Steinar Valsson said:
Nokshor said:
I'm "Pro-Life", though as you've pointed out the label itself is silly.
The reason for this is simple: I think everyone deserves a shot at life. Unless, and even then I think it's pretty murky waters, the child's birth will -kill- the mother then I don't think the child should be denied its chance to live.
Even if the mother doesn't want it, it still deserves a chance to live. And if she wasn't willing to birth a child, she should not have had sex. Simple as. Protection is never 100% and people should learn to live with the consequences of their actions.
That said, I understand that I have no right to command others to do as I wish. I do however have the right to tell them what I feel about it.
So you think the woman that maybe got raped and did not have a chance is supposed to die for a babie that might not have a future? Then the mother looses her chance to have children of her own at her will. If she would have had 2 children, we would have taken the chance from the 2nd child. Where do we draw the line of chances? Maybe the child would also die at birth, very small chance of survival, but still a chance. Should we still risk more likely death of both instead of making sure one lives? Someone that already feels? That's not by definition of the word, pro-life, to make one die at the chance of making someone else live. That's just as wrong, even more if you think the child could also die and the mother would have the chance of having more children.
Thinking the life of the mother is worth less then the life of the maybe to be baby...
Unless, and even then I think it's pretty murky waters, the child's birth will -kill- the mother then I don't think the child should be denied its chance to live.
... as you do. That is one of the reasons of which Carlin mentioned the anti-women. We know you are not anti-women, but you still think the women's life is worth less and that she is just supposed to be made to die. That is just sickening to me.
Firstly, a survey performed by the leading provider of abortions in America (forgive me, can't think of the name at the moment) a few years ago showed that around 50% of women having abortions had used it as their only means of contraception. MOST abortions are not due to rape.
However, I do understand that there are circumstances where there is no 'good' option.
This is why I said 'murky waters', rather than 'the woman should die'.
If it is a choice between saving the mother and saving the child, I cannot provide any solid council as to which is the best way forward, because all the outcomes kinda suck.
You have bad option 1) Mother dies. Bad Option 2) Child dies. Or worse option 3) They both die.
It essentially comes down to the decision of the mother in this case as to whether she wishes to sacrifice herself or the baby.
And in this situations, I make no claims for the morality of the act because I haven't been through that and cannot fathom how difficult that choice must be.
'Murky Waters' note aside, I still feel that "Unless the child's birth will -kill- the mother then I don't think the child should be denied its chance to live."
I don't think the child's life is worth more than the mother's. I think their worth is equal, because they are both human. I'm not saying she should be -made- to die, because you're right - that would be sickening; I'm just saying that if there is a better option available than killing the foetus it should be taken.