Pro-life atheists

[Losty]

Hmmm that looks like proof to me. Proof that you conveniently ignored.

Sorry Losty, I missed this post. Its actually a good link because we can examine the circumstances instead of a nebulous reference too "cases exist".

Do circumstances exists where by it is reasonable to assume the baby has to come out or the mother dies? Yes.

Do circumstances exist where by it is reasonable to assume the baby will likely not survive the extraction? Yes.

Does this mean we should simply ignore the rights of the baby as this woman did? No.

The problem I have is Ms Kellog and her doctors decided to solve this problem by killing the baby. To accomplish this, first they dilate her, then they reach into the uterus, grabbed one of the baby's legs, then grabbed the other. Pulled the baby out until the base of the skull was exposed, made an incision into the skull and sucked the baby's brains out. This is done so that the skull will collapse some when the baby is pulled completely out.

My question is why did they not dilate her until the point where it is no longer necessary to suck the baby's brains out? There was no attempt whatsoever to keep this baby alive.

Further, cases like these are exceedingly rare and you are making an argument from an exception. Since the partial birth abortion ban went into effect, how many documented cases exist of mothers losing their lives?

"There was no hope for my surviving son. He was too tiny and too frail to be
viable. With my dangerously high blood pressure, a c-section would have
likely caused me to bleed to death, and inducing labor would have
stressed my system too much. My safest option was the procedure known
as an intact dilation and extraction. It would save my life, and
preserve my future fertility. As luck would have it, my obstetrician
happened to be one of three doctors in the Philadelphia area that was
both trained and willing to do the procedure. Within an hour of
receiving my bad news, I lay in the surgical suite, covered in tubes
and wires, weeping inconsolably as the doctors tried to offer comfort
as they prepped me for surgery.

It was the worst day of my life."

Dilating far enough to fit the full head was too high of a risk. It can take hours and even days to dilate a cervix big enough to fit a baby's head. Why should she die so that her son has the chance to die instead of being killed. Who are are you to say that slowly dying is better than a quick death? And who are you to say that is woman's life had so little worth that she should die to give her son just a few more minutes. Her only options were the death o her baby or dying together with him.


And to answer your question, I think it's around 300 deaths per year due to preeclampsia.

---

Why did you leave out the part of the article that discussed the woman's desire to have the children. You also don't seem to understand the part where the surviving twin wasn't viable; i.e, cannot be saved. I guess the woman's grieving doesn't serve your point either.

You also chided Losty for making an argument from exception. Fitting response given that the abortion method you abhor, D&X, comprised only 0.2% of all abortions prior to the ban. In addition, most of these were performed before fetal viability.

You're just grasping at straws now.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/pa...-from-spin

I abhor all abortions....exceptions are not needed to justify my position. I know that some abortion are unavoidable secondary effects in the treatment of medical conditions(like ectopic pregnancies). However I am unconvinced a baby has to be killed or that option has to be the first chosen in late term abortions as was done in Ms Kellogs case. Dilate the woman further, let the baby be born alive. If it dies, well that is a sad fact of nature. To kill it on the basis it is not likely to survive is abhorrent.

Her body couldn't handle the stress. Dilate her further and she most likely would have died.