Abortion

[The Learner]

Does it matter that I don't know? Even if the percentage is .0000000000000001%, that .0000000000000001% is a reason to keep abortion legal.

Do you even care that a woman can die by not having an abortion for medical reasons?

I know for tubal priegenty, Hospitals allowed the fertized egg to be removed, thus no need for Abortion Clinics. I am very tired. where did that spell check to?

 

[The Learner]

read to here

 

[Naomanos]

Hospitals allowed the fertized egg to be removed, thus no need for Abortion Clinics.

It's not viable, so while not technically an abortion, it is still killing the fertilized egg.

As I said, I support abortions for medical reasons and I listed several reasons further back in the thread.

 

[Jack]

It's all about $$$ folks! They don't care about women.

 

[Naomanos]

It's all about $$$ folks! They don't care about women.

You keep saying that, but my concern is for the women. Why should the mother die, when the fetus, zygote, blastocyst isn't viable and will die anyway?

Do you want your wife or daughter to die if they were in that situation?

I know I wouldn't want any of my daughters to die because they couldn't get an abortion that would save their life. Can you say the same thing?

You keep saying it is all about the money, but keep avoiding my questions. You keep saying it's all about the money, yet I keep telling you that I care for the women who can die if they are unable to get an abortion because the pregnancy has gone terribly wrong and it's killing them. That is concern for women.

Do not think you speak for me when all who read my posts can see that money isn't the motivator for me, but the lives of the women that would be affected if all abortions were made illegal and those women are unable to get an abortion that would save their life.

 

[Jack]

You keep saying that, but my concern is for the women. Why should the mother die, when the fetus, zygote, blastocyst isn't viable and will die anyway?

Do you want your wife or daughter to die if they were in that situation?

I know I wouldn't want any of my daughters to die because they couldn't get an abortion that would save their life. Can you say the same thing?

You keep saying it is all about the money, but keep avoiding my questions. You keep saying it's all about the money, yet I keep telling you that I care for the women who can die if they are unable to get an abortion because the pregnancy has gone terribly wrong and it's killing them. That is concern for women.

Do not think you speak for me when all who read my posts can see that money isn't the motivator for me, but the lives of the women that would be affected if all abortions were made illegal and those women are unable to get an abortion that would save their life.

I provided several videos that PROVE that they are babies. Why do you want to kill them? You're OBSESSED!

 

[Naomanos]

I provided several videos that PROVE that they are babies. Why do you want to kill them?

And if they are killing the mother and aren't viable, that should be allowed?

I am talking about non-viable no chance to live outside of the mother.

Why do you want to kill the mother?

 

[Jack]

And if they are killing the mother and aren't viable, that should be allowed?

Viable? lol You're leaning HARD LEFT!

I am talking about non-viable no chance to live outside of the mother.

Why do you want to kill the mother?

Your question is a LIE! Women have a choice. Babies do not.

 

[Naomanos]

Viable? lol You're leaning HARD LEFT!

Doing no such thing. Go talk to any ob/gyn and ask them the difference between viable and not viable. They are medical terms. Better yet, Google it.

Your question is a LIE! Women have a choice. Babies do not.

Hardly! The alternative is that mothers that have pregnancies that are killing them will do just that, if they don't have a choice, which is what you're advocating for as you want to take away that choice.

My question stands, why do you want to kill the mother? Or are you now saying that women can have an abortion for medical reasons?

 

[Jack]

Doing no such thing. Go talk to any ob/gyn and ask them the difference between viable and not viable. They are medical terms. Better yet, Google it.



Hardly! The alternative is that mothers that have pregnancies that are killing them will do just that, if they don't have a choice, which is what you're advocating for as you want to take away that choice.

My question stands, why do you want to kill the mother? Or are you now saying that women can have an abortion for medical reasons?

Interesting that you are doing what you accuse others of doing, just like the Dem Party! Let those babies live!

 

[Naomanos]

Interesting that you are doing what you accuse others of doing, just like the Dem Party! Let those babies live!

You cannot be this obtuse!

I am talking about medical abortions where if there is no abortion, the mother dies. So there is no one living, if an abortion isn't performed.

You take away medical abortions and the women die who needed them to live. Therefore you are advocating that women die.

So, good job, instead of one death, you have two.

 

[Illuminator]

It is not all about money. I am in the medical field. I have transported women where they have had to have an abortion to save their life because if the fetus, zygote, blastocyst wasn't aborted it would have killed her. This is before any viability.

Here are some examples, intrauterine infection, placental abruption or placental previa, previable pre-labor rupture of membranes which is also called PROM for short, cases of preeclampsia that are severe and antepartum sepsis. There are also ectopic pregnancies, which aren't technically abortions, but the pregnancy is ended.

These things don't have to just promiscuous people, they happen to all walks of life, including married Christian women.

I'm retired from the medical field. All the things in your list of pathologies are not intentional. There can be no justification for a mother to intentionally kill her baby for the sake of convenience, or to get good out of evil.

 

[Illuminator]

GARLAND’S STUNNING IGNORANCE OF JANE’S REVENGE​

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s comments yesterday:
It was not a good day for U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. He got his clocked cleaned by several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

His failure to stem the tide of violence against pro-life Americans, many of whom are Catholic, is not debatable.
As Sen. Mike Lee pointed out yesterday, there have been 81 violent attacks on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, and 130 attacks on Catholic churches, but only two persons have been charged. Yet the Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought charges against 34 non-violent pro-life protesters. This is purely a function of politics. There is no other rational explanation for such a glowing disparity.

No domestic terrorist group has been more vocal and active in violently attacking pro-life individuals and institutions than Jane’s Revenge. They have claimed responsibility for at least 18 violent attacks on pro-life centers since the leak of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

It is bad enough that Garland’s DOJ has been missing in action in prosecuting Jane’s Revenge, it is mind-blowing to learn that Garland claims not to have known who they are until yesterday!

Here is what Sen. Marsha Blackburn said to him yesterday. “You told me earlier that you didn’t know who Jane’s Revenge is. They are all over Twitter.” Garland did not contest what she attributed to him.
Assuming he is not lying, why is it that no one on his staff ever bothered to appraise him of Jane’s Revenge? It’s not as though he hasn’t been contacted about their violence.

• On June 10, 2022, Sen. Marco Rubio wrote to Garland about “radical pro-abortion groups, like Jane’s Revenge, that have relentlessly targeted pro-life centers, groups, and churches with arson, vandalism, and violence due to their pro-life views.”
• On June 15, Rubio again wrote to Garland about Jane’s Revenge, saying they have now “doubled-down on its commitment to violence, threats and intimidation, writing that the ‘leash is off’ and it is now ‘open season’ on any pro-life group that refuses to close its doors.”
• On June 16, 2022, Sen. Tom Cotton said Garland should resign over the DOJ’s failure to deal with Jane’s Revenge violence. “Houses of worship and pro-life pregnancy centers are under attack.”
• On June 17, 2022, I wrote to Garland. “We have witnessed a rash of vandalism against Catholic churches, firebombings of crisis pregnancy centers (many of which are run by Catholics), Masses being interrupted, illegal protests outside the homes of Catholic Supreme Court Justices, and at attempted murder of one of the Catholic Justices. While there are several groups involved in these attacks, none is more dangerous than Jane’s Revenge.

“Jane’s Revenge is a domestic terrorist group, par excellence. Recently formed, it brags about blowing up crisis pregnancy centers. Worse, it is calling for a ‘Night of Rage’ on the day the Supreme Court is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
I ended by asking him to take “aggressive action” against Jane’s Revenge.
Even though Rubio, Cotton and I independently alerted Garland to Jane’s Revenge, he appears positively clueless as to who they are. His ignorance is stunning.

Sen. Cotton is right—Garland should resign. If he doesn’t, he should be impeached.
Contact Kristen Clarke, Assistant AG: [email protected]

 

[Naomanos]

I'm retired from the medical field. All the things in your list of pathologies are not intentional. There can be no justification for a mother to intentionally kill her baby for the sake of convenience, or to get good out of evil.

So are you saying that medical abortions are fine? I agree. I do not agree with abortions for birth control or as you said, oit of convenience.

 

[Illuminator]

So are you saying that medical abortions are fine? I agree. I do not agree with abortions for birth control or as you said, oit of convenience.

Moral actions that produce two effects need to be evaluated under the Catholic understanding of the principle of double effect:

1. The action must be either morally good or neutral.
2. The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
3. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect; the bad effect can in no way be intended and must be avoided if possible.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in proportion to the bad effect.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized ovum implants in the fallopian tube or in some other location. A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube, and thus, there exists a danger to the lives of both the mother and the child.
Removing the fallopian tube is considered in accordance with the principle of double effect:

1. Removing a part of the body that is about to rupture and cause the death of the individual is a morally good action.
2. The death of the child is not the direct intention of the procedure. It is the removal of the fallopian tube that saves the life of the mother, not causes the death of the child.
3. The death of the child is not willed and would be avoided if at all possible—if, for example, re-implantation in the womb were reasonably possible.
4. The life of the mother is, of course, equal to the life of the child.

 

[Jack]

So you would tell them I am sorry, but you have to die and the fetus will die too?

That's your Fairy Tale. Murdering MILLIONS of helpless little people for money is what abortion is all about.

 

[Jack]

No. I am asking you legitimate questions. Why not actually answer the question?

You do know that is what would happen, right? If the fetus, blastocyst, or zygote is not viable, you are dooming your wife or daughter to die if an abortion is not performed and that is what is killing them.

So, would you still say not to abort, even if it will kill them? This is a valid question.

Why don't you just call them babies? Dems don't like calling babies babies?

 

[Jack]

You keep saying that, but my concern is for the women. Why should the mother die, when the fetus, zygote, blastocyst isn't viable and will die anyway?

Do you want your wife or daughter to die if they were in that situation?

I know I wouldn't want any of my daughters to die because they couldn't get an abortion that would save their life. Can you say the same thing?

You keep saying it is all about the money, but keep avoiding my questions. You keep saying it's all about the money, yet I keep telling you that I care for the women who can die if they are unable to get an abortion because the pregnancy has gone terribly wrong and it's killing them. That is concern for women.

Do not think you speak for me when all who read my posts can see that money isn't the motivator for me, but the lives of the women that would be affected if all abortions were made illegal and those women are unable to get an abortion that would save their life.

So you take the side of promiscuous women over MILLIONS of helpless, sinless babies.

 

[Jack]

And if they are killing the mother and aren't viable, that should be allowed?

I am talking about non-viable no chance to live outside of the mother.

Why do you want to kill the mother?

Actually that is a great time for a woman to repent and be saved. Many people don't have that opportunity. There's no excuse for murdering MILLIONS of unborn babies.

 

[Jack]

Doing no such thing. Go talk to any ob/gyn and ask them the difference between viable and not viable. They are medical terms. Better yet, Google it.



Hardly! The alternative is that mothers that have pregnancies that are killing them will do just that, if they don't have a choice, which is what you're advocating for as you want to take away that choice.

My question stands, why do you want to kill the mother? Or are you now saying that women can have an abortion for medical reasons?

Abortion is about birth control for irresponsible people. They are even giving young girls in schools abortions without telling the parents. No Christian would support this EVIL!