Medical reasons to abort a pregnancy

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I made it clear my situation is not black and white, but on a patient basis.

And other posts that followed showed that the premise as stated goes against modern science and was skewed to push the abortion view. Multiple studies show Chemotherapy is fairly safe for the child past the first trimester and delay until then does not impact the mother's survival. And you said it was not black and white but basically presented it as if it was. The phrase you used... "no brainer" comes to mind.

So the base premise, though common from the Pro-Choice side, is faulty. Studies seem to show it is actually more dangerous for the doctors and nurses who might be pregnant working with the drugs. And that is avoidable.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,710
1,384
63
Michigan
✟236,715.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I am not pro-murder. I am pro-choice. There is a difference.
This is a pernicious bit of sophistry. There is no such thing as raw choice. Choices have objects: one chooses to eat, one chooses to sing, one chooses to rape, one chooses to murder. No one ever has a right to choose to rape or murder.

Pro-murder is encouraging or recomminding abortions to expecting mothers.
To want abortion, the murder of innocent babies, to be legal is also to be pro-murder.

Pro-choice is preferring to let the mother and doctor have the option if at some point there is a legitimate reason to abort the pregnancy.
There is no legitimate reason to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

carp614

Active Member
Apr 21, 2016
321
329
47
Home
✟29,620.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a false argument. You're constructing a scenario so specific that it only allows for a single "reasonable" answer. It implies that any other answer than the one you are leading to is unreasonable, therefore anyone arguing an alternative is being unreasonable. That is a classic red herring.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
It may be faulty for one class of drugs or disease treatment, but not all of them. Babies are still born with tumors and other life-threatening problems depending on what treatment the mother had to take with an embryo inside her. Biotechnology will never be perfect. The problems certainly are rarer now, but nothing goes away completely without divine intervention. So both the mother and baby need the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Murder is a legal term
How does "premeditated termination of human life" sound? Regardless of any laws of mankind, I think that truly captures what happens in the vast majority of procured abortions.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Now I understand the pro-life view better than when people got into heated arguments started by pro-life members. It was very hard when threads got off topic. I hope nobody is mad at me.

I'm not mad at you. I disagree with you but that is different.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I believe the thread addresses the moral positions?

But taht isn''t what I said in my reply to you. What I said was very clear.

However, I gather you would be just as supporting for human life in the womb if their legal status changed to being legal or constitutional persons with full protection of the law?

I would support the law. However, I don't think the 14th Amendment is going to be repealed.
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What's illogical about a mother needing to choose between saving her own life or the baby's life? I gave a clear example of that.
Sorry, I thought you were just speaking about a situation where the mom is and would be fine but the doctors believe the baby will die after birth. I was wondering what kind of situation would entail that. My bad, I must have been confused.
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I made it clear my situation is not black and white, but on a patient basis.
Out of interest, is "pro-choice" not defined by the idea of "free and easily available abortions everywhere"? If so, it doesn't seem to me that "pro-choice" makes space for a patient-by-patient basis.

Often I do think a lot of (liberal) politics tries to make exceptions the rule when exceptions should literally just be the exception.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I would support the law. However, I don't think the 14th Amendment is going to be repealed.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to end slavery. The Supreme Court used it to legalize abortion in the 1970s because there is a difference between human cells in a woman's body and a person. Everybody loves that part of the U.S. Constitution, no matter how they feel about the Roe vs. Wade ruling.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Sorry, I thought you were just speaking about a situation where the mom is and would be fine but the doctors believe the baby will die after birth. I was wondering what kind of situation would entail that. My bad, I must have been confused.

There are recessive genetic conditions that kill infants shortly after birth even though the parents weren't symptomatic.
 
Upvote 0

StillGods

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
1,506
2,640
North Island
✟291,058.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A mother should always give up her life for her unborn child.
The unborn child life is more important than the mothers. The mother should as the grown up automatically give up her life if it means the child will survive.

It is what Jesus did so we could live.


John 15.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Out of interest, is "pro-choice" not defined by the idea of "free and easily available abortions everywhere"? If so, it doesn't seem to me that "pro-choice" makes space for a patient-by-patient basis.

Often I do think a lot of (liberal) politics tries to make exceptions the rule when exceptions should literally just be the exception.

Pro-choice is literally just that - giving patients the right to choose what they do with their unborn babies. It does not mean there should be no limitations on where expecting mothers can get abortions or that the procedures should cost them nothing. Nor does it mean there should be no restrictions on when a woman can have an abortion. She can choose to have it done up to a certain week, at this location, and it's still a pro-choice law.
 
Upvote 0