Abortion, right or wrong?

[Amurphycat]

pretty idea


hmmm.....

 

[Lithium Hobo]

Though I do not like it, and even in my support for it I have had claims saying that I would kill a baby if I had the chance, it is a person's right to do as they will. Alot of people critize women for having abortions and killing the fetus, but they did not do it to kill the fetus, they did it because they knew they could not support the child. There are those who do it for the wrong reasons, but despite, it is still their right.

 

[wardpossy]

It Is Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GreyWolf]

Well, this is what I'll do. I'll post some information about abortion, and you can tell me whether you think it is wrong or not. Here are some quotes by abortion clinic workers and doctors who did abortions and therefore witness them firsthand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After an abortion, the doctor must inspect these remains to make sure that all the fetal parts and placenta have been removed. Any tissue left inside the uterus can start an infection. Dr. Bours squeezed the contents of the sock into a shallow dish and poked around with his finger. "You can see a teeny tiny hand' he said.

--abortion clinic worker quoted in "Is the Fetus Human?" and in Dudley Clendinen, "The Abortion Conflict: What it Does to One Doctor" New York Times Magazine Aug 11 1985 p 26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted in Melody Green and Sharon Bennett "The Crime of Being Alive: Abortion, Euthanasia, Infanticide" p 3

"Arms, legs, and chests come out of the forceps. It's not a sight for everybody"
--abortion provider Dr. William Benbow Thompson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the book "Abortion: Debating the Issue" (New York:Enslow Publishing, Inc., 1995) Nancy Day quotes abortionist Dr. Ed Jones, who had worked at a Planned Parenthood Clinic for 4 years at the time of the interview, saying the following:

"This can burn you out very, very quickly...not so much by the physical labor as the emotional part of what's going on. When you do an ultraound, particularly if you have children, and you see a fetus there, kicking, moving, living, doing things that your own child does, bringing it's thumb to its mouth, and things like that- it's difficult. Then, after the procedure, sometimes we have to actually look at the specimen, and you see arms and legs and things like that torn off...It does take an emotional toll."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I dismember the foetus - pull it apart limb from limb - and remove it piece by piece and two hours later I've forgotten them.”

– Prof. Phillip Bennett, Abortion provider Sunday Independent, 11/8/1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nobody wants to perform abortions after ten weeks, because by then you see the features of the baby, hands, feet. It's really barbaric."
--abortionist quoted in M.D. Doctors Talk About Themselves by John Pekkanen p 93
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In testimony Wednesday in St. Louis Circuit Court, [abortionist] Crist said that it is not uncommon for second-trimester fetuses to leave the womb feet-first, intact and with their hearts still beating. He sometimes crushes their skulls to get the fetuses out. Other times, he dismembers them."

Direct quote from author (Jo Mannies, "Abortion Doctor Gives Graphic testimony Describing Abortion Procedure," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 25, 2000.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No one, neither the patient receiving an abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at anytime, unaware that they are ending a life..."
--Abortion provider William F Harrison, MD, FACOG, from the essay "Why I Provide Abortions" 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can remember...the resident doctor sitting down, putting the tube in, and removing the contents. I saw the bloody material coming down the plastic tube, and it went into a big jar. My job afterwards was to go and undo the jar, and to see what was inside. I didn't have any views on abortion; I was in a training program, and this was a brand new experience. I was going to get to see a new procedure and learn. I opened the jar and took the little piece of stockingnette stocking and opened the little bag. The resident doctor said "Now put it on the blue towel and check it out. We want to see if we got it all.' I thought, "that'll be exciting-hands on experience looking at tissue.' I opened the sock up and put it on the towel, and there were parts of a person in there. I had taken anatomy, I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was a little scapula and an arm, I saw some ribs and a chest, and a little tiny head. I saw a piece of a a leg, and a tiny hand and an arm, and you know, it was like somebody put a hot poker into me. I had a conscience, and it hurt. Well, I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one head and so forth, and I turned and said "I guess you got it all.' That was a very hard experience to go through emotionally."
----Dr. David Brewer

'Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet" by David Kuperlain and Mark Masters in Oct "New Dimensions" magazine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I got to where I couldn't stand to look at the little bodies anymore"
--Dr. Beverly McMillan, when asked why she stopped performing abortions.

"I have been there, and I have seen these totally formed babies as early as ten weeks... with the leg missing, or with their head off. I have seen the little rib cages..."
--Debra Harry

"We all wish it were formless, but its not...and its painful. There is a lot of emotional pain."
--abortion clinic worker

Quoted in "The Ex Abortionists: They Have Confronted Reality" Washington Post April 1, 1988 p a 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wanted to be the world's best abortionist, for the good of my patients. If I was going to do this, I was going to do it right. So, after I met each patient, reviewed the medical information gathered by my nurse, examined the patient and performed the abortion, I would then carefully sift through the remains to be sure all the parts were accounted for. I had to find four extremities (two arms and two legs) a spine, a skull, and the placenta, or my patient would suffer later from an incomplete abortion...My attention was so focused on my perceived patient that I managed to deny that there were, in fact, two patients involved- the expectant mother and a very small child...I had to wonder, how can having a child be so wrong for some people that they will pay me to end its life?"
--former abortionist Dr. McMillan "How One Doctor Changed Her Mind About Abortion" Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I walked in the laboratory every day. I saw dead babies every day for three years. If I could see fifty, I was so happy. Because, you know what? That meant I was really gonna have a good bonus in my paycheck."
---Clinic worker Hellen Pendley. Quoted by Mary Meeham in "The Ex-Abortionists: Why They Quit" in The Human Life Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tearing a developed fetus apart, limb by limb, is an act of depravity that society should not permit. We cannot afford such a devaluation of human life, nor the desensitization of medical personnel it requires."
--George Flesh, "Why I No Longer Do Abortions" Los Angeles Times, September 12, 1991: B7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In "Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front Line" by Sue Hertz (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991)the author documents what she saw in and at one busy abortion clinic. Here are some excerpts.

"It was easy to shrug off an aborted pregnancy as nothing more than a sack of blood and globs of tissue - as many pro-choice activists did- if one never saw fetal remains, or products of conception (POC) as they were known in medical circles. But the nurses, medical assistants, and doctors who worked inside procedure rooms ...knew that an eleven week old POC harbored tiny arms and legs and feet with toes. At twelve weeks, those tiny hands had tiny nails. Althouth the fetal head was too small at this stage to withstand the evacuation machine's suction, pieces of face- a nose and mouth, or a black eye...were sometimes found in the aftermath...Later abortions spawned even more grusome fetal remains...the head did not come out whole during the evacuation, but the legs and arms and rib cage made it through intact. The hand of a second trimester fetus, as a Preterm doctor described it, seemed big enough to shake."

"The counselor/medical assistants (CMAs) met regularly to discuss their feelings about their work...Inside a procedure room, facing the contents of the uterus, there was no denying what abortion was." "During the procedure, Doris [Merrill] would offer her hand for the patient to squeeze, or if the abortion were particularly painful, a notepad for the patient to bite...Doris knew what [the doctor] was doing at the end of the examination table as he pored over the legs and ribs and hands, but she chose not to look. It wasn't that Doris ignored the truth, but rather that her commitment was to the woman, not the fetus..."

"...[the doctor] removed from the glass jar cheesecloth sack which caught the fetal parts, dumping the parts into a basin at the end of the table, between [the patient's]feet. Two legs, two arms, two fists, a skull, a backbone, a placenta. "We've got it" he announced."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Abortion at Work: Ideology and Practice in a Feminist Clinic" by Wendy Simonds. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1996 :

"It's just- I mean it looks like a baby. It looks like a baby. And especially if you get one that comes out, that's not piecemeal. And you know, I saw this one, and it had its fingers in its mouth...it makes me really sad that that had to happen, you know, but it doesn't change my mind. It's just hard. And it makes me just sort of stop and feel sad about it, the whole necessity of it. And also....it's very warm when it comes into the sterile room because it's been in the mother's stomach. It feels like flesh, you know..."

"It's going to be weird now because you're going to see the sono. You're going to see the heart beating- little hearts, you know- and then, all of a sudden, you're going to put his cardiac medicine in it to make it stop- to kill it. So you're going to see the exact moment when you kill the fetus. I won't kill it, the doctor will kill it...and, I mean, it might be more humane...[if] the fetuses do feel something, why not kill it, you know, fast, [rather] than rip its leg off?"

"At nine weeks...you start seeing fetal parts. And by the second trimester it's, you know, it's a baby, and by eighteen weeks it's definitely a baby. And by like, you know, twenty-two weeks, you go in and you watch someone do a sonogram, and you're like, "Oh my." There it is just moving, moving around. And it's really hard because I always thought of abortion in terms of just the woman, just her body."

"You're looking between the woman's legs; you're seeing, you know, what the doctor's doing. And it's what a lot of people would call kind of, I guess, gruesome- that's not really the word because- it's identifiable. I mean, when he...takes the forceps and pulls out a foot, you can see the foot, and my reaction- because I feel so strongly that women who want to have a twenty week abortion should be able to have that- but I mean when I look and was just like, you know, my first reaction was, you know, I was pretty horrified."

"So by it looking like a baby, you're associating it with yourself because...you used to be a baby, you used to be a fetus."

"...when you're, you know, putting a fetus's feet in over its head in a baggie, there's just this brief moment of "This could have been me," which I fundamentally believe is okay. She should have the right to choose..."

"...it looks like a baby, That's what it looks like to me. You've never seen anything else that looks like that. The only other thing you've ever seen is a baby...You can see a face and hands, and ears and eyes and, you know...feet and toes...It bothered me real bad the first time..."

"I think the tough part was seeing actual pieces of fetus being removed..And in the beginning, yes, I remember looking, standing behind this woman's shoulder [as she performed an abortion] and thinking, "I can't do this...There's something emotionally upsetting about this..Features are discernible; you can count five fingers on a hand and five toes on a foot. You know, all the organ systems are formed. You know, you can see ears as structures, and the nose and eyes as structures...I have gotten to the point now that because I've been doing this work five months, four months, I look at it a little differently. I don't see the same things that I did. And, honestly, when I sit down to do one of these now, I am watching to be sure that I'm getting everything that I need to get. It's 'Do I have two lower extremities? Do I have two upper extremities? Is t here a spine? ...and the skull?...It does become a bit routine after a while. I don't fear it."

"I hate it when people put it together to look like a baby. I hate that...I don't want to look like it when its like that because it's like a broken doll, and that grosses me out."

From the author: "Many health workers told me they 'never look at the face' when processing tissue."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular....she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby...All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That's not fluid currents. That's obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that's to all intents and purposes, the death trauma. ..somebody has to do it, and unfortunately we are the executioners in this instance..."

--abortionist Dr.Szenes
From Magda Denes. "Performing Abortions." Commentary Magazine, October 1976, pages 33 to 37:

To really see what abortion is like, check out http://clinicquotes.topcities.com/abortedpics/AbortionPictures.html

 

[dhiannian]

What do ya'll think of abortion? Is it Biblically moral?

I say un-biblical all the way, I know this is like an old fashion view now, but
I still feel that way.
Even if the child is the result of a rape, I don't see any reason for killing them.
I can't count the amount of times I've seen couples unable to have kids, and wanting so badly to adopt one.
No one can tell me everyone of those aborted babies doesn't have a potential home, seriously.
I've also visited some pregnancy sites online and when the egg is fertilized it says a life begins.
A life is a life to me..

 

[:æ:]

One note, making blanket statements is never (haha) a good idea.

Actually a murderer it there is the POTENTIAL for rehabilitation, is given the right to remain living. 15 year olds who have the POTENTIAL for gaining a driver's license, will be given a permit. There are thousands of Potentials that get rewards. As I said, blanket statements are usually wrong.

You are terribly confused. Murderers are not "given the right to remain living" based on their potential for rehabilitation and 15-year olds are granted permits, not licenses based on the REALITY of their 15 years of age.

Why you think these example contradict my completely accurate claim is utterly beyond me.

 

[:æ:]

and a newborn infant is completely reliant on the mother and father, I guess infants aren't really people either.

A newborn is NOT completely reliant on the mother, as you claim.

Without someone to feed the baby, the baby is not autonomous as you put it.

That "someone" need not be the mother.

Are you telling me that when someone murders another person and ends up in jail, that they are enslaved against their consent (they are) and that we shouldn't have the right to do that.

Not at all. Murderers have violated the law. Mothers have not.

Think about this, if I ever found a woman, who chose abortion because she honestly had NO CLUE that sex leads to pregnancy, then I wouldn't hold it against her. But women who CHOOSE the circumstances that lead to this "slavery" then choose the consequences of their own actions.

Again, ridiculous. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is not even a highly probable outcome of sex.

 

[Katydid]

Pregnancy is not even a highly probable outcome of sex.

OK, but as I recall, there was only ONE virgin who EVER got pregnant.

Not at all. Murderers have violated the law. Mothers have not.

Mothers VOLUNTARILY have sex, and as I already stated, that is the ONLY (natural) way to get pregnant.

That "someone" need not be the mother.

That does not change the point that an infant will die without SOMEONE to care for it, therefore they are not completely "autonomous" I believe was your word for it.

Why you think these example contradict my completely accurate claim is utterly beyond me.

Why do you seem to take one point out of a comment and base an argument off of it, rather than reading the whole comment and seeing the point? OK well I will say it again...

BLANKET statements are BAD. They are rarely correct. There are many things that are only POTENTIAL happenings but are rewarded. You don't like my examples, think of this one. A juvenile, with a juvenile record gets released from a detention center at 21, his record sealed. He has been rewarded for the POTENTIAL to live a good and honest life. Of course you will find a hole in that one as well, but my basic statement that Blanket statements should not be used still stands.

 

[AngelusSax]

A newborn is NOT completely reliant on the mother, as you claim.

Yeah, because so many babies survive after being discarded by their parents. What's the success rate of a baby fending for itself and living very long at all again?

 

[Adam81]

I hate to go off topic, but AngelusSax, I love your avatar!

This thread has slightly changed my opinion - there are some cases where an abortion is necessary, but they have to be looked at on a case by case basis.
One example was brought up (It actually happened, it is earlier on in this thread) where a woman's fetus died in the womb, and if an abortion wasn't carried out, then the mother had little chance of surviving.
This is why blanket statements are wrong, because I think not allowing that woman to have an abortion is biblically immoral.
But in most cases, I think it is better not to have an abortion. In cases of rape, actually giving birth and putting the child up for adoption (or mothering the baby) would go a long way to helping the healing process. But in the case of unwanted babies, or when it's just a comestical choice, I think it is definitely wrong. As has been mentioned by quite a few people in this thread, many couples cannot have babies and dearly want one, so adoption is there only choice. It is very hard to adopt in any country, all you need to do is to ask someone who has adopted, or tried to adopt to find out how hard it is.

 

[:æ:]

OK, but as I recall, there was only ONE virgin who EVER got pregnant.

So what? Everyone who has ever been in a car wreck has been in a car. Does that mean that getting into a car is the same thing as consenting to having an accident?

Mothers VOLUNTARILY have sex, and as I already stated, that is the ONLY (natural) way to get pregnant.

Which natural law does artificial insemination violate?

That does not change the point that an infant will die without SOMEONE to care for it, therefore they are not completely "autonomous" I believe was your word for it.

You simply don't understand what the meaning of "autonomous" is. A born child excretes for itself into poopy diapers, not into the mother's blood stream through the placenta. A born baby breathes with its own lungs instead of taking oxygen from the mothers blood. No person, born or not, has the right to occupy another persons body, forcefully extract nutrients from their blood, and forcefully inject hormones and waste into them.

BLANKET statements are BAD. They are rarely correct.

That's just a bunch of baloney. I can formulate literally endless blanket statements that are absolutely true without any exception.

A juvenile, with a juvenile record gets released from a detention center at 21, his record sealed. He has been rewarded for the POTENTIAL to live a good and honest life.

That's even more false than your previous claim. Juvenile records are sealed upon turning 21 because the person IS NOW AND ADULT AND NOT A JUVENILE. It is the present reality that earns him those rights, not any type of potential reality.

Of course you will find a hole in that one as well, but my basic statement that Blanket statements should not be used still stands.

I don't think you made a single true claim in your entire post. None that weren't trivial, at least.

:æ:

 

[:æ:]

Yeah, because so many babies survive after being discarded by their parents. What's the success rate of a baby fending for itself and living very long at all again?

Come back when you're finished burning that strawman.

:æ:

 

[indra_fanatic]

Abortion is often focused upon by evangelical Christians, but it is only one of many fruits of a hedonistic, material-based culture. The person who has an abortion or encourages/facilitates his partner having one does not want to be inconvenienced in any way, just like the infertile person who insists on IVF, paying some poor woman to be a surrogate womb, etc does not want to accept that just maybe parenthood is not going to be an option in his/her life.

In any event, the whole situation sucks. The whole idea of being a human being is to have some control over your sexuality, unlike some animal in its estrus cycle. Every one of us is capable of planning out a contraceptive regime before we become sexually active.

 

[Katydid]

Which natural law does artificial insemination violate?

This is what I'm talking about, I didn't say anything about violating a natural law. You take ONE word out of my sentence and twist it to make a debate out of it. Anyway, that aspect doesn't matter considering if someone is artificially inseminated, they aren't going to run out to kill the baby.

That's just a bunch of baloney. I can formulate literally endless blanket statements that are absolutely true without any exception.

So that makes you smarter than any science teacher, or debate coach that I have ever met, congratulations.

I don't think you made a single true claim in your entire post. None that weren't trivial, at least.

I don't think you are worth debating.

 

[:æ:]

This is what I'm talking about, I didn't say anything about violating a natural law.

Yes you did. You claimed that sex was the only natural way to get pregnant. This implies a claim that artificial insemination is not natural. In order for that to be true, it would have to violate a natural law. So, I asked you to substantiate your claim. Notice that you did not.

<snip>

So that makes you smarter than any science teacher, or debate coach that I have ever met, congratulations.

If those persons claimed what you have claimed, they are equally as wrong as you are.

I don't think you are worth debating.

If I had to try to substantiate claims as ridiculuous as those you've posted, I'd feel that debating wouldn't be worth it, too.

By the way, why didn't you respond to these statements of mine?:

You simply don't understand what the meaning of "autonomous" is. A born child excretes for itself into poopy diapers, not into the mother's blood stream through the placenta. A born baby breathes with its own lungs instead of taking oxygen from the mothers blood. No person, born or not, has the right to occupy another persons body, forcefully extract nutrients from their blood, and forcefully inject hormones and waste into them.

Hmmm?

:æ:

 

[Katydid]

By the way, why didn't you respond to these statements of mine?:

I will answer this one question and be done with it.


I am finding that debating you is useless. Not that you are that good at debating, you are just that good at misdirection. You should go into politics. You have once again managed to twist things to your advantage, implying that what I am saying is not what I am saying. For instance, I don't care two tinkers whether artificial insemination is natural or not. That is not what the context implied that I was arguing. I was arguing that a woman who has sex and ends up pregnant is reaping the natural results of her actions. A woman who is artificially inseminated is not likely to take thousands of dollars and years of treatments to an abortion clinic and throw it away, so they are not part of this argument. But, you will find some sentence even in this to tear apart. Some people just aren't worth debating. Namely those that feel they are the end all, be all of knowledge on that subject, no matter how deluded they really are. So you go on and feel as if you know everything, personally, I would rather allow you to feel that way, then to continuously try and correct you. So have fun tearing apart someone elses sentences and posts, and after you have run every one off this thread because of your nit picky attacks on one word or another, then you can have the satisfaction of believing that you have won the debate, when in all honesty, people have just grown weary of listening to it.

OK I will probably get into trouble with this post, but you did ask why I didn't fully respond, well, I was treating you in kind. Though in actuality, the reason I didn't respond is that I am growing tired of arguing with people who believe they have all the answers and noone else could possibly have information that they don't have.


au·ton·o·mous
Pronunciation: o-'tä-n&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek autonomos independent, from aut- + nomos law -- more at [size=-1]NIMBLE[/size]
1 : of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
2 a : having the right or power of self-government b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : [size=-1]SELF-CONTAINED[/size] <an autonomous school system>
3 a : existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid> b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth>
4 : controlled by the autonomic nervous system
synonym see [size=-1]FREE[/size]
- au·ton·o·mous·ly adverb



Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3 : a self-governing state



Your definition of autonomy is number 4.

Mine is 1,2,and 3. Which according to Webster is correct.

 

[:æ:]

I am finding that debating you is useless.

Translation: :æ: doesn't buy Katydid's false fact-claims, and she cannot support them due to their falsity.

I was arguing that a woman who has sex and ends up pregnant is reaping the natural results of her actions.

You've committed the naturalist fallacy, and furthermore, the point remains that consent to sex is not consent to get and remain pregnant. You haven't even touched that one, either.

A woman who is artificially inseminated is not likely to take thousands of dollars and years of treatments to an abortion clinic and throw it away, so they are not part of this argument. But, you will find some sentence even in this to tear apart.

Your claim was false. Period. I was simply showing you that it was.

Some people just aren't worth debating. Namely those that feel they are the end all, be all of knowledge on that subject, no matter how deluded they really are. So you go on and feel as if you know everything, personally, I would rather allow you to feel that way, then to continuously try and correct you. So have fun tearing apart someone elses sentences and posts, and after you have run every one off this thread because of your nit picky attacks on one word or another, then you can have the satisfaction of believing that you have won the debate, when in all honesty, people have just grown weary of listening to it.

Y'know, this wouldn't have to be difficult if you would just acknowledge the realities that contradict your claims.

OK I will probably get into trouble with this post, but you did ask why I didn't fully respond, well, I was treating you in kind. Though in actuality, the reason I didn't respond is that I am growing tired of arguing with people who believe they have all the answers and noone else could possibly have information that they don't have.

I don't believe that. I simply know that your claims are wrong.

<snip>

Your definition of autonomy is number 4.

Mine is 1,2,and 3. Which according to Webster is correct.

This is yet another sophomoric fallacy. I described for you what I meant by autonomous, and your only rebuttal is that my precise definition is found below yours in the dictionary. Well, unfortunately for your argument, Webster is not the final authority on the meaings of words. Dictionaries do not define words, they record their usage, and when several usages exist, none is "more correct" than another.

If you would like to acutally engage my point, you'll need to confront the meaning I provided. Stating that what I mean when I describe born babies as "metabolically autonomous" is not what YOU mean when you use the word "autonomous" doesn't falsify my claim that babies are metabolically autonomous individuals in the significat sense that I described.

So after all of that loud noise on your part, you still haven't engaged the point. Way to go. Perhaps you should re-read your last post to me while looking in the mirror.

:æ:

 

[BillR]

What do ya'll think of abortion? Is it Biblically moral?

I don't believe in abortion its not Gods way.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I don't believe in abortion its not Gods way.

One third of all pregnancies self abort in the first trimester. Whose way is that?

 

[indra_fanatic]

One third of all pregnancies self abort in the first trimester. Whose way is that?

Chrysalis, I think that the point here is that an intentional act of terminating the life of a fetus differs from that which is spontaneous and unexpected, but I will say that you have a certain point here that not many Christians have considered.

If a woman has a condition that she and her doctor knows is overwhelmingly likely to produce a miscarriage rather than a to-term pregnancy, is she at fault for trying to get pregnant? Could God hold her liable for this loss of life?

I mean this seriously, folks. I want to hear some responses. BB