Can someone help me understand this

Batman's buddy

New member
If someone is pro-life, and would want (demand by law) a woman to carry a child to term no matter the personal case (rape, incest, doesn't want / can't afford) then please answer this for me. Why shouldn't we also make it mandatory to be a bone marrow or kidney donor, in order to keep that same child alive after it's born? If we're asking a woman to literally risk her life to carry a child, why not ask the same thing of some random man that happens to have the life saving donor match of a kidney?
 
Easy: No human being is being intentionally killed in your scenario. We don't press charges against a man who doesn't come to the defense of a mugging victim, but we do to the mugger.
 

Tiburon

Member
Easy: No human being is being intentionally killed in your scenario. We don't press charges against a man who doesn't come to the defense of a mugging victim, but we do to the mugger.
If lifesaving material is being withheld then yes someone is being killed.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
If someone is pro-life, and would want (demand by law) a woman to carry a child to term no matter the personal case (rape, incest, doesn't want / can't afford) then please answer this for me. Why shouldn't we also make it mandatory to be a bone marrow or kidney donor, in order to keep that same child alive after it's born? If we're asking a woman to literally risk her life to carry a child, why not ask the same thing of some random man that happens to have the life saving donor match of a kidney?
The hypothetical threat is non medical drama queenery.

Sounds like you rely on political sources and are blocked from medical sources.

The goal at every abortion case is to kill at least one person. You are asking to defend killing a baby.

Having an abortion risks literally the mother's life. Risks include perforated uterus, septicemia, MRSA, DVT

Bleeding to death.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Easy: No human being is being intentionally killed in your scenario. We don't press charges against a man who doesn't come to the defense of a mugging victim, but we do to the mugger.
For a little context, the atheeists heathen pro-abortion Chinese are known for coerced organ donations. Also forced sterilization and forced abortion.

Organ harvests. Same with harvesting organs from aborted babies.
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
If someone is pro-life, and would want (demand by law) a woman to carry a child to term no matter the personal case (rape, incest, doesn't want / can't afford) then please answer this for me. Why shouldn't we also make it mandatory to be a bone marrow or kidney donor, in order to keep that same child alive after it's born? If we're asking a woman to literally risk her life to carry a child, why not ask the same thing of some random man that happens to have the life saving donor match of a kidney?
Red bolding mine.

I don't even know where to begin. You're are describing a small amount of minutia when it comes to abortion. Victims of rape, incest account for 1% for elective abortion.


Obviously they are the extreme exceptions. Most abortions are done for convenience.

If they are old enough to engage in sex, they are old enough to accept the consequences. No one is saying a woman has to raise the child. Adoption agencies will find good homes with almost no effort at all.

Our stand is that murdering your baby is immoral, and inhumane.

Carrying a baby is natural, it's how we are made. the death rate is simply more minutia.


Bone marrow extraction is an exceptionally painful procedure. Since when does boring 3 holes in the pelvis not invasive? It has risks.

Kidney transplantation is yet another surgical procedure. It's painful for both the recipient and the donor. Surgery always has risk

Your discussion of bone marrow, etc. Has nothing to do with abortion. IOW it is a red herring.

Try again.
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
The hypothetical threat is non medical drama queenery.

Sounds like you rely on political sources and are blocked from medical sources.

The goal at every abortion case is to kill at least one person. You are asking to defend killing a baby.

Having an abortion risks literally the mother's life. Risks include perforated uterus, septicemia, MRSA, DVT

Bleeding to death.

Great use of words!
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
For a little context, the atheeists heathen pro-abortion Chinese are known for coerced organ donations. Also forced sterilization and forced abortion.

Organ harvests. Same with harvesting organs from aborted babies.

When I was young I became a nurse. I have stood by uterine biopsies. The first thing the doctor does is the same thing an abortion doctor does.

After inserting the speculum, they place a needle nose tenaculum on the cervix and pull!

Here is a picture.

With no anesthesia, the sharp points stab (an inevitably bleed) the woman.

Here is what I propose: a woman who wants an abortion should first allow the doctor to place the tenaculum on the testicles with the sharp pointy ends (of the man who impregnated her) and PULLLLLLLLL.

Voila, the abortion rate goes down dramatically.
 

Cody

New member
If someone is pro-life, and would want (demand by law) a woman to carry a child to term no matter the personal case (rape, incest, doesn't want / can't afford) then please answer this for me. Why shouldn't we also make it mandatory to be a bone marrow or kidney donor, in order to keep that same child alive after it's born? If we're asking a woman to literally risk her life to carry a child, why not ask the same thing of some random man that happens to have the life saving donor match of a kidney?
I think we do ask men and women to consider donating blood, kidneys, etc. The difference is that the abortion procedure kills a baby. People can make decisions about how generous they are willing/able to be. However, no one has the right to murder someone.
 
Abortion is still murder. Why can't they just wait for 9 months, give birth, and give it to an adoption agency? 9 months is not long and its not a life time of inconvenience. Anyway, they are going to reject the baby anyway and why not give it to someone that needs them?

I am only for abortion if the life of the mother is at stake, defective fetus, and what not. A "healthy baby" should never be aborted.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
When I was young I became a nurse. I have stood by uterine biopsies. The first thing the doctor does is the same thing an abortion doctor does.

After inserting the speculum, they place a needle nose tenaculum on the cervix and pull!

Here is a picture.

With no anesthesia, the sharp points stab (an inevitably bleed) the woman.

Here is what I propose: a woman who wants an abortion should first allow the doctor to place the tenaculum on the testicles with the sharp pointy ends (of the man who impregnated her) and PULLLLLLLLL.

Voila, the abortion rate goes down dramatically.
the needle nose tenaculum is mean. But it works to raise the cervix for the dilators.

Speaking of testicles. Our chief neuro surgeon had a case. The patient was in what i related to as a catatonic trance. rigid stiff and non-responsive. nothing showed up on imaging. A puzzle. So he pulled back the patient's sheet, yanked on his testicles and the patient popped up and yelled. Game over.
Now if he was unconscious, the pain would not be felt.
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
the needle nose tenaculum is mean. But it works to raise the cervix for the dilators.

Speaking of testicles. Our chief neuro surgeon had a case. The patient was in what i related to as a catatonic trance. rigid stiff and non-responsive. nothing showed up on imaging. A puzzle. So he pulled back the patient's sheet, yanked on his testicles and the patient popped up and yelled. Game over.
Now if he was unconscious, the pain would not be felt.

A few years in medicine opens up many experiences. Maybe, too many experiences. LOL

God Speed ✝️
 

Temujin

Active member
Abortion is still murder. Why can't they just wait for 9 months, give birth, and give it to an adoption agency? 9 months is not long and its not a life time of inconvenience. Anyway, they are going to reject the baby anyway and why not give it to someone that needs them?

I am only for abortion if the life of the mother is at stake, defective fetus, and what not. A "healthy baby" should never be aborted.
Women who seek an abortion usually do so because it is the pregnancy itself that is the problem. Whether for medical, emotional, financial or whatever reasons, they wish to end the pregnancy. That is what an abortion does, end the pregnancy. Yes, it does kill the developing foetus, but to call this murder is to misuse the term, which has a clear legal definition which does not apply to abortion. Whatever your moral views on abortion, it is not murder. If it really was murder, your post here implies that you are in favour of murdering people who are defective or " what not". I'm sure that isn't the case, but it does show that the foetus is not like other people, even in your eyes. Which one of the reasons why killing the foetus is not murder.
 
Women who seek an abortion usually do so because it is the pregnancy itself that is the problem. Whether for medical, emotional, financial or whatever reasons, they wish to end the pregnancy. That is what an abortion does, end the pregnancy. Yes, it does kill the developing foetus, but to call this murder is to misuse the term, which has a clear legal definition which does not apply to abortion. Whatever your moral views on abortion, it is not murder. If it really was murder, your post here implies that you are in favour of murdering people who are defective or " what not". I'm sure that isn't the case, but it does show that the foetus is not like other people, even in your eyes. Which one of the reasons why killing the foetus is not murder.

The pregnancy is not the problem. The problem is sexual immorality. If you don't like murder, we use baby killer instead.

A defective fetus (brain deformities, heart, internal organs etc) that can only survive for a few weeks or a few months is something illogical to give birth to it. The woman gives birth to it and then for a moment it dies just to escape being accused of murdering or killing it. It doesn't make sense. Why make the baby suffer when it's missing some parts? However, it makes a lot of sense of killing a perfectly normal healthy fetus.

It's not an excuse to kill the fetus just because of lack of money or something else problematic. Many poor mothers in poor countries give birth regardless of financial, emotional, etc. situation. They take care of a dozen kids without whining. While people in the wealthy west kill fetuses for convenience. A night of pleasure, the girl gets pregnant, and then aborts the developing fetus.

Using legalities to justify abortion doesn't make it moral. The law is not something that can be used to define what is moral and what it's not. It's only good for covering something that stinks using legal acrobatics. Killing a life is still killing it at the moment of conception. Life starts at conception and not when the baby is fully functional.

My stance is, give birth to it and then have it adopted. It's just a simple process of waiting. Hassle free. If the girl is already a day pregnant, she can advertise it to those who wants a baby. If there's a taker, then the couple takes care of the pregnant girl like a family.
 

Temujin

Active member
The pregnancy is not the problem. The problem is sexual immorality. If you don't like murder, we use baby killer instead.
Sexual immorality is just a term used by hypocrites to impose unreasonable and unrealistic standards of behaviour on other people. You clearly have little experience of why women actually seek abortions. Pregnancy can be a catastrophic problem, blighting careers, forestalling education, destroying family relationships and in some cases threatening lives. These effects fall entirely on women, and it is right that those women should be the sole judge of whether an abortion is a solution.

A defective fetus (brain deformities, heart, internal organs etc) that can only survive for a few weeks or a few months is something illogical to give birth to it. The woman gives birth to it and then for a moment it dies just to escape being accused of murdering or killing it. It doesn't make sense. Why make the baby suffer when it's missing some parts? However, it makes a lot of sense of killing a perfectly normal healthy fetus.
I would certainly agree that a malformed foetus, which is often discovered quite late in pregnancy, should be grounds for abortion should a woman want one. But how do you define abnormality? Down's syndrome? Cleft palette?

It's not an excuse to kill the fetus just because of lack of money or something else problematic. Many poor mothers in poor countries give birth regardless of financial, emotional, etc. situation. They take care of a dozen kids without whining. While people in the wealthy west kill fetuses for convenience. A night of pleasure, the girl gets pregnant, and then aborts the developing fetus.
Do you mean countries where women are systematically abused? Where girls are not educated? Where women have limited rights or economic prospects? Do you really expect women to accept this second hand treatment and loss of control over their life chances?

[Using legalities to justify abortion doesn't make it moral. The law is not something that can be used to define what is moral and what it's not. It's only good for covering something that stinks using legal acrobatics. Killing a life is still killing it at the moment of conception. Life starts at conception and not when the baby is fully functional. [/QUOTE] I quite agree. Morality is not the same as legality. Morality is a personal judgement on how and how not to behave. I have no problem with people using moral arguments to attempt to have the law changed, even if I don't agree with them.

However, the reason this is such a controversial issue is that the moral argument cuts both ways. I believe that removing the rights and autonomy of women for the sake of an early foetus is morally grotesque. Abortion has been made legal for the reason that many people regard a legal abortion provision to be a moral one.

My stance is, give birth to it and then have it adopted. It's just a simple process of waiting. Hassle free. If the girl is already a day pregnant, she can advertise it to those who wants a baby. If there's a taker, then the couple takes care of the pregnant girl like a family.
This would be more realistic if there were not huge numbers of unwanted and unplaced children already awaiting adoption.
 
Sexual immorality is just a term used by hypocrites to impose unreasonable and unrealistic standards of behaviour on other people. You clearly have little experience of why women actually seek abortions. Pregnancy can be a catastrophic problem, blighting careers, forestalling education, destroying family relationships and in some cases threatening lives. These effects fall entirely on women, and it is right that those women should be the sole judge of whether an abortion is a solution.

If you're not a Christian, the rules of sexual immorality as defined in the Bible cannot be imposed to an unbeliever. You can do pretty much all you want according to what you think is right in your own eyes. Just like a Jew cannot impose to a non-Jew to observe the Sabbath day.

Anyway, what you described is really overblown and exaggerated. Lol

Many countries that ban abortion, the woman there still continue with whatever career they are on - doctors, teachers, architects, businesswomen, etc. They still go to work pregnant and attend school pregnant. It's a thug life. Women there are tough, resilient, and can take whatever is thrown at them. Never heard of a catastrophic life-changing armageddon event that happened in their lives. Families learn to cope with it and accept it. The baby is born and everyone is happy and joyful. If the mother doesn't want the kid, then a happy childless couple would be thrilled to accept it.

Do you mean countries where women are systematically abused? Where girls are not educated? Where women have limited rights or economic prospects? Do you really expect women to accept this second hand treatment and loss of control over their life chances?

They are a lot of "normal" modernized country which bans abortion.

Anyway, this really boils down to one's moral standards. If abortion is legal in your country, you have a choice. If you're a Christian, search your heart if this is the right thing to do. It's your choice and let judgment be reserved for the Lord alone. I make no judgment, but only show that there's always an alternative.
 
Top