 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 A simple and logical "compromise": |
Aaron Scott |
Indeed, we want ALL abortion gone. But there are at least two rare areas where I feel that we have to indeed allow the woman to choose.
But first, here's the logical compromise: If a woman consents to having sex, then that should mean that she is disqualified from consenting to having her child aborted.
If she did NOT consent to sex, then there MUST be a police report filed, a rape kit administered, etc. (Incest may require something different, since the dynamics are different.)
Yes, I know that a child is precious regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception. I'm simply saying that in this case, even though I have a position on the matter, there is such trauma involved that IF a mother decides to abort, then it might be that it would be permitted.
The other instance is if it is CLEAR that a child will be born with some terrible and painful disease that will make for a short and brutal life, then, in an act of mercy, we permit a mother to make such a decision. The reason we should be able to allow this is because it is not being done for simple convenience, but rather for the purpose of sparing a child needless suffering.
Neither of these exceptions are fully pleasing to us who are pro-life, but since they are rare, and since there is an element of mercy in each (mercy to the victim and to a child who would needlessly suffer, etc.), perhaps it should have our acceptance.
It seems to me that a "no abortion no matter what" take, if we are consistent, means that EVEN if the life of the mother is endangered, we shouldn't permit an abortion. And yet, because there is mercy intended in such an exception, we typically allow for it.
To have no exceptions may be just as extreme in our direction as "no restrictions at all" is the extreme in the other direction. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/8/19 12:42 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: A simple and logical "compromise": |
Dave Dorsey |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Yes, I know that a child is precious regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception |
I'm sorry Aaron, but just based on your clear words, that doesn't seem to be the case.
There's no doubt this is a horrible situation. There is no limit to the amount of social welfare I would support giving to a woman who was being asked or compelled to carry a child that was conceived that way. But if we are pro life, I do not see how we can justify creating another victim in a case like this. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/8/19 1:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
Aaron, sorry you are using the same argument that got us from "legal safe and rare" to kill them if they are accidentally delivered alive. The "life of the mother" argument might be valid, but it is rare these days and a negligible percentage of abortions.
The deformity argument is not valid as it is used to justify everything from hair-lip to down syndrome. Many, many children whom their doctors recommended be aborted have been born and lived lives that mattered (and even that word has a bad taste in my mouth for who are we to decide if a life matters or not) |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
2/8/19 2:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Uncle JD.... |
Aaron Scott |
| UncleJD wrote: | Aaron, sorry you are using the same argument that got us from "legal safe and rare" to kill them if they are accidentally delivered alive. The "life of the mother" argument might be valid, but it is rare these days and a negligible percentage of abortions.
Just one question, Uncle JD: Do you believe in an exception to abortion if the life of the mother is imperiled?
If so, welcome to my side of the argument. If not, then at least you are being consistent--namely, no abortion, no matter what the circumstances. No matter if the mother will die (and, for that case, the child will die with her). No abortion even if the child will live for three weeks and spend every moment in utter agony. Just wanting to be clear on what you might be opting for.
You are, however, exactly right about there is a "slippery slope" issue in my position. However, even though I am well aware of the argument against it, I am not sure that I could ask a woman who was savagely abused to carry the product of that hateful abuse for nine months, to be reminded every minute of all that has befallen her. Again, I know the arguments against it, but this seems like one of those situations that is so fraught with moral peril in either direction that it almost has to be judgment call by the person who will endure the crushing pain. I don't like it--but there is no good option on this one, I don't think. HOWEVER, perhaps some sort of "award" by the government--e.g., they will put the child up for adoption, will grant a substantial award to the woman who carried the child to term, etc.--might be a possible answer. EXCEPT, then you might be getting a lot of gaming--women claiming they were raped, all so they can get the same award.
The deformity argument is not valid as it is used to justify everything from hair-lip to down syndrome. Many, many children whom their doctors recommended be aborted have been born and lived lives that mattered (and even that word has a bad taste in my mouth for who are we to decide if a life matters or not)
That is why I didn't make an argument regarding deformity. Or Down Syndrome, etc. I was only speaking of instances where it would be pretty much beyond argument that the child would suffer immensely and would live a very short life...in nothing but agony. We know that people can claim that any issue a child has should be justification for abortion. But if it is truly a MERCIFUL decision, then perhaps in such cases, we have to allow for some measure of mercy.
|
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/8/19 5:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
Speaking as a woman...everything I know/read about abortion, most women suffer a lot of emotional/psychological problems after an abortion (unless they are of the radical "I'm proud I had an abortion" type.) Having an abortion solves the immediate problem, but often leaves women with emotional baggage they spend the rest of their lives getting over...a sorrow and regret they will live with the rest of their lives.
Most women I've read/heard of who were advised to have an abortion and didn't, had the baby & were perfectly fine (and the baby was fine.) A former pastor's wife shared with me how the doctors said her life was in danger and strongly advised her to get an abortion. Her (pastor) husband agreed. She flatly refused, saying she was willing to give her life for the child's if necessary. The child was born without problems, and the mother was fine afterwards. In fact, she astounded the doctors and later had another child. And is still alive today, in her 70s! I've read several instances on FB where the doctors gave all sorts of terrible diagnoses for the child & advised the mother to have an abortion. Many of the children were born without the predicted problems. Most women that are mothers would give their lives without question for the sake of their child.
And according to what's going around on Facebook, I've seen several doctors say there is never a reason to save the mother's life late in pregnancy. The solution isn't an abortion - it's to deliver the child.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
2/8/19 7:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Uncle JD.... |
UncleJD |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Just one question, Uncle JD: Do you believe in an exception to abortion if the life of the mother is imperiled? |
That's a difficult one as presented, but I assume you mean when the life of ONLY the mother is in jeopardy, but the baby would live. Since I can't conceive of a situation where that is the case but they could somehow smash the brains of the baby and magically save the mothers' life, then I say "no". But if it could be proven that the mother would die and the baby would live I think, as a believer, we should go with God's providence on that one. In fact the only cases I've heard of personally with people I've known, the mother ALWAYS chose to take the risk of her own death so that her child would live (in fact, someone pretty close to me at the time lost her mother who refused chemo having found out she was pregnant, she died a few weeks after the baby was born). But with that situation, I don't think abortion was necessary, the chemo would probably have killed the baby, but its not quite the same as abortion, though the outcome would be the same.
Most of the scenarios I've heard of are with things like tubal pregnancies where the baby is not viable at all and it is indeed endangering the mothers' life (as well as the guaranteed death of the child), in that case I'd agree with whatever procedure is necessary to save the mother (remember the baby has zero chance). |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
2/9/19 11:48 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
