Posted on 02/22/2006 2:49:16 PM PST by Tim Long
The South Dakota Senate just passed a bill that bans almost all abortions in the state. It now goes to the governor to be signed.
I didn't. I just wonder why how someone feels should be taken into account at all when determining whether to kill an innocent child.
The decision to offer RU-486 certainly wasn't under the direction of the Vatican -- I agree -- rather was a heinous decision on the part of hospital administrators.
Regarding ectopic pregnancies, the medical profession should invest considerable research effort into developing techniques to transplant the developing baby into the mother's uterus. If that attempt fails, as it usually would, then that's the way it goes. The baby unavoidably dies and the mother's life often would be saved. That is a whole lot different from murdering the baby -- not even giving it a chance -- at the outset.
I'm shocked and appalled you feel that a good faith effort to save innocent babies (along with their mother) is not consistent with Christian principles. The "mother's health" argument, as others have pointed out, it a slippery slope that has already been traversed. Most abortions done for the "mother's health" have nothing to do with ectopic pregnancy.
The question then becomes to what extent (if any) the hospital can be called "Catholic".
Regarding ectopic pregnancies, the medical profession should invest considerable research effort into developing techniques to transplant the developing baby into the mother's uterus.
I'm afraid that's not possible. Such a pregnancy can't be detected until well past the point when any sort of procedure can be performed. I'd be in favor of anyone who wanted to try it (since it would be done long before mom's life was in danger), but the idea displays ignorance of how the baby grows.
I'm shocked and appalled you feel that a good faith effort to save innocent babies (along with their mother) is not consistent with Christian principles.
You're misrepresenting my position.
The "mother's health" argument, as others have pointed out, it a slippery slope that has already been traversed. Most abortions done for the "mother's health" have nothing to do with ectopic pregnancy.
Who's talking about the mother's "health"? I'm talking uniquely about not just a choice of one life over another, but a point when there is no choice at all. It's baby and mom die or baby dies and mom lives. The choice is only whether mom can be saved.
Rape is a difficult issue.. but the morning after pill should be a consideration there. As for incest, I don't get why this should be an exception. If the woman is underage, and unable to consent, then that is rape, and should be treated as such. If the woman consents, how is she a "victim" of rape? Children in such circumstances should be brought to term, born and allowed to be adopted.
However, very little effort has been expended on the uterus transplant possibility. It is so much easier and more convenient to kill the developing baby. You have bought into that expediency. Your accusing me of ignorance of "how the baby" grows is actually a passive acceptance of the medical industry's status quo on ectopic pregnancies, which is to get rid of the little irritant, just like any abortion.
We all know that considerable efforts have gone into "test tube" pregnancies, and although we as Catholics disagree with the motives there, it illustrates what can be accomplished when money finds its way into reproduction research. You can't tell me that any efforts here are futile, I don't buy it. Many would like to believe that.
Evidently, the political climate, even at Catholic hospitals, does not result in this research being funded. It is a shame as is the certain loss of the developing baby, when a fraction of the research money going to AIDS, for example, might result in a few saved babies and mothers.
That's because there is no such "possibility". Your statements about "test tube" pregnancies highlight the "ignorance of how a baby grows" that I was speaking of. "Test tube" pregnancies are implanted (usually) in the 3-5 day range. You wouldn't even know a pregnancy existed (let alone where implantation occured) at that point.
By the time you know you've got an ectopic pregnancy, there's no possible way to "move" the baby from where it is implanted.
It HAS happened that doctors have discovered a VERY early ectopic pregnancy while doing another proceedure... and in very rare cases, the baby had been successfully transfered (before the connection between baby and mom is too permanent to re-form in another location). A few lived for a few years after birth.
That's obviously laudable and should continue to be attempted/researched. But you normally discover an ectopic pregnancy LONG after it's too late for this.
"Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."
There's a way to fire judges when they get out of line.....
We can impeach those judges--or force Congress to spank those inferior federal courts. And we should.
On another topic, I see from your profile page that you are familiar with some excellent quotations. One outstanding book from our Founding era is The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin...would you please read that book and then reconsider your tagline?
Please Lord, let State's Rights Stand!
Let babies live,
AMEN
Suppose you leave that choice up to her....it's her call and her life.
No its not just her life
There are 2 heart beats that can be heard, an adult one who made the choice to be irresponsible and have unprotected sex and another smaller, baby one, who had no choice about its conception but deserves the right to continue its life.
Your raging adamance on this point illustrates a stubborn reluctance to accept the possibility of future transplantation -- YOU DON'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED WITH THE POSSIBILITY IT MIGHT WORK SOME DAY! THIS WAY YOU CAN FEEL BETTER ABOUT KILLING THE BABIES NOW! Before every medical breakthrough there are skeptics -- even well-credentialed ones.
"It HAS happened that doctors have discovered a VERY early ectopic pregnancy while doing another procedure... and in very rare cases, the baby had been successfully transfered (before the connection between baby and mom is too permanent to re-form in another location). A few lived for a few years after birth."
I have rarely encountered an FR poster who so blatantly self-contradicts. YOU ADMIT IT HAS BEEN DONE. Yet I am "ignorant" for suggesting it might be able to be done! And you post in BOLD there is no possibility it can be done. Obviously, with targeted research and development of new techniques, it will become feasible to transplant the baby later.
You don't want that to happen. You're a Pro-Life FRAUD.
the woman I'm speaking of was molested and raped...and you dare to call her irresponsible...you are way out of line.
Sorry I didn't realize you were referring to this women
Legally, it's her call. It's most certainly NOT her life.
"Pro choice" = pro baby murder.
I am troubled by events, I guess murdering my child is OK in that case.
I don't care how anyone "feels". Murder is wrong, everywhere and always.
fanatical zealot.
IMRight ='s URWrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.