Even people whose stance is that aborting a fetus is tantamount to murder would be willing to actively kill one if the fetus is endanger of killing the mother.
This bothers me because it seems like on the one hand the unborn child has full human rights but on the other the life of the mother comes first.
Now this would make sense in a situation were the child would also die if the mother died, but what about in a case where you can save the child but it will result in the death of the mother or you kill the fetus and the mother lives.
Which one would be considered morally right and why? And if you pick the Mother dose that mean that a un born child dose not have the same rights as one that is all ready born?
2006-08-16 16:22:43 · 26 answers · asked by Gamla Joe 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Personally, if I were given the choice, I'd give up my life for my unborn child's. But I also know that my children would be well taken care of if I were not around anymore.
I can't tell you why, and I can't imagine telling some terrified woman in labor "sorry, the baby comes first, that's just the way it is" I don't know. Growing up without a mom would suck, but it sure beats not getting the chance to grow up at all.
2006-08-16 16:33:58 · answer #1 · answered by ♥Mira♥ 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think that the fact of the matter is that there isn't usually a choice when it comes to that.
if the baby is making the mother sick...choosing the baby will only result in a sick child that may not make it. so it would be wiser to save the mother.
if the mother was for some reason or another dying...and it was not caused by the unborn child you would have to save the baby.
i do not believe in abortion.for this isn't the same thing.
in the case of saving one or the other...i would consider saving the mother. not because the unborn child has no rights as a human being...but because the mother can always have the option of trying again. and because...while yes a family may be happy about having a new member...losing a member that you have loved for so long...is a horrible pain...and while losing a baby is a terrible pain as well...it's not the same...and doesn't take as long to cope to.
this happened to my mother. and i can't imagine what my life would be like without her.and while...yes i find myself wondering what would things be like if i had another sibling...i would much rather have my mom.
2006-08-16 23:42:15 · answer #2 · answered by trish 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Both are wrong. You can't play God with anyones life. I am not sure of any cases where you would need to kill the mother in order to save the unborn child.
But regardless, abortion is murder ANYWAY you look at it. Anyone want to argue with that should actually work in an abortion clinic for one day and then tell me that it isn't wrong.
Another thing all you pro-choicers can do is rent the move "The Silent Scream". It's about an ex-abortionist that agreed to have an abortion taped by ultrasound.... He wasn't even able to get through the end of the tape when he watched it later and he never did an abortion again..... It is a documentary by the way.
2006-08-16 23:32:09 · answer #3 · answered by shannon 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its a very difficult matter, because, on one hand, its just a fetus, on the other hand, it could have hes whole life ahead of him.
But would have to choose to save the mother. I dont think the fetus should have the same rights as someone already born. Its not a person yet. And if the mother dies, problably, it would have problem in its life, even malucfontions from the bad birth, for example. And the mother could have another child, an helthy one.
2006-08-16 23:30:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I pick saving the woman, as you force untold millions of unwed singles , and children to live full term with a rape baby, due to a violent act or incest - if there is no abortion.
If a woman wants the baby, the issue of abortion is not there. Married women rarely (well they can be raped also - duh.) but outside of rape married women do not think of abortion.
Women(?) - GIRLS under 18 should have free abortions if needed, because children having children is wrong.
Why are men involved in this talk at all? Because of the federal money? Because men set up the systems? This is also wrong. Women stand up and give a clear message!
If abortion returns to the 40/50/60's laws and the well off will go overseas to their "spas" and I'm listening more horror stories of back alley midnight abortions will you again ask this question?
Woman should be treated with dignity, and finally have a little - but people are again wanting to return to the old days? Really?
Your question asks about rights. Well just on RIGHTS then yes I believe you have to be wearing clothes and walking, talking, involved in your community, ALIVE to have rights.
BECAUSE LIKE I SAID:
IF THE WOMAN WANTS THE BABY THERE IS NO PROBLEM.
If the woman does NOT - then she MUST have a SAFE place to protect herself. Yes - that means kill the fetus.
2006-08-16 23:53:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well you might be making a wrong assumption.
I think the mother and child should be left alone and
let God sort it out. If they both die then their number was up.
In your case there is no moral question. Its no different than if your house was on fire and you could save just one of the people inside when there were two people in there, Who do you save? It's the same quandry. You may have to make a choice no doubt.
But it is not a moral issue. If you save the mother becuase she could have more children or if you save the child becuase it has not had a chance to live yet...
2006-08-16 23:31:20 · answer #6 · answered by deltaxray7 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
who is to say if one life is more expendable than another life. The reason that doctors choose to save the mother when her life is in danger because of a fetus, is because their responsibility is to the mother. Besides, since most of these types of situations happen early on, the fetus could not survive without the mother, so why not save one life instead of losing both?
2006-08-16 23:29:23 · answer #7 · answered by Nik 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the right thing to do is to save the "most viable" life. Generally, that would be the mother since the child is so dependent. If the mother is on life support, the fetus would be the most viable life.
2006-08-17 16:49:52 · answer #8 · answered by Hatikvah 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is pretty much a moot question, because many doctors agree that abortion is NEVER necessary to save the life of a mother:
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10682
http://www.advocatesfortheinnocent.com/motherslife.html
However, if such a case did arise, a moral and ethical doctor would do everything in his power to save both lives. The mother's life is not more valuable than the child's.
I am pro-life with no exceptions. Anyone who claims to be pro-life "with exceptions" is actually pro-choice. They just want to narrow the circumstances in which a mother can "choose" to murder her child.
For more on all aspects of abortion, see http://Abort73.com
2006-08-17 08:50:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I know I'm in the minority here, but it's a free country. I believe there is NO justification for killing unborn babies.
None.
I believed it twenty five years ago when some of my friends had abortions. I believed it when my 14 year old daughter was advised to "take a pill to make her period start" one time by a doctor, but I refused to allow her to do that.
I believe it now.
I realize there are circumstances where it seems to us like the obvious solution, but for those few whom it affects adversely, there would be millions of babies spared.
2006-08-16 23:41:20 · answer #10 · answered by nancy jo 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋