Doctor: Abortion is Unnecessary, There are other life-preserving options, even in life-and-health

Dakota Voice ^ | 10.16.06 | Dr. Don Oliver

[Coleus]

Mother of the Year Finalist Refused Abortion, Delayed Leukemia Treatments Until Daughter’s Birth

[bybybill]

Great post!
Always wondered that if the physician`s oath is to do no harm, how could they do an abortion?

[unspun]

I am committed to the life of the unborn, but how can one preserve the life of a child in an ectopic pregnancy?

[Coleus]

ectopic pregnancies -  Web Site

Ectopic pregnancies do not all wind up in death for the child or the mother. Many can and do survive. JivinJehoshaphat

[unspun]

ectopic pregnancies - Web Site Ectopic pregnancies do not all wind up in death for the child or the mother. Many can and do survive. JivinJehoshaphat

Thank you. But, there is a difference between what you just stated and what the title stated. In a semantical and ontological war, we have to be careful not to over- or under-state what is real.

[TheCrusader]

Back in 1997 the AMA stated that "partial birth abortion is never medically necessary to preserve the life or fertility of the mother". Yet 9 years later this grizzly form of infanticide is still being practiced in the name of "medicine". This tells me that the issue is not, and never has been, about the life or health of the mother. That was only the smokescrean to cover the real reason for abortion, namely, the selfish life of the mother.

Abortion is the opposite of love:

Love says: "I will sacrifice myself for you".

Abortion says: "I will sacrifice you for myself".

quote from Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Sorry about the empty comment.

How is the abortion debate ontological? There is no argument that the unborn baby exists.

[knuthom]

The author of the article is not talking about ectopic pregnancies. Though it does end a pregnancy, removing a fetus growing in the fallopian tube is not even considered an abortion. The pregnancy is not considered viable.

It is not true that many can survive. The baby never survives in the tube, because it ruptures if allowed to grow. Very rarely a fetus implants somewhere else in the abdominal cavity and, while risky to the mom, some do survive.

But aside from ectopic pregnancies, most "high risk" pregnancies can be dealt with in a way that preserves both the mother's and baby's life. It is not possible in every single case, but in the vast majority, it is.

[unspun]

How is the abortion debate ontological? There is no argument that the unborn baby exists.

That "it" exists as a person (or that we cannot demonstrate otherwise) is the rubber.

Ecclesiastes 11:5

But science and reason tell us that humanity is humanity and life is life, therefore human life is human life -- as the Word informs, God knew us even before we were conceived.

[retMD]

Ectopic pregnancies do not all wind up in death for the child or the mother.

The first site you link to has correct medical information - that some ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves, which does mean death of the embryo. The only, and very rare, cases where both mother and infant survive is when the ovum implants in the abdominal cavity and gets sufficient blood supply. These are very unusual situations, and even then the mortality rate after live births is high.

There isn't a way around this currently; an ectopic that doesn't self-resolve is a reason for either medical or surgical intervention.

[swmobuffalo]

"Ectopic pregnancies do not all wind up in death for the child or the mother. Many can and do survive."

Are you talking about the women surviving?

[unspun]

The author of the article is not talking about ectopic pregnancies. Though it does end a pregnancy, removing a fetus growing in the fallopian tube is not even considered an abortion. The pregnancy is not considered viable.

And that, frankly, is a distinction without a difference. Death is death, alas.

[knuthom]

There is a difference. In an abortion, the fetal death is most often unnecessary. In an ectopic pregnancy, it is generally unavoidable. They may both be dead, but one was a "choice".

[unspun]

There is a difference. In an abortion, the fetal death is most often unnecessary. In an ectopic pregnancy, it is generally unavoidable. They may both be dead, but one was a "choice".

One can't say, "Abortion is never necessary, because if it's necessary, it isn't an abortion." and be taken seriously -- by anyone.

[unspun]

...except maybe, by Yogi Berra. ;-`

[doc1019]

Amen!

[knuthom]

That is not what I am saying at all. I said that ending an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion. It should not even be part of the abortion argument. It has always been considered life-saving treatment and has never been prohibited or restricted.

But that has no bearing on whether abortion in the case of intra-uterine pregnancies is necessary. Those are the pregnancies that are meant by the author. You are trying to confuse the issue of abortion by including ectopic pregnancies.

[Maeve]

Bump