Abortion or Murder or just suits our self

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

I say we weigh up the pros & cons, get some professional advice and make an informed decision ..... or we could just agree with real life...hmmm tough call......

I have previously linked to documents from two physicians' groups which stated that the unborn is a patient. They do not regard the unborn as a 'lump of protoplasm' or 'a potential human'. So why don't you agree with them? Your position is based on politics, not medicine.

No it's not. The majority medical opinion supports the status quo on abortion. Two doctors could be found to support almost anything.

Support for your position comes from the "right" and the "church". Certainly not from "medicine"

(oh, and as you well know, my position is based on "medicine" for girls/women, not politics)

I didn't say two doctors.

I said two physicians' groups -- The American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

You have cited no medical evidence to support your opinion -- just twisted reasoning about how if someone died while attempting something illegal, then that is a good argument for making the activity legal. Should we apply that to other illegal activities as well?

Your position is a political one, not based on medicine.

Ending Your Pregnancy

What is abortion?
Abortion means ending a pregnancy. Most abortions are done in the first trimester (the first 3 months of the pregnancy). They are done by a doctor and other health care professionals in a hospital, doctor's office or health center. There are 2 types of abortion: medical and surgical.

Are abortions safe?
When done by health care professionals, both medical and surgical abortions are generally very safe. Serious complications are rare. Abortion generally does not reduce a woman's ability to get pregnant in the future.


Source
American Academy of Family Physicians

Quote:

Ending Your Pregnancy

What is abortion?
Abortion means ending a pregnancy. Most abortions are done in the first trimester (the first 3 months of the pregnancy). They are done by a doctor and other health care professionals in a hospital, doctor's office or health center. There are 2 types of abortion: medical and surgical.

Are abortions safe?
When done by health care professionals, both medical and surgical abortions are generally very safe. Serious complications are rare. Abortion generally does not reduce a woman's ability to get pregnant in the future.


Source
American Academy of Family Physicians

Are these the people who support your position then real life?

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

I say we weigh up the pros & cons, get some professional advice and make an informed decision ..... or we could just agree with real life...hmmm tough call......

I have previously linked to documents from two physicians' groups which stated that the unborn is a patient. They do not regard the unborn as a 'lump of protoplasm' or 'a potential human'. So why don't you agree with them? Your position is based on politics, not medicine.

No it's not. The majority medical opinion supports the status quo on abortion. Two doctors could be found to support almost anything.

Support for your position comes from the "right" and the "church". Certainly not from "medicine"

(oh, and as you well know, my position is based on "medicine" for girls/women, not politics)

I didn't say two doctors.

I said two physicians' groups -- The American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

You have cited no medical evidence to support your opinion -- just twisted reasoning about how if someone died while attempting something illegal, then that is a good argument for making the activity legal. Should we apply that to other illegal activities as well?

Your position is a political one, not based on medicine.

22 MAY 2004 | GENEVA -- The World Health Organization's first strategy on reproductive health was adopted today by the 57th World Health Assembly (WHA). Reproductive and sexual ill-health accounts for 20% of the global burden of ill-health for women, and 14% for men.

The strategy targets five priority aspects of reproductive and sexual health: improving antenatal, delivery, postpartum and newborn care; providing high-quality services for family planning, including infertility services; eliminating unsafe abortion; combating sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, reproductive tract infections, cervical cancer and other gynaecological morbidities; and promoting sexual health.

Each year, some eight million of the estimated 210 million women who become pregnant, suffer life-threatening complications related to pregnancy, many experiencing long-term morbidities and disabilities. In 2000, an estimated 529 000 women died during pregnancy and childbirth from largely preventable causes.

Thanks to WHO.

real life wrote:

Pick a point in the development of the unborn at which the unborn, in your opinion, is worthy of protection. As parados did you may start with 'viability' (however and whenever you define it).

Very well. I choose the point where the nerves develop. 1 day earlier means that the nerves haven't developed and so any destruction will not be felt by the foetus. The day after means the foetus will. Surely it is cruel that can feel pain?

Anything before... well... Nature doesn't think highly of anything before. So, assuming God exists and that he created the Laws of Nature, that means he doesn't think too highly of anything before that time period either.

I'm still waiting to hear if real life ever had to deal with a doorstep baby....

Viability is achieved sometime between the 24th and the 28th week.

Viability is decided on a case by case basis, according to the Supreme court, with the Dr. and the woman making the decision.

When is the exact date of conception? When you can answer that one as precisely as you demand we answer viability then we can discuss your "one day" idea.

Viability is an EASY one to answer the question of 1 day...

Viability means the fetus can survive outside the womb. One day earlier means they can't survive. End of story. Simple and easy.

In reality the viable time period is such that many can't survive even after that date. So why not move it back a day or two to the point all survive? Since you want to play the one day game.

By the way, I know several veterinarians that consider cats and dogs to be patients. Does that make a pet have the same rights as a human?

Your one day game is a stupid game by the way real life. The legal standard is set for many things based on an arbitrary time line, driving, voting, serving in the military, starting school, being able to be drafted in for the NBA. There is a very large legal precedent that would have to be broken to even use the one day argument in court.

Viability is an EASY one to answer the question of 1 day...

Viability means the fetus can survive outside the womb. One day earlier means they can't survive. End of story. Simple and easy.

In reality the viable time period is such that many can't survive even after that date. So why not move it back a day or two to the point all survive? Since you want to play the one day game.

By the way, I know several veterinarians that consider cats and dogs to be patients. Does that make a pet have the same rights as a human?

Your one day game is a stupid game by the way real life. The legal standard is set for many things based on an arbitrary time line, driving, voting, serving in the military, starting school, being able to be drafted in for the NBA. There is a very large legal precedent that would have to be broken to even use the one day argument in court.

parados wrote:

Viability is achieved sometime between the 24th and the 28th week.

Viability is decided on a case by case basis, according to the Supreme court, with the Dr. and the woman making the decision.

When is the exact date of conception? When you can answer that one as precisely as you demand we answer viability then we can discuss your "one day" idea.

That's exactly the point, isn't it?

You have no firm idea when viability is achieved or even when to begin to count from.

How can you claim that a child is not worthy of protection prior to viability?

Isn't it more prudent to err on the side of life if we cannot agree on when it begins, rather than erring on the side of death and reckless disregard?

50% of vegetable genes can also be found in humans. Does this mean we should give veges the same rights as humans?

aperson wrote:

50% of vegetable genes can also be found in humans. Does this mean we should give veges the same rights as humans?

Ask real life, he is the one that stated calling something a "patient" gives it human rights.

OK.. viability occurs EXACTLY 25 weeks after conception.. now what is the date of conception? Be specific. No mamby pamby erring on the side of reckless disregard.........By the way real life, since you can't be specific about the exact date conception happens one can only think you have a reckless disregard for life.

So if the killing is not painful, then it's morally ok?

How 'bout if we just put folks to sleep if we don't want 'em around? Put 'em down like dogs.

As long as it's not painful, there should be no moral compunction, right?

Anything before... well... Nature doesn't think highly of anything before. So, assuming God exists and that he created the Laws of Nature, that means he doesn't think too highly of anything before that time period either.

Since no one knows the date of conception in many cases, and you are simply guessing when you peg viability at 25 weeks, the only prudent course is to protect the unborn at all points.

Err on the side of life, if we must err due to lack of specific knowledge of the date of conception and/or viability.

real life wrote:

Since no one knows the date of conception in many cases, and you are simply guessing when you peg viability at 25 weeks, the only prudent course is to protect the unborn at all points.

Err on the side of life, if we must err due to lack of specific knowledge of the date of conception and/or viability.

There is nothing in the least prudent about foisting upon society a life which is is not certain the mother can sustain and properly care for for the next eighteen years. Despite the mealy-mouthed and self-righteous protestations of the "right to life" crowd, they make and intend to make no provision for any children born as a result of a successful intervention to prevent an abortion. You have never answered the very pointed question of whether nor not you have ever taken in a baby left on your doorstep. It would be pointless, of course, to ask if you would do so--since you can blithely lie about that.

I would take an abandoned child in a heartbeat,