wrong.

for instance, when a woman has a portion of her fallopian tubes removed because of an ectopic pregnancy, that action is not an abortion. The death of the child is an undesired, unintended but unavoidable side effect of saving the mother's life via the removal of that section of tube.

 

Eptopic pregnancy are not viable therefore cannot be classed as a life form even by the pro-life tenet of life begins at conception.
The catholic dogma states.

 

nope. If she's raped, she goes to the hospital & can get meds for pregnancy prevention.

 

It is religious conservatives who seek both to outlaw abortion and outlaw any form of sexual education in schools and make condoms unavailable. After 8 years of comprehensive sex education under Clinton, abortion rates, teen pregnancy and STD rates went down dramatically. After 8 years under Bush's abstinence only funding, rates are now shooting back up for all three categories and they've been climbing for the last three or four years. Sex should be something to be enjoyed, not viewed as a life-altering decision. If they are learning that prevention is not important, it's not from liberal progressives, it's from religious types who view STD's as god's natural deterrent to sex.

Take the HPV vaccine that was touted a few years ago. Granted it turned out to be mostly smoke and mirrors, but at the time it was first introduced, the public didn't know that. And the religious conservatives came out in droves screaming at the top of their heads that if you took away the possibility of getting an STD then all their kids would become sluts and man-whores before we knew it. That kind of thinking is madness. They like that AIDS, HPV, syphilis, ghonerrea (will someone please make an easier way to spell that fucking disease!) and all those other things exist. They like the idea that scaring their daughter or son with an unwanted pregnancy might keep them celibate until 6 months after their married. All the time ignoring basic biology and ignoring that human beings like to fuck and it's the first thing we learned how to do and we do it pretty well.

You want to stop abortions, or at least lower them dramatically, give people a solid education in prevention. Telling them not to have sex is only good for the abortion doctor's bottom line.

-S-

 

so now you agree Catholic's don't let her die.

ok.

Your position is completely deflated with this:

here's the Catholic source: *not_secure_link*www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

That's the Catholic's 'health of the mother' clause.

The political argument gets twisted with their use of the definition of 'health.' Late term abortions get the 'ok' because the mother says she's a little bit stressed.

 

Speaking of the Catholics... It was in Brazil or Chile, I think, where just recently a 9 year old girl was raped by her father and got pregnant. Being Catholic, the Church said if she got an abortion, she would be excommunicated. The doctor would be excommunicated as well. But not the father for raping her. So she got the abortion anyway and she was, I believe, excommunicated, along with the doctor. But daddy wasn't it. He's still going to heaven as far as the good Catholics of South America and Rome are concerned.

-S-

 

Are over a million women raped in the US each year and does each of those rapes result in pregnancy?

 

lol @ trying to use logic.

it's funny how the pro-abortion side is so worried about the health of the mother yet they're not pro-gun as well.

 

A pill that provides a chemical abortion.

Read the whole post, I said you made a valid point as far as it goes, then discussed the rape scenario, I never claimed that all abortions are the cause of rape. Now discuss the other point I rased, how will the mother and child feel.

You want a gun go buy one I don't give a flying fuck about them.

 

But surely this is what is known as a medically induced abortion, which is still an abortion.

 

No a eptopic pregnancy is never viable so it is more like a tumour than a lifeform.

Also they allow for no exceptions apart from the above.
*not_secure_link*www.stjameshopewell.org/questions/question_abortion.html

 

let me rephrase it. She will get meds to prompt her period and flush out her system to rid her body of anything foreign the rapist left. anything else is an unintended.

 

You are confusing the issue, with the idea of a medically induced mis-carriage.....

What you are failing to understand is that any outside means used to end a pregnancy is an abortion......Regardless of what is used..Maybe if we used the words pregnancy termination, you may understand. BUT if a pregnancy is terminated, at any stage and by any means except for the woman's natural defence system, THIS IS AN ABORTION.........

 

help me here. You said:

then you said:

So Catholics let her die, or they dont' let her die?

I say they don't and provided an example for you where they don't.

Also, inyour example, it's not a tumor. it is a lifeform. And the lifesaving surgery for the mother is allowed.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting your definition.

here's mine:

*not_secure_link*www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

 

But don't you think that if a raped girl goes to the hospital and gets medicines to terminate any chance of a pregnancy, is direct intention and therefore by your definition NOT ALLOWED......The raped girl directly intends NOT TO have a pregnancy, so therefore it is a direct intention abortion and in your own post NOT PERMITTED....

 

she's NOT getting it to terminate any chance of a pregnancy.

she's getting them to remove as much foreign material from her body that the attacker may have put there.

 

Provide an example where a eptopic pregnancy as survived to full term, been born and lived for however long then you can call it a life form other than that it is more like a tumour than a life.

 

Just explain then how a pregnancy would happen..... Foreign material, I.E. SPERM...makes contact with an egg....

REMOVE FOREIGN MATERIAL from her body..I.E. SPERM...WWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW... NO PREGNANCY

 

There is no way this killing is justifiable. To agree with his actions would be similar to agreeing with terrorists wanting to do harm to Americans for the sake of Allah.