Thank you for your answer, flippant though it was.
What about:
Eisenmenger’s syndrome.
Hyperemesis Gravidarum related dehydration and renal failure.
Eclampsia.
HELLP syndrome
Maternal cancer
Where do they fit into your paradigm?
Is it a continuum with ectopic pregnancy at one end and inconvenience at the other, or an either/or defining line?
I already tried getting an answer about continuums from them here:
And I got this answer:
In other words: I acknowledge that graduations and continuums occur, but I choose not to see them in this instance.
Two for bitching!
classyladyhp, we are still waiting for you to look at post #1710 and respond.
Where would this one fall (true story) - woman pregnant who has never wanted kids and really doesn’t like them. Continuing the pregnancy carries a better than 75% chance it will end up crippling her. Woman’s genetic background indicates that the fetus has likely inherited some severe health problems.
So, is it OK with you if she aborts as soon as she finds out she is pregnant?
I need more info to answer that one. Since it is a “true” story. What condition did this woman have?
How about this one?
This scenario actually happens more than 1 out of 1000 times. Woman has sex. No protection is used. She gets pregnant. The pregnancy won’t kill her. She just doesn’t want the responsibility of having a child. Should she abort?
How could it be anything but? It’s a medical procedure, so therefore having one is a medical decision. It’s a medical decision that weighs numerous other factors, but so do many medical decisions.
In order to have a “right” to self-determination, one must have the capacity of self-determination. Since a fetus can’t determine jack diddily squat about an iota of a shred of a scintilla of anything, then no such right can possibly attach.
Again, I ask you why you have a problem with the concept that every mother should be a willing mother and every child should be a wanted child?
Curlcoat gave you plenty of information to state your opinion. Your ham-fisted dodge is cowardly.
The woman in your scenario should have the option to decide to abort if she wants to. She should also have the option of having and raising the kid without “proper” society looking down their noses at her and the kid for the rest of their lives.
I’ve already answered. Since you are one of the few respectful posters I will answer you again. I believe you stated that you were a Dr.? I am not a medical Dr.
If the Dr. determines that the pregnancy will kill the woman then I would not expect her to continue with the pregnancy. I assume the Dr. is qualified to weigh the risks of continuing the pregnancy vs aborting the pregnancy to save the woman’s life.
How am I supposed to give you a %? I am not a perinatologist.
It’s like expecting a plumber to know how to perform a cesarean section.
Ham-fisted dodge? I need more info. When that info is provided I shall respond. Mind your own business.
So then you MUST be pro-infanticide. Newborns don’t have self-determination.
Wait, so are you going to get out from between a woman and her doctor or aren’t you?
I need more information.
Anyways…
What difference does it make? You have already said you aren’t a doctor, so why question the doctor that established the 75%?
Cite?
If she wants to. Do you think it better that she end up raising a child she resents?
classyladyhp, if I understand you, you’re in favour of abortion to save the life of the mother only when a Dr determines that continuing the pregnancy will 100% end her life.
Is that a fair representation of your belief? If it isn’t, do feel free to correct me.
If so, can you see how a mother of 4 who is told that a pregnancy has a 50% chance of causing her death may still feel an abortion to save her life would be justifiable, and how her doctors may well agree?
Do you think that the state should intervene in such a case to prevent the abortion?
I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m asking how you would intend to define and enforce “life of the mother” exemptions, which you have already stated that you agree should be integral to any abortion ban.
I doubt that the Dr. could ever say it would end her life 100%. Nothing in medecine is 100%. If the Dr. feels that the pregnancy needs to be ended to save the life of the mother then I don’t have a problem with it.
It is the Dr.'s job to weigh the risk.
I really cannot elaborate any further than this.
Thank you 
I find it refreshing that you can agree that in at least some circumstances abortion should be a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor.
I also thank you for being so respectful:)
What about them? How about this? If you’re willing to limit abortion to those cases, I’m perfectly willing to allow abortion in those cases. If not, then there’s no point in bringing this up, because it doesn’t consitute a meaningful portion of your argument.
Yeah, that’s precisely what it meant. Or, you know, I could have meant precisely what I said before. There’s no such thing as graduations of humans. Unless, of course, you’re arbitrarily defining what it means to be human, in which case I wonder why anyone should accept your definition over any other less arbitrary definition? But that’s a question I’ve asked numerous times now, so I doubt I’ll be getting an answer anytime soon.
Of course not.
(I figured you would have had a harder question or something.)
[QUOTE=tumbleddown]
So now we’ve gotten to the point where we’re passing abortion off as a medical decision? How could it be anything but? It’s a medical procedure, so therefore having one is a medical decision. It’s a medical decision that weighs numerous other factors, but so do many medical decisions.
[/quote]
So, hypothetically speaking, of course, if I wanted to get my arms replaced with machine guns, no one can stop me because that would be a private, medical decision/procedure?
If this were true, then it should be legal to throw a newborn into the Hudson, but few would agree with that.
I don’t. Another easy question to answer.
So you are for life but don’t care what the quality of that life is?