When is shedding the blood of another not murder?

[Van]

The 1,000 abortions were related specifically to pregnant women undergoing cancer treatment. Reading the reports it seems that pregnancy decreases the effectiveness of certain cancer medications. The child is not in danger, but the cancer is not being treated at a time when the cancer itself has a potential to be more aggressive.

The treatment (aborting the child) is killing the child (it is not a result of the cancer medication but an abortion to allow the cancer treatment to benefit the mother.

1000 abortions a year to save the mother is statistically "almost never".


I have a couple of questions:

1. You assign priority of saving the mother over saving the child (in a one or the other case). Why? Also, would the age of the mother matter (killing a baby with a potential life span of 80 years vs killing the mother with a potential lifespan of, say, 40 years)? And does your choice on which one to kill mean one is of greater value?

2. You bring up a seperate issue unrelated to my post but related to this conversation...and one I hadn't considered. Why would giving a treatment that would kill an unborn child (even to save the mother) not be aborting the child?

I think we have completed our discussion of this matter. You are asking questions that I have already provided. Never a good sign.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

C. Everrett Koop said that in his time as an OB (36 years) he never saw a reason for an abortion. If the mother's life is in danger then the baby is carried as long as possible, then a C section is performed with the intention of saving both lives. The "pro-life" and pro-abortion movements don't want to popularize this though, and they come up with the false dilemma of it's either the mother's life or the child's. As for rape and incest those are irrelevant, the child's life is no less made in the image of God regardless of the less than ideal circumstances in which it was conceived.

 

[JonC]

I think we have completed our discussion of this matter. You are asking questions that I have already provided. Never a good sign.

I read your priority (mother vs child) but not the reasoning.

What post are you referring to (where you explain the reason for your choice)?

I must have missed it.

 

[JonC]

C. Everrett Koop said that in his time as an OB (36 years) he never saw a reason for an abortion. If the mother's life is in danger then the baby is carried as long as possible, then a C section is performed with the intention of saving both lives. The "pro-life" and pro-abortion movements don't want to popularize this though, and they come up with the false dilemma of it's either the mother's life or the child's. As for rape and incest those are irrelevant, the child's life is no less made in the image of God regardless of the less than ideal circumstances in which it was conceived.

For the majority, I agree. I am also opposed to abortion (rape and incest included).

I am curious about the example, however. There are abortions performed because a treatment is necessary (about 1,000 annually). I do understand allowing the mother to risk waiting until the 22nd or 24th week and then putting the child at risk with a chance of survival. But what about treatments that are necessary but will terminate the pregnancy?


I get that we are talking about a drop in the bucket. My question is how worth is assigned and risk allocated.