Abortion is immoral, even if mother's life is at risk

[snuggles911]

They're having a debate about abortion in the comments section of Sunshine Mary's blog sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/the-end-result-of-feminism-and-liberalism-is-the-destruction-of-our-humanity/

A reader named Songtoelven has taken offense at male non-religious reader who asked if abortion might be OK if a woman's life was in danger, or if she had been raped.

I will answer your questions. In the case of the woman’s life in danger, do we commit a violent act of murder in order to prevent her natural death? No.

In the case of the woman who is raped: a violent act has been committed. Do we commit another violent act against the innocent fetus (child) in order to attempt to redeem the rape?

There is ALWAYS adoption. There are literally millions of American parents waiting on adoptive American children. There are only tens of thousands available, largely because of abortion.

Songtoeleven is pregnant with her 7th child. I guess if a doctor told her her life was in danger she'd have no qualms about leaving her already born six children without a mother. She would just choose to have "a natural death." :angry-banghead:

[Handmaiden of Dog]

A natural death!? Wow. So where do we draw the line at medical intervention? Is it OK to let your child die a natural death if they need life-saving surgery? How about your husband? What's his stance on antibiotics, heart by-pass, kidney transplants? It is astonishing that in this day and age some people still believe that women are expendable and should have no control over their own bodies.

[Mama Mia]

I am somewhere in the gray area between the extreme pro-life/pro-choice views and I can not understand how people can logically be against saving the mothers life. Except in some very rare, very extreme cases the fetus is going to die if the mother dies anyway...so what exactly is the point? And in the rare cases where it is a choice between a woman and an unborn fetus it would seem that saving the actual living person would take precedence ( although I do know people who made it known that they would want the baby saved if it came Dow n to a choice, but that was their own preference)

[SPHASH]

Like I mentioned in another thread, I worked for a chiropractor who felt the same way. He didn't care if he lost his wife he can always remarry but losing a child is too much to bear for him.

[Firiel]

I am somewhere in the gray area between the extreme pro-life/pro-choice views and I can not understand how people can logically be against saving the mothers life. Except in some very rare, very extreme cases the fetus is going to die if the mother dies anyway...so what exactly is the point? And in the rare cases where it is a choice between a woman and an unborn fetus it would seem that saving the actual living person would take precedence ( although I do know people who made it known that they would want the baby saved if it came Dow n to a choice, but that was their own preference)

Yeah, I was raised really conservative, and even I never heard that abortion isn't okay when saving the mother's life. I always understood that the "proper Christian response" to a situation like that would be to pray about it, seek counsel, and do what is best for the family. It seems like the extreme pro-lifers just keep pushing further and further right. I can't wrap my head around it.

[snuggles911]

I am somewhere in the gray area between the extreme pro-life/pro-choice views and I can not understand how people can logically be against saving the mothers life. Except in some very rare, very extreme cases the fetus is going to die if the mother dies anyway...so what exactly is the point? And in the rare cases where it is a choice between a woman and an unborn fetus it would seem that saving the actual living person would take precedence ( although I do know people who made it known that they would want the baby saved if it came Dow n to a choice, but that was their own preference)

I definitely fall in the gray area, too. But, I can't imagine telling a woman she must continue a pregnancy if her life is in danger, especially if she has other children at home.

[GeoBQn]

I will answer your questions. In the case of the woman’s life in danger, do we commit a violent act of murder in order to prevent her natural death? No.

Killing your attacker in self defense is allowed in most places, and not classified as murder.

[browngrl]

SSM and her lot are such hypocrites. If a man needs treatment to live - treat him. If someone walks onto your property - go ahead and shoot him. Keep a brain dead woman on life support indefinitely because that's doing god's will. However: treat a woman with an ectopic to save her life - never. Abort in cases of rape - never. The bottom line for them is that women are worth nothing - except at vessels for the next generation or tools for sexual gratification - so they could not care any less for the life of a woman. SSM and her lot disgust me.

[Childless]

I had an abortion to save my life. The embryo had no chance of becoming fetus, let alone an actual child. It was stupid to die for something that would never happen. I would have deprived my husband of the wife he loved and my son would not be here today. So, no, I'm not upset that I made the decision to terminate. In fact, it's probably the best decision I ever made. Anyone who has a problem with that can go suck it.

[sparkles]

I wonder if SSM would be so quick to sacrifice one of her daughters, should one of them have a life-threatening pregnancy, to "save" a lump of cells. She can spew all of these hypotheticals til the cows come home, but when push comes to shove its a whole different story. Of course, the thought occurs that she WOULD let one of her daughters die since she really is a piece of shit, but my brain doesn't want to go there.

[veron1que]

I hate that the response to not having is an abortion is "there's always adoption." First of all I don't give a crap if there are millions of couples waiting for children. Women are not just wombs so that godly barren couples can have a baby. Adoption is an extremely emotional process and it is cruel to force women to go through the process of a pregnancy and then to have them give up that kids. Children are not a product to be traffic to needy couples. Give me a break.

As a follow up. I am in no way trying to minimize the struggles of infertile couples. I am greatly sympathetic to their troubles, and if adoption is your path there is nothing wrong with that. But I don't believe that infertile couples have a right to demand that women who plan to have an abortion give birth so that such couples can have a child.

[RosyDaisy]

My gray area is late term abortion where there is no danger to to mother's health or fetal deformity. But, I can't let my personal feelings get in the way. It's a decision between a woman and her doctor. And I don't think any less of a woman who has an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy.

[Stephanie66]

My gray area is late term abortion where there is no danger to to mother's health or fetal deformity. But, I can't let my personal feelings get in the way. It's a decision between a woman and her doctor. And I don't think any less of a woman who has an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy.

That is exactly where I am, too. Fortunately, late term abortions are very rare.

[debrand]

In most cases, the fetus that is being aborted doesn't have a fully formed brain so has no awareness of its own self or can feel pain Why should something that can't form a thought trump a woman's right to live? Sometimes I think that the current pro life movement is less about protecting babies and more about hating women. Even if you believe that all life is sacred why would the fetus's life have more value than the pregnant woman unless you hate women?

[sparkles]

I hate that the response to not having is an abortion is "there's always adoption." First of all I don't give a crap if there are millions of couples waiting for children. Women are not just wombs so that godly barren couples can have a baby. Adoption is an extremely emotional process and it is cruel to force women to go through the process of a pregnancy and then to have them give up that kids. Children are not a product to be traffic to needy couples. Give me a break.

As a follow up. I am in no way trying to minimize the struggles of infertile couples. I am greatly sympathetic to their troubles, and if adoption is your path there is nothing wrong with that. But I don't believe that infertile couples have a right to demand that women who plan to have an abortion give birth so that such couples can have a child.

Taken to the extreme, if anti-choices have their way, not only can I see women forced to give birth but also then being declared unfit simply because they would have chosen to abort and having their babies taken from them and given to some "godly" couple.

[lilah]

They're having a debate about abortion in the comments section of Sunshine Mary's blog sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/the-end-result-of-feminism-and-liberalism-is-the-destruction-of-our-humanity/

A reader named Songtoelven has taken offense at male non-religious reader who asked if abortion might be OK if a woman's life was in danger, or if she had been raped.

Songtoeleven is pregnant with her 7th child. I guess if a doctor told her her life was in danger she'd have no qualms about leaving her already born six children without a mother. She would just choose to have "a natural death." :angry-banghead:

Prolifer's "just put the baby up for adoption" would totally hold more water if there weren't almost 400,000 kids in foster care. Don't see the pro life crowd doing jack for those kids.

[tenth muse]

I'd be a SAHD for the rest of my days rather than get married and have my reproductive system suddenly take the place of my personhood.

[Mela99]

Horsepoop.

Jesus does not agree with this crazy lady. I'm not overly schooled on Judaism, but doesn't the Torah COMMAND the preservation of any human person, even at the expense of another?

I could be wrong.

[Stephanie66]

Horsepoop.

Jesus does not agree with this crazy lady. I'm not overly schooled on Judaism, but doesn't the Torah COMMAND the preservation of any human person, even at the expense of another?

I could be wrong.

Yes. Jews are pro-choice, even Orthodox Jews. A pregnancy is considered a "potential life" and ANY person who is born trumps a potential life. There is something in the Torah about a pregnant woman being hit in a fight. If the fetus dies, the man just needs to pay money. If the woman dies, then it is a "life for a life."

I think that is pretty clear.

[slh12280]

This kind of thing makes me rage!! I get the pro life view, I really do. They believe that God ordains all life and we have no right to interfere with that and everything that happens is God's will. So if a woman dies then that was God's will. But the truth is we make decisions about life and death all the time. We intervene to save someone's life through medical treatments, we take people off life support, have DNR's. If there were no debate about life and death we would have no medical ethics panels. I think they view it as you can't morally take one life to save another, since they don't view the fetus as an aggressor and view all life as equal. But I agree it is messed up to value the life of a non-viable, non-sentient being over that of a born human with those characteristics. They don't even have the potential to develop that if the woman dies. I pretty much agree that late term abortion should be avoided if at all possible, sometimes that is not possible or not at all desirable.

[SolomonFundy]

The strangest aspect of the "natural death" argument to me is that they are basically discrediting their usual opinion of women as "walking wombs." If you believe that medical intervention to save the life of a fertile woman is wrong, you are saying/implying that her future breeding potential is not important (or not important enough).

I'm trying to look at this objectively, but frankly, it's a no-win argument. Ugh.

[dairyfreelife]

I hate that the response to not having is an abortion is "there's always adoption." First of all I don't give a crap if there are millions of couples waiting for children. Women are not just wombs so that godly barren couples can have a baby. Adoption is an extremely emotional process and it is cruel to force women to go through the process of a pregnancy and then to have them give up that kids. Children are not a product to be traffic to needy couples. Give me a break.

As a follow up. I am in no way trying to minimize the struggles of infertile couples. I am greatly sympathetic to their troubles, and if adoption is your path there is nothing wrong with that. But I don't believe that infertile couples have a right to demand that women who plan to have an abortion give birth so that such couples can have a child.

Also...bullshit there aren't enough children available for adoption. There's over 100,000 children in the American foster system available for adoption alone, and millions of children in orphanages and foster systems worldwide also available for adoption.

Unless, of course, they mean healthy newborn babies, probably white babies too knowing these people...yeah, there's not as many of those who need homes.