I worked in the field(*), I’ve seen cases where baby was killing mom.
It was a race to keep the baby in the womb until it was viable, then they would induce at the last moment when the mom was dying.
If that happens too early, it’s a tragic abortion. But it’s self defense, not murder.
Baby killing mom = real medical fact (and not all that rare, this isn’t a big city)
Plus, old thread, old argument.
(*) newborn intensive care, not abortion. We got the viable ones.
Fundamentalists were politically involved in the past-just look at William Jennings Bryan or before that William Wilberforce in England. In fact considering the strength of the fundamentalists, its safe to say they probably dominated politics in the rural South and Midwest throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries.
In other words a handful of Latin American countries (and Malta) that is not even remotely close to the mainstream pro-life movement in the United States. Even the most hardcore pro-lifers such as Richard Mourdock supported abortion if the mother’s life was threatened.
Except for the first one, and except for (in the future) artificial life. OK, if you want to use the term “life” that way, fine, but it doesn’t illuminate the subject. It’s still not “human life deserving of the rights of an individual,” which is what we’re talking about here. It is not the deaths of millions of lives (even millions of organisms) when I ejaculate millions of sperm and only one finds an egg to fertilize. Monthly menstruation is not the ethical equivalent of babies dying.
Because an egg is fertilized it is not yet a human being until it can be recognized as such. life, (which is the pro- birth Argument) started eons ago, and even if one believes the Genesis story it started with an ancestor’s sperm and egg. Of course if one looks at it as human life until it becomes a human being. There is a huge difference in a fertile egg and a person. An acorn is not a tree nor any egg or blossom thought of as it’s fully grown or takes the semblance of it’s mature look. It is true a tree can be called a tree before it reaches it’s mature height, but I don’t know anyone who would say in truth that the acorn is a tree!
Interestingly, the sponsor of the abortion bill in Texas that has gotten so much attention, Jodie Laubenberg, insisting on cutting prenatal care for pregnant women from CHIP coverage because the baby hasn’t been born yet. In supporting these abortion restrictions, though, she strenuously defends the unborn child – the one who doesn’t deserve health insurance on account of not having been born.
We Texans are soooooo proud of her. And, if y’all liked Rick Perry, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. Wait 'till y’all meet Greg Abbott.
Have you ever dissected an acorn? Inside, you will find an object that very clearly is a plant, in a very immature form. The difference between this and an oak sapling is the same as the difference between that sapling and a fully-grown oak tree—one of size and maturity.
It is the same as the difference between a human embryo and an infant, or of an infant and a young child; or between a young child and an adolescent, or an adolescent and a full adult. It is the same form of life, at different stages of its existence.
I should do this with an acorn, some time. Nobody ever mentions a peanut plant, and claims that a peanut isn’t a peanut plant, but it’s an easier example. I’m sure nearly everyone has seen the tiny plant inside of a peanut, and I have a picture, taken through my microscope. See 20090612_233659_EmbryonicPeanutPlant | An embryonic peanut p… | Flickr. What you see in this picture is a peanut plant. It’s very tiny, but if it had been allowed to live, it would have grown much larger, and eventually gone on to produce more peanuts. In this case, its fate had been decided otherwise, long before it came into my possession. It was already dead, had been roasted, and just after I took this picture, I ate it.
Those who argue that at acorn isn’t an oak tree do so in ignorance of the fact that the acorn actually contains a tiny oak tree, just as this peanut contained a tiny peanut plant.
So the sanctity of life is not an absolute, and the life of an unborn child can be taken for a compelling reason (saving the life of the mother). Then the only difference between anti-abortion advocates and pro-choices advocates is, what constitutes a compelling reason to kill babies. The pro-choice position is to allow each woman to make that decision with her doctor, while the anti-abortion position is for government to make that decision for all women. Now, which position is more consistent with personal freedom and the constitution? For that matter, which position is the conservative position?
I think that nearly everyone recognizes that there are certain extreme circumstances under which it is justifiable to take the life of a human being.
The vast majority of abortions, however, take place under circumstances that are very far short of the level that would, in any other context, be considered sufficient to justify a homicide.
A position that was morally and logically consistent would hold abortion to be exaction comparable to other forms of homicide; hold that it should only be legal under circumstances that are comparable to other circumstances under which it is legally-justifiable to kill a human being; and that anyone who willfully has any part in an abortion which does not involve sufficiently-extreme circumstances should be subject to the same legal consequences as anyone who otherwise takes place in an illegal homicide.
If it hadn’t been for your ancestors passing on their life you would not be here. Life is a passed on thing, your father’s sperm contained some of your life, the other from your mother. All humans lives were passed on from one generation to another, and as evolution works" Life" was here long before Human’s came along.
And so many do not want to help support that same life once it is born. I call that Pro Birth, and pro-choicer’s are also Pro-Life, they want to make sure a child is loved, wanted, and taken care of once it is born.
I find it strange, that people who are anti abortion think nothing of killing innocent people, and yes some still in the womb in a war, which causes many innocent deaths on both sides but a mother who is risking her life, that she knows will spend a life of suffering,or cause her other children to maybe starve to death, as it does in third world countries. And the poverty in some countries where their very existence is one of a life long suffering?
Oh don’t worry, I treat everyone equally. If you crawled into my vagina to live in my uterus I would politely serve you an eviction notice. If you were to die upon being evicted that is entirely your problem.
I’m sure all manner of Castle Doctrines and Stand Your Ground Laws apply to people wanting to live in my body.
I know I am repeating my self from other posts, but If a person is in a room where there are many frozen embryos , and one living and born human being, would they(or you) save the embryo’s or the person already born? What if the person is one of your own already born children. or someone you love?
anyone who thinks an acorn is an oak tree wouldn’t mind paying for a house and getting just a set of blueprints. it’s exactly the same thing, after all.