Justifying Abortion

[Tree of Life]

We just heard a good deal of interesting rhetoric in the third presidential debate last night. Clinton's main line of argument was that she did not believe that the government should make the difficult decision of terminating a pregnancy, but that this decision should be in the hands of women and their families.

Part of this line of argument is that there can be some pretty disturbing and perplexing medical cases that pregnant women face:

There are situations wherein the child/fetus has some disease that makes it so that the child will be born, suffer agony for a few hours or days, and then die. Perhaps women and families should have the option to terminate a pregnancy to spare the child and family from this pain.

Furthermore there are cases wherein the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother - sometimes to a certainty. If the mother carries the child to term she will likely die. Perhaps women and families should have the freedom to terminate such a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother.

Admittedly, these situations are tragic and morally perplexing. But they are extreme and incredibly rare. They don't even represent 1% of abortions performed. Pro-Choice folks use these extreme situations in order to justify the vast majority of abortions which have nothing to do with saving the life of the mother or sparing a terminally ill fetus from agonizing pain.

For this reason I believe that these situations ought not be considered when debating the legality or moral permissibility of abortion. These cases are so extreme and so rare that they ought to be dealt with separately. Conclusions we make in these cases should have no bearing on conclusions made about the vast majority of abortions. And so these cases should not be used to defend abortion wholesale.

 

[smithed64]

We just heard a good deal of interesting rhetoric in the third presidential debate last night. Clinton's main line of argument was that she did not believe that the government should make the difficult decision of terminating a pregnancy, but that this decision should be in the hands of women and their families.

Part of this line of argument is that there can be some pretty disturbing and perplexing medical cases that pregnant women face:

There are situations wherein the child/fetus has some disease that makes it so that the child will be born, suffer agony for a few hours or days, and then die. Perhaps women and families should have the option to terminate a pregnancy to spare the child and family from this pain.

Furthermore there are cases wherein the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother - sometimes to a certainty. If the mother carries the child to term she will likely die. Perhaps women and families should have the freedom to terminate such a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother.

Admittedly, these situations are tragic and morally perplexing. But they are extreme and incredibly rare. They don't even represent 1% of abortions performed. Pro-Choice folks use these extreme situations in order to justify the vast majority of abortions which have nothing to do with saving the life of the mother or sparing a terminally ill fetus from agonizing pain.

For this reason I believe that these situations ought not be considered when debating the legality or moral permissibility of abortion. These cases are so extreme and so rare that they ought to be dealt with separately. Conclusions we make in these cases should have no bearing on conclusions made about the vast majority of abortions. And so these cases should not be used to defend abortion wholesale.

I'm totally pro-life. It's a child at conception type of dude. I do agree that there are that very small amount 1%, but as in a the case of the child (fetus is still a child, just not fully developed, it's human fetus), yes, there are those very rare instances where a child may be sick in the womb. Be born and then die in a few hours to a day away....it's been proven that having the child and letting the family be with that child, even holding that child using the Kangaroo method (where a sick infant is held to a mother or fathers chest, and the vitals of the child get better). That child may still live. That's up to God, not us. He's the bringer of life and the taker. In any case that child and the family will have the strength to make it through no matter the ending. Oh, yeah, it will be hard if the child dies...it's hard for any child to die. But letting it live from the womb, at least gives the child the chance to survive. There is no excuse for any type of abortion.
As far as I know, because I know, I don't know everything. There is only one extremely deathly instance where child will die and possibly could take the mother. Ectopic Pregnancy or (tubular pregnancy). The chances for an child to survive this is about 1%. And it can cause hemorrhaging with the mother and take her. Doctors will do everything in their power to save both the child and mother. Remember "Do no Harm". If the child dies, which is more than likely to happen, then they did their best and God took that child home. And if caught in time, the mother can get pregnant again and have a normal birthing.

There is a question I always ask, when it comes to this hot topic.

"What is it?"

I also ask people to finish this sentence.

"It's okay to kill a child when......."

 

[Tinker Grey]

"What is it?"

It's a fetus.

"It's okay to kill a child when......."

... it's a fetus.

 

[essentialsaltes]

For this reason I believe that these situations ought not be considered when debating the legality or moral permissibility of abortion. These cases are so extreme and so rare that they ought to be dealt with separately. Conclusions we make in these cases should have no bearing on conclusions made about the vast majority of abortions. And so these cases should not be used to defend abortion wholesale.

For the most part, they are considered separately. This came up in the discussion of third trimester 'partial birth' abortions. They are rare, and pretty much only for these unusual circumstances. But that's what the question was about, and it was valid to bring up in that context.

The arguments in Roe v Wade and most of the pro-choice movement are separate, and generally relate to the first two trimesters.

 

[quatona]

I'm totally pro-life. It's a child at conception type of dude. I do agree that there are that very small amount 1%, but as in a the case of the child (fetus is still a child, just not fully developed, it's human fetus), yes, there are those very rare instances where a child may be sick in the womb. Be born and then die in a few hours to a day away....it's been proven that having the child and letting the family be with that child, even holding that child using the Kangaroo method (where a sick infant is held to a mother or fathers chest, and the vitals of the child get better). That child may still live. That's up to God, not us. He's the bringer of life and the taker. In any case that child and the family will have the strength to make it through no matter the ending. Oh, yeah, it will be hard if the child dies...it's hard for any child to die. But letting it live from the womb, at least gives the child the chance to survive. There is no excuse for any type of abortion.
As far as I know, because I know, I don't know everything. There is only one extremely deathly instance where child will die and possibly could take the mother. Ectopic Pregnancy or (tubular pregnancy). The chances for an child to survive this is about 1%. And it can cause hemorrhaging with the mother and take her. Doctors will do everything in their power to save both the child and mother. Remember "Do no Harm". If the child dies, which is more than likely to happen, then they did their best and God took that child home. And if caught in time, the mother can get pregnant again and have a normal birthing.

There is a question I always ask, when it comes to this hot topic.

"What is it?"

I also ask people to finish this sentence.

"It's okay to kill a child when......."

"...God does it."?

 

[Tull]

America will be destroyed with abortion firmly in place and will be but one of the reasons for our destruction among many others.

 

[essentialsaltes]

America will be destroyed with abortion firmly in place and will be but one of the reasons for our destruction among many others.

I rather doubt that. Abortion was perfectly legal at the time of the founders, and America survived just fine then.

 

[Tull]

I rather doubt that. Abortion was perfectly legal at the time of the founders, and America survived just fine then.

The typical arrogant American response...it can't happen here,which makes it all the more likely,abortions in the 1700s....yeah I'm sure they all went well lol

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's not that it can't happen here, but that it didn't happen here.

You seem to be suggesting that legal abortion leads to destruction.
It hasn't historically.
And it hasn't in the past 40 years.
So your prediction seems pretty hollow.

 

[Skavau]

America will be destroyed with abortion firmly in place and will be but one of the reasons for our destruction among many others.

How would abortion cause the destruction of a society?

 

[smithed64]

It's a fetus.

... it's a fetus.

What kind of fetus?

And for what reason?

 

[smithed64]

"...God does it."?

God does a lot of things. Exactly what are you asking?

 

[Tull]

It's not that it can't happen here, but that it didn't happen here.

You seem to be suggesting that legal abortion leads to destruction.
It hasn't historically.
And it hasn't in the past 40 years.
So your prediction seems pretty hollow.

I said it was one of many reasons,America has been around for about 240 years the average for an empire is about 200 so we are over due,we have an entirely different frame of reference so me trying to explain to you why I think destruction is our lot would be as pointless as you trying to explain me why you think it isn't so lets wait and see.

 

[Tull]

How would abortion cause the destruction of a society?

Tell me what you think survival of a society is based on.

 

[Skavau]

Tell me what you think survival of a society is based on.

Not the legalisation of abortion. You made the claim mate. You back up why abortion being legal will cause the destruction of society.

 

[Tree of Life]

How would abortion cause the destruction of a society?

If a nation persists in rebellion against Yahweh and especially if a nation oppresses and kills the most vulnerable and innocent then Yahweh will destroy that nation.

 

[Skavau]

If a nation persists in rebellion against Yahweh and especially if a nation oppresses and kills the most vulnerable and innocent then Yahweh will destroy that nation.

Lol

I'm pretty sure this threat is without precedent, so I can sleep at night.

 

[Skavau]

Reminder for some of the pro-lifers in this thread: Many of us objecting to your claims are atheists, so any appeal to Yahweh smiting a nation is, surprisingly, irrelevant. Argue on common ground.

 

[Tree of Life]

Reminder for some of the pro-lifers in this thread: Many of us objecting to your claims are atheists, so any appeal to Yahweh smiting a nation is, surprisingly, irrelevant. Argue on common ground.

It's not an argument. It's a prophetic word and a warning.

 

[Skavau]

It's not an argument. It's a prophetic word and a warning.

Well, it's clearly not an argument, but it's utterly worthless if you mean to convince atheists. That's my point.