Aborting when life at risk
 

Some people say abortion is ok if the mother is at serious risk. Do you agree that abortion is ok if the mother is at risk of a heavy side effect (not dying) of carrying the baby or only when it is a matter of life and death?

And even then, shouldn't they just go ahead and have the baby and put their trust in God?

I promised to forsake all others for my bride. So for me, the answer is simple. If anyone, even my own unborn fetus/child threatens my wife, they lose.

Obviously it depends what the mother wants; some would rather die giving birth than have an abortion. I support the choice to have an abortion though, because the child has no social ties yet, and there would be a chance of a sort of "dark cloud" hanging over the child's head, should the mother die at birth (ie. YOU KILLED YOUR MOTHER kind of a thing).

"and put their trust in God?" What is that supposed to mean? It's asinine, since anything that happens is "God's will" well then getting an abortion is trusting God too. Therefore that statement is meaningless, and annoying. Stop using it please.

"If anyone, even my own unborn fetus/child threatens my wife, they lose." I like that (not the threat of violence, just the compassion/love it seems I hear, it sounds like something I'd say), I wish you well in your marriage.

"11- Give a sweet sacrifice, and a memorial of fine flour, and make a fat offering,
and then give place to the physician. *********
******* 12- For the Lord created him: and let him not depart from thee, for his works are necessary.
******* 13- For there is a time when thou must fall into their hands:
"

That's Sirach 38...

" Jesus responded, "The Scriptures also say, `Do not test the Lord your God.' "

Luke 4

We have not been given the miracles of modern medical treatment so that we might dispise them.

"put their trust in God?"

Why not put her trust in the sun? It's just as likely to save her life as a non-existent invisible man. At least she can see the sun.

I'd say got to agree with all of the people that have posted so far. Abortion if someone elses life is at risk is surely the only solution. How would you feel if you grew up knowing that your mother died just so she could give birth to you. It's different if it just happened. Self preservation is the ultimate human instinct.

I figure if you can practically grow a baby in a test tube now. Women give birth to kids that are several months premature now. I say if you can save the kid, take it out and save the kid. But there's no reason to lose two lives when you can at least save one.
As long as you try to save the kid there shouldn't be any problems with removing it.

To go along with everyone else it would suck if every year on your birthday you had to go visit your mom's funeraly. Thats just a recipe for suicide.

I see no reason why the child's life is worth less than the mother's. Put me down for the child.

I'm just saying that some people say that, my sister for example. She got pregnant and had complications because of it. All the doctors told her she would most likely die if she went through and had the baby. Well, she is very religious and said that that would be impossible and that she knows God will look after her. She had the baby and didn't die. She is strongly opposed to abortion, even if it meant she could die.

I'm okay with abortion's legality when the life of the mother is at risk. Self-defense.

Opposed in all other circumstances.

I think it should be the mother's choice. It's her body.

This doesn't make any sense; if they are both lives hold equal value how do we choose one over the other?

It makes perfect sense. I never mentioned the mother's life being equal to the child's, for one. I suppose if you do consider them both equal, then make a random choice. Flip a coin or roll a die.

Alright, then how we determine that the child's life is worth more?

It probably depends on what you mean by "worth."
<sarcasm>

Economic value:
The fetus is probably worth some money in that its stem cells could be harvested and sold. I don't know the going rate for this, but I heard somewhere that it's around $200-300 for the whole thing.

The mother's body may be worth more. If selling organs were permitted, all her organs could certainly be sold off for several times the value of the fetus' undeveloped tissue. I mean if you harvested everything you could, lungs, heart, corneas, marrow, kidneys, liver, you could probably get quite a bit of money.

Productivity value:
Assuming the mother is an average woman of child bearing age with rudimentary education, she could probably find work somewhere, if nothing else then as a prostitute.

The fetus requires at least a dozen years of care and investment before it can be relied on to produce or contribute anything.

Moral value:
Well, any woman contemplating abortion is clearly an evil sinner, probably not even married. She probably deserves to die for being such a heathen.

However, the fetus is steeped in that original sin stuff isn't it? Since the mother would die, the child would be raised an orphan, and you know how those kids turn out. Perhaps it would be best if both the child and mother died during the delivery?
</sarcasm>

It's the mother's choice. If she wants to do it for any reason, or no reason at all, have at it!

Ask the mother what she wants, ask the foetus what it wants. Whoever provides the best answer gets to choose. Mother might well choose to die (my Great-Granny for one did) on behalf of her unborn child.

Whatever anyone decides, there is always going to be something in the Bible that someone interprets as someone doing something wrong (whether it's self harm, suicide or abortion) - In fact, this isn't biblical, is a problem with the concept of morality as a whole - as soon as morals (or rights, or laws, or whatever you want to call them) start to overlap, it looks to me like proof that they were poorly thought-up in the first place.

Can't anyone understand that there is no such thing as right and wrong?

Why not look at the situation compassionately, this poor mother-to-be has to make the most difficult decision of her entire life, one that will effect everyone she knows, and here are you guys getting ready to point the finger and say she did something morally wrong!

For f@cksakes - this sort of discussion really pisses me off.

Is there something...wrong with pointing the finger?

Nah, couldn't be. No such thing as right and wrong.

Doh! OK, yes you spotted my deliberate mistake - the difference (if there is one) is that we are reasonably comfortable people typing our thoughts about distant topics on screen, while our mother-to/not-to be is going to have to choose between her own life and that of her unborn child.

and after thinking about it for a moment. Right and wrong, being morally charged words are different from my point which is to illustrate the lack of compassion within this discussion.

The fact that it annoys me doesn't make it right or wrong, but it does annoy me.

and it seems to show a lack of understanding and a certain level of missing the point. Both of which are certainly not moral issues at all, but are instead matters of correctness when considering questions such as these.

In some situations, if the mother dies, so does the fetus, Obviously, abortion is the answer here. Ectopic pregnancies are a great example of that. if you do no abort the fetus,the mother WILL DIE, and the fetus will too. Here, no one has a choice. the fetus must be terminated. If the choice, however is a viable fetus, or mother then, that is something she should have the right to decide. I personally cant tell her what to do, even though I feel that protection of the mother is the ultimate goal.

I'm curious to see why almost all people here value the life of the mother over the child. Is social conditioning at work here?

I disagree on both points...but it doesn't matter. Because there's nothing wrong with lacking understanding, there's nothing wrong with missing the point, there's nothing wrong with persisting in incorrect beliefs, and oh, there's nothing wrong with forcing a pregnant woman to carry her child to term. Right and wrong are just words, after all.

Maybe those things annoy you. Oh well. Modern country music annoys me, but it ain't gonna go away.

My overall point being this: invoking moral relativism in an attempt to argue against restricting or banning abortion doesn't work. Even if moral relativism is true.

fwiw, I don't.

FoolThemAll, I'm not invoking moral relativism (but I do happen to believe, as you appear to, that it's true), and I'm not arguing for or against restricting or banning abortion - what I am trying to point out is that it is an issue to be dealt with compassion, and attempts at rationally determining the value of one life over another, in an attempt to deem who should survive and who should die in order to suit some moral code appear to lack that compassion.

But I guess I've right-and-wronged my way out of the argument already now haven't I?

Let me try and re-phrase my point:
No matter what decision anyone takes, it's going to be a horrible, terrible, difficult decision to make, and the results are going to be long, and far reaching. Trying to further compound the issue by imposing a tag of right or wrong really isn't going to help anyone. Further, it will make the decision harder, more painfull and more difficult to make. It appears to me to serve no purpose other than to inflict pain on already stricken individuals.

Actually, I don't believe in moral relativism. Sorry if I caused confusion, I was simply approaching it from a moral relativism perspective for purposes of the debate.

Strictly speaking, I agree. Merely attaching 'wrong' to the act doesn't do much, outside of possibly effective peer pressure. Judgment without the subsequent offer of a helping hand is rarely helpful. Words need action to back them up. For my view, pro-life counseling services, personal support, and voting that reflects a anti-abortion outlook all fit the bill.

All value of life aside: Isn't there a self-defense issue here? FoolThemAll brought it up, but didn't expand on it.
If a man was coming at you with a knife with the intention of killing you, would you be justified in shooting him (dead if need be)?
So if the person who is going to kill you happens to be living inside your belly, aren't you still justified? Even if it's less immediate, the death threat may be no less certain.