Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
I've been nice and not accused you of little things like splitting hairs but the least you can do is actually address the issue I keep on repeatedly bringing up.
|
I hardly think misconstruing somebody else's posts is being nice.
Saying you are splitting hairs is not being disrespectful.
Your questions are very generic and you are assuming I should make somebody else's decision for them.
However, I will attempt to answer your revised questions below to the best of my ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
A woman that knows she has a better chance of survival if she undertakes a medical procedure that removes the unborn with a very low chance of survival. Should she undertake that procedure?
|
If it were me, I would have to be near death for this to happen...and by that time, the decision would have been taken out of my hands. My doctor and my family would make that decision if I had not already specified. That being said...in a near deathly existence, the unborn with a very low chance of survival outside the womb would
likewise die along with me if it were chosen for me not to have the baby removed.
So...allowing both mother and baby with a low chance of survival... dying together would prove ...what???
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
A woman that knows she has a better chance of survival if she undertakes a medical procedure that removes the unborn with no chance of survival. Should she undertake that procedure?
|
How would she know she doesn't have a good chance of survival? Is she deathly sick when this chance of survival is brought to her attention? Otherwise, how can any doctor make this assumption and be accurate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Is there any difference between a woman having an unborn removed with no chance of survival and having an actual abortion?
|
I am going to assume that you are talking about the mother making a decision to have her baby removed and that baby has no chance of surviving.
It depends on a lot of things.
Is the mother healthy when she made the decision to remove the baby? If she is healthy with no emergency medical problems whatsoever and she chooses to remove the baby, then yes, it would be an abortion. But how does this question fit into my assertions that medical procedures to deliver babies because of the mother's medical
emergencies are not intentional abortions, but early deliveries if there is a good chance that the baby will survive?
If the baby has little to no chance of survival what good comes of it to allow both to die? What difference would it make if one calls this scenario a
medical procedure or a therapeutic abortion? The unborn would still be removed and the mother *might* make it through.
I'm sorry but there are no simple answers to the questions you pose.
There are so many variables to your questions that it is impossible to answer them accurately.
I look at these questions through the eyes of a medical professional and would never give a point blank answer without some facts as to the condition of both mother and baby.
It would be deceptive for a physician to tell a pregnant woman in her early pregnancy that she might die when there is no medical evidence to base that on. I would run to the next doctor had one told me that.
For one who chose to terminate her pregnancy because she "thought" she might die, well I would have to agree that it would be an abortion.
Women should think about these possible scenarios before they find themselves in compromising conditions. Women are the ones who bear the babies, the shame other people heap upon them, the financial cost and sometimes the ultimate cost. They should think before they decide to be with any man.
Men don't bear the cost like the women do and shouldn't place women in these compromising conditions for their moment of pleasure unless they plan to marry them and stick it out till death do they part.
Hybrid Mode
