Abortion

[JesusFreak4545]

<SPAN class=ip-normal-font>Why are there so many people that are like "Im so against abortion" and then when someone puts a tough case to them, they change their tune to "OH well.....yeah...i might have an abortion then..." I don't think its far to say that you would never kill a baby if it was made under "GOOD/RIGHT" curcumstances, but kill the baby if it is made under "BAD/WRONG" conditions. Isn't a baby still a baby no matter how it is made?
</SPAN>

 

[ZiSunka]

Yes.

 

[Kristine]

You're 100% right.&nbsp; Hardship doesn't justify homicide.

To those who would agree with abortion for certain circumstances (rape, financial problems, potential abuse), simply ask yourself: would you think it was ok for someone to kill a toddler because
- she was conceived violently or reminded her mother of something awful
- her parents lost their job and she was too expensive to keep
- she might become a victim of abuse in a couple of years

If you wouldn't, then neither should you support the killing of the unborn for those reasons.

The ultimate question as far as abortion is concerned is: "What is the unborn?"

Kristine

 

[shout2thelord]

I think the hardest decision to make would be if you were to have the baby it would kill you or you and the baby.

Someone i know had a friend that would have died if she had had her baby but she wouldnt have an abortion but miscarried naturally before the birth.

But i dont think that u should compromise what u beleive

 

[Kristine]

With modern medecine being the way it is, dying through pregnancy is almost next to impossible.

The only exception being tubal pregnancy, where the fetus implants in the fallopian tube and if she keeps growing, will cause the tube to errupt and the woman to die.

In this case, the child will certainly die.&nbsp; She's too young to be taken out of the womb and she will never reach viability before the tube errupts and kills her.&nbsp; She can't survive.&nbsp; But if she remains in the tube, the mother will die too.

But in that case, it is commonly agreed that it is better to perform life-saving surgery to save the mother (with the unfortunate result of ending the child's life, than to let the mother die for nothing along with the child, when she could have been saved.

In this case, it is better that one life be saved then that two be lost.

In all other cases, it would be best for a woman to attempt to keep the pregnancy going for as long as she can, to attempt to give the child maximum chance to reach the point of viability.

If the woman knows that a pregnancy would be a big risk to her health, she should consider getting her tubes cut or having a a hysterectomy done to avoid that risk altogether.

But of course the argument for life of mother, like I said is so small as to not even account for a full percent of the number of abortions in North America.&nbsp;&nbsp; And even before abortion was legal on demand, life-saving surgery was done, and will continue to be done even if the majority of convenience abortions are banned.&nbsp; If someone tries using this argument, you can let them know that, it&nbsp;is really not a valid one to argue for keeping abortion legal.

Kristine

 

[KeepTheFaith15]

your right girl. i dont like it when people try to put a worse case senerio in there, i mean the baby is a baby either way i human life your killing, i dont care how it was concieved, it still needs a chance at life. i think if i was in the predicument that shouttothelord was saying that i'd have the baby even if it were to kill me because i have lived the life that i could and the baby hasnt, i would want to give it a chance to live. im sorry this is just a big issue with me i have never agreed with it nor will i ever. im a suckerfor little kids. and babys....

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Animals die to protect their offspring. Are we any better than animals? Althoug Kristine has a point about tubular implantations.&nbsp; IF both are gonna die, why not save one?

 

[Kristine]

Here's an interesting article I found regarding the exception for the life of the mother.&nbsp; Barring the obvious case of tubal pregnancy where neither mother nor child can survive, Doctors all over are coming forward with the acknowledgement that with modern medecine, there is no known case of abortion being necessary to save the mother's life.&nbsp;

http://www.abortiontv.com/LifeOfMotherException.htm


You might also enjoy this short news story article, where a pregnancy actually&nbsp;helped a sick mother's stay alive:
http://www.abortiontv.com/UnbornBabyHelps.htm

(I know of another case where a woman had breast cancer, and the presence of the hormones of pregnancy actually helped slow the tumor's growth, to the point where she was able to wait until her child was born before begining chemo.)

Kristine

 

[shout2thelord]

I wasnt saying it was a valid reason but i dont think i could do anything to harm my baby if i was pregnant even if we would both die because i wouldnt be able to live with the guilt. And like i said the woman trusted in God and miscarried so she was ok in the end.

I dont know the circumstances surrounding the womans situation only that thats what the doctors had said to her. I dont have any medical knowlede so i wouldnt know.

just wanted to make were i stood clear

God bless

 

[DaveKerwin]

I believe abortion is wrong in EVERY circumstance. I am not one of the people you described.

www.abortionismurder.org

I am fully convinced that abortion is wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Kristine]

I believe abortion is wrong in EVERY circumstance

Even if the alternative is that BOTH will die (tubal preg)?&nbsp; How pro-life are you if you'd rather let two human beings bleed to death than to save one life with the unfortunate result of loosing one?

Just for the record, saving the mother's life in this case doesn't mean you don't believe that the fetus in the tube is a human being (of course it is), or that from there you'd take the next step and start to condone the killing of children for any or no reason (abortion on demand)

It's like if&nbsp;children&nbsp;were attached to a bomb that would go off in 10 minutes, killing both.&nbsp; You have the option of detaching one child from the bomb, with the unfortunate result that when you do, the bomb will defuse and immediately kill the other.&nbsp; If you choose to save one child's life does that mean you devalue the other or that you'll accept people shooting up daycare kids left right and center?

This situation is what philosophers call the "law of double effects".&nbsp; Where doing a good results in something bad.&nbsp; The rightness/wrongness of the act rests on&nbsp;your intentions.&nbsp; In the case of removing a tubal pregnancy, the intention is not to end a life (as with most abortions), but rather, to save one.

You want to do the highest moral good.&nbsp; No good comes if two lives are lost.&nbsp; as for letting yourself die along with your child because you couldn't live with the guilt, how's that much different from suicide if you let yourself die when God gave you the means to live?

Kristine

 

[Jenna]

I do not condone abortion being used for birth control under any circumstances. On the other hand, I don't think that it is any of my business to tell someone that they should die trying to give birth to a child.

I almost died giving birth to my son, and it was a horrible situation. It is real easy for someone who doesn't have problems with pregnancy to just say, well, just get a tubal or hysterectomy. It is a completely different situation for those of us who want children badly, and are waiting for medical technology to advance enough to give us a chance without endangering our lives. If you take birth control you get yelled at by those who say that oral contraceptives cause miscarriages. If you use a barrier system, then you have people screaming because it stops procreation which is "supposedly" the only reason for sex (rediculous). When ya don't think it can get any worse, let's have people saying "hey, let's take away the main symbol of your femininity by willingly giving up any chance to give your husband a child." People always want to make things a black and white issue, and it isn't.

I hate abortion, but I would never tell someone that they should die for the "pro-life" cause. Things go wrong, and when that small life cannot live(i.e.-missing or non-functioning organs)or is not even alive, I don't see the positive in causing a person added mental and spiritual torment by berrating them for the fact that they chose life, you know? There are women who will carry their children no matter what, including while cancer ravaged their bodies (example from "Chicken Soup for the Expectant Mother's Soul"). For some this is what saves their health, and that is an absolute miracle. I just don't think that it is anyone else's place but that mother's to make that kind of decision.

 

[Kristine]

When you say "it's no one's place but the mother to make that choice", I'm assuming you mean when her life is at stake, not in general, correct?

K

 

[Phoebe]

There is a higher mortality rate in third world countries. Not all have the health care that Americans and many Europeans have. So, in other places, childbirth could be more likely to end the life of the mother.
And, yes, a tubal pregnancy causes internal bleeding. (I had one)

 

[ZooMom]

I also had a tubal pregnancy rupture. I was already hemorrhaging by the time I got to the doctor and they figured out what was wrong with me. I had no idea that I was pregnant ( my third child was only 4 months old at the time), which is why I delayed seeking medical assistance when I started having abdominal pains.

All that being said, however, I am immovably against abortion in any circumstance. There is no justification for murdering the unborn. Ever.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Can't they move a tube fetus to the uterus?

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Can't they move a tube fetus to the uterus?

I do not believe so, at that point it is VERY small, but has passed the point where it can implant again.

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by Kristine
Even if the alternative is that BOTH will die (tubal preg)?&nbsp; How pro-life are you if you'd rather let two human beings bleed to death than to save one life with the unfortunate result of loosing one?

Just for the record, saving the mother's life in this case doesn't mean you don't believe that the fetus in the tube is a human being (of course it is), or that from there you'd take the next step and start to condone the killing of children for any or no reason (abortion on demand)

It's like if&nbsp;children&nbsp;were attached to a bomb that would go off in 10 minutes, killing both.&nbsp; You have the option of detaching one child from the bomb, with the unfortunate result that when you do, the bomb will defuse and immediately kill the other.&nbsp; If you choose to save one child's life does that mean you devalue the other or that you'll accept people shooting up daycare kids left right and center?

This situation is what philosophers call the "law of double effects".&nbsp; Where doing a good results in something bad.&nbsp; The rightness/wrongness of the act rests on&nbsp;your intentions.&nbsp; In the case of removing a tubal pregnancy, the intention is not to end a life (as with most abortions), but rather, to save one.

You want to do the highest moral good.&nbsp; No good comes if two lives are lost.&nbsp; as for letting yourself die along with your child because you couldn't live with the guilt, how's that much different from suicide if you let yourself die when God gave you the means to live?

Kristine

Yes, it is still wrong. Two women in this thread have reported near death, and are still alive. Abortion is wrong. There are obviously extremes where I would consider such an option, but I believe it would be an sin to do such a thing, which I am not comfortable even thinking about doing.

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Can't they move a tube fetus to the uterus?

My doctor told me unequivocally 'NO'. He said that even if my tube had still been intact, there would have been no possible way to 'make' it a normal pregnancy. Once the fetus implants, it can't be moved. It won't reattach.

Try this out for the 'both may die' scenario. (This is easier to picture for men.) You are laying flat on your stomach, arms hanging over the edge of a cliff. Your wife is clinging to one hand, your child to the other. You can't pull them both up. What are your choices?

A)Let go of the child. You would still have your wife, and you both can have more children.

B)Let go of your wife. Your child is an innocent, and you know that she would rather die than endanger him.

C)Hang on to both as long as your strength holds out and pray to the Lord for His Strength and Mercy. Everyone might not live through it, but you loved them both as hard as you could and you put your faith in God.

I pick 'C'. There's peace in that.

 

[DaveKerwin]

ZooMom, agreed.