 |
|
The unborn children are human beings. Why should a child
Posted on: October 14, 2019 at 22:07:37 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72858
Member For:
21.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
be deliberately killed because of something his or her father did?
Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother per Dr. George Isajiw, MD:
http://bit.ly/directabortion
P: And as a medical doctor and you address for us for a few moments, the on going point of assertion... the assertion that sometimes abortion is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. Is that ever true?
G: Actually it’s not. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother. As a matter of fact for a while.. several years.. I was very interested in that question in my formative years and I would ask every obstetrician and gynecologist that I met anywhere. And I said have you ever had a case where you had to do something to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I have not come across one case, you know...
Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are the three instances, very rare, very rare, but those are not abortions. If you look at the five ways that abortions are done, which is the only purpose is to kill the child, none of these techniques are the methods used in these operations. So there is no such thing as an abortion necessary.
And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.
P: And this distinction just seems to mean to get lost in so many of the arguments of those who are trying to promote abortion. In the controversy over partial birth abortion particularly, this insistence that we need to leave this open for the cases of the health of the mother has arisen, and there has been quite a response to that hasn’t there been even in the medical profession.
G: And even the abortionists themselves absolutely admit there is no medical indication for partial-birth abortion. You know that has become such a politicized issue but that is very clear cut ... this is at an age where the baby clearly can be saved. You know we are talking about these indirect abortions if you want to use that term where you know that the baby will lose his or her life because of the early delivery. That is a very young baby that can not survive outside the body of the mother. However, when the baby is 8 months, 7 months, 8 months , 9 months, you can always do something to save the baby. It is never, never necessary to do anything to kill that child for the mother’s sake.
P: I have always thought it, and I am interested in your comments on this as well, of the difference between abortions and other surgical interventions. One of the big differences is this, that the surgical intervention is meant to help the body to do something that it is trying to do anyway. For example if there is a blocked artery the blood is if you will trying to flow there. Is not able to, so you assist it by clearing the blockage. Whereas in abortion it seems to me exactly the opposite is being done. The body is not trying to kill the child. The body is doing everything possible to nourish and protect and let that child grow. There must be serious consequences to intervening in a way that is so radically goes against everything that the body is trying to do at that moment. What are your thoughts on that?
G: Well, you are absolutely correct. We know of all of the harmful effects of abortion, not only of course on the child, but on the mother. Beyond the physical harm, we now know the post-abortion syndrome which may show up many, many years later. It is sort of equivalent of some of the soldier syndromes which may have been involved in killing and war and so forth. Whatever the euphemisms are the mother herself subconsciously years later, and I have had a women aged 77, who confessed to me had tremendous psychological problems because she had had an abortion at age 20, and she felt responsible for the death of that baby. So you have that nature itself, the nurturing nature of motherhood that wants that baby, to do the best thing for that child. And when that women is aborted she is hurt permanently and she lives with the memory of a dead baby for the rest of her life. And this is difficult enough in a miscarriage, or losing a baby through pre-mature birth, but at least there you can it is God’s will, that’s what happened, we can’t understand mystery of how, why the Lord allows certain things to happen, suffering and death. But to have the idea that I am responsible for it, I made the choice, I made the decision, and this is where the women have such a hard time forgiving themselves, and that is the whole basis of that post-abortion stress syndrome.
Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother per Dr. George Isajiw, MD:
http://bit.ly/directabortion
P: And as a medical doctor and you address for us for a few moments, the on going point of assertion... the assertion that sometimes abortion is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. Is that ever true?
G: Actually it’s not. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother. As a matter of fact for a while.. several years.. I was very interested in that question in my formative years and I would ask every obstetrician and gynecologist that I met anywhere. And I said have you ever had a case where you had to do something to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I have not come across one case, you know...
Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are the three instances, very rare, very rare, but those are not abortions. If you look at the five ways that abortions are done, which is the only purpose is to kill the child, none of these techniques are the methods used in these operations. So there is no such thing as an abortion necessary.
And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.
P: And this distinction just seems to mean to get lost in so many of the arguments of those who are trying to promote abortion. In the controversy over partial birth abortion particularly, this insistence that we need to leave this open for the cases of the health of the mother has arisen, and there has been quite a response to that hasn’t there been even in the medical profession.
G: And even the abortionists themselves absolutely admit there is no medical indication for partial-birth abortion. You know that has become such a politicized issue but that is very clear cut ... this is at an age where the baby clearly can be saved. You know we are talking about these indirect abortions if you want to use that term where you know that the baby will lose his or her life because of the early delivery. That is a very young baby that can not survive outside the body of the mother. However, when the baby is 8 months, 7 months, 8 months , 9 months, you can always do something to save the baby. It is never, never necessary to do anything to kill that child for the mother’s sake.
P: I have always thought it, and I am interested in your comments on this as well, of the difference between abortions and other surgical interventions. One of the big differences is this, that the surgical intervention is meant to help the body to do something that it is trying to do anyway. For example if there is a blocked artery the blood is if you will trying to flow there. Is not able to, so you assist it by clearing the blockage. Whereas in abortion it seems to me exactly the opposite is being done. The body is not trying to kill the child. The body is doing everything possible to nourish and protect and let that child grow. There must be serious consequences to intervening in a way that is so radically goes against everything that the body is trying to do at that moment. What are your thoughts on that?
G: Well, you are absolutely correct. We know of all of the harmful effects of abortion, not only of course on the child, but on the mother. Beyond the physical harm, we now know the post-abortion syndrome which may show up many, many years later. It is sort of equivalent of some of the soldier syndromes which may have been involved in killing and war and so forth. Whatever the euphemisms are the mother herself subconsciously years later, and I have had a women aged 77, who confessed to me had tremendous psychological problems because she had had an abortion at age 20, and she felt responsible for the death of that baby. So you have that nature itself, the nurturing nature of motherhood that wants that baby, to do the best thing for that child. And when that women is aborted she is hurt permanently and she lives with the memory of a dead baby for the rest of her life. And this is difficult enough in a miscarriage, or losing a baby through pre-mature birth, but at least there you can it is God’s will, that’s what happened, we can’t understand mystery of how, why the Lord allows certain things to happen, suffering and death. But to have the idea that I am responsible for it, I made the choice, I made the decision, and this is where the women have such a hard time forgiving themselves, and that is the whole basis of that post-abortion stress syndrome.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
The unborn children are human beings. Why should a child - JeffB MU - 10/14 22:07:37