And that is certainly honerable. But suppose you have 2 other older children. They now will be all alone unable to care for themselves. You said you should ask children how they feel. How do you think your two surviving children feel that their parent is now dead?
Always a hot topic and this decision doesn't only affect the woman, physically yes, but emotionally, its both partners...I don't know the answer, but I do know when you thrust politics into a topic like this, you lose site of the real goal, protecting the mother/unborn child...
B all the way. And I think if you asked anyone of my five children they would tell you without me coaching them the same, They would expect nothing less from me, (they have way too high of view of me, seriously, but I know in my heart I am B) I would lay down my life and should for my children, any one of them. The risk is great in your scenario but I would have no other choice. I am not a hero, strong or brave. I am expressing my heart and thinking of how I have responded in some situations.... I am not always right but I want to be honest, I am trying
Fair enough. I don't know what my answer is. It just depends. It depends on how likely I think I could retreive the baby and it depends how badly I thought I'd get hurt. To me, it is an unanswerable qustion since every life/death situation is different. So would your opinion of somebody else change if they preserved themselves because they made the conscious decision that they would be of more help if they were available for the rest of the family? I guess the pertinant question would be, should we enact a law that put the woman in jail if she said her life and that of her remaining family is more important than the unborn? It is a really really really hard choice and I don't think you can make a blanket rule. Some discretion has to be given to the individuals faced with their own consequences.
No I wouldn't have a negative opinion at all if someone did the A move, and that might be the right thing, that is what I mean by extreme and unlikely examples... they frame issues in ways that don't address more realistic scenarios and we take quick fix bad solutions and try to make them look justifiable. It is like the man who cannot save the entire family in a burning house, he does the best and loving thing based upon an instant of a decision- it is an extreme case that shouldn't be used to determine future actions regarding saving children. A woman who is going to die if she gives birth to a child has two lives to think of... hers and the child. If she has a husband and children then the decision ratchets up because so many lives are deeply affected. Instead of making it legal to abort the child, make it legal to save the mother's life if two separate Doctors agree that their is immenent danger to the mother and the mother chooses. (Just a starting suggestion to move the debate away from 'murder the baby- mother's rights'. ) Then we as a society can work on ways of saving both baby and mother medically when both lives are threatened and we find the extreme scenario that only one can live. If we frame this discussion from the standpoint of saving both lives then medical science and research has a nobel challenge to reach that worthy goal. If we frame the discussion that a mother should be able to kill her baby and that is a 'right'- then we make no progress. We murder children- just because we hide behind - mother could be at risk. By making the abortion illegal except under certain rare conditions and by working on ways to save both lives we take a step towards a solution of life for all. And the debate of partial birth abortion is far from this because in reality it is being used as birth control for unwanted pregnancies. I wouldn't condemn a mother who chose her own life in that extreme life and death example; the self sacrifice of a mother is voluntary- as long as there's absolutely no other solution- baby is born- mother dies. Mom, what are you going to do? The problem is we have framed this issue as a 'right' for a woman to kill the baby and therefore we do NOTHING to protect the baby. Protect the mother and the baby. When there is no other way- that most difficult choice of A or B must be made and hopefully by the family, especially the father and other close family members- but yes, ultimately that decision would be in the mother's hands. Is it murder or self defense? I think the mother should give her life for her child. But I would never enforce that belief upon another person. Neither would I enforce the right for mom to abort on demand upon an unborn baby. Abortion is the worst of eugenics (prejudice and racism toward the poor and less fortunate) and it is the worst of self-gratification (for the leisure and convenience of the rich and well to do). Abortion has touched my own family in a deep and tragic way. I don't hate mother's who don't want their pregnancy. I pray for them.
you act like anyone gives a d*mn about Father's rights As far as the society is concern fathers either paying child support. . or should be paying child support they have NO rights to their children or at best . . . d*mn few Rocket River
I disagree. With >300 million citizens in America, how many of them are involved in an "extreme" case at any given moment about any given topic. Extreme cases happen all the time even though they are statistically improbable given the size of our population. Not bad but if we are talking rare cases in a life threatening situation, getting a second opinion may not be feasible. But nice thought. For most, it will but not always ...at least any time soon. Well, in the context of this topic, the judges struck down the ruling of outlawing 3rd trimester abortions because it made no allowance for medical emergencies of the woman. So we aren't talking about standard abortions ...just extreme cases. Had the drafters of the bill took this approach, 3rd trimester abortions would now be outlawed. But they refused to add language to make exceptions in medical emergencies so the entire law got struck down. This is an intesting topic. I don't necessarily think this. I put a higher premium on the sanctity of marriage than that between parent and child. A husband and wife live a lifetime together whereas a child will grow up and move away. I know many don't hold this opinion, but without a strong marriage an entire family can fall apart and more lives are affected. I think too many mother's care soooo much for their children that their relationship with the father gets sacraficed and I think that is wrong. Without the marriage, there would be no children and couples shouldn't lose focus of that. Okay, this was way off topic.
Muder is unlawful killing of another human being. So by definition abortion is not murder. So why do you choose to say that? It's becuase you think it sounds so powerful, like it means something more than it does. You love the say it sounds. That is how that is small minded. You went off like you don't care about their upbringing, feelings, or capacity of understanding. If you just said "killing", I would totally agree with you. But portraying all women who have or have had abortions as malicious murders is simple-minded and is something that angers me.
because abortionist move the bar Basically they say a fetus ain't human .. it ain't alive therefore it ain't murder Remember less than 150 yrs ago . . black folx were 3/5ths a person and the killing of them was treated like killing someone's cow we were seen as a mere collection of cells. . owned by slaveowners It is easy to justify something .. when all u have to do is RECLASSIFY it as NOT HUMAN Rocket River
Not really. It's ok for a person to kill another in self defense. That is not murder. That is a lawful killing. That killing is accpetable to many people, but not all think it the right action. Some "pacifists" love to call soldiers murderers. It's the same thing.
rhester, another thoughtful post by you, no surprise in that. Here is a post I made in a discussion we had about four years ago on this topic, which was far more emotional than this discussion has been, so far. It directly concerns the situation that leaves you troubled by the "choice." I haven't read every single page of this thread, although I looked at the majority of it. I want to mention something about a real situation... My wife worked with a young woman, who was a brilliant and engaging person, who discovered during her pregnancy that she had a virulent form of cancer. She was very far along, but not far enough to have a premature delivery and have a chance of the fetus surviving. She was told that the only chance to save her was treatment that would be harmful or fatal to the fetus. She chose not to have it. The baby was born several weeks ago and a few weeks later, after getting treatment too late to do any good, the young woman died. My wife was devastated and the funeral was very difficult, as anyone could imagine. Now the husband is left with the baby, but has lost his wife. He is in a state of shock and uncertain how his life, and that of his child, will play out. I'm wondering what choice some of you would have made. I would have chosen trying to save my wife, and if an abortion was necessary, then so be it. Frankly, I don't know if his wife gave him that option. I would like to think she did, but I don't know. I do know one thing... that was a courageous woman. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=67731&page=11&pp=20&highlight=Deckard+abortion+cancer I wonder how that brave young woman's husband is fairing today, as well as the child. I would still have chosen my wife, and her one shot of saving her own life. And like I said in the post, I don't know if the husband was really given a choice in the matter... another "choice" that faces some people in this country, in similar devastating circumstances. My wife was this woman's boss, but had developed a real friendship beyond being a mentor to her, as she was making her way into a bright future in state government. A lot of tears were shed at her funeral. What strikes me about these discussions is how men make broad, simplistic statements about the issue, on both sides. The assumption by some that this is simply a "black and white issue," that it doesn't disturb women to have to make this choice, decidedly not a cavalier one, bothers me a great deal. It is hard, very hard. I'd like to add that Rocketman95 was in D&D back then, and provided some excellent posts, as did B-Bob and others who aren't around as much, or at all, in some cases. basso made some good posts. Mostly, I just read the thread. It went 13 pages. Keep D&D Civil.
I really respect your thoughts, I think I know your heart in this from the little bit of time we've had to visit. I don't know as much about the political stuff going on so I am speaking from my own heart and thoughts on the subject. I am not sure about the laws being challenged or struct down, apologize. Just been behind lately on current events.
Well, thank you. I always appreciate your input because it isn't loaded with right-wing propaganda. Your opinions are thoughtful and honest and and I certainly respect that...albeit we may have a few differences. But hey, that's what makes the world go round. You gonna take up the Rockets for the tickets in the lower bowl for tomorrow's game? I'm gonna be there.
