Over at Dan's blog (yeah, I know...why do I bother?), his most recent post from May 6 provoked my own of May 9. That discussion...such as it is...continues, as was that at his. The problem, of course, is that there can't be a real discussion at Dan's when he deletes whatever he can't confront. It gets tiresome to take the time to respond only to have one's efforts deleted for the most cowardly and vacuous of reasons. Thus, my time there is really time I could be spending with more worthwhile endeavors, such as seeing how long I can hold my breath, teaching the cat to talk, spitting for distance, etc. So my visits there really indicate I've time to waste, and as it seems I'm leaning toward true retirement, I'll have more if it to waste if I so choose. And while I'll endeavor to fill that extra time with more productive efforts, I'll no doubt still spend time on worthless pursuits, such as posting comments at Dan's. After all, it's fun to see him act stupidly and if there's one thing he's really good at doing...
So anyway, at that post in the comments section, Dan once again exposes his true dishonest self as can be witnessed merely by reading the last dozen or so comments. But right at the end is where he really shines...in his pathetic and fraudulent way.
As I usually do, I push the anti-abortion position. I do so for the obvious reason that what is "terminated" is the life of a person...a person like any of us. That specific debate is still ongoing in my May 9 post. And since those still in the womb are people...like any of us...they have the unalienable right to life. Beyond that, however, is the fact that there really is no need to ever abort an unborn person in the first place. Yet my "compromise" is that our laws should still reflect whatever slim possibility exists that a difficult pregnancy in which a woman's life is endangered might actually be saved by ripping limb from limb the child growing inside. I think it's an easy compromise to make given how infinitesimal the possibility such a scenario would ever come to pass. And even if it ever did, so many would not be so barbarically killed if abortion was limited to just those scenarios. Still a heinous outcome, but an giant leap for mankind.
So at this point in the discussion, two problems arise in Dan's feeble mind. Who gets to decide whether or not it's necessary to abort? The second question is, is it ever really necessary? The second is the first question which must be resolved and in doing so, the first question is unnecessary.
Now, let's be clear. If there is a case where the only means of saving the mother is to abort, clearly the mother gets to decide how to proceed. I think that's not even an issue. Who else would? I knew a guy who claimed he would never kill another person, even if there was no other way of preventing that other person from killing him. Pretty noble stuff and he has the right to make that call. With that in mind, the same call is the mother's to make. The problem is, though, is that really the a legitimate choice, or is the woman simply told that by her doctor? So again, the first question is, is it ever necessary to abort in order to save the mother's life?
Dan offered testimony by "experts". Here, a definition is in order: An "expert" in Dan's tiny brain, is any person who promotes that which Dan favors. That is, if Dan finds a professor of 40 years who insists as Dan does that X=Y, that's an "expert" and a professor of 40 years who says X=Z is not. Also, if he finds 10 "experts" who say X=Y, it's a fact if you can only produce one expert who says X=Z. See how that works? "Experts" are those who agree with Dan's leftist, progressive, fake Christian positions, and anyone with knowledge who doesn't isn't an expert, and one needs more experts than Dan for Dan to even suppose his "experts" are as full of crap as Dan is.
So, Dan presented links of "experts" in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology who insist not only are abortions often necessary to save the lives of pregnant women, but that they've aborted innocent, defenseless people for that very reason. And here's where Dan's fraudulence shines so brightly: I've produced testimonies from professionals directly disputing this claim in the past. But it doesn't matter how solidly one had proven one's case in the past...where Dan stopped engaging in those threads. It only matters that one must go through the effort to do it every time Dan insists one must as if the issue had never been discussed before!!
Of course, Dan's penchant for deleting comments when he's confronted with the very evidence he demands always looms large, so I decided to respond here to his demand that I provide expert testimony which contradicts the testimonies of his baby killers, rather than at his blog where he'd only delete me or cherry pick whatever he feels he can rebut. So here we go:
First is one which I hope actually opens up. It's very detailed and addresses far more than the question here on the table, and does so by citing many experts who deal with endangered pregnancies:
Abortion is Not Heal...pdf (289 KB)
From here, I will simply post a list of links which will each have testimonies from experts who revere human life even when it's still in the womb. Some will be from sources Dan will no doubt crap upon simply because they're conservative, as if there are any leftist sources who would be so honest as to admit the truth about the issue. But it's not the source, but the info contained therein and that info satisfies Dan's demand for evidence he desperately wishes didn't exist. Worse, he claims he couldn't find such evidence himself, so he lies about even making the effort to discover the other side of the debate and truly consider it. Note, these links come from a list I compiled for the purpose and contains a few things not directly related to Dan's petulant demand. There's some repetitive aspects, but they all drive home the point that many in the field insist there's never a reason to abort. All are informative in ways Dan wishes they weren't.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/02/49619/
https://www.preciouslife.com/news/690/us-30000-doctors-say-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/ (note: this one is related to the one preceding it)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary
https://texasrighttolife.com/former-abortionist-abortion-is-never-necessary-to-save-a-womans-life/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-symposiums-findings-that-abortion-never-necessary-in-life-of-the-mother-exceptions-substantiate-personhood-amendments-in-us-169368836.html
https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/February/04_opa_085.htm
I have one or two others which I need to review. One is a bulk download of 37 PDF's related to the issue, but I haven't reviewed them to see if they're relevant to Dan's demand. One other is a WaPo piece regarding the only high risk OB/GYN in central West Virginia. The problem according to WaPo is a real shocker: he's anti-abortion!! Oh. The. Horror!!
Clearly, there are plenty of experts who do not provide Dan with what he needs to continue embracing immorality, heinous practices and simple idiocy.
7 comments:
I don’t waste time at blogs where the authors selectively delete things. They are free to ban me, just like I banned Molech-worshiping, God-mocking, fake Christian Dan after 400+ of his comments (I think that was 12 years ago - what a great day!). But if they are manipulating the conversation with selective deleting then I move on.
The Molech-worshipers exploit women with serious health concerns the same way the exploit rape and incest victims. They don’t really care about any of them, they just use those difficult situations as a pretense to legally kill CHILDREN (look it up in the dictionary, folks) for ANY reason — or no reason — up to their first breath and without anesthetic. Because they are loving and tolerant or something. They are easy to expose. Just ask if they’d agree with banning all abortions except those for the life of the mother, then watch them scurry.
It is no surprise that the bloodthirsty Left will lie and obfuscate on this issue and others. Remember, these people want to be able to kill their own CHILDREN! Nothing they do should surprise you. Nothing.
P.S. LOL at teaching the cat to talk.
I do find it a bit of a fascination to see just what will provoke Dan to actually engage after I expose the obvious holes in his posts. And again, when there's really nothing better to do...
It's also interesting to note how his kind will insist there simply must be situations where the only way to save a woman suffering from a difficult pregnancy is to kill her own kid. The only "evidence" is an abortionist insisting it was true in a case they had, while those who deal with difficult pregnancies regularly don't see that as necessary at all. The key here is that without this possibility existing far more common than reality demonstrates is true, there is then no legit reason at all to provide for this option being made legal and they'll have to go back to the far more subjective argument regarding whether or not one is a person from the moment of conception who is like us, endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life. They then must rob a person of that person's humanity in order to insist it's OK to kill him/her.
And all to get laid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/the-lily/antiabortion-doctor-obgyn-care/
The above is one of the links I needed to study before posting. Given the source, I was concerned it would be too slanted in the baby killing direction. Well, it isn't "too" slanted, but is just a tad. I give the WaPo journalist credit for a fairly even-handed story about this particular doctor. There are testimonies both positive and negative about him. What one doesn't see in the article is any case of where a mother died because of her pregnancy, save one story of an anti-abortion mother with a medical condition who insisted on going to term. She did die, but there was no indication the pro-abort doctor treating her provided the appropriate care, or the type of care Dr. Calhoun would have provided.
Also, there's no mention whatsoever of any of Calhoun's patients dying as a result of not aborting. This would seem to be a significant point upon which to focus in an article that seems to regard him in a somewhat negative light given his anti-abortion stance. One would think that if he's wrong in his position, there would be at least one story which wouldn't require him to personally provide the details. I don't know. Maybe there's no other way to know of such things, except that unlike with a dead fetus, one must absolutely report the death of any other person and in detail. It's supposed to be public knowledge, too.
And of course there are constant references by the pro-aborts of the absolute necessity of abortion to save lives. How can we determine with absolute certainty that the mother would have died had they not killed the kid? We're to take their word for it because they're "experts", despite so many others in the field insisting it's never necessary at all.
https://www.prageru.com/video/re-release-ep-68-tell-the-truth-about-abortion
Dennis Prager makes some great points in this video. I'm most struck by the lack of "moral cohesiveness" of the pro-abort position.
Do any of your links address the cancer risks of women who have abortions, the chances of infertility, or the mental health issues that frequently go along with abortion?
Much like the increasing information about transition surgery and the risks involved, I don't think that risks of abortion are adequately considered by the pro abort crowd.
Craig,
There are only indirect references in one or two of the links. They're main focus is on whether or not abortion is truly ever necessary to save a life or to resolve a difficult pregnancy. But I agree that risks associated with abortion is a topic the pro-aborts would rather not be discussed. As it happens, I get emails from from Operation Rescue, which report all manner of serious problems experienced by women seeking abortions. While I don't peruse them as often as I receive them, the subject line alone suggests the dangers are far more ubiquitous than most people realize, and certainly more common than the pro-aborts wish anyone to know. But that's just from having the procedure alone, not a review of the problems women have afterwards. So of the three desires of the pro-abort, only legal is the reality...not "safe" or "rare". Their concern for women is no more than rhetoric.
In Dan's most recent response to a comment of mine which he deleted, he once again proves it is he who cares little for studying links to those who take an opposing view, writing them off as merely partisan and thus untrustworthy. An incredibly cowardly and intellectually lazy response, but oh so Dan.
Post a Comment