Woman Dies After Planned Parenthood Botched Her Abortion, Congress to Investigate

Jul 28, 2012 Full story: Townhall 892

The negligence of Planned Parenthood appears to be a contributing factor in the tragic death of 24 year old Tonya Reaves.

Full Story

“Just saying....”

Since: Dec 08

Denver

#108 Aug 8, 2012
with any surgery there is risk
grinder

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#109 Aug 8, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Babies are born. Most physicians consider a birth to be complete when the cord is cut, because it then has no more connection/reliance on the mother. Life beginning at the first breath was the religious criterion for centuries.
Born children are not of necessity dependent on their mothers; they just need someone to care for them.
I don't rationalize anything; the fetus is irrelevant to me. The only thing that matters is that the WOMAN wants to carry to term or does not; her reasons are irrelevant to anyone but herself.
<quoted text>
Let make this obvious then.

So your position is that if there was a fully developed [let's call it a biological unit for a momement] that had just been delivered, crying and wriggling and all, but that the umbilical cord is still attached - you're stating that is a fetus and not a baby. Not too many intelligent people would support you there. Show that picture to people and their response would be "Of course, it is a baby." The form is there; the DNA is there; the development is there - all of it. It's call reproduction.

And what do you offer that occurs at the time of the cutting which transforms the "fetus" into a "baby". A mother can more easily terminate a fetus, than kill her baby - that is why people try to create a disassociation by relabeling the life inside a mother. You actually have to choose to deny that in order to consider alternative views.

"No more reliance on the mother" ?? That baby is still 100% reliant on someone to sustain life, probably for several years.

Look, there are times when people take a position on something but when a rational arguement shows that to be unsustainable, it is better to reconsider your views than to be prideful and continue babbling tenets of logic that are faulty.

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#110 Aug 8, 2012
grinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Let make this obvious then.
So your position is that if there was a fully developed [let's call it a biological unit for a momement] that had just been delivered, crying and wriggling and all, but that the umbilical cord is still attached - you're stating that is a fetus and not a baby. Not too many intelligent people would support you there. Show that picture to people and their response would be "Of course, it is a baby." The form is there; the DNA is there; the development is there - all of it. It's call reproduction.
And what do you offer that occurs at the time of the cutting which transforms the "fetus" into a "baby". A mother can more easily terminate a fetus, than kill her baby - that is why people try to create a disassociation by relabeling the life inside a mother. You actually have to choose to deny that in order to consider alternative views.
"No more reliance on the mother" ?? That baby is still 100% reliant on someone to sustain life, probably for several years.
Look, there are times when people take a position on something but when a rational arguement shows that to be unsustainable, it is better to reconsider your views than to be prideful and continue babbling tenets of logic that are faulty.
They love to use medical terms to dehumanize the developing baby, that is right up to birth, but the reality is that there is still a medical term used to describe that same developing baby after birth: neonate, but after that doesn't suit their argument any more, so... Now I found your points to be very well stated and I want to point out that the umbilical cord doesn't directly attach to the mother any way it attaches to the placenta which is a direct result of the developing baby and not the mother. If it was the mothers doing, then abortion wouldn't be necessary, she could just make the choice not to allow the baby to attach, but she can't make that decision. Maybe at the gates of heaven they will still be protesting God, for their freedom of choice!

“Trust nothing”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#111 Aug 8, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
It isn't an emotional experience for some women, and for many women, the upset is over the reasons for aborting.
ANY medical procedure can have complications,up to and including death.
It's incredibly arrogant to try to tell us what we "really" think.
<quoted text>
its an emotional experience for ALL woman. The reason/s and the deed.

yes complications can happen in any medical situation, but this hardly any medical procedure.
grinder

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#112 Aug 8, 2012
marysaidyes2life wrote:
<quoted text>They love to use medical terms to dehumanize the developing baby, that is right up to birth, but the reality is that there is still a medical term used to describe that same developing baby after birth: neonate, but after that doesn't suit their argument any more, so... Now I found your points to be very well stated and I want to point out that the umbilical cord doesn't directly attach to the mother any way it attaches to the placenta which is a direct result of the developing baby and not the mother. If it was the mothers doing, then abortion wouldn't be necessary, she could just make the choice not to allow the baby to attach, but she can't make that decision. Maybe at the gates of heaven they will still be protesting God, for their freedom of choice!
Some good points and thinking.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#113 Aug 8, 2012
No. First you would need to prove neglect, and at that point it would become either malpractice or manslaughter.
zenvis wrote:
<quoted text>
neglect is not a "fatality", it's murder.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#114 Aug 8, 2012
You should take your own advice.

Nobody is aborting fetuses at the time of childbirth; when you want to call it a baby once it is expelled from the woman is entirely moot. It's just another PLM tactic to avoid REAL discussions. All I said is that, medically speaking, birth is usually considered complete when the cord is cut.

BTW--there is a huge list of processes that begin in labor within the fetus that produce an independent baby once the mother's resources are no longer available.

Women terminate their pregnancies, not their fetuses. The fetus is a byproduct of the pregnancy. At least you admit to using the incorrect term "baby" to inculcate an emotional response. YOU and your PLM cohorts are "relabeling" the fetus, which is the correct medical term.

I don't need to deny anything; there is no right to gestation against the woman's will, just as born people cannot force second parties to sustain their lives without the 2nd parties' permission. Somehow, your group thinks that women stop having rights once they get pregnant.

The born infant is dependent on someone--but not necessarily the birth mother. She can sign away her parental rights, along with the biological father.
grinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Let make this obvious then.
So your position is that if there was a fully developed [let's call it a biological unit for a momement] that had just been delivered, crying and wriggling and all, but that the umbilical cord is still attached - you're stating that is a fetus and not a baby. Not too many intelligent people would support you there. Show that picture to people and their response would be "Of course, it is a baby." The form is there; the DNA is there; the development is there - all of it. It's call reproduction.
And what do you offer that occurs at the time of the cutting which transforms the "fetus" into a "baby". A mother can more easily terminate a fetus, than kill her baby - that is why people try to create a disassociation by relabeling the life inside a mother. You actually have to choose to deny that in order to consider alternative views.
"No more reliance on the mother" ?? That baby is still 100% reliant on someone to sustain life, probably for several years.
Look, there are times when people take a position on something but when a rational arguement shows that to be unsustainable, it is better to reconsider your views than to be prideful and continue babbling tenets of logic that are faulty.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#115 Aug 8, 2012
Medical terms exist to create clarity, not give you the warm fuzzies. Nobody objects to neonate--it refers to born babies. It has nothing to do with abortion.

People can't decide to slough offg cancer either, so I guess your god is a mass-slaughtering a-hole.
marysaidyes2life wrote:
<quoted text>They love to use medical terms to dehumanize the developing baby, that is right up to birth, but the reality is that there is still a medical term used to describe that same developing baby after birth: neonate, but after that doesn't suit their argument any more, so... Now I found your points to be very well stated and I want to point out that the umbilical cord doesn't directly attach to the mother any way it attaches to the placenta which is a direct result of the developing baby and not the mother. If it was the mothers doing, then abortion wouldn't be necessary, she could just make the choice not to allow the baby to attach, but she can't make that decision. Maybe at the gates of heaven they will still be protesting God, for their freedom of choice!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#116 Aug 8, 2012
You don't fu**ing well talk for all women; I know women who have aborted and had no sorrow at all over it.

Every medical procedure is a medical procedure; they vary only in difficulty. But even the simplest procedure carries risks, including death. Whether you approve of the procedure or not is irrelevant to anyone but yourself.
ITSACONSPIRACY wrote:
<quoted text>
its an emotional experience for ALL woman. The reason/s and the deed.
yes complications can happen in any medical situation, but this hardly any medical procedure.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#117 Aug 8, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
You don't fu**ing well talk for all women; I know women who have aborted and had no sorrow at all over it.
Every medical procedure is a medical procedure; they vary only in difficulty. But even the simplest procedure carries risks, including death. Whether you approve of the procedure or not is irrelevant to anyone but yourself.
<quoted text>


Many people kill other human beings and have no remorse either.

“John Averitt is a molester.”

Since: Nov 08

Cookeville

#118 Aug 8, 2012
DeadDominicis wrote:
<quoted text>
"trendy pathetic moron'? What a lame asinine thing to say. Whats trendy about having compassion for someone who died, you filthy fetus lover? I wish it was your mother aborting you, loser. I'll bet she tried. Too many men to keep track of so who needs some stupid baby like you screwing things up?
you say youre pro life then you cheer someones death? The world will cheer your death, loser.
The zygot has much more potential than the murderous hag who should have been tried and imprisoned that died on the operating table. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A TRENDY,DISHONEST, LATTE sipping homo.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#120 Aug 8, 2012
Which is entirely different.
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Many people kill other human beings and have no remorse either.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#121 Aug 8, 2012
Ironically, your very presence is one of the strongest arguments for abortion I can think of.
DeDominicis wrote:
<quoted text>The zygot has much more potential than the murderous hag who should have been tried and imprisoned that died on the operating table. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A TRENDY,DISHONEST, LATTE sipping homo.

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#122 Aug 8, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Which is entirely different.
<quoted text>
not so different, they both have lost their conscience! When you can kill your own child, I am pretty sure it is safe to say, you were either uninformedl ill informed, or pretty much cold hearted.
truth

United States

#124 Aug 9, 2012
You don't have to be religious to see that murdering babies is wrong.

“and how does this effect you?”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#125 Aug 9, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
<quoted text>Which is entirely different.
I don't see it as "entirely" different. If a fetus has a beating heart, then to stop that heart beat is to kill it! I don't think that rates up there with murder but it's a close second!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#127 Aug 9, 2012
You just cannot comprehend that to many, a fetus is not a child. Philosophically, medically, rationally, there is ample reason to see the two as being entirely different.
marysaidyes2life wrote:
<quoted text>not so different, they both have lost their conscience! When you can kill your own child, I am pretty sure it is safe to say, you were either uninformedl ill informed, or pretty much cold hearted.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#128 Aug 9, 2012
Of course, murdering babies is wrong. But this is about abortion.
truth wrote:
You don't have to be religious to see that murdering babies is wrong.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#129 Aug 9, 2012
Depends on what you mean by a heartbeat, really. In the first trimester, the heart is just a tube, and gradually develops into a 2-chambered structure. It takes even more time to develop into the standard 4-chambered version. But I guess "abortion stops a pulsing tube" just doesn't have the same sparkle.

Ultimately, the problem with this debate is that the two sides are arguing different points. Abortion, like all other medical procedures, is the choice of the woman; it is her right. There is no legal basis for denying her rights just because she is pregnant. Enslaving the woman to the contents of her uterus is not acceptable to many people.
Kimberling wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see it as "entirely" different. If a fetus has a beating heart, then to stop that heart beat is to kill it! I don't think that rates up there with murder but it's a close second!

“and how does this effect you?”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#130 Aug 9, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, murdering babies is wrong. But this is about abortion.
so when does it become wrong?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr Brian_G 305,850
Jessa Duggar Compares Abortion to the Holocaust... 14 hr Mychihuahuawillbite 2
I tried to protect my grandchildren from the vi... 21 hr godless by choice 1
Planned Parenthood blasts Ernst in new ad Tue liberals are heros 14
Priest Speaks Up For Planned Parenthood: 'Peopl... Tue cancer suxs 4
Decode pro-abortion talking points: Choicespeak... Mon Deborah 1
Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) Sep 27 cpeter1313 5,367

Abortion People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE