Replies

tcg: “In regard to exceptions, experience has shown that health of the mother exceptions are so broad that they result in ‘carte blanche’ abortion on demand. Consequently, I do not support an exception in those terms.”

I’m no doctor, but Huck seems awfully sure of himself. So abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother? Apparently some doctors disagree, but I suppose Huck’s “theology” degree gives him a better understanding of the various medical issues.

So abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother?

Has been discussed, rediscussed and discussed again on these pages and many others.

Suffice it to say, an actual threat to the mother's life from a non-ectoptic pregnancy is so rare as to be nonexistent in most ob-gyn practices. I just read the other day that death to the mother from a rupture related to even an ectopic pregnancy is rare now, providing she can be treated quickly at a modern medical facility.

I personally know of a case in which it was stated that a young woman's life would be endangered by a pregnancy due to her congenital disorders, yet she went on to have five children, all doing well as is she.

“In regard to exceptions, experience has shown that health of the mother exceptions are so broad that they result in ‘carte blanche’ abortion on demand. Consequently, I do not support an exception in those terms.”

Notice in that quote he is talking “Health” exceptions and not “Life” exceptions. Big difference!

Many that are pro-life would accept a “Life of Mother” exception but the RATS will vote against that because they know that would be one in a million.

Rats want the “Health” word used because they can justify 100% of abortions by saying anything could effect health.

A headache or any such side effect of birth would qualify for them.

Abortion shouldn’t be an alternate form of birth control, but I won’t go so far as to say it’s always morally wrong. So long as the doctors aim to preserve life, I don’t believe it’s sinful to choose to terminate one life in order to save another. That isn’t the same thing as murder. To put it another way, there’s a huge difference between an abortionist and a MD who is trying to make the best possible decision for all lives involved. Any doctors in FReeperland agree or disagree?

I’m not a doctor and I agree that abortion should never, ever be used as a from of after the fact birth control or a way of weeding out children base on sex or possible physical or mental disabilities. Life, both that of the mother and that of the child, should be preserved in all cases when ever it is ethically, medically and reasonably possible to do so.

That being said there are some very rare cases when the life of the mother vs. the life of the unborn child is at risk and that is no easy decision for an ethical medical professional, mother or family member to decide. An entopic pregnancy is one situation where the baby can’t possibly come even close to term and the mother will certainly die so therefore it is ethical to save the mother’s life. That decision should not be left up to government bureaucrats.

If all medical possibilities are exhausted and when it comes down to a life or death decision in a moment of crisis, I would prefer to see the mother live, especially if she already has children to care for who depend on her and the likelihood she would be able to have more children in the future. But that is again a very rare scenario but then not unheard of either.

My niece and her husband gave birth to a beautiful, healthy baby daughter last April. I was honored to be present for the birth and it was a wondrous and beautiful experience. Four months ago, they found out they were pregnant again – with triplets!

While a pregnancy with triplets is high risk by it’s self, the fact she gave birth not long ago and her cervix is still week makes it even riskier for her. She is at a high risk for hemorrhage and other serious complications. Early in her pregnancy, she found out that two of the babies share the same uterine sack and share an umbilical cord. She was presented with the option of having what her previous doctor called a “selective reduction”, meaning to abort the higher risk twins to potentially save the life of the third baby and reduce the risk to herself. She and her husband discussed it at length and decided to go forward with the pregnancy and give birth to all three if possible.

She has a new OBY doctor, a specialist in high risk pregnancies and he is committed to see her and the babies deliver safely. So far things are going well. The goal it to get them to 32 weeks then deliver as to go longer only more greatly jeopardizes the risk that the twins will strangle in the umbilical cord and the greater risks of complications to their mother.

While we, her family and her friends are doing everything we can to support her and help her care for an 8 month old, we know that this road is fraught with many dangers. While delivery at 32 weeks is the goal, it is very possible that the babies will come sooner and may not survive.

I’m glad that she, her husband and doctors are committed to seeing this through to its best possible outcome. But if things do not go well and if my niece’s life is in immediate danger and a decision has to be made, I would hope that my niece lives. While we would all morn the loss of any of these babies, her 8 month old baby and teenage daughter need their mother.