Redstate

from any knowledge.

You ever watch the show House on TV? Good stuff. They recently had a show that included a very touching scene with a fetus clenching House's hand that was terribly moving.

The reason I bring this up is because the entire episode was premised around the health of the mother. The episode turned out with everyone fine but the point was clearly made that the outcome was significantly against the odds and the mother almost died repeatedly. Now, I'm not a doctor and that was clearly a TV show, but from the thousands of late term abortions provided by hospitals where the state and the doctor certify that health risk is the reason I guess you claim they are ALL lying.

To put it bluntly, you're wrong. There any many reasons the mother's health is at risk and I have a personal example. A good friend of mine with a heart condition struggled over getting pregnant several years ago because her life was in danger if something bad happened. Things went OK and the child is fine, but as the pregnancy progressed there were a few touch and go moments and she eventually ended up bed ridden to ease the strain on the heart. Had things not gone well at the wrong time she would have had to abort at 5-6 months since she would have died otherwise. Sounds like a pretty valid case to me.

entails have you?

The pro choice side loves to combine health and life, because the health excpetion pretty much means abortion on demand up until the day of birth as long as you have a doctor willing to say your "health" is impacted. The Doe case, companion to Roe is where we get the over broad definition.

The story you just describe isn't a "health" exception, but a "life of the mother" exception, and pro lifers do support life of the mother situations.

I'm referencing the opinion of a licensed professional. You are referencing a television show. Note, I didn't say there is never a health reason for a relatively late term abortion. I said there is never a reason for this procedure. And there isn't.

I think you have a slight flaw in your post. I don't think there is ever a health reason for a late term abortion. If a mother's health is threatened due to the pregnancy, which is possible, the Dr. always just does an emergency C-section (or possibly induces labor). There is no advantage to the mother's health to take the extra time to make sure the baby is dead.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

I believe the Supreme Court agreed with you. There isn't a reason for THIS procedure to be used, but I think Kennedy said that is only because there is an almost equally horrific procedure available (dismemberment) and thus states could bar this particular one since the other was available.

I was taking issue with "The woman's health is threatened ONLY if she aborts." argument the above post made. I found that unreasonable.

For the hardcore pro-lifers, any incursion on abortion rankles their principle of a woman's right to choose -- leading them to support this horrifying procedure that nearly everybody hates.

Otherwise your sentence doesn't make sense.

For the strong pro-lifers, any use of embryos in research constitutes the destruction of a life, so they advocate relatively nonsensical stuff like discarding unused IVF embryos.

I think the problem here is that it isn't really nonsense, because most pro lifers I know opposed to stem cell research don't advocate the discarding of IVF embryos either.

All I'm saying is that in a world where it's legal to discard those embryos, I'd like to see them used for research instead. In fact, I think I'd like for it to be okay that they can be used for research regardless.

I'm arguing that the totally consistent view of pro-lifers that these embryos be protected reminds me a good deal of the position that pro-choicers make in defending PBAs. Both positions are consistent ethically. Neither seems to be the best answer to me.

I'd like to see a ban on PBAs and I'd like to see research on those embryos. If polls are to be believed, I'm not alone on this.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

that we ought to just experiment on the condemned, since they are going to be killed anyway.

Honestly, I can see where you are coming from, but I balk at using humans for experimentation, because other humans have deemed them worthless for anything else. And yes, embryos don't look like humans, but they are human and it is that humanity that makes others want to experiment on them.

Also, in case you haven't noticed it is actually legal to expirement with human embryonic embryos, you just can't ask the taxpayer to pay for it.

And the taxpayer-funded part gets lost in all of this, too. That's a tad wonkish of you, though, in the sense that if you're against it, you should probably advocate that it be illegal, yes?

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

For the strong pro-lifers, any use of embryos in research constitutes the destruction of a life, so they advocate relatively nonsensical stuff like discarding unused IVF embryos.

I'd love a citation for this, because as a "strong pro-lifer," I oppose both. In fact, I don't know any "strong pro-lifer" who takes the policy position you advocate.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

... in my error-prone message that pro-lifers oppose the use of discarded IVF embryos for research. If that's incorrect, I withdraw the comment.

My personal view is that I don't terribly worked up about first trimester abortions. I think that that may be where the policy decision ends up. 90-days to make a personal choice. Even within that 90 days I'd advise a friend or loved one to have the baby, but I'd like to see the state start to take an interest in the unborn child after those 90 days.

Anyway, just one person's view. I respect the pro-life position on this, I just don't share it.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

case scenario predictions.

The pro choice lobby lied about abortion deaths when Roe was working its way through the courts, and while they may not outright lie, they certainly will excersize hyperbole to make their case, and they are more than willing to let the belief that an overturn of Roe means abortion bans and criminalization everywhere, because it is in their best interest to promote that belief.

I think you are right that this is a bit of a "if you think it is going to be the worst thing ever, prove it."

If the child can't live outside the womb, what's the point of making sure that it's dead before it gets out?

I think more often, mommy and daddy find out that Jr. isn't perfect, and decide to eliminate that little oops and try again.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

If a child can't live outside the womb, why put the pregnant woman through additional medical risk to her life, health, or fertility? As the testimony in my link indicated, having a c-section for a stillbirth (or essentially so) doesn't make sense for the woman because of the risks involved.