Because many lifers continue throwing the old, "SO YOU'D BE OK IF SHE HAD AN ABORTION 1 MINUTE BEFORE BIRTH!?!?!" at me, which I consider to be a hypothetical situation since I have yet to see a documented case where a woman demanded an abortion moments before birth for non-medical reasons, I thought I would toss out a few hypothetical situations for lifers to ponder over. So let's say for the sake of argument that abortion is illegal in your country and is only allowed under extreme circumstances, such as to save the life of the woman. Let's also say that since the sate now has an obligation to protect fetal life hormonal birth control is also illegal since it has been proven to cause miscarriages. Now we have two women here. Woman number one, we'll call her Jane, at the moment she is not pregnant and she has a medical condition where she is required to take some kind of medicine every single day of her life just to live. Let's say that some of the side effects of said medication include causing severe fetal abnormalities and/or most likely death of the fetus in pregnant women. If she were to get pregnant she would have to continue taking her medication just to live and while it would not harm her it would severely harm or kill the fetus. Woman number two, we'll call her Anne and she is also not pregnant. Lets say Anne has had problems with her ovaries since childhood, in fact she lost one of her ovaries to Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. Lets say she has had a couple of pregnancies in the past as well and both were ectopic and she had to abort to save her life. Her ectopic pregnancies also caused a great deal of scar tissue in her remaining ovary and so now she has a high risk of having multiple other ectopic pregnancies should she ever conceive again. If Anne were to ever get pregnant she would most likely have to abort since chances are she will have another ectopic pregnancy. Both Jane and Anne are not pregnant at the moment and both are sexually active women. So my questions to you lifers is, considering both of their cases; Should Jane and Anne be legally banned from ever having sex because it would be criminally negligent to the potential fetus they might create?
Founded as it is on the unstated and farcical premise that codified law should address every imaginable contingency, the question is not worth a moment's consideration.
Well thanks for your thoughts yguy, I am not sure why you even posted though if you felt it wasn't worth mentioning. Silly goose!
You're welcome. To dissuade others from the futile exercise of trying to unravel the Gordian Knot that is the OP.
I'll answer for the lifers. It's God's will that they either not have sex or that they die. You can't go against God's will you heathen.
It's not that hard to understand really. If a woman is taking medication that can kill a fetus should she be allowed to have sex? Or if a woman has a condition where she is more likely than not to have an ectopic pregnancy should she be allowed to have sex? I am posting this hypothetical for lifers because it brings up the issue of, is it ok for a woman to have sex and risk pregnancy when she knows she has a condition or she takes medicine that will ultimately cause the death of the fetus.
Under both conditions most pro-lifers I know would not object to the women having sex. I'm assuming both woman are also responsible and would take the necessary precautions to not get pregnant. They could have their tubes tied. I can't imagine any woman in the situation wanted to get pregnant in the first place.
It wasn't written to be understood, but to invite the reader to partake of the author's confusion. It's a question that leads nowhere, because it completely ignores the proper role of the law in a constitutional republic, which is not to prescriptively abort every conceivable injustice, but to prevent as many injustices as can be prevented by a government sufficiently limited that it has not the means to impose tyranny on the citizenry.
I can't imagine why a woman would want to get pregnant in a situation like this either, but as they say, (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. And if some of the more extreme lifers had their way and the only birth control available was condoms, which can and do break, the risk of running pregnant is probably going to be a lot higher than usual. Tubal ligation is also definitely an option but not every woman has $1500-$6000 to spend on the operation or even the time to give up to heal for that matter. There is also the rare chance that you can still become pregnant after this procedure. My fiancé is one of those lucky few who managed to get around a tubal ligation.
If pregnancy would produce serious risk to a woman, having your tubes tied could be a doctors order and would have to be covered by insurance. Or would this be a hole in Obama Care we have not considered yet? I understand your trying to create a hypothetical here to catch lifers, I happen to be a pro choicer but totally sympathize with lifers. So while I support the woman's right to choose, don't expect any sympathy from me in what your trying to do here. I think a better approach would be to try to find some common ground rather then more division.
to the OP so please let me try to make sense of what you posted yada yada blah blah let's make up hypothetical cases to kill babies is that about it?
I believe both women if they get pregnant dhould carry the baby to full term. If it puts the womans' life in jeporady or not. Obviously they know the risks, but if it is unpreventable and either or both these women end up pregnant then they should do the best they can for their unborn child.
There is no common ground to be had between those who are willing to declare unborn children non-persons to justify their murder and those who are not.
you nailed it. There is no common ground because on one side we have zygote, zeff, fetus, foetus, bag o goo, clump o cells, inconvenience etc etc ................Dies and on the other hand we have...............the baby lives there is no "common ground" with respect to life or death. There is no gray area. Either you are dead or you are alive.
We're not talking about murder here, we are talking about abortion. If you are saying that giving birth to dead baby is better than abortion, you don't know what you are talking about. That is something only the individual woman involved can answer. A woman who has to make that difficult decision doesn't need any blathering about murder from self-righteous buttinsky do-gooders.
