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.
If medicine developed to the point that it could actually prevent most miscarriages, should we? Would it go against the pro-life stance not to prevent a miscarriage if this were possible?
We already have and use medicines that prevent miscarriages so this is really a non issue.
This is partially true. It depends on the cause of the miscarriage, and many times prevention must begin at or even before conception. This means that usually a woman has had a couple of miscarriages followed by testing to determine what caused them.
For most early miscarriages, by the time a problem is suspected the embryo is already dead.
It's either true or not. As you note, it's true. Just because they do not stop every single miscarriage doesn't dispute as you note, we already have medicine's that work to prevent a miscarriage.
It's either true or not. As you note, it's true. Just because they do not stop every single miscarriage doesn't dispute as you note, we already have medicine's that work to prevent a miscarriage.
Would you then also say that we have medicine that cures cancer, since in some cases and certain types of cancer, we can "cure" it?
It isn't either true or not. We cannot prevent most miscarriages.
To address the question in the OP - does this theoretical medicine also heal the chromosomal abnormality that was incompatible with life? Because if we can suddenly keep more anencephalic fetuses alive to term, or horribly deformed beings hardly recognizable as human, or whatever else, then no. We should not prevent those miscarriages.
Would you then also say that we have medicine that cures cancer, since in some cases and certain types of cancer, we can "cure" it?
It isn't either true or not. We cannot prevent most miscarriages.
I have no idea why you feel going here is necessary. There was a scenario presented. I pointed out that we already have that scenario and there is no controversy. Just because it doesn't work every time is irrelevant, we are not in a medical discussion board debating the success rate.
If medicine developed to the point that it could actually prevent most miscarriages, should we? Would it go against the pro-life stance not to prevent a miscarriage if this were possible?
If you're pro-life then you would find it should be mandatory.
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.
