Home - List All Discussions

Is Abortion ever ok?

What do people really believe about abortion

by: rolandd

Are there circumstances where abortion is ok? Let your opinion show on this http://pollsb.com/polls/poll/17484/abortion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, there are many cases where abortion is ok, and even a much better choice than giving birth. Rape, fetal deformity, or maternal danger, to name a few.

reply from: yoda

"Okay" is a very objective word, isn't it? Thank you for showing us the darkness of your heart.

reply from: sander

The poll doesn't say what constitutes the "mother's life at risk".
Today it can mean a headache, won't get the promotion, etc.
If it means exactly the mother would die unless...and all other options were explored to save both, then yes, the mother's life must be saved.

reply from: Faramir

"Okay" is a very objective word, isn't it? Thank you for showing us the darkness of your heart.
LiberalChiRo,
I totally disagree with you, but you'll have to excuse our resident self-apointed leader of this board, and seer of the human heart.
I don't think you've shown the darkness of your heart, because none of us can see your heart. Only God can.
But your thinking here is not making any sense to me.
If you would oppose abortion because it kills a child, then why not across the board? The child conceived by rape is no less a child than any other child, and that goes for the rest of your exceptions.

reply from: faithman

"Okay" is a very objective word, isn't it? Thank you for showing us the darkness of your heart.
LiberalChiRo,
I totally disagree with you, but you'll have to excuse our resident self-apointed leader of this board, and seer of the human heart.
I don't think you've shown the darkness of your heart, because none of us can see your heart. Only God can.
But your thinking here is not making any sense to me.
If you would oppose abortion because it kills a child, then why not across the board? The child conceived by rape is no less a child than any other child, and that goes for the rest of your exceptions.
And the God you claim to believe in said we would know them by their fruit. Yoda correctly discerned that the fruit of the lips, or words, were from a dark heart. You do not get bad fruit from a good tree.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

By mother in danger, I personally mean "she is going to die NOW". A headache or whatever is not a life-threatening situation. Those things you mention are life-STYLE-threatening, not LIFE threatening.
I actually don't understand maternal-danger cases. In most situations, the child can be removed alive, since most life-threatening situations don't occur early in gestation aside from ectopic pregnancies. And in a late-term situation, the baby is clearly wanted so logically everything is done to save it and the mother as opposed to simply killing it. Aside from ectopic pregnancies I'm under the impression that maternal danger is an extremely rare reason for abortion.
Sander, do you approve of abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? There is no chance of life for the unborn in that case, and to let nature take its course leads to the mother dying, too. Do you think it is better for two people to be dead, or for one person to survive to live another day and have another child?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

"Okay" is a very objective word, isn't it? Thank you for showing us the darkness of your heart.
LiberalChiRo,
I totally disagree with you, but you'll have to excuse our resident self-apointed leader of this board, and seer of the human heart.
I don't think you've shown the darkness of your heart, because none of us can see your heart. Only God can.
But your thinking here is not making any sense to me.
If you would oppose abortion because it kills a child, then why not across the board? The child conceived by rape is no less a child than any other child, and that goes for the rest of your exceptions.
Thank you for the respectful reply
I oppose late-term abortions because they kill a child, but I do not oppose one or two early-term abortions, based on the concept of fetal viability. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
As for rape specifically, giving birth to a child conceived in hate can be extremely emotionally damaging to a woman, far more damaging than an abortion could be. However, that is dependent on the woman herself. Some women want the baby out of them and cannot love it and consider it a lingering foulness caused by the rape - a corruption growing inside of them. Other women, however, find healing in giving birth to the baby. That's just how different people react to a similar situation.

reply from: faithman

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
The god that Christians choose to worship has no problem advocating or even performing abortions. (This comes from a child-free board):
"Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God's intervention. "Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally "abortion"?
Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man's child.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him." In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the "their women with child shall be ripped up". Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be "ripped open". And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?"
nice cherry picking. Now quote the scripture in context.

reply from: sander

I actually don't understand maternal-danger cases. In most situations, the child can be removed alive, since most life-threatening situations don't occur early in gestation aside from ectopic pregnancies. And in a late-term situation, the baby is clearly wanted so logically everything is done to save it and the mother as opposed to simply killing it. Aside from ectopic pregnancies I'm under the impression that maternal danger is an extremely rare reason for abortion.
Sander, do you approve of abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? There is no chance of life for the unborn in that case, and to let nature take its course leads to the mother dying, too. Do you think it is better for two people to be dead, or for one person to survive to live another day and have another child?
So, are you the orginator of the poll? I'm confused on that.
And did you not read what I wrote concerning the "life" of the mother. An ecoptic pregnancy is usually within the tubes and there's no chance the baby can be saved.
For those outside the tubes there have been cases where both mother and child survived, though rare. My OB/BYN had one such case years ago and both survived.
If there is NO possible way for the baby to be saved and the mother would die, yes, save the mother.
That is the ONLY case in which I can see a medically "necessary" abortion performed, as tragic as it is.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, I did not make the poll. I assume that the original poster of this topic created the poll, Rolandd. I was referring to where I mentioned maternal danger in my own post, not the poll. Then again, when I see the words "maternal danger" I of course think of my own definition for it.
Outside of the tubes yes, there is a chance of life. That's a risk that needs to be discussed between the mother and her doctor. Some very serious complications can arise depending on where the placenta attaches, which could lead to death of the mother. I've heard of a few cases on Discovery channel.
And I agree with you then: if there is absolutely no way the fetus would survive, then abortion is a tragic but necessary answer.
Here's another example... what if the fetus might possibly survive, but the mother absolutely would die? Would you approve of an abortion in that case?

reply from: sander

Those variables are entirely too vague. I've all ready stated my view on when an abortion would be acceptable.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Too vague? What can I do to make them more specific? Hm... Alright.
What if it is a case of ectopic where the fetus managed to survive outside of the uterus. As the pregnancy develops they discover that the placenta is attaching to the mother's liver. If it is allowed to continue she will certainly die, as the placenta steals the blood from her liver, interrupts its processes and destroys the tissue. At this point in the pregnancy, they could safely remove the embryo and the placenta and repair the current damage to the liver, but at this stage the embryo will die. However, if they pregnancy is allowed to continue it is possible that the mother could survive long enough to grow the child to a stage where it could survive outside of her body, but she would inevitably die.
Would you be ok with the abortion early on, or would you want that woman to die so the baby would live? Do you think it is her choice to make?

reply from: yoda

Those are still words from a dark heart.
A first trimester baby is just as much a child as a third tri baby. You are still advocating the slaughter of innocent babies, but no doubt you will still be fully excused by our resident faux moderator, whom we fondly refer to as "Fartnomore".
How about the "damage" to the baby that is killed? Oh wait, I forgot, you really don't care about that, do you?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yoda, you must remember me from eHealth, I'm Eiri lol.
You remember the concept of fetal viability. I know you don't agree with it, but I know you understand the concept behind it. Again, in my ideal world, accidental pregnancies would never occur and thus, abortion would not be necessary.
As for the baby that is killed in an early-term abortion, yes I do care, otherwise I would not think miscarriage is awful, and I would not feel there should be a limit on the number of early-term abortions a woman can have. If I could really have it my way, a woman would only be allowed 1 early-term abortion and then, ONLY if she were actively trying to prevent pregnancy via birth control pills, NFP, etc. If she was just having sex with no protection at all and then wanted to abort it, well, I consider that a serious crime against nature.
The early unborn baby is not the same as the born woman. There are many very large physical differences between the early-term embryo/fetus and a born woman - I cannot find it in my heart to ignore those differences. They matter. And it's not just size or location or development. It's the sum of many parts.
Is aborting ok just because the embryo is smaller than the mother? Just size? Indeed, that sounds petty. It's ok to abort just because it's inside the woman? Just location? Again, petty. But it's not Just one of those things, and it's not just the three I have listed. There are many, many factors.

reply from: sander

If you came up with a thousand "things" they would all amount to nothing more than poor excuses for killing a human being that is completley and utterly defensless.

reply from: AshMarie88

There's no better choice for a child than to give birth.

reply from: AshMarie88

That's stupid. There's no such instance in which a woman WILL DIE NOW if you don't murder her baby!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's stupid. There's no such instance in which a woman WILL DIE NOW if you don't murder her baby!
Yes there are. They are few and far between, certainly. But in a case such as an ectopic pregnancy inside of a fallopian tube, if surgery is not performed quickly, both the mother and child will die. There is a little lee-way if the pregnancy is discovered early-on before the fallopian tube is at too large a risk of rupturing, but that's a matter of a week or two at the most. Little babies grow fast!
It's a terrible, terrible thing, but it does happen.

reply from: AshMarie88

My only "exception" is ectopic pregnancy, and in that case it's not considered abortion. So, I guess you could say I don't have abortion exceptions.

reply from: sander

Good for you, AshMarie!
A very senseable and kind hearted position.

reply from: galen

the only time i can say that a woman will die now without a termination of pregnancy is an abruption that is hemmoraghing significantly with or without an amniotic emboli.
in these cases (< .01% of pregnancies in this country) a significant hemmorage is one where the woman is 'bleeding out' where 5he loss of blood is greatly exceeding that of the physician's ability to replace it. Amniotic emboli are when amniotic fluid escapes through the placental vessels and enters the woman's bloodstrem causing severe clotting and / or anaphalactic shock due to allergic response. usually leading to DIC and death.
any case that is less severe than that usually has a good resolve rate and plenty of opportunity to ask the woman how she wants to procede... in these cases you must opt to save the mother .. even if it means removing the child NOW.. usually before 12 wks suction is used and after that a cesearean like procedure... almost always in the ER.

reply from: sander

Big difference from needing the ER and showing up for a scheduled, elective abortion.
Thank you for your insights, Galen.

reply from: lukesmom

The only time acceptable is for an ectopic pregnancy. If there is a "condition" that warrents saving only one of us, save my child. I willingly give my life for my child; I am a mother.

reply from: carolemarie

Life of the mother is the only reason. No disrespect to Luke's mom, but not all mothers are willing to die if only one can be saved. Especially moms with other small children at home who need them. It needs to be the families choice in this matter.

reply from: AshMarie88

As much as I agree moms need to be there for their children, would you feel the very same way if one of her born children was in danger and it came to either dying for the born child or letting her born child die?
She could let her born child die because she has her other children at home... But her other child and children's sibling is in danger and will have to be killed so the mom can continue living...

reply from: lukesmom

No disrespect taken. If someone was pointing a gun at my born children I would step in front of them. During a tornado I have covered their bodies with mine. I see no difference between an unborn child and a born child. I protect both with my life. An unborn child needs a mother's sacrifice as much as born children. Is it really fair and reasonable to ask what the other family members choice is in this, esp if they are small children?

reply from: carolemarie

I meant the husband and wife as the family who needed to decide. Not the kids.

reply from: lukesmom

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree, both should have input but I reserve the right to give my child life. I could never live with myself otherwise.

reply from: 4given

The kids definitely do not need to have an input.
Why not? They are part of the family unit. Why are their opinions and thoughts less valuable or important?

reply from: yoda

Yes.
"The same as" is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
No one is asking you to ignore anything. You are dancing around the issue that you condemn unborn children to death with no other justification than those "differences". We have a history in this country of discriminating against those who are "different", so your particularly bloody discrimination comes from a long line of the same.
A newborn baby is not the same as an adult. There are many very large physical differences between the newborn and an adult. Can you find it in your heart to ignore those differences?
And not a single one of them, not all of them added together constitute a rational moral justification for killing unborn babies.
And the sad part is, I think you know that very well.

reply from: yoda

Less than 1%, and never a matter of contention between prolifers and proaborts.
We're here to talk about the 99% that are not life threatening. And why you think it's "okay" to kill them anyway.

reply from: carolemarie

The kids definitely do not need to have an input.
Why not? They are part of the family unit. Why are their opinions and thoughts less valuable or important?
Because they are little kids. I find it strange you would ask that.
They are too young to be asked if it is okay with them if mommy dies so you can have another brother or sister. It is unfair to burden them with such and adult decision. It would be a cruel thing to do to a child. They would live with guilt either way.

reply from: 4given

The kids definitely do not need to have an input.
Why not? They are part of the family unit. Why are their opinions and thoughts less valuable or important?
Because they are little kids. I find it strange you would ask that.
They are too young to be asked if it is okay with them if mommy dies so you can have another brother or sister. It is unfair to burden them with such and adult decision. It would be a cruel thing to do to a child. They would live with guilt either way.
Age wasn't specified. I asked my children if they believed abortion would ever be okay. I specifically said- "what if I was told I would die if I did not abort the baby?" They agreed that would be sad, but never justifiable or "okay" with them. So their answer was "No!". Why is it strange to you that some hold value in their child's thoughts? At what age- if that is your reasoning, are they important enough to involve in discussion?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Ectopic pregnancies result in the death of the fetus, and if not removed, can easily result in the death of or severe damage to the mother.
Babies were meant to grow in the uterus, not a Fallopian tube or elsewhere outside the uterus. It is virtually impossible to "save" an ectopic pregnancy.
from: http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/ectopic.html

"Ectopic means "out of place." In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus. The egg settles in the fallopian tubes in more than 95% of ectopic pregnancies. This is why ectopic pregnancies are commonly called "tubal pregnancies." The egg can also implant in the ovary, abdomen, or the cervix, so you may see these referred to as cervical or abdominal pregnancies.
None of these areas has as much space or nurturing tissue as a uterus for a pregnancy to develop. As the fetus grows, it will eventually burst the organ that contains it. This can cause severe bleeding and endanger the mother's life. A classical ectopic pregnancy does not develop into a live birth."
from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm

"An ectopic pregnancy is an abnormal pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). The baby cannot survive. . . Ectopic pregnancies cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life."
from: http://www.medicinenet.com/ectopic_pregnancy/article.htm

"Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related death (of the mother) in the first trimester of pregnancy."
from: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/ectopicpregnancy.html

"An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg attaches itself in a place other than inside the uterus. Almost all ectopic pregnancies occur in a fallopian tube, and are thus sometimes called tubal pregnancies. The fallopian tubes are not designed to hold a growing embryo; the fertilized egg in a tubal pregnancy cannot develop normally and must be treated. An ectopic pregnancy happens in 1 out of 60 pregnancies."
Please note that removal of an ectopic pregnancy is NOT AN ABORTION. The fetus cannot possibly grow to viability when misplaced, so the removal of the ectopic pregnancy is not "killing a child" in any way. It is the surgical solution to a very nasty obstretrical problem and removes a fetus which has absolutely NO CHANCE to develop to viability.

reply from: galen

i never consider an ectopic pregancy removal an abortion, for the sake of this thread i never even considered it.

reply from: carolemarie

The kids definitely do not need to have an input.
Why not? They are part of the family unit. Why are their opinions and thoughts less valuable or important?
Because they are little kids. I find it strange you would ask that.
They are too young to be asked if it is okay with them if mommy dies so you can have another brother or sister. It is unfair to burden them with such and adult decision. It would be a cruel thing to do to a child. They would live with guilt either way.
Age wasn't specified. I asked my children if they believed abortion would ever be okay. I specifically said- "what if I was told I would die if I did not abort the baby?" They agreed that would be sad, but never justifiable or "okay" with them. So their answer was "No!". Why is it strange to you that some hold value in their child's thoughts? At what age- if that is your reasoning, are they important enough to involve in discussion?
This is a very serious grown-up decision that will end in death for one of the people involved. It is the grown-ups burden and decision, not the childs.
I would inform them of what would happen once the decision had been made, but their opinion wouldn't be sought or figured into it.
At least for my family, we wouldn't think it would be age appropriate for the kids to be involved in that decision.

reply from: AshMarie88

Answer my question: What if it was her BORN child that was in danger and he/she or the mom had to die?!?!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why do you not consider it abortion? That's what a doctor would call it...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But that is your choice; you cannot force another woman to do the same.

reply from: galen

no a physician calls an ectopic removal an abortion... in every removal i've been part of it is dictated as a termination following salpingectomy or salpingo- oophorectomy. where there is an intraabdominal pregnancy they use the correct terms followed by the words removal of non viable fetus/ embryo.
No one EVER dictates ' i preformed an abortion and then did the following' or any words to that effect.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes.
"The same as" is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
No one is asking you to ignore anything. You are dancing around the issue that you condemn unborn children to death with no other justification than those "differences". We have a history in this country of discriminating against those who are "different", so your particularly bloody discrimination comes from a long line of the same.
A newborn baby is not the same as an adult. There are many very large physical differences between the newborn and an adult. Can you find it in your heart to ignore those differences?
And not a single one of them, not all of them added together constitute a rational moral justification for killing unborn babies.
And the sad part is, I think you know that very well.
"Not the same" meaning so many things that it would take a very long time to list them.
Early term embryos/fetuses:
1. Do not have eyelids or sometimes even eyes.
2. Have a tail and gills
3. Do not have fingers or toes, or,
4. Only have tiny stubs for fingers or toes
5. Do not have fingernails
6. Do not have bones.
7. Do not have a connected nervous system.
8. Cannot feel pain
9. Early on, do not even have a heart beat.
10. Cannot hear
11. Or think
12. Or feel any sensation
13. Cannot taste
14. Or smile
15. Or voluntarily move
16. Or smell
17. Do not have lungs or,
18. Have such primitive lungs they cannot function
19. Do not have developed digestive systems.
The list goes on... And you cannot pull out any ONE thing from this list and say "Oh, so is a person without fingernails not a real person?". It's the combination of all of these things and more that make the differences between a born woman and an early embryo/fetus.
Note that right now, I'm not even trying to assign a value to these differences. I'm just saying there IS a MAJOR set of differences between an unborn and a born woman. Can people at least agree to that?
As for the born baby and the adult, the born baby can do many things the 8 week embryo cannot. You know what those things are, I don't need to list them. Pretty much the entire list I put up, a born baby can do.
What other justification do I have aside from those differences? I've said them before. The age of the mother matters. Her capability to raise a child matters. Her health matters. Love will not feed a baby.

reply from: Teresa18

I support abortion only if the life of the mother is at stake. With the exception of removal of ectopic pregnancy, those cases are extremely rare. Efforts should always be made to preserve both lives, but if both can't be saved, I think the priority should be on the mother (unless she requests otherwise).

reply from: galen

________________________________________________
no the op reports i get from these places do call it an abortion or an abortion procedure... along with whatever the actual surgical name is. ie D&C evacuation etc.

reply from: sander

Oh yes, we can agree.
But, we can also agree there's a major difference between a newborn girl and a 40 year old woman. Nothing about those "differences" justifies killing.

reply from: lukesmom

But that is your choice; you cannot force another woman to do the same.
That is why I used the word "I".

reply from: galen

So why not apply the same name? You're still 'aborting' a pregnancy, even if it is ectopic.
If the baby was dying of some terminal disease in the womb and was killed and taken out before it could rot inside the mother, would you call that an abortion?
_______________________________________________________
nope i would call it a stillbirth...its sad but a mother whos baby dies before she can deliver is not by definition an abortion. an abortion would be if the doc killed the child and then delivered it. purposely killing the fetus is abortion, a fetus that dies as the result of medical intervention for the mother is a stillborn.

reply from: sander

So why not apply the same name? You're still 'aborting' a pregnancy, even if it is ectopic.
If the baby was dying of some terminal disease in the womb and was killed and taken out before it could rot inside the mother, would you call that an abortion?
_______________________________________________________
nope i would call it a stillbirth...its sad but a mother whos baby dies before she can deliver is not by definition an abortion. an abortion would be if the doc killed the child and then delivered it. purposely killing the fetus is abortion, a fetus that dies as the result of medical intervention for the mother is a stillborn.
I'm definatley taking your word on this, Galen! Definatley.

reply from: AshMarie88

Why do you not consider it abortion? That's what a doctor would call it...
No, most doctors do not. It's not an abortion because the only purpose for abortion is to KILL babies on purpose. Saving a woman's life and treating the baby respectfully as most doctors do removing them whole, is NOT abortion.

reply from: AshMarie88

Care to give a scenario?
i.e. oncoming bus, mother has to push the child out of the way?
Use your imagination...
Or don't you have one?

reply from: galen

So why not apply the same name? You're still 'aborting' a pregnancy, even if it is ectopic.
If the baby was dying of some terminal disease in the womb and was killed and taken out before it could rot inside the mother, would you call that an abortion?
_______________________________________________________
nope i would call it a stillbirth...its sad but a mother whos baby dies before she can deliver is not by definition an abortion. an abortion would be if the doc killed the child and then delivered it. purposely killing the fetus is abortion, a fetus that dies as the result of medical intervention for the mother is a stillborn.
That's not what I said.
I said that it is killed, then delivered to stop it dying inside her and rotting.
___________________________________________________________
if i misunderstood you i am sorry.. yes if you kill the child first it is an abortion... only if you are doing so to save the mother it is still called a stillbirth... and just for clarification, doctors do not send a mother out for such a procedure it is done in hospital where she has been taken because her life is in danger.
so to restate... if you decide to kill the child because it is going to die anyway... that is abortion, unless there is an ectopic pregnacy.. where removal of said pregnancy is done to save the mom.. in that case it is still considered a stillborn as the child has no viability anyway. At least that is how it is termed on a surgical report as stated previously.

reply from: AshMarie88

There are so many other scenarios in which a mother might be forced to choose one life over the other. Not just that one.
That's why I said use your imagination.

reply from: yoda

Had you said "physical differences", I could agree to that.
Again, physical differences do exist between all human beings, born and unborn, young and old. Even identical twins are not "identical".
Nothing you have said even comes close to a moral justification for the destruction of a healthy baby by a healthy mother.
Not even close.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

nope i would call it a stillbirth...its sad but a mother whos baby dies before she can deliver is not by definition an abortion. an abortion would be if the doc killed the child and then delivered it. purposely killing the fetus is abortion, a fetus that dies as the result of medical intervention for the mother is a stillborn.
FROM: http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/peds_hrpregnant/still.cfm
"Stillbirth is a common term for death of a baby while still in the uterus. It is also called intrauterine fetal death or demise. Causes of stillbirth may include the following:
- mother with diabetes or high blood pressure
- infection in the mother or in the fetal tissues
- congenital abnormalities
- Rh disease - a blood incompatibility problem between the mother and fetus.
- cord problems including knots, tightened cord, cord wrapped around fetal body or neck, cord prolapse (falling down through the open cervix during labor)
- placental problems including poor circulation, twin-to-twin transfusion (when twin circulations connect in a shared placenta)"
Stillbirths rarely, if ever, occur because of medical treatment to the mother. They are basically late-term miscarriages that may or may not need medical intervention to remove the deceased fetus.
Stillbirth and the removal of an ectopic pregnancy are completely different from each other. The ectopic pregnancy is usually (but not always) quite alive, but must be terminated because it has no chance whatsoever of developing to viability and must be removed to prevent serious medical damage to the mother.

reply from: yoda

Most dictionaries agree generally with the distinction being made here between abortion and stillbirth:
Main Entry: abor┬Ětion Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abortion

Note that "termination" is code speak for killing the baby.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

If the pregnancy is terminated AFTER the death of the embryo or fetus (quoted from your definition), then no baby was killed - it died on its own and was removed (termination of PREGNANCY, not baby) for the mother's safety.
I doubt that even the strictest pro-lifer would object to removing the body of a baby that died in the womb from natural causes or disease or a congenital condition.

reply from: faithman

If the pregnancy is terminated AFTER the death of the embryo or fetus (quoted from your definition), then no baby was killed - it died on its own and was removed (termination of PREGNANCY, not baby) for the mother's safety.
I doubt that even the strictest pro-lifer would object to removing the body of a baby that died in the womb from natural causes or disease or a congenital condition.
You would be right in that instance. It would also be safe to say most PLers would never deny life saving intervention, as long as every effort is made to save both. A C section is far safer than abortion. I think their is an abortion that mimics C section except the Baby is purposely killed before delivery. Very very rarely is abortion the answere if ever.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Did you know that many insurance companies are refusing to insure women who have had a C-section? Even when it was an emergency or medically necessary surgery, they know that few women can give birth vaginally after a C-section, and the C-secs cost a lot more, so they refuse to insure the women until they are over 40 or sterilized.
To me, this is NOT life-affirming at all. C-sections are major surgery, painful and can have long-lasting side effects (I know, I've had 2 of them) and to PUNISH a woman for having one is cruel.
I would have to disagree with you about C-sections being safer than (most) abortions. Early abortions don't involve heavy-duty anesthesia, a slice through the abdomen or a slice through the uterus. C-sections are, of course, safer for the baby, so I'll save you having to remind me of that.

reply from: 4given

It is a noble thing to do and I hope and pray that I don't ever know someone that has to be faced with that.

reply from: galen

________________________________________________________________
it is statistacly safer the further along you get in a pregnancy based on age weight and fetal age etc. to have a cesarean Vs abortion, because of the procedure used in the termination of as late term 22+wks pregnancy.
i am sorry you had so much trouble w/ your sections i never recomend they be done electively for just those reasons.
where did you get the info on the insurance co. and no coverage for this... i had not heard of that one yet.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

My first C-section was an emergency - a breech preemie. Because it was back in the days of the large vertical incision, I had to have a 2nd section - no choice in the matter, they would not even allow me to attempt a VBAC. That's just how it goes.
Here is just one link to the news:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109834.php

I think it's pathetic, but then I'm not much of a fan of insurance companies. I found out during cancer treatment that they care far more about money than they do about people, and they let non-medical personnel make decisions on very serious treatment options. They are so stupid that they denied the chemo my doctor wanted me to have ("experimental") and approved the usual drug - at TWICE the cost of the non-approved one.
Anyway, I think the insurance companies are out of hand, and this new policy discriminating against moms who had C-sections is anti-life, anti-pregnancy and anti-motherhood.

reply from: yoda

No, actually the pregnancy is terminated by the death of the baby. But in an abortion of a living baby, of course, "termination" is a code word for killing the baby by removing it from the womb.

reply from: lukesmom

No, actually the pregnancy is terminated by the death of the baby. But in an abortion of a living baby, of course, "termination" is a code word for killing the baby by removing it from the womb.
"Termination" is the pc correct terminology used when dealing with parents who are carrying a child with a "poor/fatal prenatal diagnosis". The "terminating" is done by inducing early labor, or injecting the child's heart with a medication that causes the heart to stop which, of course, causes death.

reply from: galen

_____________________________________________
thanks for the info.. i've never liked United healthcare and this just gives me one more reason.

reply from: galen

LCR-
as a mother who was raped, became pregnant, and kept her baby i can tell you that for me personally the act of keping my child helped me through the trauma of my attack.
As a healthcare professional who has counseled rape victims i can tell you that the majority have more trouble after an abortion, going through the healing process, because the mind percieves it as another attack. evedence suggests they are far more likely to have fertility problems in the future, if the rape was particularly traumatic to tissues and then an abortion in preformed on top and so soon after the attack.
Studies show that the majority of women ( and we are a small portion of all rapes) who give the child up after such an attack are better able to return to daily life with some semblance of normalacy quicker than those who bury the pregnancy with an abortion do. They have better long term prospects also. Good counseling can aid this process for a preganat rape victim and enable her to cope long term, however studies show that even the most effective therapy does not do as well for rape victims who undergo abortion. ( in the long term)

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's stupid. There's no such instance in which a woman WILL DIE NOW if you don't murder her baby!
Yes there are. They are few and far between, certainly. But in a case such as an ectopic pregnancy inside of a fallopian tube, if surgery is not performed quickly, both the mother and child will die. There is a little lee-way if the pregnancy is discovered early-on before the fallopian tube is at too large a risk of rupturing, but that's a matter of a week or two at the most. Little babies grow fast!
It's a terrible, terrible thing, but it does happen.
In my view, it is never acceptable to intentionally kill an innocent human being. No mother should ever be denied life saving intervention, but in all cases, every effort should be made to preserve the lives of both mother and child. The child should never be intentionally killed, and if it can not survive a procedure that is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, that is unfortunate, but unavoidable.
I will go one further and say that, in a case where only one can be saved (the mother or child), and the other will certainly die, this is the only time I insist the mother has a "right to choose." I am certain I would choose the life of my wife or daughter over that of her unborn child, but I feel that is her choice alone. If she wishes to sacrifice her life that her child may live, I do not feel anyone has the right to deny her. Of course, I also do not feel anyone has a right to insist she do so either.
I thoroughlly agree to that last part. My problem is not that women should always have the right, but that I feel their right to abort does need to be investigated. Some pro-choicers say this is a violation of patient privacy, but the woman is not the only patient involved here. The fetus is too, and so there should be a good reason it is being killed.
Take for instance a 12 year old girl. Birth is not a safe option for her, so I would approve of an abortion. What about the case of a woman who is on very strong medication to control a mental condition? If she were to get off the medicine for the duration of the pregnancy she would become a danger to herself and others. I approve of an abortion in that case too.
There are many exceptions, and I feel there should be an efficient system in place to judge the woman's reason for aborting. I don't want the woman to feel like she's being persecuted for an accident. It seems a little to me like refusing to help the man who caused a car accident. He deserves medical care, too.
As I said above, I believe rape is such a compromising situation that a woman's mental well being may hinge on her aborting and getting rid of all traces of the rape. As for incest, that's just disgusting and no child conceived in that should be born.
Fetal deformity in my opinion is a condition in which the child's quality of life would be severely stunted. A child that would not be able to mentally function, or be mobile in any way, and would basically be a vegetable, consists of my idea of severely deformed. Severe deformity also includes any deformity that would case death of the child in-utero or soon after birth - though I can understand a woman choosing to give birth anyway. It's an extremely personal choice, because the child in this case is always a wanted child.
Severe deformity does NOT included missing an arm or leg, survivable facial deformities, dwarfism, conjoined-twins, and things like that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And I know firsthand some women who wanted nothing more than to remove the fetus from their bodies. I will never, EVER condone forcing a raped woman to give birth. No reason can make me feel that is right. Rape is too horrifying a situation to be in for me to ever judge how a woman may feel about the fetus growing inside of her.

reply from: galen

I think you need to get past your disgust and look at the situation as a 2 fold problem.
Short term and long term.
short term problems are the initial attack, pregnancy , trial ( possibly) and delivery.
long term are issues of self esteem, worth, etc...how you reenter society as a whole woman, how you deal with memories etc.
The fact is while an abortion may cause some immediate relief most women who have them are furthur traumatised and have more long term issues...
what is the point of making her feel immediately better if she is sentenced to a lifetime of more severe suffering further on. you can not slap a band aid on this particular problem and have it go away. take it from someone whose been thier and still live it ... there is not a day that goes by that i don't find soem mention of it in my brain.
not to metion that the child did nothing to deserve execution.
Again... thats like telling a woman to go kill her neighbor because she was raped, poor thing lashing out might make her feel better... it does not work to her benefit and usually makes things worse.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A long term effect is maternal death, maternal emotional instability, post-partum depression... There are studies that show the majority of women do NOT regret their abortions. A woman who regrets her abortion should never have aborted in the first place. I think more focus needs to be placed on pre-abortion therapy. Not pre-abortion GUILT tactics, but actual therapy to determine if abortion is the right choice for that woman.

reply from: galen

all of those examples also happen with abortion and PPD does not have anything to do with anything except the fact you are preganant and then not...its a biochemical response and can even be brought on by using BCP... so get better aquainted with the medicine on this one.
therapy is fine... who is going to council the child about to be execute... even a condemned killer is afforded thier rights to counsel.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

In my view, there is no consideration that can prevail when weighed against human life other than another human life. There is never a "good reason" to intentionally kill an unborn child.
I'm almost to the point where I want to say "well that's your view but it's not everyone's view". And there IS a consideration, you have already admitted to cases where you consider abortion acceptable. So you do indeed think there can be a good reason to kill an unborn child.
Is abortion a "safe option" for her? How about for her child? In my view, the same logic should apply to pregnant women (or girls) at any age.
Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the united states. Yes, abortion is safe for the woman. Again, I'd need to see statistics comparing young abortion and young birth to determine which one is actually more dangerous for the mother. In my view, her life always comes first. What ever course is safer for her is the one that should be followed.
That's one of the reasons many people are ok with early term abortions: because an early abortion is clinically proven to be safer than giving birth for the mother.
I agree 100%.
Just because sometimes there is a good result doesn't mean it's actually safe. Some people survive crashes without wearing seatbelts, but that doesn't mean we should all unbuckle.
Neither of them should have to die, so if it was discovered that she was going to be severely handicapped, injured, or had a high chance of death, would you be ok with her aborting?
If the life of the mother requires the medication, I agree she must take it. I do not agree that she should be allowed to kill the child directly even in that case. (In other words, you don't get an abortion, intentionally killing the child, just so you can continue your chemotherapy without risking harming the child...)
You don't understand the effects of strong medications on the unborn child, or you failed to realise that this was what I was talking about. How can you condone purposely birthing a horribly disfigured, developmentally disabled child?
When the woman off of her anti-psychotics and anti-depressants (to avoid miscarriage and fetal deformity) goes on a killing rampage culminating in her own suicide in the maternity ward, I'll be sure to think of you.
Do you really understand the amount of control these women get from their medication? In some cases you would literally have to tie the women to the beds to ensure they do not hurt themselves, others, or their unborn child. Even then, the stress hormones secreted by the woman can't be good for the baby.
A fetus is not a born person.
How does killing the child "get rid of all traces of the rape?"
Ask a woman who has been raped and aborted who feels it was a good decision. I can't tell you; it's never happened to me.
That's what I feel pre-abortion therapy is so vital and should be required and done more intensely than it is now. Abortion providers should feel more power to turn away women who are unsure of the choice. Heck, an abortion provider's goal should be to prevent the abortion through the use of birth control, since many Women's Clinics do both.
However I know there are psychotic pro-choicers out there who disagree.
Well now, forced castration for rapists... that I can get behind! I understand your point of view, and personally I don't know how I'd feel in that situation, which is why I feel I can't tell a woman not to abort in that case.
He RAPED her, as far as I'm concerned his gonads have no rights.
A fetus is not the same as a born child.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Do you think that is a sufficient basis on which to discriminate against it?
That is part of it. If you have read my posts you know there is more to it than that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Do you think that is a sufficient basis on which to discriminate against it?
That is part of it. If you have read my posts you know there is more to it than that.
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.
I cannot and I refuse, to answer a complicated question with a "simple" yes or a no.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You clearly do not understand the extreme physical differences between an unborn fetus and a born baby. It's like comparing a fish and a dog. Or even better, and egg and a fully grown chicken.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, it is not solely sufficient. There are other factors. That's the exact same answer I already gave you.

reply from: galen

yep just as many diffrences between a human and a chimp... or a newborn and an adult....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What if I told you that women who abort are 4 times more likely to die within one year, and seven times more likely to commit suicide? Let's don't pretend that abortion is "safe" for women...
You can tell me all you like, but until you show me some actual research I'm not going to believe you. I was shown research that supports my current beliefs. You will only change my mind by supplying sufficient research.
Obviously, I condone no such thing. To start with, if the mother can survive without the meds, I do not believe she should be allowed to take them, knowing the child will be harmed if she does. We should not be allowed to intentionally harm our children. Do you disagree?
I do actually agree, except that I consider mental health something to protect aside from just physical health. If a woman would be mentally broken after giving birth, would you still force her to do so? What if she wouldn't even be able to care for her own child, much less ever enjoy life again? Isn't her QUALITY of life worth something?
Many medications have absolutely KNOWN side effects. Doctors do not "hope for the best". They KNOW. Take accutaine, the infamous acne medicine. The side effects are absolutely known and the fetus WILL be either severely deformed or die. It is not vague at all.
When she is allowed to kill one person to prevent her possibly harming another, I'll be sure to think of you. Once more, say it out loud for the full effect...
I do not believe a fetus is a person.
Listen to yourself here. You are arguing to justify killing the child, and you actually incorporate concern for that child into your argument?
Duh... Sorry, to me, that's a no-brainer. Abortion to me is about the unborn child and its potential quality of life.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The physical differences I am talking about occur long, LONG before the fetus is ready to be born. That's the first pro-life fallacy. You try to convince women that an embryo is exactly the same as a born baby, just itty-bitty. It's so false it's laughable.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

"The physical differences I am talking about occur long, LONG before the fetus is ready to be born. That's the first pro-life fallacy. You try to convince women that an embryo is exactly the same as a born baby, just itty-bitty. It's so false it's laughable."
I'm quoting myself because I don't really feel like saying the same thing for the 20th time.
I have already listed differences between a fetus and a born baby. If you still don't know, look at any fetal development website. When it develops ears and eyes, you realise that it previously didn't have any. And for cryin' out loud, it's not just one item that makes it different.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sorry, I got into the rut of using fetus for shorthand. I do mean z/e/f.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sorry, I got into the rut of using fetus for shorthand. I do mean z/e/f.
"z/e/f" includes "fetus," right? Then I'm afraid I stand by my assertions....
Are you really trying to be stupid?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, because there is, as I said, MORE TO IT THAN THAT. Would you like to know what else is involved?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have already listed them, I am not doing so again. The differences are in the zygote/embryo/fetus from the age of conception to about week 12. The majority of abortions (upwards of 90%) occur in this time period.
The unborn becomes known as a fetus at week 9, just FYI.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Please refer to the other topic where I clearly outlined a FEW of the many things I feel attribute to legal abortion.

reply from: galen

i agree with vexing...
i also ask you took look at the stages i posted for your enjoyment in your introductory thread.. it really shows your lack of knowledge on the subject when you interchange the terms.. please bring yourself up to date on the science.
then turn to the ethics.

reply from: sander

Killing a z/e/f, except when it presents immediate danger to the mother, is discrimination. Plain and simple.
You're saying that because it is 'lesser' than other human beings, that it is okay to kill it - coupled with the ideas that the mother does not want to be a parent/be pregnant, might not have the finances to raise it or is psychologically unsound.
That's just not good enough.
Your essential basis for killing it, however, is that it doesn't look 'human' enough (because you don't support abortion after viability).
That is the ONLY thing your entire argument rests on; that it is okay to kill something that doesn't look human.
Hey, wait a minute! I thought you were pro-abortion! And here you're making a fabulous pro-life argument! and

reply from: english

Foetuses look like mini-babies from about 8 weeks onwards.
They have their own heartbeat from about 6 weeks - thats when I think they become totally their own person although they're attached still. But born babies can't survive without being looked after by someone either, so the argument that it's not it's own person becaus it's dependent is weak on the pro-abort side.
It looks like some kind of mini-human/seahorse hybrid from about 4/5 weeks onwards.
But it has all the genes it's ever going to need for it's whole life from conception onwards - a young human life created. No, the morning after pill won't cause pain to the zygote. But you have killed something that will become a human within a few weeks - a young human life.
Anyway, my opinion is that abortion is justifiable for MASSIVE defects in the baby, such as it's missing a head or something and is TOTALLY parasitic and pointless, or if the mother's life is seriously at risk if she carries a baby. I mean like more chance of dying than not. In that instance no one is qualified to say which life is more inportant. The mother might decide she's more important, as the loss of her life might cause more suffering to other people, like family, kids and friends. Or she might just want to live and that's her choice. I don't think I would ever have an abortion, even in that instant.
I don't think it's right to abort just because the child's disabled, that doesn't make him worthless and it's not doing him a favour.
Got more to say but I have to go now

reply from: yoda

Had you said "physical differences", I could agree to that.
Again, physical differences do exist between all human beings, born and unborn, young and old. Even identical twins are not "identical".
Nothing you have said even comes close to a moral justification for the destruction of a healthy baby by a healthy mother.
Not even close.
(The above is being re-posted due to Lib's poor eyesight)
It's really sad to see such an apparently intelligent person lying to herself, (and to us, of course) as if she had no obligation to face reality, or even pretend to make sense.
The use of such phrases as "not the same as" to justify killing an innocent baby due to nothing more than simple physical developmental differences is truly appalling in the extreme. And willful blindness to that which is obvious to everyone else (even other proaborts) is just plain sad.
If there were a charity for the emotionally crippled, Lib could be the poster child for that charity.

reply from: sander

It's right out of Sanger's playbook and is the basis of all eugenics.

reply from: yoda

It's pretty close. It has no more logical basis than Sanger's claims of white, upper class moral superiority..... only she's claiming "more fully developed" moral superiority..... as if moral value could be measured by the ounce and/or pound.
I wonder if she thinks that us fat people are morally superior to thin people?

reply from: sander

It's pretty close. It has no more logical basis than Sanger's claims of white, upper class moral superiority..... only she's claiming "more fully developed" moral superiority..... as if moral value could be measured by the ounce and/or pound.
I wonder if she thinks that us fat people are morally superior to thin people?
If she had one intellecutaly honest bone in her body, she would have to.

reply from: faithman

It's pretty close. It has no more logical basis than Sanger's claims of white, upper class moral superiority..... only she's claiming "more fully developed" moral superiority..... as if moral value could be measured by the ounce and/or pound.
I wonder if she thinks that us fat people are morally superior to thin people?
If she had one intellecutaly honest bone in her body, she would have to.
Well the roetund float better, so they are the first to be thrown from the life boat.

reply from: english

To add more, it's not right in cases of rape or incest as it isn't the child's fault. It's never ever EVER right if the mother has gor pregnant through her own fault. The right to choose ends when a girl has sex. That's what sex was "designed" for, it's natural and people need to accept that. People can massively reduce the chances of getting pregnant by using contraception PROPERLY. The amount of pregnancies (sp?) due to supposed "failed contraception" don't add up to the statistics of how safe they are. Basically, the majority of these women who claim failed contraception are ignorant and didn't know how to use it properly, or were lazy and didn't use it at all (and probably can't remember lol)

reply from: faithman

To add more, it's not right in cases of rape or incest as it isn't the child's fault. It's never ever EVER right if the mother has gor pregnant through her own fault. The right to choose ends when a girl has sex. That's what sex was "designed" for, it's natural and people need to accept that. People can massively reduce the chances of getting pregnant by using contraception PROPERLY. The amount of pregnancies (sp?) due to supposed "failed contraception" don't add up to the statistics of how safe they are. Basically, the majority of these women who claim failed contraception are ignorant and didn't know how to use it properly, or were lazy and didn't use it at all (and probably can't remember lol)
Check out the IAAP womb child. It is clearly a child at 7 weeks.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics