Is it ever ok to have an Abortion?

[DOTR]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

I have been pro choice all my life.

There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy:

1. Nothing is done, the woman dies or if she's lucky and lives, she's infertile permanently.
2. An abortion is performed. The woman lives to have children later.

There are over 65 thousand American women who face that each year.

The anti choice people would force those women to die.

You are pro-abortion period. Not anti-ectopic pregnancy. By the way no state ever banned, nor any law affected termination of removal of ectopic pregnancies. Never. Not one. Roe V Wade had zero effect on the treatment of the condition. And when we overturn it there will be no change.

So just to be clear... do you support abortions in cases of ectopic pregnancies?

Lets be clearer..you are opposed to abortion except in these cases of ectopic pregnancies?

No. I think abortions are tragedies and should be prevented as much as possible, however I think that choice is up to the woman to make within reason.

see that’s how you answer a question. Try it sometime

Yeah? Then why pretend to be interested in ectopic pregnancies? You are OK with all abortions. This is the scam.

 

[Slade3200]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

I didn't read the article...and I don't really see the point you are making.

What you are talking about here is triage.

Saving one life over another that has a lesser chance of survival.

If a woman has gangrene, her leg may have to be amputated.

That doesn't mean we should cut off healthy legs of people who find legs inconvenient.

I wasn’t making a point. I was asking a question. Appears that your answer is that you think it’s fine to have an abortion in the cases noted in the article. That’s all you had to say

Okay.

I believe in triage. I was a soldier. There are times when a person cannot be saved, and a doctor has to do what he or she can to save those who can be saved.

Ok so legally speaking how does that get legislated? Is there a way to measure the risk factors and a threshold that needs to be met before an abortion would be legally permitted?

 

[DOTR]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

I didn't read the article...and I don't really see the point you are making.

What you are talking about here is triage.

Saving one life over another that has a lesser chance of survival.

If a woman has gangrene, her leg may have to be amputated.

That doesn't mean we should cut off healthy legs of people who find legs inconvenient.

I wasn’t making a point. I was asking a question. Appears that your answer is that you think it’s fine to have an abortion in the cases noted in the article. That’s all you had to say

Okay.

I believe in triage. I was a soldier. There are times when a person cannot be saved, and a doctor has to do what he or she can to save those who can be saved.

Ok so legally speaking how does that get legislated? Is there a way to measure the risk factors and a threshold that needs to be met before an abortion would be legally permitted?

Why not use history as a guide. No woman was ever forced to endure an ectopic pregnancy before Roe V Wade. So how was that legislated?

 

[MACAULAY]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

I have been pro choice all my life.

There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy:

1. Nothing is done, the woman dies or if she's lucky and lives, she's infertile permanently.
2. An abortion is performed. The woman lives to have children later.

There are over 65 thousand American women who face that each year.

The anti choice people would force those women to die.

My favourite "idiot right" anti-abortion law was the southern state that wanted the emergency room doctors to reimplant the zygote in an ectopic pregnancy.

_____

This is bullshit. If you claim not, you must cite the Southern state and the LAW.....and it must not be some bill that some loon introduced that never passed.

 

[Dana7360]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

I have been pro choice all my life.

There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy:

1. Nothing is done, the woman dies or if she's lucky and lives, she's infertile permanently.
2. An abortion is performed. The woman lives to have children later.

There are over 65 thousand American women who face that each year.

The anti choice people would force those women to die.

My favourite "idiot right" anti-abortion law was the southern state that wanted the emergency room doctors to reimplant the zygote in an ectopic pregnancy.

Huh?! I’ve never heard of such a thing

That is how stupid the anti choice or what I call the anti life people are.

They actually believe it's possible to re implant an ectopic pregnancy.

One went so far as to try to put it in legislation in Ohio:

Ohio bill orders doctors to âreimplant ectopic pregnancyâ or face 'abortion murder' charges

Ohio introduces one of the most extreme bills to date for a procedure that does not exist in medical science

www.theguardian.com

 

[Slade3200]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

I have been pro choice all my life.

There are only 2 outcomes to an ectopic pregnancy:

1. Nothing is done, the woman dies or if she's lucky and lives, she's infertile permanently.
2. An abortion is performed. The woman lives to have children later.

There are over 65 thousand American women who face that each year.

The anti choice people would force those women to die.

You are pro-abortion period. Not anti-ectopic pregnancy. By the way no state ever banned, nor any law affected termination of removal of ectopic pregnancies. Never. Not one. Roe V Wade had zero effect on the treatment of the condition. And when we overturn it there will be no change.

So just to be clear... do you support abortions in cases of ectopic pregnancies?

Lets be clearer..you are opposed to abortion except in these cases of ectopic pregnancies?

No. I think abortions are tragedies and should be prevented as much as possible, however I think that choice is up to the woman to make within reason.

see that’s how you answer a question. Try it sometime

Yeah? Then why pretend to be interested in ectopic pregnancies? You are OK with all abortions. This is the scam.

Are you joking?i asked a question. One you apparently don’t have the guts to answer or discuss. I’m not here preaching. Grow up

 

[KGB]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

Pro-life people are generally ok with abortion in the situation you describe because it threatens the mother’s life. It’s the pro-abortion crowd that thinks up these stupid straw man type questions.

 

[Slade3200]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

Pro-life people are generally ok with abortion in the situation you describe because it threatens the mother’s life. It’s the pro-abortion crowd that thinks up these stupid straw man type questions.

Strawman? How so? You seem to be the one trying to turn this into a fight

 

[jwoodie]

The intellectual dishonesty in this debate is that many "pro-choice" advocates also claim to be "morally opposed" to abortion. If that was true, they would be willing to explain the reason for their moral opposition. Similarly, they parrot the phrase "safe but rare" but never answer the question of why abortions should be rare. Faced with these moral dilemmas, they are forced to cite unusual medical anomalies while ignoring the vast majority of cases where abortions are simply a backup plan for birth control.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thank you... the first serious response given by a pro lifer... well said

As arrogant as it may sound, and as reluctant as I ought to be to presume to speak for others, I think that what I said is what nearly every “pro-lifer” would say, if he was able to put that thought clearly enough into words.

To review, here's what I said, and I ask everyone who considers themselves opposed to abortion to say whether you agree with me or not. I think most will, at least as it applies to this particular sort of situation.

I consider it [abortion] to be nothing less than the intentional killing of an innocent human being, and therefore something that should be absolutely illegal, and subject to the harshest of penalties up to and including the death penalty; except under conditions comparable to those under which homicide would otherwise be justifiable.

That said, I think the conditions described here, in the OP, would meet the circumstances under which it is justifiable. Perhaps not under the strictest application of my ethical principles, but allowing for some practical considerations, it is difficult to justify denying a woman the ability to protect herself from a credible risk of serious harm, for the sake of the life of another person who is almost certain to die anyway. Better one person dead, and another healthy, than one person dead, and another either also dead or seriously harmed.

Killing an innocent human being is never, ever, OK, but there are some circumstances under which the alternative is even less OK.

 

[DOTR]

Exceptions to the rule are poor ways to make a rule.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ok so legally speaking how does that get legislated? Is there a way to measure the risk factors and a threshold that needs to be met before an abortion would be legally permitted?

How do we measure the threshhold where I am allowed, with a loaded gun in my hand, to shoot someone else with it? I don't know that the line is always absolutely clear, but what is clear is that the taking of a human life is always a drastic and terrible act, that can only ever be allowed in a civilized society under extremely drastic and terrible conditions. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to leave it up to a jury whether a particular instance of homicide was on the right side or the wrong side of the line.

Abortion is no different, morally or ethically, than any other form of homicide, and should not be subject to different legal standards.

 

[Slade3200]

Thank you... the first serious response given by a pro lifer... well said

As arrogant as it may sound, and as reluctant as I ought to be to presume to speak for others, I think that what I said is what nearly every “pro-lifer” would say, if he was able to put that thought clearly enough into words.

To review, here's what I said, and I ask everyone who considers themselves opposed to abortion to say whether you agree with me or not. I think most will, at least as it applies to this particular sort of situation.

I consider it [abortion] to be nothing less than the intentional killing of an innocent human being, and therefore something that should be absolutely illegal, and subject to the harshest of penalties up to and including the death penalty; except under conditions comparable to those under which homicide would otherwise be justifiable.

​

That said, I think the conditions described here, in the OP, would meet the circumstances under which it is justifiable. Perhaps not under the strictest application of my ethical principles, but allowing for some practical considerations, it is difficult to justify denying a woman the ability to protect herself from a credible risk of serious harm, for the sake of the life of another person who is almost certain to die anyway. Better one person dead, and another healthy, than one person dead, and another either also dead or seriously harmed.​

​

Killing an innocent human being is never, ever, OK, but there are some circumstances under which the alternative is even less OK.​

​

Well it’s kind of interesting that we are 4 pages deep now and you are the only pro lifer that has given a serious and direct answer to the question. Says a little something about our ability, or inability in this case, as a people to have a straight forward and productive discussion

 

[Slade3200]

Exceptions to the rule are poor ways to make a rule.

Not true. Exceptions and extraneous circumstances should absolutely be considered when making rules. What are you talking about?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No

 

[Slade3200]

Ok so legally speaking how does that get legislated? Is there a way to measure the risk factors and a threshold that needs to be met before an abortion would be legally permitted?

How do we measure the threshhold where I am allowed, with a loaded gun in my hand, to shoot someone else with it? I don't know that the line is always absolutely clear, but what is clear is that the taking of a human life is always a drastic and terrible act, that can only ever be allowed in a civilized society under extremely drastic and terrible conditions. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to leave it up to a jury whether a particular instance of homicide was on the right side or the wrong side of the line.

Abortion is no different, morally or ethically, than any other form of homicide, and should not be subject to different legal standards.

Fair point. What are your thoughts on birth control pills. Are those considered homicide in your POV?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The intellectual dishonesty in this debate is that many "pro-choice" advocates also claim to be "morally opposed" to abortion. If that was true, they would be willing to explain the reason for their moral opposition. Similarly, they parrot the phrase "safe but rare" but never answer the question of why abortions should be rare. Faced with these moral dilemmas, they are forced to cite unusual medical anomalies while ignoring the vast majority of cases where abortions are simply a backup plan for birth control.

I don't know if it's willful dishonesty, or Orwellian doublethink.

Rationally, it's a difficult position to support. The reason to be “morally opposed” to abortion would be that one recognizes it for what it truly is—the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And if one recognizes the undeniable fact that abortion is homicide, then rationally, it's difficult to support the premise that it should legally be treated any lightly than any other form of homicide.

The closest thing to any rational approach to defending the legality of abortion would be to lean on a Hitlerian denial of the humanity of its victims, and thus to deny that it constitutes homicide.

If you don't take that approach,then you must acknowledge the humanity of the victim of abortion, that abortion is, in fact, homicide; at which point, you really are not in a position to be able to rationally defend any lighter treatment of it by law than that afforded to homicide in general.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well it’s kind of interesting that we are 4 pages deep now and you are the only pro lifer that has given a serious and direct answer to the question. Says a little something about our ability, or inability in this case, as a people to have a straight forward and productive discussion

Well, although, as I said earlier, my position is probably considered extreme, even among those opposed to abortion,but I think it is truly the only position that is rooted in common decency and common sense.

The other extreme is to deny the humanity of the innocent victim of abortion, and on that basis, to deny that abortion itself is homicide, or in any other way, morally or ethically wrong.

Anywhere between these two extremes, one has to engage in irrational and self-contradictory exercises in Orwellian doublethink. Some issues truly are binary, black and white,and this is one of them. Either one extreme is right, or the other extreme is right, and all the positions that try to claim any middle ground are simply wrong. Abortion is either homicide, or it is not. There is no such thing as “partial homicide”.

And if it is homicide, then no position can rationally be defended that holds that it should be treated any more lightly under the law than any other form of homicide.

I think the inability on the part of others to form a clear argument is a direct result of trying to claim some middle-ground position that simply isn't there to claim. Stop trying to make excuses to defend what you know is wrong and indefensible, and the argument becomes more clear.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fair point. What are your thoughts on birth control pills. Are those considered homicide in your POV?

As long as we're talking about methods that prevent contraception from occurring in the first place, I don't see how they would constitute homicide. I have no problem at all with the legality of any such methods.

 

[sakinago]

I read this article about a mother who found out in her second trimester that the fetus had a condition that was preventing its bones and brain to grow. The doctor told her that the baby would likely not survive the term of her pregnancy and there was a risk to her health so she decided to terminate. I’m curious about what the pro-lifers think about this. Should this be legal or illegal?

Laura Prepon Reveals Heartbreaking Decision She Made to Terminate Her Second Pregnancy — People

"I feel in order to have a real conversation about motherhood, you need to share truths and talk about what's really going on," the star tells PEOPLE

apple.news

How much risk, and which condition? Is the baby even going to make it term? It sounds like you’re referring to craniosynostosis. Which as far as I know most, if not all. cases are treatable. I’m can’t think of any conditions where the bones grow enough to house a brain, and then just stop growing in the womb. Craniosynostosis on the other hand is when the skull sutures prematurely close up. Either surgery or even a helmet can fix that. From what it sounds like to me you read an article written by a journalist who doesn’t know medicine or biology, and gave a cliff notes version of the story with their limited understanding of biology.