Abortion Shitflinging

Imagine swishing that around in your mouth.

>Last thread we accomplished proving that
You're a moron. I show evidence that delivery is sometimes used for a preeclampsia patient. You even agree. I ask what am I supposed to do if the fetus is young and nonviable. There's that procedure Merck talks about, under abortion. You say nah that's special, because look at those scary drugs. I say well, show me the procedure that doesn't use them. You show me management of preterm labor. Understand this: in your efforts to "prove" me wrong, the best you can come up with was a treatment plan that would KILL the patient with severe preeclampsia. That's how dumb you are. That's how morally bankrupt you are, because in your desire to prove your stupid "zero medical reasons for abortion" argument, you are willing to present a management plan that would certainly result in the death of the patient abd present it as the truth. And I'm still waiting on that procedure
>definition since I know you love definitions so much, diagnosed post 20 weeks
Do I have to mention I'm a doctor to show you how stupid it is trying to fool me? Even Merck mentions SEVEN weeks gestation

Oh God! those looked like delicious long John glazed doughnuts drizzled with chocolate icing and then I enlarged the pic. I think I'm damaged for the rest of the day.

>I show evidence that delivery is sometimes used for a preeclampsia patient.
We both did, neither of them advocated for killing the child at any step.
>I ask what am I supposed to do if the fetus is young and nonviable. There's that procedure Merck talks about, under abortion.
>Do I have to mention I'm a doctor to show you how stupid it is trying to fool me? Even Merck mentions SEVEN weeks gestation
Your words and the arguments you make with them are all that you have as credentials on this site nigger. But you're right: Merc DOES mention protocols for 7week>gestation and those protocols are for abortions, ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. It isn't medically necessary.
>you are willing to present a management plan that would certainly result in the death of the patient
Wrong. I've provided the best researched treatment for preeclampsia/eclampsia, premature labour, and elective abortion, the last of which has no medical indication.

eternal reminder the bible is actually pro-abortion

Attached: God is pro abortion.jpg (912x774, 225K)

Question, so like if I were wanting to be born again and this consisted of me being placed into a womb, does the owner of the building I am in have a right to abort me?

abortion is wrong. Women having rights never

Attached: Awoo Knight.png (900x900, 348K)

Attached: 1522158691934.png (1000x1000, 70K)

>treatment plan that would KILL the patient with severe preeclampsia.
Not at all, it was link in the past thread and I'll bring it up again. Patients with severe preclampsia/actively seizing are hospitalized and monitored

Attached: preec.jpg (2676x1210, 1.28M)

>We both did, neither of them advocated for killing the child at any step.
You are delivering a nonviable fetus. Do I have to spell it out for you what that means? Do those authors have to waste precious paper so they can tell you what that means for the unborn child?
>Your words and the arguments you make with them are all that you have as credentials on this site nigger. But you're right: Merc DOES mention protocols for 7week>gestation and those protocols are for abortions, ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. It isn't medically necessary
Kaplan didn't write "at any gestational age" to mean "post 20 weeks" and Merck didn't mention it was for ELECTIVE abortions. Stop making shit up. I'm still waiting on that procedure, retard. Every doctor handling a decompensating preeclampsia patient right now is probably using the plan Merck outlined, under ABORTION. And you can't even prove to me otherwise. Because you are so stubborn to not accept that maybe, just maybe, you're a retard who didn't know abortions wasn't just killing babies of lazy mothers.

women having rights? very funny

oh christ almighty.
I'm going back to r9k.

>You are delivering a nonviable fetus.
No, you are poisoning the fetus and then flushing it out. That's an abortion and has no medical indication. You then try to paint the nonlethal application of only one those drugs in a significantly lower concentration as the same thing. It simply isn't.
>Do some inductions end in child loss
Yes, but that doesn't make them abortions, which use a protocol designed with lethal concentrations of drugs to kill the kid.

Attached: merc.jpg (908x796, 426K)

>Patients with severe preclampsia/actively seizing are hospitalized and monitored
No shit genious. I can say the same for a dozen different conditions. That's just a STEP. The problem here is you posted management for preterm labor. Which involves tocolytics. Because unlike a dying patient with preeclampsia, you want to delay the pregnancy. But sure, keep bringing up the exact opposite management. Jesus Christ, at least pro-choice people do not advocate killing the mother as well. Why bother being pro-life if you're this stupid and disgusting?

The hospital does all that it can to keep her stable and protect the child. If there's a chance for the kid to survive induced labor (Not induced abortion which includes lethally high doses of drugs that only cause harm at said dosage) they'll give it a shot. They don't give the mom a fucking abortion.

Weird. I always thought abortion meant to remove some cells that will eventually become a human being. I wasn't expecting an almost finished creature. Thank God this will never be part of my probems.

Attached: 1521811358990.png (611x328, 338K)

>you are poisoning the fetus and then flushing it out.
It says right there that you are stimulating uterine contractions. That's what happens during delivery. Idiot.
>Yes, but that doesn't make them abortions, which use a protocol designed with lethal concentrations of drugs to kill the kid.
Show me the protocol that doesn't involve those drugs then. You still can't. Come on, that's the one thing you need to prove your stupid argument

If all routes have been exhausted, then the docs will procede with the protocol to induce labor, not an abortion. The difference is you're not adding insult to injury by poisoning the kid and are trying to make mom start early labour.

The hospital does all that it can to keep her stable and protect the child. If there's a chance for the kid to survive induced labor (Not induced abortion which includes lethally high doses of drugs that only cause harm at said dosage) they'll give it a shot. They don't give the mom a fucking abortion.
All we have us a procedure calling it an abortion. Whatever shit you say won't change that. I can literally point to the Merck manual to shoot down your stupid arguments at this point. Because this is what it is: you just can't prove that doctors don't use it in severe preeclampsia. That's why you spout unrelated shit all the time

looks like a dick with legs

>with the protocol to induce labor, not an abortion.
Funny, those protocols didn't mention that you can do it to deliver a nonviable fetus. Still can't accept that the latter constitutes an abortion? Of course you can't

>Show me the protocol that doesn't involve those drugs then.
I have been this entire time you dunce. Only the abortion protocol uses Mifepristone, whose sole purpose is to poison the kid, making it detach from the uterine wall and subsequently be evacuated by the contractions induced via LARGE doses of misoprostol.

The protocol that doesn't uses said poison and lethal dosages of misoprostol (or insane amounts of dinoprost tromethamine for after 15wk) is the one for induced labor. It's that simple.

Looks like one of the corpses Warcraft 3 units decay into.

Attached: meatwagon[1].jpg (600x429, 88K)

so why aren't fetuses deserving of life?
>they're just clumps of cells
you and i are clumps of cells, albeit much bigger clumps. what's the cutoff point in terms of cells where rights are granted?
>they're not sentient
do people in comas not have rights? they're not sentient. infants? they're about as sentient as your cat. is it ok to kill your kitty?
>they're in their mothers belly
oh so there's a magical time when the umbilical cord is cut that the fetus becomes deserving of rights?

the way i see it the least problematic place for humans to get rights is conception. please note i am not very religious. this is not a religious argument. you can be anti-abortion without being religious

All you're doing is looking at the end result and not the means by which it was achieved or WHY.
>I can literally point to the Merck manual to shoot down your stupid arguments at this point.
You've tried so hard to believe this and yet it still isn't true. There is a SINGLE protocol for the induction of labor and another for the induction of an abortion. The latter poisons the kid in addition to precipitating contractions. The former doesn't attack the child's body at any point.

>Still can't accept that the latter constitutes an abortion
I don't have to because it is distinct from the abortion's protocol by virtue of its nonaggression towards the fetus. Similarly, to how a hysterectomy to treat uterine cancer in a pregnant patient is non-aggressive to the fetus. You aren't attacking the fetus but the cancer the mother has.
>Could you perform an abortion by cutting out the mom's uterus?
Sure! But the purpose for it in this case is solely to kill the child and not remedy any pathology within mom. It's an abortion.

>I have been this entire time you dunce.
If you're referring to the Induction of Labor part in Merck's, then hoo boy you just reached a new level of retard. Here's a question for you, you idiot: why the fuck would you use additional drugs to "induce an abortion" if you can just "induce labor", which according to your dumbass is separate from abortion but you still get delivery of the nonviable fetus. You think they do it just so they can call it an abortion? No. It's because the delivery of the nonviable fetus is the result, and that falls under abortion. Why the fuck would ANYONE go the extra mile to "poison" the kid if apparently, I can just "induce labor" and be done with it? Only a sick fuck like you could come up with that scenario

> I don't have to because it is distinct from the abortion's protocol by virtue of its nonaggression towards the fetus.
You have to because then your argument becomes "it's different because they use "poison" for kicks lmao". That's another question you won't be able to answer.

I would also like to see cases of these 7 week fetuses causes severe preeclampsia. I think you might be memeing me.

Oh so now I destroyed your "it's not just the end result" argument I have to provide preeclampsia cases now. Even though no medical textbook makes a distinction of gestational age? Lmao

>but you still get delivery of the nonviable fetus
and the medical team is obligated to perform whatever measures they can to serve the kid. Many of them are stillborn upon delivery but even so the shot at life you give these kids at 20-24weeks (which is now regularly sustainable) induction is better than preemptively attacking the kid with the abortion protocol.
>"it's different because they use "poison"
It's literally introducing a chemical agent into the kids environment for the sole purpose of weakening it: that's poison

Attached: spawn camper.png (607x608, 352K)

No, I think you're pulling shit out of your ass and trying to pass it off as a reason for you to kill kids. Preeclampsia is defined as post 20weeks. We have the tech to give kids at this age of development a shot at life, even if we didn't inducing labor would be a less violent and more likely chance that the kid gets out alive than if we were to use the protocol for elective abortions.

Kekd and checked

Those extra drugs are used to ensure the kid is dead upon delivery, grim I know, which is why I'm arguing that there IS NO MEDICAL INDICATION FOR IT.

>and the medical team is obligated to perform whatever measures they can to serve the kid.
You even know what nonviable even means? Do you enjoy making up arguments for me to destroy? You asking a medical team to sustain a frtus less than 20 weeks? And even then, so the fuck what? Why not write under abortion "induce labor and have the med team sit on their ass" what then moron? What if the fetus hasn't even drawn breath in the womb, what now?

>You asking a medical team to sustain a frtus less than 20 weeks?
Yes! Because the kid was delivered and we didn't use any of the extraneous,deadly, methods I've been arguing against in that delivery. We're actively pursuing technology & therapies right now to push that "Age of Viability" abortionists laud as the sole arbitor of Personhood past the 20week barrier
>Why not write under abortion "induce labor and have the med team sit on their ass" what then moron?
Abortion is disgusting, I know. You don't need to hyperbole to point that out.
>What if the fetus hasn't even drawn breath in the womb, what now?
You try and get them to take that first breath. They are a person after all that was just delivered.

>No, I think you're pulling shit out of your ass and trying to pass it off as a reason for you to kill kids.
I made it clear that my problem is you saying shit like:
>there IS NO MEDICAL INDICATION FOR IT.
With absolutely no source. Everyone is telling me that delivering a nonviable fetus is a management plan. They call it an abortion. Yet some idiot is ranting about "poison" and "toxic dosages", confusing a labor inducer with "attacking the child directly". And the moron can't even quote his own sources. Just pull shit out of his ass. Delude yourself all you want.

>You try and get them to take that first breath. They are a person after all that was just delivered.
Let's take Merck's example. 7 weeks. Child's lungs can't even start the growing process. Why the fuck would I "poison" the child in the first place?

The two protocols, one for induction of labor, the other for induction of abortion, are distinct in that one only attempt to have mom push out the kid while the other ensures that the kid is dead on arrival.
Yes, the protocol for the induction of labor can lead to stillborn. CAN LEAD: the operative phrase in that sentence. It doesn't always, and we do everything to ensure that it doesn't happen. But it is just practicing medicine, after all.
The protocol for elective abortion WILL ALWAYS lead to stillbirth. There is no maybe about the outcome.
When Mom is in trouble, we do everything we can to keep her and baby alive but, as with all things, it doesn't always go according to plan. When the only option left is to go ahead and induce labor, its done with a team ready to administer emergent care in the case of the child surviving the ordeal. The abortionist throws them in the medical waste bag. It's about respecting the dignity of each living human, something you should have taken an oath to uphold if you really are a physician.

Source? Yeah, figures. More lies. Give me the definition, moron. Why is that seemingly against you?

>7 weeks
First tell me, what medical emergency is requiring induction at this early of a stage. It isn't severe preclampsia so I'm honestly curious.
But, for the sake of this post, lets just say it is Severe Life or Death preclampsia: the protocol wouldn't change. You would induce labor as Merck layed out (not the abortion protocol) and be ready to treat a kid who will in all realities be stillborn. You still treated him as your patient, a person by not electing to have him be scoured with drugs that have no medical indication.

A definition of what? Intent? You have two options:
Abortion Protocol (Bad and has no medical indication)
Premature Induction Protocol (Neutral and can be used in emergencies to save both Mom & Baby or sometimes just Mom because Baby didn't survive the delivery)
The difference is you aren't actively working against the child's freedom to live in the latter .

>and be ready to treat a kid who will in all realities be stillborn. You still treated him as your patient, a person by not electing to have him be scoured with drugs that have no medical indication.
Yeah, where is any of that shit written? Nice little story you got going there, but NONE of it is written in the procedure. No mention at all.

You know why Niel Boortz never discussed this stupid fucking subject on his show? It's a complete and utter dead end because most people cannot handle the real truth.

As western medicine has progressed, we've managed to save mother/child in the childbearing/birthing process countless millions of times and bring into the world countless millions of people/perpetuated the lives of those that nature would have removed.

Western medicine is mankind's ultime "go fuck yourself" to mother nature. What knows better than nature? If one single solitary thing is defective, it would have typically lead to an abortion (miscarriage) or loss of life of both mother and child. Sure, we could go through the plethora of examples of offspring that possessed, we'll just call it "less desirable genetic defects" (Downs, autoimmune diseases like Lupus, and the 10s of thousands of other disorders that can are inherited) but let's face it:
Mother Nature had a pretty fucking good track record at inducing "natural selection". It was also a pretty fucking good deterrent to promiscuity in society because, well, obvious fucking reasons that no one is going to argue against. Inevitably, however, that is the thing that abortion ultimately boils down to.

Nobody is going to argue against abortion in the case of rape (whether it's incest, rampaging invaders, or just plain niggers). Nobody is going to argue against abortion when there is a severe defect with the baby (or Downs, for example); chances are, it will become "nonviable" in womb (Downs excepting to this rule) and become a miscarriage anyway. But hey, if we have the technology, why not beat nature to the punch?
(CONT)

Nobody is going to argue against abortion in the ULTRA EXTREMELY RARE CASE THAT THE MOTHER MIGHT DIE. A consensus can be reached on when that would be appropriate between the doctor and the patient, and almost all doctors would rather save a life here and now instead of risk losing one at the chance of another being created.

The issue lies with promiscuity, again. The argument for pro-choicers has always been the same: My body, my choice. That's what it comes down to. Well, here's the thing:
1. Some drugs are illegal, and taking them is also.
2. Alcohol consumption below a certain age is illegal.
3. Taking a walk at 3am in the middle of the street in Harlem is illegal (and suicidal).
4. Suicide is literally against the law.

What do all these crimes have in common? They are self inflicted. They are based on a very poor decision making pattern that leads to harm to self, and sometimes others. But mostly, just your own self. Why should these things be illegal? Who gets prosecuted in the case of suicide?

Promiscuity used to be illegal. Adultery. Oral sex. Anal sex. Faggotry. Threesomes. Prostitution. Masturbation (in some places). Incest. Pedo shit. Zoo stuff. All of these things were seen as demmoralizers of societal progress (because they are), and destructive to the family unit; which is vital to a civilization's existence. Where does abortion fit?

Right in the center of the discussion of immorality. Who gives a fuck that a clump of cells or even something more complex can be destroyed. That's not really the root of the issue here. The root of the issue is societal decline, and the moment you make any exceptions to the rule for the case of abortion, then suddenly "everyone has been raped" or "everyone was forcibly breed with their dad/brother" or "everyone has a life threatening pregnancy"; just as an excuse to cover all the others that are being promiscuous.

It's called ethics you absolute retard. There is no ethical use of abortion. Abortionists try really hard to manipulate peoples emotions into thinking it might be OK to intentionally kill someone, but it isn't.

Abortion rights are fighting for the rights of women to have domain over their own persons. Abortion rights are fighting for the rights of women that want to be promiscuous to do so without regard for long term societal cohesion.

Attached: 1458903441612.jpg (600x600, 78K)

Lol more definitions out of the ass. Try pulling the Merriam Webster for me. Show me where the fuck all those "distinctions" you made are written. Until then anything you say is literally shit.

Read again. I'm arguing that abortions can be used therapeutically. That's fucking it. Literally no one, including the idiot I'm arguing with, has claimed otherwise.

Lol ethics. It's also unethical to withold treatment for a mother, eveb if it involves abortion. Come on faggot, tell me what that word means. Pull up the definition

>Nobody is going to argue against abortion in the case of rape (whether it's incest, rampaging invaders, or just plain niggers). Nobody is going to argue against abortion when there is a severe defect with the baby (or Downs, for example); chances are, it will become "nonviable" in womb (Downs excepting to this rule) and become a miscarriage anyway. But hey, if we have the technology, why not beat nature to the punch?
The child is innocent in every case and has as much a right to their bodily integrity as every other human being.
>Nobody is going to argue against abortion in the ULTRA EXTREMELY RARE CASE THAT THE MOTHER MIGHT DIE. A consensus can be reached on when that would be appropriate between the doctor and the patient, and almost all doctors would rather save a life here and now instead of risk losing one at the chance of another being created.
This is the meme I was talking about. There is no medical indication for abortion. All of those extremely rare cases are in fact treated with protocols that aren't abortions:
>uterine cancer
hysterectomy
>preeclampsia
induction of labor
>fallopian ectopics
salpingectomy
None of them are treated with abortions.

>literally show you the book of said protocols and list how they are different
>"muh dictionary"

>blah blah blah no source
So you won't even pull up the definition. Come on. You afraid it's more broad than you think it is? Afraid that it makes your stupid details irrelevant?

165865896
>"muh dictionary"
Sad!

>book of said protocols and list how they are different
Ok then. Show me where Mercks makes the distinction with using "poison" and not resuscitating the kid. Also
>wahh the dictionary is irrelevant
Fucking lol. Your argument is literally going up against the standard definition, and the best you can come up with is draw conclusions on what you think yiu understand

>therapeutically
Keep reading. I've said that it's not the literal root of the actual issue. It never has been. Roe v Wade wasn't about saving a mother in the case of a dangerous pregnancy. It raised several talking points, yes. It created a conversation that needed to be had, yes. However, at the very fucking center of that conversation, on the MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, is the issue of promiscuity. Again, no one with half a brain cell is going to argue against abortion in the cases of:
1. Incest
2. Rape
3. Defects to the fetus
4. Life of the mother threatened

However, each and every one of these can become the slipperiest of slopes once the readily needed excuse is made available. This is why in places like Texas, they make the would-be mother view an image of the baby prior to going through with the procedure.

If it wasn't an issue for her, she'd go "Yep, I see it. Not changing my mind because of circumstance "xyz" ", and she'd have no qualms with going through with it.

>Try pulling the Merriam Webster for me.
You do realize they change the definitions of words as they see fit, right? The majority of people working for these companies are extremely liberal, also. Case in point:
Definition of the word "Marriage" from 1980 Merriam-Webster vs 2018.

Have fun trying to wiggle out of that one.

>blah blah blah
What's that? You can't? Why bother posting then? Yeah sure, it ends your argument, but it's easier to just get it over with, instead of adding shit like incest or rape

That guy in the pic looks like a manlet.

>Ok then. Show me where Mercks makes the distinction with using "poison" and not resuscitating the kid. Also
It never says not to resuscitate and I never said you shouldn't attempt emergent care. Merck makes a point to actually include internal and external fetal monitoring during labor to access the wellness of the child. Why would you assume that care suddenly ends upon delivery?
The two previously mentioned drugs used (at this concentration) to attack the corpus luteum are only harmful to the child. They have no medical indication. Their purpose is to kill the kid. Naturally, they are only listed for used in the abortion protocol.

What a giant tool, you got your shit pushed in and still you come back for more

Straight from the previous thread, to make up for your selective amnesia

Early treatment of an ectopic pregnancy with methotrexate is a viable alternative to surgical treatment[33] which was developed in the 1980s.[34] If administered early in the pregnancy, methotrexate terminates the growth of the developing embryo; this may cause an abortion, or the developing embryo may then be either resorbed by the woman's body or pass with a menstrual period. Contraindications include liver, kidney, or blood disease, as well as an ectopic embryonic mass > 3.5 cm.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

Also
"Your proposed methodology puts the patient at higher risk for reoccurrence of ectopics while mine drops it. You aren't making an argument in favor of abortion but instead capitalizing on its flaws."

LOLZ
My proposed methodology doesn't require the permanent ablation of a part of your reproductive organs. By your logic, might as well remove both of the tubes, then the chances of an ectopic pregnancy drops to zero, great medecine you've got there buddy

OK, you built a neat box to frame your argument in, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances I proposed at hypotheticals in my original post. Before I relist mine, here is an article that would agree with much of what you are saying:
lifesitenews.com/news/still-think-abortion-is-medically-necessary-this-abortionist-begs-to-differ

Now, back to the arguments:
1. Rape
2. Severe defects
3. Fetus that has actually "died" and hasn't miscarried yet
4. Life of mother in imminent danger

However, #4 is the stickler because most preemies these days make it, and live long and prosperous lives THANKS to medical advancements. You could, in most cases, remove #4 from the list.

Again, however, "winning" this stupid fucking argument is about having the argument over the root cause for it to begin with:
Promiscuity.

If neither side is intellectually honest enough, or brave enough to bring it up to discuss it. then you'll never get anywhere. The entirety of the argument FOR abortion was intellectually dishonest from the get-go. "Just get it legal first, and then we'll have the conversation later" is how we ended up with shit like Obamacare.

So, either you and meme-flag faggot either choose to have the conversation about the honest truth, promiscuity, or just drop it. The debate over abortion will never be won until the root cause for its existence is honestly discussed.

Attached: 8gA37PB.jpg (780x927, 190K)

abortion really is something that must end, except for niggers an mexicans. Everybody else should avoid it.

So, no mention of all the shit you just said? Intent? Directly killing the baby? Resuscitation measures for preterms? None. Wow. My win then

Abortion doctors will be shot in the day of the rope.

>Again, however, "winning" this stupid fucking argument is about having the argument over the root cause for it to begin with:
Promiscuity.
Literally brought it up on my first post on the previous thread. Again, I'm pro-life, but no retard is going to convince me there are no medical indications for abortions

You're pretty intellectually honest for a pro-life dude

>Muh dead black chilluns :(
American Christcucks really are a slave class to the jews

Attached: le56.png (423x330, 26K)

Yes and in those cases where its a tubal pregnancy, a Wait and See approach is adopted. The child will spontaneously abort after this implantation. Full Stop. The only question is will that happen before or after the mass grows to a size where surgical intervention becomes necessary. The fetal heart activity and BetahCG levels are tracked during this period to indicate when spontaneous abortion has occurred and to initiate methotrexate therapy to clear out the miscarriage.

What are you even talking about? Pick a dictionary with a definition of any word that we can agree to debate on. Liberals think they win word games when they start quoting shit like dictionaries. Dictionaries are as fluid in their interpretation of meanings of words as the crass old cunts that rewrite them yearly.

At any rate, the point of my posts is that you and retard over there aren't even discussing "Abortion" as a subject correctly. The entire debate started from a position intellectual dishonesty to begin with. Again, most regular folks agree on the following:
Abortion OK - Rape, Incest, Severe Defects, 1 in 1,000,000 chance mother's life is in danger.
Abortion NOT OK - I wanna get my fucky fucky on and not deal with consequences.

The article I quoted here refutes nearly all cases of the mother's life in danger:
lifesitenews.com/news/still-think-abortion-is-medically-necessary-this-abortionist-begs-to-differ

Now that that's been handled, what's left? You fucking guessed it: Promiscuity.

Have that conversation. If you simply refuse to accept that 9.999/10 doctors (especially those trained and well versed in OB/GYN) can give the mother and developing baby a chance at life, then you are being intellectually dishonest. Period.

Come clean, and have a debate over whether or not "promiscuity" should be a reason covered for abortions. Have your go at convincing people that should be something taxpayers pay for, or should even be legal to begin with.
youtube.com/watch?v=O_iYEkA1rCg

>but no retard is going to convince me
Again, how about an actual doctor?
lifesitenews.com/news/still-think-abortion-is-medically-necessary-this-abortionist-begs-to-differ

Human life is to be respected from conception to natural death. Abortion violates it, at its most innocent and vulnerable phase, while further attacking the bond that a mother should have with her child. There is no excuse for it.

>3. Fetus that has actually "died" and hasn't miscarried yet
That's not an abortion and you know it. It's medical treatment to remove literal moles and teratomas.

All of that is false and you're lying
It won't spontaneously abort
It will kill the mother unless it's gotten rid of
So it's a medical indication for abortion, you kill the foetus to save the mother

>All of that is false and you're lying
nope

Attached: ect1.jpg (3238x1572, 1.6M)

I really wonder why you bother with those books when you're simply unable to efficiently extract information from them
Fatal to the foetus refers to the prognosis, basically the prediction you can make regarding the outcome of a pathology and not the state the foetus is in... that's basic medical stuff my dude, I'm literally doing your homework right now
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prognosis

And the heartbeat is there from day 22, but only detectable at week 7+, so it's used as a landmark to decide on treatment.. again, your lack of knowledge and ability to contextualize is staggering, and somehow you double down on making shit up instead of leaving this site and hanging yourself, doing the world a favour...

I'm sorry you can't accept reality frog boy. You're wrong. The child will die either from spontaneously aborting silently while mom passes it or violently once it ruptures.

And what are we supposed to do with it before it ruptures in order to save the mother's life ?

>so it's used as a landmark to decide on treatment..
Why that's exactly what I said:
>The fetal heart activity and BetahCG levels are tracked during this period to indicate when spontaneous abortion has occurred and to initiate methotrexate therapy to clear out the miscarriage.
The problem arises when the child is still alive and has reached size that warrants surgical interventions. Which the text further goes into detail on the bottom half of page 2.
You don't nuke the baby while its still alive with methotrexate. You wait for it to spontaneously abort then clear it out OR go to surgery to remove either a partial or full portion of the compromised tube.

Strawberry jam! =human

Think about this: not a single aborted fetus is in heaven. Not a single one of them has been baptized.

Other than that, it's just legalized murder. Nothing irregular about that.

Downvote israel funded campaigns youtube.com/watch?v=A8KZBfZEjjs

You're making shit up again
Methotrexate impairs on a body's ability to use folic acid, directly preventing the foetus from developing
It leads to severe malformations in the case of normal pregnancies. It is purposefully used to kill the fetus, which will then either get absorbed back or evacuated
Are you going to try denying this ?

At the risk of derailing into some completely off topic shit-flinging. I know at least that Catholics (ur flag) only profess the earthly church's ability to canonize members of the heavenly host. That is to say: they can only confirm for sure that certain people are in heaven (saints), but they have no way (on earth) to know whether or not someone has been explicitly denied Paradise.

I am not denying that Methotrexate is a teratogen. I am denying that it is medically indicated when the child still lives. Aside from causing birth defects, methotrexate also is used to clear remnants of the fetal cells post surgery or spontaneous abortion.

fpbp

You're wrong

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8900553
CONCLUSION:
Methotrexate and misoprostol were effective in inducing an abortion up to 8 weeks' gestation. The procedure is a promising alternative to surgical abortion.

methotrexate.com/
Methotrexate is a molecule that is able to induce medical abortion
and treat tubal pregnancies.

womenscenter.com/methotrexate.html
Methotrexate stops the rapidly growing embryonic and placental cells of early pregnancy from further developing.

I'm really starting to suspect you get some morbid masochistic pleasure from being put in your place and I'm your unwitting fantasy enabler. Feels bad man

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/890055
>a single ncbi article that was cited a grand total of 3 times that simply states Methotrexate can be used an an abortafacent
Congrats, that's a surprise to literally no one. We know methotrexate can cause abortions on its own. You'll note that these were ELECTIVE abortions and not treatment of Ectopics: the whole crux of you shoddy argument.

>Methotrexate is a molecule that is able to induce medical abortion and treat tubal pregnancies.
Again, more stuff we already knew. It is an abortafacent AND can be used to treat ectopics. You're getting warmer now, but that drug's cite didn't specify HOW and WHEN it is indicated for use in the treatment of ectopics.
>Methotrexate stops the rapidly growing embryonic and placental cells of early pregnancy from further developing.
Strike 3 Your Out! This cite again restates that you can use methotrexate to procure an abortion. It also states it can be used to treat ectopic pregnancies. It does NOT go into the detail of those protocols and does not state anywhere that it is medically necessary to give a living child (ectopic or not) methotrexate.

So now, dear friend, refer back to and read that passage before the the big red arrow:
>If unruptured tubal prgnancies are

Did you actually read and process this sentence ?
"Methotrexate stops the rapidly growing [that is : living] embryonic and placental cells of early pregnancy from further developing [killing them]."
I already gave you the detail, it hampers folic acid metabolism

Methotrexate Medical Abortion: The Facts

Methotrexate inhibits dihydrofolic acid reductase. Dihydrofolates must be reduced to tetrahydrofolates by this enzyme before they can be utilized as carriers of one-carbon groups in the synthesis of purine nucleotides and thymidylate. Therefore, Methotrexate interferes with DNA synthesis, repair, and cellular replication.

It prevents the fetus from growing, leading to its death. Elective or not, biology and chemicals work the same. It's used to kill the fetus, that's why
A: they're checking to see if HCG levels actually go down, because they are a sign of fetus development. There'd be literally zero HCG in the case of a spontaneous abortion
B: they go for a surgical procedure in order to get rid of the fetus if methotrexate does not kill it
They wouldn't need surgery if the fetus stopped growing. The organism would get rid of it on its own. Dead things do not grow, you realize that right ?

You do realize not all of the placental/fetal tissues are completely dead post surgery/spontaneous abortion, right? The dosage of it post SA/Surgery is used to clear all of those remaining remnants of those said placental/fetal tissues.

Except they use ultrasound to monitor fetal heartbeat you dummy! It's the resounding line that shows you they wait for either the child to die naturally (in an unenlarged case) or debride with emergency surgery and then flush out all remaining tissues with MTX again.