Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sam_paine

The only possible reason to abort a child is to defend the life of the mother. In that singular case, its a choice of the mother as to defend her life or give it up. I wonder how often that medical necessity bares its face.


14 posted on 08/28/2012 2:51:18 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: andyk

See my reply 11. The libs will use that as an excuse for every abortion


18 posted on 08/28/2012 3:29:06 PM PDT by verga (Forced to remove tag line by administrator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: andyk
"The only possible reason to abort a child is to defend the life of the mother. In that singular case, its a choice of the mother as to defend her life or give it up. I wonder how often that medical necessity bares its face."

Speaking from a strictly medical standpoint, perhaps there is a FReeper who has a base of knowledge who can explain how the deliberate taking of a child's life would be necessary to save a mother. Apart from an ectopic pregnancy, I would think that most life-imperiling situations would occur later in a pregnancy, and with advances in neo-natal care, a c-section or induced labor would, in my non-medical mind, be far less traumatic than an abortion and allow for attempts to preserve both lives. Depending on the circumstances, a child delivered prematurely may not survive, but I can't conceive how deliberately killing it in utero would, under any circumstances, protect, preserve or enhance the health of the mother.

Having said that, in the extreme hypothetical, where it could be demonstrated that the child had to be killed to save the mother's life, and there was no other option, I would view it as I would a justifiable homocide.

It's an extreme situation and I suppose it requires an extreme analogy, but suppose a 20-year-old who was truly insane, and like an unborn child, had absolutely no capacity whatsoever to differentiate right from wrong, posed an immediate, direct threat to the life of his mother, I don't think there's a FReeper here who would deny the mother the use of lethal force to defend her life. It would be sad, traumatic and tragic, but it would be necessary. Similarly, if a compelling case could be made that the mother's only option to preserve her life was to kill her unborn child, then I would view that too as tragic, but justifiable. I just think that's an extreme case, and would think that in all but very, very rare exceptions induced labor, or c-section would be viable, if not better options and offer the opportunity to save both lives.

26 posted on 08/28/2012 4:36:21 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson