A Great idea on the abortion issue!

[4_marks]

katherine2:

Hey, I got a great idea. Rather than – while continuing to pursue our goal of giving legal protection for the unborn – also working with people like Senator Clinton to reduce the number of abortions by means like education, support,etc let’s instead call her a bunch of names and say nasty things about her. I’ll bet I can get at least 20-30 posts on that!!

You’re kidding…right??? :whacky:

 

[miguel]

Lisa N:

…We know when a skunk arrives at the picnic. He doesn’t need to announce his presence.

Hillary Le Pew!

 

[Lisa_N]

Laurel:

I am adressing the purple section only. I will tell you that I was pro-choice, but I too have seen that that is a mistake and I am now pro-life; however, there is such a thing as an un-wanted pregnancy and I will tell you what I mean. When there is an instance of rape in a family, and I am speaking of adult to minor or parent to child or brother to sister etc. I was lucky but my best friend was not. She was impregnated by her brother at age 10 (menses hit at age 9). I sould say that she was my best friend, after she began to show they moved and I haven’t heard from them since. I have a hard time thinking that God was a part of that pregnancy. Was it the baby’s fault…no…was it planned…no. If that was my daughter and I found out something like that happened, after I had the person arrested, and I would pray that God would not make my daughter suffer that way. Sure some will say she should have it and give it up for adoption…or there would probably be a miscarriage anyway because of the likelihood of birth defects. But what about the effects of this on a 10yr old. What if the baby survives and is so severely brain damaged that it is not elligible for adoption assistance. What does the family do then?. I don’t have the answers as becomming pro-life has left my hands tied. I can imagine that even praying for a miscarriage is a sin so what would the course of action be in this unwanted pregnancy?. I am not being sarcastic…this is the one point that kept my pro-choice for so long and I imagine that many pro-choice people are that way for the same reason.

Laurel first I am sorry for your friend’s situation and hope it has resolved itself by now. However this is a very very unlikely scenario and to preserve abortion on demand for everyone to protect the really miniscule number of such cases is figuratively and literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The other thing to consider is that while your friend is very young there is no reason to presume the child will be brain damaged or have some kind of hideous birth defect due to her age or the incest. You are right, this pregnancy may terminate on its own if the mother cannot sustain the pregnancy due to her age. And you are right that the girl may suffer from the effects of the pregnancy but likely there would have been effects from the incest regardless of whether it resulted in a pregnancy. There are many things wrong with this situation but it still does not justify ‘open season’ on unborn babies, most of which are killed due to their inconvenience (please go back and look at the link I posted with the statistics).

And even the most adamant prolifers would allow a termination if the mother’s life was in mortal danger. So if carrying the child to term would kill the mother I imagine a termination would be allowed. But again, so often proabort groups use the unusual and hideous case to justify the usual situation of a termination for convenience or expense

Lisa N

 

[miguel]

INRI:

…this article, from the Washington Post sheds some light on the situation. The writer works for a liberal think tank:

By Phillip Longman
Thursday, September 2, 2004; Page A23
What’s the difference between the protesters outside the Republican convention and the delegates inside? There are many, of course, but one will ultimately skew American politics and the culture wars in the Republicans’ favor, regardless of who has God or reason on her side. It’s the divide between who is having children and who isn’t…Well, as the comedian Dick Cavett remarked, “If your parents never had children, chances are you won’t either.” When secular-minded Americans decide to have few if any children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide. Sure, some children who grow up in fundamentalist families will become secularists, and vice versa. But most people, particularly if they have children, wind up with pretty much the same religious and political orientations as their parents. If “Metros” don’t start having more children, America’s future is “Retro.”

Democrats pay attention! Your survival is at stake. One thing that never ceases to amaze me, for the same reason, is why black leaders (e.g., Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, et al), are pro-abortion. How is this ever going to lead to greater power for them?:banghead:

 

[Laurel]

Lisa N:

Laurel first I am sorry for your friend’s situation and hope it has resolved itself by now. However this is a very very unlikely scenario and to preserve abortion on demand for everyone to protect the really miniscule number of such cases is figuratively and literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The other thing to consider is that while your friend is very young there is no reason to presume the child will be brain damaged or have some kind of hideous birth defect due to her age or the incest. You are right, this pregnancy may terminate on its own if the mother cannot sustain the pregnancy due to her age. And you are right that the girl may suffer from the effects of the pregnancy but likely there would have been effects from the incest regardless of whether it resulted in a pregnancy. There are many things wrong with this situation but it still does not justify ‘open season’ on unborn babies, most of which are killed due to their inconvenience (please go back and look at the link I posted with the statistics).

And even the most adamant prolifers would allow a termination if the mother’s life was in mortal danger. So if carrying the child to term would kill the mother I imagine a termination would be allowed. But again, so often proabort groups use the unusual and hideous case to justify the usual situation of a termination for convenience or expense

Lisa N

Hi,
Thanks for your response.

As I said…being pro-life now really makes it hard to know what would be right in that type of situation. Medically speaking though a pregnancy resulting from a brother sister, father daughter etc. union does carry with it a highly increased risk of birth defects…that is why a law was passed saying that first cousins could no longer marry or so I am told.
I am not saying have an open season on abortion…my point was that there is such a thing as an unwanted pregnancy and the girl does not have to be 10 either. Sho could be 13, 16 whatever and even though there would be emotional trauma resulting from the incest, (I know that firsthand) the trauma of giving birth to that persons child is a difficult concept. I know for myself that I would have loved any child I gave birth to but I don’t know if my mind could have handled re-living that childs conception whenever I looked an him or her. Again, I am not saying legalize abortion, I an just saying why I was pro-choice for so long and that maybe others hang on to that way of thinking for that reason too. I know what happens to the babies who are killed and it horrifies me to think that some women use abortion as a means of birth control. I knew a girl who had 7 abortions in the 10 yrs she was dating a friend of my brothers. We asked her haven’t you figured out what is causing that yet and why don’t you stop?. And how can you live with yourself?. I was only 17…that was the best I could come up with at the time. And my ex-sister-in-law had two abortions while with my brother without his knowledge. That hurt him deeply. They finally had a son and she ended up with custody of him…they said she was a better parent. Whatever. Anyway I am off topic here and I will just say that I appreciate your response and thank you for listening.

 

[_veritas]

Lisa N:

And even the most adamant prolifers would allow a termination if the mother’s life was in mortal danger. So if carrying the child to term would kill the mother I imagine a termination would be allowed. But again, so often proabort groups use the unusual and hideous case to justify the usual situation of a termination for convenience or expense

Actually, for Catholics, the answer is flat out “no.” Particularly in cases where the baby’s life is not doomed, but only the mother’s. A risk to the mother’s life does not condone the murder of the child, for the same reason that you cannot kill one person to save another (ie, to kill Bill the bum for his organs, in order to save Susan the mother).

The baby has just as much of a right to life as the mother does, and is innocent. Direct abortion, even to save the life of the mother, is never permitted. However, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is developing in the fallopian tube and, if the situation is allowed to continue, both the mother and the child will die, the Church does permit the tube to be removed, which indirectly causes the baby to die. This is not the same as a direct abortion, so it is not fobidden absolutely, but the rest of the criteria must be fulfilled (for example, the intent must not be for the child’s death, and the proportionality of the situation must be such that BOTH the mother and the child will die)

This is called the “Doctrine of Double Effect” and has been one of the primary philosophical motivators of the Church’s teachings on morality for hundreds of years. More information on the Doctrine of Double Effect can be found at uno.edu/~asoble/pages/dde.htm

You may also wish to go look over on EWTN’s Q&A boards, search the answers for double effect and you should come up with multiple responses.

+veritas+

 

[jlw]

Shamelessly promoting my own thread on this issue:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=35153

 

[Lisa_N]

+veritas+:

Actually, for Catholics, the answer is flat out “no.”

The baby has just as much of a right to life as the mother does, and is innocent. Direct abortion, even to save the life of the mother, is never permitted. However, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is developing in the fallopian tube and, if the situation is allowed to continue, both the mother and the child will die, the Church does permit the tube to be removed, which indirectly causes the baby to die. This is not the same as a direct abortion, so it is not fobidden absolutely, but the rest of the criteria must be fulfilled (for example, the intent must not be for the child’s death, and the proportionality of the situation must be such that BOTH the mother and the child will die)

This is called the “Doctrine of Double Effect” and has been one of the primary philosophical motivators of the Church’s teachings on morality for hundreds of years. More information on the Doctrine of Double Effect can be found at uno.edu/~asoble/pages/dde.htm

You may also wish to go look over on EWTN’s Q&A boards, search the answers for double effect and you should come up with multiple responses.

+veritas+

Thank you and yes I understand. I was referring to the ectopic pregnancy situation where the removal of the area will inadvertently kill the unborn child but necessary to save the mother’s life.

Laurel’s situation is so heartbreaking but surprisingly God has created our bodies to know whether or not the pregnancy can be maintained. The child may need to be born via Caeserean due to the mother’s pelvis being too small. But if she can sustain the pregnancy (it doesn’t terminate on its own which apparently happens to a certain percentage of pregnancies) the baby isn’t going to necessarily be born brain damaged or have a defect. Still it’s one of those situations where the young girl will need much mental and physical support.

Laurel yes there is an increased chance of some kind of genetic anomoly but I think that risk has been very overblown simply because the idea of incest is so repugnant to all of us. Anyone who studies ancient history will learn that brother sister “marriages” were not unheard of and anyone involved in animal breeding knows that in breeding does not necessarily mean three headed cats or such awful results. Chances are if the girl can sustain the pregnancy the child will be perfectly normal. It’s a shame you cannot find out what happened.

FWIW I also knew a woman who used abortion as birth control. I was SO disgusted by her attitude. She was a ‘party girl’ and said she didn’t use birth control (OR SELF CONTROL!!!) because she didn’t want it to look like she was planning a sexual encounter. Yuck!

If anyone else happened to notice the info, apparently multiple abortions are becoming more common. Once done it gets easier every time apparently. The GOOD news is that this is seen more in the 30+ age group rather than younger women who are seemingly less inclined to consider the abortion option.

Lisa N