How pro-life are you?

[MadCatholicGomer]

This weekend I visited my girlfriend in CA and we got to talking with some Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Afterwards, I did some research on Mormonism and even started going to a LDS Message Board (it is really fun for me... Mormonism is quite strange). I found out that Latter Day Saints cannot believe that abortion is always wrong... which really surprised me. So I wanted to see if there are others out there that are not 100% pro-life.

By the way, I answered "Never"

[middletree]

I think you should have added more choices:

1. When it has been determined that the baby has a condition from which they will surely die, or be extremely handicapped or disfigured. OK, it's rare, but it is a possibility that some parents have had to face.

2. When it has been determined that the child has a condition for which they can live a long life, but will have profound handicaps, such as Down's.

For the record, I picked "never", but I know that some people would abort in the above instances, so they should be included as possibilities.

[The Oddball]

The life of the mother is very tempting, but here's my reasoning for why I picked never instead. The number of occasions in which a woman dies in childbirth are extremely rare in America due to the advances in medicine. In many of those occasions where her life is in jeopardy it is already too late and it is in God's hands. And the biggest reason is that I really don't think we need to pick which lives and which dies. I think it's best just to let the natural processes that God has created to do their work. If He wants to intervene, then it is more glory to Him. If He doesn't, then He is still God and is still good.

In cases like rape and incest I think that if the mother really doesn't want the child, she can give it up for adoption so that he or she will have a better chance at life than she could give.

P.S. As for the scenarios that middletree proposed I think the last part of my first paragraph applies. I don't want to stop on anyones toes if they believe differently than me. I just like this topic and love discussing it.

[Jason]

I think you should have added more choices:

1. When it has been determined that the baby has a condition from which they will surely die, or be extremely handicapped or disfigured. OK, it's rare, but it is a possibility that some parents have had to face.

2. When it has been determined that the child has a condition for which they can live a long life, but will have profound handicaps, such as Down's.

For the record, I picked "never", but I know that some people would abort in the above instances, so they should be included as possibilities.

Unfortunately, some people do choose abortion in those circumstances.

Special Children

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
Psalm 127:3

When I was in a public speaking class in college, a fellow classmate did a speech on abortion. During this speech, he said, “I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you have a pregnant friend. This friend has been told by doctors that because her husband is disabled, there is a high probability their child will be disabled and possibly end up confined to a wheelchair. How many of you would suggest to your friend that she get an abortion? To those who suggested she get an abortion, you just killed your classmate Jason Mitchener.”

People often ask expecting parents if they want a boy or a girl. An answer commonly heard is, “I don’t care, as long as the baby is healthy.” But what if the baby isn’t healthy? What if little Amber is physically disabled or little Joshua is mentally disabled? Are these children any less a blessing from God? Many people would think so. Disabled babies are often given up for adoption and many of these babies never get adopted because people are looking for the perfect child.

None of us are perfect. We each have flaws or disabilities that set us apart from others. And yet God loves each of us despite our imperfections. He looks past our weaknesses and sees special children needing His love.

All around us, people have never felt the love that all of us so desperately need. They may be children with obvious disabilities or adults with hidden wounds. They are hurting and yearning for a smile, a hug, someone to talk to. Will you love those God loves?

(Note: This devotional was inspired by a subscriber to this devotional who has raised twenty-six children, most of which she adopted. Many of her children have had severe disabilities, including ten with profound retardation. You can visit her web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/caressa/index.html )

[middletree]

Unfortunately, some people do choose abortion in those circumstances.


Right. For the record, Iw asn't advocating abortion under such circumstances; I just felt that it belonged here as one of the choices.

Great post, BTW. I wasn't even thinking of you when I said it, but you are a great living example of why abortion in the above situation is wrong.

So was your mom made aware of your condition while you were unborn?

[woman4life]

Very nicely said, Jason.

I would allow abortion in the true cases where a woman's life is endangered and when the goal is to work to save both whenever possible. The goal should never be to end the baby's life.

Legally, I am torn. I believe that if no exceptions were specifically written into the law there would still be with the defense of necessities allowing abortion in the case of the mother being endangered. My preference would probably be an exception for the physical life of the mother worded so tightly that the courts couldn't reinterpret the woman's life to be anything and everything.

--Melanie

[ICarlson99]

Some exception needs to be made in the case of woman's physical health, but yes, it needs to be carefully worded.

Sad story on the decrease in Down's Syndrome. But not because a cure has been found...

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200511300840.asp

[middletree]

Some exception needs to be made in the case of woman's physical health, but yes, it needs to be carefully worded.


The problem with the "mother's health" thing is that they use mental health as a way of deciding to approve of an abortion. You get one doctor to testify that she will become depressed if allowed to have her kid, and that's all you need.

[ICarlson99]

The problem with the "mother's health" thing is that they use mental health as a way of deciding to approve of an abortion. You get one doctor to testify that she will become depressed if allowed to have her kid, and that's all you need.

Exactly, that's why it has to be carefully and narrowly worded.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Good point Middletree:

If any Mods come in here, could they add the following choices:

A. When the fetus will probably die soon after birth or have a severe handicap.

B. Only when the fetus will probably have a severe handicap.

[jesusnewspaper]

I personally siad NEVER! i hate the thought of destroying w/tampering w/GOD'S work of art that could have been any of my FREINDS!!!!

[Jason]

Right. For the record, Iw asn't advocating abortion under such circumstances; I just felt that it belonged here as one of the choices.

Great post, BTW. I wasn't even thinking of you when I said it, but you are a great living example of why abortion in the above situation is wrong.

So was your mom made aware of your condition while you were unborn?

My dad was already disabled with my condiion, but there's disagreement between my parents on what they knew before I was born.

[SirMax]

I have never believed abortion was an answer to unwanted pregnancies but I often thought some of the other choices were okay but not anymore.

My thoughts have changed because (I'm getting very personal here but...) I have been trying to get pregnant for over 7 years. No woman that wants children ever thinks she will have a difficult time becoming pregnant. We decide to start trying and poof we think we will get pregnant. I have learned slowly and painfully throughout these 7+ years that NO pregnancy is a chance. I know most of us here believe that God is in control but do we REALLY live and accept all that happens to us and those around us. God allows all these women to become pregnant and I ask myself month after month "why not me?" I still ask the question but I no longer question God (does that make sense?) I will take whatever He gives me whether that is a life with a child or not. So after all that what I'm trying to say is that all babies are made in the image of God and none should be aborted period.

[Jason]

So after all that what I'm trying to say is that all babies are made in the image of God and none should be aborted period.

Amen.

*tears in eyes*

[Sharon]

Amen Wendy.......

And there's women like me who can't have children at all and would love to adopt...... I wish I had the priviledge to conceive (and yes.....that's what it is...a priviledge...not a right)

[RevZeek]

Wendy, just so you know...You already have a mother's heart and are a great example. You will be an excellent mother. Whether you birth a child or not, you will always have those children of the faith that you are continuing to mentor and raise up in Christ.
Just wanted to mention that.
*hugs* and love to you!
Zack

[SirMax]

Wendy, just so you know...You already have a mother's heart and are a great example. You will be an excellent mother. Whether you birth a child or not, you will always have those children of the faith that you are continuing to mentor and raise up in Christ.
Just wanted to mention that.
*hugs* and love to you!
Zack


didn't mean to turn this thread into something about me but it just touched my heart so I had to share...thanks Zack that made me smile really big!! Love you too!

[Pouye]

I would not tick the "never" box, because there might be some very good reason medically go through with the removal of a fetus to save the mother. There is no reason that I can see to allow both the mother and the fetus to die if it can be avoided.

An ectopic pregnancy comes to mind.

Rock

[fiddlefool]

I would not tick the "never" box, because there might be some very good reason medically go through with the removal of a fetus to save the mother. There is no reason that I can see to allow both the mother and the fetus to die if it can be avoided.

An ectopic pregnancy comes to mind.

Rock

i agree...

i, personally, would never have an abortion unless there was a 100% chance I would die (some kind of emergency, only)
and i wouldnt even say.. abortion. i wouldnt say kill the child. i'd want he or she to be born, and all be done to keep them alive.

[larryl]

i would like to ask a question about this choice......

"After conception but before implantation on the uterine wall"

i am guessing this refers to one of the "morning after pills", which i know almost nothing about.....

my thing with these is, from what little i know, that the woman has no idea if she is pregnant or not, so it is almost a form of contraception (let's not have THAT argument here, please)......

anyone know more who can inform me?

[TLJ]

I would not tick the "never" box, because there might be some very good reason medically go through with the removal of a fetus to save the mother. There is no reason that I can see to allow both the mother and the fetus to die if it can be avoided.

An ectopic pregnancy comes to mind.

Rock

I agree with you, although I don't think that ectopic pregnancy should be included in abortion debate since it is never a viable pregnancy. No more than a woman having a D&C for a miscarriage should be included. I just don't want folks to get confused that removal of ectopic pregnancy is done via abortion method.

[Debbie]

Good point Middletree:

If any Mods come in here, could they add the following choices:

A. When the fetus will probably die soon after birth or have a severe handicap.

B. Only when the fetus will probably have a severe handicap.

Done

[Pouye]

I agree with you, although I don't think that ectopic pregnancy should be included in abortion debate since it is never a viable pregnancy.


Never say never:Ectopic Birth (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1251665&dopt=Abstract)

I wonder what MadCatholicGomer would say about this, since both he and I agree that life begins at conception, and we both know that a fetus can implant itself in the fallopian tubes and actually grow. I know that surgery is needed to remove such a fetus in 99.99 percent of patients (as apposed to typical abortion methods), but it is still the destruction of a fetus. I just pray that MCG's wife doesn't have an ectopic pregnancy.

There are other medical cases which do apply. Although cases like these are extremely rare, sometimes a medical situations can happen that will kill the mother (meaning only a miracle would save her) if the baby/fetus is left inside. Almost always in these cases, the baby is not healthy (usually has a cancerous tumor that is growing and spreading). I think if the baby/fetus inside a mother has a health problem that will most likely kill the mother as the health problem grows (like a rapid cancerous growth), the baby/fetus should be removed in the safest way possible, rather than both the baby and mother dying.

This is my opinion.

Rock

[woman4life]

An ectopic pregnancy is simply a pregnancy outside of the uterus, although much of the time it is "tubal", it doesn't have to be in the fallopian tube. If it is tubal, the liklihood that it will rupture and kill the mom is high. In that case, the mom was very fortunate to have survived. If the mom dies, the baby dies. Not taking the baby from the tube at that point is really just an extra person dying needlessly, imo. I had a relative (by marriage) that had a triple pregnancy (two tubal one normal) and she almost bled to death. She lost all three babies, and there was no other option really. To me, the key is that the point wasn't to end up with dead babies. The point truly was to save a life. A lot of times abortion is recommended for medical reasons when the goal is clearly just to end the child's life for whatever reason, and that is wrong, imo. For instance, if a child is Down's Syndrome, who are they saving by killing the child?

--Melanie

[Pouye]

An ectopic pregnancy is simply a pregnancy outside of the uterus, although much of the time it is "tubal", it doesn't have to be in the fallopian tube.

Only 2% of ectopic pregnancies occur in the ovary, cervix, or in the abdomen. While a fetus of ectopic pregnancy cannot be salvaged, the case of an occasional abdominal pregnancy has been the very rare exception to this rule. From what I have read, the vast majority of abdominal pregnancies require intervention well before fetal viability because the risk of hemorrhage.

Interesting stuff... and that's why I didn't tick the "never" box -- you just never know what could happen until the situation.

Rock

[truster]

OK, here's my stance.


I clicked "never"... I think "when the mother's life is in jeopardy" isn't really a viable excuse, because if it is God's will for the baby to live and the mother to die, we shouldn't get in the way of that. His will is His will, and we shouldn't try to change it.

*EDIT*
As Melanie pointed out, God is big enough that if it's his will, it's not being changed. He will accomplish His will with, without, and sometimes even in spite of us. So, maybe...
And actually, I don't know a WHOLE lot about this subject. So, I can't claim to have a very stable/credible opinion.
And, if I HAD a wife, and she was in that situation, my opinion would probably change. So, there ya go.
*/EDIT*


As far as "what does the law say", there's a lot of stuff that's not actually in the Constitution that the federal courts (Supreme and others) put in there. Amendment 9 (I think that's the one) says, basically, just because a right isn't given in the Amendments, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Then, they go to Amendment 3 (again, ?), which forbids the quartering of soldiers without government recompense, and, since we can imply stuff because of Amendment 9, they imply a right to privacy. Then, they say that the woman has a right to privacy in the abortion issue.

So, although the law doesn't explicitly say it, it is there. Kinda. Should it be there? No. But, it is. So, until we get a Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade, we have to deal with it (hopefully the new court will do it... but maybe I'm just dreaming).

[woman4life]

I disagree, Truster. Unless you are opposed to ALL medical care.

I really think it would have been pointless for my step-sister to die AND her babies. God is quite big enough that if he has appointed that it is someone's time, such a small thing as human intervention will not thwart it (although, I'm not sure surgery for an ectopic has traditionally been included in the legal/illegal abortion debate.)

I agree that in the law there are mechanisms that would allow a woman an abortion to save her life regardless of the legal status of abortion, and the courts or the legislature would have to define it very carefully since you know certain groups would definitely be looking for every loophole.

--Melanie

[Pouye]

I disagree, Truster. Unless you are opposed to ALL medical care.

I really think it would have been pointless for my step-sister to die AND her babies. God is quite big enough that if he has appointed that it is someone's time, such a small thing as human intervention will not thwart it (although, I'm not sure surgery for an ectopic has traditionally been included in the legal/illegal abortion debate.)

I agree that in the law there are mechanisms that would allow a woman an abortion to save her life regardless of the legal status of abortion, and the courts or the legislature would have to define it very carefully since you know certain groups would definitely be looking for every loophole.

--Melanie

The link I posted above was an actual tubal pregnancy that was carried to full term (the tube ruptured in the process, which usually kills the mother, but for some reason didn't in this rare case). I included this link just to take away another "never" situation and show that we cannot say for 100% that all tubal pregnancies are not viable. What we can say is that ectopic pregnancies are EXTREMELY high risk and will most likely terminate the life of the mother, baby, or both.

I agree with you, Melanie. Having the laws carefully defined is very important. Risk factors must be determined when it comes to any medical procedure. I think when the risk factor is high enough, the mother should be able to legally make a decision which will most likely save her life. I don't agree at all with truster's stance above, simply for the same reason you pointed out.

Rock

[Trillamum]

I chose "only when the mother's life is in jeopardy." Like Rock, I have issues with saying never. I would say that it should be very rare and that yes, the law should be tightly worded so as to ascertain that it really is a medical life or death situation. While personally I think I would try to keep a baby that would more than likely live even if it was a risk to me, I don't think that the law should mandate that. Does that make sense? Like, I would like to see the laws say that a pregnant woman has a choice to have an abortion if carrying the baby until it would be viable outside the womb is a SERIOUS risk to her LIFE. Like someone said above, in such cases, the end goal shouldn't be to kill the baby but to save the mother.
As for the whole disability argument, while I hate to say it, that's a hard question. No, I don't believe that killing babies who will be born with physical or mental disabilities is right, but, then you get the question of what then? Many parents are not financially or emotionally capable of caring for a child with special needs. Well, you say, put them up for adoption. Here's the thing, like someone (I believe Jason) mentioned earlier, many of those children never get adopted. So, you've come to the point of either A) leaving the kid with parents who are either unable or unwilling to care for her/him (which is never a good situation and can lead to neglect, abuse, etc.) or B) putting him/her in a life of instability, being constantly shuffled from one caregiver to another. I think we'd all agree that our social services (right name?) foster care system, etc is a rough world even for "normal" kids, it would seem that it would be much worse for a special needs child. I don't know, like I said, I absolutely do not believe in abortion for this reason, I'm just not sure what should be done. Any thoughts?

[MadCatholicGomer]

I would not tick the "never" box, because there might be some very good reason medically go through with the removal of a fetus to save the mother. There is no reason that I can see to allow both the mother and the fetus to die if it can be avoided.

An ectopic pregnancy comes to mind.

Rock

Two things:

1. An ectopic pregnancy does not often warrant an abortion; the mother can be saved without DIRECTLY attacking the child. This does involve the removal of the fallopian tubes, with the death of the child as an unintended, but unforseen consequence.

2. We can never do something intrinsically evil, not even that a great good may come of it. If my wife and child are ice skating, and they fall into the freezing water and I have them on a rope hanging on for dear life, but there is no way to save them both, I would rather lose them both than to only save one by kicking the other off the rope. Even saving a life can not justify murder.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Done

Thanks. I doubt that anyone will take it, but middletree is right that it should be an option.

[MadCatholicGomer]

i would like to ask a question about this choice......

"After conception but before implantation on the uterine wall"

i am guessing this refers to one of the "morning after pills", which i know almost nothing about.....

my thing with these is, from what little i know, that the woman has no idea if she is pregnant or not, so it is almost a form of contraception (let's not have THAT argument here, please)......

anyone know more who can inform me?

If you accept that birth control methods are acceptable (which most people already know that I don't, so I won't go into that now), I still think that you can't use these methods... if there is a possibility that it might be birth control and a possibility that it might be abortion, than I think you can't legitimately use it. You should always take the safer course. If you see something in the middle of the road while you are driving, and the only way you can avoid it is by putting your own life is in danger, you are not obligated to do that if it is an inanimate object, though I think you would be obligated to if you know it is a human baby. If you are not sure (you can't see well enough because of weather conditions, etc.), I think you have to take the safer course... it might be a baby, so you have to treat it as if it is a baby. (This by the way, is also the argument I use with those who say you can't know when the soul enters the body, ie. you can't know what it becomes a person).

In the same way, if it might be abortion, but you are not sure, you have to treat a method as if it is abortion, and therefore you shouldn't use it.

[fiddlefool]

A lot of times abortion is recommended for medical reasons when the goal is clearly just to end the child's life for whatever reason, and that is wrong, imo. For instance, if a child is Down's Syndrome, who are they saving by killing the child?


i agree...

i work with disabled students at my high school, one of whom has downs syndrome. they are amazing kids...
i couldnt imagine anyone wanting to take one of their lives away...

[Pouye]

Two things:

1. An ectopic pregnancy does not often warrant an abortion; the mother can be saved without DIRECTLY attacking the child. This does involve the removal of the fallopian tubes, with the death of the child as an unintended, but unforseen consequence.


Unforseen? How, pray tell? I can see your reasoning, but I don't see how the death of the child is unforseen, since this in inevitably the consequence? If a woman had severe uterine cancer and at the same time happened to have a new life in her womb, any doctor would tell the mother that if he removes her uterus to save her life, that the baby will not live. Again, this would not be directly attacking the baby, per se, but it does have the forseeable affect of killing the baby to save the life of the mother.


2. We can never do something intrinsically evil, not even that a great good may come of it. If my wife and child are ice skating, and they fall into the freezing water and I have them on a rope hanging on for dear life, but there is no way to save them both, I would rather lose them both than to only save one by kicking the other off the rope. Even saving a life can not justify murder.

I agree with this scenio... but there are some scenarios that I think are not intrinsically evil, like having a boat that can only hold so many passengers or it will sink, and having to save only as many people as you can, while leaving others to their fate (in God's hands).

Rock

[LifeDvtd]

Unfortunately, some people do choose abortion in those circumstances.

Special Children

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
Psalm 127:3

When I was in a public speaking class in college, a fellow classmate did a speech on abortion. During this speech, he said, “I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you have a pregnant friend. This friend has been told by doctors that because her husband is disabled, there is a high probability their child will be disabled and possibly end up confined to a wheelchair. How many of you would suggest to your friend that she get an abortion? To those who suggested she get an abortion, you just killed your classmate Jason Mitchener.”

People often ask expecting parents if they want a boy or a girl. An answer commonly heard is, “I don’t care, as long as the baby is healthy.” But what if the baby isn’t healthy? What if little Amber is physically disabled or little Joshua is mentally disabled? Are these children any less a blessing from God? Many people would think so. Disabled babies are often given up for adoption and many of these babies never get adopted because people are looking for the perfect child.

None of us are perfect. We each have flaws or disabilities that set us apart from others. And yet God loves each of us despite our imperfections. He looks past our weaknesses and sees special children needing His love.

My reasoning for picking"Never" is a lot like Jason's. I have a disability,and it gets me so mad to know that people would kill a baby(although it may not be born yet) just because it is not "perfect". Killing is wrong,no matter what!

God bless,
Lauren

[GuitarMan2387]

Agreed. This kind of reasoning creates the mindset that, "well if its going to suffer it might as well not be born." It also bases the quality of life on what a person can do and how they perform. "I am not disabled therefor my life is better than yours." Its pretty sad what society is coming to these days.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Unforseen? How, pray tell? I can see your reasoning, but I don't see how the death of the child is unforseen, since this in inevitably the consequence? If a woman had severe uterine cancer and at the same time happened to have a new life in her womb, any doctor would tell the mother that if he removes her uterus to save her life, that the baby will not live. Again, this would not be directly attacking the baby, per se, but it does have the forseeable affect of killing the baby to save the life of the mother.



Yeah, sorry, I mistyped, and meant to put forseen. As you have agreed, it seems Pouye, a consequence can be inevitable and forseen... yet still allowable.

Again, the thing I disagree with is that a person can directly attack the child and still be "morally okay".

[Pouye]

Yeah, sorry, I mistyped, and meant to put forseen. As you have agreed, it seems Pouye, a consequence can be inevitable and forseen... yet still allowable.

Again, the thing I disagree with is that a person can directly attack the child and still be "morally okay".

Hey... and guess what... I think I might agree! Imagine that!

Rock

[imperfect]

Most abortions occur out of convenience, fear of their reputation being damaged, or career / education priorities. We can always justify our choices as we see fit.

One of my best friends back home was pregnant with her 6th child. His brain stem didn't develop enough in utero, however, she carried him to term knowing that he would die immediately. I am still in awe of how much that affected me. She carried that child not for her, but for the people who would benefit from his organs. I remember calling her Mother Mary cuz I always felt that although Daddy was totally human (and dying of cancer) she was giving birth to him for someone else's benefit.

My mom was pregnant (with me) before she married. And I am glad she had me.

My mom was a foster mom. We had 11 kids in the house. We didn't live a lavish life, but she inspired me to to adopt. Now, I AM an adoptive mom, both kids were "special needs" types with developmental issues. It has not been easy to raise them, but it's been an honor. I also know moms who purposely adopt AIDS, drug and fetal alcohol and rape babies. So there's a mom for everyone.

With over 50,000 couples signed up for adoption and less than 7,000 babies available, I chose NEVER. I believe in the sanctity of all life present and future, so I am also against the death penalty and assisted suicide.

Gomer hugs,
Angie

[kiwisongbird]

I met a women in a baby shop one day, she was an older woman pregnant for the first time - like a miracle baby - she was buying some clothes for her baby and was really excited - I was excited for her too - then she told me ...."I shouldn't really be buying these clothes yet, it might be bad luck - I'm going for my amnio today to find out if I can keep this baby" !!!!!!! I was soooo sad, never met her again, don't know what happened....

I worked for a woman as a nanny for her three year old daughter - she got pregnant - went for 'counselling' - all she had to say to the doctors was that she felt she wouldn't cope mentally with the baby - then she had an abortion... legally!!!!

A friend of mine was living with her boyfriend - she got pregnant and he wanted her to abort.... or he would leave her - so she did and he left her anyway.....

My neice had finally found the man of her dreams - then she got pregnant - he said lose it - or lose me! she left him.... and has such a cute daughter.......hates men though....

I worked with a women at a trade union office - she was a tough cookie, fought with employers over wages etc - full on communist person type person....... she would cry every year on the day her baby 'should' have been born....

We all know stories - some of us may even have stories like this....abortion doesn't make any sense to me at all.....

:confused: :confused:

[coldcupofjoe]

A friend of mine was living with her boyfriend - she got pregnant and he wanted her to abort.... or he would leave her - so she did and he left her anyway.....

My neice had finally found the man of her dreams - then she got pregnant - he said lose it - or lose me! she left him.... and has such a cute daughter.......hates men though....

And here you have examples of men who are nothing but a waste of human flesh IMO. Any man who would do that is a man that I do not care to be associated in any whatsoever.

[Pouye]

And here you have examples of men who are nothing but a waste of human flesh IMO. Any man who would do that is a man that I do not care to be associated in any whatsoever.

So this boils your blood too, huh?

It comes down to selfishness. I told all of my sisters that if a guy ever pressured them into having sex, but yet was not seriously ready to take the responsibility of being a husband and a father, then he wasn't a man, but a wolf. I went on to tell them guys like this don't know how to love, but they do know how to use women for their own selfish insecurities and jollies.

Rock

[jesusnewspaper]

I just dont get how any one can ask some one they claim to love to kill gods work

[Chaser]

I would like to say never... but unlike God I am not perfect and therefore I cannot in good faith be so sure about such a drastic choice as never.

[KaraTopTitan]

Never. . . ever ever ever. . .always err on the side of life

[coldcupofjoe]

Never. . . ever ever ever. . .always err on the side of life

Whose life? The mothers? Or the childs? What about a situation where the child is going to die no matter what but the mothers only chance of living is aborting the baby?

[middletree]

Whose life? The mothers? Or the childs? What about a situation where the child is going to die no matter what but the mothers only chance of living is aborting the baby?
This seems like a good question, but is probably extremely rare.

[coldcupofjoe]

Yes it is a rare case. I was just wondering what Meghan would do in that situation? If every other option had been exhuasted, and there was nothing to else to do. There was NO possible way to save the baby and to continue with the pregnancy meant losing both the mother and the child. Do you pray for a miracle and hope God intervenes? Or do you abort?

I'm still undecided even though I voted only when the mothers life is in danger. Part of me says do what has to be done to save the mother in this situation. Part of me says put into God's hands. Hopefully this is a situation that I'll never be in (especially the pregnant part... that would be a little scary in and of it's self....) but if I get married and this type of situation happen to my wife I don't know what I would do...

[Gandalf]

Whose life? The mothers? Or the childs? What about a situation where the child is going to die no matter what but the mothers only chance of living is aborting the baby?
Such a situation is rather implausible. It may be that there is some pregnancy where it is known that the mother would die, but I can't think of a reason that it'd be preferable to intentionally kill the child before delivering it, rather than making whatever reasonable attempt can be made to save its life as well.

The only situation I can think of that might be considered to fit your hypothetical situation is an ectopic pregnancy. In such cases, there's no avoiding the child's death, but there was never an option of the child living. I don't believe abortion is ever a situation where you have to kill one person who would otherwise have any chance of living in order to save another.

In either case, only a very small percentage of abortions are due to any medical motivation whatsoever. The real debate in this country is over those motivated by convenience, not those motivated by medical benefit. The pro-abortion lobby is fighting tooth and nail to protect abortion on demand; they merely use medical cases as a distraction. Often the distraction works, since people take the implausible and irrelevant hypothetical situations and focus on them, losing focus on the real problem.

[Trillamum]

In either case, only a very small percentage of abortions are due to any medical motivation whatsoever. The real debate in this country is over those motivated by convenience, not those motivated by medical benefit. The pro-abortion lobby is fighting tooth and nail to protect abortion on demand; they merely use medical cases as a distraction. Often the distraction works, since people take the implausible and irrelevant hypothetical situations and focus on them, losing focus on the real problem.

Agreed. I think the only reason we were discussing the medically motivated aspect is that no one here believes that convenience motivated abortions are good or should be legal. As I believe I said earlier, I don't think those should be legal. But I also think that when it's a matter of life or death for the mother, it should legally be her decision. Now, I think that at least two, and possibly three, doctors should have to sign off on it before it becomes her decision, but I don't think that the government should regulate it beyond that point.

[gzusfreq]

I constantly hear about the "what if" argument for abortion, i.e. disfigurement, retardation etc. I don't buy it.

My story:
When we found out we were going to have our first child, we were extatic. We had a great doctor and our insurance covered everything. My wife began going through the routine check-ups that all pregnant women should have. When my wife was about 5 months pregnant, our doctor sat us down and told us that according to the prenatal tests that had been conducted up to that point, our child was going to be severely retarded. We were devistated. A test conducted shortly after that gave basically the same result.

The doctor suggested aborting the pregnancy. We refused. Regardless of the outcome, we were given a gift from God and we were going to accept this blessing no matter what challenges may come with it.

To make a long story short, Sophia DeAnn was born on April 8, 1996 and is now a normal 9 year old girl. No retardation. No birth defects. No kidding.

Had we taken the Doctors advice, we would have killed a perfectly healthy little girl.

I'm sure my story is not unique. I wonder how many couples have taken the advice of a of a doctor who has drawn his/her conclusions from the result of a faulty diognosis.
I voted never.

[ICarlson99]

I constantly hear about the "what if" argument for abortion, i.e. disfigurement, retardation etc. I don't buy it.

My story:
When we found out we were going to have our first child, we were extatic. We had a great doctor and our insurance covered everything. My wife began going through the routine check-ups that all pregnant women should have. When my wife was about 5 months pregnant, our doctor sat us down and told us that according to the prenatal tests that had been conducted up to that point, our child was going to be severely retarded. We were devistated. A test conducted shortly after that gave basically the same result.

The doctor suggested aborting the pregnancy. We refused. Regardless of the outcome, we were given a gift from God and we were going to accept this blessing no matter what challenges may come with it.

To make a long story short, Sophia DeAnn was born on April 8, 1996 and is now a normal 9 year old girl. No retardation. No birth defects. No kidding.

Had we taken the Doctors advice, we would have killed a perfectly healthy little girl.

I'm sure my story is not unique. I wonder how many couples have taken the advice of a of a doctor who has drawn his/her conclusions from the result of a faulty diognosis.
I voted never.

Chilling. Thanks for sharing it.

[KaraTopTitan]

Whose life? The mothers? Or the childs? What about a situation where the child is going to die no matter what but the mothers only chance of living is aborting the baby?

If I was a mother and they told me it was most likely that I would die if I didn't abort my child, I just can't see choosing my own life over my child's. . . even if the child is likely to die soon after birth. I would rather die than live with the fact that I aborted my child. . .

[GuitarMan2387]

If I was a mother and they told me it was most likely that I would die if I didn't abort my child, I just can't see choosing my own life over my child's. . . even if the child is likely to die soon after birth. I would rather die than live with the fact that I aborted my child. . .

Beautiful.

[jesusnewspaper]

Amen to that! im sorry but as i have siad before that "fetus" could have been some of my best friends!

[imperfect]

I constantly hear about the "what if" argument for abortion, i.e. disfigurement, retardation etc. I don't buy it.



I'm sure my story is not unique. I wonder how many couples have taken the advice of a of a doctor who has drawn his/her conclusions from the result of a faulty diognosis.
I voted never.

Yea! Love your story. And yeat I bet you would love that baby just as much if she was disabled or mentally challenged.

One of my gf's, who is a bible teacher, was told her baby was diagnosed with Down's Syndrome and she was encouraged to have an abortion. She told her doctor that it would be an honor if God entrusted her with a DS baby, afterall, her nephew is and he is the joy of her life.

She changed doctors and found one that was pro life cuz she felt hurt and betrayed by this doctor.

Her pregancy was high risk. She did almost die during labor. She suffered kidney failure and permanent damage. The baby is DS and she's a little punkin head! However, my gf will be needing a kidney transplant.

When we found out that she may die as a result of the pregnancy I admit even I (and I have marched and participated in Rescues) couldn't fathom my life with my big sister in the Lord. I thought she was being selfish. Just adopt. Don't put your family through this!

Then she said and I paraphrase: "Who am I to question God? If I fail this test, what will be next? Will I deny my faith just to avoid a bullet? I'd rather die in obedience. I don't want to hear anymore about this" After that she lectured me like Jesus did when the apostles feel asleep in the garden and chastised me about being her support. She was right.

[Pouye]

If I was a mother and they told me it was most likely that I would die if I didn't abort my child, I just can't see choosing my own life over my child's. . . even if the child is likely to die soon after birth. I would rather die than live with the fact that I aborted my child. . .

I admire your courage... but what about if you already had 2 young children who loved their mother very much? Would you be willing to die and leave them possibly without a mother?

Rock

[jesusnewspaper]

personally i have a huge family and lots of people who dont want me to die but i am not about to sacrifice anyone eles life for mine!

[imperfect]

I admire your courage... but what about if you already had 2 young children who loved their mother very much? Would you be willing to die and leave them possibly without a mother?

Rock

Quite thought provoking. And not an easy choice really. But being a mother means making some difficult choices anyway.

I love my children very much. If I was in the situation to choose my life over my unborn child, I would rather die. I don't want my kids to see me choose my life over my baby's. I want them to know that I would jump in front of a bullet for them.

Miltary moms make that very sacrifice FOR their family...and us.

Moms ROCK!

[jesusnewspaper]

yes but they make that sacrifice to save lives! they are not getting abortions to save their lives are they?

[imperfect]

yes but they make that sacrifice to save lives! they are not getting abortions to save their lives are they?

I agree with you. I have enjoyed this discussion thread.

However, Pouye may have been trying to determine if the mother would have an abortion to save her own life while sacrificing her child's.

For me it would be easy to make the decision because I would easily trade my life for my unborn child. I would ask my family to respect me and forgive me for burdening them with a baby to take care of and pray that God would provide a mother for the baby.

However, I know my heart would break either way if my daughter gave her life up for her unborn child or if she decided to abort the child to save her own. I must remember to pray for my future grandchildren and hope my own baby girl never has to make such a decision.

Whew, I can hardly think of such a scenario without tears and going into worry mode.

[HotWireD]

The problem with the "mother's health" thing is that they use mental health as a way of deciding to approve of an abortion. You get one doctor to testify that she will become depressed if allowed to have her kid, and that's all you need.


One point I would like to add to middletree's post above.

I have met several women who chose to have abortions (I do not know why they chose, what reasons they had, what pressures they were under or the circumstances surrounding their pregnancies).

If mental health is one of the considerations - consider the mental health of the woman if she DOES kill/abort the child (the mental health issues may begin afterwards - sometimes several years later).

Post natal depression may be cured (I am not a doctor), but the guilt, or other feelings of depression resulting from having killed a child, particularly if that woman discovers that she may never have another child, may be harder to cure, or may even be incurable.

[coldcupofjoe]

If I was a mother and they told me it was most likely that I would die if I didn't abort my child, I just can't see choosing my own life over my child's. . . even if the child is likely to die soon after birth. I would rather die than live with the fact that I aborted my child. . .


If the child would never come to term and to keep the child meant death for you? Whatever outside situation you want? Kids with no family or whatever, no matter what you would keep the child?

[pbear109]

I think that the 'exceptions' we as humans have applied to God's laws has already gotten us into a lot of trouble. We sometimes have a hard time escepting the black and white and choose to live in the gray areas. I agree that there is never a time way abortion can be justified. In every situation listed God is bigger and can carry us through them, It about trusting Him and not our limited knowledge or understanding :)

[Forever4Jesus]

Abortion should never be accepted. It's murder. I think that whoever wants to kill their child should just have it and let somebody adopt it that who will care for it and love it...even if the woman was raped. There are many people out in the world that doesn't have the privilage to have their own children and that would love to adopt a little one.

[Evanescence]

This is a tough topic....

I got this started on the veggirboards site when I was researching the AR movment.....they weren't happy with my thoughts on it.

I think there are WAY too many variables and what-ifs to have an abortion. My opinion is that if the baby is trapped in the wrong place...IE Philopian (sp) tube etc etc. THEN we know it will die and so will the mother.

All other instances are not acceptable. The instance above is clearly a life-saving procedure not a way to abort a baby that MIGHT be deformed or retarded.

All other abortions are wrong.

[imperfect]

This is a tough topic....

I got this started on the veggirboards site when I was researching the AR movment.....they weren't happy with my thoughts on it.

I think there are WAY too many variables and what-ifs to have an abortion. My opinion is that if the baby is trapped in the wrong place...IE Philopian (sp) tube etc etc. THEN we know it will die and so will the mother.

All other instances are not acceptable. The instance above is clearly a life-saving procedure not a way to abort a baby that MIGHT be deformed or retarded.

All other abortions are wrong.

This is difficult indeed.

Let's break this down...

Abortion is the elective evacuation / destruction of the fetus from the uterus where it can be nourished and grow into a baby, right?

However, in the tube it really can't be nourished or grow in a baby. The cells can divide and grow but only into a life threatening tumor or growth. It can't be transplanted into the uterus and the whole tube is sometimes removed.

So maybe we shouldn't consider this an abortion in the medical or spiritual term because then the removal of unfertilized eggs during hysterectomies might need to be considered as well.

Don't y'all think?

[rossid]

Now I put rape/incest/life of mother but each day am coming closer to never.

[woman4life]

Actually, an ectopic pregnancy (can be tubal, but is technically anywhere outside of the uterus) is not usually a tumor or growth. That would be a hydaditiform mole which is usually in utero. I am not sure if that is considered a true abortion.

In medical terms, ending the pregnancy is considered an abortion, even a miscarriage. A miscarriage is called a spontaneous abortion.

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=abortion&action=Search+OMD

I do not think treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is generally referred to as an abortion in the usual sense. On the other hand, since it ends the pregnancy early with the death of the embryo/fetus, it may medically be called one. What changes is the adjective describing the type of abortion generally. Also, there is a common definition for abortion by purpose (elective, therapeutic or voluntary.)

It is true that most of the time an ectopic (especially a tubal pregnancy) is often quite life threatening for the mother.

[woman4life]

Abortion equals medical rape. Well..not technically.

A woman who as raped does NOT need an abortion. I guess some women with a twisted sense of reasoning could feel "empowered" so that she is now the agressor instead of the victim, but for the most part that is exactly why it can be detrimental to her emotional health.

A woman who is raped needs lots of support and counseling through a pregnancy (which is a small percentage anyway.) She does not need an abortion. She needs society to stop treating the child like simply an extension of a rapist and like it is an innocent child that is also a good part of her. She could see the child as an answer to someone's prayer, or come to love her chi ld. While I think a pregnancy after rape is far from the ideal situation, society seems to expect a woman will to abort in many cases and does not understand when she doesn't. I don't know if that will change, but it should.
We place undue pressure on women to abort babies conceived from rape at a time when they may just be feeling "dirty" or used. It gives them no time to come to terms with it and realize that it isn't the baby. Is it emotionally healthy to place blame on the wrong target? :(

David Reardon and Julie Makaima wrote a book entitled, "Give Us Love not Abortions." Julie is a child that was conceived as a result of a rape. Neat lady. :) I think that title speaks volumes.

O.K. Stepping off soap box now. LOL

[imperfect]

Actually, an ectopic pregnancy (can be tubal, but is technically anywhere outside of the uterus) is not usually a tumor or growth. That would be a hydaditiform mole which is usually in utero. I am not sure if that is considered a true abortion.

In medical terms, ending the pregnancy is considered an abortion, even a miscarriage. A miscarriage is called a spontaneous abortion.

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=abortion&action=Search+OMD

I do not think treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is generally referred to as an abortion in the usual sense. On the other hand, since it ends the pregnancy early with the death of the embryo/fetus, it may medically be called one. What changes is the adjective describing the type of abortion generally. Also, there is a common definition for abortion by purpose (elective, therapeutic or voluntary.)

It is true that most of the time an ectopic (especially a tubal pregnancy) is often quite life threatening for the mother.

Thank you for clarifying the above. We should be wary to include all gynecological procedures as the an elective abortion you know?

Your comment:
Also, there is a common definition for abortion by purpose (elective, therapeutic or voluntary.)
Has defined the various categories addressed in this thread.
I don't believe the scope of the category is diminish the sinfulness of elective abortion, but it should be made clear.

Regarding my comments on ectopic, it has been years and I forgot the medical term and was trying to use layman's terms, but do know of a few women who didn't have that mole thing but what they had in the tube is too graphi to mention here.

Again, thanks for the clarity!
Hugs,
Angie

[imperfect]

Abortion equals medical rape. Well..not technically.

A woman who as raped does NOT need an abortion. I guess some women with a twisted sense of reasoning could feel "empowered" so that she is now the agressor instead of the victim, but for the most part that is exactly why it can be detrimental to her emotional health.

A woman who is raped needs lots of support and counseling through a pregnancy (which is a small percentage anyway.) She does not need an abortion. She needs society to stop treating the child like simply an extension of a rapist and like it is an innocent child that is also a good part of her. She could see the child as an answer to someone's prayer, or come to love her chi ld. While I think a pregnancy after rape is far from the ideal situation, society seems to expect a woman will to abort in many cases and does not understand when she doesn't. I don't know if that will change, but it should.
We place undue pressure on women to abort babies conceived from rape at a time when they may just be feeling "dirty" or used. It gives them no time to come to terms with it and realize that it isn't the baby. Is it emotionally healthy to place blame on the wrong target? :(

David Reardon and Julie Makaima wrote a book entitled, "Give Us Love not Abortions." Julie is a child that was conceived as a result of a rape. Neat lady. :) I think that title speaks volumes.

O.K. Stepping off soap box now. LOL

One of my fave stories in the world!