# Questions of those against legal abortions



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Is your opinion against abortion based ONLY on the "its a human life" reason? Or is part of it "sex is bad and women should be punished?"

Ok. Let's say the majority of people will answer "its a human life." Assuming that is your answer, please address the following scenarios:

1) A man and woman conceive a child. The woman delivers the child. The man and woman split. When the child is two, leukemia develops. The child needs a bone marrow transplant. The father is a match but doesn't want to have the procedure. Should he be forced, by law, to submit to donating bone marrow? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake. He contributed half the dna for that child and is just as responsible for the conception of child. There actually has been a court case, back in the 70's, where someone tried to force his cousin to do something similar.

2) You die. You haven't signed your donor card. However, your organs could save the lives of 4 people (heart, 2 kidneys, and liver). Should the dead be forced (or the surviving next of kin I suppose I should say) to donate their organs? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake and it isn't like you still need your organs if you are dead.

3) A couple are having a child. They choose to have a home birth. The baby is discovered to be footling breech. Should they be forced to go to a hospital and have a c-section? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake.

4) You are having a baby. You are laboring in a hospital. The babies heartbeat keeps dropping during contractions. The doctor is advising a c-section and is trying very hard to convince you to sign the papers. Should you be forced to have a c-section even though you think you can deliver the baby naturally? After all, its a human life at stake.

I ask these questions seriously, to see how far you are willing to go to save human lives. I don't want a debate of the rightness of your answers. In fact, I'll try very hard not to post again, except to ask questions to clarify any answers I don't understand. I also don't want a debate of the scenarios I've presented. I've thought about these for several days. Think up your own scenarios, and start your own thread, if you don't like them







.


----------



## 2lilsprites (Apr 30, 2004)

Wow. I'm pro-choice, but those are very good questions.


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

You might want to rethink your examples. Your examples are of possible deaths so it really doesn't apply because the view of abortion by some people against it is that it takes away a life, that will definitely happen whereas your examples aren't guaranteed death.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I'm prolife because it is a baby.

Nothing to do with sex being "bad" and women "punished".

I don't think you should force the dad to have a bone marrow transplant but I think a dad like that is a creep and should be a social pariah.

Dead people shouldn't be forced to donate organs. Education is working, more and more people are donors.

3 and 4 the parents shouldn't be forced but they should be encouraged. There are too many women I know who had c-sections that were "necessary" when they really weren't.

I am prolife but I understand why prochoice people have their views. I am not completely comfortible taking away autonomy from women.

Debra Baker


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

1) A man and woman conceive a child. The woman delivers the child. The man and woman split. When the child is two, leukemia develops. The child needs a bone marrow transplant. The father is a match but doesn't want to have the procedure. Should he be forced, by law, to submit to donating bone marrow? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake. He contributed half the dna for that child and is just as responsible for the conception of child. There actually has been a court case, back in the 70's, where someone tried to force his cousin to do something similar.

*******No, he shouldn't be forced by law.

2) You die. You haven't signed your donor card. However, your organs could save the lives of 4 people (heart, 2 kidneys, and liver). Should the dead be forced (or the surviving next of kin I suppose I should say) to donate their organs? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake and it isn't like you still need your organs if you are dead.

*******yes, although it creeps me out and I WISH I could say NO (so that I could be burried whole---) I sign my donor card because I'M DEAD so really, does it matter?

3) A couple are having a child. They choose to have a home birth. The baby is discovered to be footling breech. Should they be forced to go to a hospital and have a c-section? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake.

******Yes. If they refuse they should be brought up on charges.

4) You are having a baby. You are laboring in a hospital. The babies heartbeat keeps dropping during contractions. The doctor is advising a c-section and is trying very hard to convince you to sign the papers. Should you be forced to have a c-section even though you think you can deliver the baby naturally? After all, its a human life at stake.

*****THis happend to me. I wanted a nat'l birth SO SO SO BAD. But allowed the csection to take place because I didn't want to risk it. Thanks goodness- the cord was dbl'd around his neck and legs.

These are just my own opinionet answers. I'm not against all abortions (like in the case of rape or serious birth defect) just those where the "mistake" is "taken care of".


----------



## Stacie (Nov 19, 2001)

wow. you posted some awesome questions.

I have a donar card signed.

I don't think parents should be forced to have a c-section.

As for the leukemia - I really don't know. I would hope that the father would want to help his own child. But there are some religions that would not allow this. And I think that should be respected if that is the case. I don't know if I could take him to court.

When I was laboring with my 2nd child. Water broke at 9pm one night. went to the hospital. Went to sleep. My feet swelled overnight so I couldn't walk the next day. Contractions really started hard at 2 (no inducers). 5 mn apart. At 3, I kept telling the docs something was wrong. I could feel it. I was only dialated to 4. Contractions were becoming closer. They ignored me basically. and told me to push at 4 dialation. The baby wasn't even in the canel. wasn't breach. I screamed at them for a c-section! Something felt very wrong.

They ignored me and insisted I push. Well, I did. I pushed that baby out. Not fully dialated. When his came thru the unsoftened bones, I heard a crunch.

I could not move for 2 weeks. My son was born with several birth injuries to his face. Which they said would clear up and they haven't. Bells palsey, partial paralysis on his left side. And bilateral club feet which I don't think is birth related, but still.

I wish doctors would pay more attention to a woman. We do understand our bodies messages. I have had 2 successful births following. The last one at home unassisted! (totally awesome)


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
Is your opinion against abortion based ONLY on the "its a human life" reason? Or is part of it "sex is bad and women should be punished?"


Are you serious?







: "Sex is bad and women should be punished?"







Come on, who in their right mind would think that? Answering the questions doesn't matter, either answer does NOT mean someone thinks that sex is bad and women should be punished.

It's a human life, period. Abortion WILL kill the child, doing or not doing a c-section may or may not. The c-section could cause more problems, depending on the situation. We all know c-section is way over used. Organ donations? No. There could be other options or someone else's organs. Abortion always equals death. Plus, some people have sincere religious beliefs that they need to be buried whole. Leukemia, I would take my husband to court if he wouldn't donate for our child.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Thanks to all who have contributed so far. Although I'm not commenting, per my vow in the first post







, I am reading and respect you for answering!


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

All those are examples of possible deaths, not intentionally pursuing the death of a human being. I see a big difference. These are cases of a human life at stake. Abortion is a human life ended willfully, on purpose.

I am opposed to abortion because I believe babies in the womb are still babies, and not deserving of the death penalty. Inconveniencing someone isn't exactly a heinous crime.







Especially since in most cases, the "someone" took the chance.


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

I agree with the other posters- abortion is a murder, whereas the others are possible deaths with pros and cons on both sides.
Of course abortion being wrong has nothing to do with sex being wrong or right. What an insulting question.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I can't answer your questions because they have gray areas. They're potential deaths. Abortion guarantees death. Therefore, I'm against legal abortion. I'm also against legal murder of born people.

I don't want to punish women for having sex. That's ridiculous. I had my first baby when I was 16 (concieved at 15), having sex before we were married. Plenty of people recommended to me that I have an abortion. But killing Patrick to make my life easier was not an option.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vegiemom*
3) A couple are having a child. They choose to have a home birth. The baby is discovered to be footling breech. Should they be forced to go to a hospital and have a c-section? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake.

******Yes. If they refuse they should be brought up on charges.


Off on a tangent here, but do you really think that couples who have footling breech births at home should be brought up on charges? I don't, but I know someone who had a footling breech homebirth with no problems.


----------



## jengi33 (Jan 7, 2002)

I have to agree with the other posts. Your scenarios differ from abortion. Abortion is a willful act of ending a life.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissinNYC*
I agree with the other posters- abortion is a murder, whereas the others are possible deaths with pros and cons on both sides.
Of course abortion being wrong has nothing to do with sex being wrong or right. What an insulting question.

It wasn't intended to be an insulting question. There IS historically, a subset of the anti-abortion movement who feels that the woman should have to suffer for her sins. Feel free to look it up should you wish. Historically, outlawing abortion was a way to try and legislate SEXUAL morality. It wasn't about the baby. It was about sex. Again, feel free to look up the history of abortion legalities. I did before I decided to post this after several days thought.

The reason I said it the way I did is because if its all about the baby or the human life, why is it the other situations aren't viewed the same as abortion? And while I support your right not to answer the questions because you say they aren't certain death, to the child with leukemia, or the teenager needing a heart transplant, I don't think they see it quite the same way.

If you don't like them, feel free not to answer them. I tried to make them as neutral as I could, with my wording.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

>It wasn't intended to be an insulting question. There IS historically, a subset of the anti-abortion movement who feels that the woman should have to suffer for her sins

I have not heard this idea so much as the idea that sins have consequences, no matter how you try to avoid them. If the "consequence" weren't a living being, I don't think people would care nearly so much.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I recently heard a story that is another good example that could be discussed here. There was a woman in the town where I live that was pregnant with a child that was not diagnosed to live for very long after birth without relying on ongoing major medial assistance. She decided to "keep" the pregnancy and have a homebirth - knowing that the child would die. The child died naturally at home within a few hours. I find her choice to be amazing - in a positive way.

I wonder if this situation has anything to do with the discussion. I've always wanted to ask about it here at MDC, especially, in relation to the abortion issue. I ask about how it relates to abortion because abortion was an option for her but she chose not to have one. I am wondering, however, how anti-abortion people feel about the fact that she didn't seek medical assistance to keep her child alive after the child was born.

I'm very much pro-choice, btw, but I've always been slightly conflicted about the all the issues.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

There IS historically, a subset of the anti-abortion movement who feels that the woman should have to suffer for her sins. Feel free to look it up should you wish. Historically, outlawing abortion was a way to try and legislate SEXUAL morality










Just wanted to say i agree with this. I am pro-choice. And i have family members who believe that a woman should be "punished" for their so-called "sin".

I think the OP's question is a good one.


----------



## Morgaine (Mar 21, 2004)

I see a big difference in #1 and 2 and abortion. There could be other donors some where else. The outcome is not known and there are no deliberate actions taken to end the life. It is not the same and I think that it is wrong to compare them. You can make all kinds of comparison to natural causes of death (cancer, diseases, accidents) but the difference is that those are not the same as ending the life on purpose.

#3 and 4 I do have problems with. I do not know. I believe that I would do anything to save my child, but everyone does that in different ways. But to compare them to abortion is not a good comparison, IMHO. Is there a difference between those examples and a willful murder? I would say yes. But is there a difference between those examples and say drunk driving and killing someone? That one is much harder because the drunk driver might not have killed someone, they did not set out to willfully kill someone, but because of their choices someone did die. Shades of gray, and I personally do not have all the answers.

I have a question for you (or other pro-choice women who want to answer)
Do you see a difference between aborting a fetus and killing of a newborn? Not to start flaming anyone or anything like that. But what I am trying to say is that say a baby is born a month early and one is still in the womb. Is there a difference in the ending of either ones life? Where is the line crossed?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

A footling breech does NOT necessitate a c-section. We believe it does because we are ignorant. I know women who have vaginally delivered footlings in hospitals, before the c-section movement took over. And other women successfully deliver them at home, where they belong.

What about a woman who allows herself to be induced with pitocin - should she be charged with child endangerment? What about a perfectly healthy woman who decides on a hospital birth? It's dangerous for the baby. Hospital-acquired infections are the 3rd leading cause of death; I guess that would make it attempted murder.

I think the questions are good ones. Here's another: What about the case in the movie, John Q? If anyone doesn't know, a boy needs a heart transplant that is not covered by insurance, and the hospital won't add him to the donor list until the parents can come up with a $75,000 down payment on the $250,000 operation. They can't afford that, so the father takes the hospital hostage and the boy gets the heart. IRL, people die because they are refused treatment for life-threatening conditions if they can't pay.

Should someone be charged with murder for refusing to treat the uninsured? Sometimes even simple problems can become life-threatening when they are negelcted for a long time. Who should be charged - the hospitals who refuse to treat? The government programs who refuse to insure everyone who can't afford private insurance? The taxpayers who don't want to contribute to the lives of others?

And if no one should be charged...why not? After all, it's a human life that didn't have to die.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
Is your opinion against abortion based ONLY on the "its a human life" reason? Or is part of it "sex is bad and women should be punished?"

Sex is good. It's a human life.

Quote:

1) A man and woman conceive a child. The woman delivers the child. The man and woman split. When the child is two, leukemia develops. The child needs a bone marrow transplant. The father is a match but doesn't want to have the procedure. Should he be forced, by law, to submit to donating bone marrow? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake.
The Catholic church talks about "sins of omission" and "sins of commission", and even though I'm not Catholic, I think the distinction is an important one. Most of our laws (and morality) are about "sins of commission" - what someone does to someone else. Having an abortion is doing something to someone else, something that is intended to end that person's life. In our society, we generally don't prosecute people for not doing something - there are some exceptions, but if someone jumps off a brdieg and kills himself and I was standing there and could have saved him, I may be a schmuck but I didn't kill him.

Quote:

2) You die. You haven't signed your donor card. However, your organs could save the lives of 4 people (heart, 2 kidneys, and liver). Should the dead be forced (or the surviving next of kin I suppose I should say) to donate their organs? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake and it isn't like you still need your organs if you are dead.
I see this as a personal property issue - your body is yours to do as you wish with, as long as you don't use it to injure others. Yes, your organs could save someone, but your money could save someone's life, too, and you're not forced to give that away.

If, though, you died in, say, a car accident, and your body was positioned in a way that prevented rescuers from reaching an injured survivor of the accident, I do think they have the right to move your body and dismember it if necessary, because your body is interfering with that person's right to live.

Quote:


3) A couple are having a child. They choose to have a home birth. The baby is discovered to be footling breech. Should they be forced to go to a hospital and have a c-section? If not, why not? After all, its a human life at stake.

4) You are having a baby. You are laboring in a hospital. The babies heartbeat keeps dropping during contractions. The doctor is advising a c-section and is trying very hard to convince you to sign the papers. Should you be forced to have a c-section even though you think you can deliver the baby naturally? After all, its a human life at stake..
I think these are really gray areas, although I see them as being related to parenting, not abortion. They're similar to the issue of Christian Scientists who refuse to allow their children access to conventional medical treatment, and wath their childen die of easily treated cancers and diabetes. It's not black and white. Is it okay to chose a treatment or procedure that research suggests has a 10% mortality rate, or must you chose the 9% rate. What if it's 20% vs. 40%? 10% vs. 90%? The line is there somewhere.

Birth is not my area of expertise so I may have some details or terminology wrong here, but I knew a women whose water broke when she was 8 1/2 or so months pregnant, and she chose to wait for labor to begin naurally so she could have a homebirth, rather then go to the hospital to be induced. She kept herself very clean, and the midwives checked the baby's vitals frequently... but convention medical wisdom was that labor should begin within a day or two, and she went for over 3 weeks. My understanding is that the midwives recommended that she be induced, but didn't insist.

Anyway, she finally went into labor, but something was wrong and she ended up in the hospital, where the baby died in utero from a massive infection.

So, what is right? Her choice to discard conventional mdical wisdom cost her baby his life. OTOH, her only intent was to have a wonderful homebirth and give him the best start in life. If she had been forced to go to the hospital when her water broke his life would have almost certainly have been saved...

My inclination is towards forcing people to do these things when unbiased research finds a statistically significant difference in outcomes... but I'm not sure, and often there are compounding factors and quality of life issues. If a treatment decreases the risk of death from 5% to 2% but increases the risk of significant disability, what is the answer? I don't know...

Dar


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Thanks for more answers!

Greaseball, while a footling breech may not require a c-section, some certainly do: http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...d.php?t=139656 I framed that particular question specifically from seeing the discussion about this situation.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I am in favor of life.

I guess that makes me pro-life.

I am against medicine meddling in our lives with their expense, overrated, unproven, quack treatments. I am against body part transplants as we are not cars, or machines, i.e., we are not spare parts for each other.

As for your example of forcing the bio-dad, -read sperm donor- to donate bone marrow, I would remind you that the legal system has had enough problems trying to get men to pay child support, let alone check into the hospital and have their bone marrow extracted! This will never work. There have been cases like this with anonymous sperm donations already; it will never happen.

I am against fetal screening, as it has a very high error rate and causes needless mental panic on the part of the parents and makes each pregnancy a "tentative one".

I do not believe that anyone should become a patient against their will for another person.

Modern medicine is in the process of making all of us patients. I refer to the book, The Mother Machine, by Gena Corea. Even if a woman does not have a fertility problem, she becomes one when her DP has a fertility problem, as in the case of a low sperm count. When a man has a fertility problem, his healthy wife with no health problems needs to become a patient and be super ovulated over a period of months, have her ova extracted, put in a petry dish, and then replanted into her womb, return to have "embryo reduction", and play the waiting game with many more tests and screenings. There are no guarantees with these procedures and the long term effects are unknown.

Life is precious. Why spend it in a doctor's office?

I truly believe abortion is murder, therefore I would never have one.

However, look at the situations you stated. These are straw arguments in my estimation. Modern medicine only gives you rights over your own body when you want to terminate your pregnancy. Once you decide to continue that pregnancy, your body and the baby belongs to the medical profession and to the state. Medical doctors and the government can threaten you with child endangerment and abuse if you decide to continue the pregnancy and not follow their advise.

So much for the old "Keep your laws out of my uterus!", "Keep your laws out of the bedroom", "My body, my uterus!"...

The government tracks women who have had elective terminations by if you later have a baby and you "confide" in your ob/gyn that you had a termination, your ob/gyn will report that bit of information on your child's birth certificate since all medicine thinks of women in terms of their reproductive power and they keep score. There is a score card on the bottom section of the birth certificate which reports how many times you have been pregnant, how many live births you have had, how many miscarriages you have had and how many termination you have elected to have.

So much for an abortion being a private decision between her doctor and herself. The state is keeping a record on you and your private decision. When you went in to get the abortion, you gave your SS# didn't you?

Once you decide to continue the pregnancy, you will be subjected to the power of the state from cradle to grave. You can be prosecuted for homebirthing, extended breastfeeding, not vaccinating, homeschooling, following an alternative diet, taking vitamins, and any other way you may choose "to think outside of the 'government' box".

Think about it! THE ONLY TIME you can choose any one treatment for yourself and your body is to kill your unborn child.

Woman's choice. Yes, and it is THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE!


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
I am not misrepresenting anyone's position. I am not attacking anyone's answers. I am not debating any of the things that have been posted. I simply asked what differing opinions there may be on the presented scenario by those who are against legal abortion. Therefore, I am not making a straw man argument.

Feel free to not like my scenarios. However, don't call them something they aren't.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
The government tracks women who have had elective terminations by if you later have a baby and you "confide" in your ob/gyn that you had a termination, your ob/gyn will report that bit of information on your child's birth certificate since all medicine thinks of women in terms of their reproductive power and they keep score. There is a score card on the bottom section of the birth certificate which reports how many times you have been pregnant, how many live births you have had, how many miscarriages you have had and how many termination you have elected to have.

Not true, at least in Arizona in 1993. Rain's birth certificate only has a space for single or multiple birth, and if multiple, what number (first, second, etc.). Nothing else, nothing about how many pregnancies I'd had or how many survived to be born...

My birth certificate is hiding somewhere, but I'm pretty sure it was the same.

Dar


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Dar -

The information is on a part of the birth certificate that is not given to you.

When you order your birth certificate, they only give you the top half.

The bottom half has statistical information about you, your reproductive score, your nationality, your citizenship, your race, when you began prenatal care, and how your prenatal care and delivery was paid for.

I filled out my own birth certificate each time. Mine were born at home. I know what I wrote on it. When the hospital fills out your birth certificate, they get the information from your doctor and they put on it what he tells them.

When I ordered the "official" stamped form, I only got the top half.

The bottom half says: "Confidential Information for Public Health Use Only."

So, who is keeping and using this information and why?


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

I am against abortion. I am against it because it is the active killing of a human life. I do not believe sex is bad or that pregant woman should be punished. I avoid punishment with my own child, forget that I would ever say an adult needs punishment! Sex is very good.

As far as your first two questions go, there is a HUGE moral difference between actively killing someone and passively allowing them to die. It is illegal to actively kill someone (unless that someone is unborn), but I see no difference between the born and the unborn. It is NOT illegal to passivly allow someone to die. If I see someone about to be run over by a car, I have no legal obligation to save them. I may have a moral obligation to do so, but no legal obligation, nor do I think anyone should have a legal obligation to passively prevent someone from dying. I may feel I have a moral obligation to donate my organs, but in no way do I think I should have a legal obligation to do so.

For your last two questions, no, I do not think those should be illegal. I do not think anyone should have a legal obligation to have surgery or anything else done against their will. There is a HUGE moral difference if a baby dies from an abortion (someone actively killed it) or died of natural causes during a difficult childbirth.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ameliabedelia*
It is NOT illegal to passivly allow someone to die.

This is not true.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
This is not true.

Could you expand on that? That also sounded untrue to me, but I didn't really have the time to do any research about passively allowing someone to die.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Sorry, but no. I can't really elaborate because I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure there are cases where people have been held legally responsible for a death because they "passively allowed them to die".

As a side note, I do think people should have a legal responsibility to help prevent death in certain situations and I'm sure there is some legal president for this. An example of what I have in mind is a responsibility to contact medical assistance to a person in need or to call the police if a person is being attacked, to stop the car if you're the first person on the scene of and auto accident, to help a lost child and etc.

I'm not sure if this is accurate information but when I took CPR I was told that I could held partially responsible for a person's death if I didn't volunteer CPR for a person in need.

As far as the big moral distinction between passively allowing death and actively killing, I would agree that there could be a huge disparity there but I don't think that there always is ~ at least according to my morality ~ keeping in mind that morality is subjective.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I'm not sure if this is accurate information but when I took CPR I was told that I could held partially responsible for a person's death if I didn't volunteer CPR for a person in need.








T
When I took CPR, I was told it was perfectly legal to choose not to do it (unless it was part of my job) but that once I started it, I couldn't stop until a good effort had been made.

I don't know if I'd support mandatory good samaritan laws, but I think it's pretty disgusting to let someone die when there is no good reason you couldn't have helped.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Greaseball, Yea, your right about the CPR thing. This site has lots of info on the ambiguities of the good Samaritan stature.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Biggs1.html


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

In certain situations, it is illegal - if, for example, your child is injured and you sit and watch her bleed to death, you can be charged. In most cases, though, it is perfectly legal to do nothing while someone dies a death you could have prevented.

Again, many lives could be saved with the money I (and others) have sitting in the bank right now...

Dar


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

When I took CPR, I was told it was perfectly legal to choose not to do it (unless it was part of my job) but that once I started it, I couldn't stop until a good effort had been made.
OT some more, but i agree with Greaseball on this one. You could face major liability if you chose to stop. say rescue was delayed, and you became tired. just say. or that you have some sort of shoulder injury that is now becoming unbearable while performing compressions. You might not be charged "legally" with death (even though technically the person was already dead, right?), but the persons family might sue you! and it happens! which is why so many people i think turn their heads or pretend they don't see it! I am always conflicted when i see someone hurting, or i see a new car accident. I just don't trust the good Samaritan laws here.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

The instructor said that only a few minutes of effort need be made. That didn't sound like much to me, and I brought this up, but he said "Just try performing CPR on someone for 5 minutes and you'll see what I'm talking about."

Although I don't agree with the laws, I don't see how someone can watch someone being beaten or raped and not even make an anonymous phone call to 911.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
Although I don't agree with the laws, I don't see how someone can watch someone being beaten or raped and not even make an anonymous phone call to 911.

From the link I posted and from a little background knowledge, it *IS* illegal (at least in some states) to be a bystander to a rape. It is and, IMO, it *should* be!!!


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
From the link I posted and from a little background knowledge, it *IS* illegal (at least in some states) to be a bystander to a rape. It is and, IMO, it *should* be!!!


Good! A friend was telling me about what he saw in a bar the other night. A woman was really drunk and a guy, I don't think he was all that drunk, took her out to the parking lot and had sex with her. She had been flashing everyone in the bar before that. Now if I were one of the guys in the bar I would have taken her aside and told her she had way too much to drink and she would regret this in the morning and I would have suggested she go home to sleep it off. But no, someone had sex with her in that condition.







To me, that's rape. uke

I have no faith in people anymore.


----------



## MamaTT (Aug 29, 2003)

Forgive me, I didn't quite read the whole thread, so I may be repeating.

Abortion is violently intervening to destroy a human life which would otherwise almost certainly continue.

All the other scenarios involve forceful coercion of a person in the interest of intervention which *might* save a life which may otherwise naturally end.

They are practically polar opposites.

Dar raised a great point WRT sins of ommision vs. sins of commision.While I am not into ranking sin, I do see a difference. There's a verse in James that says, "Knowing to do good, and not doing it, is sin". As a Christian that is something I try to keep in mind. If it is within my power to help another person, well, I should do it to the best of my human understanding, if I blow it off, then I am in the wrong.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

I'd like to thank everyone who has answered my scenarios. I'd also like to say I find the OT discussion of what responsibilities and liabilites do we have to people in need fascinating. I think its deserving of its own thread. (no, that isn't a dig to keep it out of this thread







just that I do find it fascinating in its own right).

I'd also like to remind people that I'm not interested in debating whether you think my scenarios are any good. I am only interested in just how far prolife people are willing to go to save any life. If you don't want to answer them, that's fine, but I'm not interested in debating whether you personally like my scenarios. I'm not saying that to be snotty, but to just clarify what I was going for in this thread.

Thanks!


----------



## steffanie3 (Mar 17, 2002)

Almost everyone I know is pro-life and I have never heard them say that sex is bad and I don't think a child is punishment.

1) I hope that a father would never do that to a child, but I don't think a court should make a person donate anything (not really a donation). Sometimes as unfortunate as that is.

2) I am a donor and there are other donors, so the life is not totally resting on a person who is not- there are other options (not as many as the need, I am sure). If a mom decides she doesn't want to give birth to her child, there isn't a way to use someone else to carry it. There are people who would love to care for it once it is born.

3) I think footling breech babies have been born vaginally, so the couple should not be forced. I think they should think of the best for the child in their particular situation. I do believe that God can do all things.

4) Again you should do what is right for the baby in that situation, it wouldn't surprise me that the doctor is advising a c-section even if uncalled for, been there done that.


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
I'd also like to remind people that I'm not interested in debating whether you think my scenarios are any good. I am only interested in just how far prolife people are willing to go to save any life. If you don't want to answer them, that's fine, but I'm not interested in debating whether you personally like my scenarios. I'm not saying that to be snotty, but to just clarify what I was going for in this thread.

Then maybe we could get some scenarios where we have to decide how far to go with actions that *will* save a life.

Would you like those who reply to assume that they know that the action proposed in your scenarios will definately and for sure save the life in question? I think perhaps the posters aren't saying that they don't personally like your scenarios, they are just explaining that they can't answer your question because it doesn't compare with abortion.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brisen*
Then maybe we could get some scenarios where we have to decide how far to go with actions that *will* save a life.

Would you like those who reply to assume that they know that the action proposed in your scenarios will definately and for sure save the life in question? I think perhaps the posters aren't saying that they don't personally like your scenarios, they are just explaining that they can't answer your question because it doesn't compare with abortion.

Feel free to write your own scenarios then, and start your own thread. Those are the scenarios I wanted answers to. I wasn't asking anyone to compare it to abortion. I wasn't setting this up for a strawman argument. Please note, I haven't argued with a single person here. I SIMPLY wanted to know how far those that are against legal abortions were willing to go to save a life in situations outside of abortion.

As I said, if you don't want to answer, its no skin off my back. If you want to start your own thread for those for legal abortions with your own scenarios, go for it, and I'll make every effort to answer as honestly as those who have answered my scenario.


----------

