Easy Question, Tough Answer on Abortion

[zendari]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I am asking your opinion on the matter. Society has the capacity to save the mother, or the baby in certain medical situations. How do you chose which to save? I am just trying to understand your thought process. If the baby has absolute right to live (which is your argument) then you must be OK with doctors cutting open the mother (thus killing her) to save the baby. How is that not murder in your opinion?

How is that murder?

Are you saying the doctors will operate on her without her consent?

Ok I think you are missing the point. Why would they need her consent? They need to save the baby because they can right? Isn't that the point of your whole argument???????

You are contradicting yourself here, because first you say 'aborting babies is wrong' but now you are saying the doctors need CONSENT of the mother to save the baby...

So if she doesn't give CONSENT and choses to LIVE, is it ok to kill the baby?

It is a simple yes or no question.

The law doesn't judge 1 person's right to live over another. There are times where 1 twin has to be sacrificed so the other can live, its the doctors call.

The law doesn't mandate saving soldier A over B in a time of war.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I am asking your opinion on the matter. Society has the capacity to save the mother, or the baby in certain medical situations. How do you chose which to save? I am just trying to understand your thought process. If the baby has absolute right to live (which is your argument) then you must be OK with doctors cutting open the mother (thus killing her) to save the baby. How is that not murder in your opinion?

How is that murder?

Are you saying the doctors will operate on her without her consent?

Ok I think you are missing the point. Why would they need her consent? They need to save the baby because they can right? Isn't that the point of your whole argument???????

You are contradicting yourself here, because first you say 'aborting babies is wrong' but now you are saying the doctors need CONSENT of the mother to save the baby...

So if she doesn't give CONSENT and choses to LIVE, is it ok to kill the baby?

It is a simple yes or no question.

The law doesn't judge 1 person's right to live over another. There are times where 1 twin has to be sacrificed so the other can live, its the doctors call.

The law doesn't mandate saving soldier A over B in a time of war.

This is true, but if a law were passed to protect all life, how would you handle the above? Either the mother dies or the baby dies, how do you choose when the law prohibits you from aborting the baby?

My point is, we cannot have a blanket law that states 'all abortions are illegal'. Her209 basically got caught in a loophole because at first the statement was made that 'abortion is wrong' but then all of a sudden the mother has the right to CONSENT whether the baby gets aborted or not.

Get it?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: zendari
The law doesn't judge 1 person's right to live over another. There are times where 1 twin has to be sacrificed so the other can live, its the doctors call.

The law doesn't mandate saving soldier A over B in a time of war.

This is true, but if a law were passed to protect all life, how would you handle the above? Either the mother dies or the baby dies, how do you choose when the law prohibits you from aborting the baby?

My point is, we cannot have a blanket law that states 'all abortions are illegal'. Her209 basically got caught in a loophole because at first the statement was made that 'abortion is wrong' but then all of a sudden the mother has the right to CONSENT whether the baby gets aborted or not.

Get it?

There's no real answer to that, which is why such a blanket law isn't passed. Few people have an issue without abortion to save the life of the mother, as opposed to some vague health exception which could be a toothache.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
This is true, but if a law were passed to protect all life, how would you handle the above? Either the mother dies or the baby dies, how do you choose when the law prohibits you from aborting the baby?

My point is, we cannot have a blanket law that states 'all abortions are illegal'. Her209 basically got caught in a loophole because at first the statement was made that 'abortion is wrong' but then all of a sudden the mother has the right to CONSENT whether the baby gets aborted or not.

Get it?

I have said no such thing regarding the mother giving consent to abort the baby. I asked you if the doctors would operate on her regardless of whether she consented or not...

If the mother gives consent for the doctors to operate, then she dies and the baby lives. If she doesn't consent then the baby dies but not through abortive means.

In the situation where both were to die unless she were operated on in order to save the both their lives or just the baby's lifes and the mother wouldn't consent, would you still be for an operation even if she refused?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
This is true, but if a law were passed to protect all life, how would you handle the above? Either the mother dies or the baby dies, how do you choose when the law prohibits you from aborting the baby?

My point is, we cannot have a blanket law that states 'all abortions are illegal'. Her209 basically got caught in a loophole because at first the statement was made that 'abortion is wrong' but then all of a sudden the mother has the right to CONSENT whether the baby gets aborted or not.

Get it?

I have said no such thing regarding the mother giving consent to abort the baby. I asked you if the doctors would operate on her regardless of whether she consented or not...

If the mother gives consent for the doctors to operate, then she dies and the baby lives. If she doesn't consent then the baby dies but not through abortive means.

In the situation where both were to die unless she were operated on in order to save the both their lives or just the baby's lifes and the mother wouldn't consent, would you still be for an operation even if she refused?

2 Choices:

1. No operation - they both die
2. Abortion - mother lives

What do you do?

Or, even better - 3 choices:

1. No operation - both die
2. Abortive procedure - fetus dies
3. Non-abortive operation - fetus (possibly) lives, mother dies

What then?

 

[GTKeeper]

In regards to the doctor giving consent.

IF the baby had absolute right to live just like anyone else, the doctors could force the mother to give birth to the baby (thus killing her) because they could say... you have a 99.9% chance of death, but there is a possibility for you to make it through this. We are pro-life we want the best chance for both of you to live.

It is impossible to legislate abortion IMHO. I think people would do whatever necessary to accomplish an abortion legally or illegally.

If we make abortion illegal, I think people will seek out illegal and unsafe methods to terminate pregnancies.

In the end, the mother will have to live with herself for the rest of her life knowing that she had an abortion. I seriously doubt that the majority of people who have abortions 'feel good about them' afterwards.

I personally would never force my wife to have an abortion (if I could). I believe it is a serious lack of responsibility. But it drives me up the wall when people make blanket statements 'no abortions period'. That is just stupid.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
It is impossible to legislate abortion IMHO. I think people would do whatever necessary to accomplish an abortion legally or illegally.

If we make abortion illegal, I think people will seek out illegal and unsafe methods to terminate pregnancies.

.

We've legislated against suicide, and its a lot easier to commit suicide than have an abortion.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
It is impossible to legislate abortion IMHO. I think people would do whatever necessary to accomplish an abortion legally or illegally.

If we make abortion illegal, I think people will seek out illegal and unsafe methods to terminate pregnancies.

.

We've legislated against suicide, and its a lot easier to commit suicide than have an abortion.

What is the relevance of your observation?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Or, even better - 3 choices:

1. No operation - both die
2. Abortive procedure - fetus dies
3. Non-abortive operation - fetus (possibly) lives, mother dies

What then?

4. Non-abortive operation - fetus (possibly) lives, mother lives

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Meuge
Or, even better - 3 choices:

1. No operation - both die
2. Abortive procedure - fetus dies
3. Non-abortive operation - fetus (possibly) lives, mother dies

What then?

4. Non-abortive operation - fetus (possibly) lives, mother lives

I didn't give you that choice... nor is it always available. Pick one of the three.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: m316foley
I always read about abortion topics and frequently post in such topics; however, one question about people who are pro-life has always made me wonder...

Why is it that people that feel abortion is murder agree to put in a stipulation that abortion is OK under the circumstances of either rape or incest. If a person is raped and pregnant, there is still a child that was completely innocent in the case. Isn't it kind of hypocritical to think abortion is murder of a child and it's "rights." However, if a person is raped it excuses the fact that it's murder?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, in fact I'm actually pro-choice (if ya couldn't tell). I'd just like that question answered from whoever is pro-life and feels the way listed above.

That's why the general movement is to ban abortion even in cases of rape/incest, the only exception being saving the life of the mother.