I know its rare but it happens(Instances such as if the mother were to carry to term, she and the baby would likely die).
Also, what about abortions in cases of rape?
Do you believe exceptions should be made in these situations or not? Why or why not?
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
Those instances are so rare it is intellectually dishonest to use them to support abortion on demand. But doctors make judgments to save lives everyday, if abortion is life saving that would fall into the same category. That does not excuse the 99% of abortions that are done because it's pool season, however.
Anonymous
When the life of the mother is at risk,it's a no brainer for me,the mother comes first.After all,one cannot live without the other.
In cases of rape,I have mixed feelings.After all,does someone really deserve the death penalty for being the product of a rape.I once had a friend that might take issue with that,as she was the product of a rape.Her mother did two things after being raped,made a police report that eventually got the guy arrested and imprisoned,then raised the beautiful child that resulted from the rape.
August
ludlum
relies upon. lower than what situations ought to giving start positioned a woman's life in probability? by the point you comprehend this, how a lot less invasive and worrying is an abortion as against, say a C-section? And, on the point the position she is in a position to 'supply' start, that kid is a completely functioning, totally feeling human being. Do you extremely comprehend what an 'abortion' involves at this factor? next time you're contained in the mall and also you spot somewhat one in a stroller, imagine your self going over to the newborn, taking a knife and ripping it limb from limb. that is what you're suggesting. So i ought to represent a C-section lower than purely about an situations and take your opportunities. And probability is, both must be nice.
robzuc97
In the examples you provide, I believe it is the mother's choice what to do,in any case, not the governments! With regards to the Pro-life position you present, they represent only one view which is the total elimination of abortion, while most would be okay with abortion with provisions. There are also other camps and arguments based on religious objections which should also be respected although not necessarily agreed on be all. The point is that not one group can represent all views and until we can discuss differing viewpoints without name-calling like "baby killers" or "they want to take away women's rights", the issue will never be solved! Let's start with the basic premise that most pro-lifer's agree that it is not the federal governments business, but the state's jurisdiction based on democratic process to decide whether they allow abortions based on the Tenth Amendment when it has become a federal political tool. This is what Obama stated on the Roe v. Wade anniversary: ""Government should not intrude on private family matters," Obama said in a statement, adding that he also supports policies to prevent "unintended pregnancies." And yet he advocates the very same "government intrusion" with regards to my birth control and HEALTH CARE? It has gone from a debate to a political football game to rally sides behind...
TheOrange Evil
"Health" is a really vague term. Imminent, life-threatening danger?
If the mother is going to die, remove the fetus as late as is possible in the pregnancy and place the baby in an incubator. There's no need to terminate the life of the fetus, especially if there's even the slightest chance of saving the fetus' life. Mother's life does not justify murder.
No abortions in the case of rape. The circumstances behind the conception, while terrible, are irrelevant.