Is it possible for someone to tell me (WITHOUT DEBATE!)...

[hokiefan33]

The decision is actually your wife's decision, at least as the law stands right now. I would totally support your wife to choose to end or proceed with any pregnancy because it is her body and her choice. Many wives have ended such pregnancies without their husband's knowledge because they know they would end up dying. I am thankful that I am in a situation where I could discuss the problem with my husband and he would support my decision, no matter what. I think it's sad that so many women have to go behind their husbands' backs, but at least the law allows them to do so.

If the man has as much responsibility in getting the woman pregnant (as a lot of women will say, and I agree), then he has equal rights as that unborn baby's parent, so I would say that they BOTH have a say. That being the case, I also said in my earlier posts (if you read them) that my wife and I have talked about this. I'm not saying what I would tell her to do, I'm saying what we have discussed. So it technically IS her decision.

 

[cardaway]

The decision is actually your wife's decision, at least as the law stands right now. I would totally support your wife to choose to end or proceed with any pregnancy because it is her body and her choice. Many wives have ended such pregnancies without their husband's knowledge because they know they would end up dying. I am thankful that I am in a situation where I could discuss the problem with my husband and he would support my decision, no matter what. I think it's sad that so many women have to go behind their husbands' backs, but at least the law allows them to do so.

Don't forget the kids and their possible feelings about going on with life without a mother. Personally I can't imagine somebody making a choice that goes against very sound medical knowledge.

 

[cardaway]

I can't remember who said it but the idea of going through a pregnancy knowing that the baby will kill you as committing suicide was also an interesting point.

I also agree with the person that said it's basically suicide. If there is life insurance involved, I hope they are allowed to take that into account.

 

[Missy1961]

But Hokie--if prayer is ALL it takes...then we shouldn't require medical care at all. B/c God will take care of it how HE wants to take care of it.

I'm reminded of that story--"God please send someone to rescue me". A boat goes by and offers to rescue. "No--I'm waiting for God to take care of it". Later on a rescue helicopter goes by. "No thanks--God will take care of me. He's got it covered". Even later on a plane goes by. And again, rescue is refused. Later on in Heaven, "God, why didn't you rescue me?" "I sent a boat, a helicopter, and an airplane ".

I am not pro-choice. But with an ectopic pregnancy--the mom will DIE. The baby implanted in the fallopian tube. Unless they come up with a medical procedure to transplant the baby in the uterus--what major miracle would you be waiting for to take place? Do you want her to die b/c you guys chose to ignore the rescue crews b/c you were waiting on God to fix it?

With that logic--it would seem that your personal belief system would then refuse most medical care. Is that accurate?

I hope that anyone who thinks they would deny medical care for an ectopic pregnancy reads this post. Especially if the mother already has other children.

 

[VSL]

I hope that anyone who thinks they would deny medical care for an ectopic pregnancy reads this post. Especially if the mother already has other children.

Yes - I loved Lisa loves Pooh's post. I thought it was a good example of how God may be directing you to get the help you need be making medical care available for you.

 

[chobie]

You're dealing in absolutes, chobie. You can't say "no one knows" unless you have some sort of fact to back that up with. How do you "know" for certain that I would do any different if a situation presented itself? Tell me how you know for sure, b/c I'd sure like to get ahold of that crystal ball you must be using.

I'm not saying you won't do what you have agreed to do while protected by the safe bubble of good health you and your wife enjoy now; I'm just saying that it's impossibe to predict how one will react in a traumatic situation.

 

[KimR]

I have a question for a Christians who are against abortion...particularly those who are against abortion but think contraception is ok (and yes I know this is a strange question but I am seriously trying to understand this point of view):

Many Christians who believe that abortion is wrong hold this belief because they claim life begins at the moment of conception. Some then go on to claim that once aborted, the babys soul will go to Heaven. OK, well then what's so awful about that? Heaven is paradise...better than life here on earth, right? And certainly better than a women using contraception and the soul never existing in the first place. So I would think that given the aforementioned assumptions, abortion would be a GOOD thing. You are created a soul and sending it immediately to live with God forever in paradise.

DO not misunderstand me...I am pro-choice but I do not think abortion is a good thing. I don't believe life begins and conception and I don't think aborted babies go to heaven. I have just always had a hard time understanding how people who do believe these little souls go to heaven could possibly be against abortion. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[VSL]

I suppose that if life starts at conception then it would be a sin to 'murder' the baby.

(I have Christian beliefs but, like I said, I'm very conflicted over abortion... I guess I'm pro-life unless the mother is in danger or the baby will die anyway)

 

[eclectics]

I also agree with the person that said it's basically suicide. If there is life insurance involved, I hope they are allowed to take that into account.

I forgot who made the original remark but it is indeed a interesting statement. I wondered what the religious take on this would be. Jenny gave us the Jewish point of view and I ask again, do any theologians out there from other religions have a opinion on wether or not continuing a pregnancy that will kill the mother would be considered suicide, and would that not be considered a sin on the mother's part? My apologies to the OP for taking a little detour.

 

[KimR]

OK, so in a sense it would be like killing someone who was destined to go to heaven anyway. But still, you can't quite compare the two because one person has already been born. Logical reasoning tells me that if given a choice between never existing at all (through contraception) and becoming an emryo only to be aborted and then living for eternity in heaven, the latter would be a much better alternative. I just have a hard time understanding how Christians can believe contraception is ok, but abortion is not.

 

[VSL]

Like I said, if someone believes that life begins at conception then they can (and will) compare it with murder... and so you would be committing a sin.

I can't answer the contraception thing. I'm just speculating.

 

[cardaway]

I forgot who made the original remark but it is indeed a interesting statement. I wondered what the religious take on this would be. Jenny gave us the Jewish point of view and I ask again, do any theologians out there from other religions have a opinion on wether or not continuing a pregnancy that will kill the mother would be considered suicide, and would that not be considered a sin on the mother's part? My apologies to the OP for taking a little detour.

Actually I think this part of the discussion is closer to the OP than some of the other tangents. Especially since IMO, it's another reason abortion has to be legal. We should not have a situation where the state decides when abortion is legal and when it is not. Should be an all or nothing law. There's pregnancies where the mother is sure to die, there's rape and incest, and even situations where the childs life will amount to little more than pain and suffering.

The think the suicide angle is quite interesting. If people think God would save the woman if she was supposed to live, they oen could say the same thing about all other kinds of suicide.

God could keep somebody alive with after shooting themself, after slitting their wrists, after taking pills, after that big fall, after refusing sound medical advice...

 

[hokiefan33]

I have a question for a Christians who are against abortion...particularly those who are against abortion but think contraception is ok (and yes I know this is a strange question but I am seriously trying to understand this point of view):

Many Christians who believe that abortion is wrong hold this belief because they claim life begins at the moment of conception.

That is my belief, correct.

Some then go on to claim that once aborted, the babys soul will go to Heaven.

Yes, I also believe that. Since the baby has a soul, but has clearly not yet reached the age of accountability, that baby is covered by God's grace and would go to Heaven.

OK, well then what's so awful about that? Heaven is paradise...better than life here on earth, right? And certainly better than a women using contraception and the soul never existing in the first place. So I would think that given the aforementioned assumptions, abortion would be a GOOD thing. You are created a soul and sending it immediately to live with God forever in paradise.

Here's where we are going to differ. Using this argument, couldn't I also say that I should, or could, kill all professing Christians, since I know I'm really just sending them to Heaven? What would be wrong with that, using your argument? B/c you are still sinning and committing murder. As one who believes that life begins at conception (in the Bible in the book of Jeremiah, it says that God knew you while you were in the womb, right?), thus that unborn baby has a soul, I believe it is no different than killing Christians, under this same scenario. We're still choosing to end life ourselves, no matter how you look at it.

DO not misunderstand me...I am pro-choice but I do not think abortion is a good thing. I don't believe life begins and conception and I don't think aborted babies go to heaven.

When do you think life begins, and why? Where do you think aborted babies go, and why?

I have just always had a hard time understanding how people who do believe these little souls go to heaven could possibly be against abortion. It just doesn't make sense to me.

My point is that I believe that since it is life, it is murder. You're not doing the soul any kind of "favor" by sending it to Heaven, before it's appointed time.

 

[cardaway]

Logical reasoning tells me that if given a choice between never existing at all (through contraception) and becoming an emryo only to be aborted and then living for eternity in heaven, the former would be a much better alternative.

Don't forget going through nine months of being treated as a piece of unwanted tissue, and who knows how many years of life as an unwanted child or as a child in a family that can't support it.

People seem to be thinking that women forced to carry to term would give up the baby for adoption. I fail to see that happening the majority of the time.

 

[WIcruizer]

abortion would be a GOOD thing. You are created a soul and sending it immediately to live with God forever in paradise.

I'm "Pro-Choice" but I try to keep the emotion out of it, and use logic as well. This point isn't logical to me. That would mean any Christian at any age would want to die so they could go to heaven, a better place. However, I believe as a Christian we have a duty to accomplish certain things while living. Creating a family, teaching them to be good people, helping others, etc.

I just have a hard time understanding how Christians can believe contraception is ok, but abortion is not.

Because contraception PREVENTS life, it doesn't end life. And even at that, I don't really believe "life" begins at the moment of conception. My view on abortion is actually dictated a lot more by logic and general morality than religion. For example. How is it logical that a person can be charged with a crime for killing an "unborn baby" yet aborting a "fetus" is fine. A woman's choice doesn't change the basic fact of whther or not it is a human life. Fetus, baby, unborn child, etc. are all words that are fought over on both sides. But the bottom line is that it is human life. It is a living, functioning human being. Obviously at differing stages throughout development. That's why I don't follow the logic in why it's ok for many to support abortion after say 4 months, but not 9.

 

[hokiefan33]

OK, so in a sense it would be like killing someone who was destined to go to heaven anyway. But still, you can't quite compare the two because one person has already been born. Logical reasoning tells me that if given a choice between never existing at all (through contraception) and becoming an emryo only to be aborted and then living for eternity in heaven, the former would be a much better alternative. I just have a hard time understanding how Christians can believe contraception is ok, but abortion is not.

You can't compare the 2 if you believe that life doesn't start until outside the womb, but you can compare the 2 if you believe life starts at conception. 2 people who believe differently about when life begins can't come to a conclusion on this, b/c they can't agree on a common time when life begins, thus the basis for each person's argument is completely different.

I do agree with your "logical conclusion", however. It would be better to not be conceived at all, rather than to be conceived and then aborted. I'm not sure what hangs you up with why Christians think contraception is OK, but abortion is not. Contraception prevents conception from happening in the first place - the baby is never formed at all, b/c the eggs aren't fertilized. An abortion doesn't do that - it stops a process that has already taken place (conception), at whatever point the abortion is performed.

 

[RachelEllen]

How is it logical that a person can be charged with a crime for killing an "unborn baby" yet aborting a "fetus" is fine. A woman's choice doesn't change the basic fact of whther or not it is a human life. Fetus, baby, unborn child, etc. are all words that are fought over on both sides. But the bottom line is that it is human life. It is a living, functioning human being. Obviously at differing stages throughout development. That's why I don't follow the logic in why it's ok for many to support abortion after say 4 months, but not 9.

I can try to address this. Not that my view, of course, speaks for everyone who is pro-choice, but I still believe it is possible to logically address that point. (in a really long winded way, granted)

I think the right of abortion doesn't dervice from the fetus not being a living being. I think it derives from a conflict of the rights of the fetus and the mother. When I speak of rights, they are in no sense absolute. Absolute rights would be simple. Most ethical conflicts come about because there are two sets of rights which are in conflict. In this case, the fetus has a right to life which is in conflict with the mother's right to determine the use of her own body.

Current law would therefore support that the mother's right to use of her body overrules the fetus's right to live. Confusion arises when people try to solve this conflict by stating that it is purely based on the strength or weakness of the fetus's right to live. That is, if the fetus is a 'human being' it has a 100% right to live. If the fetus is not a 'human being' it has a 0% right to live. I believe that is oversimplifying matters and creates the confusions that you referred to.

Imagine an analogous case. (I want to put in a disclaimer here. I've used this argument before and been accused of trivializing abortion. This is purely an analogy based on a similar conflict of rights. I'm not at all saying these are morally equivilent situations. ) Let's say you had a kidney disease that neccessitated trasnplant in order to prevent your death. For the sake of argument, transplant is the only treatment which will work. Unfortunately, you have a very rare blood type. So rare, in fact, that only one person could provide you with that transplant. Are they morally obligated to? You will die without the transplant. Your right to live is in conflict with their rights to the use of their own body. Most people, I think, would say that while giving you the kidney would be a good thing to do, we shouldn't legally require the person to do that thing. That is, we would say that that person has the absolute right to determine who gets use of their body.

Now, the abortion issue is complicated by the fact that the mother caused the conflict in the first place. She, except in the case of rape, was involved somehow in the conflict of rights occuring. That's another dimension to the argument, and while important, doesn't really bare on your original question. (and this is long enough without going there.)

So, anyone, that's the conflict of rights. That's why, I believe, someone else could be charged with killing the fetus. They have no right in conflict with the fetus. Even if, in relation to the mother's right to her body, the fetus's right to live is lesser, it is still no small thing in and of itself. And when that conflict is taken out of the picture, another person has no right to kill that fetus. After viability, the conflict is also gone. The fetus can be 'removed' from the mother without killing it. Once that can happen, there is no conflict in rights.

Based on this, personally, I'm in favor of the right of abortion until medical viability (currently 23 weeks gestation).

 

[cardaway]

So, anyone, that's the conflict of rights. That's why, I believe, someone else could be charged with killing the fetus. They have no right in conflict with the fetus. Even if, in relation to the mother's right to her body, the fetus's right to live is lesser, it is still no small thing in and of itself. And when that conflict is taken out of the picture, another person has no right to kill that fetus. After viability, the conflict is also gone. The fetus can be 'removed' from the mother without killing it. Once that can happen, there is no conflict in rights.

That's my take as well.

What we really need is for science to find a way to take fetus out at any stage and allow it to be adopted by the people who would want it.

Sadly there would still be the unwanted, just as there is now with babies already born, but many more people would be able to adopt.

 

[KimR]

I do agree with your "logical conclusion", however. It would be better to not be conceived at all, rather than to be conceived and then aborted. I'm not sure what hangs you up with why Christians think contraception is OK, but abortion is not. Contraception prevents conception from happening in the first place - the baby is never formed at all, b/c the eggs aren't fertilized. An abortion doesn't do that - it stops a process that has already taken place (conception), at whatever point the abortion is performed.

No, you don't agree with me! I said former and I meant latter. I need to go back and fix that. I guess what I am saying is that based on your beliefs, in my opinion, it seems it would better for that sould to die as an embryo through an abortion and live forever in heaven than never to exist all.

You asked earlier when I believe life begins and where aborted babies go. I can't really say exactly when I believe life begins. And by that I mean when the unborn baby can be considered a 'person'...a living thing with a soul. I can't pinpoint an exact time. I do believe it happens sometime before birth but certainly not within the first few weeks. I would say at whatever point it is that the baby has a functioning brain and nervous system; otherwise the soul has no awareness. I would imagine it is a gradual process, but I don't know enough about fetal development to pointpoint an exact time. And as for where aborted babies go...in most cases (very early abortions)I don't think they 'go' anywhere - there is no soul involved. As for later abortions or stillbirths...I really don't know.

 

[WIcruizer]

Based on this, personally, I'm in favor of the right of abortion until medical viability (currently 23 weeks gestation).

That's what's funny about the Pro Choice, Pro Life "labels." Most Pro Choice people would not agree with your determination. They support the right of abortion to term, and even post-term. Just as many Pro Life people wouldn't call me Pro Life because I believe in contraception and I don't believe "life" begins the minute of conception.

Current law would therefore support that the mother's right to use of her body overrules the fetus's right to live.

And that's where the moral question comes in. Is a woman's convenience a greater moral right than the right of the unborn to live?