Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

That's like saying that none of us are Notre Dame coaches, so we are not qualified to talk about recruiting. You don't have to be an expert to know how a common procedure is done. I assure you, with no trepidation in opinion, that removal of the tube is fairly uncommon with an ectopic pregnancy.

But if it makes everyone else feel better, I texted my obstetrician friend this question and she confirmed that it is rare. Her text read, "who told you that? No..." So there's a qualified opinion.

I never said otherwise. I argued that because none of us are doctors, or even medical ethicists, we don't know what the alternatives to today's most common treatments, how quickly such treatments are prescribed, etc. That information is crucial in determining the morality of current practices, and we don't have it.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, homie. But I keep looking and haven't seen one piece of writing that says that this is acceptable. I agree with you that it doesn't jive that the church would say "if the mother dies, she dies", but I haven't seen anything that differs from that. I'm all ears if there is something. Until then, I simply add this to the ever growing list of items that disconnect me from the Catholic Doctrine.

Link me to a piece on Catholic Doctrine stating "if the mother dies, she dies." That's your interpretation of an article emphasizing that the baby's life is equal in value to the mother's. And that emphasis is sorely needed today, because our culture (and our medical community especially) does not believe that. But that emphasis does not mean "if the mother dies, she dies."

You mentioned that it's hard to raise children today with all of the "liberal philosophy" going around. But the sword cuts both ways, it's hard to raise kids to believe that things like this are acceptable. It's simply out of touch with medical advancement.

To believe what? That all human life is sacred, and it should only be extinguished under the most extreme circumstances? I shudder to think of the society we're bringing about by teaching our children anything other than that.

 

[woolybug25]

I never said otherwise. I argued that because none of us are doctors, or even medical ethicists, we don't know what the alternatives to today's most common treatments, how quickly such treatments are prescribed, etc. That information is crucial in determining the morality of current practices, and we don't have it.

According to the articles you quoted, it does not. They all clearly said that it is only moral if it the fetus' termination is a result of another procedure. They were all clear on that.

Link me to a piece on Catholic Doctrine stating "if the mother dies, she dies." That's your interpretation of an article emphasizing that the baby's life is equal in value to the mother's. And that emphasis is sorely needed today, because our culture (and our medical community especially) does not believe that. But that emphasis does not mean "if the mother dies, she dies."

With due respect, the previous articles you linked on the subject said that. They said:

"There is no medical situation whose only solution is a direct abortion, as many doctors have testified. Morally speaking, furthermore, it is never right to directly kill an innocent person, even if good results are foreseen. We do not say that a baby's life is more important than the mother's. We do say that they are equal. You may never directly kill either one of them. If, in spite of the best medical efforts, one or both of them die, nothing morally wrong has been done, because an effort has been made to save life, but has failed. "

So if removal of an ectopic pregnancy saves the mother, but kills the child, then how is this not saying "if they die, they die"? It is a direct abortion, albeit an abortion of a life with practically zero chance of survival either way.

To believe what? That all human life is sacred, and it should only be extinguished under the most extreme circumstances? I shudder to think of the society we're bringing about by teaching our children anything other than that.

No, that you or your loved one should be forced to risk your life because a fetus is growing inside your fallopian tube instead of the uterus. This is caught usually before 8 weeks and the fetus often doesn't even have a heartbeat yet if caught soon enough, and the fetus already has been dealt a death sentence by being in the tube. But kids are being taught that this procedure would be murder if the mother's life is saved by a simple procedure. So do you blame them when they become adults and start rethinking the dogma?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Now to the article. The NEJM published a study at the end of 2014 that I think does a good job of showing how liberal social policies can lower both teen pregnancies and abortion (the link says error but it works). MMS: Error

I think that we need to do more studies like this before we can draw definitive conclusions, but the results are really promising that liberal social policies can drastically lower abortion rates (and teen pregnancy rates).

Douthat concedes that the pro-contraceptive case has merit (though it's frequently oversold). His question for you is why does that have to be wedded to abortion?

No, that you or your loved one should be forced to risk your life because a fetus is growing inside your fallopian tube instead of the uterus. This is caught usually before 8 weeks and the fetus often doesn't even have a heartbeat yet if caught soon enough, and the fetus already has been dealt a death sentence by being in the tube. But kids are being taught that this procedure would be murder if the mother's life is saved by a simple procedure. So do you blame them when they become adults and start rethinking the dogma?

It seems like we both agree on the inherent dignity of human life, and we both agree that "if she dies, she dies" is a perverse application of that precept. That's not my understanding of Catholic Doctrine, so I'll have to do further research on this. I admittedly just linked to the first Google result that came up on the topic. Medical ethics is almost never so cut and dry.

 

[NDgradstudent]

No, that you or your loved one should be forced to risk your life because a fetus is growing inside your fallopian tube instead of the uterus. This is caught usually before 8 weeks and the fetus often doesn't even have a heartbeat yet if caught soon enough, and the fetus already has been dealt a death sentence by being in the tube. But kids are being taught that this procedure would be murder if the mother's life is saved by a simple procedure. So do you blame them when they become adults and start rethinking the dogma?

I believe that the "dogma" is that human life is sacred and that intentional killing of innocent persons is always wrong. The "doctrine" is that induced abortion constitutes such killing. The question is how to apply this teaching to specific situations.

In my view (following Christopher Kazcor) salpingostomy is morally permissible, but there is a debate on the topic. Even those who object to salpingostomy concede that once it is easy to implant the embryo in the uterus after an salpingostomy (this is possible and has already happened but is still very rare) it would be morally permissible.

 

[IrishinSyria]

This is a frankly terrible argument, rooted in a form of self-deception that would be recognized as such in any other context. Tell me anything but this, liberals: Tell me that you aren’t just pro-choice but pro-abortion, tell me that abortion is morally necessary and praiseworthy, tell me that it’s as morally neutral as snuffing out a rabbit, tell me that a fetus is just a clump of cells and that pro-lifers are all unhinged zealots. Those arguments, as much as I disagree with them, have a real consistency, a moral logic that actually makes sense and actually justifies the continued funding of Planned Parenthood.

But to concede that pro-lifers might be somewhat right to be troubled by abortion, to shudder along with us just a little bit at the crushing of the unborn human body, and then turn around and still demand the funding of an institution that actually does the quease-inducing killing on the grounds that what’s being funded will help stop that organization from having to crush quite so often, kill quite so prolifically – no, spare me. Spare me. Tell the allegedly “pro-life” institution you support to set down the forceps, put away the vacuum, and then we’ll talk about what kind of family planning programs deserve funding. But don’t bring your worldview’s bloody hands to me and demand my dollars to pay for soap enough to maybe wash a few flecks off.

I think Douthat's article was mostly good, but I found this part disingenuous.

There's no need for liberals to take a stand on the morality of abortions. In fact, as many have expressed on this thread, it's completely possible to believe that they may be immoral but that they should be cheaply and legally acceptable. Conservatives want the discussion to be about the morality of abortion, obviously it's something the public is squeamish about, but there's no obvious reason to me that liberals are being disingenuous by avoiding that discussion. Like the confederate flag and the swastika, it's completely possible to view things as immoral but legal. It's completely possible to acknowledge that if abortions are going to happen (and they are), they should happen in safe environments.

Of course, personally, I don't really see them as immoral. Unpleasant and unfortunate, sure, but I value a living mother's right to make that decision a lot more than I value the life of a fetus that hasn't ever existed outside of her womb.

eta: also, Douthat's article gave me a great idea for a 501(c)3. Start up a non-profit dedicated exclusively to providing abortions. Skip all that family planning stuff, let Planned Parenthood focus on that, and go straight for the vacuum. That seems to be what he's calling for with his argument.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Disgustingly arrogant and 100% false.

Obama: I've Done More Than Any Other President To Strengthen Israel's Security; Netanyahu Is Wrong | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[woolybug25]

I believe that the "dogma" is that human life is sacred and that intentional killing of innocent persons is always wrong. The "doctrine" is that induced abortion constitutes such killing. The question is how to apply this teaching to specific situations.

In my view (following Christopher Kazcor) salpingostomy is morally permissible, but there is a debate on the topic. Even those who object to salpingostomy concede that once it is easy to implant the embryo in the uterus after an salpingostomy (this is possible and has already happened but is still very rare) it would be morally permissible.

There shouldn't even be debate. Should the mother wait until it ruptures and hope that she doesn't die? Again, salpingostomy is rarely even needed anymore with current science. If a mother could have a remote chance of removing the fetus and implanting it into the uterus, then I could see your point. But the fact remains that it isn't a reasonable procedure and by the time a mother finds out that a pregnancy is tubular, the fetus is usually already not viable. That's all before the fact that if the procedure was feasible, almost no one would be able to afford such a risky move financially.

You guys are proposing a completely ridiculous argument, hoping to find a way to fit a solution into your philosophy. But it's not the 1800's where women couldn't know if a pregnancy was ectopic. We can prevent the real risk of the mother's death, and in cases like this where the fetus isn't feasible, it's morally reprehensible to make a mother risk her life for nothing more than an out of date viewpoint. If the Catholic "doctrine" cannot adapt to modern medical advancement, then don't be surprised when people continue to see themselves philosophically seperating themselves from the catholic ideals.

 

[NDgradstudent]

There shouldn't even be debate. Should the mother wait until it ruptures and hope that she doesn't die? Again, salpingostomy is rarely even needed anymore with current science. If a mother could have a remote chance of removing the fetus and implanting it into the uterus, then I could see your point. But the fact remains that it isn't a reasonable procedure and by the time a mother finds out that a pregnancy is tubular, the fetus is usually already not viable. That's all before the fact that if the procedure was feasible, almost no one would be able to afford such a risky move financially.

What do you mean when you say "by the time a mother finds out that a pregnancy is tubular, the fetus is usually already not viable"? Do you mean that the fetus is usually dead? The doctrine does not forbid removing the fetus after it has died naturally.

 

[woolybug25]

What do you mean when you say "by the time a mother finds out that a pregnancy is tubular, the fetus is usually already not viable"? Do you mean that the fetus is usually dead? The doctrine does not forbid removing the fetus after it has died naturally.

No. Not in most cases. The fetus is usually damaged beyond viability or cannot be transplanted into the uterus.

What I don't get, is the same science that is expected to wave fairy magic dust to make the fetus feasible, is the same type of science that is disregarded as murder currently for at least saving the mother. Maybe one day, science will advance enough that this magic procedure, that is demanded by pro life advocates, will be available widely. But that is not the case, especially for someone without significant financial resources.

Hell.. That would probably take a better healthcare system and research with stem cells *gasp*.

 

[GoldenDome]

Thought this was hilarious and how clueless this moron really is. The part that is really telling is when he says "I don't hate you, I hate what your people are doing to this country"

Anyways, thought this was pretty ironic.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...hoes-confederate-flag-rally-article-1.2314297

 

[Irish Insanity]

Donald Trump is my hero.

 

[notredomer23]

I really like Rubio, Carson, and Kasich in this debate so far.

I really dislike Christie, Trump, and Paul so far.

I wanna hear more from Walker.

And I am wondering why Huckabee is even here.

Jeb Bush is decent, but he is a Bush and the country can't handle a third Bush (or second Clinton).

 

[ACamp1900]

Agree with 23 on the likes,... Trump is a jackass... I think Bush and Kasich look most seasoned and ready

 

[notredomer23]

Carson is so smooth. It sucks that he doesn't have experience.

 

[ACamp1900]

Carson is so smooth. It sucks that he doesn't have experience.

Because a black man who is smooth but has zero relevant experience could never be elected President....

 

[ACamp1900]

Also agree a 23 on Huck, why does he even bother???... Book sale fishing for sure

 

[pkt77242]

Because a black man who is smooth but has zero relevant experience could never be elected President....

If the Republicans nominate Carson after years of bitching about Obama and his lack of experience, I would laugh. Talk about being hypocritical (not you, but the Republican party if that happened).

 

[ACamp1900]

If the Republicans nominate Carson after years of bitching about Obama and his lack of experience, I would laugh. Talk about being hypocritical (not you, but the Republican party if that happened).

Truf

 

[ACamp1900]

The point Jeb just made was one of the biggest reasons I turned my back on the left...

 

[pkt77242]

The point Jeb just made was one of the biggest reasons I turned my back on the left...

Care to say what it was?

 

[woolybug25]

Because a black man who is smooth but has zero relevant experience could never be elected President....

Carson has never been in a political position, period. That isn't remotely close to Obama's experience prior to his presidency. That's just intellectually dishonest.

 

[ACamp1900]

Care to say what it was?

The devide and concur stuff... Just me...

And wooly,... Kiss it, seriously.

 

[pkt77242]

The devide and concur stuff... Just me...

And wooly,... Kiss it, seriously.

Same could be said about Republicans. They have the middle class and poor fighting against each other while the rich are getting richer, the poor are stagnant and the middle class are losing ground.

 

[notredomer23]

Kasich comes off as the winner to me. Rubio close second.

 

[ACamp1900]

Kasich comes off as the winner to me. Rubio close second.

Again agree, Carson is extremely 'likable' IMO... In fact most of them are really, huckabe is a cartoon and Trump is a jackass... Most others seemed like net positives overall...

I hate to say it, but Bush looks and sounds the part, pretty impressed... (Let me go smash my head in a wall now)

Edit... Walker was very eh to me...

 

[Wild Bill]

I wonder how Megyn Kelly is in bed.

 

[ACamp1900]

I wonder how Megyn Kelly is in bed.

This is what they should have answered on.....

 

[notredomer23]

Again agree, Carson is extremely 'likable' IMO... In fact most of them are really, huckabe is a cartoon and Trump is a jackass... Most others seemed like net positives overall...

I hate to say it, but Bush looks and sounds the part, pretty impressed... (Let me go smash my head in a wall now)

Edit... Walker was very eh to me...

I didn't see enough of Walker. I don't think he is cut out for 2016... Maybe 2024.

 

[ACamp1900]

Trump seems to be getting hammered... Just like many predicted, once other canadates get the chance to say something meaningful, Trump loses.

 

[tussin]

Thought Christie, Kasich, and Bush showed well (in that order). Bush had trouble getting his point across at points and seemed nervous.