(October 31, 2016 at 9:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(October 31, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am fairly familiar with this because I was borderline preeclamptic when I was pregnant (due to the placental abnormalities) which can be life threatening and is only "cured" once the baby is out. If the mother's life is in immediate danger, the moral thing to do would be to induce labor or perform a C section. Abortion at late stages like this involve dismemberment and that is very painful for the baby who already has the nervous system fully intact. Luckily in my case, the baby died before it got to the point where we'd have to induce him while he was still alive. He wouldn't have survived outside the womb anyway because of how sickly he was, so at least he went peacefully on his own terms while he was still inside. But I do believe Tib is correct that late term abortion can also happen if the mother for whatever reason decides she no longer wants the baby (down syndrome or other birth defects, life changes, etc).
Ah! I'm so torn on this issue...I absolutely consider myself pro-life, but the idea of late-term abortions solely on the basis of mother simply not wanting the baby just rips my insides out. I can't even IMAGINE how it must make you feel, CL. Does this make me hypocritical? Is my position illogical?
States have different restrictions on abortions. Some have more conservative restrictions, others are more liberal.
It depends on the abortionist too, and whether or not he/she deems the reasons "good enough" to warrant a late abortion. If a woman walks in asking for an abortion while she's pregnant with a baby on her 3rd trimester and she's an emotional mess because she lost her job and her baby's father broke up with her and she has clinical depression on top of it all, in some states it would be up to the abortionist's judgement whether or not to abort the baby.
Other "reasons" could be if the baby was discovered to have some sort of disability that the parents did not want to deal with.
As far as life threatening reasons go, as I said, I think the only justifiable option there would be to induce labor or to do a C section to try to save them both.
Awareness/sentience in human development is on a sliding scale. It isn't an on/off switch. And even if it was, I don't see how not having awareness makes someone not human. Genetics determines an entity's species, not awareness. If someone was in a comma for 9 months and unresponsive and unaware during that time, does that mean it'd be ok to end their life without their consent? I don't think so.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
