jaybird18c

Wow! I'm away for a few days, come back, and find out that Steve doesn't have much respect for me based on my online views alone. I don't know if I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Does the government have the responsibility to protect you from being murdered? How would you regard what a woman, and her abortionist, does when they terminate a pregnancy because she feels like she's not ready to be a mother or she's a drug addict whore who considers her baby a nuisance and obstacle to her next fix.

You think my wife "wants" the "right" to do that?? It's what she "has to do." Hence, there is no other option except to let the mother die. That is not even the same thing as throwing away a life like it was a piece of garbage. The frivolous reasons listed above accounting for the vast majority of these mass murders is not a "right" or even a "privilege" that should be protected. It should be called what it is with the appropriate stigma attached. Simply changing what you call it and dehumanizing the life involved to make it easier to kill is no different than what was done to the Jews in WWII.

How does a newborn baby shoot the women trying to abort them? They just don't lead em as much! Get some!! KaKaKakaKaKaKaKa!!!

Sometimes??? Abortion in the United States So the true medical reasons account for less than 10%. Given, as you agree, that this is a human baby we're talking about, you still want the mother to have the "right" to murder the child under all those other circumstances. That's what I mean by "all or nothing" decision. The government does have the duty to protect its people. That goes for all Americans.

I think the right description is that sometimes, there is no choice. However, those situation compared to the vast majority of elective abortions (reasons for) are very very few and far between. Do you think it should be "all or nothing" in this regard or are there reasons (many reasons?) why it should not be allowed/legal? I know it's legal. I'm just discussing whether or not it should be except in certain, very limited, circumstances? If so, why?

I see you've got my sense of humor. :)

Nothing. I said that. However, there was no alternative in my wife's case. I'm not understanding the correlation.

Ok. You're right. There are situations when it is unavoidable. And, we "choose" to save the life of the mother over the baby...which is usually the only option because the baby isn't viable yet...the mother is the only one you can save. Just like in most cases, the only way to save the baby is to save the mother. The mother is the lifeline. That aside, should it be legal for a woman to have an abortion for reasons of convenience mentioned before and not for a "medical necessity?" Understanding that what's inside of her is in fact a baby and a human being (just a smaller version) than you? If so, why would you be ok with the murder of that baby for those reasons?

you kinda buried yourself on this one. wouldn't a better analogy be a triage one? (two patients, both about to die, only one doctor. you can only save the first patient, but that'll allow the 2nd to die - if you try to only save the 2nd, you know both will die anyway. You can't save both) that's a lot different that Patient A walks over the stabs Patient B because Patient A doesn't want to share a hospital room (ooooh, that'll get them going) It was an attempt at humor...not being serious. I realize it probably wasn't funny. I am not a comedian. At least, that's what my wife tells me. She laughs anyway, though. She's a good wife. :)

The baby did nothing. That's the point. However, in my wife's situation, the mother would have died. In the other, both would live if left alone. I realize that pregnancy and delivery can be dangerous (hence, the need for OB/GYN Physicians), however, you do realize that very very few women die in childbirth like the did a hundred years ago...right? But, it's a natural process...they have babies all the time...how is that considered trauma? I realize you're also talking about the emotional trauma. I agree. However, that still is completely beside the point that there is another human being inside of her guilty of nothing being put to death unnessesarily. The difference is medical necessity versus convenience. As the word explains...one is "necessary" to preserve life...the other is not...is wrong...tragically wrong.

Depends on what it is inside of her. If it's a baby, then we have a problem because it's a human being just like you or me. I'm talking about for reasons of convenience that were mentioned. Not for medical necessity. I know it's legal...but that doesn't make it right....and it doesn't lessen the wrongness of it...just like the murdering of anyone.

What about when a woman is pregnant from rape? Tragic but what did the baby do to deserve death in that situation? Why not give the baby up for adoption?

Reacting to a medical emergency to save the life of a mother is very different from having an abortion because you think or someone else thinks you're too young to take care of a baby, just not ready because it will alter your lifestyle or your body in some way, because you refuse to offer your baby for adoption, don't want to quit taking drugs, can't afford it right now, etc... If it's a baby, then it's murder to kill it for reasons such as those. The other still results in a baby being killed. However, the alternative is a dead mother also. Hard decisions must be made. That's why they get paid the big bucks. People say that physicians get paid too much. I disagree. With the number of hours they work (at least my wife does) at ALL hours of the day and night and the level of responsibility placed on their heads (the buck stops with them), they don't get paid enough. In OB/GYN practice, I'm talking about extreme highs and extreme lows. The outcome is not always perfect and there is a lot of remorse involved even if there was no alternative. I'm also not talking about the sort of procedure that you might be imagining with regard to pregnancy termination. I'm talking about situations where you might induce labor with medications when you know the baby will not survive because the mother is going to die otherwise. Either that, or a c-section. Either way, the baby dies and it's tragic. However, consider the alternative. Sometimes, the choice has to be made. Disturbing either way. Just a sad consequence of living in a fallen and imperfect world.

Depends on if adult patient A was attempting to murder adult patient B. She would be justified in killing one to prevent them from killing the other. Or if Patient B killed patient A in self-defense. I'm kidding. Your comparison is terrible. adult patient A is not biologically dependent on patient B for its very survival. Unless they're siamese twins. No really...Billvon...back to reality. This is stupid. Is it a baby or not? If it is, then is it morally right to kill it unnessesarily?

Not only is it not your uterus, it's also not your baby...but it's still dead....unnecessarily.

She saved the mother. Otherwise, they both would have died.

So, are you ok with child pornography? . What I am NOT OK with is your busybodying interest in the reproductive organs of other men's wives and partners. That is a chicken shit answer. If that is how you wish to describe your busybodying behavior, so be it. Is that your "I know you are but what am I" response. How old are you?

So, in your opinion, it is universally "wrong?" ...aside from the fact that it does occur? Added: Gotta step out for a while..be back later.

So, are you ok with child pornography? . What I am NOT OK with is your busybodying interest in the reproductive organs of other men's wives and partners. That is a chicken shit answer.

My wife's decisions with regard to the examples I provided are medical, not religious. So, if your wife developed a condition which greatly threatened her life during pregnancy, would you be ok with the decision to save her life at the cost of losing the pregnancy?

Is it ok, in your opinion, for them?

So, are you ok with child pornography?

Why? If it doesn't hurt anyone (e.g. some cultures where it might be accepted) and everyone involved is ok with it. Would you still say (like me) that it's "evil?"

Are you married? If so, do you have children?