Just curious. I know people here are of all beleifs, religions and persuasions, so I will get a balance of responses (hopefully). I personally am not out to bash anyone because I really feel it's the option of that woman to do what she feels is appropriate in her condition being that it is medically considered "high risk" ie: life threatening.
Personally, I have borderline hypertension. It went up considerably in the second trimester of my pregnancy with my baby. Doctors scared me into thinking I would get pre-eclampsia, a low birthweight baby and strokes and yada yada, but deep inside, I knew all would be well, so I didn't listen and all was normal and well, and I delivered a perfectly healthy 8.5 lb baby girl at 39 weeks. Never so much as a speck of protein in my urine or even a contraction before delivery.
Technically, and medically, my life was in danger. I would not do this again, so I and hubby are getting fixed but, I don't feel a woman would be a bad person for aborting.
2006-10-13 09:14:14 · 23 answers · asked by Goddess of Nuts PBUH 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Globalizer...I don't understand why you would be advocating the death of two human beings? So if the mother dies and consequently the fetus as well in a premature state, what is gained? If an abortion is performed in many cases of high risk pregnancies, the woman is able to recover and survive. If my condition was way worse that what it was, I may not have been as laissez-faire as I was. There is no sense in two deaths uneccesarily.
2006-10-13 09:29:43 · update #1
The situation you describe above is very close to 'the line' between the life of the innocent child and the life of an innocent mother.
I am generally 'pro-life'; but I also realize being an absolute 'pro-life' (for the innocent baby) may also mean a innocent mother could lose her life, (not her health). (I have a problem with that life scenario/attitude).
Technically for the most part, in this country, (US), 'politicians' and lawmakers have not 'split that hair' yet. (I have heard of a bill passed in S.D. recently that may get close to it; but I would need to hear 'more details' before deciding if it is 'good or bad' law).
2006-10-13 11:54:17 · answer #1 · answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Church has repeatedly declared abortion is a great evil in all circumstances. The difficulty of a mother in danger cannot change the truths of divine and natural law.
Divine law and natural reason exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent man. Life is too fundamental a value to be weighed against even very serious disadvantages.
Pope John Paul II said in 1995 that while the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
This does not preclude treatments directed toward some serious ailment even if the treatment could injure or kill the unborn child. Thus, operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
I will pray for you.
2006-10-13 16:28:03 · answer #2 · answered by Repent 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A doctor should do everything in his power to save both the mother and the baby. I think you will find (and so do medical experts), that there are few (if any) pregnancies that pose an immediate and lethal risk to the mother that a C-section won't cure. Babies have been known to survive a premature birth as early as 22 weeks gestation, and there isn't much before that stage that would pose an immediate risk. There is absolutely no medical reason to perform a D&E or a partial-birth abortion, which are certainly immoral, since the child is completely formed, just small. In fact, the fetus is fully formed as early as 8 weeks (just tiny), so abortion at any stage is immoral. Doctors should always act as if they are treating two patients, and not like one is "expendable".
I believe that a woman who terminates her child's life because it is "inconvenient" is just as guilty of first-degree murder as Susan Smith or Andrea Yates.
2006-10-13 17:14:34 · answer #3 · answered by FUNdie 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes to your question. It is immoral to abort. Life is precious. After all that is a human being she is carring not just a blob of fecal material, like some doctors claim. Tell her to see a good Christian doctor.
According to the Bible women would have troubles in the womb. although some have more trouble than others. Only God has the right to take a life prematurely. With the medicines we have this day and time, the woman's life isn't that much in danger. So I'd tell the woman to let her conscience be her guide. If she is a Christian, then she should pray hard about it.
2006-10-13 16:22:32 · answer #4 · answered by bro_ken128 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well I guess it just depends on what the woman feels...I am Pro-choice and I believe it depends on the situation whether its right or not...I suppose if the woman could risk dying and there's absolutely no way to carry out the pregnancy then I would say that it would be ok to abort....It's just a tough call because if the woman is so far along that would just be so hard! I work for an OB department and I know how upset women are when they miscarry especially so far along- I cant even imagine having it be an elective abortion so far along- Either way the health of the mother is an important factor in the equation as well. Thanks!
2006-10-13 16:18:10 · answer #5 · answered by Alesha W 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you which is why I am pro-choice. I don't understand why a woman should have to choose between her life or the child's (and ultimately endanger both). I also suffered hypertension and was hospitalized to watch me for pre-e. We decided to induce at 38 weeks since my son was quite healthy enough. Luckily, for many pre-e is diagnosed when the mother can be treated and the fetus will be able to mature until it is strong enough for induction or a c-section.
But many are not so lucky. I know someone who was diagnosed with cancer and pregnancy at around the same time. She had to decide between the baby and life-saving chemotherapy. She chose the chemo. Many believe that to be so wrong but I just can't understand the thought of taking away the right for a woman to protect her own life.
2006-10-13 17:24:08 · answer #6 · answered by AlongthePemi 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, when the child threatens the woman's life, even the Bible says that abortion is okay. It's when they start worrying about her 'mental health and happiness' tha the problem comes up. Doctors are paid to be overly conservative, and lots of times they go too far because of that. Sounds like you made a good decision, but in your case, it really WAS your choice.
2006-10-13 16:22:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you know before hand you have risks, then take precautions.
However, if for whatever reason a pregnancy becomes a danger to the woman. Then she has a right to self preservation. And an abortion would not be immoral. All of us have a right to protect our lives. Even to the death of the one endangering our lives.
2006-10-13 16:21:02 · answer #8 · answered by jadamgrd 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A lot of people argue that abortion is black and white, when really it is a lot more gray than they think. There are certain times when abortions should be accepted, such as in rape and incest.
As far as a high risk pregnancy, the Catholic Church teaches that you must try and have the child reguardless of the risk to the mother.
I personally think that it's up to the parents, and if they choose to take that route for safety reasons, they should not be persecuted for that.
2006-10-13 16:19:19 · answer #9 · answered by analystdevil 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
actually contrary to the fanatical view..
according to jewish rules (following the old testament) if the mother's life is in immediate danger, (from the sound of it, and obviously due to the outcome, you apparently were not) its not only allowed, but an OBLIGATION.
under jewish law,if you are a sniper with a bead on a criminal that has a gun to someone's head, your not only allowed to shoot him, but required to.
remember its "do not murder" not "do not kill" and by jewish law the unborn is not a person until its out and viable.
additionally, in the OT theres a verse (I forgot what it was specifically) that basically says 2 men can conspire, and beat a preganant woman til she "loses her fruit"and as long as the woman survives, its up to the husband to fine the perpetrator or not. (of course it is a worse crime to murder a pregnant woman than a non-pregnant woman, but not equivalent to murdering 2 people)
2006-10-13 16:42:44 · answer #10 · answered by RW 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋