What about the extreme case where a pregnancy is going to be born still born, and the risk exists that if the mother has the birth, it will prevent her from having future children.
President Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in his Administration standing with him were 3 mothers, 2 Christians, 1 Jewish woman, who had this procedure because the baby was going to be born still born and it would have rendered their reproductive system inoperable if they continued to full term.
Having the abortion protected their ability for further offspring, a real baby that would be born.
---
Is that abortion murder?
Wouldn't those abortions instead be pro-life, since those mothers are then able to have children going forward?
2007-07-03 03:27:53 · 14 answers · asked by ? 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
when a fetus is fatally ill, a woman deserves to have the choice to end suffering.
2007-07-03 07:32:52 · answer #1 · answered by GothicLady 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Knowing that somebody is going to die soon, say soon after birth or right before birth, is not the same as MAKING somebody die. An abortion actively ends the life of the human being in the womb. There is never any reason for this to be done. In the cases you cited, a c-section could be done and is actually a safer procedure than the partial-birth abortion, which is a forced breech. EVERYbody knows that breech births are dangerous -- that's why doctors and insurance companies refuse to allow natural breech deliveries.
So, as long as there is a life-protecting alternative to abortion (and I have only found one medical condition that has none, which is eptopic pregnancy), I believe that that alternative should be employed.
2007-07-03 10:47:43 · answer #2 · answered by sparki777 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If a child is going to be born "still born", there would be absolutely no reason to perform a partial birth abortion. It can only be done to babies that are still alive when they begin to emerge from the womb. If the child is "still born", by definition it is already dead before the birthing process begins. There would be no reason to terminate an already dead baby. Duh!!!
Removing a dead baby from a woman's womb is neither murder nor an abortion. It is not defined morally, medically, or legally as an abortion. If abortions were outlawed, it would still be legal to perform. No religion I know of has any objection to the process of removing an already dead baby from a woman's womb.
As to the real issue being raised in your question...
Would the aborting of one existing child be justified if it meant that other future children might live?
But that logics, I should starve my current child to death so that I am assured to have food to feed a future child - should I have one. Not a very logical argument for murder.
I am always saddened when somebody tries to justify murdering a person by claiming it would be pro-life. It makes me realize just how blind some of them really are.
2007-07-03 10:43:12 · answer #3 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I couldn't agree more! The Supreme Court has become a right wing joke.
ATTN SUMMER - The justices “refused to invalidate the 2003 law even though it lacks an exception for cases posing a risk to the mother’s health. The court also rejected claims that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is so vaguely worded it would force doctors to forgo a commonly used, constitutionally protected abortion technique for fear of prosecution. ”
The point the questioner is making is the timing of the abortion.
2007-07-03 10:32:22 · answer #4 · answered by TriciaG28 (Bean na h-Éireann) 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
abortion is different than miscarriage. Abortion is done on purpose and a miscarriage cannot be controled. As far as a baby going to be still born. Who decides if that baby will be born dead? If they know for sure the baby will be dead is one thing, but if it is only a guess then I am against aborting it. That is still a baby in the womb, just by calling it a fetus (Baby in Latin)makes it no less a baby.
2007-07-04 09:19:49 · answer #5 · answered by wordoflifeb216 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the baby would be still born, then it's already dead.
Isn't murder just a post-birth abortion? I've heard many a mother say "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!" ... should they be allowed to?
2007-07-03 10:54:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
In this case, it is difference from the one people carried out in case of an unwanted pregnancy due to one factor or the other, but this one is not an intentional deeds, the life of the mother is at risks, and precise the baby is already dead in the womb, the life of the mother needs to be saved.
Is not abortion murder, because one life is at risk
2007-07-03 10:39:47 · answer #7 · answered by onoscity 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
According to conservatives it is better that the mother die or the fetus be thrown in the garbage, than abort to save the mother's life or use the discarded fetus for stem cell research.
2007-07-03 10:31:28 · answer #8 · answered by Rothwyn 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Im sorry, I like you but Im too lazy to read all that so i skimmed it
I think abortions are ok when the mothers life is in danger, and when the mother was rapped. In that case... hm.... I would say maybe i need to think (most likely i would say its okay)
2007-07-03 10:32:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the child is already dead and is going to be born dead (stillborn), then where's the abortion? You're not killing anyone if they are already dead. Are you sure this ban includes stillbirths?
That doesn't make sense.
I'm pro-choice, in case anyone is wondering.
2007-07-03 10:33:15 · answer #10 · answered by Julia Sugarbaker 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Those kind of abortions are not against the law under that act as for as I know.
2007-07-03 10:30:58 · answer #11 · answered by Summer B 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋