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've never had one myself nor am I a doctor, but my understanding is that abortion is at least equally about killing the fetus as it is about ending the woman's pregnancy, mainly because it's assumed that a terminated pregnancy would kill the fetus, so why not make the death merciful and swift?
But then there's the unavoidable issue of taking a life away.
What if the sole focus of an abortion was simply surgically removing the fetus from the woman's body in the way least damaging to the fetus, and then letting it live or die naturally as it will, feeding it and caring for it in a basic way, but not taking measures to prolong its life beyond that. There could be a designated fetal hospice in the hospital designed for such a purpose. Should any of the babies survive, they'll be given up for adoption.
That way, the abortion is merely an eviction. In most places, the ability of a tenant to survive on their own is not a factor in the legality of evicting them.
Obviously this would be as expensive as seven hells, but purely morally speaking, would this type of "abortion" be more acceptable to you?
Who is going to pay for this fanciful idea? Christians sure wouldn't, and I don't blame them. You either have an abortion, or you don't. It's not any more complicated than that.
Wouldn't that be the same thing as parents abandoning a little kid?
No, because they'd hand the baby/fetus over to the hospital's care, where they'd be given food, water, clothing, and bedding, but no life-prolonging treatment as would be offered to (wanted) premature babies.
What if the sole focus of an abortion was simply surgically removing the fetus from the woman's body in the way least damaging to the fetus, and then letting it live or die naturally as it will, feeding it and caring for it in a basic way, but not taking measures to prolong its life beyond that. There could be a designated fetal hospice in the hospital designed for such a purpose. Should any of the babies survive, they'll be given up for adoption.
I rarely participate in these discussions and typically offer the comment that at some point in time between conception and birth we have a moral obligation to protect the life of the unborn.
I feel the need to comment on this. What you are suggesting here is outright disgusting. Instead of removing a live healthy fetus from the womb to keep it alive which is going to inevitably result in a very unhealthy kid it's probably wise to leave it in the womb. If you are not going to do that you might as well teminate it.
No, because they'd hand the baby/fetus over to the hospital's care, where they'd be given food, water, clothing, and bedding, but no life-prolonging treatment as would be offered to (wanted) premature babies.
It sounds like you are trying to find a way to rationalize neglecting a kid.
Why couldn't they wait until the baby is born and then give it up for adoption? Why make it more likely the kid dies?
I've never had one myself nor am I a doctor, but my understanding is that abortion is at least equally about killing the fetus as it is about ending the woman's pregnancy, mainly because it's assumed that a terminated pregnancy would kill the fetus, so why not make the death merciful and swift?
But then there's the unavoidable issue of taking a life away.
What if the sole focus of an abortion was simply surgically removing the fetus from the woman's body in the way least damaging to the fetus, and then letting it live or die naturally as it will, feeding it and caring for it in a basic way, but not taking measures to prolong its life beyond that. There could be a designated fetal hospice in the hospital designed for such a purpose. Should any of the babies survive, they'll be given up for adoption.
That way, the abortion is merely an eviction. In most places, the ability of a tenant to survive on their own is not a factor in the legality of evicting them.
Obviously this would be as expensive as seven hells, but purely morally speaking, would this type of "abortion" be more acceptable to you?
No. Absolutely not. That's just as cruel. The child suffers needlessly whether through abortion, or through your idea of "evicting" them and letting them die.
I linked a video on another thread about an abortion survivor. Watch it and then ask your question again:
Who is going to pay for this fanciful idea? Christians sure wouldn't, and I don't blame them. You either have an abortion, or you don't. It's not any more complicated than that.
If you can get Odanny and myself to agree what does that tell you?
As someone who believes human life begins at conception, I prefer your method over that of abortion, but I still find it reprehensible that a human being would be treated that way. Mothers and fathers have an obligation to love their offspring. A child deserves to be loved by their mother and father.
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.
