(May 22, 2014 at 3:55 am)Losty Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 3:36 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: He didn't answer your question.

Yes I know. That's not the first time. Even in this thread. I'm asking a genuine question about his thoughts on abortions for mothers who would otherwise die and he comes back first with, oh I don't believe in it. Then I ask if women should be forced to die rather than abort just because he doesn't believe that happens? And his answer is some bullshit about Beccs committing suicide because she doesn't like me??? Wtaf?

The first time he ignored a question I asked, what his criteria is for being a human being.
Heywood is the almighty picker and chooser of what is and is not a human being, but he refuses to state what his criteria for being human being is.

Read the exchange. You asked about late term abortions. Aborting at a late term isn't any more dangerous then delivery in the modern age(a point I made which you ignored and then ranted about how cruel I am to force women to die....etc). The only time I have seen it allowed is when women argue that delivering the baby will cause them to be depressed to the point where they will harm themselves(hence the example of suicide).

I might be wrong, there may be incidences in which carrying a late term baby to term would physically jeopardize the mother. Show me a specific condition where a late term abortion is necessary. Don't say something like "when the mothers life is in danger"....be specific like I was when I mentioned ectopic pregnancies. That way I can look into the condition and tell you what I think.

I'm going on holiday later today and won't be around for a few days.......So at some point today I will just disappear from this discussion.

(May 22, 2014 at 6:39 am)Heywood Wrote: The only time I have seen it allowed is when women argue that delivering the baby will cause them to be depressed to the point where they will harm themselves(hence the example of suicide).

I know you're aware of the medical necessity for some late-term abortions (>19 weeks). Not all late-term abortions are voluntary/elective; in the UK, that's only allowed up to 24 weeks. There's a good proportion of late-term abortions which are necessary to protect the life of the mother or are a side-effect of surgical procedures. Here, I can speak from experience as my partner went through such a circumstance (although things turned out well for us).

Quote:I might be wrong, there may be incidences in which carrying a late term baby to term would physically jeopardize the mother. Show me a specific condition where a late term abortion is necessary.

Here's 3: Cancer, gall-bladder infection and utero-placental insufficiency.

(May 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Avodaiah Wrote: There must be such a thing. After all, you don't have to believe in a god to stick up for the rights of the unborn.
Thoughts?

Before a certain number of weeks have passed (varies between countries) the unborn have no rights.

(May 22, 2014 at 6:39 am)Heywood Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 3:55 am)Losty Wrote: Yes I know. That's not the first time. Even in this thread. I'm asking a genuine question about his thoughts on abortions for mothers who would otherwise die and he comes back first with, oh I don't believe in it. Then I ask if women should be forced to die rather than abort just because he doesn't believe that happens? And his answer is some bullshit about Beccs committing suicide because she doesn't like me??? Wtaf?

The first time he ignored a question I asked, what his criteria is for being a human being.
Heywood is the almighty picker and chooser of what is and is not a human being, but he refuses to state what his criteria for being human being is.

Read the exchange. You asked about late term abortions. Aborting at a late term isn't any more dangerous then delivery in the modern age(a point I made which you ignored and then ranted about how cruel I am to force women to die....etc).

I didn't ignore the point. I pointed out that you were wrong.

Quote:The only time I have seen it allowed is when women argue that delivering the baby will cause them to be depressed to the point where they will harm themselves(hence the example of suicide).

I might be wrong, there may be incidences in which carrying a late term baby to term would physically jeopardize the mother. Show me a specific condition where a late term abortion is necessary. Don't say something like "when the mothers life is in danger"....be specific like I was when I mentioned ectopic pregnancies. That way I can look into the condition and tell you what I think.

Are you being serious right now?

Ok, let's say severe preeclampsia.


Also, I notice how you still haven't said why your criteria is for being a human being.

(May 22, 2014 at 9:44 am)Losty Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 6:39 am)Heywood Wrote: Read the exchange. You asked about late term abortions. Aborting at a late term isn't any more dangerous then delivery in the modern age(a point I made which you ignored and then ranted about how cruel I am to force women to die....etc).

I didn't ignore the point. I pointed out that you were wrong.

Quote:The only time I have seen it allowed is when women argue that delivering the baby will cause them to be depressed to the point where they will harm themselves(hence the example of suicide).

I might be wrong, there may be incidences in which carrying a late term baby to term would physically jeopardize the mother. Show me a specific condition where a late term abortion is necessary. Don't say something like "when the mothers life is in danger"....be specific like I was when I mentioned ectopic pregnancies. That way I can look into the condition and tell you what I think.

Are you being serious right now?

Ok, let's say severe preeclampsia.


Also, I notice how you still haven't said why your criteria is for being a human being.

Severe pre-eclampsia can be treated with anti-hypertensive agents which should be tried first before aborting the fetus.

(May 22, 2014 at 11:00 am)Heywood Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 9:44 am)Losty Wrote: I didn't ignore the point. I pointed out that you were wrong.


Are you being serious right now?

Ok, let's say severe preeclampsia.


Also, I notice how you still haven't said why your criteria is for being a human being.

Severe pre-eclampsia can be treated with anti-hypertensive agents which should be tried first before aborting the fetus.

Really, Heywood? I don't need you to tell me what google says are treatments for severe preeclampsia. The fact is that in some cases it's too late and your only option is abortion or death. My question was, in a case where abortion is necessary to save the life of the woman, do you think it's okay and/or should be allowed?

(May 22, 2014 at 11:06 am)Losty Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 11:00 am)Heywood Wrote: Severe pre-eclampsia can be treated with anti-hypertensive agents which should be tried first before aborting the fetus.

Really, Heywood? I don't need you to tell me what google says are treatments for severe preeclampsia. The fact is that in some cases it's too late and your only option is abortion or death. My question was, in a case where abortion is necessary to save the life of the woman, do you think it's okay and/or should be allowed?

Abortion is never the only option with pre-eclampsia. The baby can simply be delivered and treated as a preemie. It will either survive or it will not.

What about when a woman's water breaks super early. This is actually pretty common and most cases she gets admitted to the hospital for the duration of her pregnancy and the doctors hold out as long as they think is safe before inducing labor. Sometimes, though, despite the best efforts of everyone she will get an infection. Then depending on how far along she is they will perform and abortion or induce labor to save her life.

(May 22, 2014 at 11:14 am)Losty Wrote: What about when a woman's water breaks super early. This is actually pretty common and most cases she gets admitted to the hospital for the duration of her pregnancy and the doctors hold out as long as they think is safe before inducing labor. Sometimes, though, despite the best efforts of everyone she will get an infection. Then depending on how far along she is they will perform and abortion or induce labor to save her life.

Its the induce labor part that you ignore. Late term abortions are unnecessary. Induce labor, there is no need to kill the baby......except to get rid of it so you don't have to deal with it.

(May 22, 2014 at 11:00 am)Heywood Wrote: Severe pre-eclampsia can be treated with anti-hypertensive agents which should be tried first before aborting the fetus.

This is you trying to redirect (possibly derail) the conversation. It's not necessary to discuss each medical condition in detail, it's enough to be able to demonstrate that there are medical conditions which will result in abortions (either standard or late-term). There will always be a medical necessity for abortions where the alternative is the death of both the mother and foetus/unborn child. Any position you hold has to take that in to consideration. You may still hold an anti-abortion principle but be aware that means you're valuing the death of both over the survival of one; those with religious bias for their anti-abortion position may go as far as saying that the deaths shouldn't be interfered with as it's "<insert deity>'s will". I don't think I need to point out how easy it would be to argue the immorality of those positions.

---

Edit: the last few posts came in while I was writing my comment, above. It's clear you're deliberately avoiding Losty's question. Late term abortions are a medical necessity. Are you going to adjust your position to accommodate that fact?