Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

[Granite]

Originally posted by Sozo

I believe my response, was an answer.

There is never any reason to kill a baby.

In an ectopic pregnancy, the intent of everyone involved should be cetered around the life of the child. Every measure possible should be taken to protect and preserve it's life.

And if that's not possible--and with ectopic situations it very rarely is--what would you do?

 

[Rydo]

Originally posted by Sozo

No.

Good answer

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Sozo

The agenda of the mother and doctor must be to save the baby. In abortion, the agenda is to kill the baby and save the mother. Hopefully, science will discover a way to remove and place the baby in the uterus where it belongs.

The risk of ectopic pregnancies increase dramatically in women who have had previous abortions or are on the pill.

Of course the ultimate goal is to save both lives, but where we're out now, that's usually not an option with ectopic pregnancies. I've personally known women without any previous use of the pill--and certainly no abortions in the past--who were stricken with ectopic pregnancies. The risks may go up with such women but, it can happen to anyone.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Sozo

Ectopic pregnancies have quadrupled since 1970 and now occurs in almost 2% of all pregnancies.

Does that decade sound familiar?

It is quite obvious that the rate has increased expedientially to the desire for women to have control in the area of "family planning"

I'm not disputing that use of the pill ups the risk. But on the other hand, when an ectopic pregnancy occurs and the pill cannot be blamed, it makes things much harder. There's nothing in particular to point a finger at.

One way or another it's a tragic situation no matter what brought it on.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Eowyn

If you condone murder it makes sense.

This is a moral dilemma of the first order. The doctor tells the pregnant women, tests prove without doubt if you attempt to carry the child to term you will die. The baby in effect becomes an assailant. Does the mother have the right to defend herself? Yes. It is a difficult choice, but the mother's life comes first.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Rydo

What if the birth will kill the mother?

Exactly...:think:


Rydo, welcome to TOL. This is a great web site for all points of view. New perspectives provide grist for the rhetorical mill.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Sozo

As rare as that is, would you throw yourself in front of a bullet to save your child?

Yes, as long as the child was not trying to kill me...

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by granite1010

In a situation where the mother's life is threatened I'd have to say the decision should rest with the parents.

The mother may choose to sacrifice herself or not.

Of course the mother and father must be fully informed as to the likelihood that the child would survive the ordeal.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Rydo

What if the mother was a victim of rape? Would abortion be permitted then?

NO

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by ShadowMaid

No, is it the childs fault that his daddy raped his mother? :nono:

Right... :thumb:

 

[aikido7]

Just admit it--life begins at conception and ends at birth.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Of course the mother and father must be fully informed as to the likelihood that the child would survive the ordeal.

In such a situation I'm not sure what the "likelihood" is that the child would survive. A case by case basis makes sense to me.

 

[Eowyn]

Originally posted by Art Deco

This is a moral dilemma of the first order. The doctor tells the pregnant women, tests prove without doubt if you attempt to carry the child to term you will die. The baby in effect becomes an assailant. Does the mother have the right to defend herself? Yes. It is a difficult choice, but the mother's life comes first.

It's not a moral dilemma to me. Many times doctors have told women that if they did not abort the baby they would die for sure and the woman did not abort and lived. Also many times doctors say the baby will be severely deformed or impaired in some way and it turns out not to be. Doctors are not the end all and be all.
Regardless, murder never solves another problem. You don't murder someone because you might have the chance to save someone else. It can't be justified.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Eowyn

It's not a moral dilemma to me. Many times doctors have told women that if they did not abort the baby they would die for sure and the woman did not abort and lived.

I'm sure that's true, but as the pregnancy advances under close observation, should the diagnosis prove true, the women still has the moral right to terminate the pregnacy to save her own life. This obviously applies in a case by case basis.


Posted by Eowyn:

Also many times doctors say the baby will be severely deformed or impaired in some way and it turns out not to be. Doctors are not the end all and be all.

Severely deformed or impaired is not moral justification for abortion.



Posted by Eowyn:

Regardless, murder never solves another problem. You don't murder someone because you might have the chance to save someone else. It can't be justified.

Of course there is morally justified killing. Would you use lethal force to protect a wife, husband, child, from a homicidal attacker bent on murdering your loved one?...

 

[Eowyn]

Originally posted by Art Deco

I'm sure that's true, but as the pregnancy advances under close observation, should the diagnosis prove true, the women still has the moral right to terminate the pregnacy to save her own life. This obviously applies in a case by case basis.

You don't have the moral right to murder.

Originally posted by Art Deco Severely deformed or impaired is not moral justification for abortion.

Of course not, my point is simply doctors have been known to be wrong about the deformities of a child in the womb.

Originally posted by Art Deco Of course there is morally justified killing. Would you use lethal force to protect a wife, husband, child, from a homicidal attacker bent on murdering your loved one?...

Killing a homicidal attacker while protecting your family can not be compared to murdering an innocent life. Once again, murder is not right just because you have the possibility to save someone else. Murder is evil, defending your family is not.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Eowyn: Killing a homicidal attacker while protecting your family can not be compared to murdering an innocent life. Once again, murder is not right just because you have the possibility to save someone else. Murder is evil, defending your family is not.

I have to respect your stand on abortion. In your eyes there are no exceptions. I can live with that... :up:

 

[aikido7]

It is quite obvious that the rate has increased expedientially to the desire for women to have control in the area of "family planning"

Is it also obvious that the rate has increased expedentially to the presence of higher and higher levels of mercury and other toxins to our food chain?

Wait a minute.... Is it also obvious that the rate has increased expedientially to late 70s and 80s abysmal TV programs?

(Two obvious questions)

 

[justthickhuh]

Listen to Germany's Aborition policy.
They have abortions only in the first trimester and they mandate Pro-Life counseling before an abortion can take place.
And that's a Socialist country!!
What the heck is wrong with us?

 

[ShadowMaid]

Mmm... I doubt that Germany will stay that "holy." And I believe it's still wicked to kill your baby even in your first trimester.

 

[justthickhuh]

so do i. i was just pointing that out