfish...Then when I was diagnosed with a low lying placenta with Max, carried her to term on partial bedrest, and birthed her "naturally", I couldn't even bring myself to attempt conversation with her.
I kept wondering during the pregnancy if I would feel different about the situation had I lost Max because of previa.

 

[Turbo]

I kept wondering during the pregnancy if I would feel different about the situation had I lost Max because of previa.

How so?

 

[erinmarie]

How so?

I would maybe feel that I took a gamble, and could have saved myself the grief... I might feel guilt for putting myself, my husband and my children through the trauma of a tumultous pregnancy that ended in death, when I knew that might happen. But I of course would have never terminated a pregnancy, and obviously it didn't turn out that way anyways.
I just meant I wonder if I would have felt guilty or not.

 

[Freak]

No, Freak, I've been a nurse for 27 years.

I know many doctors that have been doctors for decades and yet they perform abortions. Who cares if you have 27 years experience. 27 years of ignorance on this very topic.

Sounds like you are a ill informed nurse, 27 years at that. Sad indeed. :down: Actually pathetic!

That qualifies me better to know about these things than had I ben out playing Buffy the Daemonslayer.

Who's Buffy?

 

[Freak]

Crow, buying into a liberal lie.

Yep. She believes abortion is viable.

 

[Freak]

Crow, what would be the harm in changing our mindset so that our goal is to save BOTH patients?

Maybe we know that our technology is such that one patient will most likely die during the procedure but we still push ourselves to do everything in our power to save both. This "push" is the mother of invention! This "push" is our moral obligation.

Murder is the lazy way out.

Murder will advance nothing, it will not "push" discovery.

If abortion is murder, then abortion is murder.

:thumb:

 

[Crow]

I know someone, who although I'm not comfortable with speaking to her after finding this out, is a close family member. She found out early on in her third pregnancy that she had a low-lying placenta, which carries the chance of turning into previa. She chose to end the pregnancy (and called it a "miscarriage"), because she didn't want to be on bedrest, or even partial bedrest for the remainder.

At the time I was disgusted, and kind of hurt in a way that someone I've known my whole life would be so selfish...Then when I was diagnosed with a low lying placenta with Max, carried her to term on partial bedrest, and birthed her "naturally", I couldn't even bring myself to attempt conversation with her.
I kept wondering during the pregnancy if I would feel different about the situation had I lost Max because of previa.

The situation you described is why I used the term ruptured placenta previa. In the case of a low lying but intact placenta, as you describe, or even a frank placenta previa totally covering the uterine outlet that is unruptured, often bedrest and sometimes medications can keep the pregnancy going long enough that the baby and the mother survive. In that case, it would be wrong to abort just because something "might" go wrong. Sometimes it requires a C-section to deliver the baby, but at least the baby has the best chance of survival that we can give it.

When you have a ruptured placenta previa, nothing we have at our disposal at this time can assist the pregnancy to advance. If the baby is viable, it can be delivered and often survive. If the placenta is removed quickly enough, the mother can survive.

But if the baby is too young to survive outside the womb, the mother should not be sacrificed on GP. You can't keep that pregnancy going for the extra few weeks until the fetus can be delivered. The placenta is shot. The fetus is dying from lack of oxygen and nothing we do can reattach that placenta. It's an emergency situation where you have a very few minutes in which you can possibly save the mother. There's nothing you can do for that fetus.

And again, I say, it's wrong in that case to just stand by and let the mother bleed to death hoping that new technology drops on our heads. It isn't going to happen.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

But if the baby is too young to survive outside the womb, the mother should not be sacrificed on GP.

Crow I want to know why you keep saying that we think the mother should be "sacrificed".

I think this is at least the third time on this thread you have made that assertion and NO ONE has claimed that the mother should be "sacrificed" or left to die.

Let me say that again because you just keep missing it!

NO ONE has claimed that the mother should be "sacrificed" or left to die.

In these rare tragic cases EVERY attempt should be made to save the baby! Even if the baby is outside the womb! Now, I can already hear you saying . . . "a baby that size cannot survive outside the womb" and guess what? You are right! A baby that small with our current technology CANNOT survive outside the womb but we should try none the less! It wasn't too long ago when premature babies couldn't survive outside the womb but thanks to medical advances babies are born premature all the time!

Someday . . . (who knows when), these tiny pre-premature babies will also be savable, that is unless the culture of death keeps a hold of the medical community and is satisfied with the lazy practice of murdering the inconvenient roadblock in the form of a precious little baby.

 

[Freak]

There's nothing you can do for that fetus.

Let's call it what it truly is--a baby. I beginning to worry about you, Crow. :think:

 

[Freak]

Crow I want to know why you keep saying that we think the mother should be "sacrificed".

I think this is at least the third time on this thread you have made that assertion and NO ONE has claimed that the mother should be "sacrificed" or left to die.

Yep. :up: I have told her we should be about saving all the lives.

Let me say that again because you just keep missing it!

NO ONE has claimed that the mother should be "sacrificed" or left to die.

In these rare tragic cases EVERY attempt should be made to save the baby! Even if the baby is outside the womb! Now, I can already hear you saying . . . "a baby that size cannot survive outside the womb" and guess what? You are right! A baby that small with our current technology CANNOT survive outside the womb but we should try none the less! It wasn't too long ago when premature babies couldn't survive outside the womb but thanks to medical advances babies are born premature all the time!

Someday . . . (who knows when), these tiny pre-premature babies will also be savable, that is unless the culture of death keeps a hold of the medical community and is satisfied with the lazy practice of murdering the inconvenient roadblock in the form of a precious little baby.

Man, you're good. :up:

 

[Freak]

Crow, do you have children?

 

[jeremiah]

I agree with Bob Enyart. We should not support Bush's nominee. I am outraged that he nominated a 'white male', named John Roberts. We need to appoint Justices according to both our cultural and political diversity. This appointment is screaming for a 'Woman' who is 'Hispanic' and 'pro-life'. More than one half of our country is female. Yet we only had two women on the court. When one of the women retires, you must replace her with a woman. Duh, what is Bush thinking?
Hispanics are now a "bigger" minority { :think:} than blacks, due primarily to abortion, and there is already one black-skinned person on the court. So he had to nominate a Hispanic! What was he thinking?
Most importantly, just as we have never had a Hispanic male or female on the SCOTUS. We have NEVER EVER had a pro- life woman on the court either!
Think about it. All the women in this country who are pro-life {And they are a bigger minority than Hispanics} have never had a woman who represents them.
All pro-lifers, and all liberals who speak up for minorities and cultural diversity must unite, and denounce this white male named John Roberts, and Bork him until we get the kind of "Justice" this court is bleeding for. A Hispanic pro- life woman.

 

[Crow]

Crow I want to know why you keep saying that we think the mother should be "sacrificed".

I think this is at least the third time on this thread you have made that assertion and NO ONE has claimed that the mother should be "sacrificed" or left to die.

Let me say that again because you just keep missing it!

NO ONE has claimed that the mother should be "sacrificed" or left to die.

In these rare tragic cases EVERY attempt should be made to save the baby! Even if the baby is outside the womb! Now, I can already hear you saying . . . "a baby that size cannot survive outside the womb" and guess what? You are right! A baby that small with our current technology CANNOT survive outside the womb but we should try none the less! It wasn't too long ago when premature babies couldn't survive outside the womb but thanks to medical advances babies are born premature all the time!

Someday . . . (who knows when), these tiny pre-premature babies will also be savable, that is unless the culture of death keeps a hold of the medical community and is satisfied with the lazy practice of murdering the inconvenient roadblock in the form of a precious little baby.

And you aren't getting what I am saying, Knight. There are people who think that it is the "wisdom of God" that you not attempt to save the mother in an emergency situation if it means that the baby is going to die and you can't prevent it.

Nurses and doctors try to keep both the mother and the child alive and in most instances fail. You can't keep a 16 week old fetus alive outside the uterus at this point in time. I'm not arguing that you don't shouldn't try. I'm saying that you don't refuse to treat the mother and leave it up to the "wisdom of God" in a frank emergency.

The age of viability is being pushed back continuously because of people who are trying to save these babies. We don't toss them in a bucket and keep on stepping. The medical profession is not as a whole a lazy bunch of wicked idiots with a culture of death. New advances, such as inutero surgery and perinatal heart surgery, have come about because the vast majority of the medical profession does not want to see lives lost. You may not have seen the attempts to keep these babies alive. I have.

If you want to see the "culture of death," check out the abortion clinics. They kill the mothers too sometimes. But when people who are trying to save the life of a woman when her child can't live are labeled as "lazy" and part of a "culture of death," that is inaccurate and wrong. I've been part of a team working for days trying to save the life of a child born too young. I know better.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Man, you're good. :up:

When truth is on your side it's nothing to boast about. But thank you none the less!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And you aren't getting what I am saying, Knight. There are people who think that it is the "wisdom of God" that you not attempt to save the mother in an emergency situation if it means that the baby is going to die and you can't prevent it.

Are "those people" represented on this thread?

Furthermore, you know that isn't my argument so why even bring it up? You are disagreeing with ME aren't you?

Nurses and doctors try to keep both the mother and the child alive and in most instances fail. You can't keep a 16 week old fetus alive outside the uterus at this point in time. I'm not arguing that you don't shouldn't try. I'm saying that you don't refuse to treat the mother and leave it up to the "wisdom of God" in a frank emergency.

I don't think that is what Freak was trying to say but I could be wrong. I am pretty sure Freak and I are on the same page in this matter.

The age of viability is being pushed back continuously because of people who are trying to save these babies. We don't toss them in a bucket and keep on stepping. The medical profession is not as a whole a lazy bunch of wicked idiots with a culture of death. New advances, such as inutero surgery and perinatal heart surgery, have come about because the vast majority of the medical profession does not want to see lives lost. You may not have seen the attempts to keep these babies alive. I have.

If that is the case why would you refer to it as an "abortion".

In a successful abortion one patient is always murdered.