Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
I would just like to jump in and add here that not everyone who is against later term abortion is a religious person. I am not religious in the slightest.




Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
I would just like to jump in and add here that not everyone who is against later term abortion is a religious person. I am not religious in the slightest.
Originally posted by MHopkins2
So that's a no, then?
The question was the humane-ness or lack thereof, which IMO is predicated upon pain and suffering.
Originally posted by caitycaity
i pretty much agree with mhopkins' NOMB comment.
I just want it left to the doctor(s) involved in the case to make that determination, and not a politically-motivated (by definition) legislature.Originally posted by Galahad
As I said earlier, there is never a medical reason to do this. The health and life of the woman is not being protected by this procedure. So I actually find the opposition to its prohibition more puzzling than the position of those that want it banned.
Originally posted by MHopkins2
No, I seriously don't - no joke. Do we have a doctor in the house that could help with this question?
For the second time, you are wrong - I absolutely do understand the subject. You don't have to agree with me, but don't patronize me. Thanks.Originally posted by wdwdvcdad
If you undersatood the subject, you could not possibly be pro-murder.
I wasn't talking about your link, I was referring to links posted in other threads. Having said that, to repeat myself, the pictures do not change my opinion - just as the disgusting pictures of skinned animals my old friend acepepper posted in the fur thread didn't change my opinion on that topic. I don't respond to that kind of emotional blackmail.As for the links, there was not a picture of aborted fetuses. The last link had a diagram of the medical procedure as it went step by step. no blood & guts to get in the way of your conscience....![]()
There were two separate questions posed; the one I was answering was the humane-ness or lack thereof of the procedure. I don't feel the procedure is inhumane.Originally posted by wdwdvcdad
so, you would be ok with a child being killed if it were done humanely & the child did not suffer?
Sure it is. That doesn't mean the killing itself is morally acceptable, but the purposeful reduction of pain is a humane action.If a humane action is predicated opon pain & suffering, applying an anesthetic before killing someone is humane.
Originally posted by MHopkins2
There were two separate questions posed; the one I was answering was the humane-ness or lack thereof of the procedure. I don't feel the procedure is inhumane.
Sure it is. That doesn't mean the killing itself is morally acceptable, but the purposeful reduction of pain is a humane action.
Originally posted by MHopkins2
Good gravy, no.So I take it you'd be in favor of me having an abortion?
![]()
Originally posted by poohandwendy
Can someone here give a specific scenario instance where the mothers health or life is at risk and this procedure would benefit her?
Your post makes no sense medically. If she went through with a partial birth abortion, there is no reason that her life would have been in danger had they allowed the baby to live after delivering it rather than killing it.Originally posted by Teejay32
I don't know any of the medical terms, but I saw a TV show on labor and delivery once where one of the women had a high-risk pregnancy. She was somewhere in her 7th month and already in the hospital, awaiting the right time for a c-section with all kinds of specialists on hand. Physically she was swollen to about twice her normal size, everywhere. I don't know what from.
Anyway, I was thinking how brave it was to make the decision to go through with it. It's dangerous, I don't know how people do it when they have other little ones at home (this woman didn't), or if they're not near state-of-the-art medical care, and hopefully she wasn't going to have to pay for even a tenth of the expense, in the event she survived. (She did.) Had she had those kinds of problems in the 4th or 5th month, what are her options?
I don't know how anyone with blood running through their veins can think an unborn life is equal to the mother's life....except maybe the mother and father themselves.
If this is such a humane procedure that causes no suffering or pain...why hasn't there been a push to have this procedure used in death penalty cases and euthanasia of pets?
I am talking about the procedure of puncturing the skull and sucking the brains out. That has been said to be humane (causes no pain) on this thread. So, why do we not push for that part of the procedure to be used with DR inmates and pets who need euthanized?Originally posted by caitycaity
when was the last time a fetus was on death row or a dog fetus was euthanized?![]()
Originally posted by poohandwendy
I am talking about the procedure of puncturing the skull and sucking the brains out. That has been said to be humane (causes no pain) on this thread. So, why do we not push for that part of the procedure to be used with DR inmates and pets who need euthanized?
Originally posted by goofy4tink
You know, there is an old saying that goes something like this..."I don't agree with you, but I'll defend, to the death, your freedom to have that different opinion." Would I have an abortion? Probably not. It's not the right choice for me. But, I will still defend your right to have one, if that's what is right for you. As I would defend your right to not have one. I am such a fence sitter. I just hate being able to see both sides. For those of you that are Pro choice or anti abortion/choice, nothing we say will make you change that opinion.
Originally posted by poohandwendy
If it is humane for a fetus, why on earth would it not be humane for a dog or DR inmate?