If the purpose of outlawing abortion is to save a life, then any time abortion can save the life of the mother, it should be legal and allowed. It's heartbreaking to make it a numbers game, but if there is a sure fire way to save one life, instead of risking both, it should be taken advantage of.
If a woman's life is in danger, and she chooses to put the life of her unborn child before her own, that is her choice. It should also be her choice to put her own life before that of her unborn child. We cannot know the circumstances of her life and what her choice would be. But, it definitely should be her choice and not that of anyone else.
In our society, we justify killing in self-defense on the theory that one cannot be forced to die so someone else can live. That is a choice that we as society are uncomfortable forcing on someone. That same principle holds true for abortion to save a mother's life. Even putting aside the issue of whether abortion involves "killing", society's values as they relate to self-defense justify such abortions.
A mother should never have to chose between her life and that of her child. However, when medical evidence can prove that the continuation of the pregnancy will place the mother's life in danger, the mother should have the legal option to abort the fetus.
For the most part, if a woman carries a baby past the first trimester, then more than likely, she really wanted the child. If her life is threatened because of the pregnancy, it will be a very hard and heartbreaking decision that she will have to make. Because of this, I feel it should be legal to make this decision at any stage of the pregnancy, but only in this circumstance.
I believe you will never fully be on one side of the fence until you are pregnant, and facing this situation head on. If a woman is not financially stable, homeless, drug addict, has a disease, she was raped, may die during birth, or simply just does NOT want a child, then that is her choice, not yours. Right now, this is a right she has, and nobody should be able to take that away. Not to mention, our population growth is peaking at one of it's highest. Also, the age for losing your virginity is becoming EXTREMELY young. I'm talkin from around 11-13. The excuse " If you're going to have sex, you should deal with the consequences" is crap. Nobody, not even people who are against abortion, is ready to have a child.
If a mother's life is in danger, a pregnancy should be able to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy. No only do you do a disservice to the parents of this child, but to the child as well if his mother dies because of the pregnancy. In many cases the child will also die. The mother should not be forced to give up her life. If it will save the life of the mother, a baby should be able to be aborted at any point.
If a woman beyond all reasonable doubt will die if she does not have an abortion, the abortion is justified. If a woman simply doesn't want the child anymore, then it is not justified. This has potential for abuse and there would need to be methods in place to prevent abuse of this kind of system.
Yes, I agree that abortion should be okay at any stage in pregnancy if it means the mother's life is saved. I feel that the mother's life is always more precious than unborn child and abortion is okay at any stage if mother's life is saved. Child is unborn and when it comes to such decision mother's life should always be given priority. In some religion this is sin but I believe that mother is like a chicken and kid is an egg.
Abortion should absolutely be allowed in all circumstances to save a mother's life. It is absurd to put at risk one person's life to protect another unborn person. The option should be there for the mother to make an informed decision on the fetus within her. The government has no role or right to become involved in that decision making.
If the life of the mother is saved, it is possible that in the future a couple can have another child. If the mother's life is put at risk however, during the time of delivery it very may well put the child's health at risk as well. It wouldn't make sense to risk losing two lives when you can save one. The chances of a baby surviving if the mother is dying are not always guaranteed.
I don't support abortion under any other circumstances. But, no matter how far along the pregnancy is, if it is assaulting the mother and putting her life in jeopardy it should be stopped. Everything should be done to save the baby, though. If the mother wishes to risk her life, that's her choice. But, especially in a situation where the mom has other children, it wouldn't be beneficial for her to die.
I am a firm believer that the mother plays an essential role in the life of a child. Therefore, I don't believe any mother's life should be replaced by the life of a child. If the only option was abortion for the sake of saving the mother's life, I believe it is morally acceptable to do so. There are chances for more kids, but only one mother.
I think the mother's life should always be important and an abortion should be performed if she is at risk. As blunt as it is, the fetus is not yet a living human -- because of this, the priority should be on saving the life of the mother. The mother has feelings, is fully developed and able to make comprehensive decisions. I think that the mother should be the priority in terms of a pregnancy risking her life.
In some cases, it is determined that giving birth will greatly threaten the mother. If this is detected early enough, the woman must choose what she wishes to do with her body. The decision should not be made lightly, it should have great input from her doctor, and all other options must first be considered. If there is no other option, the mother must decide what she will do.
I believe that if a mothers life is in danger it's alright for them to have the choice to have an abortion. It's there body & should have the choice to do whatever they want with it. If it wasn't okay, then mothers would die for no reason. Think about it.
You deny a 'potential person' their right to life every time you go through your cycle without becoming pregnant. So does every many that does not impregnate a women for each sperm. Wether that is the cut off point or at 3 months in, it's still denying that 'person' a right to live. If you wear protection or you abort your baby, your denying the exact same thing, only later on.
If the mother will die, abortion is acceptable at any stage. No child would want to grow up without a mother. That you cannot replace. Whereas you can have another child. It won't be the same as what it would've been the first time, but you're not having the child you would've had had you not worn protection, either.
Let me ask you something:
Have you had a baby for every egg you've ever produced? Or for every sperm? No?
People who argue that the baby has a right to life, and to abort is denying that child its life, are hypocrites. You are doing the exact same thing every time you do not conceive on your cycle, or do not impregnate with every sperm.
When you are trying to have a baby, that obviously means you love the person with whom you're trying with. You are trying to create another life with them. If you find out that the baby living may kill the mother, I think that if the stakes are too high, then the baby should be sacrificed. You can always try to have another baby. You cannot replace your wife/girlfriend. I know that this is a big debate, and I used to think that the mothers life isn't worth killing a baby, but when it happened to my brother and sister-in-law, I realized that my sister-in-law was irreplaceable. I already have a niece, and they can always have more.
For all of those who disagree with this, who believe that interfering is against "gods will" and it's murder. The next time you go to the hospital for ANY reason, for medical intervention you're "sinning". So I would assume that all of you pro lifers rely exclusively on natural remedies for your health and well being. Of COURSE a mothers life should have precedence over that of unborn child. The mother is a sentient being!
Yes, as "selfish" as some may think....A mother can make another baby, you can't make another; Daughter, sister, grand-daughter, cousin, best friend, wife..... But you can make another baby. If the mother has a equal to greater chance to survive I'd choose the mother. It all depends on how critical the situation of health is.
If the mother is gravely dying, chances are the baby might die next, with no host to feed on. I'd rather see an alive mother and dead baby, than a dead mother and dead baby.
Also if it was a case where the mother could die at the longest stretch to at least have the child born, I would say it would be up to the mother to decide if she values her own life over the baby (or not). After the act is done, I insist you don't guilt trip the mother as she made a difficult choice either way.
This seems unreal to me that people actually think it is a better thing to do to save the life of an unborn baby and killing the mother who is living? How is that not murder? This is a blatant attempt to revert treating women as second class citizens and losing a century of progress.
Also, what happens if there are existing children in the family? Should we leave a family with existing children motherless? So we save the life of an unborn baby, but we condemn a husband to raise children on his own (or by a step mother) and have children lose their mother - really? Don't get my wrong - I am a mother of 2 children and would be heartbroken too if either of my pregnancies were at risk, but this is extreme! We have mountains of research or know people personally - that shows children of single parents have a much more difficult upbringing and never get over early loss of a parent. I think it would be a very sad and difficult thing to get over, but not near as sad or difficult or even close to the same impact than losing a parent (especially a mother) to a young family. Not to mention that with all of the advancements that medical technology has made, I assume that there would be plenty of opportunity to circumvent most high risk situations - leaving this situation to be somewhat rare when looking at the overall number of pregnancies in the U.S. At the same time - I would also assume that these unusual and rare situations where the unborn baby, after being born, will have a low chance of survival. So I'm willing to admit that I've assumed incorrectly because I've never been in this situation nor do I know anyone who's gone through something like this - BUT, are we really saying that we would allow the mother to die that had a good chance of making it, had the doctors not focused more on saving the life of the unborn baby whose survival is debatable? I just don't understand this sort of extremism - it makes absolutely no sense to me. It's extreme points of view like this that is going to cost the GOP control of local and federal government. CRAZY!!
Everyone saying that it's 'God's plan' has to keep in mind that not everyone believes in God, so that argument won't apply to them in any circumstance. Besides, I wouldn't want to worship a God who would rather take the life of an already-made person than that of one that isn't alive yet.
To those saying that 'the baby has a heartbeat.' Yes, so does the person carrying it. Seriously, the pregnant person is not just a walking uterus with no life, sentience, or soul. It is a person with a uterus and who could possibly die. To say you'd rather have the mother die (despite the fact more people will be hurt by their death and it'll be painful on their part) than the fetus isn't very 'Pro-life' at all.
To say that the pregnant person 'should have thought of the consequences before having sex' just goes to show that you'd rather punish someone with a uterus with death for having the audacity to have sex. That's sick. Besides, you don't know their story. Maybe they wanted the baby, but they found out they'll risk dying if they carry it term. Maybe the birth control wasn't effective (e.G. Your logic for 'they knew the risk, they deserve to die' is like telling someone who got into a car accident that they deserve to die for 'choosing to drive despite knowing the risks of driving.')
They are not immoral for choosing their own life; they can always try again later after all. The fetus could already be dead, and poisoning the pregnant person from the inside, leading to sepsis and/or death, or the body flushing it out in a painful gush of blood and amniotic fluid.
Seriously, do Anti-Choicers forget that the fetus is inside a person? An actual person? Or do they suddenly view the pregnant person as an incubator? Why do Anti-Choicers forget that pregnant people are people, and if they choose their life over the fetus, then that is their choice and they are not to be shamed for it? I certainly wouldn't be putting my life at risk if I were pregnant and was told I could die.
It's not very Pro-life to choose the mother to die, is it now? When both fetus and parent are at risk of death? Why lose both lives when one can be saved? Just because one is an 'old life.' Sorry, even if the pregnant person is an 'old life', it's still their life and choosing to survive and carry that life on is absolutely fine. It's not immoral, it's not cowardly. And it's not against 'God's will' because you can't use that argument on everyone.
So yes, it is okay. Because the mother is a person, not a broodmare, not a baby machine, not a shell, and if their life is on the line during pregnancy, they shouldn't be forced to sacrifice it just because of Anti-choice ideals.
It is wrong to kill the innocent. Babies should get a chance to live, they're destiny should not be chosen because the mother doesn't want a kid. I would understand if it affected her chances of living, but to get one because your'e not ready for a baby? No. Its called adoption!!
I think that every woman has the right to a choice. If she doesn't have a choice it is not fair to her! I believe that if it costs her her life she has the right to abort the child. What if the woman has other children to worry about? She has to care for them, doesn't she? Yes, a woman should have the right to abort if she would like to.
When the mother is pregnant and very much wants her baby, but complications develop and the doctors tell her that she could die and so could her baby, she does not want to have to make this choice, sometimes nature is cruel and forces this choice upon her. When the mother is told 3 scenarios and all the outcomes involve the baby dying and 2 of those scenarios involve both of them dying, this is not the same as abortion. A woman should have the right to choose. There are so many things that can happen in pregnancy that can be out of the mother's control, and sometimes she has to make painful decisions. Those who are against abortion have a right to feel that way, but please educate yourself first. If you don't have children, then you really don't know the things that can happen, or what a woman goes through.
It is foolishness to call it honorable for a woman to die with a fetus that had no chance of living. If one cares about life then the main concern should be the woman's life, she has a chance at life! Why let both die, when one can live? It is apparent that the 'No' side has no respect or care for women; that a dying fetus hold more value than a woman's life. A fetus cannot exist without a woman, so why let her die too? Abortion is a medical procedure that is necessary for some women to live. I have known women who would have died if she did not have an abortion. Why should a woman die with a dying fetus and leave her husband and children behind? Is a wife and mother more replaceable than a fetus?
Just think of a man or a woman being killed for no reason. This is the same thing. You are essentially KILLING a person. If you didnt want a child, dont get involved in that stuff in the first place. God sent that person for a reason. The child didnt do anything wrong, so why kill it for no reason. If you dont want the child you gave BIRTH to, give it up for adoption. Give your child to a family that cant have children. That would be the best thing to do.
I would gladly put my life in God's hands if it means that my baby would have a chance to live. That child would have a life and I couldn't possibly take it. I'd be living with the guilt for the rest of my life, especially as I would love all of my children. I have no right to take it's life. I would rather let my precious baby live than live in it's place. It's not right and unborn children have rights.
My views on abortion make it impossible for me to even consider having one. The would-be mother should have thought of the consequences before having sex. There is always a risk to the mother when becoming pregnant, and every woman should know this fact. Not only is it immoral to have an abortion, it puts a woman at risk of never being able to conceive in the future.
Blastocysts,embryos and fetuses are human and have the right to live. Especially when they could live outside the uterus (21 weeks). Even more so when they would have a 50% chance of survival if they where to be born at this time (24 weeks). Most of all when they reach the point that doctors would consider them full term babies if they where to be delivered at this point (37 weeks).
Have you ever seen van aborted fetus or at least a picture or video of one? I find it to be the most gruesome thing I have ever seen (I didn't even see it in person! Nothing serves to justify abortion. There should be a law against abortion!
While I agree that abortion should be a woman's choice, they should only be allowed to abort during the 1st trimester, or maybe a few weeks into the second. After that, the baby can hear and it has limbs and organs, so killing it at that age is completely unacceptable. A mother who is in jeopardy of losing her life should have already known that pregnancy could kill her, if that was the case before she got pregnant, or at least known within the first few weeks. That was a choice she should have already made.
Its a baby; a real human life and that is a fact. Would a mother kill her own baby so that she would live? That is unjustifiable and selfish. Lets say that either way one of them will die. Is it better that the mother dies by natural ways or that the baby is murdered? The answer is self explanatory. Even if your unsure if it is a human life inside the womb, what if it is? Because of that possibility an abortion is never a choice.
Obstetricians have always been aware that they treat two lives, from conception to 6 weeks post delivery. In Ireland they have always been expert in treating, any and every condition that may arise in pregnancy without resorting to abortion and Ireland has a record of being one of the safest places in the world to be pregnant and have a baby. (WHO 2007). In Chile, where abortion was made illegal in 1989 maternal death rates dropped. Please do not be mislead by pro abortion propaganda, Abortion is NEVER the only option and can never replace good Obstetric and Midwifery care.
I believe abortion should be illegal in any state at any stage. There are some circumstances in which abortion is one of the best options, but it is never the best option. That is a living child you are killing when you decide to have an abortion, think of the life you are killing.
You should only kill a baby in the first trimester.I am totally republican i honestly dont think its ok when you kill a child but it isn't ok in any meaning to kill a baby if its gonna save the mom great but you are killing another human being .
You are actually killing a living human being and its not ok the mother should understand that herself if it's her life or her babys. Why the child? You got pregnat didnt you thats your falut not your babys dont take the life of a baby it's just like man slaughter so... What do you think
If you don't want the baby there are other people who can not have babies that might want the one you don't want. The child does not have to pay the prices of someone mistakes. I agree with "Killing an innocent child, no matter how old, is murder. America stands for justice and honor, and standing up for those who cannot defend themselves is something we should all strive to achieve."
Killing an innocent child, no matter how old, is murder. America stands for justice and honor, and standing up for those who cannot defend themselves is something we should all strive to achieve. I know this is a very difficult choice, but I believe very strongly in preserving life, in defending the weak, and fighting for justice in America and if you can save the life of a child then that is something you should fight for.
The mother has lived her life. She has grown. It is only right her baby gets the same experience. The baby deserves to breathe sleep eat. The child should be allowed to grow up. The child could play a sport be president you never know. Yes it is sad that the mother may not see the baby grow and accomplish theses things but its what the baby deserves
It is honorable to carry a pregnancy to term even if the mothers life is in danger. It is not fair to the innocent baby to end its life in place of the mother. This is very difficult but it is honorable and selfless to try to save the babies life even if risking the mothers. The right choices in life are seldom the easiest.
We should trust God with our lives. If it's God's will that the mother or child die then who is to argue with God?