Congressman declares abortions never necessary to save womans life.

[Statler Waldorf]

The change in Republican policy to oppose abortion even in the case of the health of the mother is the clearest sign that the Republican Party doesn't actually want to outlaw abortion. No doctor is going to sit and watch someone die because of a curable condition.

Pregnancy is now a “curable condition”? That’s downright barbaric.

In all seriousness... the guy's wrong. You should question when someone makes absolute statements such as "always" or "never" because there is usually an exception.

You’re making an absolute statement about questioning absolute statements? Nice, lol.

People die when having their tonsels and appendix removed as well, any kind of surgery presents SOME risk. But to use the safety of the mother as a reason to support abortion is not being realistic. Most mothers who are told there is complications and there is a 50% chance you won't survive (which is WAAAAY higher than any I have heard of) would still be willing to take the chance to save their child. Just like fathers and mothers have put their lives in danger when wild animals, armed robberies, machinery, or other forces are threating their children.

Well put!! The attention needs to be put on mothers who would choose not to risk their own lives in the slightest but rather destroy the life of their child, what kind of parent would do that?

Im not a fan of abortion as birth control really, but I think its the height of hypocrisy to call abortion to save a woman's life murder, but ignore the fact that such a law would directly lead to women dying. I wont even get into how laughably silly it is to be pro-life and for the death penalty.

Tyler, why can’t someone just be “pro-innocent life” and support capital punishment for the worst our society has to offer and still be against the destruction of innocent human life in the womb? I think there’s an obvious distinction between capital punishment and abortion.

There are between 67,000 and 167,000 ectopic pregnancies in this country EACH YEAR. That's a lot of mothers -- some of which already have children who need them -- you want to kill, buddy. Congrats.

The vast majority of those cases will end in a natural miscarriage and not require an abortion so you are distorting the facts to try and justify the murder of millions of babies each year, congrats.

[tylerdolphin]

Tyler, why can’t someone just be “pro-innocent life” and support capital punishment for the worst our society has to offer and still be against the destruction of innocent human life in the womb? I think there’s an obvious distinction between capital punishment and abortion.

In a perfect legal system, you could certainly make that argument. But the fact is that innocent people die at the hands of the death penalty. I assume youd argue that even aborting a few babies a year for no reason is wrong and immoral. How then can you justify the risk of killing an innocent person via capital punishment? Im never going to feel bad about psychos who actually did messed up stuff getting offed, but the fact is you cant off those without risking innocent lives. Thats the hypocrisy.

[Tetragrammaton]

Pregnancy is now a “curable condition”? That’s downright barbaric.

If you have half as many degrees as you claim to have, misinterpretation like this is unforgivable.

[JackFinfan]

You’re making an absolute statement about questioning absolute statements? Nice, lol.

Actually he said "there is usually an exception." If he had said there is always an exception then your insult would have actually made sense.

[TheWalrus]

The vast majority of those cases will end in a natural miscarriage and not require an abortion so you are distorting the facts to try and justify the murder of millions of babies each year, congrats.

Says who?

And either way, given that the pregnancy will not come to term in any case (since there is no known way to move an ectopic pregnancy to a viable area), why risk fallopian tube rupturing, which will lead to death if untreated? Or do you not really care if it ruptures?

This thread is not about the abortion debate generally. It's about whether abortion to save the life of the mother a) a valid way to frame this aspect of the debate, and/or b) is justified.

[Statler Waldorf]

In a perfect legal system, you could certainly make that argument. But the fact is that innocent people die at the hands of the death penalty. I assume youd argue that even aborting a few babies a year for no reason is wrong and immoral. How then can you justify the risk of killing an innocent person via capital punishment? Im never going to feel bad about psychos who actually did messed up stuff getting offed, but the fact is you cant off those without risking innocent lives. Thats the hypocrisy.

I think there is a difference between risking innocent life and knowingly destroying innocent life. Abortion is the intentional and destruction of life we know is innocent. If there was someone on death row that we knew was innocent I would not support killing them, so I think I am consistent on that point. Are you suggesting that a person cannot drive a car because it puts innocent people at risk since far more people are killed in car accidents each year than by lethal injection? I just think intent and knowledge plays a role in the situation.

If you have half as many degrees as you claim to have, misinterpretation like this is unforgivable.

Oh please, stop trying to wriggle your way out of this, you know very well that the condition you were referring to was a pregnancy and the “cure” you were referring to was an abortion.

Actually he said "there is usually an exception." If he had said there is always an exception then your insult would have actually made sense.

Not quite Jack :- ) If you notice he began his statement with an absolute “should” statement, his reason for a person doing this was just not absolute but it seems like he wants us to always question absolute statements.
“You should question when someone makes absolute statements “

I’ll give you an example, “You should always check to make sure a gun is loaded because SOMETIMES people forget to unload them.” This is still an absolute “should” statement even though it has a non-absolute reason behind it.

Says who?

The very material you recommended we all read concerning those types of pregnancies.

[JackFinfan]

Not quite Jack :- ) If you notice he began his statement with an absolute “should” statement, his reason for a person doing this was just not absolute but it seems like he wants us to always question absolute statements.
“You should question when someone makes absolute statements “

I’ll give you an example, “You should always check to make sure a gun is loaded because SOMETIMES people forget to unload them.” This is still an absolute “should” statement even though it has a non-absolute reason behind it.

"You should question when someone makes absolute statements such as "always" or "never" because there is usually an exception."

He said "should" and "usually" I don't see an "always" in there. If he said you "should always question" then you'd be correct.

[Tetragrammaton]

Oh please, stop trying to wriggle your way out of this, you know very well that the condition you were referring to was a pregnancy and the “cure” you were referring to was an abortion.

No I was not. You are a liar and a bad person.

[tylerdolphin]

I think there is a difference between risking innocent life and knowingly destroying innocent life. Abortion is the intentional and destruction of life we know is innocent. If there was someone on death row that we knew was innocent I would not support killing them, so I think I am consistent on that point. Are you suggesting that a person cannot drive a car because it puts innocent people at risk since far more people are killed in car accidents each year than by lethal injection? I just think intent and knowledge plays a role in the situation.

Apples and oranges. Driving is necessary for many. Killing people isnt. Also, driving does not serve the purpose of killing people whereas execution does.

Basically your position comes down to "I dont care if an innocent person here and there dies because of capital punishment, but abortion is a huge sin because it kills innocent lives and life is precious."

The spin there is comical.

[TheWalrus]

The very material you recommended we all read concerning those types of pregnancies.

I must have missed it. Can you perhaps post the link that says that?

Also, can you tell me what you think should be done about an ectopic pregnancy that has not miscarried and is at the point in it's development where it is threatening to burst the fallopian tube?