Abortion questions...?

quote:

---

He presented a bizarre alternative to aborting an ectopic pregnancy. It was presented as if it was a very viable alternative to aborting ectopic pregnmacies. Then he found an article that showed one extremely rare and bizarre ectopic pregnancy that did resolve the way he suggests. If you read the article the doctors did not realize it was ectopic until very far along in the pregnancy.

---

And yet I understood him. You even quoted his statement from Message 305. (That's why it's nice to include a link so people can read the post for themselves.) He said, "...in some cases...". Even though it is rare, there are cases. His statements aren't advocating anything more than if it is possible, then save both the mother and the child. I don't see that he's advocating that women today be forced to carry any or all ectopic pregnancies in hopes that they will reach the 25 week point.Odds are these rare cases are because the ectopic pregnancy wasn't discovered earlier. If the English woman's problem was discovered very early, her doctors would probably have advised aborting the fetus. Further in the article we see that the doctors didn't catch the problem in earlier scans. Miracle Baby.In another article on the Miracle Baby, we learn that even the ground-breaking surgery put the mother at risk.

quote:

---

Are you sure he knows this? If this is true why didn't he say abdominal ectopic pregnancies in his first mention of ectopic pregnancies. I think probably because he was unaware of it until he researched it after he tried to peddle the pro-life crap he was using.

---

It doesn't matter. His point is the same when both the mother and child are in danger.His first mention of ectopic pregnancies was Message 305 which I quoted above.In Message 302, he responded to jar: The English woman was an example where both were saved.

quote:

---

That is pro-lifer utopia talk. Things are not this simple and cut and dry in pregnancies, or for that matter anything in life.

---

I agree that medical issues aren't cut and dried, but for the sake of discussion we tend to generalize. Generally speaking, Slevesque (as I understand it) feels that if the mother's life is in danger (for whatever reason) and there are no means available or the child cannot be sustained outside the woman's body; it is acceptable to abort the fetus.

quote:

---

Because I learnt it in 6th grade. Which is too early in my opinion. In my final 6th grade year, after they taught sex.ed. (which was around march), many girls in my class were losing their virginity with high school guys. What age are you in 6th grade, like 11-12 I think?

​

I'm all for sex.ed. at around 15-16 personnally.

---

I guess growing up on a farm has its advantages. Around 5th and 6th grade, I was helping castrate little piggies and clamping calves.I also saw the problems with breeding cows too young. Pulling a dead calf out of a young cow before she dies, leaves an impression.I told my daughter sex was not a toy and not to have sex until she was supporting herself in her own home. She didn't and no, she wasn't a very compliant child. She just had no problem with my reasoning. It made sense to her.

That is 100% wrong.You teach gun safety BEFORE you judge they are ready to use a gun. In fact, you teach gun safety as early as you possibly can, long before children are allowed to even touch a gun.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

What is wrong with sex?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Wrong, you teach gun safety before they are ready to use a gun.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Again, anecdotes with no evidence. How do you know this happened? Did the girls put up a tote board? Many girls? Come on. Even if it is true do you have any evidence of a causal relationship between the two things. This is just more pro-life propaganda with no evidence. Personal anecdote isn't worth shit.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

But mysteriously you can show no causal relationship. Maybe this is one of those things you should research before you present an unfounded assertion.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The problem is that she's going to do it when she thinks she's ready, not when you think she's ready. She needs to be prepared to do it safely before she thinks she's ready. Children should be taught about safe sex when they still think it's icky.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

geez i go on vacation for a week, and this thread blew up. sure, why not. because one set is human and one set is not. i don't know, you know catholicism as well as i do. sex is for procreation or its wrong. that is the rule. BTW I am a huge sinner, according to this rule. I am not aborting any human life though. a lot, more for males i would guess, but all those halves added up cannot make 1 human; and therefore not 1 soul either. i hear you, i dont have the answer for everything. LOL

Sorry, but I don't study psychology, I study Math and Physics. You ask me my opinion about sex.ed. and I willingly answer what I think, but I can only can only resort to my own personal experience of it, and what I've come to think of it.And as I had said, the idea I proposed is simply a hypothesis. It was an attempt to explain how I experienced the impact sex.ed. had (which, btw isn't unique to me. From the discussions I had with other friends from other schools when we were older, this seemed to be a generalized phenomenon. thos girls who lost their virginity in the 6th grade pretty much all did it after sex.ed.). And in my opinion it is very logical: children reasonings seems to be very straightforward at time, and for a child, getting taught how to do something may very well appear like a green light that they are now at age to do it.I am well within my right to propose such a hypothesis, since, after all, a hypothesis is always speculation.

I can also point out that there were quite a few Middle School girls that got pregnant back when I was in school; and the most sexually precocious girls I ever met were also also about 13-15. They scared the hell outta me.That was long before SexEd had been invented so I cannot see that your position has much support other than confirmation bias.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I always thought parents did the teaching when they were ready, not when the children were ready. My parents were obviously uncomfortable with the birds and the bees talk, and I learned about it in 6th grade.Knowledge is the key, and people start soaking it in from birth onwards, we are always ready to learn knew information. IMO teaching younger kinds about reproduction is the better method. I learn thigns on this site (mostly about how crazy liberals and the british are, but sometimes its more substanitive). i do not follow your reasoning, all this "just in case talk". I started driving when I was 14, and my dad was in the passenger seat instructing me. at 1st it was all back roads in rural Illinois (the roads are very straight and go on for miles). after a few times they let me drive to church on Sundays, driving is really not that hard, I think some 13 years could learn. especially if you can already ride a dirtbike or ATV. certainly? why not? I fired my first gun in Cub Scouts; I was around 10 years old. it was a ruger 10-22. like other topics knowledge is not the problem here. I fired my 1st automatic (an automatic czech AK-47) at age 11 @ with my uncle in Missouri, my 9 year brother was there and he fired it too. It was AWESOME! I didn't start hunting till I was 32 years old (september 2010); learned about guns/saftey and the 2nd amendment much earlier. My little brother (now 29.75 years old) still doesn't hunt; guns are not about hunting from our perspective.

I'm for teaching about sex earlier. I am all for a parent talking to his children about sex, how it is not something you fool around with, at what point is someone ready to do it, etc. But the mechanics of it should not be taught as early as it is.To continue the parallel with driving a car, my parents talked to me about driving before I was taught how to drive. Told me the that it was something to be taken very seriously, because if not you could hurt other people and yourself. etc.Deciding to teach ''look, this is how it's done'' at 15-16 doesn't mean it cannot be talked about before.

Parents can be a bit biased when it comes to their kids and sex. Most parents think their child is a good kid and won't engage in sexual activity until the parents think they are ready. Well, this isn't always the case. Last I heard, a parent's disapproval does not provide a physical barrier to sexual activity, and teens have this tendency to ignore their parents for some reason.If we are to be prudent then we should come down on the side of teaching sex ed a bit too early than too late.

Then certainly he judged you were ready to drive at that age. What I mean is, in all those other cases, he didn't just show you were the gas pedal was, where the brake was, etc. but then didn't have you have a go at it. Same with the gun, he didn't just say ''here's the trigger, here's the safety, ...'' but then hid the gun.He actually let you fire, he actually let you drive. That's what I mean when saying that he judged you were ready to do those things.He didn't teach you these things, just in case you would steal his car, or his gun.That's why I'm saying, if people judge 12 years old is old enough for them to actually have intercourse, then I can understand wanting sex.ed to be done at that age. But if someone agrees with me that 12 years old is too young, then how can you justify sex.ed at that age, when it is contrary to what we do in all other aspects of life ?