Man of Honour
How have you come to such a conclusion, has it been drummed into you by a religious group to which you belong?
Largest US abortion provider caught on tape selling body parts
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
How have you come to such a conclusion, has it been drummed into you by a religious group to which you belong?
No, I realised abortion was morally wrong when I was a smug little atheist.
Not sure if serious.
The embryo (it won't be a foetus at that stage) get stuck in the fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy. This can be treated (and often is) by removal of the fallopian tube. This isn't an abortion and shows that the ectopic pregnancy can be treated without an abortion.
Last edited:
Soldato
What is it about abortion that makes you think it is morally wrong?
I think the intentional killing of an innocent human is morally wrong.
Anyway, this is going off on a tangent. If someone else wants to start a thread debating the morality of abortion I am happy to discuss it there.
This thread was started to discuss Planned Parenthood selling off harvested organs.
Last edited:
stem cells to cure cancer, Parkinson, Alzheimer and a whole host of illnesses.
Without knowing what the contract stipulated then there is absolutely nothing to discuss.
Associate
Yes because pumping a pregnant lady full of chemicals to fight cancer is a really great idea. Might want to think about that one again. And surgery isn't always an option. Surgery can be dangerous at the best of times, but I imagine there are even more complications for a pregnant women.
So yes, in some case to treat her cancer an abortion would be necessary.
I'm just puzzled at this. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Why do you not think giving chemotherapy to a pregnant woman is advisable? Is it because it might have an impact on the unborn child, if so why do you then suggest an abortion instead?
There has been research that has shown chemotherapy in pregnant women not having an impact on the unborn child.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...-treated-for-cancer-without-harming-baby.html
Are you suggesting that abortion be used as an alternative treatment for cancer?
Personally, my position on this is a mixture (I am not averse to eugenic abortions, yet I am uncomfortable with the idea of aborting a baby simply because the mother doesn't want one just now)
What bugs me however is the hypocrisy
Apparently it is fine and dandy to rip This to pieces with an ultrasound/vacuum tool
But if you did the same to This you would die in prison! (And probably sooner rather than later! And nobody would mourn your passing!)
Associate
1. Availability of abortion = good
2. Harvesting organs without knowledge of mother from whom products of conception removed and selling them = bad
2. Harvesting organs without knowledge of mother from whom products of conception removed and selling them = bad
Soldato
Well you'd have to be naive if you don't think pro-life types or religious anti-abortion types, like yourself, don't use these kinds of stories to justify their viewpoints. This thread seemingly backs that up.
Nothing to discuss. See below.
what about when theres issues where continuing the pregnancy will lead to the death of both mother and child?
Soldato
Look, you dont have to be religious to have an opinion! Its like saying you have to be atheist to have an opinion!
Whatever people believe, harvesting aborted babies body parts is so wrong and sickening!
Guess ** Removed ** Robocod will come in soon and start slandering me about being religious!! I am sure he is jealous!! Poor guy. God bless him.
Whatever people believe, harvesting aborted babies body parts is so wrong and sickening!
Guess ** Removed ** Robocod will come in soon and start slandering me about being religious!! I am sure he is jealous!! Poor guy. God bless him.
Last edited:
Soldato
Don't bother. Here too bogged down in semantics.
is it still wrong with consent?
cause we collect organs from babies that die and that saves a lot of other children. is that wrong too?
What makes you think they are human and what makes you think they are alive?
It is a fetus or embryo, attached to its host for all needs (food, oxygen, immunity) and not able to survive it if was removed at that stage. It has no sentient thought and unlikely to have any memory either.
When you get to the stage of a fetus being able to survive on its own outside the mothers womb then t could get a bit more complicated, but that's why there is a cutoff for most abortions before that gestation period.
Why?
Because link two can survive on its own (with help). The fetus is essentially a part of the pregnant woman's body and unable to survive on its own.
Why is it any more wrong than harvesting the organs and body part of a dead adult or child? why is it any different from harvesting the organs of a 1 year old baby that has died?
As long as there is consent from the patient (pregnant woman) I see no issue with it, much like I see no issue with the harvesting of a 1 year olds organs with the consent of the parent, or an adults with the consent of the family.
Edit: beaten twice...
without consent and knowledge of the parents he's right it is very wrong.
with informed consent and with proper oversight and measures to insure public health its unpleasant but can lead to the saving of countless lives.