Feminine-choice not withstanding (for the sake of argument here), if preliminary testing showed this to be the fate of your child.... would you [temporarily?] change your stance on abortion, if for only this one such event?
Obviously, everyone is welcome to participate here, but I'm specifically interested in the stance of those who are for-the-most-part against abortion.
ShyFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2913 times:
I'm probably gunna get kicked in the teeth for this but here goes:
I would not change my position on abortion (I'm prolife). Why? As a Christian, I believe that God places challenges in our lives for reasons known only to him. Further, He will not place a challenge in my life that I am not able to handle. Therefore, if it is His will that a child such as this be placed in my care, so be it.
Of course, a decision such as this is a personal one, and can only be made by the affected party, namely the father & mother. Those of us not in the family have no real say in the matter.
GoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2850 times:
C-boy, I would never ever change my position on abortion. Life is a gift. Even that poor child is a gift. If she survives (haven't read up on the story) ask her in a few hears if she would have preferred to have been removed from her mother and chopped into pieces before she was born, I wonder what she would say?
"14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.
15 My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them."
Life begins at conception.
"22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul"
Part of the law given to Israel was that fatal injuries to unborn children was punishable by death.
I know, I know, "what about us atheists?" Well, most acknowledge that at some point a baby is too developed to abort, such as the second or third trimester. Tell me exactly when a mother goes to bed without a life in her womb, and wakes up with one?
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
Allstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2828 times:
There are fewer gray areas in life than people think, and in any abortion case, if the life of the mother is involved, then save her life regardless. In this case here, it looks on the surface like one child was able to be born in a relatively healthy condition in light of the circumstances, so that's a plus.
One of the biggest stinks I have about abortion is that men aren't men. Just a hunch, but I feel if men were men, we'd have fewer unwed pregnancies, fewer single moms, fewer women feeling left alone with little choice about what to do, etc. Some of you don't like it, but women make their choice about it when they're in bed (unless that's forced on them). Adult males who take the easy way out then stick the responsibility solely on the woman. Awful a lot of men would do and have done that. Obviously, I wish these women wouldn't sleep with some of these jerks. But that's a whole different story. I'm glad this woman had her child, and I hope the kid makes it fine, like we all do.
I've read some quotes from doctors that just about any circumstance can be dealt with without endangering the life of the mother until the baby comes to term (that is, ready to be born, not necessarily to full term). If, when the child is nearing birth and the mother's life is actually in danger and the choice is between the mother and the child, that is another story. Than it is the parent's decision. But to abort a child based on the prognostication of a doctor that you will have problems in a few months is wrong in my opinion. A difficult pregnancy is not the same as one that puts the mother's life in danger, too. Many try to substitute the word "health" for "life" and pretend they are the same thing. They are not.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
Aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7443 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
Quoting BRAVO7E7 (reply 8):
Out of curiosity, are you for the death penalty?
No, but that's because of the judicial system fucking up too often, besides how can you claim a moral high ground over them, if you are going to kill them, just as they did to their victim. besides death is the easy way out for both parties. Death isn't punishment, it is a release from accountability for a murderer.
Quoting MD-90 (reply 7): he MORAL thing to do? Killing a God-ordained life because she has an extraneous fleshy growth on her body?
I don't believe in God, so I don't believe that life is 'God ordained'. If the baby has no chance to survive beyond a few months what is the point of keeping it alive, and making it experience immense pain and suffering, it's hardly going to make you a healthy well rounded human being either.. Life comes and goes in the world, so does death. Humans make the world black and white, it makes it easier to comprehend. But in reality no two situations are never alike, and that is why abortion should be available. One size shoe does not fit all feet. I don't believe in abortion after 10 weeks because before that they are no more than a few undeveloped cells, after that point they interact with the outside world and become fully developed foetuses. Before then they are not human. They are the blueprints to a final design.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2721 times:
Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 13): I don't believe in abortion after 10 weeks because before that they are no more than a few undeveloped cells, after that point they interact with the outside world and become fully developed foetuses. Before then they are not human.
So it's okay to kill a 9 week-old baby, but not a 10-week old one? Hmmm...
Aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7443 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2706 times:
Quoting MD-90 (reply 14): So it's okay to kill a 9 week-old baby, but not a 10-week old one? Hmmm...
Well that's what the Midwives tell you in the antinatal classes. From the 10th week of gestation the foetus is complete. It has only to grow into a fullsized baby, before that it does not resemble a baby at all, Medical Tests show that from this point they respond to outside stimulae, prior to that they have no perception of life or death because they have no perception of self.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2669 times:
What I find hypocritical and ridiculous is the fact that some people on the one hand explain everything with the "It's god's will, life is in HIS hands, so we must not interfere"-argument but on the other hand support human-made death penalty...but well, probably there are more people out there - aside from an allegedly "Christian" president - who think to receive orders directly from heaven...
TACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2656 times:
"What follows is a comment from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C., regarding the future of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in light of three recent adverse lower court decisions, the most recent of which was handed down today by a federal district court in Nebraska.
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said: "Four years ago, five justices of the Supreme Court said that Roe v. Wade allows abortion providers to perform partial-birth abortions whenever they see fit, even on healthy women with healthy babies, if the providers claim some 'health' benefit. Future appointments to the Supreme Court will determine whether partial-birth abortion remains legal. President Bush is determined to ban partial-birth abortion, but John Kerry has vowed that he will appoint to the Supreme Court only justices who share his views on abortion."
Senator Kerry voted against passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act every chance he got -- six times.
President Bush signed the bill on November 5, 2003, saying that in partial-birth abortion "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth." The Administration is appealing the adverse rulings to higher courts.
In a ruling issued in New York on August 26, U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey said, "The Court finds that the testimony at trial and before Congress establishes that D&X [partial-birth abortion] is a gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized medical procedure . . . [and finds] credible evidence that D&X abortions subject fetuses to severe pain."
On May 20, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) and Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S. 2466, H.R. 4420). This bill would require that abortionists provide women seeking any type of abortion past 20 weeks with certain information regarding the capacity of their unborn children to experience pain and regarding the availability of pain-reducing drugs. For more information on the bill and on the issue of fetal pain, see http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/fetal_pain/index.html
For a good primer on what the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does and does not do, and on other disputed issues pertaining to partial-birth abortion, see the memo "Partial-Birth Abortion: Misconceptions and Realities," here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2653 times:
Safe, legal and rare.
The case above isn't really relevant as that should throw up the issue of whether surgery can treat the child effectively, and that causing the death of the attached malformed infant is the only possible option. It could never exist on its own after all.
For the bible thumpers, take your superstition elsewhere. This is an issue of basic human ethics, and there are instances where abortion is a necessary tool. For instance where the life of the mother is threatened or where a child will be born so malformed that it can only expect a painful and brief existence (I won't call it a life for obvious reasons). Rape and incest too.
However abortion is not and should never be a birth control method, to be used as a second line to condoms and tablets.
Ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2972 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
Quoting WhiteHatter (reply 19): For the bible thumpers, take your superstition elsewhere. This is an issue of basic human ethics, and there are instances where abortion is a necessary tool. For instance where the life of the mother is threatened or where a child will be born so malformed that it can only expect a painful and brief existence (I won't call it a life for obvious reasons). Rape and incest too
Whitehatter, isn't that ALL God's will, too?! Go to Texas (or any other bible belt state) and they'll let'cha know! You know how these rape victims tempt men with their style of clothing...
FSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2624 times:
How cute that you would let a child suffer "in the name of jesus."
"As a Christian, I believe that God places challenges in our lives for reasons known only to him."
for reasons only known to him. isn't that convenient? We have no idea why god would do this so we're just going to say we're not supposed to know.
And to answer this thread, I'm not against abortion unless it's something like where the baby is in the 3rd tri and can easily make it. In that case, you committed so stick with it. But for physical/mental disabilities, there's no point in letting the child live in hell and die young.
In terms of this case, they said the 2nd head could smile and blink. I'm wondering if it actually had a brain and was actually alive.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13319 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2553 times:
Abortion should be considered as akin to war, something not to be done lightly or encouraged, but that sometimes is necessary.
To the Pro Lifers, consider, before the 1967 Abortion Act became law in the UK, an estimated 1000 women a year were either killed or badly maimed by back street abortions.
Given at that time, the US population was over four times that of the UK, that is a the potential for a lot of corpses, almost all from the most disadvantaged in society.
Not so 'Pro Life' after all then.
: Safe, legal and rare. If there's nothing wrong with abortion, then why should it be rare? Given at that time, the US population was over four times th
: "Mahatma Ghandi was against medical contraceptions such as diaphrams. He thought that the beginning of a persons life was at birth because that was wh
: Some precious quotes: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so t
: "There have been 40 MILLION abortions in the USA since Roe vs Wade." "The woman from Roe v. Wade became Christian, and is now completely against the d
: Why did you not quote the rest of what I said? Let me refresh your memory
: Currently not in the country, but I'm from the forbidden country The Netherlands, where we have legal abortions, legal softdrugs and the possibility f
: >>"Seems as though the girl lived. Now then, why was abortion necessary in this case?"
: not before 10 weeks it isn't because it has not developed fingers, its eyes aren't properly developed and it is yet to develop muscle tissue that cou
: Cute? That's absurd. It's anything but convenient. My life would be a lot simpler if there were a few questions I could have answered. Life isn't fai
: I'm definitely going to side with the pro-choicers here... sorry people... Although I do not feel abortion should be used freely as a birth control me
: I feel that if a woman A) is careless enough to have an unwanted pregnancy, and B) then decides to abort it, she'll pay the consequences, whether they
: What's the issue? For Christian only those who comply with God's will go to heaven. Their life after death is going to be more than good. For the oth
: Absurd? Coming to conclusions about someone's life based on a book of tales that you think you might believe in isn't absurd?[Edited 2005-02-21 02:28
: So you are in fact saying that an unborn child cannot reach heaven because it cannot comply with God's will, even if by 'God's will' it is stillborn.
: I am a pro-lifer, against abortion in about every form. The only exceptions that I see abortion possibly needed for would be if it will endanger the l
: Then why is Scott Peterson rotting on death row for DOUBLE murder, when according to your definition, he only killed ONE person? That legal statement
: >>"For the others, the ones that not accept His Law, it's going to be miserable. That's the issue!"
: NO. I didn't said that. The unborn, as well as the none baptized has the original sin according with the Catholic doctrine. BUT once again, only God
: I am still against abortion even in that kind of situation. We are no one to make the decision of whether another human being comes into this world or
: It is in my country. You may notice that I have a different flag from yours. That example happened a few years ago here. don't be pedantic, no system
: It was written by people, but It's the word of the Lord.
: From the Catholic Cathecism: "You shall not kill.54 You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be
: "Now if want you to clarify that for me, but with what you have said there If they have the Original sin that was committed by Adam & Eve, then they c
: Unlike Lifelineone, you didn't specify "this applies to NZ only." You made a general statement. You said "you," which I, as an American took to mean
: Thanks for that Taca, I'm baptised,reconciled and confirmed but it's been a few years since I was actively involved in any church (For obvious reasons
: I am a Roman Catholic who is pro-life and pro-death penality. I guess this comes to the protection of innocent life. INNOCENT life is the key word he
: I could die tomorrow. Are you saying someone could kill me tonight and go to court saying "while, he may have died anyway. It's hard to say for sure.
: sorry, did not have time to read all replies, I will later on, but for now, have you ever killed a bug or a plant? Did God not create them? regards
: No, not what I'm saying. If you or me die in a crash it is a direct result of the impact, if you are murdered it's a direct result of someone knowing
: That was before they knew it caused cancer in minimal exposures. And even if they did know it, it is clearly not right, which is my point. Much of th
: I am adamantly pro-life. The only situation where I believe it should be the mother's choice is if continuing the pregnancy would result in the mother
: No, because that 10 year old has their own reality - they have experienced a life, have learnt to deal with problems by themselves, can think for the
: Obviously the original statement refer only to human lifes. And even so, accept some limited exceptions: e.g. self defense.
: *yawn* Whatever... here's a question for all the responders here... how many of you are actually women? It appears to be the same old story, the men w
: Abortion is not going away no matter how many people protest or promote. The goal should be to reduce the need for abortions. birth control, abstinenc
: Considering you don't have to carry the child... give birth to the child.. and in so many cases these days: raise the child... why do you all think th
: Well... Regardless of what you think is horrific (and yes you can be as graphic as you want), women and their partners have the right to choose whatev