Abortion.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't see how that's "logical" ... (see next section)


... I think the mother's health issue boils down to this: if there's two people in the path of a car and you can only reach one, and one has terminal cancer and one is healthy, do you decline to save either one because they're both people and you don't want to show preference, or do you make an extremely difficult decision and save one, probably the one that can live?

If the mother's health is an issue and the baby is viable, then doctors try to save both. If the baby isn't viable, then I think it falls into the "two people in the path of a car" category.

Definitely! I"m very pro-choice - and the choice that a woman has is this: will I choose to take on the responsibilities of having sex, knowing that sex can produce a baby which I (and the father) will be morally responsible for?

that's an interesting view of pro-choice but I agree with you. and as far as the whole " abortion is ok if the mother's life is endangered" , well in developed countries, at least, most woman usually (not always) have a decent amount (or at least some) of prenatal care and know if everything is going ok for her and/or the baby. in most of the cases of "the mother's life being endangered", it usually doesn't happen until the third trimester in which the unborn child CAN survive outside the womb. usually labor is induced or a C-section is performed. the times that it happens before the third trimester, are rare...mostly ectopic pregnancies. and like I've said before, the baby will die regardless (in most cases...it depend on where it implants at) and the mother could possibly bleed to death. THAT , IMO, is a true "if the mother's life is endangered" case.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm going to disagree with you there, Ri. The way I see it, the mother has already lived for a while, while the infant hasn't truly. So, if you have to choose between the two, I say save the child.

[hectorberlioz]

Ditto, Gwai...and perhaps it's what the mother herself wanted...? To save her child? *thinks of Oliver Twist*

[Arien the Maia]

in that case...is the whole "mother's life in danger" thing manslaughter or murder? I say manslaughter. yes, you are killing someone, but it is only self-defense. it is pardonable in my book.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I really don't think that qualifies as self-defense.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I really don't think that qualifies as self-defense.

how can it not? someone is going to kill you and you let them?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The infant is not going to kill you.

Self-defense:
"2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack:"

There is no physical attack involved.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The infant is not going to kill you.

Self-defense:
"2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack:"

There is no physical attack involved.

but there is a physical attack involved. The baby has implanted in an area that is shouldn't be in...that wasn't intended for it (i.e. the fallopian tube vs. the uterus).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That is not an attack.

"–noun
9. the act of attacking; onslaught; assault.
10. a military offensive against an enemy or enemy position."

"–verb (used with object)
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy"

(also, note that "transitive verb" is apparently out of use).

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That is not an attack.

"–noun
9. the act of attacking; onslaught; assault.
10. a military offensive against an enemy or enemy position."

"–verb (used with object)
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy"

(also, note that "transitive verb" is apparently out of use).

it isn't a willful action but it DOES result in harm to the host (mother) I do think the Chruch supports this case.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm fairly certain not, unless there is no hope of saving the child.

[Nurvingiel]

If giving birth meant that the mother would certainly die, is the mother required to sacrifice her life for her child?

I know you'd point out why should the child sacrifice its life for the mother, but this is another reason why I assert that, as the foetus is part of the mother's body, she is allowed to make this decision.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm fairly certain not, unless there is no hope of saving the child.

that's what I'm saying. if there is no hope in saving the child (usually before 22wks) then it is jsutified...after 22 wks or so, the child can survive outside the womb (with a long stay in the NICU) therefore it is NOT justified.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm going to disagree with you there, Ri. The way I see it, the mother has already lived for a while, while the infant hasn't truly. So, if you have to choose between the two, I say save the child.

I think you misread what I said - I said if the child is viable, then doctors try to save BOTH. If the child isn't viable, then save the mother, for without the mother, the non-viable child would die, anyway.

Originally Posted by Nurv

If giving birth meant that the mother would certainly die, is the mother required to sacrifice her life for her child?

I don't think she's "required" to do that - I think that would be a personal decision. Some moms decide to chance it. But you're talking an option where there is an UNAVOIDABLE certain death for someone. The vast majority of abortion cases are NOT that way - the pregnancy is a perfectly good one, and there's no "choose between the death of the mom and the death of the child" thing going on.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

but there is a physical attack involved. The baby has implanted in an area that is shouldn't be in...that wasn't intended for it (i.e. the fallopian tube vs. the uterus).

So I assume we're talking about the either/or situation where either 1) the mother dies but you save the baby or 2) you kill the baby to save the mother.

The problem with 2 as an acceptable option is that it involves killing one innocent person to save another. The baby is not trying to kill the mother, so he or she is innocent of any crime.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So I assume we're talking about the either/or situation where either 1) the mother dies but you save the baby or 2) you kill the baby to save the mother.

Yes that is what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The problem with 2 as an acceptable option is that it involves killing one innocent person to save another. The baby is not trying to kill the mother, so he or she is innocent of any crime.

I agree. shall we agree that it is a condition of living in "Arda Marred"?
A baby would never consciously try to kill it's mother. I believe that a child cannot sin before it has reached the age of reason which I think is around 7 or 8.

[Lief Erikson]

Arda Marred indeed, I agree. I don't agree with you about it being impossible for a child to sin before the age of 7 or 8, but as that's irrelevant to the subject of abortion, we'd probably best just let that lie .

In that case, (forgive me if I'm being a complete idiot or missing something big right now- my brain is completely fried because of stress) it looks to me as though those who are pro-life on this site are really united on this issue. I haven't seen anyone posting here who is pro-life and also thinks that it is valid to kill the child to save his or her mother. I only mention this because Gaffer earlier was thinking (based, I think, on his personal experience) that most pro-life people believe the other way.

Oof. I'm going now- my brain is 100% melted.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think she's "required" to do that - I think that would be a personal decision. Some moms decide to chance it. But you're talking an option where there is an UNAVOIDABLE certain death for someone. The vast majority of abortion cases are NOT that way - the pregnancy is a perfectly good one, and there's no "choose between the death of the mom and the death of the child" thing going on.

I am ok with abortions where the mother's health is not threatened because I feel foetuses are part of the mother's body, and not people.

WRT the debate about having an abortion where the mother's life is threatened by the possible birth of the foetus, if she is not required to risk her life, then she should be allowed to have an abortion. This refers to a case where either the mother or the baby would live, but not both.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If giving birth meant that the mother would certainly die, is the mother required to sacrifice her life for her child?

I know you'd point out why should the child sacrifice its life for the mother, but this is another reason why I assert that, as the foetus is part of the mother's body, she is allowed to make this decision.

And I assert that the foetus is not part of the mother's body, any more than a young joey is.

[The Gaffer]

Wow, lots to answer.

You'll have to forgive me as I have real life to attend to. Normal service should be resumed within 24 hours.

Thanks all, though, for a stimulating and respectful discussion.