Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's all too common for people to think of life-saving abortions as being amongst all the other types. Many times people are pro-choice solely FOR THESE abortions. Which pisses me off. Few pro-life supporters are for COMPLETELY restricted abortions. Why? Because many of us understand the complexity of this situation and the fact that if they are BOTH going to die, you might as well take the situation that can save more lives.

I think it's a big thorn in the side of the pro-life campaign for people to believe that the majority of intelligent lifers are against all abortion. I do not view abortions for life-saving measures as reproductive rights so much as I view them as just measures to promote health and survival. Do you agree with me?

Back to the title, though: I don't think that a life for a life can be justified. It can be only be justified by the person in question. I will not deny a woman her right to die for her child if she so wants. Similarly, if she just simply does not want to leave this earth for her child, she doesn't deserve to die. Why? Because again... no one should be martyr. I am pro-life, which is why women dying because ALL abortion has been outlawed does indeed bother me. When you need it, you need it. (And i'm sure a keen eye will tear into that statement).

Nothing about saving your life with your abortion screams ELECTIVE. The philosophical eloquence of "free will" seem sucked out of any situation where it's do or die... "I choose to live". No s**t Sherlock! So I guess I view this situation as unique and entirely removed.

Thoughts?

No, I see some who argue for ALL abortion because either they believe that most aboritons happen because of danger to the mother, or because they feel that somehow allowing abortion for women in a life and death situation is equivalent to letting all abortion happen.

Basically, the ones who only use arguments that pregnancy is dangerous and "What about ectopic pregnancy?" and crap. It is as though they are ignorant to the vast percentage which is for convenience, or are trying to cover that up with images of women truly in need of abortions to live.

True that both have risks (but what's the point of abortion just cause their COULD be a risk yet at the time the mother and baby are healthly?).

As you said, there is a big difference between that. Usually the doctor tries all they can and keep an on the eye first. They won't really push it unless they think there is a serious problem and the believe it is necessary but it's up to the woman.

I know this one woman (she's my moms friend), they told her that she needed to abort cause there were serious problems with the baby but she refused.
The baby did have alot of problems for awhile after he was born but he's fine now so even doctors don't always know what will happen.

For me if I was in a situation where the doctor said I needed to abort, I'll hear all they have to say first and wait and see what they can do.

Now if I have a high chance of living still (about 50/50 or higher) then i'll risk it for the childs sake.
As for the child it depends on what is wrong with him/her.
It it's going to die a slow painful death after it's born (and there is proof and they know for sure what's wrong with it or at least 90% sure) then I might abort so they won't have to suffer.
As sad as that might be, I rather not have them suffer any physical pain,especially since I know that they are going to die.

Each situation is different and not everyone knows for sure what's going to happen to the mother or child.

I'm not against abortion for life and death situations.

We probably do.

The problem is the cultural conception of what it means to be Pro-life, and Pro-choice, for that matter.

You just can't be all for abortion or all against it as few are. There are positions in between and the two major positions are not two ends of the spectrum, the way I see it. Sadly though I think people who are for life-saving abortions will vote pro-choice because that is how they will view themselves.

If we're truly Pro-Life then, by definition, we would be for allowing life-saving abortions when an unfortunate abortion gives the greatest chance of saving the most lives. As with others, I do believe that in cases where there is serious risk to the mother, it whould be up to her to decide.

As for what Moonwaters said about people who support abortion only for these cases really being Pro-Life, I've been thinking that MOST people are a lot more Pro-Life than they realize.

I'm going to post THIS in a new thread to not confuse the discussion here.