RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

This not to be a discussion of the moral questions concerning the the taking of the life of an unborn. Rather I wish to discuss the ramifications on the social and economic consequences of a total ban.

This article lays out some dire social consequences.

Republican South Carolina state Rep. Neal Collins broke down in a hearing telling the story of a 19-year-old woman whose water broke at 15 weeks when the fetus wasn't viable. The so-called "heartbeat bill" that Collins voted to support, meant that the teen had to be sent home for the fetus to die inside her. The doctor told him there was a 50 percent chance the teen could lose her uterus and never be able to have children. There was a 10 percent chance she could die.

He made it clear he never realized the impact the law could have on the life and health of women.

https://www.rawstory.com/republican-womens-rights-complications/

Liberty Tree

Liberals love to pull out some obscure example to justify the whole. What limits would you put on abortion? How would you define lack of compassion abortion?

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

> Liberals love to pull out some obscure example to justify the whole.<

Off topic. The discussion is about the consequences of a total ban on society.

My feeling about what limits are ok is not relevant.

And compassionate abortion is a discussion of that which takes multiple health and social issues into consideration.

Liberty Tree

It is totally relevant. If you want no restrictions then for you all abortions are compassionate. If there are selective compassionate abortions then there has to be non compassionate abortions. State your position or do not expect others to state theirs.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

all abortions are not compassionate.

The discussion is about compassionate abortion. Read the article. Or stop following the post.

Liberty Tree

Be honest and quit dodging or do not post.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Stay on topic or stop following.

The topic is the consequences on the social fabric of America. If you choose to see no negative consequences then the discussion not relevant for you.

Liberty Tree

How about the negative consequences of abortion? If you will not acknowledge negative consequences then your post is completely disingenuous.

WEBCO

If you're unwilling to express your opinions and beliefs on this subject why the hell did you post it?

You are a coward who's too scared to stand up for your beliefs. Typical regressive liberal democrat

Liberty Tree

That is him!!

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

There is a moral theological law called "The Law of Double Effect" that the Catholic Church says applies in some situations. (I'm not RC) For example a pregnant woman is discovered to have a cancerous womb. Both mother & child will die if her womb is not removed. Perform the operation! The "intent" here is to save the mother by removing a cancer not to perform an abortion. "According to the principle of Double Effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (double effect) to bring about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.". On the other hand, we cannot do evil so that what we perceive is the greater good may prevail. This is the prime mover and motivation for 99.9% of abortions. Nothing said here gives permission for an abortion.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

My opinions and beliefs are abundantly clear. I see dire consequences for a total ban. State control of a woman’s right to life. Kind of a fundamental American freedom.

But the discussion is about where is the line.

Not about biblical interpretation but a right now consensus on the effects on Americans lives.

Liberty Tree

Good post!!

EmilyD

You want people to read a biased, one-sided opinion piece from Sarah Burris, a writer at Rawstory - an extreme left biased source. She also used to write for Salon....another biased left source. And then you want us to all talk about compassionate abortions where, apparently according to your article, "...Women being forced to travel to other states to save their lives. Other women have been forced to reach near death health emergencies before hospitals are willing to act. Stories have surfaced that raped teens are unable to get abortions due to restrictive laws. Story after story is causing panic among pregnant women or women who want to get pregnant out of fear for their own health and safety..."

That is all complete bullcrap. Every doctor takes a vow that he will not knowingly cause harm to anyone...(which apparently does not apply to the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies every year). If a woman presents to a hospital or doctor with an emergency - regardless of WHAT that emergency is - the hospital or doctor is required BY LAW to treat that emergency!! It is a law here in America: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is one of the most prominent federal regulations regarding emergency care. It was enacted to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay or status of the emergency.

Also, Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer would be implemented to a facility that is able to do so.

In other words, compassionate emergency care is offered to every American no matter what their status is, or what the reason for the emergency is. Singling out abortions from any other emergency is obviously you trying to make this into something different than what it is: an emergency

If anyone is turned away from emergency medical care for ANY reason, that person can sue the 💩 out of that organization and win!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

What are the consequences if a society and its economy have no moral referent?
Who is proposing a total ban on abortion?


Princeton University, Abortion Fact #8
It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, abortion for the mother’s life and abortion for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue.

Since every abortion kills an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand “convenience” abortions.

While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”

Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged:

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life."

To repeat, the person making the quote is Dr Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood.

So, yes, Faye Wattleton, the President of Planned Parenthood, says that abortion kills, and now, just for the record again, we have Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledging that it is an extremely rare case that abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life (and he even goes so far as to say that abortion would be unlikely to prolong the mother’s life even in these every extreme cases).

Dr. Landrum Shettles says,

"Less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life."

When two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life.

If the mother has a fast-spreading uterine cancer, the surgery to remove the cancer may result in the loss of the child’s life. In an ectopic pregnancy the child is developing outside the uterus. He has no hope of survival, and may have to be removed to save his mother’s life.

These are tragic situations, but even if one life must be lost, the life that can be saved should be. More often than not, that life is the mother’s, not the child’s. There are rare cases in later stages of pregnancy when the mother can’t be saved, but the baby can.

Again, one life saved is better than two lost.


Abortion for the mother’s life and abortion for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue.

The mother’s life and the mother’s health are usually two distinct considerations. A woman with toxemia will have adverse health reactions and considerable inconvenience, including probably needing to lie down for much of her pregnancy. This is a difficulty, but not normally a threat to her life. Hence, an abortion for the sake of “health” would not be lifesaving, but life-taking, since her life is not in jeopardy in the first place.

There are other situations where an expectant mother has a serious or even terminal medical condition. Her pregnancy may cause complications, but will not cause her death. If she is receiving radiation therapy, she may be told that the child could have handicaps as a result. It may be possible to postpone or reduce such treatment, but if it is essential to continue the treatment to save the mother’s life, this is preferable to allowing her death or killing the child.

Efforts can and should be made that value the lives of both mother and child.

Abortion to save the mother’s life was legal before convenience abortion was legalized and would continue to be if abortion were made illegal again.

Even under restrictive abortion laws, the mother’s right to life is never disregarded. Contrary to what some pro-choice advocates have said, there is no danger whatsoever that women whose lives are in jeopardy will be unable to get treatment, even if such treatment tragically results in the death of an unborn child.

Even pro-choice USA Today acknowledges:

"he National Right to Life Committee consistently has maintained that while abortion should be banned, there should be exceptions if an abortion is needed to save a woman’s life."

The vast majority of abortions are elective.

Are there rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother? Yes. As mentioned above, these rare cases occur less than 1% of the time. In fact, even if you lump in all NON life threatening health issues that are cited by mothers as a reason for abortion then the total number only increases to 2.8%. [4]

Are the overwhelming majority of abortions performed on an elective basis? Yes. The most common reasons for having an abortion provided directly by women are all financial and convenience related. [5]

When the mother’s life is at stake then the Doctors should do all they can to save both the life of the baby and the life of the mother. If they can only save one life, then they should save that life.

Since every abortion kills an innocent human being then it is is grossly misleading and morally abhorrent to say that because there are some rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother that therefore abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever should be legal.

It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, abortion for the mother’s life and abortion for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue. Since every abortion kills an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand “convenience” abortions.