Skip to comments.Poll on abortion, what's your view? Vanity
Posted on 01/28/2013 8:26:14 AM PST by MeOnTheBeach
Question: What should the law be regarding abortion?
a. 100% illegal, no abortions should ever done?
b. Legal in the case of a serious threat to the life of the mother?
c. Legal in the case of rape or incest?
Other? (please explain)
Where’s the poll?
Do you have a link to the poll, or are you doing a research paper?
I’d say B was closest to my position, although I also make exception for conditions that make the baby non-viable outside the womb such as Anencephaly.
That's if you're a chick.
If you're a dude, I'm not interested.
Jus' sayin' ...
And, FYI, procured elective abortion is always the deliberate, willful destruction of innocent human life. That's the act outlawed by all murder statutes. Unless, of course, the victim is less than 9 months old and legally in these United States an "unperson". Or perhaps we should say, an untermench.
Deliberate, willfully procured abortion should be always illegal.
I’ve read your posting history. Your questions about religion, the Bible, homosexuality, Catholicism, Evangelicals, and now abortion appear designed to create controversy not to seek knowledge.
I suspect you are trolling.
Why do we release convicted murderers from jail, while at the same time we murder innocent babies in the womb? What did the innocent baby ever do to be executed?
100% on A.
See post #9
It should be left up to the states. (See: Amendment X, Constitution of the United States of America)
Thank you, your post said what I felt about thread. I was once informed here, if I referenced another’s post, I should ping him or her.
The life of a mother and the life of her child are equally sacred: if the mother's life is truly in mortal danger due to her unborn child and there is no way to save both the mother and the child then you have reached a point where abortion is permissible.
Even then the best practice would be to attempt to save both lives.
And in practice the concept of mortal danger to the mother has been watered down by leftists to 'serious harm' - which has proved to be the gateway excuse for 99% of abortions in the UK, rubber-stamped by morally bankrupt doctors.
So in fact the only answer that actually protects the unborn child is A, all the way.
I’ll third the troll theory. MeOnTheBeach, why didn’t you start with your own opinion?
A and I don’t need to explain myself. We have an unalienable right to life.
Why don’t you enlighten us with your thoughts on the subject?? Or is this entire thread your finest attempt at trolling.
Amendment V states in part: ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
I believe going the State by State route is the most effective but not as a way of saying that it is just a State issue. Protection of individual rights (and none greater than one's own right of existence) is a Federal issue.
Yes, it’s polite to ping another FReeper if you mention him by name. I don’t think it’s necessary if you simply refer someone to a particular post, but I appreciate your courtesy nonetheless.
I’ve been here almost five years and I still don’t know all of the protocol. We learn as we go and hope others will forgive our ignorance of protocol. (They usually do.)
"When the choice is Life or Death, choose Life".
And I for one believe it.
Abortion is murder from the moment vaginal penetration occurs
But everyone has their own opinion.
A. Any other choice is morally indefensible.
For your reference:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. ~Jim Robinson
I know you are not fond of Catholics, from your other posts. But it is legitimate to remove the fetus when it is an ectopic pregnancy, because leaving it will 100% kill the mother, and there is 0% chance that the child will survive.
The Catholic position is that this is not abortion. The intention is to save the life of the mother, and an unfortunate consequence is that it will kill the child, who would soon have died anyway.
Similarly, it is legitimate to give treatment to a pregnant woman with cancer, since the primary intention is to cure the cancer and the secondary result is to kill the baby. BUT, in this case the baby could survive, at the cost of its mother’s life. In this case, therefore, the decision is up to the mother whether to wait to begin treatment until the baby is born or removed by caesarian section first.
A number of Catholic women have decided to save their babies at the cost of their lives. Their decision. And at least one of them has been named a saint as a result.
The problem with choosing “B” is that the abortion lovers who run things these days will use any excuse as killing the baby for the “life or health” of the mother. Like, it would make her sad or depressed if she remained pregnant. The Planned Parenthood abortionist says so. Therefore, “A” is the only decent choice.
I see that you're capable of responding on your own thread. I'm surprised, actually.
Now ... Why don't you actually ask "Friend B" what his/her/its understanding of an "ectopic pregnancy" is. Seriously. EVERY, and I mean all, without exception, pro-life advocates and activists that I know (and I myself recognize NO excuse for willful, elective abortion) know that an "ectopic pregnancy" is an abnormal and deadly condition. We ALL know that untreated, it is unsurvivable by both mother and child. We ALL know that with current medical technology, the mother's life cannot be saved without sacrificing the baby's.
NOBODY muddies the waters by dragging ectopic pregnancy into the debate, or calling the treatment of it an abortion.
Nobody except pro-death activists.
Izzat you, Sparky? Are you a pro-death advocate?
An ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy, ergo the abortion question does not apply to this situation.
Nice try at clouding the issues, though.
It’s always difficult to write laws so the greedy leftists won’t twist them. Probably it would be possible to write something better than they have now. For instance, exceptions could be explicitly made for ectopic pregnancies, and if someone required radiation or chemotherapy to survive cancer, and if in the doctor’s opinion it couldn’t wait, then the mother should have the choice, after being informed and advised by the doctor. Probably in this case it would have to be stated that the “doctor” could not be an abortionist or his associate, but would either have to be the woman’s GP or a cancer specialist. There would still be abuses, no doubt, but not so many. And egregious abuses or twisting of the law could be brought to trial, perhaps.
But “life and health of the mother” has regretably come to mean any excuse whatever, because it includes the mother’s “mental health,” meaning she gets to choose an abortion if she says she feels bad about having the baby. And of course the abortionist wants the money for aborting it.
A little research on that would show that legitimate therapeutic procedures not directed against the baby, are not abortion in any sense, even if the situation is desperate and death of the baby is foreseeable.
It's always a matter of aggressively attacking the disease condition, not the baby. In ethics, this is called "Double Effect". Click that, it's THE starting place for ethical clarity on this issue.
Lest this seem too complicated, let me give examples of procedures of this kind:
Hysterectomy in a case of uterine cancer in a pregnant woman. Again, the surgery focuses on the removal of the uterus, not the murder of the baby. If it were possible to remove the uterus AND surgically remove the baby as in premature delivery, this would be morally required.
Drug/radiation/chemotherapy for a cancerous pregnant woman. This is always legitimate to save her life, whether or not it (indirectly) risks the baby.
Premature delivery of baby when mother has a potentially terminal condition like acute pulmonary hypertension with right heart failure during pregnancy. This is legitimate if there is a good-faith attempt to save the baby. Even if the baby is too preterm to survive, the baby must be handled respectfully and treated as what she is --- a dying baby --- and not just dismembered as would be done in abortion.
I have done considerable reading and questioning about this over a period of 30+ years, and I have never heard of a case where an actual attack on the child, i.e. an abortion, was necessary to save a mother's life.
An experienced OB/Gyn (mine) once told me that "abortion to save the mother's life" is never necessary and, when done, would indicate that the doctor was either unwilling or unable to practice modern obstetrics.
Interestingly, the country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world (Ireland) is also one of the few countries where the laws against criminal abortion are enforced.
So before you go polling people about this, it would be best to start by defining your terms correctly.
I would be as interested in the results as you are.
Arthur, you ought not to personally insult FReeper MeOnTheBeach. He has asked a question based on his deficient knowledge, but hey, ALL questions are based on deficient knowledge, are they not? The way to correct that is to supply the facts, not to attack the questioner.
You know how to treat people with good judgment and perception. That's what I like to see, old friend.
Some hospitals deal with this in a humane and compassionate manner by offering neonatal hospice: a unit where the very frail baby can be given care and kept comfortable, as any baby would, until his natural demise. This is comforting for both the baby and the parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, who have the precious chance to show their love and respect before the infant passes on.
Some babies die by chance. No babies should die by choice.
However it does not address the question of intrinsic right and wrong. If you were a legislator in one of these states, freed from the Federal restraints of Roe vs Wade, to what extent would you vote to protect unborn babies and pregnant mothers in your state?
It's similar to yours. Maybe even the same thing in different words.
I'm trying to think of a useful analogy, so please patiently try to see what I'm saying, since most analogies are a little wobbly but they make some sense---:o}
OK, it would be like a boy with serious mental disability has gotten behind the wheel of a car, turned on the ignition and is now steering it at high speed toward a half-a-dozen kindergarten children. He can't stop it, doesn't know how. You're in a huge heavy earth-moving machine near the intersection and can, in seconds, pull out into the path of the speeding car so that it crashes into your vehicle instead into the crowd of kids.
If you do this, it is not first-degree murder of the retarded kid at the wheel, even if he ends up dying and even though his death from the collision was foreseeable.
Your motivation: to save the kids in the street. Morally good.
Your intention: to block the speeding car. Morally good.
Your means: by placing an immovable obstacle between the speeding car and the kids. Morally good.
Your good faith here, showing that your injury/possible death and the retarded kid's injury/possible death are truly un-intended, is that you try to dial 911 and get emergency response so both of your lives can be saved if possible.
If he dies, though, it was not murder. And if you die, it was not suicide. You were stopping the speeding car, --- even though there was someone in it --- not trying to murder the driver and yourself.
Similarly, in the ectopic pregnancy, you are stopping the rupture of a fallopian tube --- even though there was someone in it --- not trying to murder the baby.
In good faith, if you could take that little embryonic child and transplant him, e.g transfer him to the mom's uterus and get him to implant there, then that's what you would try to do.
Actually, that doesn't seem so very far-fetched. At some point with the progress of prenatal surgery, I expect that would be possible some day. If it becomes a probably successful surgical choice --- saving both mother and child --- it would then probably be obligatory, provided there were a surgeon around who knew how to do it.
The hospital would convene a panel that includes maybe a high-risk-pregnancy expert, an ethicist, the neonatal ICU people, and they'd make a determination of what the options are.
If you can imagine a graph with the X-axis representing the weeks of pregnancy and the Y-axis representing mortality risk, with a red line representing the baby and the blue line the mother, you can visualize that as the weeks go on, the mother's risk line goes up and the baby's risk line goes down.
Wherever the red and the blue lines cross, that's where you do the C-section to try to save them both.
It's not a precise, mahematical-type determination. It's that, conceptually, everybdyu has to try to save both lives if they can. If they can only save one, they fully commit to saving the one (usually the mother.)
If it is IMPOSSIBLE to save the baby's life, --- well, nothing that is strictly impossible, can be morally obligatory.
But you still trat the baby respefully, as a dying baby. You deliver him whole, you trat him with whatever care you can offer, even if he only lives minutes. You don't go in and dismember him and haul him out in bloody chunks.
Just to make clear, Catholic theologians who hold the view that resolving an ectopic pregnancy is morally acceptable don't believe this because the baby has no chance to live. Rather, it is because there is a normal medical treatment for an inflamed or infected fallopian tube - removal of the tube.
It is the unintended effect that this also causes the unborn child to die as a result of being cut off from his sustenance.
Thus, it is because there is a legitimate illness, and a treatment that is directed toward curing the illness that is NOT a direct, intentional abortion that this is licit.
Similarly, when women receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy for cancer, or when women undergo hysterectomies to remove a diseased uterus, it is the attempt to cure a real physical illness or disease that has the unintended effect of causing the death of the unborn child that makes the action licit.
Cancer is a disease. An inflamed or infected fallopian tube is a disease. Pregnancy is not a disease, and thus, it is not legitimate to "cure" it through direct abortion, especially as that directly and intentionally kills an innocent human being.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that an ectopic pregnancy is not a “real pregnancy.” Upon conception within the body of the woman, the woman is a pregnant mother.
I used the terms “unfortunate consequence” and “secondary result” rather than “unintended effect,” but the meaning of what I said is basically the same.
Perhaps I should have said that a fallopian pregnancy is not a NORMAL pregnancy, since that was what I intended.
Catholic theologians speak of primary intention—to cure a health problem—and secondary, unintended consequences. Nonetheless, if the baby’s life could be saved by a different procedured, then it would be wrong to use a procedure that killed the baby—primary intention or not. It is certainly a significant aspect of the case that a baby in the fallopian tube cannot be saved, as well as that its continued presence would result in the death of the mother. So there really isn’t any doubt what to do, whereas in a case of lung cancer, for instance, there would be questions of how much more risk there would be to the mother in postponing chemotherapy for another month or two to give the baby a chance. Instead of proceding with no real doubts, that would be case for the mother to discuss with the doctor, and perhaps get a second opinion, before making the choice of whether or not to wait.
I agree with most everything you posted, and it may seem that I'm picking a nit. However, in #27, you said:
“But it is legitimate to remove the fetus when it is an ectopic pregnancy, because leaving it will 100% kill the mother, and there is 0% chance that the child will survive.”
The “because leaving it will...” is problematic. The reason why it's licit isn't because the ectopic pregnancy will definitely kill the mother and there is no chance for survival of the unborn child. The reason why it's licit is because there is an underlying medical problem - the inflammation or infection of the fallopian tube - that is life-threatening and for which there is a medical treatment that is not direct, intentional abortion.
That's why it's possible to say that the death of the child is an indirect, unintentional effect.
With a direct, intentional abortion, what is being “treated," what is the “disease” being “cured” is the baby.
As I understrand it, this is a sitution that can develop fairly early, like maybe 12th week of pregnancy or so, for which the prognosis is very, very poor for the mother. Part of the moral dilemma is that nobody is quite sure what causes it, but it might be caused by abnormal function of the placenta.
Now, as I undersand it, the placenta is a shared, feto-maternal organ composed of cells and tissues of both the mother and the baby. The part that faces toward the baby develops (like the umbilical cord and the anmionic membrane) from the baby's blastocyst: in other words, it is one of the external organs of the baby. The part that faces the mother's uterine wall develops from the mother's endometrial cells: it's part of the internal develoment of her pregnant uterus.
Here's the thing: the fetal placenta and the maternal placenta, are intricately intertwined. Zillions of tiny maternal spiral arteries mesh together with the fetal villi, kinda like velcro hooks and loops, keeping the villi bathed in maternal blood, for essential nutrient and gas exchange.
OK, bottom line, say acute pulmonary hypertension is indeed caused by a placental disorder. If the placenta were the mother's organ, it would clearly be OK to remove this malfunctioning organ in order to save the mother's life. If it's the baby's organ, then you can't attack the placenta (e.g. remove it) because you're attacking the baby himself.
Whether you prematurely deliver the baby from the womb at this stage or not, it has no effect whatsoever on his survivability. Either way, his survivability is zero. But if you remove baby and placenta, the baby dies (as he would anyway) but the mother's hypertension rapidly resolves and she regains normal heart function. It saves her life.
Keep in mind that there's a lot they don't know about exactly how this works.
I have read that reptable Catholic prolife ethicists are divided over this one: can you remove the baby and placenta from the womb at 12, 13, 14 weeks or not?
I have my own opinion, but I'd like to hear yours.
Acute pulmonary hypertension is a new one on me. I’ll take it that the situation is as you describe.
One question is whether the theory that the placenta causes it has good grounds for support, or whether it’s just a theory, as yet uncertain. There would be less reason to do it if it is a far out theory. It “might” be caused by the placenta? What are the grounds for thinking—or speculating—this? And what is the cause—an allergic reaction to the placenta? But let’s say that the chances are 50-50.
In that case, it seems to me that the decision what to do is up to the mother. The doctor should acquaint her with all the medical facts and odds. Then, as with the case of whether or not to have chemotherapy, it would be up to the mother. This strikes me as an especially hard decision, if as you say the cause of this condition is uncertain.
It doesn’t strike me as relevant whether the placenta consists of the mother’s or the baby’s tissue. Clearly it is needed for the baby’s survival, whereas it is not a vital organ for the mother.
Certainly this is a hard one. I would be inclined to say that the placenta should not be removed, since it is uncertain whether or not it is the problem—but I think the decision probably is up to the mother in a case like this. A hard one.
Your friend did NOT have an "abortion". She had to have surgery to remove the developing baby from her fallopian tube which, if allowed to continue, would have killed both her and the baby. Sadly, because of the short gestation and the inability to protect the baby's life in ANY other way, the child died. She literally had no choice. That is why people CAN be staunchly against all elective abortions - because they are the willful killing of the unborn, developing baby and are not done to save the life of the mother. Life of the mother exceptions are just that - exceptions AND rare. Please let your friend know how sorry you are for her loss and console her that she did not kill her baby. Hopefully, she will be able to have children in the future. She should not be made to feel guilty over this and your other friend should be supportive and help your friend to recover and heal from her loss.
I'm not a Catholic moral theologian or a physician. So if I were to hazard an opinion, I'd really be in a deeper part of the pool than where I should be.
If I were to offer a WAG, it would focus on: is there a way to resolve or ameliorate the physical illness where the treatment does not consist of killing the baby? If a treatment of the woman's body cures or manages the illness, and happens to lead to the death of the child, that would be, in my guess, licit. But if the treatment of the woman happens to be the direct, intentional killing of the child, then that wouldn't be licit.
In other words, the woman may not be licitly treated through the action of killing the child.
Whether placentas are part of the woman's body or part of the child's body, or both is way beyond my knowledge. Whether the only cure here is to directly remove the placenta is also way beyond my knowledge. Whether there is some way to understand the actions of the treating physician so that one does not violate the absolute moral precept that one may not directly, intentionally kill and innocent human being to benefit another human being is beyond my ability to understand the moral issues tied up in this particular set of circumstances that you describe.
I do remember once reading a dubium from the latter half of the 19th century where the question was asked whether one could licitly intentionally induce an early labor and birth well before any realistic point of viability, even knowing that the birth would result in the death of the child, for the purposes of saving the mother's life. The answer from the Church was in the negative. An induced early labor and birth that would not have otherwise occurred, at a point in pregnancy where it was known that the child just could not survive, could not be a treatment for the woman, as it would have been through the direct, intentional killing of the child that the woman's life was saved, rather than as an unfortunate byproduct of a treatment of the woman's body.
This seems to me the closest similar circumstances of which I've heard an answer expressed by the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.