Abortion worse than the Holocaust

[Elric]

There really is something wrong when you can use an abortion as a form of contraception or to remove an inconvienent situation.

It is also concerning when someone is labeled as selfish for wanting to save their own life, or for that matter avoid commiting sucide. Just so you know when faced with the choice of my spouses life or my sons, it was one that I didnt want to make and dont think that anyone who has not been in that position could ever understand or really have any right to comment on. Thankfully it didnt reach the situation where my choice would decide who lived and both are alive and well, but my decision was to save my spouses life if it came to that.

There are reasons why killing someone is a compassionate and merciful thing to do. When faced with the choice of saving one life at the expence of another, you are showing mercy to the one who lives (although ultimatly saving both is prefered). Ending the missery of a person who is in constant agony, is a compassionate act.

I believe that there are others, but I know that nobody will agree with them.

 

[patg]

Worse? Depends on your definition of worse.

All the victims of abortion are immediately in heaven with God - that doesn’t sound too bad to me when compared to the Holocaust .

The victims of the Holocaust? Who knows… (Of course if I were to only rely on what I was taught in Catholic school,* none* of those victims are in heaven).

 

[Mac6yver]

As Christ said, there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another. What greater act of motherhood is there than to willingly accept the distinct possibility of death so that the child has a chance at life?

Furthermore, you completely discount the possibility of miracles, not to mention the fact that a doctor’s prognosis of imminent death could be wrong.

When in doubt, err on the side of saving the child’s life. Who are we to say, “I must live, even if it means my child must die”?

This is such a foolish argument. the mother has an established life, there is no guarantee the child would survive. What if the mother has other children, should they have to sacrifice their mother whom they depend on? This is why your side of the argument will never succeed by producing a total ban on all abortion in this country. The majority of Americans have common sense.

 

[proudnifi]

Looks like this thread has veered off course, but the situation of mom’s life vs baby’s life is not very common. Anyway, if I’m not mistaken, if it comes down to mom’s life being in danger, it’s often ok to take the baby out early. It’s clear that a dead mom isn’t usually conducive to healthy pre-born baby (common sense).

 

[estesbob]

I dont think that you should use such terms a genocide so lightly. In quite a lot of cases, terms like “mercy” and “compassion” are more appropiate.

I guess it depends whether you are the one doing the killing or the one being killed.

 

[estesbob]

So what exactly is that meant to show/prove?

All it shows is that you would rather jump to (negative) conclusions and try to pass a negative judgment on everyone. It doesnt look into the circumstances as to why such a procedure could be necessary, it just shows basically the “end result”.

Your even taring me with the same negative result with the “conscience” and “never seen the reality” comments.

Im sorry, but your movie is hardly a convincing argument.

After viewing the movie can show us the part where mercy or compassion is shown?

 

[estesbob]

At the risk of inflaming the argument further (and I know this post is going to get jumped on):

When a child is going to be born into poverty, into hunger, and want, when a child is going to be born into abuse, violence, exposure to alchohol and drugs, when a child is going to be born to a mother that doesn’t want him, isn’t physically or mentally able to care for him the way he deserves - isn’t it then a better choice not to let the child be born, to suffer?

I’mly.

Ah the better deaf than underfed argument!

So if it is compassionate to kill a child to keep it from being born into poverty why wouldnt it also be compassionate to kill a child living in poverty? Or how about we sterilize all men and women who are in poverty? What a Brave New World we would have!

 

[estesbob]

There really is something wrong when you can use an abortion as a form of contraception or to remove an inconvienent situation.

.

Why" If abortion is an acceptable alternative in some cases it should be accpetable in all cases.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

This is such a foolish argument. the mother has an established life, there is no guarantee the child would survive. What if the mother has other children, should they have to sacrifice their mother whom they depend on? This is why your side of the argument will never succeed by producing a total ban on all abortion in this country. The majority of Americans have common sense.

And the result is “Abortions for some; miniature American flags for others!”

God bless America.

Yes, the mother has an established life, but (in the event that her life is in danger and the pregnancy might kill her) there is no guarantee that a) the pregnancy would kill her, and b) an abortion would save her.

Why shouldn’t the child get a shot at life, too?

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

There really is something wrong when you can use an abortion as a form of contraception or to remove an inconvienent situation.

It is also concerning when someone is labeled as selfish for wanting to save their own life, or for that matter avoid commiting sucide. Just so you know when faced with the choice of my spouses life or my sons, it was one that I didnt want to make and dont think that anyone who has not been in that position could ever understand or really have any right to comment on. Thankfully it didnt reach the situation where my choice would decide who lived and both are alive and well, but my decision was to save my spouses life if it came to that.

There are reasons why killing someone is a compassionate and merciful thing to do. When faced with the choice of saving one life at the expence of another, you are showing mercy to the one who lives (although ultimatly saving both is prefered). Ending the missery of a person who is in constant agony, is a compassionate act.

I believe that there are others, but I know that nobody will agree with them.

No, there frankly are not reasons that it is truly merciful to kill someone. Period. The Church condemns all forms of euthanasia, regardless of the reason.

Also, as I said before, I’m sorry that you were nearly forced into making a choice between your wife and child. And, no, I’ve not had that experience, but that does not disqualify me from the discussion. By that rationale, no Church leader (since they are all celibate men) could comment on the issue, but the fact remains that there is an objective evil present in abortion.

Now, take the case of St. Gianna – the subject of the link I provided. It would’ve been morally acceptable to remove the diseased womb, thus causing the death of the child, because the death was an unintended result of saving Gianna’s life. The same is true in ectopic pregnancies. If, however, the choice is made to directly terminate the life of the child, that is not morally acceptable.

The Church has ruled definitively on this.

Again, I don’t mean to diminish the anguish you must’ve felt as you faced the possibility of that choice, and I thank God that it ultimately was moot and that your wife and child are both alive.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Lev23]

I think the abortion issue is worst than the Holocaust. Six million Jews were killed during Hitler’s plan to wipe them out.

When I was reading Wikipedia on abortion. 46 million abortions are done worldwide and 24 million of them them are done in countries were it is legal.

In the US, that’s 24 million babiesx 34 yrs (34 since Roe v. Wade), that’s 817 million babies killed. It could well top 1.6 billion babies killed. So far this is the worst mass killing of unborn human beings.

Abortion and all of its procedures, etc., etc., is an abomination. Horrible stuff.

But why compare it to the Holocaust on what is worse? It implies that the Holocaust and all acts of genocide were “not that bad”.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Abortion and all of its procedures, etc., etc., is an abomination. Horrible stuff.

But why compare it to the Holocaust on what is worse? It implies that the Holocaust and all acts of genocide were “not that bad”.

I agree, and I apologize if my argument above detracted from the thread.

The Holocaust – and any other instance of so-called “ethnic cleansing” (a euphemism that makes my skin crawl) – was an unspeakably evil moment in human history. Abortion is unspeakably evil in its own right, but to say one or the other was worse is quite moot.

However, from a statistical analysis standpoint, it’s obvious that abortion has killed far more people in total, as well as per year (on average).

HOLOCAUST:
6 million Jews killed in 12 years (1933 to 1945) = 500,000 per year.

ABORTION:
46 million babies killed in 34 years (since Roe) = 1,352,941 per year.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that abortion is “worse”, because it doesn’t take into account the sheer barbarism and coldly mechanical nature of the Final Solution, which is truly creepy to contemplate.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Elric]

After viewing the movie can show us the part where mercy or compassion is shown?

Of course I cant, it only shows one part of the process to the exclusion of everything else.

What sort of question is that?

 

[Elric]

Why" If abortion is an acceptable alternative in some cases it should be accpetable in all cases.

If you say so…

Personally I think that is a pretty dumb statement to make.

 

[bmmckinney]

Elric,

I’m going to give you a fair opportunity after I call you out as someone who isn’t prolife. See I can speak as a national prolife leader who is very aware that you are arguing exactly how established prochoicers argue, they provide blanket statements but don’t back up their tough rhetoric.

What I want you to do is provide us with specific not just general instances or conditions of pregnancy that an abortion is ok, its fair to put you on the spot its what I train college students to do all the time against prochoice students on campus at our project, guess what, I haven’t in all my prolife work heard of a good reason so you could be the first.

So you know where I am coming from medically I have a BS in Health Policy Adminstration and a specialization in that of reproductive medical health so I know far more about fertility/pregnancy issues then most people.

I will tell you that you can easily verify the following statements in any medical/embryonic/OBGYN textbook.

1. There is no medical reason that a living unborn child should ever need to be aborted.
2. Only a baby who has DIED inside of their mother in the uterus would need to go through the procedure of an abortion, but only at a hospital, not abortion clinic, it isn’t classified as an abortion because the baby is already dead.
3. An ectopic pregnancy is the ONLY situation where a mother AND child will die, any thing else is a controllable risk factor that can be removed or lessened significantly. An ectopic pregnancy is removed by going through the woman’s belly button, down and then carefully removing the unborn baby alive in his or her amnionic sac to avoid poisioning the woman to death.

Now Elric, if you are just prochoice they don’t be afraid to say you are, if its something you or anyone else agrees with you should be proud of your beliefs! In fact you should even be able to defend such beliefs without problem in front of photos or video of an abortion procedure’s effect on an unborn baby.

 

[Elric]

No, there frankly are not reasons that it is truly merciful to kill someone. Period. The Church condemns all forms of euthanasia, regardless of the reason.

Well then the church is contradicting itself and would be wrong.

You would kill a very sick or badly injured animal out of compassion, why not for humans?

Also, as I said before, I’m sorry that you were nearly forced into making a choice between your wife and child. And, no, I’ve not had that experience, but that does not disqualify me from the discussion. By that rationale, no Church leader (since they are all celibate men) could comment on the issue, but the fact remains that there is an objective evil present in abortion.

Until you are in that position (and I hope that you never are) you cant make judgments on others about it, because you cant understand the experience. That includes Church leaders.

But yes, abortions are evil when used unneccessarily. When used for the right right reasons it is a difficult and traumatic experience for everyone involved and a decision that should never be taken lightly.

Now, take the case of St. Gianna – the subject of the link I provided. It would’ve been morally acceptable to remove the diseased womb, thus causing the death of the child, because the death was an unintended result of saving Gianna’s life. The same is true in ectopic pregnancies. If, however, the choice is made to directly terminate the life of the child, that is not morally acceptable.

Actually if you had to remove the womb, thus making her unable to bead children, the bible says that you have to kill her.

The Church has ruled definitively on this.

It wouldnt be the first time that the church was wrong about something, but that is really something for another thread.

Again, I don’t mean to diminish the anguish you must’ve felt as you faced the possibility of that choice, and I thank God that it ultimately was moot and that your wife and child are both alive.

Peace,
Dante

You may not mean to but that is exactly what you have done, especally considering I opted for the mothers life. You dont have to live with the aftermath of that and look into someones face and think “I would have let you die”.

 

[bmmckinney]

Elric,

I’m not sure if you mentioned the condition of the mother in your situation but I am very aware of the fact that many poorly trained doctors tell women to have an abortion when they have only risk factors. I don’t know of a condition nor does modern science that would kill a woman in pregnancy if she didn’t have an abortion. Can you elaborate? If you aren’t able to thats ok but the medical consensus is very clear that there aren’t any known pregnancy issues where abortion of a living baby is necessary. Even OBGYN’s who perform abortions will state this.

 

[hasikelee]

Hey Elric…you do know that the Alan Guttmacher institute stated there is no medical reason for an abortion, right?

 

[RhyannaRose]

<<< In Judaism there is a saying that to kill [murder] one person is to kill a whole race, or something to that effect. Oy, yoy yoy! Lord have mercy on us all! >>>

I just want to jump in, since this is one Jewish teaching I know by heart, since it speaks to the Truth in such stark but simple terms.

“If you kill one person, it is as if you have killed the whole world. But if you save one persona, it is as if you have saved the whole world.”

 

[RhyannaRose]

I’d like to add something to the ectopic pregnancy matter, and that is that the child has no chance of survival no matter what is done. Children are not designed to grow into the fallopian tube and so their life cannot be saved in any manner. So personally, it is not contradicting for the Church to state that ectopic pregnancies being treated is abortion. The child had no chance of life, unlike most aborted babies who are just killed because of “choice” or a prodeath doctor trumping up unnecessary fear in the mother.

My two cents, of course. I don’t have any children, but I do have a uterus and I am a woman. And even though I’m 25 and have probably a good sixty years in front of me, I would not hesitate to risk my life if I were pregnant to at least carry the baby to the point of being viable for early delivery.