Onward Christian Soldiers! - Kansas abortion doctor killed.

[LOsborne]

Gee!  Dare I say it???  I think I will.

In the cases of severe birth defects where the child isn't going to live a long life, or will endure pain and suffering in what short life it lives, then yes, I think it's ok for a mother to choose to abort the child rather than putting it through that misery. 

There I said it. 

I agree, Locutus. Unfortunately, an awful lot of women who should abort (IMO), don't.  My last kid was a three-pound preemie, delivered at seven months by an emergency section. She spent the first six weeks of her life in the high-risk neo-natal unit. Among her roommates were a bunch of drug-addicted, brain-damaged, deformed babies who had been abandoned by their mothers. A nurse told me none of those kids would live to see their third birthday, but that they would be wards of the state until they died.

That's why I am not a big supporter of abortion. I am a supporter of mandatory birth control for everyone. If we would take all the money spent on the abortion debate, and spend it developing a reversible form of contraception that could be administered to all babies at birth, the problem would largely go away. I want to see a day where no child is born unless both parents make a conscious decision to conceive.

[Freethinker]

The issue here is 3rd trimester abortions... not the high death rate of mothers for wanted pregnancies, or... the high infant mortality rate in this country. Those are separate issues which I would be happy to discuss in another thread... other than to say in countries where midwives do most of the deliveries, and there are not a gillion drugs and special pieces of equipment hooked up to mother and baby, both fair better statistically.

So yes, c-sections are dangerous. But a mother carrying a defective child is a special circumstance... AND, you cannot convince me that c-sections are more dangerous than the grueling meds and appliances used to force women to abort. This can take days... days that a woman may be hanging out in a motel, hoping she can get back to the clinic in time.

[mcgonser]

Because insurance companies will not certify an in-house stay for what they have decreed is an out-patient procedure.

And while I realize you do not consider the "health of the mother" to carry weight in the decision, others do. Consider this:

U.S. women are dying from childbirth at the highest rate in decades, new government figures show. Though the risk of death is very small, experts believe increasing maternal obesity and a jump in Caesarean sections are partly to blame.

Some researchers point to the rising C-section rate, now 29 percent of all births — far higher than what public health experts say is appropriate. Like other surgeries, Caesareans come with risks related to anesthesia, infections and blood clots.

"There's an inherent risk to C-sections," said Dr. Elliott Main, who co-chairs a panel reviewing obstetrics care in California. "As you do thousands and thousands of them, there's going to be a price."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/

Lo: I never, ever, ever said that the health or safety of the mother should not be a factor. The true endangerment of a woman who is pregnant is important. I have always disagreed with the catholic church on their stance on saving the baby no matter what happens to the mom. My opinion was that the mother could have another child, usuallly had more children at home depending on her. Of course no one ever called me up and asked for my opinion but I still think this way. So please get that straight, I cannot be any plainer.

[mcgonser]

Thank you!  I shall await a sensible answer along with you. 

Sorry, I just saw this thread. I am refering to the poor lost souls that will never be born alive and grow up in this world. No way do I believe that they go to hell or anything like that. What happens to them when they go to heaven I don't know. Believe it or not I have opinions and beliefs that are my own and not always with the church doctorine. But when it comes to 3rd trimester abortions I just know in my own heart and mind that it is cruel and wrong. I feel the need to speak out for the babies because they have no voice of their own in this matter. I spoke out about this the same when I was not a christian. But I want to
re-assure you that I don't always agree with what my church preaches 100%, but I do agree with they on the whole. I do have a mind of my own and so do alot of christians I know. It is just as racist or prejedice to try and put christians all in the same box as it is with race or sex.

[Sandy Eggo]

Doesn't matter what I think. This act wasn't about what I think, or what you think. According to the law of the land, the doctor did no wrong. You can work to change the law, if you are so minded, and once you have accomplished this goal (if ever) you can then refer to lawful abortions as homicides. But not now. The only murderer in the story is the gunman in Wichita.

This really is the bottom-line.

[LOsborne]

Lo: I never, ever, ever said that the health or safety of the mother should not be a factor.

I never said you did. That response was to free-thinker, who wrote "Why not just do a c-section or allow a normal birth..." and who also plainly said, "I'm sicka hearing about how it's for the health of the mother. Baloney... " Is that straight enough?

[LOsborne]

.... you cannot convince me that c-sections are more dangerous than the grueling meds and appliances used to force women to abort. This can take days... days that a woman may be hanging out in a motel, hoping she can get back to the clinic in time.

Source?

[LOsborne]

...other than to say in countries where midwives do most of the deliveries, and there are not a gillion drugs and special pieces of equipment hooked up to mother and baby, both fair better statistically.

While we're at it, let's have the source for this statement, too.

[pariann]

I've got my own story.   In the choice of a late term abortion, or not, we all have choices. I could have chosen that route with my last pregnancy.  At her premature birth I was dying.  I would have left behind 4 children living at home, 2 children grown and 4 grandchildren.    It's a hard decision to stick to your guns on your personal belief knowing if you do, you might just die for doing so.   Fortunately, I'm still here for my girls, and so is their baby sister, 7 years later. 

[Freethinker]

Losbourne -- about your requests for sources to me:

1) You will find I do not play these types of games. I read a lot, I give my opinion based on what I read or what I have witnessed or experienced. This is an opinion board.

2) I have found over the years that supplying the DEMANDERS for SOURCES with links never satisfies them anyway.

3) For every pro link, you can find a adverse link... so just because someone posts a link to information, does not make it valid.

4) When the laminarie sticks are used to dilate the cervix, it can take 2 to 3 days. One can only imagine the discomfort... THEN, when the cervix is dilated, they supposedly REposition the fetus for a breech birth, so the feet come out first, and leaves the head inside the birth canal... bla, bla, bla...

5) The statistics regarding other countries in the world who use mostly midwives versus the US who uses something like only 8%, came from a lengthy documentary on HBO recently, with interviews of older medical doctors who themselves were discussing the situation with our current obstetrics situation in the US.....

6) You are certainly welcome to Google these facts and figures all you want. I'm just here for the discussion.

[LOsborne]

Losbourne -- about your requests for sources to me:

1) You will find I do not play these types of games. I read a lot, I give my opinion based on what I read or what I have witnessed or experienced.

And I have found that those who refuse to provide the references for the statements they present as facts have no references, and are relying on memory, which may be faulty -- as your memory of the spelling of my log-in name was faulty. OOPS!!! Or worse, you were just to lazy to double-check your typing.

2) I have found over the years that supplying the DEMANDERS for SOURCES with links never satisfies them anyway.

So then you have provided sources in the past. Satisfying all other posters isn't the goal here. The goal is to provide independent verification that the facts you presented are actually available as you present them.

3) For every pro link, you can find a adverse link... so just because someone posts a link to information, does not make it valid.

I'm not asking validation of the information. I'm asking for reassurance that you aren't just pulling facts out of your butt. I'm afraid that is the only conclusion I can draw, given your refusal provide any documentation for your points 4) and 5) which you present as facts, while virtuously proclaiming "this is an opinion board."

You may present any opinion you please, labeling it as such. When you present a statement as fact, I (and anyone else who is considering giving weight to your argument) will ask where you found these facts, so that we may find them too. I do this because I make personal decisions based only on facts, and therefore would like to verify those you present before taking their evidence into consideration.

Your refusal to provide so much as the name of an organization which will back-up your "facts" leaves me no choice except to conclude you have no idea where you heard these statements or statistics. You aren't sure you have the numbers right, you can't be positive it wasn't a sit-com you were watching, or whether, perhaps, Jesus himself whispered the important data into your shell-pink ear.

However, henceforward I will know to discount anything you might type as pure blue-skying. You aren't here for the discussion. You are here to grace us with the "truth" as you see it, and no dissenting or contradicting statements of fact will be allowed to bring your "infallible" point of view into question.


Edited to clean up the quote commands

[Freethinker]

Well, L, how do you know the authors of those articles you want, don't pull the facts and figures out of their butts? LOL.

You are always welcome to do the research yourself, and verify or refute any opinion I've stated. I am NOT your cyber nanny, though.

Have a good one.

[Locutus]

Sorry, I just saw this thread. I am refering to the poor lost souls that will never be born alive and grow up in this world.

Then why exactly are they lost?   Rest assured, I know to whom you are referring, I'm just wondering why you refer to them as lost.  If you're a Christian, which I assume you are based on your posts, they why exactly are you so worried about them?

No way do I believe that they go to hell or anything like that. What happens to them when they go to heaven I don't know.

Then I repeat my question.  By your own words you state that these supposed "lost souls" go to heaven.  If they go to heaven, why are they lost?   Why are you and those like you so concerned about it?  If they're in the heaven you all collectively profess exists without the trials and tribulations that humanity demands, why aren't they better off for skipping it all?   Remember, they're a soul and all that. 

Believe it or not I have opinions and beliefs that are my own and not always with the church doctorine. But when it comes to 3rd trimester abortions I just know in my own heart and mind that it is cruel and wrong. I feel the need to speak out for the babies because they have no voice of their own in this matter. I spoke out about this the same when I was not a christian. But I want to
re-assure you that I don't always agree with what my church preaches 100%, but I do agree with they on the whole. I do have a mind of my own and so do alot of christians I know. It is just as racist or prejedice to try and put christians all in the same box as it is with race or sex.

Again, you profess to be a Christian.  That's fine by me regardless of what denominational or non-denomination church or belief system you ascribe to.  The bottom line is this. 

1.  You are a Christian.

2.  Your posts infer that you believe in an afterlife in either heaven or hell and you've overtly said that you don't think the "lost souls" we're discussing end up in hell.

3.  By that inference, it may also be inferred that your opinion as to what happens to these souls is up to the god to which you ascribe.

4.  If the ultimate decision as to where these souls end up is in the hands of the god to which you ascribe, then why not let god tend to it?   If you're so sure that they don't end up in hell, then why use this issue, and your support of it, as an excuse to stick your collective noses into other people's business?

Please, help me understand your position, or lack thereof.

[mcgonser]

Lo: I will try and answer your questions to the best of my abilities. I call them lost souls because they were created and have a soul that had a future on earth. Someone made the decision to end that life and play God instead. Yes they are in a better place and with better people. But we here on earth missed whatever their lives would of added to ours here. I guess I find it offensive for someone to play God and determine life and death for babies. I also find it very offensive that they had to have their lives ended in such a way. To me it is cruel and very wrong. I think this in a large part because life is so precious to me and should be lived to the fullest. We never know how long we have but it is a gift that God has given us. I know this is a simple way of thinking of things, but I guess I am a simple person in my beliefs. No offense is ever taken when anyone asks me questions about my belief in God. No offense is taken if they don't agree with me either. That is the choice God gave them. and I accept his authority on all things.

[Exterminator]

While we're at it, let's have the source for this statement, too.

I'm right there with you...my impression of this entire post was that it was nothing more than someone pulling turdlets out of his/her ass and presenting them as fact.