Home - List All Discussions

I Am Pro-Life.

Are You?

by: LiberalChiRo

This is YodaCracker's definition of abortion. Has he ever accused YOU of not being "pro-life"? If he has, feel free to show him the following list of definitions.
No other definition has the word "now" included in their description of pro-life.
"opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-life
<br ">http://dictionary.refe...e.com...se/pro-life
"The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that fetuses and embryos are human beings, and therefore have a right to live."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life
<br ">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life
"Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."
"An ideological position which opposes abortion on the grounds of the inviolable rights of the foetus as a moral subject. These rights are seen as 'trumping' all countervailing considerations claimed by pro-choicers, though there are some differences of opinion on appropriate action in 'tough cases' (e.g. where the mother's life is threatened by continuation of the pregnancy)."
"advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions)"
All above from http://www.answers.com/topic/pro-life
<br ">http://www.answers.com/topic/pro-life
"Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-life
<br ">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-life
"against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially, involved in campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos."
http://encarta.msn.com/diction...0/pro-life.html
<br ">http://encarta.msn.com...ion.....o-life.html
I have YET to see the word NOW. That is your fabricated definition and it applies only to YOU.
"One entry found for pro-life.
Main Entry: pro-life
Function: adjective
ANTIABORTION"
http://medical.merriam-webster...edical/pro-life
<br ">http://medical.merriam...ter.....al/pro-life
Antiabortion, according to medical merriam-webster:
"opposed to abortion and especially to the legalization of abortion"
http://medical.merriam-webster...va=antiabortion
<br ">http://medical.merriam...ter.....ntiabortion
"opposing the legal right to obtain an abortion"
http://www.yourdictionary.com/pro-life
<br ">http://www.yourdictionary.com/pro-life
Is that enough sources for you? NONE of them say "In favor of the criminalization of elective abortion NOW." In fact many of them don't even mention making abortion illegal or have it as an aside. Most are "Promoting equal rights for unborn, often by opposing legalized abortion".
I am pro-life according to every single one of those sources. You are in denial.

reply from: lukesmom

So you are opposed to legalized abortion which would mean you would like to make abortion illegal which would make having or performing an abortion a crime? Please clarify as I believe I have read posts from you stating you support a woman's legal right to abortion up to a certain gestational age. Maybe I am wrong in this?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I am now opposed to legalized ELECTIVE abortion. I would like to see elective abortion become illegal, but in a way that would be controlled and structured to protect the mother.
I would be in favor of arresting the doctor and nurses who assist or perform illegal elective abortions. I would NOT be in favor of arresting the mother. She is a victim too.
I did have a limit in the past but don't really anymore. I am still on the wall in cases of rape and young maternal age. I believe those are cases that would have to be discussed and diagnosed with the woman, a doctor and a psychologist.

reply from: lukesmom

What other kind of abortion is there that would still be legal if elective abortion was illegal? Spontaneous abortion is a miscarraige so doesn't fit and I don't know of any other "kind" of abortion.

reply from: Jameberlin

Abortions which are deemed necessary to maintain the health of the mother, in other words, you can't abort if you're carrying a baby with downs, but you could abort if there was a dangerous ectopic pregnancy or another disorder which would more than likely result in the mother's demise.
In terms of "elective" sure, you could say that you elected to have surgery to remove a dangerous ectopic pregnancy when you could very well have elected not to... However, this term almost becomes negligible if abortion were to be restricted to being a medical procedure that was only performed to save the life of the mother. Like, how if a man has surgery to remove a tumor, it's not really considered elective tumor removal, just tumor removal. Surgery.

reply from: Banned Member

I am against all abortion. I am against every single abortion. I am against abortion in instances of rape. I believe that when a mothers health is at risk, every effort must first be made to save the life of the unborn child.
I believe that abortion should be a punishable crime for that the seek them, those that provide them and those that pay for them.
I believe that every abortion is elective.
Women for whom pregnancy is a risk should not engage in sexual activity as that is the real health risk factor. Once she has sex, she has already put the importance of the childs health above her own and needs to accept that responsibility.
Sex is not a right. Life is.

reply from: Banned Member

Crimes are not presecuted to protect the guilty.

reply from: nancyu

This ^^ is what it means to be pro life.
Are you pro life?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Abortion to save the mother's life. Abortion in case of deformity - I know you made the choice to carry, but I know not all women can do that. Abortion in the case of extremely young maternal age - I'm still on the wall with this one. If a 9 year old became pregnant, I'm fairly certain an early-term abortion would be less traumatic to her body than a full-blown pregnancy. I care about the mother in these cases.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You said you're against ALL abortions, so even if the mother were CERTAIN to die, you would let her die rather than abort the child. PERIOD. That's what it means to be against ALL abortions. Are you really against every single abortion? You cannot have exceptions if you make that claim.
Yes it is.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This ^^ is what it means to be pro life.
Are you pro life?
That is AUGUSTINE'S definition of pro-life. I would not call Augustine pro-life because he would let the mother AND child die before allowing an abortion to save the mother's life. He is anti-woman and anti-life.

reply from: Banned Member

What kinds of deformity?
Name them please...
Why should a child have an abortion if they have a deformity?
Would you abort a child if you knew they had Downs?
Cystic Fibrosis? if that could be known?
or these...
Blindness?
Deafness?
Height?
Hair or eye color?
Intelligence?
Gay or straight?
Would not perfection and personal preference end up being the rule rather than illness or imperfection being the exception? Is that not eugenics? In animals, we call that selective breeding. Does not making exceptions open the back door to having a "designer child"?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You obviously haven't been reading ANYTHING I've written on here, or you would know what my definition of a deformity is. I am not going to answer you. Sufficed to say, not a single thing you mentioned counts as a deformity on my list, nor would they count to most people.

reply from: yoda

That word is implied in the present tense.
If someone says "I am a fisherman", does that mean he will be a fisherman in the future?
Or if someone says "I favor outlawing abortion", does that mean they will favor it in the future, or that they favor outlawing it at some indefinite time in the future?
No, it means NOW.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I am pro-life now. My plan is different from yours but that does not make it wrong.

reply from: yoda

No, it doesn't make it wrong.
It doesn't make you prolife either.
Babies are dying NOW.... they need help NOW..... not at some undetermined date in the future............... NOW!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why do you think my plan doesn't help babies NOW? I want counselors in abortion clinics to help women choose life. NOW. That will save babies. I want regulation of the industry NOW. I want informed consent NOW. I want required ultrasounds NOW. I want a lot of things NOW, but one of those things is not total illegalization of elective abortion. You have to change how people think, and instantly removing a right (even a "bad" right) never works. It backfires.
Outlawing slavery didn't work immediately and caused more than a century of social discrimination. We are still trying to fix that. Prohibition didn't work and now alcohol is even more firmly entrenched in our society. Outlawing guns NOW wouldn't work either. Smoking is slowly becoming illegal but doing it NOW wouldn't work either. It is happening in steps. People are dying of lung cancer, shouldn't you be fighting to outlaw smoking NOW? Shouldn't you be fighting to ban guns NOW? Or can you understand the social ramifications of such idealistic blunders?
I don't have the (apparent) total disregard for motherly life like you do. I would NOT rather see the mother die and the baby live. I would NOT like to see her in jail for getting an abortion. I understand she needs help, you don't.
We have VERY different ideas of how to be pro-life. It doesn't make either of us NOT pro-life.

reply from: Jameberlin

It's not considered abortion by the Catholic church if a medical procedure is done to save the mother's life, and a by product of that procedure is the death of the baby.
"There are instances in which it is legitimate for an expectant mother to undergo certain medical or surgical procedures that will save her life, even if these procedures inevitably involve the death of her unborn child. In these cases it is not a question of intentionally aborting the child. They involve, rather, accepting the loss of the child as an unavoidable consequence of caring for the mother´s health.
The clearest and surest example is the ectopic pregnancy. As everyone knows, should the fetus become lodged in the oviduct or fallopian tube, its continued growth will result in the death of both child and mother. A normal and proper procedure in this case is the removal of the fallopian tube, from which the death of the unborn child inevitably follows. In this case the death of the child is not sought, nor is the mother´s life saved by the child´s dying.
This is not an abortion. Quite simply, the mother´s life is saved by the surgical removal of the oviduct, not by the death of her child. If this reasoning is too subtle for some American minds to follow, well, the available evidence suggests that just about any coherent thinking these days is too subtle for some American minds to follow. "
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=177

reply from: Jameberlin

Chiro, i have to say that young maternal age is not an argument for abortion, with modern medicine available to mothers, it's possible for even the smallest body to survive pregnancy and birth healthily. I know it's disturbing to know, but the youngest mother ever to give birth was a 5 year old Peruvian girl (Lina Medina) who gave birth via c-section in 1939 and lived a long (physically) healthy life.
Maternal size is a risk factor when carrying children, yes, but my grandmother never stood more than 4'10" tall and carried three healthy children to term. This is astounding! Considering she's not even the recommended height to sit in the front seat of a car.
In countries like America, where vaccines and good health care are readily available, children are growing bigger and stronger sooner than they ever did before.... So i don't consider young maternal age to be a factor.
I know it's a popular stance, to say abortion is wrong in cases of rape, incest etc. but frankly, the taking of one innocent persons life will never result in the mother becoming "better", nor will it erase the abuse that was inflicted on her. In other words, two wrongs don't ever make a right.
The fact of the matter is, most rape cases never result in pregnancy, and frankly, i suspect there are a few women claiming rape to ease their conscience regarding their abortions.

reply from: carolemarie

First of all, women are just as important as the baby, and if the life of mom is at stake it is perfectly acceptable to abort. The baby isn't more important than the mom! Only a someone who doesn't value women beyond breeding purposes would say such a thing!
All most all abortions are convenience abortions, not the life of the mother, rape or incest or fetal abnormalities. These represent maybe 2% of the totals.
I am for outlawing all abortion except the above ones.
That would pretty much end abortion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

When a medically diagnosed sociopathic baby-killer runs for office, then we'll be able to answer this question. Until then, it's an interesting hypothetical.
Proof please... If you mean he advocates the use of unwanted IVF embryos in medical research to cure diseases, then yes, I am all for that research. Those snowflake "babies" are normally not much more than blastocysts. Not that this doesn't make them any less human; but if the parents sign away the rights to these babies, then I feel they are best put to use curing disease. It's like organ donation from a car-crash victim. Do you realise that MOST of these babies will never be adopted and surrogated, and that even if they were, the likelyhood of them implanting is extremely low (IVF isn't terribly effective and costs thousands of dollars), so these babies are actually far more useful to society helping in stem-cell research?
If (god forbid) I ever needed IVF and went through with it (unlikely, since I'd prefer to adopt), any left-over babies of mine will be donated to stem-cell research.
Zombies are fictional monsters that don't exist in the real world. Have you been watching too many horror movies lately? Cannibals do exist, but normally only in the jungles of Africa and South America. Consuming human flesh is not healthy due to the risk of infection and I'm fairly certain it's illegal in America.
By the way... I hate Bush. So from my perspective, he looks like he IS the zombie, preparing to take a chomp out of that baby's neck. The woman behind looks like the baby's desperate mother trying to save the child from its horrible fate: As food to fuel the war-crazed-maniac "Dubya" as he flies over Iraq and Afghanistan dropping bombs entitled "Freedom" and saying to the American public that he is "delivering freedom to the middle east!"

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I've heard of her, but I don't feel one case justifies the abuse pregnancy puts on a tiny body. Just because it is survivable doesn't make it justifiable. I feel it should be up to the little girl. After explaining the risks of pregnancy and showing her pictures of how old her baby is at the time, I feel she should make her own decision. Most young girls will probably choose to carry anyway, but if she feels it's not worth the risk, that is her choice because the risk to her is SO much higher than for a mature woman.
There are additional risk factors to young mothers aside from their size. It's all about the development of their body... I just can't justify taking the choice from a little girl. I could not look her in the eyes and say "you do not have a choice, this is extremely dangerous and you could die."
That doesn't make it right. What about the mental affects? Then again, what about the mental effects of killing your own baby? Young girls are very impressionable, and I feel most would choose life it given the choice... which is why it should be HER choice, never the choice of the parent.
Well, incest has a higher chance of causing a lethal deformity. Apparently I need to specify "lethal deformity" every single time now because some people (not you) on this board can't read.
I am still on the fence about rape. It's the same way I feel about little girls and pregnancy. There's so much going on emotionally that I don't know what to say. If the world were ideal, all pregnant women, raped or young, would be shown a video of the entire procedure of the week they are in, and/or the week their procedure is being scheduled for. That way, they can see exactly what their body will go through and what is being torn from them. I feel almost every woman would choose life if confronted with the truth.
All of these cases are rare. Rape, young maternal age, lethal deformities and incest cases account for less than 5% and probably more like around 1-3% of ALL abortions currently happening in the USA. Almost all abortions are elective abortions done between the weeks of 6 and 12.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh how double-standard of them. Is that just to make the mother feel better? It's still technically an abortion; it's just the church trying to weasel out of saying "We support some abortions but not all", and get away with saying "we support no abortions!" How cheap. It's an abortion. They need to fess up to it already.
Aka an abortion
Which is called an abortion.
Intentionally or not, the child is being aborted. Period. Miscarriage isn't intentional, but miscarriage is a natural form of abortion.
I can hear this being used as a pro-choice argument already.
Embryo, actually. But they're already changing the meaning of the word "abortion" so who am I to talk?
And the cessation of pregnancy is called an abortion... if it occurs naturally it's still an abortion but it's called a miscarriage. Why is this so hard to understand?
Yes it is. You aborted the pregnancy. Abort means to end. You ended the pregnancy. You aborted it.
LOL! Word play is fun, isn't it? Let's play another one... let's change the meaning of STUPID!! I want it to describe anyone who believes an ectopic removal isn't an abortion of pregnancy. Oh wait... it already does.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Indeed it would, and that's my eventual goal.

reply from: Banned Member

You really don't exemplify the profound sense of self sacrifice that is so indicative of every mother that I have ever met. Most mothers I have encountered would glad give their life for the child; they would die for their child. You would say let the mother live and let the child die. Apparently from this I see that you still hold some distinction between the born child and the unborn child. Even if you hold that woman and unborn child have complete equality, than your choice would still be to abortion. That to me suggests that you value the born over the unborn and if the born are valued more than the unborn why should any abortion be condemed?

reply from: Banned Member

I am against all abortion. I am against every single abortion. I am against abortion in instances of rape. I believe that when a mothers health is at risk, every effort must first be made to save the life of the unborn child.
I believe that abortion should be a punishable crime for that the seek them, those that provide them and those that pay for them.
I believe that every abortion is elective.
Women for whom pregnancy is a risk should not engage in sexual activity as that is the real health risk factor. Once she has sex, she has already put the importance of the childs health above her own and needs to accept that responsibility.
Sex is not a right. Life is.
I should add...
There can and should be no legal or moral difference between the unlawful death of the born and of the unborn.

reply from: Banned Member

Imagine a judge who has never stolen, raped or murdered sending people who have committed these crime to prison. Who does he think he is? Does our indignation at immoral acts need to come from personal experience?

reply from: carolemarie

You really don't exemplify the profound sense of self sacrifice that is so indicative of every mother that I have ever met. Most mothers I have encountered would glad give their life for the child; they would die for their child. You would say let the mother live and let the child die. Apparently from this I see that you still hold some distinction between the born child and the unborn child. Even if you hold that woman and unborn child have complete equality, than your choice would still be to abortion. That to me suggests that you value the born over the unborn and if the born are valued more than the unborn why should any abortion be condemed?
If I was pregnant right now, and I would die if I went through with the pregnancy, I would have the termination. I have a son who needs me and a family that needs me.
Would I want an abortion? No. But to save my life? Yes. That is a totally different set of circumstances. Because I love my son, I would do what I can to live to be his mom.
If an armed gunman was going to shoot my son, I would throw my body on his to protect him. I would die for him. Not a problem.

reply from: 4given

I agree. As far as some women with health risk factors, many women aren't aware of the risks, or do not develop risks until pregnant. I would never want to be a woman( and likely will not ever understand any woman) that chooses to kill her child, rather than wait until it was viable to receive whatever treatment needed.

reply from: Banned Member

How can you know that you would die if you went through the pregnancy? And don't you dare "soften the langauge" at this point. If you are saying you would have an abortion you had better use the word abortion.
25 weeks? Could you not try to get that child 25 weeks? maybe a little more? and give both of you the best chance for mutual health? Or are you saying you would not take the chance, and simply abort before you give the child a chance?

reply from: carolemarie

How can you know that you would die if you went through the pregnancy? And don't you dare "soften the langauge" at this point. If you are saying you would have an abortion you had better use the word abortion.
25 weeks? Could you not try to get that child 25 weeks? maybe a little more? and give both of you the best chance for mutual health? Or are you saying you would not take the chance, and simply abort before you give the child a chance?
First of all, what kind of mythical illness do I have? Is it one that would let me wait till 26 weeks? Do I need chemo?
I would do what the Dr.'s think would give me the best chance to live. I have a son who needs me. He comes first.
And in this circumstance, termination is the best word to describe what would happen. Nobody wants the baby to die, it just can't be helped, if the mother is to be saved.
And don't you think that should be the womans decision? It is her life at stake.

reply from: carolemarie

I agree. As far as some women with health risk factors, many women aren't aware of the risks, or do not develop risks until pregnant. I would never want to be a woman( and likely will not ever understand any woman) that chooses to kill her child, rather than wait until it was viable to receive whatever treatment needed.
What if the treatment couldn't wait? You would force women to die or would you leave it to them to decide what they wish to do in this circumstance?

reply from: Banned Member

Most women I have encountered that have had "complications" of any real signifigance were well beyond the stage of viability, that is, they could be care for without extraordinary measure even if the mother had to deliver early.
So would you trust to medicine and God or would you end the childs life by abortion?
In what instance would you, or any woman, have to abort prior to 25 weeks or the mother would certainly die?
20 weeks?
15 weeks?
How early could a life threatening situation develop for the mother, where doctors could be reasonably expect that she would die, if she did not have an abortion?
Does such a circumstance even exist?

reply from: Banned Member

You are right. The judge is not telling them how to do these things. He is telling them that they were wrong to do these things and that they are to be punished for doing them.
I guess these people should have consulted a convicted felon for advice before stealing, raping and killing rather than say, their mother, or a concerned friend, or even a stranger before doing these things.... who might have told them these things were wrong?

reply from: 4given

I don't "force women" to do anything. What treatment do you think couldn't wait? Specifically for what?
EDIT: Where did I imply such a thing Carole?

reply from: carolemarie

How would I know? This is your mythical woman. I say if it is her life, she decides what to do. She could be sick and need chemo, or have heart failure or other problems that the pregnancy is too much of a strain on her body, and if she is to live, she needs an abortion.
That is a very personal decision that no man will ever have to make, so logically, it needs to be the moms decision. It would be rare and very uncommon. We can save our own lives. It would be a tragic thing to have happen. B]

reply from: carolemarie

I don't "force women" to do anything. What treatment do you think couldn't wait? Specifically for what?
EDIT: Where did I imply such a thing Carole?
I didn't say you implied anything.
I am asking you, do you believe this is a decision that the individual woman should make or should it be legislated that they can't terminate, even if they will die.
I don't know if there is a condition that would have to be an early termination. The question is who decides, the state or the mother. I believe it is the mothers decision. It is after all her life.

reply from: carolemarie

You are right. The judge is not telling them how to do these things. He is telling them that they were wrong to do these things and that they are to be punished for doing them.
Oh, so sex is wrong then?
And we should be punished for having sex?
Are children the punishment or something?
Or just listening to your virgin whining?
I think that it is admirable that people wait till they are married to have sex. That is a good thing and shows self-control. And nobody should mock someone for not sleeping around. I think it is good that you live your convictions.
But telling women they should be willing to die to give birth to a baby is an extreme point of view. It needs to be her choice.

reply from: 4given

Truth is that women have been "protected" when their health was at risk, so regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter- the health of the mother has always come before the life of her child. I was speaking from my personal POV. Legislative exceptions are for rape and incest cases. Right? Our son was scheduled to be delivered at 30 weeks for health reasons. Due to other circumstances, he was born on his due date. (the only one that made it to his due date actually) If he has been delivered 8-10 weeks early, his risk of infection and other issues would have been increased.

reply from: lukesmom

This is still an elective abortion as it is the "choice" of the mother and no one else, it is not a "natural" end of a pregnancy which would be a spontanious abortion. Abortions for medical reasons are still considered elective as the pregnancy is not ended by nature.

reply from: lukesmom

You really don't exemplify the profound sense of self sacrifice that is so indicative of every mother that I have ever met. Most mothers I have encountered would glad give their life for the child; they would die for their child. You would say let the mother live and let the child die. Apparently from this I see that you still hold some distinction between the born child and the unborn child. Even if you hold that woman and unborn child have complete equality, than your choice would still be to abortion. That to me suggests that you value the born over the unborn and if the born are valued more than the unborn why should any abortion be condemed?
If I was pregnant right now, and I would die if I went through with the pregnancy, I would have the termination. I have a son who needs me and a family that needs me.
Would I want an abortion? No. But to save my life? Yes. That is a totally different set of circumstances. Because I love my son, I would do what I can to live to be his mom.
If an armed gunman was going to shoot my son, I would throw my body on his to protect him. I would die for him. Not a problem.
So protecting your born child is MORE important than protecting your unborn child. How can you make that distinction? I couldn't and neither could my mom who had 6 kids at home with me, at age 10, as the oldest. Thank God she didn't listen and my sister was born and mom was fine. Just had dinner with my sister tonight and she, her dh and all 5 of her kids are pretty greatful "grammy" didn't listen to the doctors. How is one child less important than the others?
Oh and my mom is fine too.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You really don't exemplify the profound sense of self sacrifice that is so indicative of every mother that I have ever met. Most mothers I have encountered would glad give their life for the child; they would die for their child.
But it is that mother's CHOICE to make. No one is forcing her to die. YOU would, I bet.
Hell yes, if that is the mother's choice. I am not making that choice for her. If she wants to carry the pregnancy with that risk it is her choice. Not mine. Not mine at all.
Yes. The situation of pregnancy is unique and cannot simply be ignored. It is stupidity to do so.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That is an abortion. You are For some abortions. You are pro-abortion to save the mother's life.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree. As far as some women with health risk factors, many women aren't aware of the risks, or do not develop risks until pregnant. I would never want to be a woman( and likely will not ever understand any woman) that chooses to kill her child, rather than wait until it was viable to receive whatever treatment needed.
Sometimes there isn't time. A woman with an ectopic pregnancy for example, cannot wait for viability. There are other cases where there simply isn't time.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes. An ectopic pregnancy. You seem to constantly forget that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't "force women" to do anything. What treatment do you think couldn't wait? Specifically for what?
EDIT: Where did I imply such a thing Carole?
Ectopic pregnancy.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This is still an elective abortion as it is the "choice" of the mother and no one else, it is not a "natural" end of a pregnancy which would be a spontanious abortion. Abortions for medical reasons are still considered elective as the pregnancy is not ended by nature.
Actually no, they're not considered elective, they are considered life-saving procedures. In fact they're SO "not-elective" that the Catholic church doesn't even consider them abortions!!

reply from: lukesmom

This is still an elective abortion as it is the "choice" of the mother and no one else, it is not a "natural" end of a pregnancy which would be a spontanious abortion. Abortions for medical reasons are still considered elective as the pregnancy is not ended by nature.
Actually no, they're not considered elective, they are considered life-saving procedures. In fact they're SO "not-elective" that the Catholic church doesn't even consider them abortions!!
You are not quite correct. Abortion for deformities IS an elective procedure, while abortion for ectopic pregnancy is not. Here is the Catholic Churches stand:
4. Medical necessity. What about the argument that the Church must make exceptions to its teaching when abortion is medically necessary for the mother's health or a child's disability?
First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother's death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother's life. It is not a direct abortion.
There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother's life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section.
The argument for killing disabled unborn children is not a medical one either. There are no disabilities which require directly killing the child in order to save the mother. In fact, disabled children can usually be delivered with no more complications than a child without disabilities. The argument for abortion in these cases is ideological, a belief that it is better - for the child, the family and the whole society - for the child to die than to live with a disability.
5. Culpability. Here, a vitally important point must be made. While the Church teaches that the act of killing an unborn child is intrinsically bad, it does not teach that the mother who seeks an abortion is also intrinsically bad. There is a difference between condemning an act, and judging the guilt of the actor. Only God can judge these women. To the woman who has had an abortion the Church says instead: "How can we reconcile you? How can we help you, first, to face honestly what happened, repent, and be reconciled to the child, to yourself, to your family and to God?" Today, most Catholic dioceses in the United States sponsor programs of healing for post-abortion women.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp

reply from: yoda

That's your right. And it's also a direct contradiction of the definition of "prolife".
Therefore, you are not prolife.

reply from: yoda

That's an excellent question.

reply from: lukesmom

That's an excellent question.
Born children are harder to look after, as they are far more independent.
True, and they are harder to look after in that sense than a 1 month old, so therefore more important than the weaker and less indepentant 1 month old? I have one child with ADHD who, when younger, wondered constantly and was very hard to keep track of, I suppose my other three, since easier to care for, where more disposable than he was. Where do you draw the line on who is more disposable than others and as a parent, should we even consider disposing of our children?

reply from: jujujellybean

ectopic pregnancies are sad cases, but the baby can't survive and the mother will die as well if something isn't done. So, they don't kill the baby, they just remove the Fallopian tubes and the baby dies as a result. Sad, but nothing can be done.

reply from: yoda

Born children have the protection of the law on their side. Unborn children do not. Therefore your assertion is ridiculous. Not to mention, that was not even close to answering the question asked.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I made this argument as a pro-choicer to some pro-lifers and of course they said "bullcrap".
What if an abortionist removed the 6-12 week embryo/fetus* from ANY unwanted pregnancy nice and whole and laid it comfortably on the countertop in a bassinet? It's still going to die no matter what because its development is simply not compatible with life. Would this still be an abortion? It's just like your description of the removal of the fallopian tube.
Yes, both of these cases are abortions. Why? "To abort" in the context of pregnancy means to end the pregnancy by removal of the unborn, whether through natural means (miscarriage) or unnatural means (a doctor or medicines). Any process of ending a pregnancy, natural or unnatural, needed or elective, is an abortion.
*I say 6-12 weeks because this is the time period during which +80% of all abortions take place

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's your right. And it's also a direct contradiction of the definition of "prolife".
Therefore, you are not prolife.
Find me a definition that says pro-lifers must want the illegalization of elective abortion NOW. Until you do, I am pro-life.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Actually no, they're not considered elective, they are considered life-saving procedures. In fact they're SO "not-elective" that the Catholic church doesn't even consider them abortions!!
You are not quite correct. Abortion for deformities IS an elective procedure, while abortion for ectopic pregnancy is not. Here is the Catholic Churches stand:
I wasn't talking about deformities anymore, I was talking about life-saving procedures. So I am correct.

reply from: lukesmom

then you need to clarify yourself when you post. Believe it or not, I can't read minds, but don't tell my kids that!

reply from: lukesmom

I made this argument as a pro-choicer to some pro-lifers and of course they said "bullcrap".
What if an abortionist removed the 6-12 week embryo/fetus* from ANY unwanted pregnancy nice and whole and laid it comfortably on the countertop in a bassinet? It's still going to die no matter what because its development is simply not compatible with life. Would this still be an abortion? It's just like your description of the removal of the fallopian tube.
Yes, both of these cases are abortions. Why? "To abort" in the context of pregnancy means to end the pregnancy by removal of the unborn, whether through natural means (miscarriage) or unnatural means (a doctor or medicines). Any process of ending a pregnancy, natural or unnatural, needed or elective, is an abortion.
*I say 6-12 weeks because this is the time period during which +80% of all abortions take place
Actually you know the answer to your own question and are trying to muddy the waters and start a fight. Rolling eyes like my teenager...

reply from: jujujellybean

LOL I am absolutely famous for my eye roll...not even kidding...it's like a flutter and roll at the same time.

reply from: jujujellybean

I made this argument as a pro-choicer to some pro-lifers and of course they said "bullcrap".
What if an abortionist removed the 6-12 week embryo/fetus* from ANY unwanted pregnancy nice and whole and laid it comfortably on the countertop in a bassinet? It's still going to die no matter what because its development is simply not compatible with life. Would this still be an abortion? It's just like your description of the removal of the fallopian tube.
Yes, both of these cases are abortions. Why? "To abort" in the context of pregnancy means to end the pregnancy by removal of the unborn, whether through natural means (miscarriage) or unnatural means (a doctor or medicines). Any process of ending a pregnancy, natural or unnatural, needed or elective, is an abortion.
*I say 6-12 weeks because this is the time period during which +80% of all abortions take place
Yes, but the difference is in the one, the mother is more than likely NOT going to die as a result of carrying the pregnancy to term. BIG difference.

reply from: yoda

No kidding?
Hey, all we're asking is for unborn babies to HAVE THE CHANCE to have an "accident"..... is that TOO MUCH TO ASK????
Do you really not see the difference between having an accident after birth, and being intentionally and electively killed BEFORE BIRTH?
REALLY? REALLY????

reply from: yoda

They all do. The "now" is implied in the present tense.
Any grammar school kid knows that. You are NOT prolife.

reply from: nancyu

That's your right. And it's also a direct contradiction of the definition of "prolife".
Therefore, you are not prolife.
Find me a definition that says pro-lifers must want the illegalization of elective abortion NOW. Until you do, I am pro-life.
No you will not be pro life until you want abortion to be illegal. You may be pro life later, when the time is more convenient for you.

reply from: Faramir

You got me confused now, nancyu.
Abortion already is illegal. She doesn't need to want something that already is.

reply from: yoda

Yes, at a future, yet to be determined time, perhaps.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Haha XD Sorry. My mind goes a million miles an hour.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I made this argument as a pro-choicer to some pro-lifers and of course they said "bullcrap".
What if an abortionist removed the 6-12 week embryo/fetus* from ANY unwanted pregnancy nice and whole and laid it comfortably on the countertop in a bassinet? It's still going to die no matter what because its development is simply not compatible with life. Would this still be an abortion? It's just like your description of the removal of the fallopian tube.
Yes, both of these cases are abortions. Why? "To abort" in the context of pregnancy means to end the pregnancy by removal of the unborn, whether through natural means (miscarriage) or unnatural means (a doctor or medicines). Any process of ending a pregnancy, natural or unnatural, needed or elective, is an abortion.
*I say 6-12 weeks because this is the time period during which +80% of all abortions take place
Actually you know the answer to your own question and are trying to muddy the waters and start a fight. Rolling eyes like my teenager...
I don't understand. Of course I know how I answer it, but how do other people answer it? That's what I'm wondering.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I made this argument as a pro-choicer to some pro-lifers and of course they said "bullcrap".
What if an abortionist removed the 6-12 week embryo/fetus* from ANY unwanted pregnancy nice and whole and laid it comfortably on the countertop in a bassinet? It's still going to die no matter what because its development is simply not compatible with life. Would this still be an abortion? It's just like your description of the removal of the fallopian tube.
Yes, both of these cases are abortions. Why? "To abort" in the context of pregnancy means to end the pregnancy by removal of the unborn, whether through natural means (miscarriage) or unnatural means (a doctor or medicines). Any process of ending a pregnancy, natural or unnatural, needed or elective, is an abortion.
*I say 6-12 weeks because this is the time period during which +80% of all abortions take place
Yes, but the difference is in the one, the mother is more than likely NOT going to die as a result of carrying the pregnancy to term. BIG difference.
Okay, cool. I wasn't actually thinking about that when I wrote it. Yes, the mother isn't going to die in case two.
But... is it still an abortion? Do some people consider case 1 not an abortion ONLY because it is done to save the mother's life? Why do they have the right to change the meaning of the word abortion?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

They all do. The "now" is implied in the present tense.
Any grammar school kid knows that. You are NOT prolife.
No it's not, you're just trying to desperately win.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I do. So I am pro-life.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You got me confused now, nancyu.
Abortion already is illegal. She doesn't need to want something that already is.
Hahah!!!! Win.

reply from: nancyu

Abortion is illegal because I believe it is, and because I want it to be. Liberal, is abortion illegal?

reply from: Jameberlin

If that were the definition if illegal, sure. But it's not. So, no.
END.

reply from: Faramir

I am the President of the United States because I believe it and want to be the President.
Would someone please call a secret service agent and remove this dangerous person from my presence?

reply from: carolemarie

Truth is that women have been "protected" when their health was at risk, so regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter- the health of the mother has always come before the life of her child. I was speaking from my personal POV. Legislative exceptions are for rape and incest cases. Right? Our son was scheduled to be delivered at 30 weeks for health reasons. Due to other circumstances, he was born on his due date. (the only one that made it to his due date actually) If he has been delivered 8-10 weeks early, his risk of infection and other issues would have been increased.
Right I know that. What I am asking you, is holding the above POV, do you believe this is a decision for each individual woman or should a law be passed forbiding the mother to make that choice if she wants to die or not.

reply from: 4given

Truth is that women have been "protected" when their health was at risk, so regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter- the health of the mother has always come before the life of her child. I was speaking from my personal POV. Legislative exceptions are for rape and incest cases. Right? Our son was scheduled to be delivered at 30 weeks for health reasons. Due to other circumstances, he was born on his due date. (the only one that made it to his due date actually) If he has been delivered 8-10 weeks early, his risk of infection and other issues would have been increased.
Right I know that. What I am asking you, is holding the above POV, do you believe this is a decision for each individual woman or should a law be passed forbiding the mother to make that choice if she wants to die or not.
Reality is that such a law would not be considered. I believe that a child should be given every opportunity to mature before being removed from its mother's womb. I can't imagine what it is like to make that decision (in a severe circumstance) and I am thankful for that. If there is a case where the mother requires treatment in order to save her life, as in the case of cancer, I believe she should wait until viability to deliver. Stating that, I also trust in God, and I know that if treatments are necessary, and it is within God's will, He will protect the baby as well. I would never advocate killing the baby to continue with or begin a treatment. There are alternatives to radiation, and each day brings new hope- Just as each day a child is safe in its mother's womb, is a day closer to survival.

reply from: carolemarie

Truth is that women have been "protected" when their health was at risk, so regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter- the health of the mother has always come before the life of her child. I was speaking from my personal POV. Legislative exceptions are for rape and incest cases. Right? Our son was scheduled to be delivered at 30 weeks for health reasons. Due to other circumstances, he was born on his due date. (the only one that made it to his due date actually) If he has been delivered 8-10 weeks early, his risk of infection and other issues would have been increased.
Right I know that. What I am asking you, is holding the above POV, do you believe this is a decision for each individual woman or should a law be passed forbiding the mother to make that choice if she wants to die or not.
Reality is that such a law would not be considered. I believe that a child should be given every opportunity to mature before being removed from its mother's womb. I can't imagine what it is like to make that decision (in a severe circumstance) and I am thankful for that. If there is a case where the mother requires treatment in order to save her life, as in the case of cancer, I believe she should wait until viability to deliver. Stating that, I also trust in God, and I know that if treatments are necessary, and it is within God's will, He will protect the baby as well. I would never advocate killing the baby to continue with or begin a treatment. There are alternatives to radiation, and each day brings new hope- Just as each day a child is safe in its mother's womb, is a day closer to survival.
The question isn't what you believe, it is do you believe that the law should force women to wait in a life threatening situtation or are they allowed to make that choice?
Does prolife mean that you have to only support that babies right to life, even if it kills the mother and robs her of her life.
Only the babies life counts? Is that your position?
I am not asking you do advocate anything, just simply tell me, yes or no, does the woman who's life is on the line make that choice, or do we make it law and force her to carry the baby till it can survive. even if it kills her.

reply from: Jameberlin

No, but i'm pretty sure she'd say the same thing. Hearing it from me doesn't make it any less valid.

reply from: lukesmom

Simple response: Modern medical practices nearly exclude this possibility today. Still, if the rare situation should happen, the doctor should do all he can to save both patients. The doctor should treat the mother for the condition, and do nothing to directly harm the unborn child. Again, with ectopic pregnancy, the fallopian tube is removed and unfortunantly the child dies as a secondary consequence. No waiting and mom has been treated appropriately.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, and it's connected to something called a "heart"......

reply from: yoda

No it's not, you're just trying to desperately win.
Getting you to admit that you aren't prolife would not be a "win". It would simply make you a little more honest.
pres·ent tense noun Definition: verb tense: the tense of a verb that suggests actions or the situation at the time of speaking or writing
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861737143

reply from: faithman

No it's not, you're just trying to desperately win.
Getting you to admit that you aren't prolife would not be a "win". It would simply make you a little more honest.
pres·ent tense noun Definition: verb tense: the tense of a verb that suggests actions or the situation at the time of speaking or writing
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861737143
...and it really doesn't matter whether you admit it or not. A rattle snake does not have to admit to being a viper for us to warn others to avoid them or how to recognize them.

reply from: yoda

True. You can almost hear the rattle now......


2014 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics