But... -- Notes from Zarahemla Political Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:08:22 04/22/07 Sun
Author: Chuck in ND
Subject: But...
In reply to: TastingTheBlood 's message, "It's hard to believe something on this subject..." on 17:12:28 04/21/07 Sat

there is NEVER any medically necessary reason to perform a D&X. Never. Most dr's will tell you that a D&X actually is more harmful to the mother than inducing premature labor. If the mother's life is truly at stake, they only need to deliver the baby. These abortions are performed in the 3rd trimester when the baby is a viable human being. There is no other reason to perform a D&X other than to kill the child.

You don't need to kill a baby to save the life of the mother. Ever. (Sorry Jay, I know we've been through this before) You perform whatever medical procedures are necessary to save the mother--always. And if in the process of saving the mother the unfortunate consequence is the death of the baby, there is comfort in knowing you did not deliberately intend the child's death.

In fact, there is a limited study being done now that indicates there is no need to abort a baby in order to administer cancer treatment (cancer the biggest "life threatening condition" where dr's require an abortions.) There have been hundreds of women who've refused abortions and demanded their dr's treat the cancer during the pregnancy and so far none of the babies have suffered any ill effects. The information is still limited because most oncologists still refuse to treat a pregnant woman, giving most women no choice. Talk about not being pro-choice...

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

I only know . . . -- Jay, 16:08:09 04/22/07 Sun
- therapy and pregnancy -- Cricket, 18:20:00 04/22/07 Sun
  - Maybe, but . . . -- Jay, 20:08:34 04/22/07 Sun