abortion vs holocaust (page 43)

cofty

1. A pregnant woman is rushed to hospital in agony. She is diagnosed as having a previously undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy in her fallopian tube.

2. The baby is alive but a rupture of the tube is imminent and inevitable.

3. When it ruptures the mother's life will be in immediate danger.

4. The baby is too young to survive being removed.

5. The doctor says they must operate and abort the fetus to save the mother's life but the procedure WILL kill the baby.

This is a scenario that happens regularly in hospitals.

Is it ethically correct to agree to the abortion? Yes or no?

You said ...

cofty i said, yes because the purpose was not to kill the baby, the babys death was not the goal - Unstop

The illustration of the fireman is nonsense. It is the growth of the baby in the fallopian that will lead to the death of the mother so the life of the baby must be terminated.

You agreed this was moral.

unstopableravens

as you see in my answer as long as the purpose is not to kill the fetus. please dont take what i say and twist it. of course my firefighter illustration is nonsense. because you believe different

cofty

The purpose of the operation IS to terminate the life of the baby.

The motivation is to save the life of the mother.

You agreed to this.

coftywhat i said is clear, if you want to fog it up, im not for it. look at the pic that shadow posted. its clear as day what you see is human life. and pro choicers are with having another human abort that. stop talking about 1% and face reality millions of baby like in shadows pics are being aborted. does that bother you cofty?

cofty

stop talking about 1%

No not yet.

You are pretending that it is black-and-white but you are being dishonest.

You have agreed that if a mother's life is in danger it is acceptable to terminate the life of the baby.

However uncomfortable you may be about it, the fact remains that you are not opposed to all abortions.

unstopableravens

cofty: do you think im the only one who see what you do? a person has a view, that you use half truths with a added word and than say ah ha . your not really believing what you claim. its twisted. i never said the doctor should end the life on purpose. key wrd purpose, maybe this word is more clear willfully, or this one intent. so if you want to be mature and explain how you are ok with a mother aborting what you see in shadows pictures?

tec

There is no chance for an eptopic pregnancy (attachment in the fallopian tube) to come to term. The baby WILL die. It is not even a matter of choosing one over the other; the baby dies whether or not something is done. The mother may die as well, if nothing is done.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

Unstop - I am running out of ways to make this simple enough for you.

I explained very clearly in the scenario that the doctor has no choice but to terminate the life of the baby if the life of the mother is to be saved.

You can dress it up any way you want but it is a termination of pregnancy or to put it bluntly, an abortion.

You agreed that this was morally acceptable.

jgnat

Or, as I had rephrased, the mothers life is more valuable than the fetus because one has a future and the other does not. The fetus in this example is not viable outside the the womb.

Another example where I would not allow a dogmatist to talk to the bereaved is my dear JW husband. He reacts to death by quoting WT doctrine, such as the deceased will not go to heaven, yadda yadda. It gives HIM comfort but would cause distress to the bereaved. I have him under strict orders to keep his mouth shut about such matters. He protests that it is the truth! I give him the wifely glare and he wisely shuts up. He hasn't a clue why his words harm though.

cofty

I think I would shut up if I got your glare too Jgnat ;)

abortion vs holocaust

Share this