4 ms·

> "There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus a

> "There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born." Okay, so here I am - lifelong progressive Democrat. And I'll open up to this discussion. So, I'm believing that at the moment of conception a full viable life is formed. And that life has the full rights and protections afforded by the State (both federal and all levels beneath). Let's start with the simple route - the parents are happy to have the child, are financially capable, and medically sound for delivery. In this nothing is different from how it is today. A healthy child is born to a happy family. Our differences seem to come from all the complications in the process. Let's start with an understandable one - the life of the mother is in danger if she delivers the child. This is a horrifying decision. Does the state force the delivery of the child and thus condemn the mother to death? Is not one of the roles of modern medicine to protect people from death? This is, after all, why we now give birth in hospitals. So, before I go further arguing with myself - what's your rationale as a conservative Christian on that scenario? Is it really as simple as "protect the child's life at all costs"? For what it's worth - I don't think anyone's an idiot for being on the conservative side. I think a lot of the issues we struggle with in this day and age (such as abortion) are just far more complicated and intricate than most give credit for.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
"Life of the mother" is very different from "it's my body", though. If I believe that life begins at conception, I can perhaps bend to a "life of the mother" exception. "It's my body"? But it's not just your body - there's another life involved as well - so you can't just do what you want with your body.
- artimaeis 10y ago
  Okay, so you can bend to "life of the mother" exception. I can follow this a bit further then. How do you handle and account for miscarriages? A sizable number of pregnancies end in miscarriage - especially if we view life as beginning at conception. So in miscarriage the mother has ended the life of the child. What's the framework with which you believe this should be dealt with? What's to be done with people who have biological disorders leading to problems with gestation? After all, if life starts at conception then it's pretty quickly no longer just a woman's body.
  - xupybd 10y ago
    How is a miscarriage any different to an infant dying of natural causes? Sometimes babies die naturally it's sad, but there is a huge difference between dying naturally and dying due to intervention or neglect. Surly you can see there is a big difference between a woman having medically difficulty bringing a child to term and an abortion? In the one case she has done all she can to provide for the child in the other she has actively pursued this child's termination. If the mother and the child are going to die with out intervention you attempt to save both. That may mean an early birth or c-section giving the child little to no chance at survival, but you still try, you still treat that child as a human.
    - artimaeis 10y ago
      Of course I see the difference. But think of the perspective of the state here. The state must protect the life of the child, as it is a full citizen of the state. When an infant dies of natural causes it's usually trivially simple to rule out murder. But in the case of miscarriage/abortion the procedure for early-term abortion simply causes a miscarriage. So in order to adequately protect the life of the child we'd need to be able to determine if the miscarriage was forced or not. What, in your view, is the ideal role of the state as a protector of life in this situation?
xupybd 10y ago
I think if the mothers life is at risk the doctor has to make the call on who to save. Sometimes this has to happen. I'd compare it to triage, docotors sometimes have to make a call that means one person lives and another dies. I have no issue with this as long as they recognise both lives and make judgments based on that.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

"Life of the mother" is very different from "it's my body", though. If I believe that life begins at conception, I can perhaps bend to a "life of the mother" exception. "It's my body"? But it's not just your body - there's another life involved as well - so you can't just do what you want with your body.

artimaeis 10y ago
Okay, so you can bend to "life of the mother" exception. I can follow this a bit further then. How do you handle and account for miscarriages? A sizable number of pregnancies end in miscarriage - especially if we view life as beginning at conception. So in miscarriage the mother has ended the life of the child. What's the framework with which you believe this should be dealt with? What's to be done with people who have biological disorders leading to problems with gestation? After all, if life starts at conception then it's pretty quickly no longer just a woman's body.
- xupybd 10y ago
  How is a miscarriage any different to an infant dying of natural causes? Sometimes babies die naturally it's sad, but there is a huge difference between dying naturally and dying due to intervention or neglect. Surly you can see there is a big difference between a woman having medically difficulty bringing a child to term and an abortion? In the one case she has done all she can to provide for the child in the other she has actively pursued this child's termination. If the mother and the child are going to die with out intervention you attempt to save both. That may mean an early birth or c-section giving the child little to no chance at survival, but you still try, you still treat that child as a human.
  - artimaeis 10y ago
    Of course I see the difference. But think of the perspective of the state here. The state must protect the life of the child, as it is a full citizen of the state. When an infant dies of natural causes it's usually trivially simple to rule out murder. But in the case of miscarriage/abortion the procedure for early-term abortion simply causes a miscarriage. So in order to adequately protect the life of the child we'd need to be able to determine if the miscarriage was forced or not. What, in your view, is the ideal role of the state as a protector of life in this situation?

xupybd 10y ago

I think if the mothers life is at risk the doctor has to make the call on who to save. Sometimes this has to happen. I'd compare it to triage, docotors sometimes have to make a call that means one person lives and another dies. I have no issue with this as long as they recognise both lives and make judgments based on that.