Abortion Is Wrong

That's what I was wondering.

 

Not all etopic pregnancies are necessarily life threatening to the mother.

As I understand it in the case of etopic preganacies there are three options:

Wait and see if it works itself out.

Remove the tube surgically.

Abort by chemical means.

Tell me Crabby, in your opinion are there any other exceptions to your supposed pro-life stance?

Or is etopic pregnancy the only one?

 

What about those that are life threatening to the mother?

I have never said I am pro-abortion ... except for saving the mother when to do nothing will cost both the life of the mother and the fetus. There are people who oppose abortions even if it does cost the life of the mother and child. There are medical cases, such as below, where a choice would, IMHO, be difficult.

I am not a doctor so I do not know all medical conditions and which ones, if there are any, that would require an abortion to save the life of the mother. I expect there are a number of them.

Were the following abortions necessary in your opinion?

 

Here is how the moral system that Crabby is demostrating here works:

1. Choose a moral imperative

2. Create an extreme/unusual exception which convinces some percentage of the population

3. Declare the exception to override the moral imperative

4. Announce that since there are universally accepted exceptions there is no moral imperative

 

Or, Targus, find something that affects 1% or less of the people involved in the situation, design legislation that in effect only applies to that 1%, and then apply it to the entire population.

 

But notice how quickly that Crabby expanded this exception of "save the life of the mother" to include babies with birth defects.

Legislation works the same way - as evidenced by the healthscam bill that imposes changes on the entire population because some percentage of the population did not have health insurance.

 

CTB, in your first case an abortion would be immoral, sinful, and, in my ideal scenario, illegal because the life of the mother is not at risk. In the second case, an abortion would be allowable because the life of the mother is at substantial risk.

 

The article doesn't state that the death of these woman was a certainty if they were to continue in their pregnancies.

Was there a risk? Perhaps - but life is nothing but risks.

You take a risk every time you drive in a car - for a much smaller return for that risk.

 

What would you do if you and your spouse, if you are married, were faced with the three situations described?

 

Trust in God.

Duhh

 

Nice but sophomoric dodge ... which I expected.

Do you mean you would trust in God to approve your spouse having an abortion? Or trust that, if she died or lived, it was God's will?

 

As a Christian you think that trusting in God is "sophomoric"?

Interesting - to say the least.

God does not approve of abortion.

My wife also trusts in God - so she would not have an abortion.

It's very simple. I wonder why it is beyond your comprehension.

Of course.

That plus doing everything else that is morally acceptable - such as bed rest for example.

 

There was a high probability of the mother's death in that one case.

 

So you are willing to trade the "probability of death" of one person for the "certain death" of another?

I'm not.

 

I am. If someone tried to shoot me, would I not be morally justified in self defense actions that may involve the death of the assailant?

 

Abortion is not self defense.

 

It is if the life of the mother is in substantial danger.

 

Then let's take your line of reasoning a step further.

Can I kill you to take your food because I am starving to death?

Isn't that also self defense by your logic?

Abortion is not self defense.

 

No, that is not self-densnse by my logic. What is your point?

 

Who created the circumstances of the situation?

The mother or the unborn child?

You believe that the child should die to get the mother out of a danger that she put herself into?

Life has risks - pregnancy also has risks.