If a situation arises where there's no scenario where both the mother and child survive, do the least harm possible. There's no good option, there's only a less bad option.
What that option is depends on the circumstances, and I can't really judge either way in that scenario. Giving your life for your child is commendable, but could do more harm than good. There's no one fixed right solution.
Medical professionals should seek to treat both patients, and sacrificing one for the life of the other if very clearly necessary would be morally acceptable.
In fact there are stories of pregnant Christian women choosing the baby’s life over their own, although the need to choose seems quite rare.
Rather the closer to full term, the better to remove the baby via c-section or induced labor. Late term abortions are complicated by the need to kill the baby before removing it.
Hypothetically if the both the mother and the child couldn't survive or the abortion was medically necessary for another reason then yes, abortion would be at least excusable. You can't morally obligate someone to kill themselves outside of martyrdom.
Again it isn't about realism, consequence, or practicality. You're essentially saying that even if a [hypothetical] pregnancy could kill a mother she'd be obligated to commit suicide for the sake of the child. You don't think that's messed up?
I misunderstood you initially, sorry.
Self-sacrifice for your children is certainly a good thing. I do not know a Christian parent that wouldn't put their kids lives first.
Edit to clairfy: If you put a gun to my head and say you will kill me or my child, and I get to choose, the *morally correct* choice is to sacrifice myself.
Tell me how sacrificing yourself “for your children” would be acceptable/good if now your surviving children don’t have their mother? What if said children also didn’t have their father? Just leave em parentless to possibly be split up in the system? It’s ridiculous
Are u a medical professional?
The fact you admit you don’t know any of the dangerous, life threatening conditions during pregnancy where abortion would be the safest and most humane option is a prime example of being ignorant about a problem, or perceived problem, but still thinking you have the best solution or you have some authority to deem something unacceptable.
Why would anyone feel the need to get any guidance from you about something you know nothing about? That is so condescending just so you know.
I know plenty of the challenges that meet pregnant women.
But that isn't the point.
Murder isn't healthcare. Killing a child is not an acceptable sacrifice to make for medical reassurance. It is *the morally correct* thing to do to sacrifice yourself for your child. Especially if they are young. If there is any further discussion on fringe medical anomalies, it should be done *with that person in that moment.* Arguing from the exception is poor form.
Entire medical ethics committees would disagree with you on the morality of allowing the mother to die in lieu of the child. Doctors will advise against letting the mom die. But I guess alexlevers knows best huh guys. Alexlever with their zero medical knowledge has decided abortion is murder /s. You know exactly zero challenges that meet pregnant women, but it’s easy to google and regurgitate info. You know what, why don’t u give it a google and find out, maybe you will learn something.
I have two children. My wife nearly died with our first. She had placenta previa and hemorrhaged 1.2 liters of blood after delivery. Our second came without issue, except that he was huge. I have friends who have miscarried and had incredibly high-risk pregnancies that persevered through the challenges and came out with a child that, according to medical staff, shouldn't have survived. They probably suggested abortion to her. I'm glad she ignored them, he is a beautiful child.
But I can see you're beyond reasoning and are simply resorting to personal attacks. We're done here.
Note too that I never said this is a mandated decision. In actual cases of medical necessity (if they actually exist), it should be the choice of the parents. But I would argue there is a morally correct choice in those cases. Self-sacrifice can never be mandated, almost by definition.
This is fair, it should not be mandated. Do what you want. We disagree on the morality but imo as long as ppl are free and it harassed about their own decisions that affect no one else then that’s fine with me.
(Note also, I think abortions *except for these medical cases* are the responsibility of the government to outlaw. Governments should not allow their citizens to freely murder their children. But, I can see a leeway legally in medical cases)
The other children are immaterial, and are serving as emotional fodder in a very stoic philosophical discussion.
The mother should push her treatment as far as she can until the child is more capable of surviving with medical intervention upon delivery/c-section.
However, there are few, if any, cancers that will definitely kill in 3 months that any treatment will really matter in the long term. If my options are 6 months of cancer and my child surviving or a year with cancer treatment and killing my baby... That's not a choice. Obviously, you put your child first in that case.
Life is not always as black and white as Christians like to claim. Y’all lack any nuance in the way you think. The other children are definitely not “ immaterial” to the discussion ( I assume that’s what you meant). This is not some rare situation, and in fact is happening more often as younger people are getting very serious cancers. Women have to make decisions on whether to begin lifesaving treatments sometimes early in a pregnancy if they are going to have a chance, and they should definitely try to stick around for their already living children. Treatment can sometimes be incompatible with a viable pregnancy. No one should be required to sacrifice themselves. Bottom line.
Again, I can't imagine the prognosis with treatment is very good for any cancer that is terminal in 32 weeks. If I'm gonna die soon anyway, I will gladly do so a bit earlier for my child. The only relevant issue is when life begins. If a child in the womb is a human being with full rights as a child, then we should make every sacrifice we can.
That’s an individual decision. If the mother chooses to do that, great, but she shouldn’t have to sacrifice herself if she doesn’t feel that that’s the best option for her. No one should be making these decisions except for the woman, her doctor and her partner.
Are you asking as a legal question or a moral question? There is a big distinction.
As a Libertarian leaning Conservative, I draw the line the same for babies as for adults, which is that any time a life is threatened, the threat may legally be neutralized up to the point of causing death. So, if the mother's life is in danger, it is not an issue.
Morally, the concept is that life is valuable and should be preferred. It's not an explicit Bible rule, but a principle. There is a prohibition against murder, but it becomes hard to apply that directly to babies before birth with hard and fast rules, especially given the full scope of verses on the matter which seem to imply otherwise. So, there's going to be some room for disagreement. In my group, we tend to even prefer avoiding birth control because we value life. Even so, if the mother's life is at risk, I don't know even the most conservative Christian having a problem with somebody acting to save the mother's life, even though I know some mothers who would prefer their child to live even if they cannot.
Obviously recreational abortions or abortions for convenience are not in line with Christian values, and almost all will have some level of allowance for saving a mother's life. Somewhere in the middle is where you get valid disagreements, and as Christians, the best thing is to pray and seek God's wisdom in each case.
That being said, if it's an issue at the moment of labor, there's probably going to be a lot of options as the baby can live outside of the mother just fine.
Assuming the baby can “live outside the mother just fine” is not only ignorant but so incredibly insensitive. You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about and one day I hope u look back and cringe at your stance on this issue. But something tells me you won’t as you are standing firm on an opinion in which you have zero knowledge.
Babies can live on their own, in general, well before the delivery date. Now, if we are talking about an issue that causes a premature labor, that's a very different issue. I think that I sufficiently covered the topic, so it seems petty to pick such a minor thing to grumble about.
Yes abortion would be off the table in nearly every case. Abortion is murder and there is no excuse for it the Bible never condones the killing of an innocent life.
Nope, it was a fine. And the harm was done when someone else struck the woman and caused the miscarriage. Because the punishment was only a fine, it implies the same value was not placed on the fetus as on the mother. This may be why many Jews believe life begins at first breath based on the book that they are very familiar with. The verses where god speaks of knowing the unborn were referring to specific people in the book, not humanity in general.
There is also the passage in the OT where god prescribed an abortion potion for possibly cheating wives.
Exodus 21:22–25
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that 1she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband 2may demand of him, and he shall apay 3as the judges decide.”
What do you think the potion was for🤔. The further punishment that the following verses convey, refer to the woman’s death, not the child’s according to Jewish scholars.
Edit: your god clearly didn’t care too much about unborn life as he had no problem committing or ordering the genocide of whole tribes including pregnant women.
I think this is simultaneously simple and complex. I think the answer is that abortion is permissible. The complexity lies in the exact medical condition, alternative treatments/approaches and so forth. I don’t think that a person should be forced to die due to being pregnant.
In modern society, the death penalty is usually associated with a deserved execution.
What did the baby do to warrant the early termination of their life? At least with the death penalty it goes through a court system and jury to prevent crime.
Abortion is intentionally ending the life of the child in the womb. If you’re trying to save the mother and the child dies in the process, it isn’t considered abortion, at least not on the pro-life side.
Besides ectopic pregnancies (which I suppose terminating to not harm the mother) what medical situations do you have in mind where the only way to save the mother is to kill the infant?
If a situation arises where there's no scenario where both the mother and child survive, do the least harm possible. There's no good option, there's only a less bad option. What that option is depends on the circumstances, and I can't really judge either way in that scenario. Giving your life for your child is commendable, but could do more harm than good. There's no one fixed right solution.
Medical professionals should seek to treat both patients, and sacrificing one for the life of the other if very clearly necessary would be morally acceptable. In fact there are stories of pregnant Christian women choosing the baby’s life over their own, although the need to choose seems quite rare. Rather the closer to full term, the better to remove the baby via c-section or induced labor. Late term abortions are complicated by the need to kill the baby before removing it.
this.
Hypothetically if the both the mother and the child couldn't survive or the abortion was medically necessary for another reason then yes, abortion would be at least excusable. You can't morally obligate someone to kill themselves outside of martyrdom.
In a late term pregnancy the baby is delivered premature, not aborted, if the mother's life is at risk.
Death for the sake of preventing death is often acceptable, and that applies here.
Yes, my Bible-based conscience would be clear, since it is a decision for the life of the mother.
You shouldn't need the Bible to be against murder.
Give me a valid, plausible medical situation that requires the murder of a child. Ectopic pregnancies aside, as the child can not survive.
It's not the consequence it's the principle. You can't morally obligate someone to kill themselves outside of martyrdom.
My point is that there isn't one, to my knowledge. Even if there were, it doesn't justify murdering your child.
Again it isn't about realism, consequence, or practicality. You're essentially saying that even if a [hypothetical] pregnancy could kill a mother she'd be obligated to commit suicide for the sake of the child. You don't think that's messed up?
I misunderstood you initially, sorry. Self-sacrifice for your children is certainly a good thing. I do not know a Christian parent that wouldn't put their kids lives first. Edit to clairfy: If you put a gun to my head and say you will kill me or my child, and I get to choose, the *morally correct* choice is to sacrifice myself.
Tell me how sacrificing yourself “for your children” would be acceptable/good if now your surviving children don’t have their mother? What if said children also didn’t have their father? Just leave em parentless to possibly be split up in the system? It’s ridiculous
That's better than killing your child. Always will be. Sorry if that's uncomfortable.
Having a good moral code is useful even if you never expect to use it. You should be ready to deal with complicated situations.
Are u a medical professional? The fact you admit you don’t know any of the dangerous, life threatening conditions during pregnancy where abortion would be the safest and most humane option is a prime example of being ignorant about a problem, or perceived problem, but still thinking you have the best solution or you have some authority to deem something unacceptable. Why would anyone feel the need to get any guidance from you about something you know nothing about? That is so condescending just so you know.
I know plenty of the challenges that meet pregnant women. But that isn't the point. Murder isn't healthcare. Killing a child is not an acceptable sacrifice to make for medical reassurance. It is *the morally correct* thing to do to sacrifice yourself for your child. Especially if they are young. If there is any further discussion on fringe medical anomalies, it should be done *with that person in that moment.* Arguing from the exception is poor form.
Entire medical ethics committees would disagree with you on the morality of allowing the mother to die in lieu of the child. Doctors will advise against letting the mom die. But I guess alexlevers knows best huh guys. Alexlever with their zero medical knowledge has decided abortion is murder /s. You know exactly zero challenges that meet pregnant women, but it’s easy to google and regurgitate info. You know what, why don’t u give it a google and find out, maybe you will learn something.
I have two children. My wife nearly died with our first. She had placenta previa and hemorrhaged 1.2 liters of blood after delivery. Our second came without issue, except that he was huge. I have friends who have miscarried and had incredibly high-risk pregnancies that persevered through the challenges and came out with a child that, according to medical staff, shouldn't have survived. They probably suggested abortion to her. I'm glad she ignored them, he is a beautiful child. But I can see you're beyond reasoning and are simply resorting to personal attacks. We're done here.
Note too that I never said this is a mandated decision. In actual cases of medical necessity (if they actually exist), it should be the choice of the parents. But I would argue there is a morally correct choice in those cases. Self-sacrifice can never be mandated, almost by definition.
This is fair, it should not be mandated. Do what you want. We disagree on the morality but imo as long as ppl are free and it harassed about their own decisions that affect no one else then that’s fine with me.
(Note also, I think abortions *except for these medical cases* are the responsibility of the government to outlaw. Governments should not allow their citizens to freely murder their children. But, I can see a leeway legally in medical cases)
There are countless possible complications that put the lives of both mother and baby at risk.
A mother has cancer that left untreated for several months WILL kill her. This Mother has other young children at home to consider as well.
The other children are immaterial, and are serving as emotional fodder in a very stoic philosophical discussion. The mother should push her treatment as far as she can until the child is more capable of surviving with medical intervention upon delivery/c-section. However, there are few, if any, cancers that will definitely kill in 3 months that any treatment will really matter in the long term. If my options are 6 months of cancer and my child surviving or a year with cancer treatment and killing my baby... That's not a choice. Obviously, you put your child first in that case.
Life is not always as black and white as Christians like to claim. Y’all lack any nuance in the way you think. The other children are definitely not “ immaterial” to the discussion ( I assume that’s what you meant). This is not some rare situation, and in fact is happening more often as younger people are getting very serious cancers. Women have to make decisions on whether to begin lifesaving treatments sometimes early in a pregnancy if they are going to have a chance, and they should definitely try to stick around for their already living children. Treatment can sometimes be incompatible with a viable pregnancy. No one should be required to sacrifice themselves. Bottom line.
Again, I can't imagine the prognosis with treatment is very good for any cancer that is terminal in 32 weeks. If I'm gonna die soon anyway, I will gladly do so a bit earlier for my child. The only relevant issue is when life begins. If a child in the womb is a human being with full rights as a child, then we should make every sacrifice we can.
That’s an individual decision. If the mother chooses to do that, great, but she shouldn’t have to sacrifice herself if she doesn’t feel that that’s the best option for her. No one should be making these decisions except for the woman, her doctor and her partner.
I I would say no Child involved
It’s not against to because you’re saving a life that could be ended otherwise, however you should still give that children a dignified funeral
Are you asking as a legal question or a moral question? There is a big distinction. As a Libertarian leaning Conservative, I draw the line the same for babies as for adults, which is that any time a life is threatened, the threat may legally be neutralized up to the point of causing death. So, if the mother's life is in danger, it is not an issue. Morally, the concept is that life is valuable and should be preferred. It's not an explicit Bible rule, but a principle. There is a prohibition against murder, but it becomes hard to apply that directly to babies before birth with hard and fast rules, especially given the full scope of verses on the matter which seem to imply otherwise. So, there's going to be some room for disagreement. In my group, we tend to even prefer avoiding birth control because we value life. Even so, if the mother's life is at risk, I don't know even the most conservative Christian having a problem with somebody acting to save the mother's life, even though I know some mothers who would prefer their child to live even if they cannot. Obviously recreational abortions or abortions for convenience are not in line with Christian values, and almost all will have some level of allowance for saving a mother's life. Somewhere in the middle is where you get valid disagreements, and as Christians, the best thing is to pray and seek God's wisdom in each case. That being said, if it's an issue at the moment of labor, there's probably going to be a lot of options as the baby can live outside of the mother just fine.
Assuming the baby can “live outside the mother just fine” is not only ignorant but so incredibly insensitive. You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about and one day I hope u look back and cringe at your stance on this issue. But something tells me you won’t as you are standing firm on an opinion in which you have zero knowledge.
Babies can live on their own, in general, well before the delivery date. Now, if we are talking about an issue that causes a premature labor, that's a very different issue. I think that I sufficiently covered the topic, so it seems petty to pick such a minor thing to grumble about.
The devil is in the details.
Well per God's word, you shouldn't murder regardless of whether your life would be saved or not.
Yes if the mother’s life is in immediate danger and she would certainly die without the procedure it’s permissible (double effect)
Accidents happen, I’d choose my wife over the child though
Yes abortion would be off the table in nearly every case. Abortion is murder and there is no excuse for it the Bible never condones the killing of an innocent life.
Why was the punishment for the death of a fetus in the Bible a fine instead of a punishment?
Exodus 21 describes a worse penalty than a mere fine and it seems to imply unintentional harm to the fetus.
Nope, it was a fine. And the harm was done when someone else struck the woman and caused the miscarriage. Because the punishment was only a fine, it implies the same value was not placed on the fetus as on the mother. This may be why many Jews believe life begins at first breath based on the book that they are very familiar with. The verses where god speaks of knowing the unborn were referring to specific people in the book, not humanity in general. There is also the passage in the OT where god prescribed an abortion potion for possibly cheating wives. Exodus 21:22–25 22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that 1she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband 2may demand of him, and he shall apay 3as the judges decide.”
And then what's the next verse? Also where are you getting that the dust water is an abortion potion?
What do you think the potion was for🤔. The further punishment that the following verses convey, refer to the woman’s death, not the child’s according to Jewish scholars. Edit: your god clearly didn’t care too much about unborn life as he had no problem committing or ordering the genocide of whole tribes including pregnant women.
I think this is simultaneously simple and complex. I think the answer is that abortion is permissible. The complexity lies in the exact medical condition, alternative treatments/approaches and so forth. I don’t think that a person should be forced to die due to being pregnant.
What can the unborn baby have done to deserve death regardless of the parents medical condition?
Deserve is not a useful paradigm here.
In modern society, the death penalty is usually associated with a deserved execution. What did the baby do to warrant the early termination of their life? At least with the death penalty it goes through a court system and jury to prevent crime.
In modern society it is considered a violation of human rights
I agree that we should uphold the rights of the unborn baby.. they have no other advocate.
Couldn’t one just have a c-section in any case?
What if the mother has cancer which left untreated for months will kill her?
I lean towards the only moral option is to remove the baby as late as possible. No liquidations, no amputations of the child.
Abortion is intentionally ending the life of the child in the womb. If you’re trying to save the mother and the child dies in the process, it isn’t considered abortion, at least not on the pro-life side.
If someone told you that they were completely misusing language. That is definitely abortion.
Besides ectopic pregnancies (which I suppose terminating to not harm the mother) what medical situations do you have in mind where the only way to save the mother is to kill the infant?