Results 49 to 60 of 138
Thread: A response to "infanticide".
-
04-18-2019, 04:47 PM #49
Re: A response to "infanticide".
correct...
That scenario has played out probably millions of times throughout history.
I think we would all like to know why killing the baby is more appropriate than simply giving birth or having a C-Section. I have yet to hear an instance where this has happened or could happen. That's what we're waiting for TecmoRaven to show us. W/o that supporting evidence, the whole "3rd-term abortion argument" is bunk and anyone who supports it is doing so illogically.
-
-
04-18-2019, 06:07 PM #51Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Posts
- 269
Re: A response to "infanticide".
After further research I believe I can more pointedly state my position. There are conditions, such as ectopic pregnancies, that if not diagnosed can lead to severe danger at any time in the pregnancy. If this danger occurs the removal of the fetus may be necessary, and if the fetus is viable, a c-section is the only accepted course. However, if the fetus is within certainty not viable, an abortion is a much safer practice for the mother. There are also examples of a fetus having a heartbeat and a brain stem, but no viable brain function.
Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
-
04-18-2019, 06:22 PM #52
Re: A response to "infanticide".
An ectopic pregnancy is basically a miscarriage and it happens during the 1st trimester. This can result in the mother bleeding to death if not treated.
There is no data to support an ectopic pregnancy resulting in a successful birth...ever.
This doesn't really answer the question we've been asking, but...thanx for researching it to try and prove your point.
-
-
04-18-2019, 06:42 PM #54Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Posts
- 269
Re: A response to "infanticide".
Assuming the mother was in normal conditions, as in she was planning to be pregnant and put in the expected pipeline of doctor visits. If the mother is unaware of her pregnancy, or is aware and does not seek medical attention, the complications from an ectopic pregnancy might not be known until the mother experiences severe bleeding or crippling abdominal pain. At this point she may be in a life or death situation, and since a non viable fetus is common with ectopic pregnancies, an abortion would be much safer for the mother. If the fetus is viable a C-section is the natural choice, assuming no reasonable risk to the mother.
If there is a life or death risk to the mother in any case it should be her choice.
Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
-
04-18-2019, 07:11 PM #55
Re: A response to "infanticide".
I think we established that if killing a child in the 3rd trimester will save mom’s life...sure.
That has never happened nor will it happen...ever. A medical emergency in the trimester should result in a c-section surgery. Not an abortion. All laws should reflect this. They don’t. The politicians pushing for it are disgusting pieces of trash.
Just acknowledge that fact and call it a day.
-
04-18-2019, 07:16 PM #56Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Posts
- 269
Re: A response to "infanticide".
Why perform a more dangerous procedure if the fetus is not viable. As in may not have a fully developed skull, or other serious issues. In these rare cases an abortion, as in removing the non viable fetus through the birth canal, is more appropriate.
Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Re: A response to "infanticide".
-
04-18-2019, 07:43 PM #58Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Posts
- 269
Re: A response to "infanticide".
If the fetus can't sustain life why would you perform a considerably more dangerous procedure for the mother? I'm not watching the video, if the fetus can't sustain life it's the equivalent of removing a tumor. I can imagine it would be gruesome to see tiny arms and legs being ripped out of a woman. Imagine how traumatic it is for the mother.
Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Re: A response to "infanticide".
If you don’t watch the video it’s the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going “ la la la la “. 3rd trimester abortions are extremely dangerous for the woman. And if delivery is required either way, why do you have to kill it first? Think THAT wouldn’t be hard on the mother?
And this is getting away from your original point that they’re for the mother, which isn’t true.
-
04-18-2019, 10:26 PM #60
Re: A response to "infanticide".
Abnormality that can and does occur in the 3rd trimester :::preeclampsia
Now while you are correct the “medical” solution for this is a C -section and it is most definitely done to SAVE the MOTHER. If you preform a C-section at week 28 there is only a 70% chance of survival of the baby. And that doesn’t take into account any birth defects or later developing health issues for the baby. So ....if you are in the 30% then yes the Hospital has effectively preformed an abortion ( third term ) to save the mother.
“You gonna do something .....or just stand there and bleed” Wyatt Earp
Bookmarks