Abortion hypothetical

[JoabAnias]

I smell a person who hasn't been following the conversation.


Jim

No need, I am sure its the same old circular bias.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Why bother. I already know your bias.

No you don't.

You merely make assumptions like you did in your last post.

In other words, it's you who have the bias.

Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

Who said because she didn't use birth control, she's entitled to an abortion?

Please stop reading and interjecting your own ideas into what I've posted.

Jim

will do... but it would be good if some (not all) of the words you choose didn't seem as though they may, as in maybe... might be implying stuff.

I do not know... what are we supposed to conclude?

 

[JoabAnias]

No you don't.

You merely make assumptions like you did in your last post.

Jim

Assumptions are based on ignorance. I think your pro-choice position is well known by now. That assessment comes from lots of reading of -

"Rationalism"

"Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Or were you baptized in the name of Paul??" 1 Cor 1

If you would like to convince women of your personal ethics for their wombs, when the Church says something else, be my guest.

I think any such defense of secular medical babble is futile but have at er bud.

This is the point where the reply gets really really long winded isn't it?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JoabAnias

Assumptions are based on ignorance. I think your pro-choice position is well known by now. That assessment comes from lots of reading of -

Well the ignorance is on your part, because I'm not pro-choice.

Just to be clear, I'm pro-life.


Jim

 

[JoabAnias]

JoabAnias



Well the ignorance is on your part, because I'm not pro-choice.

Just to be clear, I'm pro-life.


Jim

Sounds like rationalism again.

 

[Meepy]

Meepy



Looking for medical conditions on the web isn't valid research. Plus, you weren't the medical physician on the case so your accusation that they lied, is seriously flawed in addition to being unchristian.




Well, there are cases where a woman with PH can give birth, but not all cases are the same. The doctors in this case, presented the issue to the ethics board before proceeding with the abortion. Now, if they were attempting to lie, as you accuse them of, why would they even bother with the ethics board?

Also, we don't know the woman's medical history and how she could've given birth to the other four children.

However, in this case, it was the pregnancy that was causing the emergency condition.

We don't know the facts the doctors had, so anything we say is purely speculation.

So meanwhile, lets keep a tone of charity in our words.


Jim

I never said they lied, I just think they are so pushing with abortion that they are not looking at the alternatives that there are. Saying it is 100% though is a lie, since PPH doesn't cause death in 100% of all cases and is reduced greatly when proper medical supervision and medication is used.

Also someone with PPH would not be able to have had 4 other children. As a doctor would advise a woman to not have anymore children after giving birth to the first if she has PPH. Yet she has 3 more while knowing she has PPH? and then all of a sudden on the 5th one she will 100% die? It just doesn't add up. Someone with that serious of a condition would have not be able to have 4 other children.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Meepy

I never said they lied, I just think they are so pushing with abortion that they are not looking at the alternatives that there are. Saying it is 100% though is a lie, since PPH doesn't cause death in 100% of all cases and is reduced greatly when proper medical supervision and medication is used.

Either you're not refering to the specific case at St. Joseph's hospital, where they said it was certain the mother would die, or you're talking about something else.

At St. Joseph's in the case of the mother who was dieing from Pulmonary Hypertension, the doctors stated that if they did nothing, she would most certainly would have died. Now if you're saying they lied, you need to provide proof and not web links to general definitions on Pulmonary Hypertension.

Also someone with PPH would not be able to have had 4 other children. As a doctor would advise a woman to not have anymore children after giving birth to the first if she has PPH. Yet she has 3 more while knowing she has PPH? and then all of a sudden on the 5th one she will 100% die? It just doesn't add up. Someone with that serious of a condition would have not be able to have 4 other children.

It may be she developed Pulmonary Hypertension after the birth of her last child.

We weren't given that information.

Pulmonary Hypertension can be caused by the pregnancy itself, just as cases of pregnant women developing diabetes during the pregnancy, but return to normal after giving birth.

Unless you're a doctor on the case, you have to reason to suggest they lied.

Jim

 

[Meepy]

Meepy



Either you're not refering to the specific case at St. Joseph's hospital, where they said it was certain the mother would die, or you're talking about something else.

At St. Joseph's in the case of the mother who was dieing from Pulmonary Hypertension, the doctors stated that if they did nothing, she would most certainly would have died. Now if you're saying they lied, you need to provide proof and not web links to general definitions on Pulmonary Hypertension.




It may be she developed Pulmonary Hypertension after the birth of her last child.

We weren't given that information.

Pulmonary Hypertension can be caused by the pregnancy itself, just as cases of pregnant women developing diabetes during the pregnancy, but return to normal after giving birth.

Unless you're a doctor on the case, you have to reason to suggest they lied.

Jim

no I am talking about the OP's statement. And I refuse to believe the 100% thing. Nothing is 100%. There were other things that could have been done, but they didn't because abortion would take less work and they didn't want to put in the effort to try to save both beings. Tearing a child apart in the womb has NO therapeutic cures. They could have removed the child whole and together if they wanted to.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

no I am talking about the OP's statement. And I refuse to believe the 100% thing. Nothing is 100%. There were other things that could have been done, but they didn't because abortion would take less work and they didn't want to put in the effort to try to save both beings. Tearing a child apart in the womb has NO therapeutic cures. They could have removed the child whole and together if they wanted to.

Well there are 100% things and woman have in fact died during their pregnancy, rather than abort the child.

Do you agree that in a life or death situation after all else was done, the Church teaching is that both mother and fetus must die before a direct abortion is performed?

Jim

 

[Meepy]

Well there are 100% things and woman have in fact died during their pregnancy, rather than abort the child.

Do you agree that in a life or death situation after all else was done, the Church teaching is that both mother and fetus must die before a direct abortion is performed?

Jim

Well newsflash, pregnancy can be dangerous and women can die from it. That is a reality. By getting pregnant one accepts the risks of this danger.

And yes, those women are honorable wonderful people. They were self sacrificing. They showed their children the ultimate love of dying for them. Such are held in high esteem

The proper thing to do was to do a emergency premature delivery while keeping the woman properly medicated and watched by personal. That way there are efforts to save both mother and child.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Medical triage, eh?

The proper thing to do was to do a emergency premature delivery while keeping the woman properly medicated and watched by personal. That way there are efforts to save both mother and child.

Delivery of a previable fetus is certain death and is called a direct abortion which is illicit.




Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well newsflash, pregnancy can be dangerous and women can die from it. That is a reality. By getting pregnant one accepts the risks of this danger.

And yes, those women are honorable wonderful people. They were self sacrificing. They showed their children the ultimate love of dying for them. Such are held in high esteem

The proper thing to do was to do a emergency premature delivery while keeping the woman properly medicated and watched by personal. That way there are efforts to save both mother and child.

Look, delivery on a previable fetus will kill it, no two ways about it.

So according to Church teaching using the principle of double effect, they can not kill the fetus in order to save the life of the mother.

Of course, there are few if any doctors in the world today who would stand back and watch the mother die in such a case. All would perform an abortion, but Catholic doctors in the case at St. Joseph's, view it as an indirect abortion.

Jim

 

[JoabAnias]

I never said they lied, I just think they are so pushing with abortion that they are not looking at the alternatives that there are. Saying it is 100% though is a lie, since PPH doesn't cause death in 100% of all cases and is reduced greatly when proper medical supervision and medication is used.

Also someone with PPH would not be able to have had 4 other children. As a doctor would advise a woman to not have anymore children after giving birth to the first if she has PPH. Yet she has 3 more while knowing she has PPH? and then all of a sudden on the 5th one she will 100% die? It just doesn't add up. Someone with that serious of a condition would have not be able to have 4 other children.

Dr's do lie, all the time.

They purposely lied to me and my wife twice. Two different ones and that was decades ago.

They are driven by a secular system that may very well discourage looking for an more ethical alternative so long as they one that is generally accepted is considered moral enough.

The problem is, unless they know the teaching of the Catholic Church that ethic comes from the pro-choice camp which is defeatist for the baby in peril.

This is how researchers can pursue embryonic stem cell experimentation that is proven impotent at best to the neglect of adult stem cell research that has validity in its results.

Bottom line is the secular systems are driven ethically more by $$$ than protecting life. Its been that way since the last re-writing of the unrequired hippocratic oath to suit the secular nature of a roe-choice culture.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JoabAnias

Dr's do lie, all the time.

You probably mean they make mistakes, right?

They purposely lied to me and my wife twice. Two different ones and that was decades ago.

Did they lie or just give you the best opinion they had?

Bottom line is the secular systems are driven ethically more by $$$ than protecting life.

Well this is true, we have a for-profit medical system. However, that system makes more money keeping people in a hospital alive, than sending them to the grave. So your logic here is flawed.


Jim

 

[JoabAnias]

JoabAnias



You probably mean they make mistakes, right?

Depends, I think a lot of them outright lie to patients. I've seen it several times.

Did they lie or just give you the best opinion they had?

One might have been an opinion but the other was a definite lie because we called him on it.

Then myself there have been other times I have caught Dr's in lies. My family Dr I have here lied to me last October and the VA Doc lied to me last March. Dr's are human. They lie just like regular folks.

I don't know why that would be doubted.

Well this is true, we have a for-profit medical system. However, that system makes more money keeping people in a hospital alive, than sending them to the grave. So your logic here is flawed.

Jim

Not always, consider what insurance companies pay for and refuse to cover. If they don't cover you get discharged.

If it pays for a treatment they want to keep you, if not, they will provide an abortion to get you out. The logic is not flawed, its insidious and the practices are deceptive. Its rationalized by the almighty $.

Medical people get their hands tied too. An easy example is with generic meds and lengths of prescriptions.

Is it logical to force someone to take a generic when there is a better drug available but its not covered? Is it logical to force someone to pay a monthly co-pay when they could prescribe for 3 months and pay one and the whole script would be cheaper but the insurance co only covers it by the month? The examples of waste are endless. Don't even get me started on Hospital stays or OR and testing expenses. They are scandalous, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Its foolish to assume Dr's are always trying to be the most efficient and ethical. And often, the Dr who would like to be most ethical has no alternative to do so because of some other factor - just because the system is driven by the almighty $$$.

And if you can be used for a guinea pig because its free you will be, just as if your a donor and your organ can be harvested to make some big $ by letting you go as your value is less, you could be. If the system was not corrupt the Terry Shivo debacle or other equally heinous atrocities like infanticide would not even be possible.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JoabAnias;

Not always, consider what insurance companies pay for and refuse to cover. If they don't cover you get discharged.

But premature infants, they pay. I know, I've been there and saw them pay.

If it pays for a treatment they want to keep you, if not, they will provide an abortion to get you out. The logic is not flawed, its insidious and the practices are deceptive. Its rationalized by the almighty $.

Well, I haven't seen anyone put to death because the insurance company won't pay.


Jim

 

[JoabAnias]

JoabAnias;

But premature infants, they pay. I know, I've been there and saw them pay.

Oh, well, I was speaking generally. I'm sure that if there was some new proceedure that might not be covered that could save someone it could be conveniently overlooked. Happens all the time.

Well, I haven't seen anyone put to death because the insurance company won't pay.

How would you know if they just let someone expire or discharge them without some treatment they could have had thats not yet covered?

I know Dr's push abortion and sterilization as forms of birth control. If they will do that then what else might they do? One has to pick a Dr carefully. IF they even get the option.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JoabAnias

Oh, well, I was speaking generally. I'm sure that if there was some new proceedure that might not be covered that could save someone it could be conveniently overlooked. Happens all the time.

In hindsight since making that statement, I was thinking, yeah they paid, but that was 30 years ago, when we had an insurance company which administered health claims for corporation I worked for, which paid the bills. It was not an HMO.

Today is probably a different story where an insurance rep is on duty at the hospital making sure the infant dies or is cured quickly and doesn't run up the cost.

In fact, there's a good movie I saw on this very subject called John Q.

Not sure if it was a true story, but the run around he got with the insurance company, is probably factual.

Anyway, it says much about how we need a single payer health-care system, and get away from the for-profit system.

Jim

 

[Meepy]

Delivery of a previable fetus is certain death and is called a direct abortion which is illicit.




Jim

I guess you have never heard of an incubator. With the technology of today a premature baby as early as 24 weeks(and cases of even earlier ones) can live outside the mothers womb with proper medical supervision.

a premature birth isn't always certain death. An abortion is when there is a direct killing of the unborn. Meaning purposely mutilating it or injuring it bodily with instruments or poisons. Inducing a premature birth is removing the baby from the womb when there is health problems related to both mother and child. The important part is the baby is removed from the mother intact, instead of mutilated like an abortion, and there is effort to keep it alive. That is the difference.