Why Stop At Birth?

[Kit the Coyote]

Where I spend the next life has absolutely no bearing.

I don't have the full details but I gathered this event occurred somewhere around the 20th week of pregnancy and that the woman lived to have more children. So I can make some assumptions for the purpose of clarity.
- I read somewhere on the subject of premature birth that so far no child born prior to the 21 weeks has ever lived so the child chances of living after a C-section is effectively zero.
- The mother reportedly went on to have at least one other child.
- The Doctors were fairly sure at the time that she would not survive a C-section.

So the choice came down to an almost certainty that four or more people die, including the future unborn children. Or 'murder' the one child that is going to die anyway and save at least two or more of those lives. In the position of the father being asked to make this choice, what do you do?

 

[ok doser]

Um, this is the politics forum JR, not religion ...

perhaps you haven't noticed in the short time you've been here, but on this site the two are intertwined :duh:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where I spend the next life has absolutely no bearing.

I don't have the full details but I gathered this event occurred somewhere around the 20th week of pregnancy and that the woman lived to have more children. So I can make some assumptions for the purpose of clarity.
- I read somewhere on the subject of premature birth that so far no child born prior to the 21 weeks has ever lived so the child chances of living after a C-section is effectively zero.
- The mother reportedly went on to have at least one other child.
- The Doctors were fairly sure at the time that she would not survive a C-section.

So therefore... kill the baby?

So the choice came down to an almost certainty that four or more people die, including the future unborn children.

Who didn't exist yet, and therefore by definition couldn't die...

Or 'murder' the one child that is going to die anyway

It's always wrong to murder. The fact that you even consider it as an option shows how filled with bloodlust you are.

It is not wrong to let a dying person die. It IS wrong to kill a dying person.

and save at least two or more of those lives. In the position of the father being asked to make this choice, what do you do?

I tell them that killing my child, my wife's child, is not an option.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yep, and no one is ever scared into belief. :thumb:

That's fair comment. Scare tactics and horror doctrines like "turn or burn" don't result in people having actual belief. They might well result in people going through some sort of motions because they're scared of ending up in some "hell" in case it exists but sincere belief in itself? No.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I tell them that killing my child, my wife's child, is not an option.

And you have that choice, to stand by your moral ground and justly so. There are others who would decide not to bury their entire family and save at least one.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And you have that choice, to stand by your moral ground and justly so. There are others who would decide not to bury their entire family and save at least one.

False premise.

No one has the right to say "kill the baby".

Because it's always wrong to kill a baby.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

False premise.

No one has the right to say "kill the baby".

Because it's always wrong to kill a baby.

Yes it is, but it does not make the cruel situation go away.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Another example I found also from true life I think but I don't have many details. A mother early in her pregnancy was diagnosed with a particularly aggressive cancer. It is fully treatable but delaying treatment for months to deliver the baby is a death sentence for the mother. The chemo and radiation will kill the baby and likely harm the mother.

 

[glorydaz]

Another example I found also from true life I think but I don't have many details. A mother early in her pregnancy was diagnosed with a particularly aggressive cancer. It is fully treatable but delaying treatment for months to deliver the baby is a death sentence for the mother. The chemo and radiation will kill the baby and likely harm the mother.

There are lots of possibilities out there, and it is the hardest choice any person would ever have to make. The problem is with those who abort a baby for matters of convenience, and that has nothing to do with the health of the mother....even when they might claim it does.

 

[aikido7]

Abortion is never necessary.

So the death of a dear sister IS ?

 

[Stripe]

Why are Darwinists always so eager to justify killing babies?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why are Darwinists always so eager to justify killing babies?

Because they hate God, and since all babies are made in God's image, they hate them too.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

There are lots of possibilities out there, and it is the hardest choice any person would ever have to make. The problem is with those who abort a baby for matters of convenience, and that has nothing to do with the health of the mother....even when they might claim it does.

I would agree. An abortion ends a life, unless it was already ended, and thus should really be an option of last resort and desperation.

 

[ok doser]

Why are Darwinists always so eager to justify killing babies?

they don't see any value in human life - that's why you always see them supporting socialist/communist regimes

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why are Darwinists always so eager to justify killing babies?

Because they hate God, and since all babies are made in God's image, they hate them too.

People who accept established science do neither by default. The last I checked neither Barbarian or Alate One were remotely in favour of abortion at all by way of.

 

[ok doser]

... by way of.

by way of what?

 

[aikido7]

Cesarean is just another way to DELIVER a baby.

Cesarean is not a way to KILL a baby.

Those people who were born because of a Cesarean they usually leave a room by way of a window--not the front door.

 

[ok doser]

if we all chipped in $5, could we pay you to go away and bother another website?

 

[glorydaz]

Another example I found also from true life I think but I don't have many details. A mother early in her pregnancy was diagnosed with a particularly aggressive cancer. It is fully treatable but delaying treatment for months to deliver the baby is a death sentence for the mother. The chemo and radiation will kill the baby and likely harm the mother.

Fully treatable and particularly aggressive? That's pretty odd, but one thing I do know, from what I've been reading, is that babies can survive just fine during a mother's chemo and radiation. I'm quite sure it is very rare that a baby cannot be brought to the age of viability before the mother's life is in danger.

Unless, of course, a case like you already mentioned....an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is growing in the fallopian tube. That is obviously a case of the life of the mother being endangered and no hope for the baby, either.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Fully treatable and particularly aggressive? That's pretty odd, but one thing I do know, from what I've been reading, is that babies can survive just fine during a mother's chemo and radiation. I'm quite sure it is very rare that a baby cannot be brought to the age of viability before the mother's life is in danger.

Unless, of course, a case like you already mentioned....an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is growing in the fallopian tube. That is obviously a case of the life of the mother being endangered and no hope for the baby, either.

Ectopic pregnancies are survivable, and have been for some time now.

http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/fact-sheet-on-ectopic-pregnancy.html