You equate infertility with being gay?
Posted By: Geeze..............nm on 2008-11-12
In Reply to: So if the intent is solely to mate and - produce offspring then why
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Cannot equate the two.
How would he decide on which ones to attend?
Some families would be offended as every loss is equal.
However, the President's job is to run the country not attend funerals. Did Nixon or Johnson attend any of the funerals for Vietnam? Did Clinton for Somalia? I don't think this is an appropriate question at this time, or really any time. How do you choose?
I don't think you can equate the two. (Long - sorry)
A tubal pregnancy is a medical emergency endangering the lives of both mother and embryo. Unfortunately, modern medicine does not yet provide any capacity to salvage the embryo, but the mother can be saved by removal of the blocked tube or removal of the embryo from the tube.
I've read articles describing nontubal ectopic intraabdominal pregnancies in which the embryo was able to implant near a blood-rich source such as the liver; in this rare instance, the fetus could be maintained long enough for successful delivery via laparotomy. If that were the case, I would certainly try to maintain the pregnancy for as long as possible to allow the fetus to reach viability. Interesting article here about an abdominal pregnancy not diagnosed until 38 weeks gestation - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n1_v41/ai_8773331.
Just as a side note, the Catholic Church, which is officially staunchly anti-abortion despite the behavior of some of its members, makes an interesting distinction in terms of tubal pregnancies. It is considered morally licit - okay - to treat a tubal pregnancy with salpingectomy because the death of the embryo is considered an unfortunate side-effect but not the intent of the intervention, which is to remove the blocked section of tube to prevent rupture. The use of methotrexate to induce passage of the embryo, however, is considered illicit because this is considered to imply a direct intent to kill/abort the embryo. I've never been able to see a moral difference between the two, as the fetus cannot survive and either option saves the mother. Does anyone here believe one is more morally correct than the other?
First of all, you cannot equate gun ownership with abortion. sm
It's like the analogy above about a wart and a child. It's by pidgeon holding abortion in these terms that legal abortion was passed in the first place. Abortion is not a *right* in my opinion. It is murder. Since when does anyone have the right to murder another human being? Oh, I know, life doesn't start until the first breath. Well, that's your belief. The fact that God may not have willed the way a person came into the world, does not mean He has not planned a purpose for that individual. Long before anyone is conceived, God’s purpose for that life is foreseen.
So, you don't equate Obama with economy?
xx
Exactly, you don't equate future president with
xx
sounds like you equate belief with fanaticism.
x
No, I equate him with a false teacher/leader
xx
|
