Anti-Abortion And Pro-Choice?

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1324302069' post='2353663']
Yes, this was covered in another thread as well. Saving the life of the mother is okay, but the intention must not be to kill the baby, rather the unfortunate result of it. It is a technicality, yes, but a very good one to remember to prevent an abuse of this. The baby may die as a result of the intervention but this is not the intention.
[/quote]
What if saving the mother fuctionally=killing the baby and vice versa? If this is done to save the mother's life, is the medical practices process of abortion suddenly different? Is an abortificant suddenly something else just because the intention is to kill the baby? Or if this is the only say to save the mother, is it immoral to save one life in place of another?

Edited December 19, 2011 by Light and Truth

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1324303640' post='2353672']Pro-choice tends to mean that someone thinks abortion should be both [i]a)[/i] legal and [i]b)[/i] generally available/accessible to the people who want one.[/quote]
So because I do not think that it should be accessible to just anyone or anywhere near used just as birth control, am I considered pro-life rather than pro-choice?

[Papist]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1324309588' post='2353698']
What if saving the mother fuctionally=killing the baby and vice versa? If this is done to save the mother's life, is the medical practices process of abortion suddenly different? Is an abortificant suddenly something else just because the intention is to kill the baby? Or if this is the only say to save the mother, is it immoral to save one life in place of another?
[/quote]

I am not really sure what you just said, but you can't intentionally kill someone in order to save someone else. The key word here is [b]intentionally[/b].

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1324145300' post='2352822']
Well, I [i]personally [/i]am against the systematic rape and torture of the elderly and mentally handicapped, but I think it would be presumptuous of me to try and impose that view on [i]everyone.[/i]
[/quote]
Exactly. "Pro-choice" is simply rhetorical hogwash designed to distract from the central issue of what's involved.

"Pro-choicers" are for legalized killing of unborn babies.
If abortion truly is murder (as we believe), then it should not be a legal choice anymore than the choice to murder any other person.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1324310395' post='2353710']
I am not really sure what you just said, but you can't intentionally kill someone in order to save someone else. The key word here is [b]intentionally[/b].
[/quote]
Ok, so fetuses that are stuck in felopian tubes should be left there to more than likely kill both mother and child, since moving them to the uterus would kill the fetus and a fetus of a woman with cancer can go through whatever slow, painful death chemo brings to him. This is a fallen world. Every once in a while, all you have are "wrong" choices.

[Totus Tuus]

I think he or she just meant that she was "personally" against abortion but thought everyone should have their own choice. It is, granted, the most ridiculous and relativistic opinion on abortion in my opinion.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1324310395' post='2353710']
I am not really sure what you just said, but you can't intentionally kill someone in order to save someone else. The key word here is [b]intentionally[/b].
[/quote]

The answer is No. However, based on Double Effect you CAN remove a pregnancy, thereby causing the fetuses death, when your intention is to save the mother and not to kill the baby. There is no obligation to do so, however, if one wishes to sacrifice her life in order to not cause the baby's death of her own choice.

[AudreyGrace]

I haven't read any of the previous posts because A) I don't want to and B) I don't have time. So excuse me for any repetitiveness, ignorance, etc.
People who say they're "pro-choice and anti-abortion" are stupid. Seriously, they're just stupid. They simply have to get off their little planet where they think that what is most important is peoples' comfort and that what is right for one person isn't right for another. Also, they should probably look up the statistics on rape, medical situations, and the like. Perhaps once they see those, they'll understand that there's a disproportionate amount of abortions being performed to the amount of pregnancies from rape and pregnancies with severe medical difficulties in which the mother's life is at risk. Call me harsh, but the whole moral relativism aspect of this issue makes me sick. Not to mention we're dealing with a holocaust here.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1324328288' post='2353857']
Ok, so fetuses that are stuck in felopian tubes should be left there to more than likely kill both mother and child, since moving them to the uterus would kill the fetus and a fetus of a woman with cancer can go through whatever slow, painful death chemo brings to him. This is a fallen world. Every once in a while, all you have are "wrong" choices.
[/quote]
First of all, mercy killing (which you are suggesting by implying that a fetus should be removed from fallopian tubes in order to not have to go through suffering) is not acceptable under any circumstances. The only circumstances in which it would be OK to allow the death of the child is if the child's presence in the mother's body was guaranteed to cause her imminent death, and if removal of the fetus is done not with the intention of killing the baby, but with the intention of saving the mother. However, as I said, what you are implying would not be an acceptable reason to kill the baby. Regardless of deformations or sufferings that a baby may have to suffer through in utero or after birth, there is no acceptable reason to end its life unless such is being done in order to save the mother without the direct intention of ending the baby's life.

[God the Father]

It's pretty complicated to try and philosophically comprehend the way "law" and "morality" and "society" all interact.

I consider the systematic slaughter of cows, chickens, and pigs unethical. Would I be in favor of making the practice illegal?

As someone who at one time would have called himself an "anarchist" in utter seriousness, I'd say no. People do have the choice to do evil. That's what free will is, right? I'd also be in favor of permitting anyone else to detect that evil and do what they wished to stop it, of course, but that's a fairy tale.

The "rule of law," obviously, is not something I've ever really been able to reconcile, and it's the entire pivot point of this topic. Why does "society" as a whole decide that killing a grownup, or even a child, is not permissible-- or "legal," but killing a proto-child, or a cow, is totally okay with at least a fraction of the same group? I can't begin to explain that discrepancy, but I'd challenge anyone to deny it exists. That's why this is an issue at all.

Meanwhile, an act like adultery (or investment banking ) is considered unethical by just about everyone, yet this action is [i]not[/i] considered criminal among the same group. Why not? An issue of practicality, it would seem. (Admittedly, I think we'd all agree that the victims of abortion have more on the line than those of adultery)

It would seem to me that there exist constituents beyond the scope of "society" or the "law" to protect. Like cows. Whether it's outlawed or not, "God" has endowed humanity with the choice to kill cows. And people. In that way, isn't He "pro-choice?" Evil can't truly be outlawed, as much as I wish it could be.

So from my perspective, ranchers have a choice to kill cows, and pregnant women have a choice to kill their baby. If it's convenient for both, they will not hesitate to commit the evil. And who can protect the victim? Were that evil illegal, the fact of its illegality would not restore the millions of victims to life, nor be very effective in preventing future commissions of the evil, should they be convenient for the evildoer.

I always find it hard to articulate my stance on things. As someone who finds abortion utterly reprehensible and a comprehensive perversion of humanity, I wouldn't find much comfort in its illegality, or any attempt by the state to exact vengeance. How many lives would be saved? The same quantity preserved by legislation prohibiting the killing of adults? I'm not certain that any person with the capacity to consider taking a human (notice I've dropped my animal rights kick for the moment, haha) life arbitrarily would really be moved by the law.

In short, I don't feel that the government is capable of protecting these children. Obviously I strongly oppose any kind of legislation that tries to claim abortion is in any way ethical, acceptable, or to be protected--how completely ridiculous. I'm steadfastly anti-abortion and would never identify myself as "pro-choice." But I don't see its criminalization as productive. It would seem from my perspective that God is the only power capable of taking accountability for this.

This is not an opinion I hold comfortably, but I can comprehend where someone would be at once "anti-abortion," but also uncomfortable supporting laws against it.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1324331072' post='2353895']
The only circumstances in which it would be OK to allow the death of the child is if the child's presence in the mother's body was guaranteed to cause her imminent death, and if removal of the fetus is done not with the intention of killing the baby, but with the intention of saving the mother. However, as I said, what you are implying would not be an acceptable reason to kill the baby.[/quote]

If the action intentionally kills the child to save the mother (who is in imminent threat of death do to the child's circumstances within her), is this wrong in your view? If this, how might the child be permitted to die through treatment of the mother?

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1324331072' post='2353895']First of all, mercy killing (which you are suggesting by implying that a fetus should be removed from fallopian tubes in order to not have to go through suffering) is not acceptable under any circumstances.[/QUOTE]
The fallopian tube is not a matter of discomfort of the mother or child or even simply of a slow death for the child. This is a little less likely than my initial theoretical example would have included, but:
[I]There is no way to save an ectopic pregnancy. It cannot turn into a normal pregnancy. If the egg keeps growing in the fallopian tube, it can damage or burst the tube and cause heavy bleeding that could be deadly. If you have an ectopic pregnancy, you will need quick treatment to end it before it causes dangerous problems.[/I] [url="http://www.webmd.com/baby/tc/ectopic-pregnancy-topic-overview"]http://www.webmd.com/baby/tc/ectopic-pregnancy-topic-overview[/url]
Do you wait until maybe there is some particular indication that will begin or until the mother is in the ER under heavy bleeding?

[MithLuin]

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, you remove the embryo that has implanted itself in the Fallopian tubes. It's really the only ethical thing to do. At this juncture, we do not have a way of then implanting it in the uterus, where it could continue to grow to term. So...yes, removing it kills the baby. But the whole point of the procedure is to prevent the mother from bleeding to death, so YES, it is permitted.


Another instance where an abortion procedure is perfectly moral is where the baby has already died in utero, as evidenced by no more fetal heartbeat. Once the doctors have confirmed the death of the baby, they may need to do an abortion procedure to clear it out if the woman does not miscarry naturally. Failure to deal with this promptly can lead to all sorts of infection issues.


There are also certain health conditions that cannot be treated while a woman is pregnant without risking serious harm to the baby. Actually...practically all medical treatments are denied to pregnant women. So, if a woman is in need of treatment, but pregnant, she may choose to get the treatment anyway, with the understanding that this may have the side effect of harming or killing her baby. In the case where her condition is life-threatening, her choice would be justified. The important thing to note is that the woman is not having an abortion and then coming back and saying, 'See, not pregnant! Medicine please.' Rather, she's opting for the treatment, and this may result in serious damage to or death of her child.

[Nihil Obstat]

Off topic ever so slightly, but is there any work being done that might sooner rather than later allow us to re-implant an embryo in the case of an ectopic pregnancy?

[MithLuin]

Not that I am aware of. But that doesn't mean that it is outside the realm of possibility.

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]So because I do not think that it should be accessible to just anyone or anywhere near used just as birth control, am I considered pro-life rather than pro-choice? [/quote][/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b]Light and Truth[/b], those are political terms. So, if you vote for candidates who put restrictions on abortions into law, then yes, you would be viewed as pro-life (or, I guess, anti-choice). [/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The viewpoint you have described seems to me to be a pro-life viewpoint, with some exceptions for abortions that are necessary to save a woman's life. But only you know who you vote for![/font][/color]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1324357356' post='2354227']
Not that I am aware of. But that doesn't mean that it is outside the realm of possibility.
[/quote]

Considering all the stuff doctors *can* do, I don't see why not. Next step will be artificial wombs so that we can save babies whose mothers have serious illnesses.

[Nunsense]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1324357478' post='2354231']
Considering all the stuff doctors *can* do, I don't see why not. Next step will be artificial wombs so that we can save babies whose mothers have serious illnesses.
[/quote]

This technology must exist at some level because what else is IVF? They already create an embryo outside the womb and then implant it in the mother (or a surrogate). There may be many other considerations after removing the embryo from the fallopian tubes, or the gestation periods involved (affecting how large they can allow the embryo to grown in the tubes before removal) but if they really wanted to do this, I am sure that research would find a way.

[Papist]

[quote name='God the Father' timestamp='1324332243' post='2353898']
It's pretty complicated to try and philosophically comprehend the way "law" and "morality" and "society" all interact.

I consider the systematic slaughter of cows, chickens, and pigs unethical. Would I be in favor of making the practice illegal?

As someone who at one time would have called himself an "anarchist" in utter seriousness, I'd say no. People do have the choice to do evil. That's what free will is, right? I'd also be in favor of permitting anyone else to detect that evil and do what they wished to stop it, of course, but that's a fairy tale.

The "rule of law," obviously, is not something I've ever really been able to reconcile, and it's the entire pivot point of this topic. Why does "society" as a whole decide that killing a grownup, or even a child, is not permissible-- or "legal," but killing a proto-child, or a cow, is totally okay with at least a fraction of the same group? I can't begin to explain that discrepancy, but I'd challenge anyone to deny it exists. That's why this is an issue at all.

Meanwhile, an act like adultery (or investment banking ) is considered unethical by just about everyone, yet this action is [i]not[/i] considered criminal among the same group. Why not? An issue of practicality, it would seem. (Admittedly, I think we'd all agree that the victims of abortion have more on the line than those of adultery)

It would seem to me that there exist constituents beyond the scope of "society" or the "law" to protect. Like cows. Whether it's outlawed or not, "God" has endowed humanity with the choice to kill cows. And people. In that way, isn't He "pro-choice?" Evil can't truly be outlawed, as much as I wish it could be.

So from my perspective, ranchers have a choice to kill cows, and pregnant women have a choice to kill their baby. If it's convenient for both, they will not hesitate to commit the evil. And who can protect the victim? Were that evil illegal, the fact of its illegality would not restore the millions of victims to life, nor be very effective in preventing future commissions of the evil, should they be convenient for the evildoer.

I always find it hard to articulate my stance on things. As someone who finds abortion utterly reprehensible and a comprehensive perversion of humanity, I wouldn't find much comfort in its illegality, or any attempt by the state to exact vengeance. How many lives would be saved? The same quantity preserved by legislation prohibiting the killing of adults? I'm not certain that any person with the capacity to consider taking a human (notice I've dropped my animal rights kick for the moment, haha) life arbitrarily would really be moved by the law.

In short, I don't feel that the government is capable of protecting these children. Obviously I strongly oppose any kind of legislation that tries to claim abortion is in any way ethical, acceptable, or to be protected--how completely ridiculous. I'm steadfastly anti-abortion and would never identify myself as "pro-choice." But I don't see its criminalization as productive. It would seem from my perspective that God is the only power capable of taking accountability for this.

This is not an opinion I hold comfortably, but I can comprehend where someone would be at once "anti-abortion," but also uncomfortable supporting laws against it.
[/quote]

You are assuming that cows and humans are equals. This is not the case. God made man in His image. One human is worth more than all the cows on Earth. In fact, one human is worth more than all the stars and planets in the universe. God made cows to serve man. If God did not want man to kill cows, He would not have made them out of beef. [img]http://fun.resplace.net/Emoticons/Happy/VeryHappy.gif[/img]

[penguin31]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1324357993' post='2354243']
This technology must exist at some level because what else is IVF? They already create an embryo outside the womb and then implant it in the mother (or a surrogate). There may be many other considerations after removing the embryo from the fallopian tubes, or the gestation periods involved (affecting how large they can allow the embryo to grown in the tubes before removal) but if they really wanted to do this, I am sure that research would find a way.
[/quote]

IVF involves the creation of embryos in a laboratory dish, at which point they're implanted into the uterus. In the case of ectopic pregnancies the embryo has already implanted itself in the tubal lining [u]and begun fetal development.[/u] Attempting to move the implanted fetus at that stage of development usually causes such shock to the developing fetus that any that remained viable up to that point perish in the transplant attempt. At the point at which most ectopic pregnancies are discovered and become dangerous the fetus is too far into development to still be easily transferable, but not far enough into pregnancy to be able to withstand the shock of transplant.

[MithLuin]

Yes, that is correct; as far as I know, there is no way to (safely) move an embryo once it has implanted.

At least...now.

[mysisterisalittlesister]

Abortion is just sickening to me. That's all I'm saying