All my pregnancies risked my life and abortion was never considered?

Question

My opinion is that any "mother" who chooses herself above her children is selfish and irresponsible. If you are unable to assume the risks of parenthood you have no business getting pregnant. If you do get pregnant when contraceptives fail- you should assume any risks associated with having the baby as EVERYONE knows no contraceptive is 100% effective.

Your opinions?

One time I even picked out my husband's "future wife." Praise the Lord I am here with my babies.

Thanks COca-COla- looks like GOd has taken care of that. Unfortunately, now I can't get pregnant no matter how hard we try. My arms are aching for another littel one to hold.

Tanja- there isn't a long line of birth mothers or agencies wanting to give babies to a woman with lupus.

Answer 1

For one thing, if the mother in question has other children, then she is not putting "herself above her children". By allowing herself to die, she is putting that one unborn child above her entire FAMILY.

Why doesn't anybody consider the children already born? Don't they need a mother to nurture, care for them, and give them the benefit of their wisdom??? Isn't that God's purpose for motherhood? I refuse to believe that God created women to solely be used as a baby-making mechanism.

Answer 2

For the most part I agree with you, however, I feel that there are some cases where the mother (and hopefully father) need to have the option of exploring alternative methods. For example, if the mother's life is in danger and it's her first time being pregnant and so she didn't know that maybe she shouldn't have kids. Or if the child's life is in danger - I don't know if this is even possible, but if say the blood types of the parents aren't compatable with having children and yet a child is concieved but the doctors know that prior to a safe time to take the baby the baby will die, then maybe that would be a good example of when an abortion would be permissable, as the child would not make it anyway. But save a very few circumstances I think the child should be carried to term then at the very least given up for adoption if the parents do not want to assume responsibility for it.


EDIT: Perhaps you should adopt.

Answer 3

IMHO--

As a general rule, I don't support abortion. Granted, I understand that it's a woman's right to choose whether to endure 8 months of discomfort, disfigurement, and pain.

At the same time...
Abortions happen for a multitude of reasons. Mom and Dad aren't willing to allow their teenaged daughter's pregnancy to continue. A pregnant woman's health- reasons abound. Sometimes the fetal development... well, lets just say that it doesn't always go according to plan, and organs don't develop right.


In a case like this, where a medically fragile woman conceives, despite the use of contraceptives, she's done what she can, short of abstinance.

If she's married, is she supposed to deprive herself of her husband's love? Would you really expect a married man to abstain?

If she's not married, so what? (Ok, so I admit, I don't feel that sex outside the bonds of marriage is a good thing...) She has still done what she could- She went to the doctor, got a contraceptive and used it.





Human touch is healing. A loving touch can reduce elevated blood pressure, calm a troubled mind, reduce stress hormones, increase calming hormones.... Why would anyone want to deprive a medically fragile woman of these benefits?


I will not tell another how to live their lives, but as for me and my house.... Abortion is way too complex an issue to make very many blanket statements regarding future decisions.

Answer 4

Wouldn't it be best for the babies that I already have to have me not die versus getting a new sibling?

I've been through this in my last pregnancy. I didn't abort, even though I was strongly encouraged to (by an LDS doctor). The only reason I didn't was because I received an answer to a prayer that was very clear. But if I ever were to get pregnant again, it is almost certain that it would cost me my life, and without the same spiritual conclusion, I have to say that I would abort. I have three small children at home. What about my responsibility to them?

Answer 5

I agree with you in most cases. I don't think I could ever kill my baby to save myself. Also I have known women who were told that they would die if they carry their babies to term and they chose to carry the life of the baby and they were just fine. We have technology that makes it very very rare for a mother to die in child birth. Most times if there is any risk at all, they take the baby c-section and there is nothing wrong with that.

There are some very very rare cases where the surviving children would be left without parents. In that case, I say that the mother should have options, but should never ever go off the opinion just one doctor. She should have to have several opinions before making that decision.

I don't know how I could ever make that decision myself though. I would have to be convinced my children would go into state custody and that there was no chance that I would survive- but there would have to be no other options.

Answer 6

i visit seize Hell from another professional-lifers for this, yet I have not any subject with the tablet and the IUD. Implantation is in all probability a greater efficient attempt for the beginning up of existence than the 2nd of concept. it relatively is unquestionably greater efficient in my suggestions to evade a being pregnant in the 1st place than to abort it later. it relatively is many times the Catholic faction of the pro-existence circulate that gadgets to delivery administration maximum Protestants i understand do no longer seem to look at it this way. whilst i grew to become into married, we used the tablet whem we dadn't choose infants and it labored out fairly properly. i'm very pleased with the two youngsters we had, yet a third could have placed a financial and a spiritual burden ob an already crumbling marriage. Abstinence is one hundred% efficient whilst practiced, yet i'm no longer laboring under the phantasm that it relatively is practiced lots in at present's society. (Or the former day's society for that rely.) by making use of all potential, prepare present day delivery administration. it relatively is unquestionably greater efficient than abortion. God bless.

Answer 7

That is your life and you have every right to assume that position. But you don't have any right to assume that position for anyone else. As for choosing... what if she's a single mother, no family and it's her 3rd pregnancy? Is it selfish to want to be there for the children she already has? Come on... you are placing everyone woman in your own situation, which is hardly the case at all.

As for picking out your husbands future wife... that's just plain weird. What if he decided to pick someone else? And that woman had an abortion?

Answer 8

If you're told that there's a 99.8% chance that you and your fetus will die while you try to birth it because of an illness you have I'd say that, pro life or not, it's pretty darn acceptable to terminate the pregnancy. No need in killing yourself for something that is likely not going to happen anyway.

Oh yeah, don't believe in abortions? Don't have one. It's pretty simple. You shouldn't feel the need to push your opinions on an entire nation. Freedom to do what you want with your body is a good thing.

Answer 9

You're being selfish and irresponsible if you knowingly have high-risk pregnancies and continue to conceive children. Where does that leave the security and well-being of the children that are already born? What happens to their childhoods if their mother dies in labor? Also, abortion can easily be avoided if one of the parents gets "fixed". What you've described is just plain reckless.

Answer 10

You are not always choosing yourself, what if you have other children? Are you going to risk dying and leaving 2 or 3 children without a mother to try and stay pregnant with a baby that probably wont make it?