Texas Republicans Continue War on Women's Health

[HeirofSalvation]

If I had the choice to save 40 million people, or save one, I would choose the 40 million.


Take that any way you want to.

40 million??? surely you exaggerate here...now be honest.... isn't the number more along the lines of...

"The Alan Gutmacher Institute, a leading proponent of abortion on demand, claims that there have been more than 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_babies_have_been_aborted_in_America_since_Roe_v._Wade

No, CTB can warm himself to the idea of at least 10 million more infant murders than you claim....

 

[Crabtownboy]

40 million??? surely you exaggerate here...now be honest.... isn't the number more along the lines of...

"The Alan Gutmacher Institute, a leading proponent of abortion on demand, claims that there have been more than 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_babies_have_been_aborted_in_America_since_Roe_v._Wade

No, CTB can warm himself to the idea of at least 10 million more infant murders than you claim....

Both of you are avoiding the question I asked. Would you allow your wife have an abortion and live, or not allow one and let her die?

 

[revmwc]

Both of you are avoiding the question I asked. Would you allow your wife have an abortion and live, or not allow one and let her die?

I thought I answered your question NO Fallopian Tube pregnancy can or ever has completed the BABY cannot survive in that type of pregnancy it will always miscarry and that is not an abortion. The hemmoraging is the natural process of the mis-carriage and the doctor has always had no choice in this type of pregnancy but to monitor and ensure the mother safety, it wasn't classified as an abortion until abortionist labeled it that way. So your point is moot, the process by which God made womens bodies to work would cause the hemorage you are speaking of and the baby would be mis-carried. It has worked that way since God created men. This is not an abortion it is following the nature occurance of events to call it is an abortion is someone trying to justiffy abortion.

 

[mandym]

Both of you are avoiding the question I asked. Would you allow your wife have an abortion and live, or not allow one and let her die?

You are avoiding the issue entirely by distracting with such straw man questions. Which appears to be your habit.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I thought I answered your question NO Fallopian Tube pregnancy can or ever has completed the BABY cannot survive in that type of pregnancy it will always miscarry and that is not an abortion. The hemmoraging is the natural process of the mis-carriage and the doctor has always had no choice in this type of pregnancy but to monitor and ensure the mother safety, it wasn't classified as an abortion until abortionist labeled it that way. So your point is moot, the process by which God made womens bodies to work would cause the hemorage you are speaking of and the baby would be mis-carried. It has worked that way since God created men. This is not an abortion it is following the nature occurance of events to call it is an abortion is someone trying to justiffy abortion.

Are you saying that no woman has ever died from a Fallopian tube pregnancy?

I agree with your that technically it is not an abortion, but the fetus does die and if removed by the doctor to save the mother the fetus dies. I was wondering if someone would bring up this technicality. This technical difference is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In another area, what would you do if your wife had cancer that was treatable with radiation, but she will die without radiation, but she may live long enough for the baby to be born. However she is pref she does not undergo radiation she may live long enough for the baby to be born. The clear choice is either the life of the mother or the life of the child. Which would you counsel her to do?

Thanks for a clam, rational response.

 

[mandym]

Are you saying that no woman has ever died from a Fallopian tube pregnancy?

If the unborn child is stuck in a fallopian tube and the mother's life is threatened such treatment should not be done by PP. It should be determined only by her physician and done in a hospital. So the issue with with a mother's life being threatened has nothing to do with funding PP.

To bring it up as a legitimate part of this particular discussion is dishonest and irrational.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Both of you are avoiding the question I asked. Would you allow your wife have an abortion and live, or not allow one and let her die?

We both clearly answered you: you just can't understand the answer, given your assumtion that the answer would be in the affirmative. Rev answered here:

Would seek God to guide in the process, taking man's ideology out of it and allow God to work, how do we know HE won't work in a miraculous way and both survive. Aborting babies and following man's advice is just what satan wants believers to do, can God intervene and ensure both survive? What is God's desire in this maybe like Jesus said with Lazerus in:

John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

Maybe God wants to receive glory for a miracluous work in the completion of the birth and life of the mother being spared. After all Doctors know medically what they see but we see God's will in it all. Man interferes with God's work sometimes and for you to say if you don't abort both will die that is the worlds philosophy.

Unless, I mis-read you Rev...don't want to speak for you if I am mistaken.

and I answered here:

O.K....but you won't like the answer....she herself, and I agree with her....will NEVER permit one of our children to be aborted....we will prayerfully hope for the Great Physician to spare the life of her, the child, or both....we will pray for the miraculous, but we will place our faith and future in His hands....You see CTB.....I married a woman who IS PRO-LIFE you are no such thing.

I even accounted for the fact that (given your ideology) this would be inexplicable to you, in that I said:

but you won't like the answer....

To simplify:......NO!!!

Your move.....

 

[Crabtownboy]

If the unborn child is stuck in a fallopian tube and the mother's life is threatened such treatment should not be done by PP. It should be determined only by her physician and done in a hospital. So the issue with with a mother's life being threatened has nothing to do with funding PP.

I would defend your right to this choice.

Would you support government funding for a poor woman to have access to the same procedure to save her life?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I would defend your right to this choice.

But you would NEVER support anyone's freedom to spend or to not spend vis -a- vis your OP, their own money as they see fit and would prefer government to utilize force to requisition money from hard-working people to spend it (or waste it) as government (force by definition) sees fit. :smilewinkgrin: Communists are so cute. :saint:

 

[Don]

I would defend your right to this choice.

Would you support government funding for a poor woman to have access to the same procedure to save her life?

See post #54. Medicare/Medicaid would cover it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Both of you are avoiding the question I asked. Would you allow your wife have an abortion and live, or not allow one and let her die?

Actually, your's is a hypothetical question. And it's a stupid question. So please, stop asking it. It is only you massaging your conscience. Abortion is wrong, yet you want to make it OK.

 

[Don]

Are you saying that no woman has ever died from a Fallopian tube pregnancy?

I agree with your that technically it is not an abortion, but the fetus does die and if removed by the doctor to save the mother the fetus dies. I was wondering if someone would bring up this technicality. This technical difference is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In another area, what would you do if your wife had cancer that was treatable with radiation, but she will die without radiation, but she may live long enough for the baby to be born. However she is pref she does not undergo radiation she may live long enough for the baby to be born. The clear choice is either the life of the mother or the life of the child. Which would you counsel her to do?

Thanks for a clam, rational response.

What if your wife chose to not have the radiation? Would you support that? Or would you take away her choice to have the baby?

Hypotheticals.

You might as well ask, "what if the woman has an ectopic pregnancy, and months later, the child is born, with no injury to the mother or child?" Because it's happened.

You might as well ask, what if the woman's life is in danger, and the doctors say the choice is abortion or her death; and she chooses the baby over her own life...but subsequently both survive without any problems? Because it's happened.

We can discuss "what if's" until the cows come home, and you'd end up with the same type question: What if worms had machine guns? (answer: Birds wouldn't mess with them)

 

[Don]

Read on...



I do not follow your logic. Are you talking about normal pregnancies. If so I think your figures are correct. If you are talking about ectopic pregnancies I would disagree.

Seriously? I post statistics from the WHO that regard within the last five years (easily found on the WHO web site if you do a search for "mortality" and "pregnancy") -- and your response is to reference a site that's using statistics from 1900?

 

[Crabtownboy]

What if your wife chose to not have the radiation? Would you support that? Or would you take away her choice to have the baby?

I would try to change her mind, but if she insisted I would respect her desire.

You might as well ask, "what if the woman has an ectopic pregnancy, and months later, the child is born, with no injury to the mother or child?" Because it's happened.

That probably would have been known because of the place the fertilized egg was implanted. But it is exceedingly rare.

You might as well ask, what if the woman's life is in danger, and the doctors say the choice is abortion or her death; and she chooses the baby over her own life...but subsequently both survive without any problems? Because it's happened.

That is hypothetical, and very, very, very unlikely to happen.

 

[mandym]

I would defend your right to this choice.

Would you support government funding for a poor woman to have access to the same procedure to save her life?

The question is irrelevant to the topic at hand. the topic is about funding PP. This has nothing to do with that.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The question is irrelevant to the topic at hand. the topic is about funding PP. This has nothing to do with that.

ROFL, I knew you would not answer the question. After all if you answer the question you have taken a position one way or the other ... either agreeing that poor women deserve health care or that no your do not believe they deserve health care.

If you go back to the OP you will see it is more about health care being cut for poor women and men and less about abortion. Frankly, I see it the proposal more as a ruse to cut funding for women than about abortion and that is why it is and continues to be a war against women. If these men really cared about women they would fight against abortion through legal means that would not cost women their health care.

 

[mandym]

ROFL, I knew you would not answer the question. After all if you answer the question you have taken a position one way or the other ... either agreeing that poor women deserve health care or that no your do not believe they deserve health care.

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Crabtownboy]

One has nothing to do with the other.

Afraid to take a position I see. They have much to do with each other. You reserve the right to criticize and insult, but not participate in answering questions.

Do you or do you not believe poor women and men should have access to health care at government expense?

 

[mandym]

Afraid to take a position I see. They have much to do with each other. You reserve the right to criticize and insult, but not participate in answering questions.

Do you or do you not believe poor women and men should have access to health care at government expense?

Explain how ectopic pregnancies have anything to do with PP losing funding.

 

[mandym]

ROFL, I knew you would not answer the question. After all if you answer the question you have taken a position one way or the other ... either agreeing that poor women deserve health care or that no your do not believe they deserve health care.

If you go back to the OP you will see it is more about health care being cut for poor women and men and less about abortion. Frankly, I see it the proposal more as a ruse to cut funding for women than about abortion and that is why it is and continues to be a war against women. If these men really cared about women they would fight against abortion through legal means that would not cost women their health care.

If PP cared about women's health they would stop killing unborn children so they would not lose any funding.

But what they really care about is making money from abortions. Women's health is insignificant to them.