Poll on abortion, what's your view? Vanity

[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)

Thanks!

[BuckeyeTexan]

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.)

FRegards,
Buckeye

[fella]

A; Because someone, far smarter than me, told me

"When the choice is Life or Death, choose Life".

And I for one believe it.

[knarf]

It's up to God what happens to the life He allowed.

Abortion is murder from the moment vaginal penetration occurs

[bramps]

But everyone has their own opinion.

---

Exactly what do you mean by that in reference to abortion laws ?

[PauldArco]

A. Any other choice is morally indefensible.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Then why didn't you just tell us that up front? Now it seems a convenient response to being suspected of trolling. Most n00bs seeking knowledge post vanities that say "here's my situation, what do y'all think?"

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

[Cicero]

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.

[ArrogantBustard]

I have a friend who just had an abortion three days ago. She had an ectopic pregnancy and it would have killed her. I mean really. She found out she was pregnant in the E.R. while they were trying to find out why she was bleeding internally.
I have another friend that believes that no abortion should be legal ever (she is an avid anti-abortion protester. Organizes street protests and everything). So friend B's position would have killed friend A.

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?

[surroundedbyblue]

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.

[MeOnTheBeach]

I know you are not fond of Catholics,

Ummm... Just so we are on the same page. I give my opinion on subjects to further the conversation. But to say I'm not fond of Catholics is not the words I would use. I have disagreements with Catholicism which is why I'm not Catholic. But I recognize that the Catholic church has done a lot of good in the world too.

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.

Thank you for sharing this info. I did not know this was the Catholic position.

Therefore, “A” is the only decent choice.

But wouldn't you agree that this depends on defining pregnancy as "viable" or what constitutes an actual pregnancy? As you stated above the Catholic position is that ectopic is not a real pregnancy, so it would be necessary to make the anti-abortion laws reflect this view as well, correct?

[Cicero]

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.

[MeOnTheBeach]

An ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy, ergo the abortion question does not apply to this situation.

Is it your understanding then that the medical community doesn't consider a woman that has an ectopic pregnancy, to not be really pregnant?

And therefore, medical doctors, legislators, or prosecutors do not consider a woman to be really pregnant either? Is that correct?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You have a definition problem there, because removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not abortion and never has been regarded as such, whether defined by moral law, church law, medical ethics or criminal statute.

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:

• treatment of ectopic pregnancy: the surgery is directed at the removal of a woman's diseased organ (fallopian tube). The baby's death is inevitable in any case, but not intended.

• 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.

[MeOnTheBeach]

You have a definition problem there, because removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not abortion and never has been regarded as such, whether defined by moral law, church law, medical ethics or criminal statute.

Ok that makes sense. When I went to the hospital to see my friend all that was stated was "aborting" the pregnancy. She was given the drugs that I guess are used in Chemo that would end the pregnancy. So the terminology sounded the same.

So if abortion were completely 100% illegal it wouldn't touch this procedure, correct?

[svcw]

Nicely stated

[Mrs. Don-o]

Check out

#34

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If the baby is non-viable outside the womb, that means he will soon die naturally. His death will cause grief, as any baby's would; this is painful, but not so painful as grief plus guilt, which is what ensues if you intentionally kill your child.

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hoodat, "State's Rights" is one approach with some real positives, since we could get good, protective, human-rights-based legislation in many, many state legislatures much faster than the 40 years of futility we have eexperienced with the Federal govt.

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?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You might want to look at
#34

It's similar to yours. Maybe even the same thing in different words.