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

To: mugs99

Not to mention tubal pregnancies.


16 posted on 02/24/2006 2:33:35 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Doctor Stochastic

Again, inevitable death vs induced death is the critical distinction. A baby who is implanted in the fallopian tube is no less a baby than one who is implanted in the womb. Though the baby has virtually no chance of survival, and his or her mother will not be able to carry him or her beyond a certain point, there remains a difference between intentional killing and death of the child as a tragic and unpreventable circumstance. There is no choice but to remove the part of the fallopian tube that contains the child, who, sadly, will not survive, but it is essential to note that the child will not be harmed deliberately or directly. The baby's life span is virtually the same as it would have been, had his or her part of the fallopian tube remained; the difference is that the mother's life will be removed from danger. The principle of double-effect is visible here.


21 posted on 02/24/2006 2:56:06 PM PST by Im4LifeandLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Not to mention tubal pregnancies

Would a tubal pregnancy justify an abortion...?
25 posted on 02/24/2006 5:56:08 PM PST by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | 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