Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

[Ghosty]

thewanderer

If removal of the fetus is what causes it’s death, it is immoral according to the Church. It’s the direct killing of the fetus, regardless.

This isn’t actually true, as shown in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Removal of the child may kill the child, but it can be morally licit if 1) the child is not murdered before removal, 2) the mother’s life is in immediate, life-threatening danger if the pregnancy continues, and 3) the death of the child is not intended, though it may be an inevitable and foreseen consequence of premature delivery.

In your daughter’s case #2 was missing, but in the case of an ectopic pregnancy all three factors are in place.

The Church defines abortion as the termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reason.

If it’s a spontaneous abortion such as in a miscarriage, it is not immoral.

However, if the fetus is killed directly, it is an a direct abortion and immoral.

Removing a fetus from the womb before viability, is a direct abortion, because the effect is the direct killing of the fetus. This is according to Church teaching and the double effect principle.

Jim

Removing a child before viability can be done without directly killing the child, and without intending the death of the child, just as my example of the child on the ventilator in a burning building above. Taking the ventilator off and running the child out of the building WILL kill it in all likelihood, but it is not the same as injecting the child with a fatal does of potassium which would be directly killing. In one the death is a side-effect of the attempt to save the life, the other the death is intended and directly acted upon.

Now, if the child was delivered prematurely with the intent to cut it off from the mother and kill it, that would be a direct killing, because the action was taken with the direct intention of causing the death of the child.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MichaelNamb]

Then you agree with Catholic doctrine. What is the argument? This is the same conclusion, except, to determine the conscience of the parties involved. Which must be taken as their word.
To save the life of the mother, the removal of the baby is permissable, though it would ultimately lead to the child’s death.
To leave the child in the womb would certainly cause the child to die (one could argue that NOT removing the child to a ‘safer’ environment would be to murder him/her), so it is a certainty either way, and there should be no conflict as to what needs to be done.

Well, I disagree with Catholic doctrine in that I think an abortion if it was the only option**, should be used to preserve the mother’s health and life. From what I can gather from Catholic teachings, abortion is not allowed in any circumstance, even to preserve the life or health of the mother. I have heard of cases where doctors were excommunicated for performing abortions that were explicitly to save the life of the mother.

So I guess that is where we differ. I agree with Catholic doctrine in that I do not think a fetus should be destroyed arbitrarily, when there is even a slim chance of saving it. I think abortion should absolutely be the last possible option, but I do think it should be on the table.

 

[littlechicken]

Well, I disagree with Catholic doctrine in that I think an abortion if it was the only option**, should be used to preserve the mother’s health and life. From what I can gather from Catholic teachings, abortion is not allowed in any circumstance, even to preserve the life or health of the mother. I have heard of cases where doctors were excommunicated for performing abortions that were explicitly to save the life of the mother.

So I guess that is where we differ. I agree with Catholic doctrine in that I do not think a fetus should be destroyed arbitrarily, when there is even a slim chance of saving it. I think abortion should absolutely be the last possible option, but I do think it should be on the table.

You are a doctor right? Or have background in medicine? I think I read that somewhere in your posts, but am tired…so could you just tell me so I don’t have to read them all again?

 

[MichaelNamb]

I have a question, that is (forgive me) perhaps slightly off topic, but I am curious as to what catholic doctrine would say about this:

There is currently a patient in my unit who is suffering from leukemia. She requires a stem cell transplant, but absolutely cannot be pregnant to undergo this transplant. She received her diagnosis very early in her pregnancy. She cannot wait too long to go to transplant, because then it will likely be too late to be effective. It is possible she could survive without transplant, but that is her absolute best shot at survival.

The plan is to induce labor as soon as possible, so the mother can go to transplant as soon as possible. We are waiting until the fetus is 25 weeks before inducing labor, because that is the point at which they think the baby has a real chance outside the womb. Any earlier and it’s chances of survival are very remote.

The baby itself is very healthy and the pregnancy has shown few complications, despite the mother’s cancer. There is no reason to believe that, if she did not induce labor, the pregnancy would not continue to go smoothly and result in a normal birth. Inducing the baby this early puts it at significant risk, much more so than if the pregnancy just followed the normal course. Though certainly, it is the intent of the hospital to do everything possible to maintain the life and health of the baby.

Is this situation in line with Catholic doctrine? Although certainly the baby is not being killed outright, the act of an early induction puts the child’s risk of death or disability much higher.

It may be worth noting that abortion was brought up as a possibility for the mother when she was only a month or so pregnant (thus to early to make induction impossible) so that she could go to transplant immediately, but she chose to not have an abortion and instead delay her transplant (which in turn puts her at greater risk) because she wanted her baby to at least have a chance to live. However, she chose not to simply wait until she gave birth naturally, because that would have put her life at a MUCH greater risk. So essentially, she compromised. She was not willing to abort to afford herself her best chance, but at the same time, she was unwilling to delay treatment long enough to give the baby its best chance either. She chose the middle option, which places both her and the baby at risk, but also has the highest probability of both surviving.

This is a bit different from the Irish case at hand because in that case, the baby was dying anyways, and the mother’s health was at immediate risk; whereas with our patient, the baby is perfectly healthy, and the mother is not in acute distress and could continue her pregancy to term if she chose to.

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer

If removal of the fetus is what causes it’s death, it is immoral according to the Church. It’s the direct killing of the fetus, regardless.

No, not necessarily, how remote of a cause it is plays a part in determining its morality, look up the principle of double-effect.

The Church defines abortion as the termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reason.

If it’s a spontaneous abortion such as in a miscarriage, it is not immoral.

However, if the fetus is killed directly, it is an a direct abortion and immoral.

Removing a fetus from the womb before viability, is a direct abortion, because the effect is the direct killing of the fetus. This is according to Church teaching and the double effect principle.

Jim

The question here, it seems is what constitutes as “direct”. If I have time I will try to find the official teaching on the principle of double-effect so that we can discuss it further, but that might have to wait a bit.

 

[juandimaunahan]

Then this is simply a matter of equivocation. I have clearly shown through the principle of double effect that removing an infant at that age is not always immoral, in other words, when the Church calls abortion an intrinsic evil it is not using the same definition of abortion as this one you found on wikipedia, which is why I say again that you have, in fact, completely failed to understand the principle of double-effect.

ok so we both agree that the doctors should have removed the fetus as soon as possible! correct?

 

[littlechicken]

I have a question, that is (forgive me) perhaps slightly off topic, but I am curious as to what catholic doctrine would say about this:

There is currently a patient in my unit who is suffering from leukemia. She requires a stem cell transplant, but absolutely cannot be pregnant to undergo this transplant. She received her diagnosis very early in her pregnancy. She cannot wait too long to go to transplant, because then it will likely be too late to be effective. It is possible she could survive without transplant, but that is her absolute best shot at survival.

The plan is to induce labor as soon as possible, so the mother can go to transplant as soon as possible. We are waiting until the fetus is 25 weeks before inducing labor, because that is the point at which they think the baby has a real chance outside the womb, and is likely to survive. Any earlier and it’s chances of survival are very remote.

The baby itself is very healthy and the pregnancy has shown few complications, despite the mother’s cancer. There is no reason to believe that, if she did not induce labor, the pregnancy would not continue to go smoothly and result in a normal birth. Inducing the baby this early puts it at significant risk, much more so than if the pregnancy just followed the normal course. Though certainly, it is the intent of the hospital to do everything possible to maintain the life and health of the baby.

Is this situation in line with Catholic doctrine? Although certainly the baby is not being killed outright, the act of an early induction puts the child’s risk of death or disability much higher.

It may be worth noting that abortion was brought up as a possibility for the mother when she was only a month or so pregnant (thus to early to make induction impossible) so that she could go to transplant immediately, but she chose to not have an abortion and instead delay her transplant (which in turn puts her at greater risk) because she wanted her baby to at least have a chance to live. However, she chose not to simply wait until she gave birth naturally, because that would have put her life at a MUCH greater risk. So essentially, she compromised. She was not willing to abort to give her her best chance, but at the same time, she was unwilling to delay treatment long enough to give the baby ITS best chance. She chose the middle option, which places both her and the baby at risk, but also has the highest probability of both surviving.

So your saying the moms best shot of survival is if she has an early induction? I don’t know about that one, again, circumstances would have to be considered. It is her best chance, but is it her only chance?
What if a woman were found to have hyperdysplasia during her pregnancy, and the best way of ensuring her survival would be to do an early induction? Say the dysplasia is on her cervix? To remove it during the pregnancy, well, you seem to know a lot about medical stuff, so likely she would spontaneously abort the child, right? Should she wait?
I’m posing a different question for you to consider, in response to your question.
What say you? I mean this isn’t just about Catholic doctrine, it is about biology and life.

And PS, I really hope you mean an adult stem cell transplant.

 

[thewanderer]

so all those medical staff are to blame? you are saying it was their catholic-blessed medical obligation to remove the fetus (defined as abortion in wikipedia) and refused to do it?

Provided that the medical analysis of the situation would have led them to believe that removing the child was the best medical action to take at that point in time, then in that particular situation, yes. However, we do not yet have sufficient information to know whether the medical staff were to blame or it was just an extremely unfortunate but unavoidable tragedy.

 

[littlechicken]

And I thought I was going to bed soon.

 

[pepipop]

I have a question, that is (forgive me) perhaps slightly off topic, but I am curious as to what catholic doctrine would say about this:

There is currently a patient in my unit who is suffering from leukemia. She requires a stem cell transplant, but absolutely cannot be pregnant to undergo this transplant. She received her diagnosis very early in her pregnancy. She cannot wait too long to go to transplant, because then it will likely be too late to be effective. It is possible she could survive without transplant, but that is her absolute best shot at survival.

The plan is to induce labor as soon as possible, so the mother can go to transplant as soon as possible. We are waiting until the fetus is 25 weeks before inducing labor, because that is the point at which they think the baby has a real chance outside the womb, and is more likely to survive. Any earlier and it’s chances of survival are very remote.

The baby itself is very healthy and the pregnancy has shown few complications, despite the mother’s cancer. There is no reason to believe that, if she did not induce labor, the pregnancy would not continue to go smoothly and result in a normal birth. Inducing the baby this early puts it at significant risk, much more so than if the pregnancy just followed the normal course. Though certainly, it is the intent of the hospital to do everything possible to maintain the life and health of the baby.

Is this situation in line with Catholic doctrine? Although certainly the baby is not being killed outright, the act of an early induction puts the child’s risk of death or disability much higher.

It may be worth noting that abortion was brought up as a possibility for the mother when she was only a month or so pregnant (thus to early to make induction impossible) so that she could go to transplant immediately, but she chose to not have an abortion and instead delay her transplant (which in turn puts her at greater risk) because she wanted her baby to at least have a chance to live. However, she chose not to simply wait until she gave birth naturally, because that would have put her life at a MUCH greater risk. So essentially, she compromised. She was not willing to abort to afford herself her best chance, but at the same time, she was unwilling to delay treatment long enough to give the baby its best chance either. She chose the middle option, which places both her and the baby at risk, but also has the highest probability of both surviving.

As far as I am aware, yes it would fall within catholic ethics (although I’ve read so much these past few days, about this issue, please someone correct me if I am wrong.). As, if she does not start treatment, at any point, the mother could die before delivery and the child would too, if pregnancy was not induced before the mother’s death. Hence by trying to save the mother would in essence be saving the child too.

Here is an example of catholic ethics and the final choice made by the mother. The church allowed hysterectomy, which would have effectively resulted in the unborn child’s death.

*Final pregnancy

In 1961, Gianna was pregnant once again. During the second month, Gianna developed a fibroma on her uterus. After examination, the doctors gave her three choices: an abortion, a complete hysterectomy, or removal of only the fibroma. *The Catholic Church forbids all direct abortion even when the woman’s life is in danger, but Catholic teaching would have allowed her to undergo a hysterectomy, which would have resulted in her unborn child’s death as an unintended consequence.
*
“Abortion – that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus – is never permitted…Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.” – The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERD) Directive 45

Gianna opted for the removal of the fibroma, wanting to preserve her child’s life.

After the operation, complications continued throughout her pregnancy. Gianna was quite clear about her wishes, expressing to her family, “This time it will be a difficult delivery, and they may have to save one or the other – I want them to save my baby.”

On April 21, 1962, Good Friday of that year, Gianna went to the hospital, where her fourth child, Gianna Emanuela, was successfully delivered via Caesarean section.[1] However, Gianna continued to have severe pain, and died of septic peritonitis 7 days after the birth.*

 

[MichaelNamb]

So your saying the moms best shot of survival is if she has an early induction? I don’t know about that one, again, circumstances would have to be considered. It is her best chance, but is it her only chance?
What if a woman were found to have hyperdysplasia during her pregnancy, and the best way of ensuring her survival would be to do an early induction? Say the dysplasia is on her cervix? To remove it during the pregnancy, well, you seem to know a lot about medical stuff, so likely she would spontaneously abort the child, right? Should she wait?
I’m posing a different question for you to consider, in response to your question.
What say you? I mean this isn’t just about Catholic doctrine, it is about biology and life.

Well frankly, the mother’s best chance for survival would have been an abortion and transplant a couple months ago. She chose not to do that. There *is * a chance that she could surive with just a chemotherapy and other drug regimen. But for that matter, there is a slim chance she could survive with no treatment at all; spontaneous remission (from blood cancers) or spontaneous regression (from solid tumors) do occur, as rare as they are. So yes, if you want to get technical, there is a remote possibility that she could survive without a transplant or with delaying her transplant. However, it is not as if transplant gives her a slightly better chance, it gives her a vastly better chance at survival, and the sooner she receives the transplant, the better for her. The other thing is that delaying a patient’s transplant can result in them not being able to get a transplant at all, a patient needs to be in a very specific medical state in order to be able to go to transplant. There have been many cases where patients’ transplants have been delayed (usually because a matched donor could not be found), and by the time we were ready to go, the patient has passed the okay mark, a transplant was no longer a viable option.

Some patients have a greater risk at delay than others. For some, delaying transplant by months and months can pose little risk. But for her particular particular case, a delay is very risky. Even delaying it as much as we have is a significant risk for her, and her doctors feel waiting untilt he baby comes full term will likely result in the patient not being able to be transplanted at all. Of course, transplants themselves are very risky and a patient may not survive the procedure itself, or may develop graft vs host disease afterwards and die from that.

“What if a woman were found to have hyperdysplasia during her pregnancy, and the best way of ensuring her survival would be to do an early induction? Say the dysplasia is on her cervix? To remove it during the pregnancy, well, you seem to know a lot about medical stuff, so likely she would spontaneously abort the child, right? Should she wait?”

I think you are confused. We see a lot of patients with cervical dysplasia who are able to have perfectly healthy pregnancies. Hormones from pregnancy can cause the dysplasia to worsen, but there is relatively little risk in holding off treatment until after the baby is born. Also, some treatmetns, like laser treatment, can be used during pregnancy. It’s not really a big cause for concern, women just need to be carefully monitored.

Although patients who are not pregnant who have dysplasia are advised not to get pregnant until after it has been treated, I don’t think I can think of a single case in which a patient was advised to have an abortion or very early induction, or wanted an abortion or very early induction, due to dysplasia. Not saying it never happens, only that I’ve never heard of such a case. I have heard of cases where patients did have labor induced or a C section performed a *little *bit early to get treatment started, but not so early as to put the baby at significant risk compared to waiting for the regular birth.

 

[littlechicken]

Well frankly, the mother’s best chance for survival would have been an abortion and transplant a couple months ago. She chose not to do that. There *is * a chance that she could surive with just a chemotherapy and other drug regimen. But for that matter, there is a slim chance she could survive with no treatment at all; spontaneous remission (from blood cancers) or spontaneous regression (from solid tumors) do occur, as rare as they are. So yes, if you want to get technical, there is a remote possibility that she could survive without a transplant or with delaying her transplant. However, it is not as if transplant gives her a slightly better chance, it gives her a vastly better chance at survival, and the sooner she receives the transplant, the better for her. The other thing is that delaying a patient’s transplant can result in them not being able to get a transplant at all, a patient needs to be in a very specific medical state in order to be able to go to transplant. There have been many cases where patients’ transplants have been delayed (usually because a matched donor could not be found), and by the time we were ready to go, the patient has passed the okay mark, a transplant was no longer a viable option.

Some patients have a greater risk at delay than others. For some, delaying transplant by months and months can pose little risk. But for her particular particular case, a delay is very risky. Even delaying it as much as we have is a significant risk for her, and her doctors feel waiting untilt he baby comes full term will likely result in the patient not being able to be transplanted at all. Of course, transplants themselves are very risky and a patient may not survive the procedure itself, or may develop graft vs host disease afterwards and die from that.

.

See Pepipop’s answer above for Catholic teaching. I am afraid all I can offer there is opinion. (I’m relatively new at looking into all the little details) I would believe that since it is optimal for both to induce early labor, that would be permissable. It does pose risks to the child, and to the mother, yet, the goal IS to preserve both lives if at all possible, and this would seem the best way to do so.

“What if a woman were found to have hyperdysplasia during her pregnancy, and the best way of ensuring her survival would be to do an early induction? Say the dysplasia is on her cervix? To remove it during the pregnancy, well, you seem to know a lot about medical stuff, so likely she would spontaneously abort the child, right? Should she wait?”

I think you are confused. We see a lot of patients with cervical dysplasia who are able to have perfectly healthy pregnancies. Hormones from pregnancy can cause the dysplasia to worsen, but there is relatively little risk in holding off treatment until after the baby is born. Also, some treatmetns, like laser treatment, can be used during pregnancy. It’s not really a big cause for concern, women just need to be carefully monitored.

Although patients who are not pregnant who have dysplasia are advised not to get pregnant until after it has been treated, I don’t think I can think of a single case in which a patient was advised to have an abortion or very early induction, or wanted an abortion or very early induction, due to dysplasia. Not saying it never happens, only that I’ve never heard of such a case. I have heard of cases where patients did have labor induced or a C section performed a *little *bit early to get treatment started, but not so early as to put the baby at significant risk compared to waiting for the regular birth.

This is rhetoric now, as it doesn’t apply to the circs. Sorry, my confusion.

Now, could you please pose to me, an instance where terminating the baby’s life , while still in the womb, would be possible? Or “the only option”?

 

[Angelsflight]

Again: the killer is guilty, the baby is innocent. The baby is not killing the mother: by the very nature of the relationship between a mother and an unborn child, their life is sort of one, they are truly one flesh. Which is why I do not think your reasoning can be applied to the circumstance at hand.

Eh…whatever.

 

[littlechicken]

I really must go now, as I need to rest, and even when well rested, I am not that intelligent.
And I will need to do some research into this, as the Church is not based on opinions, but Truth. I don’t care to misrepresent the teachings.
I hope you have a good day (or night)

littlechicken

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ghosty

This isn’t actually true, as shown in the case of ectopic pregnancy.

In this case, it’s the defective fallopian tube which is removed as part of the treatment, but which causes the death of the fetus, It’s indirect effect on the fetus, because the cause of death isn’t the result of directly removing the fetus, but the fallopian tube.

But, it is a tap dance around the same end result.

Removal of the child may kill the child, but it can be morally licit if 1) the child is not murdered before removal, 2) the mother’s life is in immediate, life-threatening danger if the pregnancy continues, and 3) the death of the child is not intended, though it may be an inevitable and foreseen consequence of premature delivery.

I would agree, but the Church does not, from my experience and I would like to believe you are right.

In your daughter’s case #2 was missing, but in the case of an ectopic pregnancy all three factors are in place.

True, but the end result was that the fetus died before removal anyway, so the point was moot.

However, if the fetus had not died, but was in the process of dying and once dead, how ever long that would take, would negatively effect the health of the mother and may even cause her death, as in the case in Ireland. This is according to the doctors. So, who has the best advice, the Church or the doctors? Wait until there is a problem or act beforehand?

Removing a child before viability can be done without directly killing the child, and without intending the death of the child, just as my example of the child on the ventilator in a burning building above.

Well in all cases of pregnancies gone bad, the intent isn’t to kill the child, but try and save both mother and child. But if the mother’s life is at stake, they still can not do anything that will be the direct cause of the child’s death. Removing a fetus before viability is going to be the direct cause of death.

Taking the ventilator off and running the child out of the building WILL kill it in all likelihood, but it is not the same as injecting the child with a fatal does of potassium which would be directly killing. In one the death is a side-effect of the attempt to save the life, the other the death is intended and directly acted upon.

Again, I agree, but not what the Church teaches and you’ll get conflicting answers depending on who your asking.

Centered In Christ Jesus
Jim

 

[littlechicken]

I still can’t sleep. Must be my conscience?

Do I believe it is okay to lie? No.
Have I ever lied? Yes.
Do I believe it is okay to ‘fornicate’? No.
Have I ever ‘fornicated’? Guess
Do I believe it is ever okay to take a child’s life? No.
Have I ever done so? Not yet, but I did think about abortion once, and I lost the child, I will always regret that.

If I, ignorant as I am, know the risks and complications of pregnancy, and knowingly get pregnant, (reasonably presuming I would be safe and healthy) and then a crisis arises where my life is at risk for continuing the pregnancy - then I would feel it is my duty to try my best to carry the child to term, even if it meant I would perish. The child did not choose to be conceived, I chose that with a reasonable knowlege of what could happen. Should I make an innocent child pay for ‘my choice’? No.
And even in cases of rape (as many of you know, an argument put forth constantly) it still was not the child who committed the assault. It would be like saying John Doe hurt me, so I am going to punish Jane Doe, who did nothing wrong.

Do I believe an abortion is okay in any circumstance? No.
Do I believe it would be okay to remove the baby from his/her natural environment to preserve my own life? No, EXCEPT if in by doing so there would be a REASONABLE chance the baby would live.
Would I be able to live up to my own stance? I really don’t know, as I have failed so often in the past with even the ‘minor’ things.
But, I do understand, that should I ever be faced with the situation, and do the wrong thing, then I will KNOW that I did the wrong thing.
and that is why I call myself,
littlechicken

Now, perhaps I can sleep.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I still can’t sleep. Must be my conscience?

Do I believe it is okay to lie? No.
Have I ever lied? Yes.
Do I believe it is okay to ‘fornicate’? No.
Have I ever ‘fornicated’? Guess
Do I believe it is ever okay to take a child’s life? No.
Have I ever done so? Not yet, but I did think about abortion once, and I lost the child, I will always regret that.

If I, ignorant as I am, know the risks and complications of pregnancy, and knowingly get pregnant, (reasonably presuming I would be safe and healthy) and then a crisis arises where my life is at risk for continuing the pregnancy - then I would feel it is my duty to try my best to carry the child to term, even if it meant I would perish. The child did not choose to be conceived, I chose that with a reasonable knowlege of what could happen. Should I make an innocent child pay for ‘my choice’? No.
And even in cases of rape (as many of you know, an argument put forth constantly) it still was not the child who committed the assault. It would be like saying John Doe hurt me, so I am going to punish Jane Doe, who did nothing wrong.

Do I believe an abortion is okay in any circumstance? No.
Do I believe it would be okay to remove the baby from his/her natural environment to preserve my own life? No, EXCEPT if in by doing so there would be a REASONABLE chance the baby would live.
Would I be able to live up to my own stance? I really don’t know, as I have failed so often in the past with even the ‘minor’ things.
But, I do understand, that should I ever be faced with the situation, and do the wrong thing, then I will KNOW that I did the wrong thing.
and that is why I call myself,
littlechicken

Now, perhaps I can sleep.

Well that’s heroic, but try taking the same position if it were your daughter and her life would be lost, if the pregnancy was not terminated.

Jim

 

[littlechicken]

Well that’s heroic, but try taking the same position if it were your daughter and her life would be lost, if the pregnancy was not terminated.

Jim

Which is why I put it the way I did. This is what my conscience tells me about me. My cowardice is tremendous, which is why, even though I felt this all along, about ME, I couldn’t come out and just say it. I did not want to offend anyone, I don’t like the idea of people not liking me because my view is unpopular. I did not want to deal with the backlash. And it has come quickly has it not?
I would not condemn a person for making such a decision. BUT I WOULD CONDEMN ME!!!
I promise you, I HONESTLY consider myself one of the worse sinners on this earth, I am not saying that to be pious, or sanctimonious, I am saying that because I know the horrible things I have done. I live with those things every single day of my life, and I do suffer for them. So if you think my stance is a condemnation of another, think again.
I would NOT want to be in that position, and to think a child of mine could be is terrifying. Do you see?
And as I said, I make the presumption, on my past failures, that I likely would NOT live up to my own ideals. And there is nothing heroic about that. As a matter of fact, I feel quite shamed.

Please, bring on the hate. I am quite accustomed to it.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Well that’s heroic, but try taking the same position if it were your daughter and her life would be lost, if the pregnancy was not terminated.

Jim

Better a duaghters life lost than her soul. True love is caring about the daughters eternity.

 

[Helen31]

I believe in justifiable homicide, though I don’t think I could do it myself.