I would like to her from Pro-Lifers about this...Is it possible to be MOSTLY Pro-Life?

Question

I call myself Pro-Life. I detest the idea of abortion for many reasons. I find it totally repugnant.

However, there would probably be some extreme circumstances where I would approve of an abortion - such as when the pregnency would threaten the life of the mother. Or, if the fetus would be so totally damaged that it would have little or no chance at life at all.

I am against abortion as a form of birth control.

I don''t think that a pregnency should be terminated just because an unborn child is found to have some problem or defect that can be dealt with medically.

In an ideal world there would be no need for abortions, because all children and all mothers would be well taken care of. Of course, this is not the case and may never be. But I am still against abortion in the vast, vast majority of cases. Only in rare circumstances would I be okay with it.

Having heard that, would you still call me Pro-Life. Or do I have to be against ALL abortions no matter what??

Answer 1

I am pro-life no matter what. Even if the doctor said the mother's life was in danger, it is in God's hands. He can perform miracles. If the mother died, there is a reason. There is a reason for everything He does.
Same with babies who are mentally or physically handicapped. God has a purpose for them. I know many parents who have special children, and they are so blessed to have these special angels.
I have also heard of cases where the doctors said the child will be mentally or physically handicapped, and the child is born perfect.

when it comes down to is, God is always in control. that's why we pray, in Your will, Lord, not mine.

Answer 2

You and I certainly agree that the only way to make abortions unnecessary would be to provide more support for mothers and children. Currently, our society has a great deal of animosity for both groups, so that dream may be a long way of being fulfilled, but we should do all we can to make it so.

I would say you are pro-life but you hold some contradictory views. In particular, you state that you don't think a pregnancy should be terminated "just because an unborn child is found to have some problem or defect that can be dealt with medically." I assume, therefore, that you mean you have no prejudice against people who are physically handicapped. But you apparently have drawn an arbitrary line as to the extent of that handicap. You're perfectly okay with aborting a child who is only going to live a few hours or something.

The reason I find this contradictory is that nobody knows exactly how long a baby will live. They could die from SIDS at a few days or weeks or months of age, but you wouldn't know that in advance. And babies who seem perfectly healthy in every way do die of SIDS. Or a baby could be killed in a car accident on the way home from the hospital. Or die in a house fire or die from carbon monoxide poisoning.

I daresay you would not take a position that the baby who dies from SIDS or some horrible accident at just a few days or weeks or months old was unworthy of life. Would you? So why do you discriminate the child who has a severe brain deformity that will mean their certain death within days or weeks or months?

Frankly, were I pregnant with a child who would surely die after birth, I would want to be pregnant as long as possible to give that child as much love and safety as I can via my womb. I would want that child's life -- and death -- to be as perfect as possible. I would not want to be the person who issued that child's death warrant at an earlier time. What is the point? I still wind up the mother of a dead baby either way. Why would anybody think that it's somehow more comforting to a mother to choose when that baby dies? It only adds something else to the mixture of grief that she feels.

The only other thing I would caution you on is your "life of the mother" position. Downs Syndrome babies are routinely aborted in the U.S. and Europe because their existence compromises "the life of the mother." Laws are written with such broad strokes, any perceived hardship to the mother "counts" as freedom to have their babies killed. It is, unfortunately a very slippery slope and we pro-life people must be very definite about what it entails. In my definition, it is only when death is imminent and both mother and child will die, such as a tubal pregnancy. In all other cases, my recommendation is getting the best medical help possible to carry the child as long as possible until a C-section can be done to save both mother and child. In 99% of the cases in which a mother's life is threatened, this is possible.

Also, the other issue that is typically a point of contention is rape/incest. What is your position there?

Answer 3

Okay, someone asked something similar a few weeks back and I got best answer. Here it is word for word:

We can go around and around here. There are both pros and cons against abortion. I think the reason against abortion is obvious and that being said, there are many reasons why, even though it's not the preferred choice someone enjoys making, in some cases, abortion is the best decison to make of a bad situation.
Because of this, it's important that every female who finds herself pregnant be allowed to MAKE UP HER OWN MIND ABOUT THIS TOPIC FOR WHAT IS BEST FOR HER - thus, pro-choice is the best answer. I am pro-choice, but choose anti-abortion for ME. I hate it when some right wingers think that just because you are pro-choice it means you are pro- abortion, it's NOT THE SAME THING! I'm not going to be pompous enough to dictate what I think is right for someone else!

Another thing to add, take what you will from this - it's a weird side effect of the Wade vs. Roe abortion law. In the 1970's crime was at an all time high after being on the rise for years. However, in the late 80's the crime rate suddenly started drastically falling and kept falling until the mid 90's where it leveled out. The reason for this? Many of the women who have abortions are poor, uneducated unmarried women, often on welfare who live in govenment housing, situations that don't necessarily MEAN a person will be a bad mother, but statistics show are most likely to raise a child that will fall into a life of drugs or crime. The reason the crime rate went down so suddenly in the 80's and 90's is that the thousands of the babys who were aborted who would have been 16 - 20 (Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973) and doing crime on the streets weren't in existence. A lot of people don't want to mention this side affect of abortion, but it's totally true - it's all in the book "Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt.

Answer 4

I would consider that pro-life, as that is my same point of view, there are rare cases in which I would agree with an abortion, but those are few and far between. Although I do not personally agree with them, I would not go so far as to ban then from the public, as this would have its own problems. Anyone determined to have an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy, would find a way to have one, even at the risk of their own life. If people are that determined, I feel there should be safe means to have one, but there should still be limits.

Answer 5

The term "pro-life" is purely a political idea, and as such, you run afoul of the political police if you dare think for yourself about the issue.

Make no mistake, abortion as is generally practiced today is murder. The idea that killing your baby is a socially-acceptable means of covering up your sin of immorality is repulsive to any normal, well-adjusted person. Two wrongs do not under any circumstances make a right.

The abortion debate does not belong in the political arena; however, a person's stance on the issue is generally a good barometer of where they stand on a myriad of other political questions (e.g., those believing in a woman's right to kill her baby invariably also lean hard left, hate Bush, are against the war, etc.).

Take politics out of abortion and you're left with the ability to rationally discuss whether a mother's life should be forfeit should she be forced to carry her child to term. Obviously the answer in such a case is for the woman's doctor to take the necessary steps to insure that at least one of the patients survives under his care. Other special cases can also be addressed as needed, again in consultation with the family physician.

I am not pro-life, but I hope you don't mind me answering your question anyway.

Answer 6

I call myself pro-life and feel the same as you do. If the mother's life as in danger, I would "approve" an abortion. If the mother's life is in danger, the baby's would be also. Why not try to save at least one of them, right??

No, you don't have to be against all abortions to be pro-life. The exceptions you speak of are understandable.

Answer 7

Only a very small minority of Pro-Choice people are against abortion to save the mother.

Generally being pro-choice means just that, that one is against a woman making a personal choice to end the life of an unborn child out of convenience.

Abstinence and Safe Sex are the cures; no abortions would happen if unwanted pregnancies never occurred.

Answer 8

Good question. And I agree with you 100%. I am pro-life but also agree that in times of raped/incest/mother's health, then an abortion is ok. If my daughter was raped and conceived from this, there is no way I would encourage her to carry a baby to term. She is 11 and small and why put her through that. Or me. What if I'm raped and conceive? I hope it is a bridge I never have to cross.

BTW...Mitt Romney feels the same way we do. That is one of the many reasons I like him.

Answer 9

it particularly is a difficulty-unfastened question right here, and incredibly plenty around the board you will get solutions asserting that an unborn toddler is harmless, jointly as a dying row inmate has finished something to "deserve" dying. although, now and lower back the criminal equipment gets it incorrect. interior the final 30 years interior the U.S. on my own, over a hundred human beings have been released from dying row because of the fact they have been exonerated by utilising DNA evidence. those are people who have been chanced on responsible "previous a real looking doubt." regrettably, DNA evidence isn't obtainable in maximum circumstances. So, as long because of the fact the dying penalty is in place, you're incredibly plenty absolute to often execute an harmless individual. How can anybody be comfortable with that?

Answer 10

You and only you will be held accountable for your decisions while on the earth. It's really up to you as to what you support. Prayer will help you decide!

For me personally, there is NEVER a reason for an abortion, but that's me... I also have decided that I will die before taking another's life in self-defense. That's another personal decision that is on the fringe. Most people would say that is not murder, but I don't want to take any chances.

Everything we do on this earth, from an eternal perspective, is between that person and the Lord...

Answer 11

You are under the misconception that most people who are pro-choice support the idea of abortion being used as birth control.
There are plenty of people who say that they are pro-life who share the same views (and also many change after circumstances change in their own life)