Home - List All Discussions

Abortion in extenuating circumstances

are there any circumstances in which...

by: choiceoflife

A good friend of mine brought up the fact that she had a friend back home wh had been raped and ended up getting pregnant and also at the same time the baby was a threat to her health. Do you not think that abortion is right in some circumstances in which both parties could end up dying anyway?

reply from: CharlesD

There are ectopic pregnancies where the mother's life may be in danger, but as far as I know, that is the only situation that rectifying it would necessarily require that the baby end up dead. Most other "life threatening" situations could be dealt with simply by the removal of the baby, but who is saying the baby has to end up dead? The child could be removed, thus dealing with the threat to the mother, and then measures can be taken to save both. If at that point, the child still dies, than at least you made every effort to save him/her. I think that is the most ethical way to deal with such a situation.
If you talk about the mother's health, you open up a big can of worms there because mother's health exceptions don't really exclude any abortions. All you need is someone who can claim "mental health" comes under the definition of the mother's health and you can include just about any reason under mental health.

reply from: MC3

The pro-life position is that, beginning at the moment of fertilization, the unborn child is a living human being entitled to the same legal protections as the born. Therefore, no action directed at the unborn should be lawful if that same action would not be lawful if taken against the born.
In that extraordinarily rare situation in which a woman is in jeopardy of dying because of her pregnancy, the guiding principle that must govern what remedies are morally justifiable is intent. To understand this, imagine that a car wreck has trapped two people in such a way that rescuing one might kill the other. Despite that predicament, the emergency personnel involved would do everything possible to save both. If in that process one or both lost their lives, that would be considered an unavoidable outcome. But they would never intentionally kill one to save the other.
A similar analogy involves the issue of conjoined (Siamese) twins. It is now common for doctors to perform separation surgery and, in many of these cases, it is understood that the chances for both surviving is low. However, no ethical surgeon would ever agree to intentionally kill one of the twins to increase the chances that the other one would survive. In every case, the intent will be to save both lives and every effort will be made to achieve that result. It may be true that, prior to the surgery, it is accepted or perhaps even expected that only one will survive. But under no conditions would separation surgery be performed with that as its intended outcome.
This is the principle that should be applied here. It is never acceptable to intentionally kill an unborn baby just as it is never acceptable to intentionally kill a born child. In those rare instances in which pregnancy poses an immediate threat to the physical life of the mother, the physician involved should be required to do everything possible to save both mother and child. If, as an unintended consequence of that effort, one or both fail to survive, that would be an unavoidable and therefore ethical outcome. However, we should be no more willing to intentionally kill a baby in order to save a mother than we should be willing to intentionally kill a mother to save a baby.
In the end, by applying this principle we never have to choose whether the mother's rights or the baby's rights are superior to the other. It is a principle that protects women without caving in to the dishonest and morally indefensible argument that it is sometimes "necessary" to kill their children.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I would also like to correct a misconception shared by many here. When an ectopic or abdominal pregnancy is diagnosed, the removal of the pregnancy (done to save the life of the woman, as it is impossible to safely carry to term in a Fallopian tube or in the abdomen), the procedure IS NOT AN ABORTION.

reply from: ChristopherLaRock

In 99% of those situations, a doctor can correct whatever is wrong with the woman and save her and her baby. The abortion industry only uses this as a scare tactic to get people to support their business.

reply from: scopia1982

Absolutely.
Liberal you say that you are prolife, but approve of abortion in certain situations? How do you reconcile yourself to that? You sound like a" prochoicer".

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Absolutely.
Liberal you say that you are prolife, but approve of abortion in certain situations? How do you reconcile yourself to that? You sound like a" prochoicer".
I am pro-LIFE, not pro-fetus, that's how. I am pro-the-most-viable-life in cases where one or the other may cause death or die. I don't consider it to be pro-life at all to condemn a woman to death on the off chance her child might survive, when it is well know that if the child is removed at that time and place, the woman will live. There are TWO lives when it comes to pregnancy, not one. You cannot ignore the fetus and you cannot ignore the woman. She has a right to life too!! It is as wrong to force her to carry to death as it is to electively abort.
I consider an ectopic removal to be an abortion, 100%. Calling it anything else is just pro-lifers trying to weasel out of the fact that they approve of killing babies when it is necessary to save the woman's life - and if they approve of it in one case, why not other? For the same reason some pro-lifers say pro-choicers call themselves "pro-choice" instead of pro-abortion: they are covering up the truth. An abortion is the process of the removal of a baby from the woman before term in which the baby dies. Premature birth is not abortion; a miscarriage is a natural abortion. Ectopic removal is an abortion, people just don't like to call it as such. But it is.
All sane pro-lifers approve of abortion in at least this one case: ectopic. I approve of an abortion if it is the only way to save the mother's life, since she has a better chance of survival than the unborn. Secondly - and I don't care if this sounds pro-choicerish, it's how I feel - the woman was here first, and it's her body being used during a pregnancy. I feel she is the primary patient at all times unless SHE says otherwise. That doesn't give anyone the right to kill the unborn, it just doesn't give them a right to let a woman die simply because she is pregnant.

reply from: carolemarie

I agree 100% with this. If you care more about the baby than the woman you are not prolife, that would make you pro-fetus. And if you only care about the woman, you are not prolife either. Both lives are equally important, which is why a prolife person will care about both the baby and the mother and value both of their lives.

reply from: sk1bianca

if there's absolutely no way to save the baby and if her life is in imminent danger, the only solution is removing him.
however, there are women who choose to risk their lives in order to save the child. i think that's very brave and a proof of supreme love.

reply from: scopia1982

When we are discussing the issue of "abortion" Liberal on this board, lets clairfy what we mean by abortion. I think most agree we are talking about the intentional killing of an unborn human life. An ectopic pregnancy in the medical sense of the term is an abortion, but for the sake of a moral argument, that child is not going to gestate to full term if it stays in place the child will die, if it is removed it will die.In this case to not save the mother would be senseless. In others circumstances the child may have to be removed in the case of an accident or if the mom has a medical condition that warrants it (post viablity). In any case life saving efforts must be implemented to save BOTH! If the child dies as a result, it is a tragedy, but it is a grave moral offense to delieberatly choose one without trying to save the other. When a woman is pregnant their are TWO patients to consider on an equal basis.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Why?
Abortion is the removal of a pregnancy FROM THE UTERUS, a pregnancy that, if not interrupted, would develop into a fetus. An ectopic or abdominal pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg implants in a place OTHER than the uterus.
"An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that develops outside a woman's uterus (womb). This happens when the fertilized egg from the ovary does not implant itself normally in the uterus. Instead, the egg develops somewhere else in the abdomen. The products of this conception are abnormal and cannot develop into fetuses.
The most common place that ectopic pregnancy occurs is in one of the fallopian tubes (a so-called tubal pregnancy). These are the tubes that transport the egg from the ovary to the uterus. Ectopic pregnancies also can be found on the outside of the uterus, on the ovaries, or attached to the bowel.
The most serious complication of an ectopic pregnancy is intra-abdominal hemorrhage (severe bleeding). In the case of a tubal pregnancy, for example, as the products of conception continue to grow in the fallopian tube, the tube expands and eventually ruptures. This can be very dangerous because a large artery runs on the outside of each fallopian tube. If the artery ruptures, you can bleed severely.
Ectopic pregnancy is usually found in the first 5-10 weeks of pregnancy."
"Ectopic pregnancy is not normal and does not represent a developing baby. This condition can be life threatening and must be corrected. Your health care provider will discuss which treatment is best."
"In the case of a tubal pregnancy, if the tube has not ruptured, sometimes it is possible to extract the tissue from the tube. Often, however, tubal damage is so great that the fallopian tube must be removed. No other effective therapy is currently available for this condition."
from: http://www.emedicinehealth.com/ectopic_pregnancy/article_em.htm

"Ectopic pregnancies cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life."
from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm#Treatment

In a tubal ectopic pregnancy, there is NO possibility that the fertilized egg can be allowed to develop without rupturing the Fallopian tube. Rupture can cause severe bleeding, necessitate removal of the tube and cause infertility and possibly death.
Hope this helps.

reply from: CharlesD

I'm not going to dispute the facts about ectopic pregnancy except for the line about it not representing a developing baby. I would argue that it is indeed a baby from the point of conception, but that it is in the wrong place. I might be just parsing words here, but I think that is an important distinction that needs to be made, not that it would change what sadly needs to be done in the case of ectopic pregnancies, but that it is important that we not dehumanize the unborn in any way.
I'm not arguing that the mother's life should not be saved in this instance and that those measures should not be taken, as sad as it is when it happens. What I am saying is that we can still call the result of that pregnancy a baby, even if it is a baby that has absolutely no chance of developing further or even surviving. It's just a matter of semantics really, but words are very important because the words we use shape people's opinions, they affect the way people look at other aspects of the issue outside of the tragic instance of ectopic pregnancies. If the embryo in that case is not referred to as a baby, then we might as well say that no embryos are babies, and if embryos aren't babies it's not much of a logical leap to claim that fetuses aren't babies either. I just don't like the dehumanization of the unborn in any way. Recognize the humanness of the doomed child in an ectopic pregnancy and recognize the tragedy of that loss and you go a long way toward recognizing the humanity of all unborn persons and the tragedy of their loss.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

You would have to ask a woman who has been through the experience of this type of pregnancy to see how SHE thought of it - as a pregnancy gone bad, an embryo that would never develop into a baby, or an actual baby that didn't end up where it was supposed to be.

reply from: yoda

What a strange statement. Just a few posts back, on this same thread, you responded to a proabort saying that the removal of an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy is "NOT AN ABORTION", and now you're ragging on prolifers?

reply from: yoda

I just love it when you "dictionary writers" chime in, and tell us what is what. Oh, you mean you actually don't write dictionary definitions professionally? What a shock!!
abortion
noun [C or U]
the intentional ending of a pregnancy, usually by a medical operation:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=195&dict=CALD

reply from: yoda

OR, you could consult an ACTUAL DICTIONARY or ENCYCLOPEDIA, maybe?
Oh, I get it, you'd rather define words according to the feelings of whomever you happen to be talking to at the time.... kinda like pulling definitions out of your ass, right?

reply from: CharlesD

Well, a couple women I know who have gone through that mourned the loss of a child. It was pretty darn difficult. That's why I think it's important that we don't dehumanize the unborn in that case. The woman is already going through a difficult time. Recognizing the true nature of the loss can go a long way toward allowing her to grieve properly and eventually to experience healing.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

OR, you could consult an ACTUAL DICTIONARY or ENCYCLOPEDIA, maybe?
Oh, I get it, you'd rather define words according to the feelings of whomever you happen to be talking to at the time.... kinda like pulling definitions out of your ass, right?
Actually, Moron, I am taking the time to research what women WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH ectopic pregnancies say about their experiences. Like you, I tend to post some information first and more later after research. Unlike you, however, I use many more sources than dictionaries.
Is it REALLY abortion if the pregnancy would have NEVER become a fetus? You are nearing the point of calling miscarriages "abortions" because that is the DICTIONARY term for them - but they certainly are not deliberate, are they?
If your wife had four miscarriages, would you tell people that she had FOUR ABORTIONS? It would be TRUE, according to your precious dictionary definitions, but it certainly wouldn't convey INTENT, would it?
I'm not done with my research, but some of the women on one website referred to their ectopic pregnancies as "pregnancies", some as "babies" and some simply as "ectopics."
Now go study your dictionary while I continue my research into what REAL people say.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Of course! If the woman WANTS to risk her life that is her right 100%.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What a strange statement. Just a few posts back, on this same thread, you responded to a proabort saying that the removal of an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy is "NOT AN ABORTION", and now you're ragging on prolifers?
I don't recal saying that EVER and if I did, it was a typo. I have always and will always consider ectopic removals to be abortions. Please go find the quote so I may fix it; that's a serious typo that I don't want to remain wrong.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why?
Abortion is the removal of a pregnancy FROM THE UTERUS,
Really? Source?
I'm aware of what an ectopic pregnancy is. It's still a pregnancy.
An ectopic pregnancy is not NORMAL but that does not mean the child isn't developing. It most certainly IS developing, and it is in fact this very development that makes it a risk to the mother!! Saying it's not developing is moronic. If it wasn't developing, it wouldn't get bigger and it wouldn't burst the fallopian tube. Your source was written by an idiot.
Oh really? Then how have women given birth to ectopic pregnancies in the past? You've never heard of this before? There are several documented cases of women carrying children to term in their abdomens. The Discovery channel even ran a special on a woman who gave birth to an ectopic pregnancy.
It helps to prove you lack knowledge in this area.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

An ectopic pregnancy in the medical sense of the term is an abortion, but for the sake of a moral argument, that child is not going to gestate to full term if it stays in place the child will die, if it is removed it will die.
Why does that not make it an abortion? That's just justifying it. It's still an abortion. I've never seen anywhere a source that said it was only an abortion if the child wasn't going to make it to birth. How can you actually determine that? What about the deformed babies? They may not survive outside of the womb, so if you kill them, it's not an abortion? Stupid.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"Oh really? Then how have women given birth to ectopic pregnancies in the past? You've never heard of this before? There are several documented cases of women carrying children to term in their abdomens. The Discovery channel even ran a special on a woman who gave birth to an ectopic pregnancy."
You are correct. There have been a very few cases where ABDOMINAL pregnancies ended with removal of the fetus by C-section. But obviously, the fallopian tubes simply do NOT have enough space for the fetus to grow very large without rupturing the tube and causing a crisis.
"However, there are documented cases of unborn children outside the uterus surviving to live birth. Reports of diagnosed abdominal pregnancies found fetal survival rates from 5% to 70%. And perhaps from these cases, we can learn approaches that can save other unborn children without unduly jeopardizing their mothers' lives. The maternal mortality rate is between 0.5 and 18% for abdominal pregnancy, a risk some mothers will be willing to take to save their children."
From: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa030706a.htm (a pro-life website, BTW)
Also from the same source:
"Sometimes the death of the unborn child is the unwanted but tragically necessary side effect of treatment necessary to save the mother's life. A conscientious doctor will struggle with such cases, and will make all reasonable efforts to preserve the child's life if possible.
But one situation is so dire, even prolife physicians concede that there's no known way to save the baby: ectopic pregnancy. . .
Tubal pregnancy is a medical emergency. If the embryo has already died, some physicians may allow the woman's body to deal with the situation naturally. If the embryo is still alive, even pro-life physicians take steps to prevent a potentially fatal rupture. The main difference in approaches is whether the physician takes direct steps to kill the embryo, usually with methotrexate, or whether he removes the tube and allows the embryo to die as a sad side-effect of this treatment."
Note that removal of a fallopian tube can drastically inhibit and even end the woman's ability to conceive again.
The entire article is very interesting and informative.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

What the Willkes have to say:
"Is surgery on an ectopic pregnancy an abortion?
Some do define this as an abortion, and this is one reason why Right to Life people usually accept a "life of the mother" exception to laws that would forbid abortion.
By the time most ectopic surgery is done, the developing baby is dead and often destroyed by the hemorrhage. In any case, such surgery is done primarily to prevent the death of the mother. This is good medical practice because there is no chance for the baby to survive. Even if a yet-alive, tiny baby were removed from the tube, the Right to Life movement would allow this, for without the procedure, both would die. The baby has a zero chance of survival. The surgery will save the mother's life. If medical technology were advanced enough to allow transplanting the baby from its pathological location, and placing it into the uterus, then most ethicists would say this should be done. Since this is not possible with present technology, the tiny new baby's life today is lost."
from: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_18.asp (another pro-life website)

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well I've never heard that information before. What is it called when a miscarried child in the uterus is removed? That's what dead ectopics should be called.

reply from: scopia1982

No I believe you are the one making a stupid argument. You shouldn't resort to calling people stupid Liberal it is not very becoming. In the case of the deformed baby and deliberatly killing them it is an abortion. The only time I support "abortion" as you like to call it is when its a ectopic pregnancy or in the case of a horrible accident, the child has to be removed via Csection not by abortion techniques that end up in dismemberment. And I support the latter only after provisions have been made to save BOTH. In the case of a deformed child that is still living in the womb I oppose abortion. Lukesmom is the example of how to hand a situation such as this.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No I believe you are the one making a stupid argument.
How so?
I wasn't. I was calling the concept stupid: the concept that killing a baby that won't make it to birth but is still living at the time is not abortion.
Yes indeed it is.
I would like to see that happen. Why do you not consider removing (and killing) a living baby to be an abortion? Just because it has a statistically tiny chance of survival? Isn't that an awful lot like the pro-choice argument justifying abortion in general? That's why I think the idea "ectopic removal of a living baby isn't abortion" is dumb.
Of course.
Indeed she is.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Well I've never heard that information before. What is it called when a miscarried child in the uterus is removed? That's what dead ectopics should be called.
A miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) occurs when the fetus leaves the uterus prematurely without intervention. (If there is labor or a C-section involved, it is a stillbirth.)
The only time any "removal" is required is in the event of an incomplete miscarriage, requiring a D&C or medication (Mifepristone and/or misoprostol) to completely empty the uterus. Occasionally a hysterectomy must be done. For more detailed information, see:
http://www.webmd.com/baby/tc/miscarriage-treatment-overview

or any other topical medical website.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well I've never heard that information before. What is it called when a miscarried child in the uterus is removed? That's what dead ectopics should be called.
A miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) occurs when the fetus leaves the uterus prematurely without intervention. (If there is labor or a C-section involved, it is a stillbirth.)
Okay, it's a miscarriage ONLY if the unborn exits the body without human intervention? It's a still birth if humans remove it after death? Then I would personally call dead ectopic removals still births. But living ectopic removals are abortions.
Yeah, I knew about that. That is called a still birth then, yes?
I just feel that removing a living child from a woman's body is always an abortion if the child purposely dies because of the methods used during the removal, or if it is know it cannot live outside the womb and will die if removed.

reply from: BossMomma

I feel that if she was raped and the pregnancy poses a danger to her everything possible should be done to preserve both lives, but if the fetus is incompatable with life and dies outside the uterus then at least she will have given the child a chance. As it has been proven, an emergency c-section is easier on the woman than a late term abortion.

reply from: BossMomma

OR, you could consult an ACTUAL DICTIONARY or ENCYCLOPEDIA, maybe?
Oh, I get it, you'd rather define words according to the feelings of whomever you happen to be talking to at the time.... kinda like pulling definitions out of your ass, right?
Kind of like what you do? Those living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

reply from: BossMomma

Surgery to remove an ectopic embryo is an abortion as it removes and causes the demise of the conceptus which is the definition of abortion. However, it is not looked at in the same light as an abortion done for convenience. It is a very nessesary life saving procedure that ends the doomed pregnancy before it can take the mother with it.

reply from: BossMomma

Well I've never heard that information before. What is it called when a miscarried child in the uterus is removed? That's what dead ectopics should be called.
It's called fetal demise.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But an ectopic pregnancy isn't likely to make it to the fetal stage (is it?), so embryonic demise, I guess. Anyway, it's still an abortion. I think that's been made pretty clear.

reply from: BossMomma

Ectopics are called simply that, an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopics are one of the few occasions in which abortion is absolutely nessesary.

reply from: Rosalie

This is beyond scary.
So it's better, braver and a proof of supreme love to die for a feuts rather than do everything, anything to stay alive and take care of the already existing children?
That is not a sign of supreme love, that's a sign of an unbalanced person with little to no regard to their living family.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who's talking about existing children? Just you, it seems. Apparently, there is no one in the world you would die for. I find that to be extremely selfish.

reply from: scopia19822

"This is beyond scary.
So it's better, braver and a proof of supreme love to die for a feuts rather than do everything, anything to stay alive and take care of the already existing children?
That is not a sign of supreme love, that's a sign of an unbalanced person with little to no regard to their living family. "
I thought you were prochoice? It seems to me that you are only using "choice" in one meaning and that is abortion. Some women, would choose to sacrifice themselves to save their children in any circumstances. So if a woman CHOOSES to die so that her child can live that is her CHOICE.

reply from: yoda

Now you are showing you ignorance in a whole new way.... implying that those who write dictionaries don't listen to how "real people" use words.
What do you think they do, sit around and make up stuff? Kinda like you do?

reply from: yoda

You mean like when I post LINKED quotes from online dictionaries? You think I'm pulling those out of my posterior? Sorry, I don't have a computer back there, do you?

reply from: yoda

Okay, I was wrong, I read that on another thread, but your clarification is good enough for me. If I find it again, I'll PM you.

reply from: yoda

Really? Source?.
That's the kind of question she will not answer.......

reply from: Rosalie

Wrong.
That was my personal opinion. My child I have to take care of comes first. I'll do everything I can to be there for her as long as possible. I can't have control over everything but some things I can control. To me that is the the proof of unconditional love.
Again, my opinion.
I would never ever dream of forcing that on anyone.
And that's the difference between us.
If you think it's better to sacrifice yourself for a fetus and leave all your children here motherless, if you think that's best for all your already born children, that's your prerogative. I don't understand why anyone would ever prefer death over spending life with their children and other loved ones but if that's what you prefer, go ahead.

reply from: scopia19822

A "fetus" is just as much of a human being as my son is. So from you POV a woman has a moral duty to have an abortion in order to be there for her born children? I could not live with myself knowing that I chose my own life over my children, born or unborn. Then what good would I be too my son walking around with that guilt and shame?

reply from: Idesirepleasure

A "fetus" is just as much of a human being as my son is. So from you POV a woman has a moral duty to have an abortion in order to be there for her born children? I could not live with myself knowing that I chose my own life over my children, born or unborn. Then what good would I be too my son walking around with that guilt and shame?
But think of how much you could be pleasured!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Okay, I was wrong, I read that on another thread, but your clarification is good enough for me. If I find it again, I'll PM you.
No problem

reply from: Rosalie

If you think that a fetus is completely equal to your son - it's your choice to think so. I have a different opinion but I wouldn't try to force it on you.
I would wonder why you do not take the feelings of your son into consideration but even then, it's still up to you. If that is how you would beahve in that situation, it's completely your prerogative.
Personally, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knew that by choosing the fetus I would be leaving my children orphaned therefore it is something I'll always try to prevent from happening. I said nothing about a moral duty. I pointed out that leaving my children motherless is the most frightening scenario and definitely not an act of love to me, which is why I won't let that happen if I can help it.
If you think differently, it's totally your right to act upon your on beliefs in such situation. You'll do what you believe in. I'll do what I believe in. Nothing can change that.

reply from: lukesmom

The child you are pregnant with is "here" same as your born child. Both children "come first" in the prolife world.
Except you are. You are forcing your "opinions" on your unborn child who you are presuming you will kill.
The difference between us is: I will never consent to the killing of one of my children no matter what the circumstances.
All mother's sacrifice for their child/ren, that is one of the "rules" of being a good parent. When I was 10, I was the oldest of 6. My mom became pregant again and was told she would never be able to carry this child due to some past pregnancy and delivery problems. She was told if she tried to carry this child she would surely die. She carried to term. She is now in her 70's healthy and more active then we all want her to be. My youngest sister in now 39, a wife and mother of 5 + fostering a nephew and neice AND an intesive care RN.
Drs are human and don't know everything. My mom would give her life for any of her children and she has proved this. She would NEVER consent to killing her born children, why would she do any different to her unborn child. I, also, will never ever consent to having any of my children murdered either.

reply from: Rosalie

No, it's not, and I obviously strongly disagree with the pro-life world.
I was talking about women, i.e. the creatures in question whose bodies are being used, whose health is at stake and who are in the position of making a decision. Fetuses are not relevant to my point at all.
Pretty much. I'd do anything for my child. Including having an abortion if a pregnancy was a threat to my health or life.
My child's needs ome first. Always. And my child needs a mother. I won't be of much use dead to her.
Your mother was lucky and I'm really happy for you all.
That, however, does not mean that similar scenarios will have the same ending.
One case does not make a rule, it doesn't prove anything.
You could just easily say that just because a woman I know died shortly after the birth of her child, every other woman will die shortly after birth of her child. Which is ridiculous.
Because born children have different needs, bonds, feelings. Fetuses don't.
That's your prerogative. Just as it is your prerogative to use emotional language when talking about abortion.

reply from: Rosalie

I still wonder how come neither of you would take the feelings of your own children into consideration. It makes me feel rather uneasy to see you disregard your born children's feelings and well-being like that.
I guess that's just me but I don't understand why that wouldn't be a mother's priority.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How is your in-utero child not "here"? Is it in another dimension? It's right there, it's just beneath a few centimeters of skin!! If you are pregnant, your child is already here in this world. It's not in another dimension. You're either here, or you're not.

reply from: carolemarie

I disagree with some of the prolife people here when I would say that I believe the mother has the right to save her life. I would save mine, because I have children and a husband who need me. Abortion is permissiable in this case.
I think that the majority of prolife people agree the mother has the right to defend her life and do what is necessary to live.
In other words, the fetus right to life doesn't override the mothers right to live.

reply from: lukesmom

LOL, you are right, abortion IS emotional to most of us who have been faced with it. There are not many women who would say there is no emotion involved with abortion.
Question for you: have you lost a child, born or unborn?

reply from: BossMomma

You mean like when I post LINKED quotes from online dictionaries? You think I'm pulling those out of my posterior? Sorry, I don't have a computer back there, do you?
You are not exactly known for your appropriate word use, I've used online dictionaries many a time while debating with you and you still fought it tooth and nail saying if one definition fit they all fit. Does the word "murder" ring a bell?

reply from: scopia19822

If I had more than one living child and someone had a gun on my son, (the other child is at home) I would jump in front and take that bullet for my son even though it would be a fatal wound. Both of my children would be left motherless, but they would still have a father. So by your logic, I should let my son be shot so that my other child would not be left motherless? This may sound twisted to you , but your logic sounds twisted to me.

reply from: scopia19822

I have to disagree with you on this one, barring a ectopic pregnancy or an accident with unstoppable hemmoraging in which case sometimes the baby has to be taken. In the case of a previable, it is going to die whether is stays in the uterus or not . Viable baby needs to be put on life support. Efforts must be made to save both mom and baby. If the child dies, it is most sad. In other circumstances abortion is wrong. It is wrong to deliberatly to sacrifice one to save the other, that is playing God. Doctors have so many options to treat a woman with diabetes, heart trouble, preeclampsia etc if the child is wanted. Often labor is induced very early or a csection performed to save both before full term. But if it comes down to those rare almost nonexistant save one or the other situations, I would rather die so that my unborn child will have a chance at life. It is a selfless act, like Jesus going to the cross was a selfless act to save us. We are both Christian women here and can relate the that concept.

reply from: sk1bianca

rosalie, those are some big words... coming from an EX-FETUS!
are you one of those who believe children don't EXIST before being born? or that they are not human beings and magically become humans at birth?
wow... just when i thought i've seen everything...
the mother has every right to save her life, just like any other human put in a dangerous situation.
however, if she chooses to sacrifice herself for her child, she shouldn't be considered stupid, irresponsible or retarded just because she loves her "fetus" (medical term for unborn human ).
some people even risk their lives to save stragers, so why should this be so outrageous?

reply from: scopia19822

LOL, you are right, abortion IS emotional to most of us who have been faced with it. There are not many women who would say there is no emotion involved with abortion.
Question for you: have you lost a child, born or unborn?
Do not hold your breath I dont think she will divulge that "personal" information. Me and you have been in that situation. As a fellow Catholic I am sure you have heard the story of St. Gianna Molla, who was a doctor with cancer when she founf out she was pregnant. She CHOSE to forgo treatment and sacrifice herself, so that her baby may have a chance at life. If that isnt a mothers supreme love I dont know what it.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I'll say this again:
"Is it REALLY abortion if the pregnancy would have NEVER become a fetus? You are nearing the point of calling miscarriages "abortions" because that is the DICTIONARY term for them - but they certainly are not deliberate, are they?
If your wife had four miscarriages, would you tell people that she had FOUR ABORTIONS? It would be TRUE, according to your precious dictionary definitions, but it certainly wouldn't convey INTENT, would it?"
So go ahead and tell your wife that she had ABORTIONS. And oh, yes, ectopic pregnancies just MUST be abortions, too - because a "baby" was "killed."
If any of you want to tell a woman who has suffered a miscarriage or who has gone through the removal of an ectopic pregnancy that she has had an abortion, GO RIGHT AHEAD. Make her feel worse than she already does. Make her feel like it was HER fault, that she is GUILTY of doing something awful, belittle her, make her CRY even more.
That's just plain heartless. It is as cruel as telling a woman who has had a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy that she MUST have done something to cause it, that it's HER fault.

reply from: carolemarie

The medical term is spontanous abortion, and it is used to describe a miscarriage. And no, people shouldn't tell women they have had abortions because the term carries ugly connotations in real life.
A miscarriage is nobodys fault, like an ectopic pregnancy is nobodys fault.
The point of this whole discussion is that prolifers have no problem with ending a pregnancy such as an ectopic one, so ending a pregnancy to save the mothers life shouldn't be a problem either.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Then let's do these poor women a favor and NOT call their miscarriages or the end of their ectopic pregnany an ABORTION, simply because of those negative connotations. It is not fair to them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't tell women that, I simply point it out to other pro-lifers the fact that they do approve of intentional abortions in at least one case.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And that is worth pointing out. Thank you!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol XD Yeah, that was my whole point. I didn't mean to degrade or insult anyone, just to highlight a truth.

reply from: Rosalie

It's not "there" in the same sense as a born child is.

reply from: Rosalie

I disagree with some of the prolife people here when I would say that I believe the mother has the right to save her life. I would save mine, because I have children and a husband who need me. Abortion is permissiable in this case.
I think that the majority of prolife people agree the mother has the right to defend her life and do what is necessary to live.
In other words, the fetus right to life doesn't override the mothers right to live.
Thanks for replying.
I still wonder why this particular question of mine never got a reply. I consider that very important.

reply from: Rosalie

LOL, you are right, abortion IS emotional to most of us who have been faced with it. There are not many women who would say there is no emotion involved with abortion.
Question for you: have you lost a child, born or unborn?
I've had an early miscarriage but thank all the gods that may or may not exist. I've never lost a child.

reply from: Rosalie

If I had more than one living child and someone had a gun on my son, (the other child is at home) I would jump in front and take that bullet for my son even though it would be a fatal wound. Both of my children would be left motherless, but they would still have a father. So by your logic, I should let my son be shot so that my other child would not be left motherless? This may sound twisted to you , but your logic sounds twisted to me.
You still don't understand me. Either you are wilfully ignorant or ... I'll rather not say what the other option might be. That would be really rude.
I have NEVER EVER TOLD YOU WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. Still with me? All right.
I asked about a specific scenario. A fetus vs your living children.
What you have described is the equivalent of Sophie's choice. It's horrible and heart-breaking.
But it is not relevant to what I was asking.

reply from: Rosalie

Please pay attention. Saying that fetuses are not human would be nonsensical. Of course they are human.
And fetuses certainly do exist before being born. I'm not sure how fetuses non-existing would work. I don't know what you are trying to say.
I didn't say she was stupid. I said it was something I don't really understand and personally would never do because my born children and their well-being and feelings are my #1 priority.
STOP MAKING THINGS UP. Read what I actually wrote, do not respond to what you think or wish I had written. That goes to all of you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's not "there" in the same sense as a born child is.
So is a man's penis no longer "here" when it's inside the vagina?
I'll tell you the answer: It's still "here". Your child is HERE from the moment of fertilization. It is in this world, on this planet, in this solar system. It cannot be any more "here". It may as well be under a blanket; there is just skin in the way. That doesn't make it "not here".

reply from: scopia19822

Liberal, as a former pro choicer you know that they have a script they follow to the letter and if you ask them even a simple question that causes them to deviate from their script, it usally ends up in them spewing even more ridiculous rhetoric or getting angry, name calling and temper tantrums. Now we prolifers are compassionate people, lets not try to cause them any further brain damage, by asking them questions that will make them actually "think".

reply from: LiberalChiRo

XD lol. Oh Scopia! It's not really a script, it's more like taking any pro-life statement and twisting it this way and that. In the end, the only thing that matters is that they do not feel the unborn is worthy of life. That's the bottom line.

reply from: lukesmom

You didn't say "stupid" but "unbalanced" is just as derogatory. Possibly you should read what you actually wrote too as you did go beyond your statement of not understanding why someone would give their life for their unborn child.

reply from: BossMomma

It's not "there" in the same sense as a born child is.
No, the child isn't there wearing a diaper and sucking on a pacifier, the child is there inside the woman being fed and sheltered by her. If the child isn't "there" then the woman is not pregnant, games of semantics don't go far.

reply from: sk1bianca

so you would deny an unborn child's right to life based on his location, his appearence or his food source?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't quite understand your statement, or to whom it is directed. BossMomma is pro-life now...


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