Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is that many of those fatal maternal conditions do not manifest until late in pregnancy.
The kind of condition that manifests late in pregnancy is treated by delivering the baby, not abortion. I can't think of a single reason why a woman late in pregnancy--third trimester, right?--with a "fatal maternal condition" like preeclampsia would choose to abort a healthy fetus rather than simply delivering it prematurely.
Great. So we can expect only 700 abortions annually. I can accept that.
There are these people we call doctors. These doctors know things about health and medicine. One of those things they know (better than most) is when a pregnancy has the potential to cause harm or death to the mother. When that happens, that is when a doctor would recommend/suggest/discuss an abortion with the woman due to expected problems. THAT is the most popular reason (only one Alabama recently accepted) to get an abortion.
You're trying to equal potential problems to deaths occurred. Roughly 700 women dying from pregnancy complications, really has no relation to the somewhere between one and one hundred million woman a year or more who believe for one reason or another that a pregnancy could be excessively dangerous to their health. If abortions weren't allowed because of threat to the mother, that deaths from pregnancy complications could be anywhere from 701 to … a hundred million deaths a year.
The kind of condition that manifests late in pregnancy is treated by delivering the baby, not abortion. I can't think of a single reason why a woman late in pregnancy--third trimester, right?--with a "fatal maternal condition" like preeclampsia would choose to abort a healthy fetus rather than simply delivering it prematurely.
No one does choose to do that. That is a figment of anti-abortion imagination triggered by the recent NY law.
The poster I responded to was implying that only women for whom pregnancy would be fatal should have abortions. The reality is that since maternal deaths often happen near term they would not be preventable by having an abortion because there is no way to predict who will get so sick.
The phrasing of your question revealed your presumption, or rather your assumption, that there are people who consider themselves pro-life but care nothing for the life of the mother.
The phrasing of your question revealed your presumption, or rather your assumption, that there are people who consider themselves pro-life but care nothing for the life of the mother.
You assume that there aren't.
I didn't say that they care nothing for the life of the mother, I asked how pro life (the life of the unborn) is the only priority that matters. Its not that I am saying they don't care about the mother, I am asking how that is not a factor.
Do you oppose abortion at any time for any reason? Or just in the 3rd trimester? What if the woman’s life is at risk or the fetus is not viable?
I feel like the question of "what if the woman's life is at risk" should have a somewhat obvious answer. Save the mother AND if at all possible the baby as well. Yes, I'm pro-life. I have two little boys, and my wife's first pregnancy was somewhat stressful, she had pre-eclampsia, labored for a long time and then had an emergency c-section (generally considered the worst case scenario when trying to delivery). Even at the most stressful times was there was never a question of, "well, who do we save?". It's always BOTH, if at all possible.
The other thing is many pro-choice people make the assumption of is that having an abortion is a much safer option with less risk for the mother which is false (especially depending on what stage the fetus is). It can be JUST as risky if not more (depending on the situation) for the mother.
I can almost accept the premise from "pro-lifers" that when a woman just decides for kicks or out of convenience that she wants an abortion, it could be considered murder.
HOWEVER, how anyone could forbid abortion when the mother's life is legitimately at stake... well, I simply cannot understand that mindset at all. It's sadism, plain and simple. Also, how anyone could forbid an abortion in the case of rape or incest I will never understand. Again, sadism. Actually worse. That is slavery. Condemning a woman against her will to be an incubator for a "bad seed"--a real Rosemary's Baby sort of thing. Disgusting.
The problem is that many of those fatal maternal conditions do not manifest until late in pregnancy.
And how many of those cases would an abortion resolve the issue in a way a C-section wouldn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I can almost accept the premise from "pro-lifers" that when a woman just decides for kicks or out of convenience that she wants an abortion, it could be considered murder.
HOWEVER, how anyone could forbid abortion when the mother's life is legitimately at stake... well, I simply cannot understand that mindset at all. It's sadism, plain and simple.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the OP (which [s]he has yet to answer): Who are these people? Where can they be found? Are there any known pro-life advocates in activist or policy circles who state such a position? If not then what's the point of this discussion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
