Abortion Discussion

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Meet Lucas, the healthy baby recently born in the UK at 23 weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-23671645



Lucas could've had this done to him legally instead.

[IMAGE DELETED]

His mother had an emergency c-section as she had a placental abruption which caused her to suffer from a life-threatening haemorrhage. Lucas had only 25% of survival after the c-section. So the doctors made a decision that was potentially a fatal one for the child as they did all they could to ensure the survival of his mother.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you point out any errors in the description?

The reality is gruesome therefore the description is gruesome.

Gruesome doesn't mean wrong. I'm almost bashing my head on the keyboard here at your apparent unwillingness to accept this simple fact.

Brown Bomber

28064212 wrote: »

What do you think the description of, say, an appendectomy would be like? Sunshine and lollipops?

Can you point out any errors in the description by the former abortionist of D&E abortion?

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

Gruesome doesn't mean wrong. I'm almost bashing my head on the keyboard here at your apparent unwillingness to accept this simple fact.

Again,

can you point out any errors in the description you have a problem with?

maguic24

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have done before.

Any point at which the foetus MAY feel pain, which according to the expert I quoted previously is anywhere from 16weeks is horrendous and inexcusable except in cases of extreme circumstances.

So you're okay with the morning after pill and abortions up to 16 weeks?

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you point out any errors in the description by the former abortionist of D&E abortion?

He's now pro life. I think anything he says needs to be read with that in mind. Forgive me if I don't think he is being entirely impartial.

Brown Bomber

maguic24 wrote: »

So you're okay with the morning after pill and abortions up to 16 weeks?

Considerably more so, yes.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again,

can you point out any errors in the description you have a problem with?

Nope - I have no problem with the description. I am capable to discriminating between that which is gruesome and that which is wrong.

Brown Bomber

eviltwin wrote: »

He's now pro life. I think anything he says needs to be read with that in mind. Forgive me if I don't think he is being entirely impartial.

For crying out loud... can you find any errors in the description of the abortion by the doctor - yes or no?

maguic24

I'm totally confused, no one said there was any errors in the description, not that I read it. Unless I missed something??

I read all the descriptions of abortions and seen all the aborted 'babies' pics in religion class in school, I still didn't change my mind. We were even give the little feet badge, you know the prolife badge, I didn't take it. As a few posters have already said, a lot of different operations are gruesome. I wasn't under any illusion as to what happened and 5 years on, I'm still not under illusions as to what happens. I'm aware of the gory details and I am still prochoice.....

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's an accurate scientific diagram but fair enough. I'll allow a former abortionist to describe the procedure that the kid in that photo, Lucas, could've legally had happen to him in the very same building on the day that he was born.

Didn't we hash out your argument by attempt at horror story earlier in the thread?

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For crying out loud... can you find any errors in the description of the abortion by the doctor - yes or no?

I can't answer that. I'm not a medical expert. I don't know anything about the abortion procedure. I'll take his word for it in terms of the facts but I will do so with the knowledge this man is now speaking from a pro life perspective.

iwantmydinner

Brown Bomber - research a description of an episiotomy. Gruesome =/= wrong.

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

Nope - I have no problem with the description. I am capable to discriminating between that which is gruesome and that which is wrong.

Make your mind up.

So this description of the procedure of D&E abortion which could have legally been done to Lucas the healthy baby seen n the picture an hour before he was born, in the same building he was born is factually correct?

How long a jail sentence would someone get if they literally tore little Lucas limb-from limb until he died an hour after he was born? That is if they weren't lynched first.

What is the difference?

maguic24

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Make your mind up.

So this description of the procedure of D&E abortion which could have legally been done to Lucas the healthy baby seen n the picture an hour before he was born, in the same building he was born is factually correct?

How long a jail sentence would someone get if they literally tore little Lucas limb-from limb until he died an hour after he was born? That is if they weren't lynched first.

What is the difference?

What is the difference between what?

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Make your mind up.

So this description of the procedure of D&E abortion which could have legally been done to Lucas the healthy baby seen n the picture an hour before he was born, in the same building he was born is factually correct?

How long a jail sentence would someone get if they literally tore little Lucas limb-from limb until he died an hour after he was born? That is if they weren't lynched first.

What is the difference?

I can accept an argument on the basis that 23 weeks is too late to be performing abortions - as an argument. I do not accept the argument that a certain abortion is wrong simply because the procedure appears gruesome.

If at 23 weeks little Lucas was painlessly killed in a non-gruesome manner, would that bother you less?

Is it the manner of the abortion that bothers you, or the fact that the baby might be viable that bothers you?

Make your mind up, indeed.

Brown Bomber

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Brown Bomber - research a description of an episiotomy. Gruesome =/= wrong.

Right but crushing an unborn babies skull at the age of Lucas with this instrument = wrong? Or you disagree?

[IMAGE DELETED]

robindch

BB, you might have forgotten this warning from 55 minutes ago:

robindch wrote: »

Folks -

Please cut out the foetus/abortion/period/haemoglobic images on all sides - they don't make for a peaceful debate.

Thanking youse.

For the avoidance of doubt, you'll be carded for ignoring any further moderator warnings.

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

I can accept an argument on the basis that 23 weeks is too late to be performing abortions - as an argument. I do not accept the argument that a certain abortion is wrong simply because the procedure appears gruesome.

If at 23 weeks little Lucas was painlessly killed in a non-gruesome manner, would that bother you less?

Is it the manner of the abortion that bothers you, or the fact that the baby might be viable that bothers you?

Make your mind up, indeed.

It's a combination. Please don't misunderstand me. The gory nature of late term abortions is not what bothers me. It it is the potential torture the foetus may endure.

I'm against the death penalty but prefer them to be carried by lethal injection to stoning.

28064212

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Make your mind up.

So this description of the procedure of D&E abortion which could have legally been done to Lucas the healthy baby seen n the picture an hour before he was born, in the same building he was born is factually correct?

How long a jail sentence would someone get if they literally tore little Lucas limb-from limb until he died an hour after he was born? That is if they weren't lynched first.

What is the difference?

How long a jail sentence would I get for performing an appendectomy? How long would a doctor get for doing the same?

And since you seem to have missed it, gruesome =/= wrong

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a combination. Please don't misunderstand me. The gory nature of late term abortions is not what bothers me. It it is the potential torture the foetus may endure.

I'm against the death penalty but prefer them to be carried by lethal injection to stoning.

I don't like the method you describe either but I'm still pro choice. It doesn't change how I feel about abortion. I know of a few late abortions which were tfmr and they weren't at all like you describe, they involved labour and birth. Its worth remembering most abortions happen in the first trimester.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a combination. Please don't misunderstand me. The gory nature of late term abortions is not what bothers me. It it is the potential torture the foetus may endure.

I'm against the death penalty but prefer them to be carried by lethal injection to stoning.

Then can I infer that if late term abortions are carried out painlessly to the foetus (when they must be carried out) you are ok with that?

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a combination. Please don't misunderstand me. The gory nature of late term abortions is not what bothers me. It it is the potential torture the foetus may endure.

I'm against the death penalty but prefer them to be carried by lethal injection to stoning.

We're not monsters - I'm sure everyone here would be very much in favour of avoiding as much pain as medically possible, for both the foetus and woman.

MrPudding

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But Jimi believes that you have a "person in being" from the point of conception:


so, if he is being consistent, he should see abortion as murder.

Besides, I would imagine he is more likely to follow the religious definition of murder than the legal one (probably something along the lines of "killing someone without god telling you to").

What Jimi beleives does not matter. That was the point. The term murder, and the requirments for it, are legal. Irrespective of what one thinks or hopes, it isn't murder simply because one has a different idea, from the law, about what a person in being is.

This is simlar to "evolution, it's just a theory." That only works if you use a definition of theory that is different to what science uses.

We, the regulars of this forum, generally don't stand for the redefinition of words, or the interpretation of the meaning of something, when it fundamentally changes the nature of the thing being dicsussed. I feel the same with legal terms, it irritates me when they are abused.

MrP

Brown Bomber

28064212 wrote: »

How long a jail sentence would I get for performing an appendectomy? How long would a doctor get for doing the same?

And since you seem to have missed it, gruesome =/= wrong

Please don't waste my time comparing procedures designed to protect life with procedures designed to end life.

MrPudding

gaynorvader wrote: »

I have been working off the assumption that it was passed into law that a fertilised egg/foetus/etc is a person and it was illegal to have an abortion. If that is the case, what should the punishment be for a woman having an abortion?

I don't think there should be a punishment for having an abortion.

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence, the punishment for having an illegal abortion is not life, therefore an illegal abortion is not murder.

MrP

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

We're not monsters - I'm sure everyone here would be very much in favour of avoiding as much pain as medically possible, for both the foetus and woman.

I genuinely don't doubt that for a second. Though I suspect for many pro-abortion advocates there is no amount of pain and suffering to the unborn that is too much.

The making omelletes with cracked eggs mentality.

shruikan2553

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Please don't waste my time comparing procedures designed to protect life with procedures designed to end life.

Abortions can be done to save the life of the mother, like in the case you showed. So they are both used to protect life,

Brown Bomber

maguic24 wrote: »

What is the difference between what?

Tearing Lucas limb-from-limb and crushing his skull with a forceps on the day that he was born a) an hour before he was born and b) an hour after?

28064212

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Please don't waste my time comparing procedures designed to protect life with procedures designed to end life.

You are the one who decided to correlate how gruesome something is with how bad it is. You are the one who equated a medical procedure with a murder. You are the one who repeatedly asked people to point out errors in the description, despite no-one saying there was. Who's wasting who's time?