What's the difference?

[claddagh4jesus]

Would anyone in this forum (pro-choice Christians, I mean) be adverse to a woman going to a clinic and having a doctor with a medical license perform an abortion in a sterile environment with the proper equipment? Probably not.

But what about a woman who simply uses the old coat hanger trick in her own home, and then dumps what comes of it in a dumpster nearby? At any point in her pregnancy?

Would you have a problem with it then?

What about a woman who gets to the delivery room, and then, before actually moving into the final stages of labor, tells her doctor she's changed her mind, and wants her baby dead?

What's the difference?

 

[b.hopeful]

No problem with licensed doctors performing abortion in a sterile environment...that's the ideal.

The coat hanger....I would hope that no woman would take that kind of risk with her life and health. It's dangerous. I also am not comfortable with someone amputating their own limbs to say a copay. The issue is not the woman procuring an abortion...but the woman risking her health in such a manner. If a safe medical abortion is available to her...I don't understand how someone in their right mind would opt for the coat hanger method.

A woman in labor....the safest way to end the pregnancy is to deliver the fetus. So a doctor would be helping the patient by delivering, not by changing course and performing an abortion. And a doctor should be concerned about the health of their patient.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

But what about a woman who simply uses the old coat hanger trick in her own home, and then dumps what comes of it in a dumpster nearby? At any point in her pregnancy?

Would you have a problem with it then?

Of course we have a problem with that, that's why we are pro-choice in the first place! We want to keep abortion legal so women don't do that.

What about a woman who gets to the delivery room, and then, before actually moving into the final stages of labor, tells her doctor she's changed her mind, and wants her baby dead?

What's the difference?

Yes, I would have a problem with that because it's post viability. But why did you bring this up? The vast majority of women who go full term do not want an abortion, not to mention that doing one at that time is illegal in the states. It's HIGHLY unlikely that any doctor or midwife would ever hear that request, and since it is more dangerous at that point, like b.hopeful said, no ethical doctor would agree to it anyway.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between a legal abortion at 12 weeks or less(when the vast majority take place) an a third trimester abortion. The biggest one to me is level of development. When a fetus is full term, it has all it's necessary organs and can survive without the woman. At 12 weeks, the fetus is not fully developed and cannot survive outside. I do not believe that abortion is murder until after the fetuses lungs are developed enough for it to survive outside the womb. Therefore, I have no problem with first trimester abortion.

 

[Ave Maria]

The coat hanger abortion is dangerous, not sterile, and potentially dangerous to one's health. That is why I oppose coat hanger abortions. That is also why I believe that abortion needs to remain legal so that women can get safe abortions.

 

[rahul_4218]

i would not

 

[brightmorningstar]

A woman in labor....the safest way to end the pregnancy is to deliver the fetus. So a doctor would be helping the patient by delivering, not by changing course and performing an abortion. And a doctor should be concerned about the health of their patient.

Delivering a foetus?

 

[brightmorningstar]

You see a baby cant survive outside the womb on its own anymore than a 12 week old foetus. Sure it can breath but it cant survive. Abortion isnt about just breathing but about a life not being terminated. The argument about the foetus being viable outside the womb isnt viable.

 

[lux et lex]

You see a baby cant survive outside the womb on its own anymore than a 12 week old foetus. Sure it can breath but it cant survive. Abortion isnt about just breathing but about a life not being terminated. The argument about the foetus being viable outside the womb isnt viable.

What? A baby can survive outside the womb. You can give it to someone else. You can't give a fetus to someone else. Hence this makes it not viable. You cannot equate the two, the argument that that a 12 week old fetus is not viable just like a baby is asinine.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Lux et Lex,

What? A baby can survive outside the womb. You can give it to someone else. You can't give a fetus to someone else. Hence this makes it not viable. You cannot equate the two, the argument that that a 12 week old fetus is not viable just like a baby is asinine.

a baby cant survive outside the womb on its own. If you are now offering that variation just to attempt to justify abortion then stop abortion and give all subsequent babies to someone else.
The baby and the foetus are viable.

 

[lux et lex]

Well I'm not going to argue with someone that has no grasp on science. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To lux and lex,
And I am not going to argue with someone who has no grasp of science or reality.

Lets see.
A baby cant survive outside the womb on its own. ? Can it feed itself? No a newly born baby can no more look after itself than when it was in its mothers womb.
Are you saying it can? You must be to have made the statement you did.

If you are now offering that variation just to attempt to justify abortion then stop abortion and give all subsequent babies to someone else. why not?

The baby and the foetus are viable. fact! both are life at different stages.

 

[lux et lex]

However there is no way that someone else can take care of a fetus other than the person whose womb it's in! Part of viability is transferability. Someone else can feed a baby, no one else can feed a fetus. Even with that said, a baby could survive for some time left on its own, whereas a fetus cannot. This is reality. This is the last time I will address you on this argument because it's asinine and you know it and I am not going to waste my time with this. If you come up with something sensible, we'll talk.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To lux et lex
Neither can a baby reproduce so there are all kinds of varying criteria one could use so dont start cluding the actual point discussed which is that a baby can no more survive without some help than a foetus.
Its true someone else can feed a baby but thats just a stage, as one can see life cant begin without conception and gestation so a foetus is as much a life as a baby, maybe not to the pro-choice view, but the pro-choice group ignores reality in this aspect.

And by the way whilst you this reality about life is 'asinine' perhaps you ought to consider I think your view is ignorant of reality and shows contempt for life. So do you wish to discuss or not?

 

[lux et lex]

Well we can agree then, apparently, that we are both "ignoring reality". If you want to equate a fetus with a baby, we're not even speaking in the same terms, and discussing this with you is going in a big circle and we'll never convince the other of anything differently. There is nothing more to discuss in my approximation.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To lux and lex,

Well we can agree then, apparently, that we are both "ignoring reality".

no we can agree to disagree we are both ignoring reality, I think life strats at conception and gestaion for me that is reality and anything else is ignoring reality.

If you want to equate a fetus with a baby,

Let me stop you there. Do I? I dont equate a foetus with a baby in the respect that both are stages of life, but I do equate them both as life. It would be nice if you even acknowledged my view for what is is rather than distorting it.