(May 22, 2014 at 11:12 am)Heywood Wrote:

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

Wrong. If you remove a fetus from the womb knowing that it has zero chance of survival that's an abortion Heywood.

What kind of doctor would induce labor on a woman who is barely clinging to life knowing full well that she's 18 weeks pregnant and there is no chance of survival for the fetus?

---

(May 22, 2014 at 11:18 am)Heywood Wrote:

(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.

So further risk her life even though the fetus will die once removed from the womb? Makes perfect sense Heywood.

(May 22, 2014 at 11:19 am)Ben Davis 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.

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.

Pre-eclampsia isn't a condition that requires an abortion to treat. Antihypertensive agents can treat it, or labor can be induced and the baby can be delivered early.

You are right, we don't have to go thru every medical condition and examine each one. However Losty does need to provide one medical condition in which late term abortion is the only option to save the mother......just one Losty.....just one.

(May 22, 2014 at 11:24 am)Heywood Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 11:19 am)Ben Davis Wrote: 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.

Pre-eclampsia isn't a condition that requires an abortion to treat. Antihypertensive agents can treat it, or labor can be induced and the baby can be delivered early.

You are right, we don't have to go thru every medical condition and examine each one. However Losty does need to provide one medical condition in which late term abortion is the only option to save the mother.

I already have. You are fucking delusional.

(May 22, 2014 at 11:26 am)Losty Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 11:24 am)Heywood Wrote: Pre-eclampsia isn't a condition that requires an abortion to treat. Antihypertensive agents can treat it, or labor can be induced and the baby can be delivered early.

You are right, we don't have to go thru every medical condition and examine each one. However Losty does need to provide one medical condition in which late term abortion is the only option to save the mother.

I already have. You are fucking delusional.

Delusional or just likes to argue by nature, regardless if he believes it or not.

(May 22, 2014 at 11:50 am)Elskidor Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 11:26 am)Losty Wrote: I already have. You are fucking delusional.

Delusional or just likes to argue by nature, regardless if he believes it or not.

I think both

(May 22, 2014 at 11:24 am)Heywood Wrote: You are right, we don't have to go thru every medical condition and examine each one. However Losty does need to provide one medical condition in which late term abortion is the only option to save the mother......just one Losty.....just one.

Is this you saying that you'd preference any other medical treatment, regardless of efficacy and safety record, over abortion?

New question, then: in a situation in which a late term abortion presents the highest possible chance of saving the mother, and some other treatment presents a significantly lowered chance of saving her, which do you choose?

See, in your desperate scrabbling to avoid answering the question in the most condescending way possible, you're missing the actual point of the question. In fact, I think it'd be an interesting peek into your character to see if you even recognize what the point is now.

(May 22, 2014 at 11:20 am)Losty Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 11:12 am)Heywood Wrote: 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.

Wrong. If you remove a fetus from the womb knowing that it has zero chance of survival that's an abortion Heywood.

What kind of doctor would induce labor on a woman who is barely clinging to life knowing full well that she's 18 weeks pregnant and there is no chance of survival for the fetus?

---

(May 22, 2014 at 11:18 am)Heywood Wrote: Its the induce labor part that you ignore. Late term abortions are unnecessary. Induce labor, there is no need to kill the baby.

So further risk her life even though the fetus will die once removed from the womb? Makes perfect sense Heywood.

There is a difference between killing a fetus and then removing it from the womb and just removing the fetus from the womb.

If the pregnancy causes a threat to the mothers life. Remove the fetus from the womb and then take reasonable steps to save it. If the baby dies it died....but at least it wasn't killed. Abortion is the killing of other human beings. You advocate giving people the choice to kill other human beings. You are an evil morally repugnant person.

---

(May 22, 2014 at 11:26 am)Losty Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 11:24 am)Heywood Wrote: Pre-eclampsia isn't a condition that requires an abortion to treat. Antihypertensive agents can treat it, or labor can be induced and the baby can be delivered early.

You are right, we don't have to go thru every medical condition and examine each one. However Losty does need to provide one medical condition in which late term abortion is the only option to save the mother.

I already have. You are fucking delusional.

Negative, the option to deliver the baby early exist and is just as safe as an abortion. There is no need to kill the baby except so that you do not have to deal with it.

(May 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: There is a difference between killing a fetus and then removing it from the womb and just removing the fetus from the womb.

If the pregnancy causes a threat to the mothers life. Remove the fetus from the womb and then take reasonable steps to save it. If the baby dies it died....but at least it wasn't killed. Abortion is the killing of other human beings. You advocate giving people the choice to kill other human beings. You are an evil morally repugnant person.

So after I just got done telling you that what you're doing is making an equivocation between "human being" and "person" under your own definitions, you come in here and make the same appeal-to-emotion laden equivocation here?

This is a sure sign that you've lost the argument, when you're talking two different games in two different threads and just hoping nobody will notice. Not to mention you're now just making assertions coated in emotionally charged language rather than anything real. What a profoundly dishonest statement you've made.

(May 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 11:20 am)Losty Wrote: Wrong. If you remove a fetus from the womb knowing that it has zero chance of survival that's an abortion Heywood.

What kind of doctor would induce labor on a woman who is barely clinging to life knowing full well that she's 18 weeks pregnant and there is no chance of survival for the fetus?

---

So further risk her life even though the fetus will die once removed from the womb? Makes perfect sense Heywood.

There is a difference between killing a fetus and then removing it from the womb and just removing the fetus from the womb.

If the pregnancy causes a threat to the mothers life. Remove the fetus from the womb and then take reasonable steps to save it. If the baby dies it died....but at least it wasn't killed. Abortion is the killing of other human beings. You advocate giving people the choice to kill other human beings. You are an evil morally repugnant person.

I was hoping you would say that. Did you know that 36% of 'abortions' before 9 weeks are labor induction abortions, meaning they just remove the fetus from the womb. They don't technically kill it.
Also, I would have to look it up, but I believe almost all late term (last week or so of second trimester and on) abortions are labor induction abortions unless the doctor believes another type of abortion is necessary.

You cannot hurt my feelings by insulting my morals Heywood. I know my morals are right, just as much as you know your morals are right. I do not believe it is ever immoral to kill a human being so long as that human being is not a person. I do not find killing human beings any less moral than killing any other being so long as that human being is not a person. I do not value human life over other forms of life. I do value people, but we aren't talking about people.

---

(May 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 11:26 am)Losty Wrote: I already have. You are fucking delusional.

Negative, the option to deliver the baby early exist and is just as safe as an abortion. There is no need to kill the baby except so that you do not have to deal with it.

Negative,

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

Erika Levi, an OBGYN at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: "There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy," she says.

"When a pregnancy must be ended before a fetus is viable, the result is an abortion," says Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. But she says there also are cases after viability in which an abortion is safer than an induced childbirth or surgical delivery.

Listen Heywood, I know you consider yourself an expert for whatever reason, but I do not value your professional opinion because it is not your profession and you have no idea what you're talking about.

(May 22, 2014 at 12:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So after I just got done telling you

I really don't read your posts anymore. I got tired of your incessant tactics of obfuscation and insult. You near the bottom of people I pay attention too.

If you want me to read something....put it in green(or what ever the color is for official mod actions).