Justifying Abortion

[Sistrin]

America once had both genocide and slavery down to an art form.

So did the Native Americans.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Don't like abortions? Don't have one.

Problem solved.

I think the problem is a little more complicated than that though. However, I do think that a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy may be necessary at times to save the life of the mother. But it can be a complicated and difficult situation.

 

[Moral Orel]

So did the Native Americans.

LOL You linked to a bunch of books about people enslaving Native Americans! Yep, we enslaved them too!

Some excerpts:

Scholars have long been interested in the existence of Native American slaves, particularly in the Southeast, but they have recently started thinking about the importance of Native American slavery less in terms of labor and more in light of trade, diplomacy, and subtle indigenous cultural considerations.

Deals primarily with the enslavement of African peoples, but considers the enslavement of indigenous peoples in several places from a comparative perspective.

Narrow geographic focus, but nonetheless a careful consideration of the different ways in which Native Americans were compelled to labor, including slavery.​

And one little smidget in your favor:

By the 19th century, many Native American peoples, most famously the Cherokees, embraced racial slavery and began to own African American slaves.​

By the 19th century America was America though, so it's still America having slavery down to an art form.

Just because it says, "Native American Slavery" doesn't mean it's about Native Americans owning slaves.

 

[blackribbon]

You forgot miscarriage which makes anything else you say irrelevant as you don't know this one simple fact.

I didn't forget miscarriage but that is a form of vaginal birth ... just the baby isn't alive or is born too early to be viable (which means able to live independent of the mother). There are only two ways for a pregnant body to get rid of a baby ... through the vaginal canal or to have the baby cut out of them surgically. My information stands correct.

 

[blackribbon]

I think the problem is a little more complicated than that though. However, I do think that a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy may be necessary at times to save the life of the mother. But it can be a complicated and difficult situation.

This is true...it is called a C-section. It is does not required killing the baby but rather is often used to save both the mother or the baby.

 

[blackribbon]

Can anyone give me an example of a medical condition that required an abortion to save the mother's life? I work on a unit that would care for such a diagnoses and can't come up with any other than ectopic pregnancy which isn't really an abortion because the pregnancy has zero chance of being viable. Normally an abortion (or D&C) involves the uterus. Every other maternal condition (like pre-eclampsia) I know can be resolved with a C-section of a live baby...that at least has a chance of surviving. If you don't want the baby, it can be given up for adoption.

What conditions require delivering a baby breech (except the head) and then scrambling their brains before finishing the delivery (partial birth abortion)...or require cutting a baby into pieces in uterine and then delivering the pieces vaginally...or in the case of early pregnancy, giving the mother very powerful medications that cause her to give birth very early in the pregnancy (powerful contractions and bleeding and pain and everything that goes with a normal delivery)? I am interested in reading up on any of these because I haven't encountered any...though I have cared for a few women with post elective abortion complications.

 

[jayem]

Can anyone give me an example of a medical condition that required an abortion to save the mother's life? I work on a unit that would care for such a diagnoses and can't come up with any other than ectopic pregnancy which isn't really an abortion because the pregnancy has zero chance of being viable. Normally an abortion (or D&C) involves the uterus. Every other maternal condition (like pre-eclampsia) I know can be resolved with a C-section of a live baby...that at least has a chance of surviving. If you don't want the baby, it can be given up for adoption.

I'm a health care provider. When I was a student on the OB rotation, we had a 16 year old primip, just over 20 weeks, who had full-blown eclampsia. I remember the case because it was so dramatic. She had the whole deal--systolic BPs well over 200, semi-comatose, seizures, massive proteinuria, creatinine and LFTs rising, and Hgb and platelets falling. Which you know are very bad signs. She was on maximal treatment--mag sulfate, IV BP and seizure meds, but wasn't responding. You know the only thing left was delivery. So she had a emergency C-section. But you also know that delivery at 20 weeks is basically an abortion. As I recall, the baby's Apgar was like 3 or 4. It was sent immediately to the NICU, but it died in a few hours. I rotated off the service, and I know she survived, but I don't know if she had any residual neurologic or kidney damage. But it was obvious that if this pregnancy wasn't terminated, she would have died.

Most cases of therapeutic abortion I've seen are necessitated by a serious medical problem arising during pregnancy. And they're always matters of medical judgement. I saw a woman about 6 weeks pregnant diagnosed with a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. No oncologist would give her radiation or chemo at that stage. She could have waited 6 months or so until the baby could be safely delivered, but that might ruin her chance of remission. She already had young children. Delaying treatment to have this baby could leave her whole family without a mother. She and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy and begin therapy immediately. These are very hard choices, and some women might decide differently. But the important point is that such decisions can only be made by the woman, her family, and her doctors. State laws absolutely cannot interfere.

What conditions require delivering a baby breech (except the head) and then scrambling their brains before finishing the delivery (partial birth abortion)...

I was on my hospital's Ethics Committee for several years. One of the high-risk OBs gave us a presentation on Intact D & X. It's never done after 20 weeks. There must be evidence of severe fetal abnormalities incompatible with viability. There are maternal health factors that make other methods of termination riskier. And, it's desired that the fetus be preserved in as complete a state as possible. (Hence the term "intact" D & X.) This is so that the specific fetal pathology can be determined which will allow more accurate genetic counseling for the parents. It's a very rare situation when all these criteria are met. My hospital was a teaching facility affiliated with a medical school, and had many referrals for uncommon high-risk OB problems. And even then, they did the procedure only a few times a year.

 

[blackribbon]

I'm a health care provider. When I was a student on the OB rotation, we had a 16 year old primip, just over 20 weeks, who had full-blown eclampsia. I remember the case because it was so dramatic. She had the whole deal--systolic BPs well over 200, semi-comatose, seizures, massive proteinuria, creatinine and LFTs rising, and Hgb and platelets falling. Which you know are very bad signs. She was on maximal treatment--mag sulfate, IV BP and seizure meds, but wasn't responding. You know the only thing left was delivery. So she had a emergency C-section. But you also know that delivery at 20 weeks is basically an abortion. As I recall, the baby's Apgar was like 3 or 4. It was sent immediately to the NICU, but it died in a few hours. I rotated off the service, and I know she survived, but I don't know if she had any residual neurologic or kidney damage. But it was obvious that if this pregnancy wasn't terminated, she would have died.

Most cases of therapeutic abortion I've seen are necessitated by a serious medical problem arising during pregnancy. And they're always matters of medical judgement. I saw a woman about 6 weeks pregnant diagnosed with a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. No oncologist would give her radiation or chemo at that stage. She could have waited 6 months or so until the baby could be safely delivered, but that might ruin her chance of remission. She already had young children. Delaying treatment to have this baby could leave her whole family without a mother. She and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy and begin therapy immediately. These are very hard choices, and some women might decide differently. But the important point is that such decisions can only be made by the woman, her family, and her doctors. State laws absolutely cannot interfere.



I was on my hospital's Ethics Committee for several years. One of the high-risk OBs gave us a presentation on Intact D & X. It's never done after 20 weeks. There must be evidence of severe fetal abnormalities incompatible with viability. There are maternal health factors that make other methods of termination riskier. And, it's desired that the fetus be preserved in as complete a state as possible. (Hence the term "intact" D & X.) This is so that the specific fetal pathology can be determined which will allow more accurate genetic counseling for the parents. It's a very rare situation when all these criteria are met. My hospital was a teaching facility affiliated with a medical school, and had many referrals for uncommon high-risk OB problems. And even then, they did the procedure only a few times a year.

The woman with pre-eclampsia didn't have an abortion, did she? She had a C-section and they tried to save the baby even though we both know that babies don't survive outside the womb that young. She most likely was desperate to have her baby live. This is not an "abortion" even though the end result was a dead baby. The baby was given care and not killed in uterine.

As for the woman with cancer, the D&C wasn't for the mother's life but rather because the chemo/radiation would have damaged the baby severely...and most likely have killed it. It was unethical to subject a developing fetus to these procedures and a choice had to be made. I do recognize that that the D&C is an abortion but it was done to prevent the baby from suffering.

Again, I do recognize that there are probably a few really rare cases where the baby's life needs to be terminated but they are not common and ethic committees should be involved because that fetus is more than "tissue". I suspect that all the mothers involved were heart-broken that their BABIES had to die. The kind of abortions done in abortion clinics are never those done to save the mother's life.

 

[jayem]

The woman with pre-eclampsia didn't have an abortion, did she? She had a C-section and they tried to save the baby even though we both know that babies don't survive outside the womb that young. She most likely was desperate to have her baby live. This is not an "abortion" even though the end result was a dead baby. The baby was given care and not killed in uterine.

To me, that's a distinction without a difference. What does it matter if it's called an abortion? A pregnancy was purposefully terminated before a fetus was viable in order to save a woman's life.

As for the woman with cancer, the D&C wasn't for the mother's life but rather because the chemo/radiation would have damaged the baby severely...and most likely have killed it. It was unethical to subject a developing fetus to these procedures and a choice had to be made. I do recognize that that the D&C is an abortion but it was done to prevent the baby from suffering.

That's not an accurate representation. The mother could only be given cancer treatment if she was not pregnant. She could have allowed the fetus to be delivered, but she would have to forgo cancer treatment during gestation. She chose to terminate the pregnancy, not to spare the fetus from the effects of radiation and chemo, but to maximize her chance for a remission. The abortion was done to possibly save her life.

Again, I do recognize that there are probably a few really rare cases where the baby's life needs to be terminated but they are not common and ethic committees should be involved because that fetus is more than "tissue". I suspect that all the mothers involved were heart-broken that their BABIES had to die. The kind of abortions done in abortion clinics are never those done to save the mother's life.

Sure, these cases are not terribly common, but they do exist. They are almost never clear-cut. They are difficult decisions of medical judgement which can only be made by the woman, her family, and her physicians. The point I want to make is that state laws must not interfere in this very personal, private matter.

 

[blackribbon]

To me, that's a distinction without a difference. What does it matter if it's called an abortion? A pregnancy was purposefully terminated before a fetus was viable in order to save a woman's life.



That's not an accurate representation. The mother could only be given cancer treatment if she was not pregnant. She could have allowed the fetus to be delivered, but she would have to forgo cancer treatment during gestation. She chose to terminate the pregnancy, not to spare the fetus from the effects of radiation and chemo, but to maximize her chance for a remission. The abortion was done to possibly save her life.



Sure, these cases are not terribly common, but they do exist. They are almost never clear-cut. They are difficult decisions of medical judgement which can only be made by the woman, her family, and her physicians. The point I want to make is that state laws must not interfere in this very personal, private matter.

I agree these decisions need to stay on medical side and not a political side, but there is a difference between killing a baby before it is born and ending a pregnancy before the child is old enough to survive out of the womb. The child was given a chance to live...some day we may have the medical ability to save a child this young. I suspect that baby had a birth certificate, a name, and a death certificate. They were considered a person that had lived...even if it was only for a very short time. That is NOT an abortion.

And would the woman's health been harmed if she had been given chemo/radiation while pregnant? I know the baby would have but would the MOTHER's health been compromised if she had gotten treatment while pregnant? The ethics that the doctors would not treat are in relationship to the baby's health...not the mother's. So regardless of how we say it, the reason for the termination of the pregnancy was so that the oncologists didn't produce a dead monster baby...the ethics are in relationship to the quality of the baby's life not the mother's health.

Again, I am not for abortion...but I do recognize that the mother's life has to take priority over the baby's when a choice has to be made. That is how we practice medicine. It is also very rare. This is very different than the general public's definition of "abortion". Most abortions are done for the convenience of the mother, and most women are really not educated about the risks that can come as a result of getting an unnecessary abortion...especially if they are utilizing an abortion clinic and not a hospital setting.

 

[muichimotsu]

Maybe some clarification is needed on this topic since it's rather nuanced. The principle of double effect does not override the prohibition against doing evil that good may come. This means that the bad effect cannot be the causal means by which the good effect comes about. For this reason I favor Michie's language when she says that an abortion cannot be performed to save the life of a mother, though obviously more needs to be said if we want to move beyond semantics.

You don't get to dictate it's evil merely because you don't like it, that's preferential and biased. The good effect is not going to be perfectly good, there would be a sacrifice regardless of who was saved if the goal is not to end up with both people involved dying. If you save the woman, that is not implicitly saying the child matters less, it's not a decision that can be boiled down to pure moral calculus

If the mother is hemorrhaging and the best manner to save her from bleeding out and dying is an abortive procedure that will likely end with the fetus dying from a similar fate (I'm no expert, the whole situation is exceedingly rare and that still doesn't make the ethical situation less important to consider the problematic implications of an ethical system that favors a child over the mother because they're not born yet)

The case of an ectopic pregnancy is a good example. There are various treatments for an ectopic pregnancy, but Catholic moral theologians generally hold that only one treatment is morally permissible (a salpingectomy). This is because the other treatments directly intend the death of the fetus in order to achieve the good effect. Thus those treatments require a "direct abortion." So it's not true that "anything goes" when it comes to saving the mother's life, at least according to Catholics. (link)

I never claimed anything goes, did I? I don't think most people would say that and the abortion of a nonviable fetus is hardly comparable to a partial birth abortion if the mother is seriously in danger of death by hemorrhaging from a placental rupture or such

The problem here is that it's not clear that indirect abortions are deliberate terminations of a pregnancy. In fact they basically aren't.

No one is saying a miscarriage/spontaneous abortion would be deliberate, the qualifier of spontaneous already undermines that. It's like I don't choose to suddenly have a brain aneurysm, I might've just had the problem building and it just happens, it's not voluntary or deliberate on my part

The problem here is that not all pro-lifers are necessarily going to hold to a Catholic view on the nuances of double effect.

And rejecting double effect based on the notion that certain evils are unacceptable, but you'd potentially permit others, suggests not only a bias, but selective application of the term based on prioritizing dogma over critical thought and humility in regards to the position held as not being inviolable

 

[zippy2006]

You don't get to dictate it's evil merely because you don't like it, that's preferential and biased.

You don't get to dictate that killing the innocent or using evil as a means to good is not evil. Beyond that you seem to think that the entirety of my post was directed to you. It wasn't. I quoted various different people. In fact the only reason I quoted you is so that the OP would receive a notification about a post regarding their thread.

 

[bTbRo]

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.

Matthew 13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom;
but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

 

[muichimotsu]

You don't get to dictate that killing the innocent or using evil as a means to good is not evil. Beyond that you seem to think that the entirety of my post was directed to you. It wasn't. I quoted various different people. In fact the only reason I quoted you is so that the OP would receive a notification about a post regarding their thread.

I'm not saying it's not evil, I'm saying that the decision is going to be qualified as such based on variables that people seem to just refuse to consider as relevant.

The dictation of your morals as absolutely applicable is the problem, you could be talking to one person or multiple, the dogmatic assertion is the fundamental crux here

 

[zippy2006]

...the dogmatic assertion is the fundamental crux here

Dogmatic assertion? I merely described the doctrine of double effect and the opinion of the majority of Catholic moral theologians. I even pointed out a discrepancy in views between different pro-life groups, and specifically said that I was giving a Catholic opinion. Get a grip, man. At least read the posts before you apply your a priori categories indiscriminately.

 

[muichimotsu]

Dogmatic assertion? I merely described the doctrine of double effect and the opinion of the majority of Catholic moral theologians. I even pointed out a discrepancy in views between different pro-life groups, and specifically said that I was giving a Catholic opinion. Get a grip, man. At least read the posts before you apply your a priori categories indiscriminately.

Majority/=/ truth, you can't possibly be naive to utilize both ad populum and appealing to a preferential authority to support you point unless you legitimately care more about being right than actually seeking truth.

The Catholic opinion is effectively just that (if not less) when they waffle on positions consistently and haven't shown themselves to be any more well thought out than any other group over history except as they held control over illiterates or otherwise held hegemonical power they continue to wield within their own ranks to protect pedophiles

Never said all pro life groups were the same, that can be easily discerned: some actually care about life and its quality rather than merely what some focus on in potentiality over actuality.

 

[Sleepy089]

The argument of abortion could go on forever. If a woman is a victim of rape and she does not want to carry the child I think it should be her right, now saying that I do not think she should wait till 6 months in and decide she does not want it. That is my personal view on victims of rape. There are also the rare occasions when women who are in there 50 or 60s and they get get pregnant, they decide to have an abortion for various reason two of the biggest they cant afford it and children born from older woman are more likley to be me born mentally handicapped or some other disablity. Now I know the Christian stance but tell me how many of you who insist she carry to term are will to spend there money takeing care of the child. You do not have to keep your child you can leave it at the hospital now if that child is mentally handicaped how many of you good christians who insited the child shoud be born are going to adopt it and take care of it. It is the most amusing part of this...for most woman who have an abortion in falls into they cant afford it. You insist the child be born but your not willing to pay for it. But all these arguments asside no matter what laws you try to put in place there are plenty of places you can get an abortion legally...there are plants you can that can abort a child. And for the very poor there back alley abortion clinics. Christians wish to enforce a religious moral belief onto everyone that will never work. I would say if you want to have an abortion you need to do it in the first three months whatever the reason..after that the only way would medical reason. But again this is a foolish topic you will never get anyone to agree on this topic

 

[artie annie]

The argument of abortion could go on forever. If a woman is a victim of rape and she does not want to carry the child I think it should be her right, now saying that I do not think she should wait till 6 months in and decide she does not want it. That is my personal view on victims of rape. There are also the rare occasions when women who are in there 50 or 60s and they get get pregnant, they decide to have an abortion for various reason two of the biggest they cant afford it and children born from older woman are more likley to be me born mentally handicapped or some other disablity. Now I know the Christian stance but tell me how many of you who insist she carry to term are will to spend there money takeing care of the child. You do not have to keep your child you can leave it at the hospital now if that child is mentally handicaped how many of you good christians who insited the child shoud be born are going to adopt it and take care of it. It is the most amusing part of this...for most woman who have an abortion in falls into they cant afford it. You insist the child be born but your not willing to pay for it. But all these arguments asside no matter what laws you try to put in place there are plenty of places you can get an abortion legally...there are plants you can that can abort a child. And for the very poor there back alley abortion clinics. Christians wish to enforce a religious moral belief onto everyone that will never work. I would say if you want to have an abortion you need to do it in the first three months whatever the reason..after that the only way would medical reason. But again this is a foolish topic you will never get anyone to agree on this topic

I have studied all the issues of abortion for at least 30 years. The pro and cons of the debate. The christian approach and the secular. Abortion by and large is the best example of the slippery slope. Roe v Wade was introduced to make abortion available in very limited circumstances. The mothers health, rape or deformity of the baby. Nothing more.

As the years went by the feminists and satan got into the act until we have what we have today which is abortion for any reason at any time. Most abortions today are for convenience. The girl got pregnant but didn't intend to so lets get rid of the baby. In other words, the baby dies because of the selfishness of two people.

When you see a video of a baby in the womb as I have recoiling when the forceps come towards her, you realise what a selfish idea abortion is.

When you see a picture of an aborted baby in bits and pieces as I have you realise how barbaric abortion is.

When you discover that a baby born alive because of a botched abortion is thrown in a bin to die a horrible death, it makes you throw up.

When you find out that Planned Parenthood encourages abortion because they can get money for body parts, you wonder what the world is coming to.

When you discover that since Roe V Wade, 60 million babies have been murdered in America you weep.

I will end by telling you a true story. A mother who was pregnant was told her baby was badly deformed and would not live outside of the womb for very long so an abortion was the best option. The mother said no. Regardless of how long she lives she is going to be born.

The baby was delivered and live for 13 hours. For every minute of that time, the mother cradled the baby in her arms and when the baby died, she said that was the most wonderful time in her life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you find out that Planned Parenthood encourages abortion because they can get money for body parts, you wonder what the world is coming to.

This alone refutes your post. That claim was due to a dishonest investigation of Planned Parenthood. The "fees" chargned are minuscule when compared to actual costs. A business that operated on that principle would be bankrupt in a month. The amounts received barely covered shipping and handling, it did not come close to making a profit. Prices ranged from $30.00 to $100.00. I don't know if you ever have to pay a full doctor's bill without insurance. That won't come even close. Here is an article that refutes that claim:

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

And if you are really against abortion you really should be a supporter of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood provides a lot more in the way of services than abortion. They help hugely with birth control. In fact areas with Planned Parenthood services have fewer abortions than areas without them.

By the way, no babies have been murdered due to Roe vs. Wade. Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are not babies. Nor is it murder. The best way to oppose abortion is to provide birth control at no charge, both for the medications and the doctor's appointments that are required to get them. Do you advocate for government paid birth control? If one does not one cannot really claim to be anti-abortion.

 

[Strathos]

I'll just say that if you are pro-life, you should be totally against the attempts to restart the economy at the cost of people's lives, just to be consistent.