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.
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?
If it is going to be passed into law, somebody must be supporting it.
"If enacted, the law would permit abortions only if the mother’s life is at risk or if the fetus cannot survive, but not in cases of rape or incest.
Again, that is sick. And I'm generally inclined to lean the direction of "pro-life" philosophically. If I could snap my fingers and make abortion-for-kicks illegal, I would do so. But to force a woman to live through the hell of a rape and then deal with the result as a Rosemary's Baby incubator for nine months? Good God, that is profoundly disgusting. Honestly. Revolting.
How does your definition of pro-life not include the life of the woman?
It seems to me you're pushing the envelope of reasonableness here. Most people don't think pro-life applies 100% of the time. There's the extreme few, the religious literalists, etc. who say "never abort a fetus" blah blah blah.
But I think most people including most pro-lifers would allow a medical termination of a non-viable or life-threatening pregnancy.
When is killing a person not murder. When its self defense, when its manslaughter?
When is marriage not marriage. When its legal for two persons of the opposite sex and same race, but not for persons of the same sex or different races.
When is drinking alcohol not drinking alcohol? When one is 20 and one is 21.
I dont agree with the fetal homicide laws in most states. They should align with abortion viability laws. Prior to viability (or cut off date) the charge should be mayhem IMO. I dont agree with a number of laws.
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?
completely agree. I'm just not aware of anyone who hold this stance. Pro-life is Pro-life... life of a baby, female, male... whoever... i'ts pro-LIFE
Again, that is sick. And I'm generally inclined to lean the direction of "pro-life" philosophically. If I could snap my fingers and make abortion-for-kicks illegal, I would do so. But to force a woman to live through the hell of a rape and then deal with the result as a Rosemary's Baby incubator for nine months? Good God, that is profoundly disgusting. Honestly. Revolting.
Ya, the problem is "abortion-for-kicks" is extremely subjective. What some deem a reasonable excuse others wouldn't.
The other thing with rape is, I feel like Pro-choice people bring this up ALL the time. But it's 1% or less of all abortions that occur b/c of rape. Yes, it would be traumatic to have to go through childbirth after a rape... but more traumatic than having an abortion? IDK... the pro-choice groups never want to embrace the psychological impact that having an abortion often has on a mother (either immediately after or late on in life). I've heard many accounts of women who had abortions and the psychological "trauma" afterwards which haunts them.
This is old history and one extremely religious Roman Catholic tells me it's no longer the case- but in the 1970s a woman wrote about traveling in Italy and having abdominal pains. Since she was sexually active, an ectopic pregnancy was a possibility. They made it clear they would not treat an ectopic pregnancy because removing the zygote from the Fallopian tube where it had implanted itself (and had no chance of going full term) would be an abortion, which was against the law. Fortunately, it turned out she had some other medical issue.
Anyone know if this is current thinking anywhere?
The Catholic Church has, mostly, changed its mind on that. They can accept that if the life of the mother is at stake, it's ok to stop the pregnancy. Therefore, they'd be OK with taking the Zygote from the Fallopian tube. That said, there might be some Catholic priests that think differently.
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.
Of course it’s always both if at all possible.
However, early abortion is 14 TIMES safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth. That’s why women should have the right to choose prior to the viability of the fetus. If they don’t want risk their life and health that’s their right.
As if i is somehow more noble for the woman to do it herself.
As believer in available abortions, I do not hold abortion up as a noble act. When I read why people have abortions, many of the given reasons sound selfish to me, frankly. But, the thing is that people will get abortions anyway, legal or not. Before abortion was legal, there were men and women providing them secretly and illegally. If a woman had a complication, she might have been in serious trouble.
We do not have to, ourselves, believe that abortion as a way to do family planning, is a good thing. But it is better, IMO, to have a way for women to do it, regulated, and in a safe environment. My choice does not have to be someone else's choice.
If you want to prevent abortions, give people free access to woman-controlled birth control, and provide services to them if they carry a baby full term. And further, provide services to families who give birth to high needs babies, with insurance coverage for their medical needs.
In spite of everything people know about conception, people will have sex. They will want to abort. They might well want to continue a pregnancy, but have no options for caring for the baby.
Most women who abort, do so in the early weeks. If they carry a baby full term, they tend to keep it because they have bonded with it. I think attitudes about all of this are not necessarily in line with how women actually do pregnancy. I can't imagine carrying a baby full term, delivering it, and then giving it up. Some women do so, but the paucity of babies available for adoptions after birth tells me that most women will not part with their babies.
You do not have to agree with abortion to realize that having a safe place to do it is better than relegating it to illegal and unregulated providers. Remember that no one is advocating that any woman has to terminate a pregnancy.
It's rich for liberals to label anyone "sadists". Pot meet kettle.
That makes zero sense.
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.
