pajarito

So was Bill Bennett, Green Beret, 5th Group. He died in Iraq, however. They're all heroes. Not just the one's that take a huge paycut.

It becomes potentially viable at around 24 weeks and, therefore, human according to even his standard. He doesn't agree that, even though it is human at that point, that it should be granted rights as a human (i.e. right to life). He is still for the woman being able to abort after that point. He thinks that, even though it is human, that it doesn't gain those rights as a human (i.e. right to live) until it can survive in our environment on its own. Before that point, he compares the killing the fetus with that of freezing the wart off your finger. By the way, it doesn't cease to be called a fetus and then called a baby until it is born. These are just semantics. You can also call it a parasitic organism and be very accurate. It makes it easier to kill that way.

No offense intended. You're doing that very thing youself. You even started your own thread.

Tell him "Good job."

Ok...I guess I'm just at an impass with someone like Zennister. It's a shame IMO, however, when it appears that certain people have such disregard for, what I consider, human life.

All types of patients mentioned above made the choice to undergo the risky procedures or to sign a "do not resuscitate" order. Even though they might not have been another option because they would eventually have died otherwise, they still chose to accept the risk. You don't have to sign a DNR, accept chemotherapy, or chose a risky operation where they might die in the process. An aborted baby didn't get a choice. Sometimes decisions have to be made by physicians such as the one you mentioned. Just like sometimes they have to save the mother at the expense of losing the baby in certain circumstances. They certainly shouldn't, according to the Hippocratic Oath, traumatize more than they absolutely have to get the desired result. I'd say killing a fetus unless you absolutely have to (i.e. the most extreme of circumstances), in reference to abortion, is, in fact, in direct contradiction.

You see...these are the types of responses that are so incredibly illogical and asinine that they really don't warrant a response. I think, to most, they pretty much demonstrate for themselves that they are ridiculous.

You are correct. If you want to know the details, read the whole thread. We discussed that in a lot of detail earlier.

40% Pure.

You know...as a physician, you're obligated to follow the Hipocratic Oath, "First, do no harm." I see performing an abortion as being in direct contradiction with that. I understand that sometimes a decision has to be made to save the mother instead of the baby in extreme circumstances but to intentionally go in and kill a baby for what I would consider mostly completely selfish reasons seems completely against what it means to be a doctor.

I don’t doubt that’s reality. Still, we’re talking about a human life here Lindsey. It has a right to live just like you or I. What you said is like saying we aught to inject wino street bums with something to kill them because they have no life and no chance to do anything but hang out in the gutter downtown for the rest of their lives. Their lives are, in the opinions of most, a miserable existence and they aren’t useful contributors to society. You know…put them out of their misery. You’re statement makes me think that you would believe they probably would have been better off if they had been aborted. That bum might be so out of his mind that he can’t choose either. However, he was given the chance to live. He had the potential to do something else with his life. He, in fact, has a right to life. 24 weeks is the earliest that my wife said a fetus could be taken out and still potentially survive (not saying there isn’t a potential for complications). That’s why I used that number. Same argument as above applies, however. People are always going to do vile things. Just because there will always be people who will do those bad things doesn’t justify killing the baby as insurance that they might not do bad things such as in your example.

So, you don’t think the baby becomes human enough to have the right to live until the umbilical cord is cut? Even then, unless the mother decides to use formula, the mother has to breast feed in order for the baby to survive. A one year old can’t even survive unless it is cared for by someone else. Nowadays, a fetus as young as 24 weeks can be either born naturally or taken by C-Section and has a better than average survival rate, however, I’ll admit a high morbidity rate. My point is, it’s alive at that point, it’s human, it can potentially survive on its own, however, it still requires care to live. When there are complications, machines might have to breathe for them. They’re still human beings. A fetus requires its mother to survive but is every bit as human as she. Your standard for life is not very realistic.

I mean......"yes."

Hmmmmm.....I would say........................... the...answer to.......the question is.............ummmmmmm............" ......................4."

I prefer a landslide but I can't vote with a yes or no. Yes or no what?

Had to in the Army. Sucks. I would be totally against it for anyone else.

He'd better go ahead and pick one of those Nation of Islam guys to stay close to and be butt buddies with in prison. You know...plan ahead. So he doesn't get killed. Maybe that's why he converted religions so quickly when he saw things going to shit.

Have you ever served in a combat unit? The indifference in your statement leads me to think that you no nothing of what you're talking about. I completely agree with kpjumps. Our dead coming back in coffins should not be about politics like you're trying to make it. You need to show some respect for the fallen military in those coffins. They, as well as many before them, are dying or have died so you can have the right to take for granted the freedoms that you enjoy every day of your life. Maybe you don't mean your statement to sound like that. Sometimes meaning is lost in typed words. If I'm wrong, I appologize. It just sounds very tacky and disrespectful to me.

Ok Lindsey…one more.

Your analogy disturbs me. You’d be willing to kill one so that the other might not starve later when nobody can predict what might happen or change in the future. There are other options. Adoption, foster parents, shelters, etc. I’d call that a selfish reason for not giving them a chance at life. It should be up to all of us to determine the legality and limitations of abortion. That is, if it is eventually decided that we’re actually dealing with the life of another human being and not just a “parasitic organism.” Then it would be in the same ballpark as killing another person which is against the law. You only quoted this from my paragraph in reference to your answer above: “Who’s to say that kids guardian doesn’t receive an inheritance or win the lottery after they are born and they move to Beverly Hills?” I tried not to take what you said out of context but you’re doing a good job of that to mine. I’ll restate what I said in the paragraph below with emphasis on the sentence that followed the one you quoted. The first was kind of a joke. What I was trying to get across was explained after. “Who’s to say that kids guardian doesn’t receive an inheritance or win the lottery after they are born and they move to Beverly Hills? I know that’s a far fetched example but all I’m saying is that nobody can predict the future or what’s to happen in someone’s life.” I’m trying to say that it is wrong to take the life of an unborn child just because you think his/her life might be substandard in the future. You just don’t know that and cannot predict the future. Boy…that’s a generalization. I thought it was a stretch when you started comparing the topic of abortion with that of war. I don’t think I can hang with you on that one either. So you’re putting the legality of abortion in the same category as whether bubblegum should be outlawed because we don’t “have” to have it? One deals with a much more serious issue (i.e. Right to live). If it is decided eventually that the “unborn” are in fact still human beings sometime in the future, then it could very well be considered some form of murder to perform abortions. There are exceptions, however. Some think there are more exceptions than I do but that’s beside the point. If it becomes considered to be a crime, it would then have to be legislated. A law would then have to be put in place to determine what those extreme circumstances making abortion acceptable would be. That would not be up to the parent, you, or me. Just making it clear that it “is never an acceptable thing to do, and should only be considered in the direst of straits” isn’t good enough when you’re dealing with another human life. You know as well as I do that most people act or react in their own selfish interests and abortions will continue to occur mostly for reasons that are not necessary. I totally agree. It is used only when diplomacy fails as in Iraq. It does not make us evil. We do make mistakes as does everybody. Again, it depends on our motives in the first place. I agree with your statement, however. Keep it in context, Billvon. My quote was in reference to the US War of Independence and not Iraq. No, I’m not telling you that we are engaged in a “holy war” in the Middle East. I agree that we’re trying to achieve a political objective there. Most importantly, the goal is for us with the goal of our own national security. Stability in the region benefits us all in the long run. As to your reference to God, however, I believe that God has his hand in all things. I admit that I can’t “prove” that to you, though. My quote was from the Declaration of Independence. All men (women) have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “Freedom.” That doesn’t just apply to us. It applies to all men, women, and children (even if they’re still in the womb).

War is an evil reality but it isn’t always wrong. Sometimes it is necessary. Do you not think war is the “right” course of action in order to defend yourself from attack or invasion? I know you disagree with the war in Iraq but I’m speaking of war in general. I can’t agree with the reason “so that one could be fed well.” Is that a reason to “kill” the others? I might go with, if one twin or triplet in the womb, in the professional opinion of a physician, probably wasn’t going to live, you wanted to increase the survivability of the other or others and give them a better chance for a healthy delivery. As your 11 year old example, my wife sees more of those than you might think in her OB/GYN office. There might be complications with the size of the pelvis or something like that but, (generally speaking) if they’re old enough to get pregnant, they’re old enough to carry the baby to term. We also have C-Section as a procedure for the small pelvis issue. Even grown women sometimes have that problem. There are also pregnancies with higher risk when the woman is over 40. That doesn’t mean you abort because you get pregnant over 40. We’re talking about a human life here. Your example of them potentially having to grow up in an environment that, by someone’s standard, is considered to be unacceptable is just ludicrous. Who’s to say that kids guardian doesn’t receive an inheritance or win the lottery after they are born and they move to Beverly Hills? I know that’s a far fetched example but all I’m saying is that nobody can predict the future or what’s to happen in someone’s life. That kid might grow up in the ghetto, win some scholarship, and become the first person to set foot on Mars. You just never know. That’s definitely not a reason to kill them before they even had a chance. I agree, in the vast majority of cases, we can live without abortion and that it is not necessary. Therefore, I strongly believe that it should be outlawed except in the case of extreme circumstances. There are exceptions. You’re saying that you believe that war is never necessary? We wouldn’t exist as a country if that were the case. No. I do not forgive him for killing those children. He obviously didn’t (or maybe he did; sick bastard) do a proper target analysis. If he did, he would have known there were children in the basement. I dare say he motives weren’t just in the first place, though. That makes it very different. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That’s not a selfish reason to go to war. It was to regain what all men were given by their creator…Freedom. Iraq invading Kuwait for oil would be an example of a “selfish” reason. I’d agree with giving them birth control but not to use abortion as a form of birth control. That includes birth control methods that use abortive actions.

I didn’t try to take your quote out of context. It just sounded pretty specific to me. I’ll quote it again: “We kill kids in wartime because doing that might get us a result that we approve of; perhaps it's that in the future fewer children will be killed.” Like I said and I think most would agree, war is a last resort but is sometimes necessary for many reasons. The reality of war, regardless of how sophisticated your weaponry is, is that there might be undesired collateral damage (i.e. civilians killed including children). That is never the intention, however. You’re pointing out specific isolated incidents when you say we have targeted civilians in the past. Generally speaking, you must agree that this is not our policy. You’re right about nuclear weapons not being discriminate. What’s your point? When is the last time and the only time we’ve used them? I said I wasn’t sure how I felt about that. That is also an isolated and non-precedented (sp?) incident. Again, I agree that our most sophisticated weapon isn’t perfect. Again, civilians, women, children, dogs, cats are not the target. Just an undesirable circumstance. I challenge you or anybody else to give me one “non-selfish” reason to terminate a child other than the more controversial exceptions like rape, incest, etc. Give me some data that proves most abortions are absolutely necessary. I mean, if you agree that you’re aborting a human life (and many of you don’t), I would think you’d only do it if it was “absolutely necessary” and not because it would inconvenience you in some way. Yet, it’s perfectly legal. How tragic… Logical? Nobody’s intentionally killing children over there. It’s war. We had war over here that, as a consequence, killed civilians in order to gain our independence. Was that whole endeavor a mistake? In your prior example, that would be like saying we should sterilize everyone living in poverty conditions so as to keep them from having children who would have to live in those conditions. They might grow up to be thieves, rapists, murderers because of the environment they were forced to grow up in.

War: Your statement: “We kill kids in wartime because doing that might get us a result that we approve of; perhaps it's that in the future fewer children will be killed.” That infers that we actually target children to get a desired outcome. We do not go to war with a country and target their children specifically. That is ludicrous. PhillyKev stated: “In one instance you are trying to achieve a goal that you desire and as a side effect of achieving that goal is undesirable.” He’s right, in a sense. We have bombed cities in the past and that has killed children. Our weaponry back then wasn’t as precise as some of what we have today. I dare say, however, that even back then we weren’t “targeting” schools, hospitals, churches, etc and trying to kill civilians. The atomic bomb instances, in my mind, are kind of a special and unique situation. I’m still not sure what I think about that. In current warfare, however, we make every effort to limit collateral damage to the civilian populace. We even drop leaflets, in some instances, to warn of upcoming attacks so the civilians can get themselves and “their children” out of the area before the bombs drop. Civilians are not the target although some do get killed. It is a horrible reality of war but war is sometimes necessary. Abortion: Your statement: “We kill kids during abortion because doing that gives us a better result than the alternative; perhaps it's that the child will be born into an environment that will turn him into a criminal.” Better result than the alternative? What would that be? Killing the child for “what reason” would result in a better alternative? You said possibly to not have the child born so he might not turn into a criminal. Does that sound logical to you? I know you could come back with special cases of controversy like in instances of rape but what about the vast majority of cases? The aborted children are definitely the target specified in this action. Big difference…

I know, I know.... and not [bold].

I know this will probably piss a few people off in here but this is what your post made me think of. I'm not trying to draw controversy or anything to the conversation or lead it into a direction of religion. Just stating my thoughts. Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV) Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in [bold]secret[/bold]. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV) I like to hear of people doing stuff like that no matter what they look like. Gives me hope for the world.