What about crack women who are addicted to crack and have aids or some other diseases, would you really want this lady not to have a abortion and let the fetus suffer for 9 months with the mothers addiction plus be born addicted to crack or would you be okay with her aborting the fetus because there is no way we can legally get to every pregnant women in the world and make sure she is taking care of the pregnancy. just wondering?
2006-10-26 08:35:45 · 28 answers · asked by daisy322_98 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The list of "what ifs" in never ending.... A baby born with out a brain... or any other condition that will prevent it from living in the world without man made machines keeping it going... It dose not matter... untill that life enters the world it is the responsability of the "mother", and of society, to keep it safe alow it to go as long as it is able on it's own... Those "women" who do not take care of themselves and harm the new life with in them deserve to be punished for the criminal act commited against the new life... regardless of the "age" of that life.... when the egg and sperm unite that is a new human life... entitled toall the rights and privledges as any other human being... and to be protected from criminal assualt whether from the mother or anyone else...
2006-10-26 08:46:33 · answer #1 · answered by IdahoMike 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Let me begin with this question; does human life have imputed or intrinsic value? Your question is only valid if human life only has as much value as people wish it to have and that this value can be modified by a variety of factors. Would it be right to kill a baby because it has an addiction? Or a hairlip? Or blue eyes? There is no distinction in this line of reasoning between these various positions. There are people on the pro-choice side that sincerely believe that a baby can be ethically aborted up to 28 days after birth. Prof Singer from Princton being the greatest proponent.
However, if one holds the position that life has intrinsic value, that it is valuable because it is human life and nothing more, then the entire question changes. If human life is intrinsic in value, then whether or not the child has an addiction is irrelevent. Just as we would not kill a 35 year old crack addict, we will not kill the crack addict that is yet to be born. Just as we will not kill Christopher Reeve just because he broke his neck in a riding accident, we will not kill an unborn child just because it has Spina Bifida. And just as we would not kill the AIDS patient who is a week old, we would not kill the AIDS patient that is a few days from birth.
Then the question then is, under what circumstances would it be acceptable to kill a child? The only ethical answer then would be when the child's life must be sacrificed for another life. For example, if a woman has a tubular pregnancy, the growing baby would kill the woman before it became viable on its own. In this case, it is sad but necessary to kill that child.
So to answer your question, let the child live.
2006-10-26 08:54:24 · answer #2 · answered by Tim 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Babies are born every day to addicted mothers. They can be medically detoxed and grow up to be healthy, productive members of society. I do not believe in abortion as a means of birth control(which some people use it for). I do believe that there are certain circumstances in which abortion may be acceptable. I can not make that judgment call. It is also, NOT societies responsibility to "police" pregnant women and "make sure" that they get the appropriate health care during pregnancy. what happens, right, wrong, or indifferent is that society generally comes in to clean up the messes that irresponsible women make by having unwanted pregnancy. The real question in this era of free everything including all types of birth control is "Why are there still so many unwanted pregnancies?" Abortion is not the answer to unwanted pregnancy.
2006-10-26 08:54:01 · answer #3 · answered by Only hell mama ever raised 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
By your logic you are stating that a crack addict would be smart enough to know to abort the child, but not smart enough to carry the child for nine months.
There will always be people with addictions and poor judgement. Neither of these things give them or us the justification to abort a child.
From your view, I should have been aborted. Born into a family that would abuse and hurt me for 16 years. You are stating that knowing another would suffer would be justification for abortion. My mother knew if I were born, I would suffer.
I for one, wondered why I was even born while young, but now am very thankful that I was born. God can and will do wonderful things with all people, no matter what they were born into. Let God be the judge, not you or I.
2006-10-26 08:48:51 · answer #4 · answered by cindy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For me, here's the thing - I can't say for sure when life begins. I know what the Catholic Church teaches and I can even sorta understand WHY they say that, but I'm not totally on board yet. Since I don't know, I err on the side of caution and am against abortion. What I do not agree with, however, is making abortion illegal. I think it'll cause more problems and more deaths than it will save lives or even prevent unwanted pregnancies.
One of my nieces was born with what is commonly called "brittle bone disease." This is a very serious condition that, when not fatal, makes life very ... challenging ... for those who live with it. If my sister knew that her daughter had this disease and would (as she ultimately did) pass away before reaching her first birthday, would she have opted for an abortion? I don't know, but I can tell you that that little girl brought so much joy to our family's life and is now a comfort to us as we call her "our little angel in heaven." So the suffering of this little one did have a positive impact.
Life isn't fair and often we don't get a choice in how things turn out, but I don't want to cut off any more choices than necessary.
2006-10-26 08:45:41 · answer #5 · answered by Church Music Girl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
May I be honest with you? I am a Christian who believes God's word. Therefore, His word trumps my opinion. Personally, I understand why a woman would get an abortion and I will never judge nor condemn anyone, ever, for that choice. However, I know what God says about this....it should not be done. And I hold His word higher than my own opinion. By the way, lest I be thought some holier than thou person...I had an abortion when I was in my 20's. When I thought to myself that God may not love me anymore, I called out to Him. The second I did that, it was as if the floor, the ceiling, the walls, were moving away from me...He showed me that His forgiveness has no boundary. I was instantly forgiven. No matter how we may try to justify something, His word will always stand, above everything we may think.
I hope that helps you understand.
2006-10-26 09:21:30 · answer #6 · answered by Esther 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the poor logic used to pass abortion in the USA in the first place. Don't kill the child because the mother was a bad person. There are plenty of alternatives. Even if the child can't be saved, it is better to allow the child to experience something in this life before it passes. Would you kill a child who is retarded?
I would argue that in some cases abortion might be a viable option. Very few if any, but I won't rule out a situation where it might be the right thing to do. However, to legalize it so that any woman who wants to have unprotected sex with anyone, then have a doctor stick a spike in the child's head in the womb because she doesn't want the "parasite" is disgusting.
2006-10-26 08:39:03 · answer #7 · answered by AT 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋
That's a terrible suggestion. The child should not be murdered because the mother is addicted to crack. The mother and child both need help. You don't kill the child for the sins of the mother. That's just patently unjust and illogical.
2006-10-26 08:46:17 · answer #8 · answered by leo509 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The child has a right to live and can be cured of any addition the mother passes on to it ( aside from aids or some similar disease, however, people live with these diseases everyday).
Morally, we have no right to kill a little unborn baby because he/she is an inconvenience.
You are either Pro life or Pro death ( abortionists use the term proabortion because pro death sounds bad and they loose support, but call it what it is........Pro death)
Man changes moral codes to suit himself at the expense of others.
What if YOUR mother thought you were not needed?
2006-10-26 08:54:06 · answer #9 · answered by kenny p 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the child were already born would you consider killing that child? No, that would be murder. Just because it is inside the womb doesn't mean it is not a living person. It is still murder. My great grandmother is 90 years old. She has ostioperosis and is in pain most of the time. It would not be right to kill her so she doesn't have to suffer anymore. Nor would it be right to kill an unborn child so that it doesn't have to suffer. It is our job to do all we can to ease peoples sufferings while they are living. It is God's job to decide when it is their time to die.
2006-10-26 08:49:30 · answer #10 · answered by Stanbo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋