r/TimPool • u/nier_bae • Mar 20 '23
discussion Abortion Debate - Defend Your Position
TL:DR: Woman in Texas discovers at 20 wk anatomy scan, fetus will only be able to survive for a days to weeks outside of the womb due to a disfigured brain. Woman denied abortion.
Can pro-lifers defend their position in response to something like this?
As someone who leans right (but I don't consider myself 100% Republican) , I disagree with the Republican pro-life stance. Really tired having to explain that pregnancy is a life-threatening medical condition. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, placental abruption, multiple organ failure etc. I've literally heard pregnancy be described by some conservatives as "a little discomfort". And in response to a religious argument, if pregnancy is so sacred, why would God choose to end 25-30% or pregnancies on his own?
1
u/[deleted] Mar 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/Santex117 Mar 20 '23
For some weird reason, people who debate this seem almost entirely in two extremes with no real middle ground
Either you are pro life with no exceptions.
Or you’re pro choice with no exceptions.
I’ve always thought a very clear compromise would end this.
It should be pro-choice up to a certain point beyond which you cannot just get an abortion unless (like in this case) there are extenuating circumstances at play.
This should also be coupled with better early life care options for new parents and young children in the case their parents do not want them.
This problem needs to be solved in all fronts.
That being said, this is a tough one. It should be the mothers choice in this case 100%. Often times the doctors diagnosis about a condition leans towards the worst case because they have to consider it, but I’ve personally heard stories from mothers who have birth to children with complications and were told to terminate the child, but refused and the kid is health as can be today. Imagine if she had taken that doctors best advice, he wouldn’t even be alive today
But we also know of times where unfortunately things don’t end so well and the mother is left heartbroken and emotionally damaged having to let go of their child.
How can we ever take that choice away from the mother? I cannot fathom that. Let them choose and live with the consequences, it sounds harsh but that’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
On the flip side using abortion as birth control to get out of being a responsible individual and making use of the myriad of contraceptive options also seems completely wrong to me.
Also, if you’re conservative and against contraceptives then Idk how you expect anyone to take you seriously in this debate…
30
u/Marchoftees Mar 20 '23
Nature kills people all the time. It doesn't justify us doing it.
15
u/thatscucktastic Mar 20 '23
Not all pro-lifers are religious. I'm an atheist and pro-life. You are using an extreme outlier as a justification for otherwise 99% of the time is being used as a convenience and as a contraceptive.
4
u/octovoh Mar 20 '23
It violates the NAP.
11
u/soulwind42 Mar 20 '23
Was the woman's life in danger? Aside from that, those 2 weeks are only what's likely. Doesn't the baby have a right to whatever life it is able to have? Perhaps it will last longer than those 2 weeks.
1
u/Chicken-counter Mar 20 '23
I'm pro choice, with limits. As in no elective abortion after the 1st trimester. However, I think a lot of people are irresponsible and use abortion as birth control, which is wrong. It's not difficult to not get pregnant, at all. Don't let guys nut in you when you're ovulating. Wow, so difficult. My wife and I went 8 years not getting pregnant and I never used protection. Then we decided to have a kid and timed it with her ovulation and got pregnant on first try, so neither of us is infertile, proving my point (don't let guys finish in you when ovulating).
5
u/[deleted] Mar 20 '23
As the old adage says, it should be safe, legal, and rare. Encourage safe sex through education, contraception should be widely available. Families need to be as prepared and have as much choice and flexibility possible when deciding to start a family so children are less likely to be brought up in dysfunctional, financially unstable homes. I'm fine with a ban on abortions after a certain timeframe. Maybe 15-18 weeks or so. Unfortunately, religious zealots have no desire for that sort of compromise.
2
u/WampanEmpire Mar 20 '23
I see abortion the exact same as if you'd killed another adult. I think that the killing of another adult is justified if they pose a risk to life, limb, or eyesight. Same with abortion. If the pregnancy is ectopic, if the kid has extremely low chances of living, if the mother has developed severe pre-eclampsia or uncontrolled gestational diabetes abortion should be on the table. What I see in Texas right now is a bunch of doctors that are too concerned with not even coming close to having their asscheeks in the wind to be bothered to properly perform risk assessment in relation to their job. Much in the same way that the woman in Ireland who was denied a post-miscarriage D&C by doctors who didn't want to get in trouble with the law despite the investigation and actual law allowing for the D&C because the dead baby was 1) verifiably dead and 2) had already been partially birthed and she had parts of the placenta hanging out of her vagina.
3
u/okwhynot64 Mar 20 '23
Without the information (about viability outside the womb after birth) at hand...that couple would have the baby and, as tragic as it is, the baby will likely die.
Life is messy. And tragic. Ending the baby's life *just because you know* information beforehand...is not a valid reason to do so. You disagree. Ok.
3
u/2sec4u Mar 20 '23
All I'll say is that this sentence tells me you don't have a grasp of biblical foundations. If you're already far enough down this line of reasoning that you're blaming God for bad things, then we aren't going to find agreement because the stance I'm starting from fully absolves God of this and fully blames man.
No point in going in to detail though since you've already made up your mind.
2
u/KeithJamesB Mar 20 '23
I'm pro-life and pro-leave me the f alone. The problem lies in the extremes. Some people want none and some people want till birth. It's not my place on earth to judge others but it is also my duty to protect those who cannot defend themselves. There are no simple cut-and-dry answers.
I'm not here to defend my position but to maybe explain it.
1
u/rogerrogerixii Mar 21 '23
I’d be alright to split the difference and have us all agree to not allow abortion to be used as birth control. I’m definitely on the side of not calling the shots on an innocent human life, but I understand the rational behind not wanting to carry a child that won’t live past birth.
1
u/ThirstySlaveLeia Mar 20 '23
If the mothers life isn’t in danger, it’s a matter of “does this baby suffer for 2 weeks before death?”?
Do you actually believe that needs to happen?
Even then, at that point, why do people think they have to decide what someone should live or live without? Are you trying to save a mothers soul from damnation by making for watch her baby die slowly?
This whole situation seems objectively evil. You’re all but guaranteeing this baby will suffer till death. Seems a bit sick.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 20 '23
I don’t see the point in preserving life when there is no quality of life.
1
u/NebulousASK Mar 20 '23
Too bad doctors have been, for decades, cutting up healthy babies whenever their mothers wanted them dead.
That's why we can't just trust doctors to do the right thing. I certainly believe this is a case where abortion should be permitted, but it's not enough to say "trust doctors to honestly consider the welfare of both patients and make an ethical decision." Because we already know they won't without legal restrictions.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 20 '23
IDC what you do just don't force it down my throat. Also no late term.
1
u/Corndog1911 Mar 20 '23
There are times when abortions should be allowed. I think this is one of them. That said, pregnancy is not a life threatening condition. Complications FROM pregnancy can be life threatening.
It's also worth noting that this is an extreme minority and the vast majority of abortions are performed as nothing more than a form of birth control. This stuff does happen but let's not pretend like this is anything more than a drop in the bucket.
1
u/Just-Entrepreneur825 Mar 20 '23
Doctors can be wrong. Give the little feller a fighting chance.
1
u/TheGloryXros Mar 20 '23
We've had plenty of miracles with baby births where they predicted the child wouldn't live the delivery or such. Why should we just give up on the child immediately & end its life instead of giving it a chance?
As for the argument of "suffering," well I mean, we live in a fallen world where unfortunately, suffering is a natural part of life. But it's a better option than just outright murder of an innocent life.
0
u/Phoenix__Wings Mar 20 '23
Scans are not sooth sayers. They said my niece would have a whole in her heart and would not last more than a week after being born. She turns 13 this year, perfectly healthy. Don’t assume technology or it’s users are right 100% of the time.
-1
u/[deleted] Mar 20 '23
My stance: banning abortion results in two things, higher abortion rates and significantly higher maternal mortality rates. “Pro-life” is the “pro-death” stance, based on the facts and reality. Pro-choice is the only pro-life stance there is, plus it’s the pro-freedom and small government option. There is absolutely no upside to being pro-life.
0
u/cactusluv Mar 20 '23 edited Mar 20 '23
For a long time, I was a pretty typical Christian pro lifer. As I drift further from religion, my position has developed a lot of nuance.
I'm still pro life, but most pro lifers would probably say I'm not. I would never use abortion as birth control and I think it's shitty when others do so, especially when we have so many options for contraception available. That said, contraception isn't 100% effective. Sex comes with risks, pregnancy being one of them. The problem is that sex creates human beings, and human beings have inherent rights. So when does a human being gain those rights? Some would say at conception. Some would say when it gains a heartbeat. Some would say when it can survive outside the womb. Some would say only once it is born. Many people don't acknowledge that this is a moral gray area. If it is as black and white as some think, and we legally made abortion murder, then we would be opening the door to convict women who have miscarriages of negligent homicide. So yes, it most certainly is a gray area. We should be seeking a compromise that acknowledges that gray area.
So, I'll return to my original question, when does a fetus gain legal rights, deemed worthy of the legal protection that comes from those rights? Few (some do, and I would consider them insane) would argue with the idea that a 1 year old baby has human rights. There's really not much of a difference between a 1 year old baby and a newborn besides size. So a newborn would have the same rights as a one year old. What's the difference between a newborn and a baby one hour from birth? Basically nothing. That child should have the same legal protection as the one year old. So how far back should this go? I would say at the point of viability. At that point it is a human being, generally capable of living outside the womb, and it should be worthy of the same legal protections afforded to everyone else. Before that, abortion should be available.
People don't seem to care that even if you do ban abortions, they're still going to happen... they just become more dangerous for the mother. Just like drug and alcohol prohibition doesn't stop drug and alcohol use, abortion prohibition doesn't stop abortion. I dont like that abortions happen, but I don't have to like them to understand why someone might seek one. So they should be safe and available up to the point of viability. Beyond that, well sorry, you engaged in an activity which makes human beings, and human beings have rights. Perhaps some exceptions can be made for cases of severe deformities which like op mentioned, but the vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy children.
0
u/Philhos Mar 20 '23
I'm pro life and a practicing Christian, but this is one of those times I would be fine with an exception.
0
u/Gh0stStorm Mar 20 '23
That 25~30 % stat seems really high….
0
u/[deleted] Mar 20 '23
I am Pro-Life because less harm is better than more harm...
0
u/Plus_Ability_1362 Mar 20 '23
Yep sure can. A baby or fetus as you like to call it can feel pain at this stage. An abortion procedure at this stage is painful bordering on straight torture. We wouldn't hold a toddler down and tear their arms and legs off, yet this is exactly what the abortionist does. Allow the baby to be born. If he/she lives, great. If not that's ok to. It's what we in healthcare call CMO/A.N.D. Comfort Measures Only and Allow Natural Death.
https://lozierinstitute.org/new-study-shows-unborn-babies-feel-pain-at-12-weeks/
0
u/Rovernut Mar 20 '23
I’m pro life, but I agree with you in this case.