|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:41 pm
Well, as most of you probably know, I'm extremely cold when it comes to the mother - feeling she should take every risk imaginable in order to give her child a chance at life. However, a new scenario was presented to me today... what if the child were stuck in the fillopian tubes at a week, and wasn't moving but was actually producing in there, thus putting the mother's life in danger and never even having the slightest chance of survival? Would abortion be right then?
Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to save both, so I think in that kind of situation it (unfortunately) would be best to kill the child to save the mother, since it's better to have one death instead of two. sweatdrop
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:46 pm
my opinions differ from yours, a lot.
If a woman is in danger of death, I feel it should be her right to protect herself. If that means killing the child even if the child could be saved, I still feel it should be an option.
So obviously, my views on this one are that it's perfectly fine. Abortion for need is one thing. Abortion for want, though, is an entirely different ballpark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:07 am
lymelady my opinions differ from yours, a lot. If a woman is in danger of death, I feel it should be her right to protect herself. If that means killing the child even if the child could be saved, I still feel it should be an option. So obviously, my views on this one are that it's perfectly fine. Abortion for need is one thing. Abortion for want, though, is an entirely different ballpark. Well, basically my point was that like... with pregnancies where the baby and mother have absolutely NO chance for survival, it'd be best to kill off the child. However, sometimes the mother is in danger (loss of blood and such) where the doctors can actually do stuff to help her (provide her with blood, medications, etc. etc.) Basically, if it's a risk, I say it shouldn't be an option. If it's definite, then it should be. @_@;; ((shrugs)) I just feel that a mother should always protect her child, even if it puts her in danger. Unfortunately I know that a lot of people won't agree with me on that one. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:24 am
Rogue Of Time lymelady my opinions differ from yours, a lot. If a woman is in danger of death, I feel it should be her right to protect herself. If that means killing the child even if the child could be saved, I still feel it should be an option. So obviously, my views on this one are that it's perfectly fine. Abortion for need is one thing. Abortion for want, though, is an entirely different ballpark. Well, basically my point was that like... with pregnancies where the baby and mother have absolutely NO chance for survival, it'd be best to kill off the child. However, sometimes the mother is in danger (loss of blood and such) where the doctors can actually do stuff to help her (provide her with blood, medications, etc. etc.) Basically, if it's a risk, I say it shouldn't be an option. If it's definite, then it should be. @_@;; ((shrugs)) I just feel that a mother should always protect her child, even if it puts her in danger. Unfortunately I know that a lot of people won't agree with me on that one. sweatdrop it's rare to need an abortion to save the mother. C-Sections help a lot, but like....I think it really should be up to the mother. Now I know I must annoy the hell outta you because I see women as victims of abortion too, but just hear me out. People are always, always, ALWAYS important. Human beings are worth uber much to me. That includes women. When you're faced with a decision of, me or him/her, why should that be anyone's choice but yours? That is most likely condemning the woman to death. Fetuses are important to me, but equally important as the women, not more important. People are all people, born or not. Many women choose to have the baby regardless of the risk, but if they can't defend themselves, it's just a death sentence, for what crime? Being pregnant. It''s just as bad as killing a child for being conceived. It's a tough choice to make, but that's one choice that I feel should ALWAYS be the mother's choice, and many woman choose to continue with the birth anyway. Defending your life is something that shouldn't be taken away from you. A wmoan is not worth less than the child she carries simply because she is pregnant. If she wasn't pregnant, the child wouldn't even exist. Why should she be punished for fostering life? IN the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I'm very much for abortion. It's the only way to ssave the woman and there is no chance at this point to save the child. y'all know how prolife I am and how much I care about these little lives, so maybe it's a shock what I'm saying, but a life is a life and to me, if I say, Your life is more important than yours, I'm doing exactly what chociers do when they decide a fetus isn't a person. I will fight until I'm cold in my grave to end abortion, but women are just as important as what they carry to me, and I can't help that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:08 pm
lymelady Rogue Of Time lymelady my opinions differ from yours, a lot. If a woman is in danger of death, I feel it should be her right to protect herself. If that means killing the child even if the child could be saved, I still feel it should be an option. So obviously, my views on this one are that it's perfectly fine. Abortion for need is one thing. Abortion for want, though, is an entirely different ballpark. Well, basically my point was that like... with pregnancies where the baby and mother have absolutely NO chance for survival, it'd be best to kill off the child. However, sometimes the mother is in danger (loss of blood and such) where the doctors can actually do stuff to help her (provide her with blood, medications, etc. etc.) Basically, if it's a risk, I say it shouldn't be an option. If it's definite, then it should be. @_@;; ((shrugs)) I just feel that a mother should always protect her child, even if it puts her in danger. Unfortunately I know that a lot of people won't agree with me on that one. sweatdrop it's rare to need an abortion to save the mother. C-Sections help a lot, but like....I think it really should be up to the mother. Now I know I must annoy the hell outta you because I see women as victims of abortion too, but just hear me out. People are always, always, ALWAYS important. Human beings are worth uber much to me. That includes women. When you're faced with a decision of, me or him/her, why should that be anyone's choice but yours? That is most likely condemning the woman to death. Fetuses are important to me, but equally important as the women, not more important. People are all people, born or not. Many women choose to have the baby regardless of the risk, but if they can't defend themselves, it's just a death sentence, for what crime? Being pregnant. It''s just as bad as killing a child for being conceived. It's a tough choice to make, but that's one choice that I feel should ALWAYS be the mother's choice, and many woman choose to continue with the birth anyway. Defending your life is something that shouldn't be taken away from you. A wmoan is not worth less than the child she carries simply because she is pregnant. If she wasn't pregnant, the child wouldn't even exist. Why should she be punished for fostering life? IN the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I'm very much for abortion. It's the only way to ssave the woman and there is no chance at this point to save the child. y'all know how prolife I am and how much I care about these little lives, so maybe it's a shock what I'm saying, but a life is a life and to me, if I say, Your life is more important than yours, I'm doing exactly what chociers do when they decide a fetus isn't a person. I will fight until I'm cold in my grave to end abortion, but women are just as important as what they carry to me, and I can't help that. Yeah, basically my mindset on "What Should Be Done" is that if there is a "risk" then people should "feel a little selfish" and try to save both people. So basically, if it puts the woman at risk but doesn't condemn her to death, then I'd say she should keep going on with the pregnancy. I know it sounds cold since I'm basically making the decision for somebody else, but if somebody condemned me to death to save two people that I don't even know, I'd go with it. Sure, I'd try to save myself if I could in the process, but I'd still accept that as my fate if it came down to it. I dunno. I'm more of a "quantity" rather than "quality" person, mostly because I feel like somebody could become something great no matter what the "quality" of their life is. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
