Answers in Genesis says abortion is sometimes OK....

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I got this off some fundie's FB page:

rightremedy.org/articles/426

On February 26, 2013, as printed in AIG's Answers magazine, Dr. Tommy Mitchell, a physician and AIG speaker, wrote an article entitled, "Is Abortion Ever Justifiable?" In this article, Dr. Mitchell justifies the killing of little babies in some circumstances. If a mother has aggressive leukemia and requires immediate chemotherapy to save her life "that is virtually certain to kill the unborn child," and if postponing chemotherapy is too risky for the mother, then, Dr. Mitchell argues, the doctor is justified in advising "immediate abortion."

When I spoke with Dr. Mitchell in person, his wife, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, was also present. She is an obstretrician/gynecologist who writes for AIG. She brought up two other medical conditions that are commonly used to justify abortion: HELLP Syndrome and chorioamnionitis.

She said, "If you have someone sick enough with chorioamnionitis that you need to get this over with quickly, then, yes, you do a D & E, and - would I do it with a good conscience? - yes, in a heartbeat... What we're talking about is getting the pregnancy out of the womb, is ending the pregnancy in whatever way is going to be safest for the mother... Certainly I would not enjoy pulling a baby out piece by piece - who would enjoy that?"

She claims to be pro-life, but is willing to rip a baby out of the womb piece by piece. "Would I do it with a good conscience? - yes, in a heartbeat."

Stunning.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell and Dr. Tommy Mitchell insisted that the outcome was the same: whether an abortion was done, or delivery was facilitated of a baby too premature to survive outside the womb, the baby dies in both instances. Therefore, they argued, we should do what is best for the mother, even if that is an abortion that dismembers her baby. Mark Looy, who co-founded AIG with Ken Ham, concurred with the Mitchells: since the outcome was the same, then the abortion was justified.

I appealed to their consciences, begging them to acknowledge that intentionally killing a baby by ripping him or her out piece by piece is quite a different thing than a prematurely delivered baby (delivered to save the life of the mother) dying peacefully in the arms of his parents in spite of physician's attempts to save the baby. If the mother dies, two people die; thus, facilitating delivery is attempting to save the baby's life, not just the mother's life. I think that it is both biblical and self-evident, that trying to save a baby's life is not morally equivalent to trying to kill a baby. An abortion violates God's law because it intends to kill an innocent person, whereas prematurely delivering a baby and trying to save the life of the mother and the baby does not intend to kill and does not violate God's law. One is violent and cruel, the other heroic and compassionate.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell also brought up tubal ectopic pregnancies as an example of a justifiable abortion. It is true that there are no cases of tubal ectopic pregnancies surviving. However, I pointed out that abdominal and pelvic ectopic pregnancies can and do survive, and that tubal ectopic pregnancies have been documented dislodging and reattaching in the uterus, resulting in a safe pregnancy. There have also been successful cases of transplanting tubal ectopic pregnancies into the uterus.(2)

I looked for the original article on AIG but it appears they have taken it down.

[longskirtlotsakids]

Idiot. I despise pro life zealots that think that they know more than a doctor. In the case of HELLP syndrome, there is no time to induce labor. Even if the body would go into labor at 20 weeks.

Too bad for her that doctors and patients are too busy trying to stay whole and alive to ask her input....

[NotALoserLikeYou]

What's scary is that the author IS a doctor......

[doggie]

so what are ht doctors supposed to do pray to god to make the baby come early??

so this woman is so sick she is going to die if things don't change right away can have the energy to go through a forced birth?

[France Nolan]

The stupid. It burns. Seriously though, good doctors don't let their patients die because they (the doctors) are pro-life.

Actually, I should probably amend "don't" to "shouldn't".

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Because a dead mom AND a dead baby is better than one dead baby because BIBLE. And that's pretty much what the responses said.

[djibouti]

NOT aborting a tubal ectopic pregnancy is just a recipe for disaster!

[Chowder Head]

I do not u :angry-banghead: nderstand how a lot of ptolife posters jump straight to dc =dismemberment & early birth = babies dont suffer!!!!

[Rachel333]

Because a dead mom AND a dead baby is better than one dead baby because BIBLE. And that's pretty much what the responses said.

Unfortunately, that really is the mindset. Back in high school my Bible study group had an abortion discussion one night. It was supposed to be pretty much an anti-abortion circle-jerk, but I found myself arguing the pro-choice side and I think that's the night I realized I really was pro-choice. Anyway, it was a bunch of girls sanctimoniously saying that even if pregnancy were to kill them, they would die rather than have an abortion. I tried arguing that if it's one life or another, their lives are valuable enough to save, and it would be better to have an abortion and live, potentially having more children, than to die leaving your family without a wife and a mother, but no, to them a fetus is more important than a grown woman.

[tenth muse]

Crazy.

[runlikeagirl]

I was told by a Dr. that it is extremely difficult to induce a baby preterm...your body simply isn't ready to deliver and therefore it usually won't. Pitocin over time can be dangerous to the mother's heart. A Csection is major surgery and many Dr.won't do that either. A D & C tends to be the option of choice. Of course fundies don't consider the mother in that scenario, therefore they want to do what is "best" for the fetus rather than the mother. Honestly they ARE idiots!

[2xx1xy1JD]

There are some overwhelming mythology here.

Prior to 24 weeks, the odds of a preterm birth surviving are not good, and prior to 23 weeks, the odds are close to zero.

Pro-life fantasy does not change reality. My SIL had placenta issues with her first preg. The baby was very much wanted and she tried to go to term, but the water broke at 22 weeks and there was simply no way to save the baby. Rosy fantasies of resuscitating babies pre-viability, or having peaceful natural births and deaths, don't always correspond to reality, and they don't result in living babies.

A tubal pregnancy cannot continue to term successfully. Successful abdominal pregnancies are literally a one-in-a-million occurrence. How many women's lives would need to be threatened or lost, to get one healthy baby from an ectopic pregnancy? How is this pro-life?

Basic ectopic pregnancy info:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 000895.htm

At least 1% of pregnancies will be tubal pregnancies. If they don't end spontaneously, there will be a rupture, which can cause internal bleeding leading to shock. It is potentially life-threatening.

[Ruby Slippers]

I don't know about Genesis, but Exodus 21:22-24 certainly distinguishes between a person and a fetus. Paraphrasing, if a man messes with a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, he has to pay the father damages. But if a man messes with a pregnant woman and she dies, the punishment is a life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc. The woman was a life; the fetus wasn't.