1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Planned Parenthood mocks the Savior's birth

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by bb_baptist, Nov 20, 2002.

  1. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think some people around here just like to argue.
    You missed my point. Dilatation and Extraction (D&X) procedured aren't done on healthy full term babies. Your posts imply that they are. That is not the truth.

    The Dilatation and Extraction technique is generally reserved for cases of fetal demise, where the unborn baby dies prior to birth being completed, and the baby's corps cannot pass through the birth canal.

    You also cited that the AMA disapproves of the procesure. That's incorrect. The AMA recommends that the "intact dilatation and extraction procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman and that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life".

    [ December 09, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     
  2. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    So I guess you are calling me a liar, then. Because it IS the truth!

    But then I guess the Congress of the United States is lying, too. :rolleyes:

    From: http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/PARBLN.704.htm

    Johnv, thank you for giving me the opportunity to post this valuable information to everyone who cares for the sanctity of human life. [​IMG]
     
  3. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems the key word in John's post was "healthy." None of what you just posted, SheEagle, is contrary to his point that most aren't performed on healthy full term babies.
     
  4. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: "healthy"

    This is extracted from the above HR Bill at the above link:

     
  6. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks, HCL, for posting that link. More SAD STATISTICS from that article:

    (More than 3,400 babies are killed daily by abortion. An estimated 15,000 partial-birth abortions are performed yearly in the U.S.)
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reasoning makes no sense: Right now abortion is legal up to approx 24 months, I believe, with the exception of those that are medically necessary. Therefore, having an abortion near term is currently illegal, whether it's from a partial birth abortion or not. The legislation that was vetoed by bill clinton would not have changed that. If the law would have made a currently elective legal abortion illegal, it would have violated the roe v wade decision. But elective abortions are not legal at that level now, and the vetoing of the legislation does not make it legal.

    The reason he vetoed it was because it it would have restricted the procedure to only life threatening cases (to the mother), and he wanted it to be in life threatening cases, and medically necessary cases. The ban proposed by the law would have meant that mothers who were forbidden the procedure would have been left with a dead baby AND no uterus (or worse), where currently the procedure allowed the baby to be removed in a manner that may allow the mother to concieve again.

    One of the common reasons to require this type of procedure is when a fetus is diagnosed with anencephaly (in layman's terms, the baby does not have a brain). This happens in 1 out of every 1000 cases. Many mothers with an anencephalic fetus end up miscarrying. The ones that make it to term are still born. In rare cases, a birth may result in a live birth, but the baby'slife signs drop within minutes. In cases of the fetus dying during delivery (which is the majority that make it to term), the dying process causes the fetus to often sieze, resulting in inability to be passed through the birth canal. Under the current law, a D&X relaxes the muscles and allowes the fetus to pass through the birth canal. Had the vetoed law been enacted, the procedure would have been allowed only if a c-section was not possible. A c-section with a fetus in that condition is invasive, and typically results in destruction of the uterous, leaving the mother barren. In many cases, the c-section also results in abdominal disfigurement of the mother, requiring reconstructive surgery.
     
  8. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAH! For what? Elephants? [​IMG]

    Get thee down to Starbucks..........AND FAST! You're starting to disintegrate!
    [​IMG] :D :eek: [​IMG]
     
Loading...