(no subject)
Aug. 10th, 2006 05:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
While life is not most excelt at the moment, it is considerably better than it was a few hours ago.
Remeber my fit about the eptopic pregencies a little while ago? And how I sent a email off. I'll reprint it here because I didn't post it before:
Hello, Sir and/or Madam
I was looking at your five principals, and I have a question regarding the fifth, quoted as:
"When two or more human beings are in a situation in which their lives are mutually endangered, all available ordinary means and reasonable efforts shall be used to preserve and protect the life of each and every human being so endangered"
I take this to mean that in some cases, like ectopic pregency where in almost every single case the mother would suffer massive hemroging even before the baby could survive outside of the womb, and other such cases that the death of the mother would most likely result from continuing with the pregency, that an abotion would be considered a tragedy, but acceptable?
I got a reply back from the anti-abortionists about eptopic pregencies. I now find it somewhat funny, in the way I'm laughing because otherwise I'd be crying, that
liz_marcs often decries for people to get their hands off her ovaries.
Their reply was, of course:
not only acceptable, necessary. we don't refer to this as an abortion
though.
http://all.org/article.php?id=10335&search=ectopic
Peter
The reason why they don't call it an "abortion" is this: "While removing the tube containing the human embryo results in the death of a human being as does suctioning out the human embryo or administration of methotrexate, one cannot ethically conclude that all the actions have the same intended end result."
Why? "While removing the tube containing the human embryo results in the death of a human being as does suctioning out the human embryo or administration of methotrexate, one cannot ethically conclude that all the actions have the same intended end result."
Anything else, the author states, would be "Machevillian." They also go on helpully to state that alsong as the other tube is intact that fertility is not impared. Mmm. Don't you just get warm fuzzies from all the zelots running around these days?
I would be much more angry about this if I just wasn't a shell of a human going on the support of stuffed donkeys. I even found a pirate Eeyore, that his skulls on his bow and hat are little Eeyore skulls while we were at the Disney Store today.

Remeber my fit about the eptopic pregencies a little while ago? And how I sent a email off. I'll reprint it here because I didn't post it before:
Hello, Sir and/or Madam
I was looking at your five principals, and I have a question regarding the fifth, quoted as:
"When two or more human beings are in a situation in which their lives are mutually endangered, all available ordinary means and reasonable efforts shall be used to preserve and protect the life of each and every human being so endangered"
I take this to mean that in some cases, like ectopic pregency where in almost every single case the mother would suffer massive hemroging even before the baby could survive outside of the womb, and other such cases that the death of the mother would most likely result from continuing with the pregency, that an abotion would be considered a tragedy, but acceptable?
I got a reply back from the anti-abortionists about eptopic pregencies. I now find it somewhat funny, in the way I'm laughing because otherwise I'd be crying, that
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Their reply was, of course:
not only acceptable, necessary. we don't refer to this as an abortion
though.
http://all.org/article.php?id=10335&search=ectopic
Peter
The reason why they don't call it an "abortion" is this: "While removing the tube containing the human embryo results in the death of a human being as does suctioning out the human embryo or administration of methotrexate, one cannot ethically conclude that all the actions have the same intended end result."
Why? "While removing the tube containing the human embryo results in the death of a human being as does suctioning out the human embryo or administration of methotrexate, one cannot ethically conclude that all the actions have the same intended end result."
Anything else, the author states, would be "Machevillian." They also go on helpully to state that alsong as the other tube is intact that fertility is not impared. Mmm. Don't you just get warm fuzzies from all the zelots running around these days?
I would be much more angry about this if I just wasn't a shell of a human going on the support of stuffed donkeys. I even found a pirate Eeyore, that his skulls on his bow and hat are little Eeyore skulls while we were at the Disney Store today.
