What if We Stopped Trying to Make Abortion Illegal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EeyoresButerfly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to thank you for one of the most amazing posts I’ve seen on this subject. I’ve spent 30 years away from the Church (almost all my adult life) so I see things from a different perspective than most people on this site on this subject. And I don’t mind telling you that every post I make in a thread is met with hostility. I don’t condone abortion, but I see it as one of many choices possible and an unfortunate one. You’re right, protests and screaming and name-calling hasn’t done anything to change things. Someday I might feel as strongly and violently about this as they do, but I like the way you worded this. If yours was a point of view taken by more people on this subject I think you would have a better chance of eliminating abortion, if not all together at least for the majority.
 
ntenaglia said:
I would like to thank you for one of the most amazing posts I’ve seen on this subject. I’ve spent 30 years away from the Church (almost all my adult life) so I see things from a different perspective than most people on this site on this subject. And I don’t mind telling you that every post I make in a thread is met with hostility. I don’t condone abortion, but I see it as one of many choices possible and an unfortunate one. You’re right, protests and screaming and name-calling hasn’t done anything to change things. Someday I might feel as strongly and violently about this as they do, but I like the way you worded this. If yours was a point of view taken by more people on this subject I think you would have a better chance of eliminating abortion, if not all together at least for the majority.
Click to expand...
**Do you mind if I ask to whom you are addressing your thanks? Thanks.

Limerick**
 
limerick said:
**Do you mind if I ask to whom you are addressing your thanks? Thanks.

Limerick**
Click to expand...
The original post. I tried including the quote but it made it too long to post and I’m kind of new on the site.
 
ntenaglia said:
The original post. I tried including the quote but it made it too long to post and I’m kind of new on the site.
Click to expand...
**I just had to mess around with it until I understood how it works, and some of it I still don’t get! You’re doing fine - keep coming back - I’m interested in your viewpoint! Thanks.

Limerick
**
 
abortion is not a choice, its murder. and many people share that viewpoint. i recently heard that 51 percent of Americans call themselves pro-life now.
 
livi said:
abortion is not a choice, its murder. and many people share that viewpoint. i recently heard that 51 percent of Americans call themselves pro-life now.
Click to expand...
**Where didja hear it?

Limerick**
 
livi said:
abortion is not a choice, its murder. and many people share that viewpoint. i recently heard that 51 percent of Americans call themselves pro-life now.
Click to expand...
**Abortion most certainly IS a choice. A woman has options: to carry the pregnancy to term and keep the baby; to carry the pregnancy to term and put the baby up for adoption; to try to carry a baby to term if it has been shown to be genetically defective; to go horseback riding for nine straight months in hopes that she will miscarry; to seek out a legal surgical abortion. These are a few options on the smorgasboard of “choice”. Abortion is but one option, and there are others available to women through the avenue of free will, also called “choice”.

Limerick **
 
limerick said:
With regard to the legality/illegality of abortion, please consider this woman’s story:

msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp

Limerick
Click to expand...
Considering that the baby had died while still in the womb, any operation to remove the baby’s body would have been moral. Since the law is, according to the article, “prohibiting doctors from committing an **‘overt act’ designed to kill **a partially delivered fetus,” and since the reason that we are against abortion is that it kills an unborn baby, when the baby has already died, then there is not a moral issue.

Your point, or perhaps that of the article, seems to be that we should continue to permit women to kill their unborn children so that when these types of cases arise, there will be doctors trained to perform the operation?
 
DavidHume said:
Oh, little things like not having a brain.
Click to expand...
This one was cleared up with links to several articles about misdiagnoses.
Or too many chromosomes.
Click to expand...
Not sure of your point here?
Or killing the mother before being able to develop. Things like that.
Click to expand...
From your link: The prevalence of eclampsia is reported to be 0.56 per 1,000 births (US data from 1979-86) versus 26 per 1,000 births for pre-eclampsia.

So what are you saying here? It seems to me that if a woman has access to medical care, the condition can be taken care of without killing the child.
 
St_Francis said:
Considering that the baby had died while still in the womb, any operation to remove the baby’s body would have been moral. Since the law is, according to the article, “prohibiting doctors from committing an **‘overt act’ designed to kill **a partially delivered fetus,” and since the reason that we are against abortion is that it kills an unborn baby, when the baby has already died, then there is not a moral issue.

Your point, or perhaps that of the article, seems to be that we should continue to permit women to kill their unborn children so that when these types of cases arise, there will be doctors trained to perform the operation?
Click to expand...
No. The point was that obstetricians are backing away from crucial training to the point that it is difficult to find one to perform a legitimate D & E when necessary. Why are you compelled to turn this article and, by association, my post, into a “let’s just kill the baby” rant?

I’m sick of it.

Limerick
 
limerick said:
**Abortion most certainly IS a choice. A woman has options: to carry the pregnancy to term and keep the baby; to carry the pregnancy to term and put the baby up for adoption; to try to carry a baby to term if it has been shown to be genetically defective; to go horseback riding for nine straight months in hopes that she will miscarry; to seek out a legal surgical abortion. These are a few options on the smorgasboard of “choice”. Abortion is but one option, and there are others available to women through the avenue of free will, also called “choice”.

Limerick **
Click to expand...
Abortion is not a morally acceptable choice any more than rape or murder of an already-born person is. It ought to be illegal because if the government can pick and chose who is deemed human enough to live, we might be next.
 
St_Francis said:
There was a link to an article about a child misdiagnosed with anencephaly already posted. Here it is again.

Medical science is not infallible.
Click to expand...
The article clearly states that the incorrect diagnosis was rhomboencephalosynapsis, which is not at all like anencephaly.
 
limerick said:
**I just had to mess around with it until I understood how it works, and some of it I still don’t get! You’re doing fine - keep coming back - I’m interested in your viewpoint! Thanks.

Limerick
**
Click to expand...
Thanks for the support. Sometimes it’s kind of scary in some of these threads.
 
DavidHume said:
The article clearly states that the incorrect diagnosis was rhomboencephalosynapsis, which is not at all like anencephaly.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that. Not clear on all my medical terms.

Babies born with anacephaly do not alway die immediately at birth.

Babies diagnosed with anencephaly do not always have it.

And the fact that the baby has a defect which would allow him or her to at best live only a short time does not justify killing the baby ahead of time.
 
St_Francis said:
There was a link to an article about a child misdiagnosed with anencephaly already posted. Here it is again.

Medical science is not infallible.
Click to expand...
Rhomboencephalosynapsis, with or without hydrocephalus, is not anencephaly. This from the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke:
**
*"What is Anencephaly?

Anencephaly is a defect in the closure of the neural tube during fetal development. The neural tube is a narrow channel that folds and closes between the 3rd and 4th weeks of pregnancy to form the brain and spinal cord of the embryo. Anencephaly occurs when the “cephalic” or head end of the neural tube fails to close, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Infants with this disorder are born without a forebrain (the front part of the brain) and a cerebrum (the thinking and coordinating part of the brain). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed–not covered by bone or skin. A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur." ***

Regarding Rhomboencephalosynapsis (from the same source):

"Clinical findings range from mild truncal ataxia and normal cognitive abilities to severe cerebral palsy and mental retardation. This broad spectrum may be a result of the frequent association with hydrocephalus. Pathological studies have revealed defects that include fusion of the inferior colliculi and absence of dorsal olivary nuclei (Yachnis, 2002)."

Possible normal cognitive abilities as opposed to NO abilities. Our poster, David Hume, to whom you were responding, quipped, " . . . oh, little things, like not having a brain." An individual with Rhomboencephalosynapsis is not in this category.

No, medical science is not infallible, and mistakes are sometimes made. But anencephaly can be clearly seen on a decent ultrasound screen. It’s then up to the parents to decide how to proceed, not you and not me.

Limerick
 
St_Francis said:
Abortion is not a morally acceptable choice any more than rape or murder of an already-born person is. It ought to be illegal because if the government can pick and chose who is deemed human enough to live, we might be next.
Click to expand...
**Abortion is not a morally acceptable choice for a practicing Roman Catholic. No matter how much you may want to control people who hold other beliefs, you cannot.

Limerick **
 
St_Francis said:
Sorry about that. Not clear on all my medical terms.

Babies born with anacephaly do not alway die immediately at birth.

Babies diagnosed with anencephaly do not always have it.

And the fact that the baby has a defect which would allow him or her to at best live only a short time does not justify killing the baby ahead of time.
Click to expand...
***“The prognosis for babies born with anencephaly is extremely poor. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth.”
(Ibid.) ***

What purpose does it serve to allow a blind and deaf infant with a complete absence of consciousness or feeling live for a couple of hours? To allow the parents to pat themselves on the back for a pro-life job well done? To bring closure to all involved? To allow the parents to then bury the infant with pomp and ritual? All of these actions focus on the survivors, not on the dead infant. I find it rather obscene.

Limerick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top