 |
|
A good post with some meat in it for constructive discussion
Posted on: July 5, 2024 at 14:17:17 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72394
Member For:
21.44 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
BUT, a few quibbles.
The easy one, is you might want to edit a typo:
-a President should EVER be able to call up any part of the National Guard for a foreign war where we were not clearly attacked first.
I'm pretty sure you meant NEVER.
re: Abortion,
You have revised your original JG Manifesto, http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=17202256
but not in a good way.
You went from:
I think abortion is murder
to:
[pink]- abortion is should be legal in all cases of mother endangerment, rape and incest. Laws making assistance criminal in cases of legal abortions should be declared
Unconstitutional (but good luck with this corrupt SC)
The first phrase might kinda sorta be serviceable with some clarification. Before Roe v Wade this was never really an issue.
Here is an interview with Dr George Isajiw on the topic of whether or not abortions are ever necessary to save the life of the mother:
P: And as a medical doctor and you address for us for a few moments, the on going point of assertion whether explicit or implicit that is brought forward in articles and in legislatures or in media, 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. People think of in the movie, the story the Cardinal, where the woman was delivering the child and got into complications and they crushed the baby’s head. And that is just not a part of modern medicine. That is not necessary to be done.
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: This is of such an important point because, for example, what you just mentioned, there are cases were a pregnancy may need to be ended early in order to assist the mother in some form of complication. Big difference, isn’t there between killing that baby and making every effort to preserve the life of that baby.
G: Exactly.
Regarding rape & incest.
- Rape
The number one issue is that it is absolutely immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being, and doing so because of the acts that someone else did is absurd, and immoral in the extreme.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070126022800/http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
-- 1. Pregnancy due to rape is very rare in the US. If a woman is raped she can go to a hospital and be treated with spermicides & anti-ovulants and be prevented from getting pregnant.
-- 2. Although it is rare, the majority of women who do get pregnant due to rape do not choose abortion.
----- a. Those who do choose abortion often greatly regret that they did so.
----- b. Those who do not choose abortion virtually unanimously are very happy that they did not.
Incest
The number one issue is that it is absolutely immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being, and doing so because of the acts that someone else did is absurd, and immoral in the extreme.
Another huge issue is that abortion is often the tool used by rapists and human traffickers to help conceal their crimes and to continue doing them.
It should also be noted that the majority of women who have become pregnant due to incest do NOT want to kill their unborn children, but because it is often a legal option, many are forced to do so, by abusive elders, boyfriends or pimps and human traffickers.
It is evil all the way around and murder is about is immoral as it can get.
Championing the intentional killing of an innocent human being is not a feather in the cap of anyone wanting to show their bona fides of being a "conservative".
The easy one, is you might want to edit a typo:
-a President should EVER be able to call up any part of the National Guard for a foreign war where we were not clearly attacked first.
I'm pretty sure you meant NEVER.
re: Abortion,
You have revised your original JG Manifesto, http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=17202256
but not in a good way.
You went from:
I think abortion is murder
to:
[pink]- abortion is should be legal in all cases of mother endangerment, rape and incest. Laws making assistance criminal in cases of legal abortions should be declared
Unconstitutional (but good luck with this corrupt SC)
The first phrase might kinda sorta be serviceable with some clarification. Before Roe v Wade this was never really an issue.
Here is an interview with Dr George Isajiw on the topic of whether or not abortions are ever necessary to save the life of the mother:
P: And as a medical doctor and you address for us for a few moments, the on going point of assertion whether explicit or implicit that is brought forward in articles and in legislatures or in media, 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. People think of in the movie, the story the Cardinal, where the woman was delivering the child and got into complications and they crushed the baby’s head. And that is just not a part of modern medicine. That is not necessary to be done.
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: This is of such an important point because, for example, what you just mentioned, there are cases were a pregnancy may need to be ended early in order to assist the mother in some form of complication. Big difference, isn’t there between killing that baby and making every effort to preserve the life of that baby.
G: Exactly.
Regarding rape & incest.
- Rape
The number one issue is that it is absolutely immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being, and doing so because of the acts that someone else did is absurd, and immoral in the extreme.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070126022800/http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
-- 1. Pregnancy due to rape is very rare in the US. If a woman is raped she can go to a hospital and be treated with spermicides & anti-ovulants and be prevented from getting pregnant.
-- 2. Although it is rare, the majority of women who do get pregnant due to rape do not choose abortion.
----- a. Those who do choose abortion often greatly regret that they did so.
----- b. Those who do not choose abortion virtually unanimously are very happy that they did not.
Incest
The number one issue is that it is absolutely immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being, and doing so because of the acts that someone else did is absurd, and immoral in the extreme.
Another huge issue is that abortion is often the tool used by rapists and human traffickers to help conceal their crimes and to continue doing them.
It should also be noted that the majority of women who have become pregnant due to incest do NOT want to kill their unborn children, but because it is often a legal option, many are forced to do so, by abusive elders, boyfriends or pimps and human traffickers.
It is evil all the way around and murder is about is immoral as it can get.
Championing the intentional killing of an innocent human being is not a feather in the cap of anyone wanting to show their bona fides of being a "conservative".
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
A good post with some meat in it for constructive discussion - JeffB MU - 7/5 14:17:17