• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No reason for abortion?

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Here is the case of a pregnant woman whose pregnancy is not viable. She is at high risk of infection because part of the umbilical cord is protruding from her cervix. She is at risk of dying of sepsis but cannot get an abortion because the heart of the fetus is still beating.

Really?

There is no way to save the pregnancy, but there is a chance of saving the life of this woman. She needs an abortion NOW. But she can't get one because of stupid laws.

If this isn't evil, I don't know what is.

Fears for US woman's life as abortion denied in Malta

Yes, I know I put this in North American politics even though the case is in Malta.
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
While I approve of abortion being banned…. I also approve of certain exceptions, and this is one of them.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Here is the case of a pregnant woman whose pregnancy is not viable. She is at high risk of infection because part of the umbilical cord is protruding from her cervix. She is at risk of dying of sepsis but cannot get an abortion because the heart of the fetus is still beating.

Really?

There is no way to save the pregnancy, but there is a chance of saving the life of this woman. She needs an abortion NOW. But she can't get one because of stupid laws.

If this isn't evil, I don't know what is.

Fears for US woman's life as abortion denied in Malta

Yes, I know I put this in North American politics even though the case is in Malta.

Truly evil stupid laws.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Here is the case of a pregnant woman whose pregnancy is not viable. She is at high risk of infection because part of the umbilical cord is protruding from her cervix. She is at risk of dying of sepsis but cannot get an abortion because the heart of the fetus is still beating.

Really?

There is no way to save the pregnancy, but there is a chance of saving the life of this woman. She needs an abortion NOW. But she can't get one because of stupid laws.

If this isn't evil, I don't know what is.

Fears for US woman's life as abortion denied in Malta

Yes, I know I put this in North American politics even though the case is in Malta.
That's the tip of the iceberg. Consider in vitro fertilization.
No longer legal to discard eggs? Forced implantation to
avoid a murder charge? Many other questions.
Possible result....severe curbing of that option.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
And I know that certain contraceptives are going to be targeted: IUDs, for example and possibly even the Pill.

I am old enough to remember when contraceptive devices had just become legal in Massachusetts, but the OBGYN, before introducing it, had to ask if one was Catholic, and do you want to continue the discussion. The IUD was my friend for many years.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
While I approve of abortion being banned…. I also approve of certain exceptions, and this is one of them.
But this is the problem with your side of this issue. You are so extreme and idealistic in how you approach this legal service for women that it is causing doctors to not risk legal jeopardy because the laws aren't written to account for exceptions. The paradox is that the whole abortion ban issue is supposed to be driven by moral concern, but is so broad and intolerant of any abortion that it is causing harm. This illustrates how this issue is more about an ideal religious agenda (and as we know religion seldom cares about facts and knowledge), and not about morality at all. Moral decision have to account for a broad set of factors, not a narrow set of ideals. This is how this whole "moral" position of far right believers fails.
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
But this is the problem with your side of this issue. You are so extreme and idealistic in how you approach this legal service for women that it is causing doctors to not risk legal jeopardy because the laws aren't written to account for exceptions. The paradox is that the whole abortion ban issue is supposed to be driven by moral concern, but is so broad and intolerant of any abortion that it is causing harm. This illustrates how this issue is more about an ideal religious agenda (and as we know religion seldom cares about facts and knowledge), and not about morality at all. Moral decision have to account for a broad set of factors, not a narrow set of ideals. This is how this whole "moral" position of far right believers fails.

In fairness, every state-based abortion ban I've seen thus far includes explicit exceptions for the life of the mother as in the OP.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
While I approve of abortion being banned…. I also approve of certain exceptions, and this is one of them.
Don't we all - or at least most of us. There are extremists on both sides but among those where debate is still possible, the question is what the exceptions should be.
And this is a case where only the most radical extremists insist on a ban of abortion.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
In fairness, every state-based abortion ban I've seen thus far includes explicit exceptions for the life of the mother as in the OP.
Of course any state will have its own language. This is an excerpt of what I meant:

Abortion restrictions are now more likely to contain extremely narrow exemptions to save the lives of pregnant people, severe criminal penalties for providers and to lack exemptions for rape and incest.

That puts doctors in the position of trying to interpret legislation that is often extremely narrow. In one recent example, an Oklahoma abortion ban makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. In addition, medical exemptions for the procedure are exceedingly narrow.

An abortion can be legally performed only in the event the medical emergency “cannot be remedied by the delivery of the child”. “Medical emergency” is strictly defined as when a threat to a person’s life “by a physical disorder, physical illness or physical injury including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself”.​

‘A severe chilling effect’: abortion bans will inhibit doctors’ advice to patients, experts fear

There may be language of exceptions, but if the language is narrow and doctors may be prosecuted even if later found not guilty it is a risk they don't want to take. We see the far right is not very tolerant or reasonable in how they approach the abortion issue. Do doctors have a reason to trust the far right if they do reasonable medical tasks the far right thinks is immoral?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
For this reason an Indian-origin woman died in Ireland. Then they changed the abortion laws.
India has nice abortion laws.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This illustrates how this issue is more about an ideal religious agenda (and as we know religion seldom cares about facts and knowledge), and not about morality at all.

Agreed.

Another indication that this anti-abortion attitude is the result of indoctrination and not natural moral impulses is that it clusters in those who go to churches. Authentic moral outrage cuts across multiple demographics. The world's reaction to Putin in Ukraine is authentic moral outrage, and probably is likely seen in every demographic except Russian citizens successfully propagandized by Putin. I would dare say that almost everybody that supports a pro-choice agenda is morally outraged by Putin, but not by abortion. I find that meaningful.

Also, the correlation between the anti-choice movement and assorted other areas where selfish indifference to others clusters. How much empathy do we see coming from the anti-choice people regarding any living thing that is not a human fetus? Not much, so it seems much more likely that their opinions about fetuses are manufactured than the result of an authentic burden for any kind of human being including fetuses. Aren't most gun enthusiasts and antivaxxers also conservative Christians? 81% of White American evangelicals, who are very anti-choice, voted for Trump. Look at who Florida chose as their governor, a Christian anti-choicer who did as much as he could to get children killed in his state, including originally refusing to order vaccines for babies, toddlers, and preschoolers, whose older brothers and sisters he wanted unmasked in schools.

So, yes, you are correct. This is a religious issue being waged inappropriately in a secular state. That's pretty un-American, but so is Christianity, which also has no interest in freedom from religion or tolerance for other ways of living. Some will say that Christianity has assimilated those basic American values, but I would disagree. It's only learned to coexist with them as it tries to promote its contrary vision for American life as we are seeing now with its assaults on reproductive rights and LGBTQ. It will infiltrate and retool the American government to the extent it can.

So you recommend doing away with empathy?

You responded to, "The only folks who should be outraged are those who are female or have female relatives or friends." I thought that he was being sarcastic. Didn't he just name everybody?
 
Top