(02-22-2019, 11:31 AM)P1tchblack Wrote: Okay... do you permit abortion when a woman's life is legitimately in danger or do you prefer to prioritize the life of an unborn child over that of a woman?
That is a decision for the OBGYN... based on his/her professional medical opinion. That choice is far different than a female killing her unborn baby because she spread her legs for some bum she just met at a foam party on Spring Break... and ended up pregnant.
Posts: 1,268
Threads: 9
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
9
Iâ€d be willing to “make a deal with the devil†so to speak:
Abortion would be legal:
1. Imminent and real danger to mother dying in the first 20 weeks.
2. Child has such a deformity (such as no brain) that death would be instantaneous outside of womb.
3. Rape/incest... thatâ€s a toughie. Iâ€d prefer adoption, but would be willing to deal on this.
The rest of the reasons are for convenience of the mother, so as to not distrust her life plans.
Donâ€t have sex, or use protection, or deal with consequences.
And I say this as someone whose wife/ex got pregnant when we were engaged. Wasnâ€t exactly easy. Abortion could have made things very different.
(02-22-2019, 01:09 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:01 PM)BoyGenius Wrote: It's not a fair question... it's another pathetic excuse to kill an unborn baby out of convenience for the mother.
Your post reads... a pregnant woman should not be judged for killing her unborn baby because of she's unwilling to to assume the risks associated with child birth that may be fatal to the mother.Â
Women shouldn't become pregnant if they're not willing to assume the risks... just as they should not fly if they don't want to accept the risk... just as they shouldn't drive or eat potato chips, etc etc etc.
I believe there are extremely rare situations when delivery could bring almost certain death to the mother. My point was it is a fair question in that it can be part of a legitimate debate/discussion. Just bringing up delivery risk as a way to legitimize the practice of abortion itself is dishonest and I believe the term red herring was already used.
Does the obvious need to be stated? It's common knowledge that complications do arise during delivery that threaten the life of the mother.
The questions was, as I read it, should we condemn abortion when the woman, despite knowing the risks, is not willing to accept the inherent risk of child birth when she gets pregnant.
Posts: 21,355
Threads: 250
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
81
(02-22-2019, 01:47 PM)Conanthelibrarian Wrote: Iâ€d be willing to “make a deal with the devil†so to speak:
Abortion would be legal:
1. Â Imminent and real danger to mother dying in the first 20 weeks. Â
2. Â Child has such a deformity (such as no brain) that death would be instantaneous outside of womb.
3.  Rape/incest...  thatâ€s a toughie.  Iâ€d prefer adoption, but would be willing to deal on this.
The rest of the reasons are for convenience of the mother, so as to not distrust her life plans. Â
Donâ€t have sex, or use protection, or deal with consequences.
And I say this as someone whose wife/ex got pregnant when we were engaged.  Wasnâ€t exactly easy.  Abortion could have made things very different.
IMO, #2 isn't truly an abortion.
#1....again is extremely rare, but I'm willing to leave up to the hands of the Doctor in charge
#3.....yeah, that's not a bridge I'm willing to cross. Â Adoption is a great option and truly that process needs to be streamlined and cost cut.
Posts: 27,051
Threads: 476
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
70
(02-22-2019, 01:56 PM)BoyGenius Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:09 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:01 PM)BoyGenius Wrote: It's not a fair question... it's another pathetic excuse to kill an unborn baby out of convenience for the mother.
Your post reads... a pregnant woman should not be judged for killing her unborn baby because of she's unwilling to to assume the risks associated with child birth that may be fatal to the mother.Â
Women shouldn't become pregnant if they're not willing to assume the risks... just as they should not fly if they don't want to accept the risk... just as they shouldn't drive or eat potato chips, etc etc etc.
I believe there are extremely rare situations when delivery could bring almost certain death to the mother. My point was it is a fair question in that it can be part of a legitimate debate/discussion. Just bringing up delivery risk as a way to legitimize the practice of abortion itself is dishonest and I believe the term red herring was already used.
Does the obvious need to be stated? It's common knowledge that complications do arise during delivery  that threaten the life of the mother.
The questions was, as I read it, should we condemn abortion when the woman, despite knowing the risks, Â is not willing to accept the inherent risk of child birth when she gets pregnant.
In the real world, literally no one considers that risk and never has.
"Hightop can reduce an entire message board of men to mudsharks. It's actually pretty funny to watch."
Posts: 8,388
Threads: 311
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
33
(02-22-2019, 01:47 PM)Conanthelibrarian Wrote: Iâ€d be willing to “make a deal with the devil†so to speak:
Abortion would be legal:
1. Â Imminent and real danger to mother dying in the first 20 weeks. Â
2. Â Child has such a deformity (such as no brain) that death would be instantaneous outside of womb.
3.  Rape/incest...  thatâ€s a toughie.  Iâ€d prefer adoption, but would be willing to deal on this.
The rest of the reasons are for convenience of the mother, so as to not distrust her life plans. Â
Donâ€t have sex, or use protection, or deal with consequences.
And I say this as someone whose wife/ex got pregnant when we were engaged.  Wasnâ€t exactly easy.  Abortion could have made things very different.
What you describe is probably 1-2% of total abortions. So the pro abortion side will never agree to this.
(02-22-2019, 02:01 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:56 PM)BoyGenius Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:09 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:01 PM)BoyGenius Wrote: It's not a fair question... it's another pathetic excuse to kill an unborn baby out of convenience for the mother.
Your post reads... a pregnant woman should not be judged for killing her unborn baby because of she's unwilling to to assume the risks associated with child birth that may be fatal to the mother.Â
Women shouldn't become pregnant if they're not willing to assume the risks... just as they should not fly if they don't want to accept the risk... just as they shouldn't drive or eat potato chips, etc etc etc.
I believe there are extremely rare situations when delivery could bring almost certain death to the mother. My point was it is a fair question in that it can be part of a legitimate debate/discussion. Just bringing up delivery risk as a way to legitimize the practice of abortion itself is dishonest and I believe the term red herring was already used.
Does the obvious need to be stated? It's common knowledge that complications do arise during delivery  that threaten the life of the mother.
The questions was, as I read it, should we condemn abortion when the woman, despite knowing the risks, Â is not willing to accept the inherent risk of child birth when she gets pregnant.
In the real world, literally no one considers that risk and never has.
In the real world, many women do consider the risks involved with giving birth prior to becoming pregnant and many are terrified of giving birth... for many reasons.
Posts: 1,268
Threads: 9
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
9
(02-22-2019, 01:58 PM)Alabuckeye Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:47 PM)Conanthelibrarian Wrote: Iâ€d be willing to “make a deal with the devil†so to speak:
Abortion would be legal:
1. Â Imminent and real danger to mother dying in the first 20 weeks. Â
2. Â Child has such a deformity (such as no brain) that death would be instantaneous outside of womb.
3.  Rape/incest...  thatâ€s a toughie.  Iâ€d prefer adoption, but would be willing to deal on this.
The rest of the reasons are for convenience of the mother, so as to not distrust her life plans. Â
Donâ€t have sex, or use protection, or deal with consequences.
And I say this as someone whose wife/ex got pregnant when we were engaged.  Wasnâ€t exactly easy.  Abortion could have made things very different.
IMO, #2 isn't truly an abortion.
#1....again is extremely rare, but I'm willing to leave up to the hands of the Doctor in charge
#3.....yeah, that's not a bridge I'm willing to cross. Â Adoption is a great option and truly that process needs to be streamlined and cost cut.
Yeah as for Number 3.  Would you be willing to trade that .05% or whatever it is to get the outlawed?  I†d surely prefer adoption, but it would be a tough deal to pass up.
But that makes me sound awful pragmatic I realize. Â But if someone offered me that deal vs. what we have now, man that would, be tough.
It†s a pipe dream I realize, just thinking about what I†d be willing to accept.
Posts: 21,355
Threads: 250
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
81
(02-22-2019, 10:21 PM)HConanthelibrarian Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:58 PM)Alabuckeye Wrote: (02-22-2019, 01:47 PM)Conanthelibrarian Wrote: Iâ€d be willing to “make a deal with the devil†so to speak:
Abortion would be legal:
1. Â Imminent and real danger to mother dying in the first 20 weeks. Â
2. Â Child has such a deformity (such as no brain) that death would be instantaneous outside of womb.
3.  Rape/incest...  thatâ€s a toughie.  Iâ€d prefer adoption, but would be willing to deal on this.
The rest of the reasons are for convenience of the mother, so as to not distrust her life plans. Â
Donâ€t have sex, or use protection, or deal with consequences.
And I say this as someone whose wife/ex got pregnant when we were engaged.  Wasnâ€t exactly easy.  Abortion could have made things very different.
IMO, #2 isn't truly an abortion.
#1....again is extremely rare, but I'm willing to leave up to the hands of the Doctor in charge
#3.....yeah, that's not a bridge I'm willing to cross. Â Adoption is a great option and truly that process needs to be streamlined and cost cut.
Yeah as for Number 3.  Would you be willing to trade that .05% or whatever it is to get the outlawed?  Iâ€d surely prefer adoption, but it would be a tough deal to pass up.
But that makes me sound awful pragmatic I realize. Â But if someone offered me that deal vs. what we have now, man that would, be tough.
Itâ€s a pipe dream I realize, just thinking about what Iâ€d be willing to accept.
If I†m offered all abortion illegal except #3, I take it right now
Posts: 5,146
Threads: 134
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
28
(02-22-2019, 01:47 PM)Conanthelibrarian Wrote: Iâ€d be willing to “make a deal with the devil†so to speak:
Abortion would be legal:
1. Â Imminent and real danger to mother dying in the first 20 weeks. Â
2. Â Child has such a deformity (such as no brain) that death would be instantaneous outside of womb.
3.  Rape/incest...  thatâ€s a toughie.  Iâ€d prefer adoption, but would be willing to deal on this.
The rest of the reasons are for convenience of the mother, so as to not distrust her life plans. Â
Donâ€t have sex, or use protection, or deal with consequences.
And I say this as someone whose wife/ex got pregnant when we were engaged.  Wasnâ€t exactly easy.  Abortion could have made things very different.
This is right about where I am on the issue. Yes a very very small percentage of situations.
Posts: 10,301
Threads: 242
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
44
Odd day for someone to bring this up for me. Just got off the phone with my Grandpa a few hours ago to wish him a Happy Birthday. He turned 87 today. His mother died giving birth to him. I've always felt sorry for him since I was told that a later age, I learned Baba wasn't my blood Grandma. I do think it impacted my Grandpa and his equal generation and below. I surmise (and from a few things I've heard) he was treated as the step child basically. He was the youngest sibling, so the others knew their blood Mom. My Great's (on the Grandpa I'm talking about) were a tight family and all immigrated from Bulgaria at about the same time and settled in Battle Creek, MI or the area, so I'm sure that was a big blow. Dedo found a "new" Baba form Bulgaria and everyone loved her from what I know. I met her a few times, but was very little. That 1/4th of my side sure does have some longevity too. Dedo died at 98. Two of his kids died in their 90's and my Grandpa is 87 and his older sister is 89 I think.
Posts: 1,355
Threads: 49
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
18
Sometimes it's a tough decision to make. My ex was expecting back in '83 or '84. She was at work and she felt something run down her leg. It was the weekend and she called the Ob/Gyn on call. He told her to go home and prop her feet up and come to the office in the morning. Long story short her water had broke and they admitted her to the hospital and did some tests. Then they said that the baby was alive, had a heartbeat, but was not viable outside the womb. They said they needed to remove the baby, they called it a D&C and not an abortion, because it could cause her to become infected and that the life of the mother had priority. That's a tough decision to make to stop a beating heart. You always wonder if you did the right thing.
|