It’s always interesting to see how folx will use one thing to excuse or rationalize something significantly different.
For example, using ectopic pregnancy to justify abortion under all circumstances. Literally by definition an ectopic pregnancy eliminates the possibility of a viable pre born human.
“A pregnancy in which the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus. The fertilized egg can't survive outside the uterus.”
An ectopic pregnancy is literally a natural occurrence where the result is not a viable human.
So, why would anyone use an instance where a non viable human being has to be removed to prevent actual literal physical harm to the mother as a rationale for termination of a viable human being simply for the convenience of the mother?
It literally makes no sense. One is a non viable natural occurrence, abortion terminates a completely viable human being in a completely unnatural way.
The other thing to remember is that ectopic pregnancy is rare. It’s one more case of trying to use the tragedy of the extreme minority to justify or obscure the actions of the majority.
Ectopic pregnancy, like miscarriage, is a tragedy for those involved, and we should offer what comfort we can to those who experience these tragedies. It seems like using these tragic circumstances as justification for abortion for convenience is just compounding the tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I've been trying to read up on this specific issue so as to learn actual facts, as opposed to pro-abort narratives. What I've found is that there have been cases where the embryo was indeed transplanted into the uterus successfully and the baby went full term. What's more, this happened long, long ago...possibly late 1800's, though I can't swear to it at the moment.
What's more, there's still a difference between delivering...even when the child is really tiny...versus killing it as a first option. Sure, it is likely to die, but that's not the same as simply killing it to get it over with. This notion, in my mind, is no different than the argument Dan makes suggesting elements of the conservative right are "war first" people, as if there is no thought to resolving issues peacefully before deciding war is the only solution. Here, the pro-aborts simply wage war on the child without any attempt to save it.
In any case, here's the rule of thumb: If a pro-abort says there's no way to save both mother and child, get a second opinion...fast. Abortion is primarily a way for the "doctor" to save himself potential trouble and litigation...NOT to save anyone.
What’s interesting is this obsession with using the rare, to justify the common. Between 1980 and 2007, 32 women pet year died from ectopic pregnancy. While each of those is a tragedy, they don’t justify the millions of abortions for convenience that happen every year.
I don’t understand the obsession with using a minuscule number of tragic situations, which are a natural occurrence, to justify the creation of millions of unnatural tragic occurrences.
I’d be interested to see how many of the 32 deaths per year that we’re talking about involved complications, misdiagnosis, or waiting too long to seek medical care.
To your point. As medical care advances and Drs can treat more and more conditions in utero, these sorts of faux justifications will be harder and harder to stomach. Especially as the age of viability continues to drop.
“Ectopic pregnancies are rare — it happens in about 2 out of every 100 pregnancies. But they’re very dangerous if not treated. Fallopian tubes can break if stretched too much by the growing pregnancy — this is sometimes called a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. This can cause internal bleeding, infection, and in some cases lead to death.“
This is from the all knowing, always correct, Planned Parenthood.
It points out two notable facts as this relates to abortion.
1. Ectopic pregnancy is “rare”.
2. They are less dangerous if “treated”.
I suspect that transplanting will be more common in the future as medical procedures in utero increase. I suspect that the problem is identification, early enough to transplant, not the transplant itself.
If these rare occasions are used as objections to anti-abortion law, they're clearly not sincere if they won't make the deal. If they believed their own BS, then the alleged threat to the life of the mother should be, one would think, enough to allow the 99% of what are elective abortions to be denied in order to save the lives of the 1%. But they won't consider it. This indicates rather blatantly an exploiting of those women in danger of death, not true compassion and care for their lives.
Worse is the accusation there is some inconsistency in our side for suggesting the deal. We're somehow proving their point about mothers lives having priority...that we believe such a thing when the truth is as we say...both lives are equally endowed with the right to life. But when confronting the nazi/klansman attitude that denies that right on the basis of subjective, self-serving criteria, we're willing to do the unthinkable to save as many lives as possible of those they've denied their humanity.
They're evil people. It's not the mothers' lives about which they care...it's the ability to take lives for convenience sake.
It’s clearly disingenuous to use the 1% as a smoke screen for the 99%.
I’ll give Dan credit, at least he’s honest about it being all about “self determination”, and not about anything else. He doesn’t bother with these smoke screens and diversions, he’s just up front about it.
Yet, facing praise given the reality.
I could be wrong, but I think we both agree, that the surgery to end an ectopic pregnancy should be given when needed. Especially given the reality that what you have with an ectopic pregnancy is, by definition, non viable. It seems like equating viable and non viable, would be foolish.
My last should have said "faint" praise.
I assumed that.
Post a Comment