Beebs52 wrote:
I can answer about the "death" thing. If a mother's life is in jeopardy then, yes, you do have to make a choice. Which, I guess, makes me prochoice. There is indeed a choice made as to who lives and dies. It would be, if she were able, the mother's choice, or caregivers depending on the circumstances. However, it is a choice. Someone will die, or both will die. It seems wrong to make both die if one is viable.
The rape/incest thing is harder. I do think that's, again, a personal choice, and does involve the life or death of someone. And, no, I don't think that equates to someone aborting a child for birth control's sake, sans rape/incest. My prob is with abortion as a birth control device.
Since I am probably the most firmly pro-life member of this bored, I am just going to add my thoughts on this topic (not arguing, just stating my position). I am not against abortion because I think that people should be responsible for their actions. Abortion should not be used as a birth control device, but abortion should not be outlawed merely to punish those for their "immoral" actions.
I also don't understand why pro-life people use the Bible to advance their position. Yes, I accept that the Bible is the ultimate authority on moral and other matters, but not everyone else does. How can you advance a point simply because the Bible says this or that when the person you are arguing with doesn't believe in the Bible?
I take the human rights position. The unborn child is a human being. This nation's founding document (the Declaration of Independence) states that we are all created (not born, not developed, etc.) with certain inalienable rights and that those rights are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If our nation was founded on this, then everything that comes after it (the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, laws passed by Congress, etc.) should be based on these principles. We haven't always adhered to those principles (i.e. slavery), but we should always strive for them.
If you take the position that life begins at conception, as I do, then the circumstances of that conception shouldn't be taken into account when protecting the right of that life. A human being is a human being. Those who claim to be pro-life and yet allow exceptions for rape or incest hurt their own argument.
There are situations in which the mother's very life would be threatened if she carried a pregnancy to term. In such life-threatening situations, forcing the mother to continue in that pregnancy would violate the mother's right to life. In other words, why should she die so that her child might or might not live? In such cases, it is only correct to remove the child from her body, although every attempt should be made to save the life of that child if he/she is viable enough to survive outside the womb. Of course, in most of these life-threatening instances, that won't be possible (i.e. ectopic pregnancies, etc.).
That being said, I am against such broad wording as "exceptions for the health of the mother," since "health of the mother" has been broadened to such an extent in regards to mental and emotional health that it could mean almost anything.
That's my position. It's also the position of a great many people that I know, including women. As far as pregnancy counseling not providing referrals to abortionists, why should it? If you hold the position that I and many people do, then referring a pregnant woman to an abortionist would be the equivalent of a marriage/divorce counselor referring someone to a hit man to kill his or her spouse.
I don't know if I am the thread stopper to whom Nelly referred, and I doubt that the thread will stop with this post. But here it is anyway...
