Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Trippy]

You know what? I'd be happy with one for repeatedly and abusively calling me a liar. Did honest mistake never occur to you as an option?

When you were presented with all of the information required to avoid making the honest mistake from the outset? No.

Whether you did it deliberately, or inadvertantly, you still misrepresented what was said. You also misrepresnted the meaning of the 24% figure - remember, my accusation is not based on a single event.

I've shown the glaring error and if you were decent about it- you'd admit that showing statistics in regions that only allow later term abortions if there is a health risk isn't very good evidence for supporting the claim that they would get them late term for that reason only.

I will admit an error when I have actually made an error.

There's a reasonable legal bias there- those studied aren't allowed to get them for any other reason.

This is the point that you have failed to understand. There are other reasons available under the law - this is why I keep harping on about the significance of the inclusion of mental health in the law, versus its complete absence in the statistics. That's the thing about 'mental health' and claiming that the abortion is for reasons of mental health. How do you prove that carrying a pregnancy to full term will cause permanent damage to mental health? Well, in some cases it's obvious, but in other cases, you would have to settle for a credible threat - an example might be peripartum psychosis or peripartum depression.

My experience suggests that convincing a Dr that a credible threat of permanent damage to your mental health due to any event can come down to choosing a sympathetic Dr.

 

[Neverfly]

Do I think humans are entitled to rights? Certainly. Do I think a fertilised egg, embryo or foetus are entitled to rights? I do not think their rights should supersede the rights of the mother at all. I believe that while it exists within the body of another, the mother's rights are paramount.

I fully believe in the mother's rights to choose.

I also believe that no one should impede or reject a woman's say or rights over her own body.

I do not believe that an unborn's legal rights should be above and beyond that of the mother's to the point where the mother is denied any rights or say whatsoever over her own body.

In other words, it's not a person and it has no rights.

 

[Bells]

Bold and underlined- This, ladies and gentleman - is what's known as shifting the goal posts after the fact.
Too late Bells, you already stated you were Pro-Choice all the way up to birth. You already made it clear no unborn should be 'granted' personhood. You already made it clear that you disbelieve that any woman would get a late term abortion for any reason other than Health Risk- which is what had set that all off.

Apparently you need to actually repeat it at least once, first.

It still does not defeat the actual fact that a woman has to actually have a valid health reason to get an abortion in the third trimester.

In that when you tried to claim erroneously earlier that women could apparently just change their minds at any point in the third trimester and then tried to use the obscenely stupid 1 minute rule as an example, you were wrong. Because a) It is not permitted and b) What woman do you know, in her right mind, would agree to put up with two trimesters of pregnancy and then change her mind for reasons that does not include her health but because she just cannot be bothered anymore? No, really, what woman would do this?

The examples you tried to cite included teenage girls who even you described as being desperate because they could not get access to an abortion earlier and then you tried to cite the case of young girls and young women who suffer a form of mental illness where they cannot even acknowledge that they are pregnant as another example of their choosing to actively have the baby and then change their mind..

You and your spouse then spent another disproportionate amount of time misrepresenting studies and lying through your teeth.

The both of you are nothing but trolls.

 

[Neverfly]

It still does not defeat the actual fact that a woman has to actually have a valid health reason to get an abortion in the third trimester.

Which I agree with. So let me ask- Do you agree with restricted (Health risk only) third trimester Laws?

In that when you tried to claim erroneously earlier that women could apparently just change their minds at any point in the third trimester

I never claimed that- at all.
Quote me where I made that claim. You can't because I didn't.
Context: We were at that time discussing the P.O.V. you had presented in which abortion/Right To Choose extended up until birth. I quoted you above on that, minutes ago. We were discussing your P.O.V.'s at that time.

How do I know that? Because I already knew what Roe vs. Wade ruled. That's not a federal Law. It's left up to the states to determine whether or not to restrict Third Trimester.

And Trippy, you defeated your own argument. Show what state includes mental health as a requirement in the USA.
The statistics you gave show only those approved, it does not show what reasons were given for requested or unapproved procedures.

 

[Trippy]

And Trippy, you defeated your own argument. Show what state includes mental health as a requirement in the USA.
The statistics you gave show only those approved, it does not show what reasons were given for requested or unapproved procedures.

I haven't defeated my own argument. You've missed my point entirely.

 

[Bells]

In other words, it's not a person and it has no rights.

If you grant personhood and rights to unborn children, then even in cases where the mother was dying, she would not be able to do anything to save herself if that meant having an abortion. For example, in Columbia, abortion even for the health of the mother is illegal. And this is what happens where you grant personhood to the unborn:

Martha Solay spent Mother’s Day in pain, knowing her life would soon be over. As her eldest daughter Yenny injected her with painkillers, she coiled into a fetal position, cupped her face in her hands and screamed. Daniela, her two-year-old daughter, stood at the bedside with a curious look, shifting her attention between the crying and the Tarzan cartoons on television. She was too young to understand that her own abortion might have saved her mother’s life.

Three years earlier, when Martha was two months pregnant with Daniela, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer. Doctors in her home city of Pereira withheld radiation treatment that could have cured her because it would have terminated the fetus, a procedure that was illegal, with no exceptions. Martha was forced to wait out the pregnancy, giving her cancer time to become terminal.

Unlike many women afraid to arouse the ire of their conservative Catholic communities, she told her story to activists, journalists and even Congress in an effort to prevent others from sharing her painful fate. ‘I brought my little grain of salt,’ she said, ‘so that what happened to me won’t happen to other women.’

http://www.newint.org/features/2008/01/01/colombia/

Now tell me Neverfly, for all of your posturing and lies in this thread.

Do you think this is an acceptable thing to do?

Do you think that if a woman has uterine cancer while she is pregnant, that she should be denied the care and treatment that she would need to survive because it could lead to an abortion?

Yes or no?

Because this is what happens when you give personhood to the unborn. This is what happens when you give rights to the unborn.

Then of course we have cases in Catholic run public and private hospitals in the US, where the Catholic church grants personhood to the unborn and women in the middle of miscarriage, some even going septic, are being denied basic medical care because there is a foetal heartbeat.

So many things are galling about Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted's excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride, a member of St. Joseph's Hospital Ethics Committee, for approving the termination of the life-threatening, 11-week-old pregnancy of a 27-year-old mother of four that it's hard to know where to begin. But surely one of the most urgent issues this case raises is the danger faced by any woman who sets foot in a Catholic hospital in the midst of a reproductive crisis.

Just to recap, late last year a critically-ill pregnant woman was brought into St. Joseph's suffering from pulmonary hypertension. Her pregnancy posed such a burden to her heart and lungs that carrying it to term almost certainly would have killed her. Sister Margaret approved the decision of the physicians, the patient, and her family to terminate the pregnancy.

When Olmsted learned that this procedure had taken place, all hell broke loose. Without a scintilla of empathy or sympathy for the dying woman and her family, Olmsted said: "The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances." Since the abortion was not "indirect" (i.e., the byproduct of another procedure necessary to save the mother's life, such as removing a cancerous uterus), the correct moral action, according to Olmsted and the Phoenix diocese, was this: Let the mother and the fetus die.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The disturbing findings of a report published in late 2008 in the American Journal of Public Health bear this out. The researchers set out to explore the impact of residency abortion training on the medical practices of a sample of ob-gyns. In the course of conducting their interviews, they got an unexpected glimpse into the conflicts posed by the Directives for physicians attempting to manage miscarriages.

One doctor working at a Catholic hospital reported receiving a woman whose pregnancy "was very early, 14 weeks," with "a hand sticking out of the cervix," indicating that "clearly the membranes had ruptured and she was trying to deliver." Because there was still a fetal heart rate, the ethics committee refused to approve the abortion; they sent the woman to another institution 90 miles away.

Another doctor, at an academic medical center, reported that a Catholic-owned hospital called to ask her to accept a pregnant miscarrying patient who was already septic and hemorrhaging. She urged them to do the uterine aspiration themselves, but they refused. That doctor accepted the patient and did the procedure, but saw this case as a form of "patient dumping." She reported the hospital for an Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act violation.

That is giving personhood to the unborn, regardless of the trimester. This is the face and the result of granting personhood to the unborn. This is what happens when you grant personhood to the unborn, be it in the first, second and/or third trimester. For all of your pathetic and idiotic arguments in this thread and you and your wife's attempts to lie and weasel your way through this thread by being intellectually dishonest through the misrepresentation of studies to even the lies you have told about others, to the point where you wife saw fit to attack my personal life, marriage over and over again even after being asked to stop... So it all comes down to this. This is what granting personhood does and this is the pure and direct result of granting personhood to the unborn.

Now tell me that this is acceptable to you.

Yes or No.

 

[Neverfly]

Bells, you're contradicting yourself here.
It's already established that the right to abort exists all the way up through the third trimester if the mothers life/health is in danger.

Asking if those stories are ok with me, of course they are not ok with me- I've established that I support MANY TIMES throughout this thread that I support the right to abort late term if the life/health of mother is endangered.

That is not what was being discussed: What was being discussed was not granting personhood in Late Term abortions where the mothers health was not at risk. You claimed no one would ever abort late term unless her health was at risk even if she was allowed to abort for any reason at all.

For all your claims of lies and misrepresentation: Only studies were shown where the only permitted reason to abort was if her health was at risk. So none of them answered the question as to whether or not granting personhood would challenge the mothers right to self defense. None of them established what reasons may be given or used if a woman could abort all the way through for any reason she chose.
That is why the studies were misleading.

Edit to add: The second story covers a deplorable case in which she had an 11 week old aborted and the ruling by some Priest was that it was wrong to do that. That's during the time when I had already said, many times in this thread- that my opinion was she could abort for any reason at all. So asking me if I think that's acceptable is downright foolish. I've established that many times.
Do I need to go through and count how many times I said it- including in many posts you refused to address my questions in?
After Bowser asked us all to Clarify Our position, for example? First and second trimester, have at it, but once it has a human brain, only in cases where mothers health is at risk- how many times did I say it?

 

[lightgigantic]

If you grant personhood and rights to unborn children, then even in cases where the mother was dying, she would not be able to do anything to save herself if that meant having an abortion. For example, in Columbia, abortion even for the health of the mother is illegal. And this is what happens where you grant personhood to the unborn:



Now tell me Neverfly, for all of your posturing and lies in this thread.

Do you think this is an acceptable thing to do?

Do you think that if a woman has uterine cancer while she is pregnant, that she should be denied the care and treatment that she would need to survive because it could lead to an abortion?

Yes or no?

Because this is what happens when you give personhood to the unborn. This is what happens when you give rights to the unborn.

Then of course we have cases in Catholic run public and private hospitals in the US, where the Catholic church grants personhood to the unborn and women in the middle of miscarriage, some even going septic, are being denied basic medical care because there is a foetal heartbeat.



That is giving personhood to the unborn, regardless of the trimester. This is the face and the result of granting personhood to the unborn. This is what happens when you grant personhood to the unborn, be it in the first, second and/or third trimester. For all of your pathetic and idiotic arguments in this thread and you and your wife's attempts to lie and weasel your way through this thread by being intellectually dishonest through the misrepresentation of studies to even the lies you have told about others, to the point where you wife saw fit to attack my personal life, marriage over and over again even after being asked to stop... So it all comes down to this. This is what granting personhood does and this is the pure and direct result of granting personhood to the unborn.

Now tell me that this is acceptable to you.

Yes or No.

So lets get this straight :

Because we can find examples of situations where personhood is delegated to the unborn baby, even at the expense of the life of the mother bearing it, all other examples where it is not done so at the expense of the mother automatically become redundant?

:wtf:

 

[Neverfly]

The third trimester is the period between 7 to 9 months.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/pregnancy-your-babys-growth-development-months-7-to-9
http://www.healthdirect.org.au/heal...by-website/pregnancy-topics/the-last-3-months
http://www.parenting.com/article/third-trimester-symptoms

I explained that I asked because the idea that a woman, two-thirds or more through a pregnancy, would decide to abort on a lark is something that, to the one, I can't comprehend, and to the other, is a stock myth of the anti-abortion canon. I don't think she would mind my relating that the question is as confounding to her as it seems to me.

Tiassa answers his own question in the same post that he stated it:

It's a fine argument in the abstract, but what are the practical, living realities? They can be pretty brutal; as Rose Aguilar reported in 2010:

Starting from the beginning means revisiting the case of a 17-year-old girl from Vernal, Utah, who was seven months pregnant last May, when she paid 21-year-old Aaron Harrison $150 to beat her up after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Harrison brought the girl to the basement of his parent’s house and attacked and kicked her, leaving bruises on her stomach and a bite mark on her neck. The baby survived the assault, was born in August, and has since been adopted.

Harrison, who faced 15 years in prison, pleaded guilty to second-degree felony attempted murder, but instead got up to five years, after District Judge A. Lynn Payne sentenced him under Utah’s anti-abortion statute, saying a charge of third-degree “attempted killing of an unborn child” better fit the facts of the case, according to the Tribune.

In June, the 17-year-old girl, whose name has not been released because of her age, pleaded no contest to a second-degree felony count of criminal solicitation to commit murder. Juvenile Court Judge Larry Steele ordered that she be placed in the custody of Utah Juvenile Justice Services until she turns 21, but she was released in October after the judge said that, under state law, “a woman who solicits or seeks to have another cause an abortion of her own unborn child cannot be criminally liable."​

I do not know a single woman who would elect to go through her whole pregnancy, only to get to the end and say 'umm you know what? I don't want to do this'..

But the fact that third trimester abortions are the rarest in that they constitute the absolute minority of all abortions (I think the figure is less than 3%?) and the absolute majority of even that small figure is because there is a medical problem, ...

I have repeatedly said my opinion"
That 1st 2nd trimester - no established brain- full right to abort. Read my posts in this thread. It's been said so damn many times...
I have said, I have a problem only with late term abortions.
I have said, the mother has the right to self defense. Many times. If mothers health is in danger or the baby is deformed or would have a low quality of life that I support her right to choose all the way up until birth if needs be. I used the example of when I was in Combat- I had the right to defend myself even if taking another life.
It's intellectually impossible that any of that was left unclear.

The contention made (not by me): Mothers should have the right to choose no matter what the reason all the way up til birth.

My rebuttal (Stated many freaking times): This sets a precedent in which we are granting a certain group only with the right to kill even when not in any danger.
No other person in our society has that right.

Rebuttal made against me: No one would have an abortion late term if they weren't in danger.

Stats were given that mislead by showing results in areas where the mother could only abort if in danger- that does not settle the question.

Read the link above that Tiassa had actually given. The 17 year old was in the third trimester and did try to kill it, out of emotional distress- she went to extremes. It allows people to get away with killing other human brains for a reason other than Self Defense. A girl cannot, for example, murder the girl that screwed her boyfriend causing her emotional distress- she goes to prison.

 

[Bells]

Which I agree with. So let me ask- Do you agree with restricted (Health risk only) third trimester Laws?

I never claimed that- at all.
Quote me where I made that claim. You can't because I didn't.
Context: We were at that time discussing the P.O.V. you had presented in which abortion/Right To Choose extended up until birth. I quoted you above on that, minutes ago. We were discussing your P.O.V.'s at that time.

How do I know that? Because I already knew what Roe vs. Wade ruled. That's not a federal Law. It's left up to the states to determine whether or not to restrict Third Trimester.

And Trippy, you defeated your own argument. Show what state includes mental health as a requirement in the USA.
The statistics you gave show only those approved, it does not show what reasons were given for requested or unapproved procedures.

And now to reply to your edit. I have noticed that you have a habit of completely editing and re-arranging your post constantly. Well here is the reply to this latest edit.

When responding to a comment about why granting personhood would erode the mother's rights, you posed the question about women who would suspend the child's rights for a matter of convenience.

Even if it means suspending the rights of an innocent human brain and human life to be convenient? Why is one life automatically valued and one life deemed zero value at all- simply because you up and declare it has no physical reality? Because it does have a physical reality and a brain and a nervous system- it is human and that fact must be ignored in order to justify killing those human beings. I'm not talking about a zygote here. I'm talking about living human beings. You cannot, with a straight face, deem it human or alive or not human or not alive based solely on where it is sitting. Yet, that is exactly what you are trying to do, here.

Which has been shown to you repeatedly that you are incorrect and which you repeatedly ignored, lied about and disregarded all evidence provided to you. That was also the post where you claimed that you did not think it would benefit a rape victim to allow her to abort in the third trimester. But lets carry on, shall we? Other examples of where you claim that women are disregarding life for convenience in the third trimester and even other trimesters:

Early term, yes. But your arguments and Tiassas arguments have nothing to do with term, do they? They disregard life for convenience.

Where you asked if a woman should have a child she simply did not want.. because again, a woman would get to the third trimester and change her mind:

Exercising the "Right" to murder a child one simply does not want?

Then the next sentence you bring up what happens if she just wants to kill it in utero:

Yet, you treat mother and child as that. No, scratch that. The child simply doesn't exist if she wants to kill it.

Carrying on..

You then use the 'amg she can abort up to 30 seconds before birth' and claimed we apparently justified killing because she does not want to be a parent in the third trimester. You then introduced your unsubstantiated claim that we apparently ignore these women who change their minds at the last minute and you then blamed us on resorting to "sick moms":

My wording included the last weeks of pregnancy while you three declare that it's not a baby at 30 seconds prior to its birth. You're bias here is very telling. It requires one to ignore the actuality of the being involved in order to justify your position. I find that unscientific and unreasonable. If you cannot post valid scientific arguments that show how a baby is a baby when it's born but not a baby 30 seconds before that- then it's an issue of dogma or semantics. It's not based on reality. This isn't just about a mother that may die, it justifies them killing out of a lack of desire to be a parent, as well. Something else that you ignore when you fall back on the claim it's only about sick moms.

Moving on..

You again make comments that the mother gets to the third trimester and suddenly does not want the baby:

The position you three have stated requires dismissing the "Whatever name fraggle wants" 30 seconds prior to birth in cases where the child is simply unwanted along with times of endangerment to mother etc.

You again mention the mother changing her mind in the third trimester and how you do not think she should be allowed to (again, you have no evidence that women do this and you tried to lie about it):

I believe that late term abortions, where the brain and nervous system are established (Offhand general time-frame is 22 weeks plus) should be disallowed if the mother simply changes her mind about motherhood- that, same as a post birth case, she's obligated. After-all, she cannot kill her infant 1 minute after birth.

I think this is only up to page 7.

In that when you tried to claim erroneously earlier that women could apparently just change their minds at any point in the third trimester

I never claimed that- at all.
Quote me where I made that claim. You can't because I didn't.

Are you still going to claim that you never made the claim that women could just change their minds at any point in the third trimester, because throughout this thread, you harped on and on about how you were against women aborting in the third trimester because she may have changed her mind. Studies provided and evidence from an abortion doctor contradicted you that women did not have abortions in the third trimester because she changed her mind and you then deny ever making such a claim?

Can you be more dishonest? Carrying on..

Page 8, where you again tried to use the argument that a woman could apparently just change her mind, and ask for an abortion 30 seconds before birth no less:

You have clarified here, that the fetus, even 30 seconds before birth, has no "personhood" and that the mother has full rights to choose whether to murder it or not. Not because her life is in danger and as an act of self defense, but as an act of callous murder when she simply does not wish to have the damned thing.

Oh look, another reference of women apparently changing her mind in the last trimester:

Once the third trimester hits, the "Right to choose" is gone when it crosses the line into murder. While killing in self defense is justified (Mothers life in danger; baby's deformed, life is in danger), murder (I do not want it; It's not convenient; I've lied and covered my ass and now I'm stuck in this obligation but think I found a way out) is not justified anymore than killing your neighbor for mowing his lawn at 10 pm.

Because you know, women would go through 30 weeks and then change her mind for "frivolous reasons"...


By this point, I think we can safely say that you have referred to women changing their minds quite a bit.. Regardless of the sea of evidence in front of you that this is not the case at all for women to get an abortion in the third trimester. And now you try and lie and say you have never said such a thing..

I would keep going but frankly, having to wade through the crapulence that amounts to your posts and arguments in this thread one more time makes me want to burn out my eyeballs with hot coals.

 

[Neverfly]

See my post right above that long thing, Bells.

Are you still going to claim that you never made the claim that women could just change their minds at any point in the third trimester,

WOW and you accuse me of dishonesty!
Bells the context you used implied that I had said women could legally abort in third trimester.

It still does not defeat the actual fact that a woman has to actually have a valid health reason to get an abortion in the third trimester.

In that when you tried to claim erroneously earlier that women could apparently just change their minds at any point in the third trimester

See that bit in bold?
I told you I never said she could legally and I told you to quote me if I had.
You quoted where I challenged your position of full rights up until birth no matter what the reason. Then you ask if I am claiming that I never claimed a woman might want to change their mind.
Stop shifting the goal posts.

No I never said that I did not claim a woman might have an invalid reason to abort. Nor was that the context.

Jesus... you even quoted me where I said, "Not because her life is in danger and as an act of self defense, but as an act of callous murder when she simply does not wish to have the damned thing." While a moment ago- acting like I believe that the mother must die and posting long stories asking if it is ok with me that they did what they did...
And you accuse me of dishonesty?!

Edit: I give up... Those posts reported for such glaring and absolutely obvious intellectual dishonesty (even though reporting them will probably do no good.)

 

[wynn]

If you grant personhood and rights to unborn children, then even in cases where the mother was dying, she would not be able to do anything to save herself if that meant having an abortion. For example, in Columbia, abortion even for the health of the mother is illegal. And this is what happens where you grant personhood to the unborn:
/.../

No. Granting personhood does not automatically result in the impossibility to set priorities as to whom to help first or the most.

If granting personhood would automatically result in the impossibility to set priorities as to whom to help first or the most, then emergency room doctors, military doctors, firefighters, police officers, and various kinds of rescue workers would either not exist or their job description would be vastly different than it currently is.

Normally, when the number of people who need help, or when the kind of help they need exceed the capacities of the rescue personnel, the rescue personnel performs triage: they decide which people and in what order they can and will help.


Severe pregnancy complications are on principle a case for triage.
The question is why those Catholic doctors don't perform triage in those cases.

It would be interesting to know how those Catholic doctors respond to other cases where triage is needed: Do they step back and refuse to help at all, because they think that setting priorities as to whom to help first or the most would mean they are "playing God"?

 

[Bells]

See my post right above that long thing, Bells.


WOW and you accuse me of dishonesty!
Bells the context you used implied that I had said women could legally abort in third trimester.

See that bit in bold?
I told you I never said she could legally and I told you to quote me if I had.
You quoted where I challenged your position of full rights up until birth no matter what the reason. Then you ask if I am claiming that I never claimed a woman might want to change their mind.
Stop shifting the goal posts.

No I never said that I did not claim a woman might have an invalid reason to abort. Nor was that the context.

Jesus... you even quoted me where I said, "Not because her life is in danger and as an act of self defense, but as an act of callous murder when she simply does not wish to have the damned thing." While a moment ago- acting like I believe that the mother must die and posting long stories asking if it is ok with me that they did what they did...
And you accuse me of dishonesty?!

Edit: I give up... Those posts reported for such glaring and absolutely obvious intellectual dishonesty (even though reporting them will probably do no good.)

Yes I accuse you of dishonesty.

I have stated from the start that in no way could a woman get to the third trimester and simply change her mind because frankly, unless she is mentally ill, I really cannot see how or why a woman would go through two semesters and simply change their minds as you have been trying to portray throughout this thread.

And I have said this to you over and over again, provided studies and comments about third trimester abortions all of which support the fact that women would not just change their minds.

My words were clear Neverfly. So you can try and weasel and lie your way through this as well. We have been putting up with your blatant dishonesty for what? How many pages is this thread? What is one more post of you lying? Lets face it, this is what we have come to expect from you.

---

No. Granting personhood does not automatically result in the impossibility to set priorities as to whom to help first or the most.

If granting personhood would automatically result in the impossibility to set priorities as to whom to help first or the most, then emergency room doctors, military doctors, firefighters, police officers, and various kinds of rescue workers would either not exist or their job description would be vastly different than it currently is.

Normally, when the number of people who need help, or when the kind of help they need exceed the capacities of the rescue personnel, the rescue personnel performs triage: they decide which people and in what order they can and will help.


Severe pregnancy complications are on principle a case for triage.
The question is why those Catholic doctors don't perform triage in those cases.

It would be interesting to know how those Catholic doctors respond to other cases where triage is needed: Do they step back and refuse to help at all, because they think that setting priorities as to whom to help first or the most would mean they are "playing God"?

Actually it does set priorities since granting personhood to an unborn at any stage of the pregnancy automatically grants the foetus equal value in life as the mother.

As has been pointed out, doctors in may public hospitals which are run by the Catholic Church are denied the right to provide 'triage' or emergency care to pregnant women if said care would result in the termination of their pregnancy. From hands sticking out of the cervix in a clear case of a miscarriage, to a woman who was septic and hemorrhaging, as soon as there is a heartbeat, personhood applies as far as the Church is concerned and thus, they refuse to allow doctors and nurses to provide treatment. If they attempt to bypass that, they are fired and excommunicated (as was the case with the nun who was excommunicated for approving an abortion to save a woman and I believe in that case, the staff involved in the decision and the treatment itself and the family may have been excommunicated also).

One doctor refused to step back when presented with such a case and do actually treat their patients:

Some doctors have decided to take matters into their own hands. In the following case, the refusal of the hospital ethics committee to approve uterine evacuation not only caused significant harm to the patient but compelled a perinatologist, Dr S, now practicing in a nonsectarian academic medical center, to violate protocol and resign from his position in an urban northeastern Catholic-owned hospital.

I'll never forget this; it was awful—I had one of my partners accept this patient at 19 weeks. The pregnancy was in the vagina. It was over… . And so he takes this patient and transferred her to [our] tertiary medical center, which I was just livid about, and, you know, “we're going to save the pregnancy.” So of course, I'm on call when she gets septic, and she's septic to the point that I'm pushing pressors on labor and delivery trying to keep her blood pressure up, and I have her on a cooling blanket because she's 106 degrees. And I needed to get everything out. And so I put the ultrasound machine on and there was still a heartbeat, and [the ethics committee] wouldn't let me because there was still a heartbeat. This woman is dying before our eyes. I went in to examine her, and I was able to find the umbilical cord through the membranes and just snapped the umbilical cord and so that I could put the ultrasound—“Oh look. No heartbeat. Let's go.” She was so sick she was in the [intensive care unit] for about 10 days and very nearly died… . She was in DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulopathy]… . Her bleeding was so bad that the sclera, the white of her eyes, were red, filled with blood… . And I said, “I just can't do this. I can't put myself behind this. This is not worth it to me.” That's why I left.​

From Dr S's perspective, the chances for fetal life were nonexistent given the septic maternal environment. For the ethics committee, however, the present yet waning fetal heart tones were evidence of fetal life that precluded intervention. Rather than struggle longer to convince his committee to make an exception and grant approval for termination of pregnancy, Dr S chose to covertly sever the patient's umbilical cord so that the fetal heartbeat would cease and evacuation of the uterus could “legitimately” proceed.

Dr G also circumvented the ethics committee in her southern Catholic-owned hospital. She opted not to check fetal heart tones or seek ethics committee approval when caring for a miscarrying woman for fear that documentation of fetal heart tones would have caused unnecessary delays. This led to conflict with the nurse assisting her.

She was 14 weeks and the membranes were literally out of the cervix and hanging in the vagina. And so with her I could just take care of it in the [emergency room] but her cervix wasn't open enough … so we went to the operating room and the nurse kept asking me, “Was there heart tones, was there heart tones?” I said “I don't know. I don't know.” Which I kind of knew there would be. But she said, “Well, did you check?” … I said, “I don't need an ultrasound to tell me that it's inevitable … you can just put, ‘The heart tones weren't documented,’ and then they can interpret that however they want to interpret that.” … I said, “Throw it back at me … I'm not going to order an ultrasound. It's silly.” Because then that's the thing; it would have muddied the water in this case.​

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126730#h2

To me, that is a horrific situation in any circumstance.

Personhood means terminating that "person's life", even in the case of the mother's health being in danger, will mean that it will be murder. So Catholic run hospitals deem any form of abortion to be murder, since they believe life begins at conception and what they are doing is denying treatment to women who are miscarrying or ill and need an abortion, if there is a foetal heartbeat present. So doctors either have to comply and gamble with their patient's health, or they lie about the foetal heartbeat and hope no one checks so that they can treat their patient.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes I accuse you of dishonesty.

I have stated from the start that in no way could a woman get to the third trimester and simply change her mind because frankly, unless she is mentally ill, I really cannot see how or why a woman would go through two semesters and simply change their minds as you have been trying to portray throughout this thread.

And I have said this to you over and over again, provided studies and comments about third trimester abortions all of which support the fact that women would not just change their minds.

My words were clear Neverfly. So you can try and weasel and lie your way through this as well. We have been putting up with your blatant dishonesty for what? How many pages is this thread? What is one more post of you lying? Lets face it, this is what we have come to expect from you.

---

Actually it does set priorities since granting personhood to an unborn at any stage of the pregnancy automatically grants the foetus equal value in life as the mother.

As has been pointed out, doctors in may public hospitals which are run by the Catholic Church are denied the right to provide 'triage' or emergency care to pregnant women if said care would result in the termination of their pregnancy. From hands sticking out of the cervix in a clear case of a miscarriage, to a woman who was septic and hemorrhaging, as soon as there is a heartbeat, personhood applies as far as the Church is concerned and thus, they refuse to allow doctors and nurses to provide treatment. If they attempt to bypass that, they are fired and excommunicated (as was the case with the nun who was excommunicated for approving an abortion to save a woman and I believe in that case, the staff involved in the decision and the treatment itself and the family may have been excommunicated also).

One doctor refused to step back when presented with such a case and do actually treat their patients:



To me, that is a horrific situation in any circumstance.

Personhood means terminating that "person's life", even in the case of the mother's health being in danger, will mean that it will be murder. So Catholic run hospitals deem any form of abortion to be murder, since they believe life begins at conception and what they are doing is denying treatment to women who are miscarrying or ill and need an abortion, if there is a foetal heartbeat present. So doctors either have to comply and gamble with their patient's health, or they lie about the foetal heartbeat and hope no one checks so that they can treat their patient.

it was already just explained how granting the status of personhood to an unborn child doesn't automatically mean the mother's health is no longer a valid concern. If there are various industries and professions that can manage triage, there is absolutely no reason why the same models can't function with unborn children

We all know how much you hate catholics so it doesn't really matter how many case studies from catholicism you present - it still remains a fact that there are different approaches to the problem (even amongst catholics for that matter). Please try and understand, if citing a radical interpretation of a precept was sufficient to discredit it, the world would look even stranger than sciforums.

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

it was already just explained how granting the status of personhood to an unborn child doesn't automatically mean the mother's health is no longer a valid concern. If there are various industries and professions that can manage triage, there is absolutely no reason why the same models can't function with unborn children

We all know how much you hate catholics so it doesn't really matter how many case studies from catholicism you present - it still remains a fact that there are different approaches to the problem (even amongst catholics for that matter). Please try and understand, if citing a radical interpretation of a precept was sufficient to discredit it, the world would look even stranger than sciforums.

:shrug:

What radical interpretation? If this was a protestant hospital doing this, my reaction would be the same.

You can explain however much you want, unfortunately not all hospitals or belief systems are putting it into practice. Republics have already stated on repeated occasions how they do not believe in abortion, even in cases where the mother's life is at risk. This is not new territory. And Catholic hospitals, at least, have ethics committees in place which are refusing to treat pregnant women who are miscarrying if there is a foetal heartbeat and they are making these women wait it out until the foetus dies. By allowing the women to wait and at times, even to the point where they are septic and end up in intensive care afterwards, they do not consider the mother's health as being valid at all.

The doctors in these hospitals are not allowed to provide any form of care for these women without the ethic's committee approving it first. In short, they cannot treat miscarrying women accordingly without the hospital's committee's permission and if there is a foetal heartbeat, the committee refuses, so the doctors either have to try and keep the mother alive until the foetus dies and try and stop the bleeding and her going septic or treating it as best they can, or they have to transfer her to another hospital that is not run by any religious organisation so that these women can get the life saving care they need.

The report I posted states, that in theory they are meant to provide medical care immediately if the mother's health is in danger, regardless. However they are not putting it into practice, hence the report and why there was such a brouhaha about it not that long ago.

It is an appalling situation.

The case surrounding Sister McBride at St Joseph is a prime example. She was a nun who served on the ethic's committee of the hospital. A patient was brought in. A young woman who apparently had a few children to her husband and in this case, was in the 11th week of her pregnancy.

Tests showed that in the early stages of pregnancy her condition deteriorated rapidly and that before long her pulmonary hypertension – which can impair the working of the heart and lungs – had begun to seriously threaten her life. Doctors informed her that the risk of death was close to 100% if she continued with the pregnancy.

Consultations were then held with the patient, her family, her doctors and the hospital's ethics team, and the decision to go ahead with an abortion was taken in order to save the mother's life.

Now Sister McBride was the nun who was in charge of the ethic's committee and she she approved the abortion, because it would have saved the mother's life.

But Olmsted did not see it that way. He drew on the advice of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' doctrinal committee, which distinguishes between direct abortions that are never justifiable and indirect terminations that happen incidentally as a result of life-saving medical procedures that can be allowed on narrowly-defined grounds.

In this case, the operation was deemed to be a direct abortion because the pregnancy was ended to ease the mother's separate health problem.

So Sister McBride was excommunicated, and so was the whole hospital, pretty much. There was no choice for this young mother. If she continued, she would have died. And because of that, because it was a "separate health problem", as far as the Church was concerned, the proper course was to let her die and not save her life.

And it is not just the Catholic Church.

At the Republican National Convention this year, the Republican party produced their party platform on abortion and was approved by the party going into the election this year:

The 110-member platform panel, meeting today in Tampa, Fla., passed a so-called Human Life Amendment that calls for a ban on abortion, without mention of the more common exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said platform language obtained by CNN. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

So saving the mother would mean murdering the child. The language is clear. This is what granting personhood from conception means. It's life cannot be infringed at all and when put into practice in Catholic hospitals, for example, they would rather let the mother die than terminate her pregnancy, even in the case of a miscarriage, because there is a foetal heartbeat.

So while you can say 'health of the mother is paramount, etc', unfortunately those who apply personhood from conception disagree and as we have seen in practice, women are risking death as a result.

I don't know about you, but this does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling at night.

 

[Neverfly]

Yes I accuse you of dishonesty.

Yes, you do. You claim it repeatedly and did some weaseling above, didn't you? You claim it while I show it in your words. I think it's been sufficiently shown at this point, so I'm going to drop it. At this point, you've dodged, ignored every post where I showed your flaws and errors and asked you direct questions. That's all visible, too. I rattled off the post numbers.

I have stated from the start that in no way could a woman get to the third trimester and simply change her mind because frankly, unless she is mentally ill, I really cannot see how or why a woman would go through two semesters and simply change their minds as you have been trying to portray throughout this thread.

You know... I addressed that, thoroughly, with an example- given by Tiassa, above. I notice you did not choose to reply to that one. How Odd.

And I have said this to you over and over again, provided studies and comments about third trimester abortions all of which support the fact that women would not just change their minds.

Yeah... studies and a blog in a situation in which they only could have it done for health reasons, legally... You keep ignoring that little problem, too- because that's the crux of your "dishonesty accusation"- You certainly cannot permit yourself to admit being wrong. It might confirm that I wasn't dishonest at all.

Ah yes, she must be Mentally Ill- diagnosed by Bells because Bells (a.k.a "we") is never wrong. Oh, by the way, only because you claim that after Trippy made such a big deal about it...

That study you keep thinking was perfect? It showed no Mentally Ill reasons granted at all for later term.


Have fun with the thread, Bells. Feel free to reply about how I'm so dishonest if you like. I'm confident everyone can see and form their own opinion.

 

[Bells]

Not only did you not really address it, you still misrepresented studies and along with your wife, tried to pass those studies off as being something they were not.

In short, you both lied and behaved in a dishonest fashion.

And as has been pointed out to you how many times now? Women were only seeking third trimester abortions if there was something wrong.. yes.. legally. As Dr Tiller pointed out, no woman would seek a third trimester abortion because she wanted to fit in a dress (ie changed her mind at that point in time)..

You have gone on and on about women apparently seeking third trimester abortions for convenience and have yet to provide a single study discussing it. Possibly because women do not abort in the third trimester for frivolous reasons or for convenience?

The question was asked to you and you failed to understand it or to respond to it.. 'Barring mental illness, what woman would endure 30 weeks of pregnancy and then change her mind about wanting a child?'...

You have failed to provide a single study which details women getting third trimester abortions for convenience. No, instead, in the studies conducted and from speaking to abortion doctor who did perform abortions in the third trimester, none of it was for convenience and all was because there was something wrong, either with the foetus or with the mother.

And you did not even understand what I meant by mentally ill, did you? At all?

You think the study was flawed because it failed to look at mental illness? They went with the reasons of women who presented. When you or your wife, whichever one of you tried to claim that the reason women get third trimester abortion for medical reasons was "busted" and a myth, all the studies showed was just how wrong you both were.

The fact is, women don't just change their mind at that point and virtually all proof points to their being something wrong for them to get an abortion.

Reading.. comprehension.. it does help..

 

[Neverfly]

Whatever you say, Bells

Back on topic, now.

 

[wynn]

So saving the mother would mean murdering the child. The language is clear. This is what granting personhood from conception means. It's life cannot be infringed at all and when put into practice in Catholic hospitals, for example, they would rather let the mother die than terminate her pregnancy, even in the case of a miscarriage, because there is a foetal heartbeat.

So while you can say 'health of the mother is paramount, etc', unfortunately those who apply personhood from conception disagree and as we have seen in practice, women are risking death as a result.

This has nothing to do with granting personhood to the unborn.

Granting personhood is not an impediment to perform triage.
In a crisis situation, such as in a natural catastrophe, where the rescue team perform triage, yes, that can sometimes be interpreted to mean that saving one person's life means letting another die. But such is the reality of crisis situations.

Those who are completely against abortion must be having some other reasons for their stance, reasons other than granting personhood to the unborn. It would seem they have overly idealistic notions about how life on earth should be.

 

[Trippy]

Stats were given that mislead by showing results in areas where the mother could only abort if in danger- that does not settle the question.

Only in your mind. But if you don't like it, maybe you should provide better stats.

Read the link above that Tiassa had actually given. The 17 year old was in the third trimester and did try to kill it, out of emotional distress- she went to extremes. It allows people to get away with killing other human brains for a reason other than Self Defense. A girl cannot, for example, murder the girl that screwed her boyfriend causing her emotional distress- she goes to prison.

This is where reading compregension comes into it (again). Being able to read a passage and make logical inferences regarding it. It's an under-rated skill that sadly many people lack.

Have another look at the portion you quoted. The key is right there in the first paragraph:

Starting from the beginning means revisiting the case of a 17-year-old girl from Vernal, Utah, who was seven months pregnant last May, when she paid 21-year-old Aaron Harrison $150 to beat her up after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy.

The girl was emotionally blackmailed - emotionally abused, into terminating the pregnancy: "...after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy..."

I wonder if, given that she has seemingly waited until the third trimester to tell her boyfriend she's pregnant in the first place, she might actually have wanted to keep it.