Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

So a medical team can decide when it's ok to directly target the unborn. Should the team in the Savita case have directly targeted the unborn?

The medical team can decide to terminate the pregnancy if they deem it necesary to save the mother from a direct, physical, threat to her life.

Many times a sad unintended consequence of this will be the death of the baby.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

List three clear differences, if you can.

Can't give you three as that is simply an arbitrary number that you came up with, but the primary difference is the definition, as Partial Birth Abortion is a legal term and not a medical term, it's definition is different from D&X despite being colloquially interchangeable.

The legal definition describes PBA as when a doctor "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

D&X though does not specify that the the foetus is living as the procedure is sometimes used to deliver dead foetuses that have reached a particular stage of development. Also, a doctor may extract a foetus to a certain point and then cut through the neck meaning that it would not be an Intact Dilation & Extraction, but could still be legally counted as a Partial Birth Abortion as it was extracted past the naval.

So although the two terms are often considered interchangeable, they are not the same thing.

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think the consequent amendments allowing the unborn to be taken elsewhere to be killed are a success? Should they be repealed?

We've been over this time and time again.

The People are Prime. The People have spoken.

eviltwin

Black Menorca wrote: »

The medical team can decide to terminate the pregnancy if they deem it necesary to save the mother from a direct, physical, threat to her life.

Many times a sad unintended consequence of this will be the death of the baby.

That's already established. What's not established is that point at which the woman crosses the line where an abortion is allowed. That's why we have legal teams involved in what should be exclusively medical decisions.

Jayop

Black Menorca wrote: »

Absolutely not.

Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.

If that's not a reference to abortion in this case I don't know what is.

Black Menorca wrote: »

The medical team can decide to terminate the pregnancy if they deem it necesary to save the mother from a direct, physical, threat to her life.

Many times a sad unintended consequence of this will be the death of the baby.

So the woman died. If they didn't deem it necessary then they didn't do their jobs right.

eviltwin

Black Menorca wrote: »

We've been over this time and time again.

The People are Prime. The People have spoken.

What people would they be?

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

The medical team can decide to terminate the pregnancy if they deem it necesary to save the mother from a direct, physical, threat to her life.

Many times a sad unintended consequence of this will be the death of the baby.

How is terminating a pregnancy not targeting the unborn? How does delivering a foetus always result in its death? Or is there some law that states all pregnancies terminated because of the eighth amendment must result in a delivery of a dead foetus? Was Miss Y's pregnancy directly targeted and the foetus killed?

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

Can't give you three as that is simply an arbitrary number that you came up with, but the primary difference is the definition, as Partial Birth Abortion is a legal term and not a medical term, it's definition is different from D&X despite being colloquially interchangeable.

The legal definition describes PBA as when a doctor "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

D&X though does not specify that the the foetus is living as the procedure is sometimes used to deliver dead foetuses that have reached a particular stage of development. Also, a doctor may extract a foetus to a certain point and then cut through the neck meaning that it would not be an Intact Dilation & Extraction, but could still be legally counted as a Partial Birth Abortion as it was extracted past the naval.

So although the two terms are often considered interchangeable, they are not the same thing.

In essence, they are one in the same.

Jayop

eviltwin wrote: »

That's already established. What's not established is that point at which the woman crosses the line where an abortion is allowed. That's why we have legal teams involved in what should be exclusively medical decisions.

But but it's crystal clear?

otpmb

Black Menorca wrote: »

The 8th is clear as crystal, as are the Medical Council Guidelines.

The lack of an abortion did not cause Savita's death, or maybe you have evidence the three investigations missed?

Savita Halappanavar would probably be alive today if she had been given a termination of her pregnancy when she requested it, the former master of the National Maternity Hospital has told her inquest.
Dr Peter Boylan said that if Ms Halappanavar had been given a termination on the Monday or Tuesday, one or two days after she was admitted last October 21st, she would “on the balance of probabilities”, still be alive.
“It is highly likely she would not have died” if she had been given a termination earlier, he added.

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/highly-likely-halappanavar-would-be-alive-if-termination-given-inquest-told-1.1363125

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

We've been over this time and time again.

The People are Prime. The People have spoken.

Should the people be allowed to speak on repealing the eighth amendment?

Black Menorca

Jayop wrote: »

they didn't do their jobs right.

On that there is little doubt.


That does not equate with the abortion lobby's hijacking of Savita's death to further their nefarious agenda.

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

How is terminating a pregnancy not targeting the unborn? How does delivering a foetus always result in its death? Or is there some law that states all pregnancies terminated because of the eighth amendment must result in a delivery of a dead foetus? Was Miss Y's pregnancy directly targeted and the foetus killed?

Terminating the pregnancy is targetting saving the mother's life, not killing the baby.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Terminating the pregnancy is targetting saving the mother's life, not killing the baby.

So the baby is unaffected by the saving of a woman's life? When a foetus is delivered alive following a termination is that a direct targeting of a baby?

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

Should the people be allowed to speak on repealing the eighth amendment?

I have no say on the matter as an individual. If it is put to the People, Planned Parenthood has done wonders for YD and the PLC in their noble efforts to maintain the 8th.

Jayop

Black Menorca wrote: »

On that there is little doubt.


That does not equate with the abortion lobby's hijacking of Savita's death to further their nefarious agenda.

OK, so please answer a straightforward question with a straight forward answer then.

You agree that they didn't do their jobs right. So in this instance it's almost universally agreed that the woman could/would have survived had she been given an abortion as allowed under the 8th because of the risk to her life and the fact there was no chance of the fetus surviving.

Should they have performed the abortion?

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

So the baby is unaffected by the saving of a woman's life? When a foetus is delivered alive following a termination is that a direct targeting of a baby?

No.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

No.

So delivering a foetus because of a risk to a woman's life isn't directly targeting the unborn?

Black Menorca

Jayop wrote: »

OK, so please answer a straightforward question with a straight forward answer then.

You agree that they didn't do their jobs right. So in this instance it's almost universally agreed that the woman could/would have survived had she been given an abortion as allowed under the 8th because of the risk to her life and the fact there was no chance of the fetus surviving.

Should they have performed the abortion?

Of course not. Such black and white delineations in a complex, grey area is redundant in the extreme.

Proper care and early diagnosis would also more than likely saved her life, as the three reports confirm.

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

So delivering a foetus because of a risk to a woman's life isn't directly targeting the unborn?

Correct.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Correct.

Why?

Black Menorca

Isn't is funny?

A thread about Planned Parenthood's harvesting of aborted babys' body parts for profit is sidetracked, distracted and camouflaged by the abortion lobby.

Or at least they try their best to do so.

Fail.

eviltwin

Black Menorca wrote: »

Of course not. Such black and white delineations in a complex, grey area is redundant in the extreme.

Proper care and early diagnosis would also more than likely saved her life, as the three reports confirm.

So what Peter Boylan said in that quote posted above was complete rubbish then was it?

Jayop

Black Menorca wrote: »

Of course not. Such black and white delineations in a complex, grey area is redundant in the extreme.

Proper care and early diagnosis would also more than likely saved her life, as the three reports confirm.

Given she didn't receive an early diagnosis and the proper care before it reached that point.

Should she have received the abortion that would have saved her life under those actual circumstances?

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

Why?

This is bordering on haranguing now.

A termination of pregnancy in accepted circumstances under Irish law is to target the saving of the mother's life.

otpmb

Black Menorca wrote: »

Of course not. Such black and white delineations in a complex, grey area is redundant in the extreme.

Proper care and early diagnosis would also more than likely saved her life, as the three reports confirm.

But either way I take it, the foetus would not have survived, why postpone the inevitable, especially when it seemed to increase the threat to life of the mother?

Jayop

Black Menorca wrote: »

Isn't is funny?

A thread about Planned Parenthood's harvesting of aborted babys' body parts for profit is sidetracked, distracted and camouflaged by the abortion lobby.

Or at least they try their best to do so.

Fail.

No, I was asked to give an example of something. You've spent the last few pages trying to poopoo my example. Badly.

Black Menorca

eviltwin wrote: »

So what Peter Boylan said in that quote posted above was complete rubbish then was it?

Peter has his own reasons. I could speculate further. But I'll decline.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

In essence, they are one in the same.

Eh, no.

Black Menorca

Jayop wrote: »

Given she didn't receive an early diagnosis and the proper care before it reached that point.

Should she have received the abortion that would have saved her life under those actual circumstances?

If the medical team at any point felt a termination was the only option available to save her life, then of course it would have been justified.

Black Menorca

otpmb wrote: »

But either way I take it, the foetus would not have survived, why postpone the inevitable, especially when it seemed to increase the threat to life of the mother?

The law dictates otherwise.

Jayop

Black Menorca wrote: »

If the medical team at any point felt a termination was the only option available to save her life, then of course it would have been justified.

That's not what I asked.

That's twice I've asked a really simple question with a simple yes/no answer that you've ducked and dived from.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Isn't is funny?

A thread about Planned Parenthood's harvesting of aborted babys' body parts for profit is sidetracked, distracted and camouflaged by the abortion lobby.

Or at least they try their best to do so.

Fail.

Well that particular aspect of the discussion quickly ran out of steam due to lack of evidence contained in the videos that were posted and State investigations that confirmed no wrong-doing by Planned Parenthood.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

This is bordering on haranguing now.

A termination of pregnancy in accepted circumstances under Irish law is to target the saving of the mother's life.

I still don't understand how terminating a pregnancy because of a risk to life, as opposed to for other reasons, doesn't target the unborn directly but instead targets the saving of the mother's life.

Overheal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Isn't is funny?

A thread about Planned Parenthood's harvesting of aborted babys' body parts for profit is sidetracked, distracted and camouflaged by the abortion lobby.

Or at least they try their best to do so.

Fail.

Really? Because from where I was reading, all the anti-PP arguments have been thoroughly debunked and now theres just a lot of semi-unrelated discussion about abortions in general while we wait for the next heavily edited video, to get another round of "Oh no they DIDN'T" "Uhm, you're correct, they didn't"

But by all means: the quote/reply function is there if you want to revisit an older argument to try and counter-refute.

otpmb

Black Menorca wrote: »

Peter has his own reasons. I could speculate further. But I'll decline.

Please speculate.

Black Menorca wrote: »

The law dictates otherwise.

Dictated otherwise, it's been changed.

Astrolabe

I watched the video where the director/president of Planned Parenthood was filmed covertly, agreeing to sell children's body parts to buyers. She mentioned that she wanted to buy a lamborghini with her earnings. Any debate about whether women are being paid or not for their children's organs is moot - what they are doing in the first place, i.e.killing their own children, is wrong on every level. Anyone profiting from it is just adding to the evil.

Black Menorca

Jayop wrote: »

That's not what I asked.

That's twice I've asked a really simple question with a simple yes/no answer that you've ducked and dived from.

I don't do ducking and diving. Thats the job of the abortion lobby.

If a termination is the only option to save a mother life from a direct threat, then it is justifiable.

robdonn

Overheal wrote: »

Really? Because from where I was reading, all the anti-PP arguments have been thoroughly debunked and now theres just a lot of semi-unrelated discussion about abortions in general while we wait for the next heavily edited video, to get another round of "Oh no they DIDN'T" "Uhm, you're correct, they didn't"

But by all means: the quote/reply function is there if you want to revisit an older argument to try and counter-refute.

The funny part is that with another video going up, BM's only contribution to the thread's original topic has pretty much been "I knew it! I knew they were evil!"

Delirium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

In Catholic State they're not allowed to have any regrets except if the foetus didn't survive.

MOD NOTE

Less of the goading/baiting as quoted above please.

Thanks for your attention.

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

Well that particular aspect of the discussion quickly ran out of steam due to lack of evidence contained in the videos that were posted and State investigations that confirmed no wrong-doing by Planned Parenthood.

Wow.

Not even MSNBC are gung-ho in their support of PP after the revelations as this statement.

Though CNN do go close. Anderson Cooper in particular has been spinning for PP relentlessly over the past few nights.

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

I still don't understand how terminating a pregnancy because of a risk to life, as opposed to for other reasons, doesn't target the unborn directly but instead targets the saving of the mother's life.

Well I've explained it from my point of view. Beyond that? Maybe consult with a Jesuit.

I love the Jesuits.

Our first Jesuit Pope rocks.

robdonn

Astrolabe wrote: »

I watched the video where the director/president of Planned Parenthood was filmed covertly, agreeing to sell children's body parts to buyers. She mentioned that she wanted to buy a lamborghini with her earnings. Any debate about whether women are being paid or not for their children's organs is moot - what they are doing in the first place, i.e.killing their own children, is wrong on every level. Anyone profiting from it is just adding to the evil.

Unless you have watched a different video than everyone else then what you saw was the director negotiating financial recuperation for the costs of handling and transporting foetal specimens. And also a joke made in poor taste about wanting a Lamborghini.

Jayop

Black Menorca wrote: »

I don't do ducking and diving. Thats the job of the abortion lobby.

If a termination is the only option to save a mother life from a direct threat, then it is justifiable.

I didn't ask that question so that's the third duck/dive.


I'll try one more time to get a simple answer from you. Given what we now know about this case, should they have performed the abortion before she died.

Black Menorca

otpmb wrote: »

Please speculate.



Dictated otherwise, it's been changed.

I'll politely decline to the former.

Do expand on the latter.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Well I've explained it from my point of view. Beyond that? Maybe consult with a Jesuit.

I love the Jesuits.

Our first Jesuit Pope rocks.

So you can't explain why delivering a foetus doesn't directly target the foetus. Got it.

Black Menorca

Astrolabe wrote: »

I watched the video where the director/president of Planned Parenthood was filmed covertly, agreeing to sell children's body parts to buyers. She mentioned that she wanted to buy a lamborghini with her earnings. Any debate about whether women are being paid or not for their children's organs is moot - what they are doing in the first place, i.e.killing their own children, is wrong on every level. Anyone profiting from it is just adding to the evil.

Nail on head.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Wow.

Not even MSNBC are gung-ho in their support of PP after the revelations as this statement.

Though CNN do go close. Anderson Cooper in particular has been spinning for PP relentlessly over the past few nights.

Feel free to provide any evidence if you're so confident then. Unless you're engaging in some spin of your own.....

Black Menorca

Jayop wrote: »

I didn't ask that question so that's the third duck/dive.


I'll try one more time to get a simple answer from you. Given what we now know about this case, should they have performed the abortion before she died.

If it wasn't going to save her life? No.

If it was going to save her life? Yes.

Overheal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Wow.

Not even MSNBC are gung-ho in their support of PP after the revelations as this statement.

Though CNN do go close. Anderson Cooper in particular has been spinning for PP relentlessly over the past few nights.

In the event that I'm reading this as you contending the media hasn't claimed the investigations found no wrongdoing...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/planned-parenthood-wrongdoing-indiana

I was sure to find an MSNBC arcticle for gravitas. But yes, I had already mentioned a state investigation cleared planned parenthood of wrongdoing in Indiana; so far that I am aware this is the first investigation that has reached any conclusion to date.