If a woman's life is directly threatened by the impending birth of her child, and the woman does not wish to die, how many of you agree that the best decision would be to abort the fetus?
If not, can you please explain why?
2006-07-12 16:22:39 · 23 answers · asked by SADFHorde 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I'd say this would be a self-defense argument. In normal cases, if a life is threatened by another, it is considered legal to end one life only if there is no other reasonable way to defend the other life.
This doesn't suggest that everyone would make that choice, any more than everyone would choose to throw a friend out of a lifeboat to keep it from sinking. I'm sure it would be a great dilemma. But I'd certainly support the legality of it, and wouldn't be in a position to judge anyone who was forced to make such a heart-wrenching decision.
In general, however, I'm not supportive of abortion.
2006-07-12 16:30:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it is the woman's legal right to choose what she should do. However, I never believe that abortion is actually "right". sometimes there is no "right" answer. Someone will be hurt no matter what the mother chooses to do.
If she chooses to abort the baby, and if she lives, then she will wonder for the rest of her life if there could have been another way. I am not saying that she should or would carry guilt over it, I am just saying she will wonder. Yes, she will have the rest of her life to fulfill whatever path she was on...but she will be changed.
If she chooses not to abort, and she dies, then the baby's father will have the task of raising the child on his own, or with the help of family, friends, etc. And...the baby knows that his/her mother loved him/her so much that she was willing to sacrifice her own life to give life to her child.
Because these medical prognosis are never 100% there is always a chance that the mother would die even if she had the abortion OR that she might live even if she had the baby. Of course most people would recognize the lose-lose or win-win position of either of these possibilities.
Also keep in mind that the combination of abortion due to rape, incest, or risk to the mother's life comprise less than 1% of total abortion procedures annually in the United States. (I don't know statistics in other countries, but I do know that in some countries it is not as commonly used for convenience as it is in the US)
2006-07-12 16:37:14 · answer #2 · answered by Pamela 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a sticky question. My opinions on this are as follows: If a woman has been made aware of a risk of death if she were to get pregnant, I believe she should do whatever is necessary to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. If she doesn't know until she is pregnant, then, to me, it would depend on how far along she is at the time and whether she has any other children. I am not a fan of abortion, but I don't believe it would be fair to leave other children motherless due to a preventable issue.
2006-07-12 16:29:12 · answer #3 · answered by lazor_braids 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because the woman is already alive, where the child would die if taken out of the woman. The woman doesn't need the fetus, but the fetus needs the woman.
2006-07-12 16:26:18 · answer #4 · answered by Pirate_Wench 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course you are right. You always have the right to abort a fetus. God himself aborts using the process of miscarriage. And he does so without killing the fetus. A loving God will protect the soul of the fetus and not allow death. God would simply move his soul to another fetus or protect it himself. God is that powerful.
The god of the pro life movement brags that he kills fetuses and blames it on the woman. Such a god does not have the power over life and death and should not be followed.
2006-07-13 15:05:01 · answer #5 · answered by Give me Liberty 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In todays' medical knowledge, there is no reason for a womans life to be threatened in child birth. There has been no documented evidence that this to be true.
A women who is "free to choose", did that when she conceived the child. Having sex takes on the responsibility of the consequences that may occur.
2006-07-12 17:44:02 · answer #6 · answered by orangerose 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not in any respect observed that ailment, fantastically detectable by ultrasound. Which one is it, and how is it the discomfort won't be able to be relieved? even as did they advance an abortion that does no damage to the mummy, or one which is no longer opposite to Hippocrates? (i will neither supply a perilous drug to anybody if requested for it, nor will I make a tenet to this result. in addition i will't supply to a woman an abortive treatment.") Who receives to ascertain how a lot discomfort makes existence no longer nicely worth residing? My mum and dad had to stay by Hitler, Stalin and Obama. ought to they have been aborted? existence has intrinsic fee, and could be defended from the instantaneous of idea to the instantaneous of organic lack of life; no ifs ands or buts.
2016-10-14 10:11:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no idea what I would do in that situation personally.
BUT-
There should be NO ABORTION!
Simply on the grounds that THE CHILD, EVEN UNBORN, HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO LIFE.
I do not necessarily like this decision - but it is one of the basies of CIVILIZATION...It is NOT ""Survival of the Fittest!""
2006-07-12 16:30:08 · answer #8 · answered by whynotaskdon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-07-12 16:27:02 · answer #9 · answered by Jtee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In this situation it is a life for a life, and one life is not being forfilled, or even blossumed, so its better and safer to abort. If not, the child has no mother.
2006-07-12 16:26:44 · answer #10 · answered by razrbldcomplicate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋