English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

OK, so I just watched a show that brought me back to this topic, yet again. Let me ask this: Could any of you out there (pro-life) support a law that would make abortion illegal except for extreme situations? Mainly serious health risks to the mother? Rape? Incest? If these were the ONLY situations for which a woman could have an abortion, would you be OK with it? Could you allow for abortion in these situations, if it was what the woman wanted(not forced, of course)?

2006-12-23 18:03:36 · 26 answers · asked by Amanda D 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Thank you for your answers so far. I am pro-choice, for the record. I also realize that a law like this would be almost impossible to enforce. Mainly I am just trying to see how pro-lifers view these situations, even though they are very rare.

2006-12-23 18:16:55 · update #1

I honestly have a friend who has a heart condition brought on my her second pregnancy. She WILL die if she has to carry another baby to term. She is on birth control (married, not sleeping around), what if her birth control fails? You would comdemn her to die? Do any of us have a right to do that? Putting abortion for birth control aside, do ANY of us have a right to force a woman to die?

If he's there, God knows all, he knows exactly which souls will be returned to him by means of an abortion. Do you really think he'd give you your next religious leader only to be returned before birth?

2006-12-23 18:24:59 · update #2

26 answers

sorry, i am pro choice all of the way.

as a man it is not my right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

outlaw abortion and soon it will be IUD's and then birth control in general.

the only way to stop this ball is before it satrts rolling.

2006-12-23 18:08:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

There is no right answer to this. When you support an abortion for a baby who poses a serious health risk to the mother, you are still ranking one life over another. The same is true in cases of rape or incest. You are ranking the emotional/psychological well being of the living people over the baby who will live if given the chance.

So, if you are truly pro-life, then you support only the decisions in situations which will preserve the most life. The only time this would apply is if both the mother and the baby were going to die if a labor were allowed to continue. If the choice is whether to let the mother or child survive, how could one possibly choose? The baby is un-proven, but may prove to be a major world figure. Or the baby may turn out to be a burden on society and a criminal. No one can know! That is why this debate rages on, because the answers are unknown to everybody involved.

2006-12-23 18:24:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I will just say I agree with the Mormon position on abortion, and add that I think Mother Theresa had some great quotes about the subject while she was alive. Basically, Mormons believe that abortion should be restricted to those rare cases you mentioned, and even then the mother might want to pray about other options like adoption and counsel with more than one person, especially someone like a bishop. My mom once said that abortion is a sin against life. In my opinion it is not outright murder, but the way it is used by too many makes it much like a decision related to the way murder is committed. I would lean toward allowing abortion in those rare cases you described in the very first trimester, and not later than that (because I have seen "The Silent Scream.") I would agree with you that God knows how the spirits of those children are coming and going, but the ideal is that they should come to a two-parent home, at the right time, in the bonds of holy matrimony. Yet I suspect He also knows that people have forgotten what the law of chastity is, and people make mistakes. In the case of your married friend, it would seem that she would have to exercise extreme caution one way or another.

2006-12-23 18:41:13 · answer #3 · answered by Cookie777 6 · 0 1

No. The sole, single exception I would grant is if the mother would die before she could get the fetus to the age of viability (currently, five months). If the mother dies before the foetus can survive externally, then both are lost, better to save the one as the other is already condemned.

If the mother COULD get the pregnancy to five months, but at the cost of her own life, no, I would not grant the exception. She has lived out some of her life's potential (she's old enough to be pregnant). The foetus still has its full potential. Therefore, the foetus wins.

Raw math hun, raw math. And you can't even accuse me of religious bias -- I'm an atheist.

-----

I'm also against the pill except for situations where the mother's life requires it -- however, I do also believe that it then requires chastity to avoid the creation of a life that will be passed at the next period, or at least reasonable use of barrier methods (condoms).

The only form of birth control that is ethically allowable are the barrier methods. Hormonal methods that prevent the release of an egg from the ovaries would also be acceptable, as this would prevent fertilization as well.

However, if there is the possibility of egg and sperm joining, and the woman is on the pills, it is not morally acceptable. She knows she will terminate the life of any fertilized egg right on schedule. In essence, she would morally be culpable for murder.

SO... back to your friend. THe control somehow fails, she's pregnant. If she can survive to five months, yes, she is morally required to carry the baby, though an emergency ceasarian at the age of viability would be morally permissible. If it would cost her her life, but she could bring it to viability, then yes she is morally required to carry the baby. If and ONLY if, she could not even get it to the age of viability, could she morally abort.

2006-12-23 18:12:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Ok so lets say I say okay and she or you or whom ever and a abortion takes place. How will we ever know if the child God planned for to have was to be the next Billy Graham or the next Mother Teresa? As difficult as these circumstances are. do we not have an obligation to respect life that ultimately comes from a power much greater than ourselves? And I am sure that this easier from me to spend endless syllables because being a man means I will probably never be in a woman's predicament. This issue causes people to fight so vehemently that some even are willing to kill in order to be right. Tell me Satan isn't somewhere laughing about this.

2006-12-23 18:14:48 · answer #5 · answered by JOHN 7 · 0 1

Darling girl. This change you are asking for is not going to happen for a long time, I think. The legal decision is likely to never be overturned, so it will take an act of congress to change it, like an amendment. The key to what we can do today is education. We need everyone to know that adoption is available (and make it easier for people to adopt), and that abortion does not seem to help (people who get abortions are more like to die within a year - though there is a correlation/causation ambiguity it is 3x riskier).

2006-12-23 18:08:01 · answer #6 · answered by BigPappa 5 · 1 1

No i could not support that i feel sorry for woman who get pregnant do to rape or incest but killing the child is not the answer there are millions of familys out there trying to have a baby or waiting to adopt people who are willing to do anything to have that joy in there lifes so if a woman cannot or is not willing to raise her child she can give it up for adoption it is 9 months out of her life that she will have to carry the baby and then she can give it to a loving family that wants it badly

2006-12-23 18:08:05 · answer #7 · answered by Sawyers girl 5 · 2 1

nope. Abortion is wrong in ALL situations! The baby inside of his/her mother's womb is totally innocent! If my life was at risk if I was pregnant I would still choose to go through with the pregnancy, if I were to die because I choose to keep the baby I would end up in Heaven as I'm a child of God. To die is gain!

2006-12-23 18:08:36 · answer #8 · answered by echosparent 5 · 1 1

i have no opinion on this topic, but i just have to say that such a compromise should not be granted by a pro lifer. if you argue that abortion is murder and unnecessary killing and should be illegal on those grounds, what difference does the manner of conception make?
if you were the result of a rape i'm sure you wouldn't want to be aborted. on the other hand there is the opinion of the mother to be considered. anyway, just saying...

2006-12-23 18:10:27 · answer #9 · answered by the_supreme_father 3 · 0 1

I think abortion should be restricted. It should only be allowed in the first trimester or in cases of rape, incest, health risks, etc.
And I know it's easy for all of us to say "It's not the baby's fault the woman was raped, don't punish the child." But we can't know what rape does to a woman's emotional health. And as long as she catches it before the baby can feel anything, what's the harm in aborting it? It's just a cluster of cells at first.
As long as it can't be considered a "baby" yet and as long as it's not just some slut who can't figure out how to work a condom, I'm for abortions.

2006-12-23 18:06:51 · answer #10 · answered by ....... 4 · 2 2

Nope, I would never support making abortion illegal. Too many choices are taken away from us as it is.
I would support further education towards safe sex and birth control.

There are too many humans on the earth as it is anyway, Why don't we try feeding the millions of poverty stricken starving individuals first before we worry about bringing more humans into the world.
This may sound callous, but our precious Gia is dying because of overpopulation of humans and their addictions to fossil fuels.

2006-12-23 18:21:39 · answer #11 · answered by charitus 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers