Pro-abortion arguments...those who are pro-choice, what do/did you really believe?

[mapleoak]

is it?

Yes it is

on what grounds do you say that?

Not sure what is being asked. Is it asking what makes this a moral statement? Or is it asking what is the moral basis for making that statement?

so you would let an ectopic pregnancy kill a woman would you?

That doesn’t really sound right. For one, and ectopic pregnancy (misplaced baby) doesn’t kill (murder) anyone. The direct killing (murder) of an ectopic pregnancy (misplaced baby) does. Again, directly killing one innocent person to save another is never justified.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[LittleDeb]

Their premise was yes they were adrversely effected by the abortion but it was all the fault of pro-lifers making them feel guilty.

I’ve heard reference to this before, but have never understood the particular argument. Do they say they feel the same way about abortion but only feel guilty about their own because of treatment they received? If they were private about it how could anyone “make” them feel guilty? I know you can’t get inside their heads to explain it, but if you have more information this argument would be good to understand and also to add to haskilee’s list.

 

[guanophore]

Your flip response fails to recognize or address the key stumbling block in the abortion debate–whether and when the unborn should be accorded **legal **recognition as persons entitled to full protection of their rights under the law and the circumstances/timing under which others in society incur obligations of protection/harm avoidance toward them.

I don’t really think this IS the key stumbling block in the abortion debate. I think the stumbling block is a lack of education and misinformation. I stated that I thought most women seeking abortion would find another way if they knew the facts.

Science and logic are not dependant on “belief” to explain their theories.

Those were the words of another poster, not mine. My question was, should science and logic be the standard by which decisions are made on this topic?

My mistake–I have been laboring under the delusion that tremendous controversy continues to surround the issue of when human life begins and is entitled to legal protection. I guess that’s a settled issue in your world.

I stated clearly that the only thing settled in my world is that human life begins at conception. I realize there are many human lives that don’t have legal protection. I just listened to a documentary about human slavery in the united states, and how asians are brought in to serve in the prostitution business and locked up for years and threatened to force them into service.
Island Oak;2216354:

(And let’s not forget that not all pregnancies occur through voluntary action.)

Let’s not. Let us be mindful that due process prevents the accused of crimes (and even convicted perpetrators ) from being dismembered. Let us not forget that such due process is not accorded to one of the victims of the crime.

Once again you ignore the line in the sand of pre-post birth–(even “viability”) and the acquisition of legal rights. I am not advocating for a negation of finding natural rights in the pre-born nor find the current paradigm to be ideal–but you can’t ignore the quandry the issue presents when you are considering drafting laws for a secular society.

I am not ignoring that there is a quandary at all. I was speaking against the absurd notion that murder and rape should not be outlawed because you cannot coerce people into behaving morally by making laws.

Your argument above misses the mark again because you ignore the critical distinction between recognizing /denying rights based on gender or race and recognizing the rights or the pre-born–that being–with race or gender no other individual is required to sacrifice their safety or health in order to recognize and protect the rights in the target class.

I think all those folks that lost their lives during the civil rights movement might disagree with you.

Perhaps even the Afgan and Iraqi people might disagree too.

I am sure there are a number of people in Africa who have not yet perished from genocide that will disagree. Since when has freedom ever been gained without the loss of life? Why did Jesus have to die for us!?!?!?
Island Oak;2216354:

With the pre-born, the rights of another individual (the mother) are unavoidably implicated by (and in some cases made subserviant to) the needs of the pre-born child.

I guess I just don’t understand this. Can you give me an example of when the rights of the mother are subservient to the child? Are you talking about her right to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol?

THAT does present a moral and legal dilema when we do not have a universally accepted ethic as to when human life begins.

I submit that when human life begins is not a matter of ethics, but a matter of science. Science tell us that human life begins at conception (at least, that is what it is telling me in my science texts). If that is the case, the NEXT step is to develop an ethic about what to do with this knowledge. The Catholic Church has always held the ethic that abortion is morally wrong. Today, there are many people who call themselves “Catholic” that spurn the teaching of the church on this point.

 

[MooCowSteph]

Well, I am going to answer the OP’s question rather than get involved in the current argument. When I was in highschool and younger, I didn’t really know much about the development of a fetus. My primary reason for being what I considered prochoice was that in some cases, these “unwanted” babies were going to be born into poverty, abuse, or worse. I thouht these babies were better off aborted than with a mother who does drugs, abuses the child mentally or physically, who would be bumped from home to home in foster care, or just completely unloved. I’m still not sure that I wasn’t right, but it doesn’t matter because murder is never an option and never alright.

 

[estesbob]

I’ve heard reference to this before, but have never understood the particular argument. Do they say they feel the same way about abortion but only feel guilty about their own because of treatment they received? If they were private about it how could anyone “make” them feel guilty? I know you can’t get inside their heads to explain it, but if you have more information this argument would be good to understand and also to add to haskilee’s list.

Basically since they had bought into the abortion is good myth if they had problems it could not be with the abortion-it had to be with those opposing it, I know that makes no sense but i guess for them it is better than facing up to the fact they killed thier child.

 

[guanophore]

it’s more a matter of omission, which is falsely perceived to undermine “informed consent” due to a simplistic idea of informed consent

I have been asked by the freshly educated why the facts are not told to them. I have tried to explain that “informed consent” applies to the mother, who is the patient. When the by products of conception are not considered the patient, there is no obligation to even speak about any effects on said by products.

what utter tripe!
so where have I expressed “callous disregard” for life - try reading the posts!
we’re discussing science not morals - please keep up
another example of “prolife” thinking which demonstrates why I can’t have a debate with these extremists
the level of (lack of) thought is truly astounding - this guy doesn’t like “pro-life” fanatics so he must have a callous disregard for life? I find this truly staggering

Whoa there buddy! YOU hijacked the thread!!! the OP was asking a sincere question about what made people change their minds. For some of us, it was science, but not all. In any case, the OP was not asking about science, but the nature of the information that changed people.

However, I do agree that your callous disregard is more related to the attitude you take toward the others involved in the discussion than it is for the by products of conception. You have run across some staggering prejudice, and that is regrettable, but your attitude prevents you from being the source of educating people about the subject.

there is no point in debating with people that base their scientific understanding on the moral position they want to take
can’t you see the ridiculousness of saying salpingectomy is OK but tubal preservation and methotrexate aren’t?
what is your opinion?
that is an area for debate - debate me on it
you must concede, if one doesn’t know the language one can hardly be considered very knowledgeable on the subject?

I disagree with you on a couple points. There is a point in debating, especially if you have expertise to bring to the discussion. Giving up because people are stubborn or prejudiced does not help solve the problem. Secondly, I think you are in error here about your conclusion. You seem to think that the decisions made by many of us on this point result from a lack of scientific understanding. This is clearly not the case. The moral foundations do not change, just because scientific understanding does.

And for the record, yes I do see a difference between the procedures.

If you think we are ignorant, then get off your high horse and start educating, instead of berating people for their lack of knowlege. At least if you are going to hijack the thread, you could contribute something positive!

 

[guanophore]

I am afraid that “Im a Doctor so i know best” argument holds no weight at all when discussing Faith and Morals. Given your callous disregard for life anyone who enages your services should b very, very careful.

I would like you to point out where in this thread Jack has demonstrated ANY careless disregard for life!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have been asked by the freshly educated why the facts are not told to them. I have tried to explain that “informed consent” applies to the mother, who is the patient. When the by products of conception are not considered the patient, there is no obligation to even speak about any effects on said by products.

One of the “by products” of an abortion is the impact on the mother when she learns fully what has been done to her, and what she “consented” to in her ignorance of the totality of the facts. Anyone who has worked with Project Rachael can discuss that at length.

The mother has a right to be fully informed of both the physical and emotional impacts of the procedure – and a right to sue when that information is withheld.

 

[guanophore]

that’s what you don’t understand
what is the focus of treatment in ectopic pregnancy?
this is important

I think you are coming at this from the wrong direction, Jack. What is more important than medical treatment is moral treatment. If one starts from the standpoint that one must not murder, that is what will flavor all the treatment questions.

But, in answer to your question, I will say that the focus of treatment is to stop the embryo from developing in it’s present environment, since it is life threatening to the mother. However this is my “uneducated” opinion.

please someone debate it with me
someone who actually accepts medical science and doesn’t work back from their desired conclusion?

Not likely to happen on this forum, Jack. Here we are more likely to start from a moral perspective,and work forward. I agree that the understanding of science should not be predicated upon the conclusion made from moral grounds. However, I also have to say that no amount of scientific accuracy will necessarily change the moral decision.

right let’s explain the science
ectopic pregnancy is where the enbryo implants somewhere it shouldn’t
the most common place is the Fallopian tubes/salpinges (singular salpinx) this may be due to a problem in the tubes affecting egg transport, but clearly not always as the embryo has a remarkable ability to implant, even implanting in the pouch of Douglas for example or on the bowel the pregnancy cannot go to term this pregnancy will rupture the aim of treatment is destroy this non-viable pregnancy this is why tubal preservation is possible and why methotrexate is an alternative treatment
they are all morally equivalent, as the pregnancy has to be terminated to save the mother’s life

By what standard did you determine that all these are morally equivalent?

Remember when I said that the moral goal and the medical goal may be in conflict? If the medical goal is to “destroy pregnancy” then it is likely that there will be a conflict.

 

[estesbob]

I When the by products of conception are not considered the patient, there is no obligation to even speak about any effects on said by products.

By “Products of conception” do you mean child? What a convoluted term. I guess its a lot easier rationilize dismembering and flusing hyman life down the drain when you call it “products of conception”

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure what your definition of pro-life is. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who is pro-life must support every woman in the world having as many babies as she possibly can. That is not the case.

You missed the whole point. You need to go back and read the thread. Jack is explaining a pro-life solution to an ectopic pregnancy that perserves the fallopian tube for the possibility of a future successful pregnancy.

Jeez, Jack, you are sure a magnet for slander!

 

[guanophore]

One of the “by products” of an abortion is the impact on the mother when she learns fully what has been done to her, and what she “consented” to in her ignorance of the totality of the facts. Anyone who has worked with Project Rachael can discuss that at length.

The mother has a right to be fully informed of both the physical and emotional impacts of the procedure – and a right to sue when that information is withheld.

According to what standard or whose “bill of rights”? Currently, there are no “rights” to the effect that the mother need be informed at all about the impact of the procedure on the by products of conception.

 

[estesbob]

According to what standard or whose “bill of rights”? Currently, there are no “rights” to the effect that the mother need be informed at all about the impact of the procedure on the by products of conception.

By products of conception? This is getting more and more bizzare.

 

[vern_humphrey]

According to what standard or whose “bill of rights”? Currently, there are no “rights” to the effect that the mother need be informed at all about the impact of the procedure on the by products of conception.

That’s why we’re working to pass laws to make this part of Informed Consent.

And I note you continue to refer to the emotional impact as a “by product of conception.” Would the same rule hold for the “by products” of a lobotomy?

How about a physician or pharmacist who failed to inform a patient about the “by products” of a prescribed drug?

 

[LittleDeb]

I’ve decided that because of my current emotional, pregnant state I just can’t discuss abortion right now. It’s getting me worked up. This pregnancy has been very difficult and I don’t want to cause the baby and I any more problems. I am doing something I rarely do. I am unsubscribing from this thread. Please feel free to PM me if I need to clarify anything I said here. God bless you all in your further discussion of pro-choice/pro-abortion arguments.

 

[fix]

Much of what many pro-life people say, who do not fully understand what ectopic pregnancy is or why it may occur, are poor attempts to justify the unfortunate death of the unborn child. Based on such grounds they have very little in the way of argument for defending the decision to solve this ‘problem’. In fact they are easily refuted when they fall from their moral basis. A perfectly healthy tube can become the site of implantation with no other abnormality than the fact that an embryo implanted there.

That portion of the tube will often become diseased if the situation is not resolved. When it does, or if the physician believes the situation will progress to further pathology, then we can say that part of the tube is diseased.

Endectomy in this case will not be the removal of a diseased organ.

Not always true. Even if erosion of the tube has not progessed to the point of rupture there may be good reason to believe it will.

In the same way, if an embryo implanted in the colon, it does not mean the colon is diseased. It must be stressed that one must be very careful that they are not being mislead into justifying a certain type of abortion by calling it a fancy name. Whether an action is performed to directly end the life of the unborn child or not is the determinant of morality in any such decisions.

That is why we speak of direct and indirect abortion. I know some Catholic moralists claim methotrexate use is justified by double effect, but I cannot see how that passes the test.

 

[fix]

it exposes the “pro-life” stance as ludicrous
you favour a treatment that reduces the chance of future conception and you label that “pro-life”?
that’s what happens when you don’t understand the science

Does that mean anything that can be done ought to be done? All moral decisions need to be justified and those that involve medicine even more.

That procedures exist and are performed and taught in no way justifies them before God. Science is not a god, does not exist in a vacuum, and must be understood to be subject to moral principles.

 

[guanophore]

That’s why we’re working to pass laws to make this part of Informed Consent.

And I note you continue to refer to the emotional impact as a “by product of conception.” Would the same rule hold for the “by products” of a lobotomy?

How about a physician or pharmacist who failed to inform a patient about the “by products” of a prescribed drug?

This is apples and oranges. The zygote (by product of conception) is a normal function of the body. It is not a chemical or substance that is “added” such as a medication. Furthermore, a lobotomy is considered an invasive procedure that makes permanent changes to the physiology, where abortion is not.

That portion of the tube will often become diseased if the situation is not resolved. When it does, or if the physician believes the situation will progress to further pathology, then we can say that part of the tube is diseased.

Not always true. Even if erosion of the tube has not progessed to the point of rupture there may be good reason to believe it will.

That is why we speak of direct and indirect abortion. I know some Catholic moralists claim methotrexate use is justified by double effect, but I cannot see how that passes the test.

I am curious to know what type of morally acceptable intervention is considered when the embryo implants in the colon.

 

[fix]

I am curious to know what type of morally acceptable intervention is considered when the embryo implants in the colon.

Nothing that intends direct abortion.

here is some little help:

Ovarian and Abdominal Pregnancies

 

[church_mouse]

For anyone who may be interested:

“There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother’s life after all.”

prolifephysicians.org/rarecases2.htm