Posted on 09/06/2004 10:43:59 AM PDT by BritishBulldog
for instance, while most of us here will obviously find it appalling, do you think it should be allowed,
- in cases where the mother was raped?
- where the pregnancy endangers the health or life of the mother
- where the pregnancy endangers the mental health of the mother
- or not under any circumstances
And are your beliefs based on religion or personal conviction?
I meant to say doing that, not going that!
On the other hand, I don't see where this thread serves any useful purpose. If a Freeper really wants to know where other Freepers stand on this issue, there are abundant threads in the archives that can be browsed at leisure. The short answer is that Freepers are widely divided on this issue:
Religious conservative freeper position is mostly represented by TexasEagle,
A-religious or moderately conservative Freepers (less libertarians) tend to allow all three exceptions noted in the original posting (rape, health/life, and mental health),
Libertarian Freepers tend to advocate no restrictions whatsoever.
Mental health is a fake excuse. You can just as easily argue that abortion harms her mental health in the long run.
Abortion at its fundamental comes down to a simple question, if you belief life is a gift from a creator you cannot be pro abortion and not be a hypocrite.
For if life is gift from God, then the decision to create and end innocent life is a decision for God. Whenever you say things like a mother has a choice you now have elevated the mother to God and raising any man or woman to god status is wrong.
If you don't believe that all life is a gift from god, and that we are all just the culminstions of billions of years of random collisions of atoms and nothing more, well then it doesn't matter what one does or doesn't do with life, even their own or to others since we are all just one big accident anyway.
The rape question is a non issue... if you believe life is a gift, regardless of how it is concieved you cannot justify its destruction.
In terms of threat to the womans health, all pregnancies are risky to the woman's health and even life! #1 cause of death among women of child bearing age throughout all of history except for the most modern of times was to die during childbirth. While this particular question certainly has more moral standing to allow choice, in the grander sense of it being a justification for abortion as it stands today "On demand without question" is dubious.
Abortions done due to rape, incest or threats to the mothers life represent a mere fraction of a percent of those performed in america today.
The vast overwhelming number of abortions are done for mere selfishness and convience, are not medically indicated and are not due to rape or incest. The attempt to defend the entire baby part harvesting factories by this small number is an affront to decent human life.
And plese don't bring up the death penalty, I clearly stated INNNOCENT human life. If you are unable to distinguish between guilt and innoncence, you should not even be attempting to have a discussion on this topic.
Any woman at any time and any place for any reason has the absolute right to terminate her pregnancy from conception to full term. And any medical practitioner that assists her in that endeavor may not be prosecuted for doing so. Should that medical practitioner independent of the termination procedure take action to insure that the child is delivered dead, then that medical practitioner shall be prosecuted for 1st degree homicide to full extent of the law.
How many young girls were lied to in order for them to have an abortion, told that it was no more than a piece of tissue. How many of them are now suffering from post-abortion syndrome? The angry feminists are not angry because their "choice" is in danger. They are angry BECAUSE they made the choice! And now they must defend it or be crushed by the reality of their actions.
So what's the answer? The answer is education and COMPASSION. When Jesus met the woman by the well, he did not condemn her. He LOVED her and told her to stop sinning. When He was speaking to the adultress woman and challenged those without sin to cast the first stone, He didn't comdemn her. He told her to go and sin no more.
Randall Terry may have saved some babies, and graphic images of aborted babies may change a few minds, but the real way to win people over is to meet them at their point of need. That is exactly what God does for us.
This site , and several others, are doing this. And they are doing it successfully.
Think about this. In decades part, women experienced a variety of symptoms that are now medically known as PMS. But back in the day, women were told by doctors that it was "all in their heads", and disregarded the fact that many women were suffering the same symptoms.
Today, millions of women are suffering from post-abortion syndrome. More and more, women are beginning to speak out and share their stories. As they find it safe to speak out, they gather strength and are healed, and are able to then touch OTHER women's lives.
When more women are able to confront what they have done, they will be able to find healing and forgiveness, and be the ones to turn the tide.
Yeah, and then the perp has parental rights.
It doesn't help undo or alleviate the pain of rape to kill an innocent baby.
Killing babies is just plain wrong. If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. If you get pregnant and still don't want it, give it up for adoption.
The only time it's right to abort a baby is as a side-effect in the process of helping to save the mother's life--for instance in a tubal pregnancy. That is probably the situation in maybe one abortion in 10,000 that are currently being performed. The other 9,999 are the murderous results of carelessness, selfishness, and the empty-headed pursuit of pleasure.
I honestly don't know. I've never had to make that choice. Different women have taken different paths through history. Some have died so the tiny one might live; some have killed the baby to spare themselves the hassle or embarassment or complications of having such a dependent nuisance, or because they saw no hope for a life of any worth for either of them. Back when most babies were born at home, out here in the boondocks, a knitting needle in the fontanel was the answer to an unwanted small human life form. Or putting it out in the smokehouse, if it was born during winter. If a baby isn't wanted, there's always a way to get rid of it.
I guess I think it should be very, very difficult and expensive to get an abortion. On the other hand, the apples don't fall far from the trees. So maybe it would help if we could see into the future and get a glimpse of what the fetus in question will become. But if we see a killer or terrorist in embryo, do we nip it in the bud? Or do we help it to thrive and grow and propagate, until it, and its brood, turn on us?
I just don't know. Maybe it has to do with why the maternal unit wants to abort. Maybe it has to do with the sperm donor. Maybe it has to do with cosmic justice. Maybe we just haven't evolved to the point where we can understand.
Based on neither religion nor secular philosophy, just my own dichotomous logic.
Opposed to abortion except in extreme cases, such as when the life of the mother is in danger (such as with HELLP Syndrome) and perhaps when tests show the baby to be severely deformed. Case by case.
http://members.aol.com/HELLP1995/hellpmedicalfacts.html
http://health.allrefer.com/health/hellp-syndrome-info.html
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990901ap/990901b.html
I agree with you on the rape issue, but I would compromise on that one only because it is the only circumstance where the mother didn't already have a choice. That doesn't make it right or moral, but I would compromise on that one mainly because I think it is an argument we will never win. It is also pretty rare.
Exceptions to abortion should be few and far between, as they probably were when I was born, more than 72 years ago. Anyone who is living today had responsible mothers who chose to not exercise their "choice," if they had a "choice."
As a child, a pediatrician discovered that certain numb feelings I had in my right hand were because I was subject to "petit mal" epilepsy. And as I matured, my epilepsy developed into "grand mal" epilepsy.
But my problem turned out to be medically controlled, I married, have three children and have not suffered a seizure for almost 40 years.
My medical problem was a problem for my parents, but I'm glad they did not abort me. It is certain that this communication would not exist if either of our mothers had aborted us.
Post rape-procedures at any hospital (as described by Prof. Charles Rice, Notre Dame School of Law) "cleanse" the victim of the remnants of (criminal) battery. "Abortion" is secondary in that instance. Further, fewer than .01% (yes, point oh one per cent)of reported rapes result in pregnancy. Yes, the figures are open to question purportedly because not all rapes are reported and because some reported rapes aren't rapes.
Point is that under NO circumstances should innocent life be terminated. This isn't now and never has been an exclusively Roman Catholic tenet. The Greeks and Romans believed it, too. Read the Hippocratic Oath (which is no longer required of med grads): abortion is the ONLY named violation of the oath. The ability to abort--even safely--has been around since the beginning of man (and woman).
"And are your beliefs based on religion or personal conviction?"
I'll start with this one - I'm agnostic and very very pro-life.
"- in cases where the mother was raped?"
This is the toughest one for me. Personal responsibility is a big part of the anti-abortion argument for me, and in the case of abortion due to rape the woman is -not- evading personal responsibility. However, personal responsibility is also not the -whole- argument. Justice demands that the child not be held accountable for the crime of the father. The "culture of life" argument is important to me too, and frankly, while I have far more sympathy for a woman who wants an abortion based on this than on any other, I'm still against it.
"where the pregnancy endangers the health or life of the mother"
Life, yes. Health, no.
"where the pregnancy endangers the mental health of the mother"
Never.
"or not under any circumstances"
Life of the mother is about it. Major sympathy on the rape question but simply can't accept the claim that the CHILD is at fault for the ill effect of the mother's mental health.
Qwinn
"Life is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11, 14, Deuteronomy 12:23).
Scripture seems to indicate that life exists at least as early as when an organism has its blood -- in human life that's within a week or two of conception. Life may begin *at* conception, but *at least* life exists within a couple of weeks of conception.
I believe it is wrong to murder such pre-born life.
It is *permissible* to take that life in self-defense (life of the mother), although it is not *necessary* to do so. In other words, I would not condemn a woman for having an abortion because it's medically necessary to do so in order to survive herself. That said, I have a lot of respect for those women who decided against abortion, even though it's dangerous to themselves.
As a first step, we need to make it illegal after the first three months for any reason (this takes care of the rape/incest angle), except for the fact that the mother is going to die (when it should be allowed any time).
Under this interpretation, I believe we could get consensus in America and have a civilized debate again perhaps in the indivisual states.
I'm glad you said it yourself. If I would've said the only way one could be against abortion but not believe abortion should be banned would be through rationalization, you would've disagreed.
Agreed?
I have often wrestled with this topic. I am pro-life but debate with myself about concessions regarding rape, incest, and life of the mother. But at the end of the day I come back to the same point. Life does begin at conception. I mean, George Bush and John Kerry agree on that. But more importantly, God tells us that is the case. With the fact that life begins at conception, I've embraced that belief that any form of abortion is wrong at anytime for any reason. I know that comes off as cruel and heartless, but it is not. If life truly begins at conception, than what is the case for any other viewpoint. For people who don't believe life begins at conception, I can see why they would support abortion as an option. I would if that were the case. But for the people who believe life begins at conception but then endorses the choice of abortions (John Kerry), that is the cruelest position anyone could take. What's your definition of murder, John? Mine is taking someone's life. And because I believe life begins at conception, I believe all abortions are wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.