- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How many abortions are result of mother's health?
Posted on 2/1/17 at 1:56 pm to mark65mc
Posted on 2/1/17 at 1:56 pm to mark65mc
quote:
If the embryo implants in the Fallopian tube, then that could rupture as the baby grows and cause the death of both mother and child. The choice is not one of the mother's comfort over the baby's life, the choice is then to save the mother do you sacrifice the child or do you not do anything and risk both lives. It's a different thought process altogether.
Totally legit - it is a medical life-saving procedure. Not an voluntary 'abortion.'
Posted on 2/1/17 at 2:27 pm to skrayper
quote:You made an academically ignorant statement.
If you cannot address your beliefs academically
Your statement:
quote:. . . applies to any 1 y/o infant. That was the point.
The child is not an autonomous organism in regards to the stage of life we are discussing. If it cannot survive on its own, then it lacks that designation.
The term you seem oblivious to is fetal viability.
Viability occurs at around the 5th month of pregnancy.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 2:31 pm to mark65mc
quote:Discovery of an aggressive malignancy requiring treatment that would eventually kill the fetus prior to viability would be another example.
The time that would be to protect the life of the mother would likely be an ectopic pregnancy and that would be terminated prior to 12 weeks. That's a legit reason.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 2:40 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
The quote you set your initial question on was regarding the previous poster stating that life should only be preserved when it can be sustained independent of other people. His exact words were "if it can't survive on its own," thus 3 year olds, cerebral palsy patients and numerous other living human beings of all ages with health deformities would fall under this definition of people who don't deserve designation of being protected by the government.
I honestly missed that, and I wasn't trying to defend that position. I just saw your response and hopped in at that point. I guess I should have made that more clear.
I think his definition is wrong. Those are obvious examples of living, sentient human life to me.
quote:
I believe life begins at conception.
This is the thing that I do have trouble rationalizing though, both because it's a slippery slope, and because all the thought experiments around this topic that I've put to people eventually suss out that they don't actually believe this.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News