Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Grave EPH gestosis, eclampsia, ileus in pregnancy, acute liver atrophy, serious pyelonephritidis and pyelonephrosis, trauma, advanced coronary diseases, cardiopathia, some kidney disorders, severe psychiatric illness, and thromboembolic tendencies. Certain malignant processes, specifically of reproductive organs, may be accelerated due to hormonal increases during pregnancy.
These conditions are not cured by abortion, but can be significantly affected by pregnancy. Bear in mind the severity of illness, or the required treatment for these disorders can have a devastating effect on the unborn child, especially psychotherapeutic drugs, and obviously chemotherapeutic agents. And I know someone is bound to say the alternative 100% guarantee of death by abortion is a worse alternative, I do hear you loud and clear. The effects of some of these diseases and treatments on the fetus though should not be dismissed. And that is not addressing the psychosocial implications of these illnesses or treatments on the mother and family.
And what percentage of total pregnancies, including those aborted by mommy, are victims of those medical conditions. I am not saying that I would approve of them being legal but I want to know what level of danger justifies terminal abuse of millions of babies every year in your logic. That is the terms we SHOULD be using. not pro-choice but pro-terminal abuse. That's abuse that ALWAYS ends in the victim's death. You want an murder-for-free pass because you are "mommy", well,,,, No.
Let me see if i follow the logic. First let us remember that females have, for centuries, be granted special dispensation because both society and men trusted them to see that the offspring were cared for, as the supposed weaker of the sex. Can we agree on this? women and children first being a prime example. Then let us consider that while they still enjoy those added protections and are calling for even more they are not only failing to protect the unborn babies in their care but are actively killing them when they become an inconvenience or a bad memory result. Then, while espousing a supposed total rejection of any man molesting a child they either participate in or condone the vilest form of child molestation there is. And the victim of that molestation always dies where the victim of male molestation often lives and recovers. Then you think these killers of the most innocent deserve male respect? I just don't see the logic, and it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with privilege and responsibility to their charge to protect children above all else. It used to be children first, then women and lastly men. Now it seems it is women first, children second and men last. They put themselves before children, then try unsuccessfully to take some moral high ground. That is not what they receive respect, privilege, or special protections for.
Men and especially men in the church, have subjugated women for millenia. Most still do. They don't allow women to lead the Church. They want to control a woman's body and reproductive rights.
And what percentage of total pregnancies, including those aborted by mommy, are victims of those medical conditions. I am not saying that I would approve of them being legal but I want to know what level of danger justifies terminal abuse of millions of babies every year in your logic. That is the terms we SHOULD be using. not pro-choice but pro-terminal abuse. That's abuse that ALWAYS ends in the victim's death. You want an murder-for-free pass because you are "mommy", well,,,, No.
The question asked was what medical conditions are indications for termination of pregnancy. I was answering that question.
But a female killing a baby isn't. She is ending a life that isn't hers to take. If opposing that labels me a misogynist, as one here has already labeled me and anyone apparently who isn't a card carrying member of the NOW, I accept that title considering the caliber of the people labeling me as such.
It isn't hers to take? Where do you think a baby comes from? Who do you think must carry a baby for 9 months? You seem to think a baby isn't developed in a womans body. It's almost as if you think she borrowed it from someone else and it "isn't hers to take"? Amazing stuff there.
This is a nonsense argument. Murder is illegal. This law is imposed on everyone in the country. Some people believe that a woman killing her fetus because she simply doesn't want the baby (not rape, or incest) is murder. If you believe this you should try and do everything peacefully possible to protect the innocent victim.
You say a zygote is not a baby. Ok, what about a fetus that is 7 months old and viable outside of the womb???
NO I did not say a zygote is not a baby. The DICTIONARY did! lol
As far as your scenario, why does a normal pregnancy take 9 months and not 7 months? Obviously because the "fetus" is not fully developed and needs the mothers body to finish development.
I thought I was in favor of abortion only in the case of rape, and then I actually thought about it, instead of parroting what I had heard others say. I'm pro-life, because I believe all life is sacred and life is a gift from God. If I really believed that, why would a horrific crime, the result of which produces a life, reduce said life, simply because of unfortunate circumstances? If all life is precious, then all life is precious. Besides, how would murdering a pre born baby, who had nothing to do with how he/she was conceived, relive the pain of the horrific and cowardly act of rape?
Since you consider all life "sacred" you MUST be against the death penalty? Otherwise that would make you a bit of a hypocrite.
The choice that you support, when performed correctly, results in death 100% of the time. You are not pro choice, you are pro death. Any leftist that professes compassion and tolerance and then turns around and supports abortion is a hypocrite to the nth degree.
Listen, I can't prevent women from getting abortions any more than I can stop children from dying from starvation in Africa. I haven't sent a donation to Africa to try to do something about it. Does that make me pro death? No it does not.
"6 cells dividing does not make a baby. A zygote also is not a baby."
I had no idea I had someone omniscient posting here. Fifty years ago the same doctors and scientists you believe in said a child isn't aware of pain. If you can read the future and tell me what these same doctors will be saying in another 50 years then tell me who will win the super bowl please.
Quite frankly I'm more concerned about society helping out an actual child in need where we can really see evidence of pain, abuse, and neglect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
