A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

bipedalhumanoid

Min wrote: »

It depends on what life you value.



You could get a baby and leave it to defend for itself, it doesn't think or know what is safe or what to do, it is just in a line of progression in the development, I don't think many here would remember when they were born when they were being pushed throught he birth canal or delivered by caesarian section. Do many people remember their first year in the atmosphere of this world.
One could argue it took us a good while to go from not knowing or remembering to the time we remember and knew things which makes the whole sentient being thing is rather irrelevant.

And now we move on to false premises. Congratulations, you graduate twats university of false argumentation.

A baby has an active brain and thus has a much higher likelihood to be sentient than an embryo. The ability to retain long term memories has nothing to do with sentience. Not that it's even relevant, but babies actually do form lasting memories. If they didn't how could they learn anything? New born babies have to learn how to succle for instance. That requires memory.

*Yawn*

bipedalhumanoid

Here's a thought. A tad bit of honesty from the pro-life side would be interesting. How about, instead of throwing around disingenuous, fallacious secular arguments you give an honest account of why you think it's more important to protect a non-sentient embryo than the sentient mother?

Lets get down to the unfounded belief in souls and how they're inserted into zygotes by the hand of god shall we?

Min

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

And now we move on to false premises. Congratulations, you graduate twats university of false argumentation.

A baby has an active brain and thus has a much higher likelihood to be sentient than an embryo. The ability to retain long term memories has nothing to do with sentience. Not that it's even relevant, but babies actually do form lasting memories. If they didn't how could they learn anything? New born babies have to learn how to succle for instance. That requires memory.

*Yawn*

Unborn babies have been shown sucking their fingers in the womb.
There is a thing known as instinct, the instinct to live is there when the egg and sperm unite and implant in the womb, that is just as relevant as a new born baby suckling the breast of it's mother.
The mother and unborn and then born share natural instincts, these things are natural.
Given there is an instinct to live from the moment we were conceived in the womb, your argument falls down as there are things the unborn does not have to learn, it just knows what it has to do as it is natural instinct.

Min

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

Here's a thought. A tad bit of honesty from the pro-life side would be interesting. How about, instead of throwing around disingenuous, fallacious secular arguments you give an honest account of why you think it's more important to protect a non-sentient embryo than the sentient mother?

Lets get down to the unfounded belief in souls and how they're inserted into zygotes by the hand of god shall we?

It was said in the UK most abortions are simply another form of contraception.
It is only rare cases where the mother's life is at risk for most abortions in western society.

A human life is a human life whatever form it is, we should try and protect all human life and put a value on our lives and those of others.

hotmail.com

Min wrote: »

It was said in the UK most abortions are simply another form of contraception.
It is only rare cases where the mother's life is at risk for most abortions in western society.

A human life is a human life whatever form it is, we should try and protect all human life and put a value on our lives and those of others.

So what.

bipedalhumanoid

Min wrote: »

Unborn babies have been shown sucking their fingers in the womb.
There is a thing known as instinct, the instinct to live is there when the egg and sperm unite and implant in the womb, that is just as relevant as a new born baby suckling the breast of it's mother.
The mother and unborn and then born share natural instincts, these things are natural.
Given there is an instinct to live from the moment we were conceived in the womb, your argument falls down as there are things the unborn does not have to learn, it just knows what it has to do as it is natural instinct.

Even if you are right about babies suckling instinctively, and you're not (try telling that to mothers who have difficulty getting their babies to latch on!), as I said in my previous argument, it is completely irrelevant because sentience is not guaged by long term memory.

This is therefore a strawman argument, not worthy of any further attention.

bipedalhumanoid

hotmail.com wrote: »

So what.

+1

Please help us understand how that is in any way relevant to this debate?

bipedalhumanoid

Min wrote: »

It is only rare cases where the mother's life is at risk for most abortions in western society.

YES! AND THOSE ARE THE CASES LABOUR WANTS TO LEGISLATE FOR!

Min wrote: »

A human life is a human life whatever form it is, we should try and protect all human life and put a value on our lives and those of others.

:eek:
Another unevidnced, un-argued, unfounded assertion. This is yet again nothing but a statement of your opinion.

*Awaits the bog standard pro-life slippery slope argument*

theg81der

Min wrote: »

A human life is a human life whatever form it is, we should try and protect all human life and put a value on our lives and those of others.

So you just value human life then? what is the difference between a baby and an animal? What you seem to be saying is that you don`t want to devalue your life, which isn`t a great argument in my mind.

I`m not pro-choice by the way, I`m pro going in beofre they get pregnant and doing the work there. Reality is as it is thou.

bipedalhumanoid

In the interest of honest and open debate, I will outline my position on this issue.

I am in favour of very early term abortion (at the point before the unborn forms an active brain) and only beyond that point if the mother's life is at risk.

I don't agree with abortion on demand for the entire duration of the first trimester, because brain development begins much earlier than 3 months into the pregnancy.

I don't accept the pro-choice arguments suggesting it's the mother's body and therefore the mother's choice.

I do believe that sentient beings should have a right to life where that right does not infringe on that of a fully formed sentient being.

I do believe this debate is constantly hijacked by pro-life religious nut jobs and pro-choice liberal nut jobs.

I believe there is a resolution to this debate and it requires handing all nut-jobs their hats so that the medical and legal professionals can provide the public with the information they need to make an informed decision on where they stand.

I believe that's what labour is proposing.

MaceFace

oceanclub wrote: »

Eh? What this mythical position on Israel that Catholics share?

P.

Mythical?
I would guess that the vast majority of Catholic Irish have no issues with the existence of the Israeli state. Those in public positions are privately against many of the things that are happening there but they don't dare say anything too controversial for fear of upsetting those that flat out defend Israel no matter what.

A Muslim may be much more knowledgeable about the entire history of the region and have religious beliefs that want to see Israel out of certain parts of not just the occupied territory but also see it give up part of all of the territory that many of us would not care about.

To believe that deeply religious people (whichever religion) can remain objective on issues that go against their religious beliefs is just plain daft.
How someone can suggest that a leader that is deeply against abortion will approach the issue with as open a mind as someone who believes in pro-choice is fictional.

Min

The problem with Labour is they want a whole new constitution, what they say now is what the court in Europe should be allowed as per the Supreme court case - which any new government has to legislate for to make it law.
However a new constitution would open up the whole debate and that is where the question marks are.
Labour would no longer be bound by the constitution in what they can support.

Of course a new constitution would have to be passed by the people and this is an issue that could stop it in it's track, so Labour who have people like Ivana Bacik who wants abortion legalised are being restrained by the constitution even when it comes to what has to be legislated for.
Having listened to Ms Bacik on this issue, she would like a more liberal abortion system than what can be allowed.
Bacik is running for Labour and she has always said she wants abortion legalised - it will be more liberal than you support Bipedalhumaid, if she had the chance.

The only thing constraining the Labour party regarding abortion is the current constitution.

dark crystal

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Look, for some women it is. It's their right to feel that way and I don't understand why anyone (at least anyone who claims to be pro-choice) would want to suggest they ought to feel worse about it than they do. There are some women for whom it can be devastating, obviously, but this is usually linked not to the abortion itself but to the circumstances in which they had it. And childbirth too can have devastating consequences - ever heard of post-partum psychosis?

Sorry, where in my post did I suggest anyone ought to feel worse than they do already? Where?

And yes, I've heard of post partum psychosis - I had post natal depression myself. Doesn't mean I wish I had an abortion instead.

I wish people on both sides of the argument could at least agree that there are fair points to be argued for both pro life and pro choice and respect where each side is coming from.
Of course, there will be people who won't be swayed from their unerring views, but being pro life doesn't have to mean you are a religious zealot and being pro choice doesn't have to mean you don't have any compassion for the unborn.

I'm pro choice, simply because I understand and have compassion for a woman who finds herself in such a desperate predicament, that she can't conceive of raising a child for whatever reason. There are far too many bad parents out there already and I would rather see a pregnancy ended early, than see a child suffer at the hands of it's parents in any way.

However, I do understand where pro-lifer's are coming from, too. As a mum myself, it was a primal instinct to protect the life inside me when I got pregnant, because, yes, I do view the unborn as a baby, not merely a bunch of cells.
This does not mean I expect all women to share that view and I don't feel I have any right to dictate to them what they should do with their bodies.

Sometimes things aren't always as black and white as people like to make them out to be....

Irishgoatman

dark crystal wrote: »

Sorry, where in my post did I suggest anyone ought to feel worse than they do already? Where?

And yes, I've heard of post partum psychosis - I had post natal depression myself. Doesn't mean I wish I had an abortion instead.

I wish people on both sides of the argument could at least agree that there are fair points to be argued for both pro life and pro choice and respect where each side is coming from.
Of course, there will be people who won't be swayed from their unerring views, but being pro life doesn't have to mean you are a religious zealot and being pro choice doesn't have to mean you don't have any compassion for the unborn.

I'm pro choice, simply because I understand and have compassion for a woman who finds herself in such a desperate predicament, that she can't conceive of raising a child for whatever reason. There are far too many bad parents out there already and I would rather see a pregnancy ended early, than see a child suffer at the hands of it's parents in any way.

However, I do understand where pro-lifer's are coming from, too. As a mum myself, it was a primal instinct to protect the life inside me when I got pregnant, because, yes, I do view the unborn as a baby, not merely a bunch of cells.
This does not mean I expect all women to share that view and I don't feel I have any right to dictate to them what they should do with their bodies.

Sometimes things aren't always as black and white as people like to make them out to be....

Well said Dark Crystal,
If more people had your attitude and outlook there would be less fighting over this delicate subject.:)

Lockstep

Pro life groups campaigning against Labour in Galway West

Here

Irishgoatman

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Just a further thought that I meant to put in.

In the X case, if the anti-abortion people had got their way and the girl was forced to have the baby, the rapist, the father, would have been legally allowed to go to court and fight for custody of the child. would this have been acceptable to them ?. :eek:

I have been waiting for an anti-abortionist (I won't call them pro-life due to the fact that they would let a woman die for the sake of an unborn) to comment on this posting I put up a while ago. Lost for words or no answer that fits your outlook ?

theg81der

Irishgoatman wrote: »

I have been waiting for an anti-abortionist (I won't call them pro-life due to the fact that they would let a woman die for the sake of an unborn) to comment on this posting I put up a while ago. Lost for words or no answer that fits your outlook ?

Hard cases don`t make good law. And there is so few instances that the woman would die, if by die you mean commit suicide thats different and what you should have actually specified. How can you tell who is going to commit suicide exactly?

I have known quite a few girls who have had more than one abortion in alot of circumstance, that seems quite common. I have no experience of anyone fitting into your category. These were just selfish girls who thought it was all a joke, mind you I wouldn`t want them for a mother.

My thoughts are not fully ironed out on this issue and the older I get the more grey it gets but I want to see the root cause and attitudes tackled as a first measure.

Go into risk areas and categories and empower the girls so they educated and hopeful and don`t get pregnant in the first place. Have free contraception, like the implanon which last 3 years, give it out in schools

oceanclub

MaceFace wrote: »

Mythical?
I would guess that the vast majority of Catholic Irish have no issues with the existence of the Israeli state.

"You would guess?" Oh right, I guess I'd better take your word for it then. Can you tell me what percentage have no problem? "Catholic Ireland" only established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1975. Turkey recognised it in 1949.

P.

hogflem

Wasting your time Goatman,it's sunday,they've been to church,and now they're at home safely tucked away in the 1960's,where,any pregnant girl was simply handed over to the egregious care of the magdelene sisters,no nasty moral dilemmas,no family names sullied,the father/rapist kept his mouth shut and his head down and everyone was happy,bloody Labour,it's not christian I tell ya.

R28

theg81der wrote: »

Go into risk areas and categories and empower the girls so they educated and hopeful and don`t get pregnant in the first place. Have free contraception, like the implanon which last 3 years, give it out in schools

Sadly the most irrational of the anti-abortion organisations,the Catholic Church actively opposes the sensible use of contraceptives.

They also control 90% + of the schools. I don't see your plan having any effect with the bunch of men in dresses still having so much control....

MaceFace

oceanclub wrote: »

"You would guess?" Oh right, I guess I'd better take your word for it then. Can you tell me what percentage have no problem? "Catholic Ireland" only established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1975. Turkey recognised it in 1949.

P.

I am not going to be dragged into a discussion that has nothing to do with either the original thread or how it has developed.

Let me ask it this way:
Over the last three weeks, has any of the candidates given their views about either how they feel about the entire Middle East question (specifically their views on Israel).
I have not heard them discuss it.
Now, if the candidate came out and said they were either Muslim or Jewish, do you think it would have been much more at the forefront?

Dandelion6

dark crystal wrote: »

Sorry, where in my post did I suggest anyone ought to feel worse than they do already?

Where you said abortion shouldn't be considered just another medical procedure. Many of the factors that go to making women feel bad about abortions are caused by society's refusal to consider it just a medical procedure.

I had post natal depression myself. Doesn't mean I wish I had an abortion instead.

Where did I say you did? The point was that simply that childbirth can have the same, or worse, negative psychological consequences as those often attributed to abortion.

Dandelion6

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats fair enough but if thats the only reason then why not adoption???

Did you read past the first six words of my post before replying?

Dandelion6

Min wrote: »

personhood only exists because the embryo exists as the base

Adulthood only exists because of childhood. Does that give children all the rights of adults?

poker head

well know one in my house will be voting labour no fecking way.me and my little borther were adopted .thank god our brith mothers didnt have that choice or we might not be here now or my son.if a mothers life is in danger thats another story.

down with labour

meglome

I really hoped this bullshít thread would have gone away by now and I'm no supporter of Labour.

Zubeneschamali

poker head wrote: »

if a mothers life is in danger thats another story.

No, it isn't. It's the same story: we have no legislation to cover when abortion is legal, and Dana and friends want to keep it that way.

poker head

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's the same story: we have no legislation to cover when abortion is legal, and Dana and friends want to keep it that way.

dana???

so when a 11 year old girl is raped and giving brith might kill her you will say ????what tell me

Zubeneschamali

poker head wrote: »

dana???

so when a 11 year old girl is raped and giving brith might kill her you will say ????what tell me

I wand the Dáil to legislate to allow abortion in this country, in line with the 1983 amendment to the Constitution.

Dana and various anti-abortion groups want the current legal confusion to continue.

poker head

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wand the Dáil to legislate to allow abortion in this country, in line with the 1983 amendment to the Constitution.

Dana and various anti-abortion groups want the current legal confusion to continue.

when i said thats another story, i ment in my eyes,i was not stating laws.but look at the usa,teens gone wild on abortion its like a fashion accessories to them youre nobody if you didnt get one.crazy ,check it out brother if you think im telling lies.
youre on about dana from up north??a vote for sinn fein would sort her out haha

Reilly616

theg81der wrote: »

f by die you mean commit suicide [then that's] different ...

Legally, it isn't.

GymJim

poker head wrote: »

when i said thats another story, i ment in my eyes,i was not stating laws.but look at the usa,teens gone wild on abortion its like a fashion accessories to them youre nobody if you didnt get one.crazy ,check it out brother if you think im telling lies.
youre on about dana from up north??a vote for sinn fein would sort her out haha

You're telling lies!

theg81der

theg81der wrote: »

Have free contraception, like the implanon which last 3 years, give it out in schools

Do you mean intrauterine devices? Those can prevent fertilisation, yes, but they can also prevent the implantation of the zygote (or blastocyst, by that stage).

dark crystal

dark crystal wrote: »

There are far too many bad parents out there already and I would rather see a pregnancy ended early, than see a child suffer at the hands of it's parents in any way.

What about adoption? That'd at least give the mother of the baby the chance to pick herself up if she really cannot afford to have a child (financially and/or mentally), it'd make a couple very happy, and it'd give the baby a chance as well. The percentage of rogue adoptive parents (who abuse the child in whatever way) is believed to be very small:

Do adoptive parents ever abuse children? Experts believe that the rate of abuse among adoptive parents is extremely low. For example, the American Humane Association and also Richard Barth, in his essay in Adoption Policy and Special Needs Children, have estimated that abuse occurs in about 1% of adoptive families.


This low rate of abuse may be due to the fact that adoptive parents intensely desired to become parents and were also screened before they were able to achieve this goal. The home study process almost invariably includes a complete report from one's physician. A person with a serious problem, such as drug abuse or alcohol abuse, is likely to be detected. Individuals with a history of abuse or violence would also not be allowed to adopt a child.

Link to source.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

What about adoption?

What about 9 months of pregnancy and then labour?

Godge

poker head wrote: »

when i said thats another story, i ment in my eyes,i was not stating laws.but look at the usa,teens gone wild on abortion its like a fashion accessories to them youre nobody if you didnt get one.crazy ,check it out brother if you think im telling lies.
youre on about dana from up north??a vote for sinn fein would sort her out haha

Eh, the USA? Last I heard, abortion rates in the US were going down sharply, a combination of rolling back Roe v Wade and better birth control, two ideas from opposite ends of the spectrum.

The David Quinns of this world are very dangerous people, the Irish equivalents of the Muslim Brotherhood, attempting to make religious laws into national laws.

Irishgoatman

Irishgoatman wrote: »

I have been waiting for an anti-abortionist (I won't call them pro-life due to the fact that they would let a woman die for the sake of an unborn) to comment on this posting I put up a while ago. Lost for words or no answer that fits your outlook ?

I have to speak up on this one: most pro-lifers I know (myself included) would not rather that the mother died over the preborn if it came down to life and death.

In any situation where both lives are at stake, the greatest care needs to be given to both mother and baby. I've read that if it ultimately comes to a decision where greater care must be given to one over the other (and where, if this decision was not made, it is certain that both would die), care must be given to the mother. However, the final decision is usually reserved for the mother in such cases.

As an example:
Say the mother has an ectopic pregnancy. The baby is obviously going to die since no means exist to sustain infants of such a tiny size and at such an early (st)age in gestation. The mother will die if the fallopian tube holding the embryo is not removed. So the doctors remove the tube with the key intent being to save her life and the embryo dies.
This is not direct abortion and yet the mother's life is saved.

Another instance might be where the mother has uterine cancer and will die unless surgery to remove the tumour goes ahead. Say there are only two kinds of surgery that could go ahead: the first one being less effective in stopping the cancer but keeping the baby alive; the second being more effective in getting rid of the cancer but indirectly causing the death of the baby. The final decision is left with the mother, she chooses the more thorough surgery, and the baby dies.
Again, in such a case, no one is directly to blame for the baby's death and the mother's life is saved.

One case where the mother decided not to have the surgery that would indirectly result in her daughter's death is that of the Italian Gianna Molla, canonised by the Church in 2004. She died in the early sixties. I'm sure there are secular websites which mention her too.

All in all, indirect abortion is not the same as direct/deliberate abortion because the Principle of Double Effect comes into play in the former case.

(Man...how long have I spent typing this?!)

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What about 9 months of pregnancy and then labour?

No-one should have to go through that alone, especially if it's unplanned. There needs to be more support for women in such a situation. Perhaps a readjustment of funding would make it more bearable. (Though, yeah, I know, like the government is going to help out these women in these times...) Nonetheless, we are talking about another human life plus mother. Both ought to be protected.

Although going through nine months of pregnancy and labour may be a psychological burden for many women, there are also plenty of women in distress thanks to abortion. Granted, some women may not think much of hopping across the pond and having someone terminate the life of their embryos/foetuses. Maybe they'll regret it, maybe they won't. But many do. See Rachel's Vineyard and Silent No More.

I won't talk too much about what actually happens during an abortion in this post: you probably know that it's a living horror-movie of a procedure. In that sense, women might get some relief/solace from going through labour as opposed to an abortion, since labour gives something where abortion takes it away for good.

Nothing that I've written is intended to belittle labour or be condescending to any woman who has had an abortion. I believe women need help one way or the other, whether going through pregnancy or after an abortion.

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you mean intrauterine devices? Those can prevent fertilisation, yes, but they can also prevent the implantation of the zygote (or blastocyst, by that stage).

The implanon goes in a woman's arm :rolleyes:

Dr. Baltar

poker head wrote: »

well know one in my house will be voting labour no fecking way.me and my little borther were adopted .thank god our brith mothers didnt have that choice or we might not be here now or my son.if a mothers life is in danger thats another story.

down with labour

Nothing stopped your birth mother from going to Britain.
We need to take responsibility here rather shipping our pregnant women to Britain for abortions. Just because it isn't legal here doesn't mean that it doesn't happen anyway.

Besides, better for them to have abortions in a safe environment than in the back of an alley.

Sharrow

Sharrow wrote: »

The implanon goes in a woman's arm :rolleyes:

The implanon also prevents implantation by altering the endometrium in the womb. Like the IUD and even the Pill, it can cause the death of the zygote/blastocyst by preventing it from implanting in the uterus as normal.

No need for the eye-roll, by the way - I knew of those devices but I didn't know the exact name for it.

Dr. Baltar

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Besides, better for them to have abortions in a safe environment than in the back of an alley.

Better still for a change in how unplanned pregnancies are treated and for the mother to be supported through her pregnancy - and thus for the abortion not to go ahead at all. If only the money given to Marie Stopes, etc. were put to use to help women during pregnancy...

Hasschu

it is really irrevelant whether any, all or no Irish political party supports or does not support abortion. The boat to Liverpool was always available and in recent years Ryanair was added to the choices. Irish women are lucky enough to have a choice. I am no supporter of abortion. Neither will I stand in judgement with the holier than thou attitude so common in Ireland. Hypocrisy it is us.

wow sierra

I would imagine all the parties are open to introducing some form of limited abortion in the next year or so. It seems strange to be targeting Labour.

This campaign will have no impact on voting intentions in my opinion. I was handed one of these leaflets at mass and it just reminded me of the worst excesses of the Prolife movement in the past. The new law in relation to the Morning after pill will hopefully have some impact in reducing the abortion rate. I doubt the prolife movement are in favour of that either.

wow sierra

wow sierra wrote: »

The new law in relation to the Morning after pill will hopefully have some impact in reducing the abortion rate. I doubt the prolife movement are in favour of that either.

Generally speaking, I don't believe they are since the morning-after pill prevents implantation. It's considered an abortifacient, as are IUDs, Implanon, and even the Pill. I say abortifacient even though the present definition of pregnancy doesn't consider the zygote. Personally, I can't see the rationale of defining pregancy as the time between implanation and birth (or otherwise miscarriage or abortion). Does it not infer that a woman can have a new human life inside her and yet not be considered as pregnant? I'm being sincere in asking this - can someone explain?

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

Generally speaking, I don't believe they are since the morning-after pill prevents implantation. It's considered an abortifacient, as are IUDs, Implanon, and even the Pill. I say abortifacient even though the present definition of pregnancy doesn't consider the zygote. Personally, I can't see the rationale of defining pregancy as the time between implanation and birth (or otherwise miscarriage or abortion). Does it not infer that a woman can have a new human life inside her and yet not be considered as pregnant? I'm being sincere in asking this - can someone explain?

Medically and Legally they do not cause an abortion as a woman is not considered to be pregnant until the zygote as implanted. What ever your spiritual/religious personal beliefs are that is the medical and legal stance in this country.

When the zygote implants then it causes changes to the woman's physiology (specifically the generation of the HGC hormone) and then she is pregnant. Many women ovulate and conception occurs and the body rejects the zygote and those women are not at any stage considered to be pregnant.

You are wrong medically and legally to be referring to the oral contraceptive pill, the morning after pill, the IUS, implannon, contraceptive patch, contraceptive injection and the nuvaring as abortifacients when they are not.

As it stands a woman only miscarries up until 22 weeks, it is only after that it is considered a still birth and a birth and death cert issued and a woman can then go on maternity leave. So it is not the loss of a human being recognised by the state until 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

Better still for a change in how unplanned pregnancies are treated and for the mother to be supported through her pregnancy - and thus for the abortion not to go ahead at all. If only the money given to Marie Stopes, etc. were put to use to help women during pregnancy...

You mean somewhere for them to stay and be give bed and board?
Like the Magdalene laundries?

The Volt

Can this thread be closed please? It wholly misrepresents Labour's stance on abortion. Can we draw the line on the fact that party policy is to legislate for the ruling of the X-Case. A ruling that the elected government cannot leave lying on the shelf anymore.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to speak up on this one: most pro-lifers I know (myself included) would not rather that the mother died over the preborn if it came down to life and death.

In any situation where both lives are at stake, the greatest care needs to be given to both mother and baby. I've read that if it ultimately comes to a decision where greater care must be given to one over the other (and where, if this decision was not made, it is certain that both would die), care must be given to the mother. However, the final decision is usually reserved for the mother in such cases.

As an example:
Say the mother has an ectopic pregnancy. The baby is obviously going to die since no means exist to sustain infants of such a tiny size and at such an early (st)age in gestation. The mother will die if the fallopian tube holding the embryo is not removed. So the doctors remove the tube with the key intent being to save her life and the embryo dies.
This is not direct abortion and yet the mother's life is saved.

Another instance might be where the mother has uterine cancer and will die unless surgery to remove the tumour goes ahead. Say there are only two kinds of surgery that could go ahead: the first one being less effective in stopping the cancer but keeping the baby alive; the second being more effective in getting rid of the cancer but indirectly causing the death of the baby. The final decision is left with the mother, she chooses the more thorough surgery, and the baby dies.
Again, in such a case, no one is directly to blame for the baby's death and the mother's life is saved.

One case where the mother decided not to have the surgery that would indirectly result in her daughter's death is that of the Italian Gianna Molla, canonised by the Church in 2004. She died in the early sixties. I'm sure there are secular websites which mention her too.

All in all, indirect abortion is not the same as direct/deliberate abortion because the Principle of Double Effect comes into play in the former case.

(Man...how long have I spent typing this?!)

In the second example you gave, the mother would have died by the time she got permission from the courts to make a choice as our governments have failed to put the necessary legislation in place.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

No-one should have to go through that alone, especially if it's unplanned. There needs to be more support for women in such a situation. Perhaps a readjustment of funding would make it more bearable. (Though, yeah, I know, like the government is going to help out these women in these times...) Nonetheless, we are talking about another human life plus mother. Both ought to be protected.

Although going through nine months of pregnancy and labour may be a psychological burden for many women, there are also plenty of women in distress thanks to abortion. Granted, some women may not think much of hopping across the pond and having someone terminate the life of their embryos/foetuses. Maybe they'll regret it, maybe they won't. But many do. See Rachel's Vineyard and Silent No More.

I won't talk too much about what actually happens during an abortion in this post: you probably know that it's a living horror-movie of a procedure. In that sense, women might get some relief/solace from going through labour as opposed to an abortion, since labour gives something where abortion takes it away for good.

Nothing that I've written is intended to belittle labour or be condescending to any woman who has had an abortion. I believe women need help one way or the other, whether going through pregnancy or after an abortion.

Personally, I oppose abortion.

However, I do not believe that I or others can dictate to women what they can or cannot choose. Yes, women need support if they become pregnant in a vulnerable situation (very young, as a result of rape, in an abusive relationship) but that help should come with options. Those options include adoption, keeping the child and regrettably abortion. It is not for me or anyone else to judge those who choose abortions. For those who do make that choice, it is not a matter of "hopping across the pond".

Nine months of pregnancy can be more than a psychological burden, it can scar young children (12-year old girls are children) for life. If they choose a path with a lesser psychological burden for them, so be it.

I take it from your posts that you are male like me, or at the very least have not experienced pregnancy as a mother or a father. I have children and I know what could be lost but I also know that a pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly. Termination can be the right thing for a woman/girl at the right time. Even if it is not something I would be in favour of.