Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Answering PT

I'm not going to debate the issue of when a foetus becomes human because--as I see it--both of us are talking about opinions, not fact.
.
Remote possibility aside, women in those situations should be allowed an abortion if this is their choice. The responsibility should rest with them, not the government. Even one woman deprived of an abortion in those circumstances is too much, especially if you're the woman in dire straits.
.
What about the baby who is born into extreme poverty....

You mean, like Abraham Lincoln? Like Jesus?
.
No--I'm talking the person without a home. The person who doesn't have a clue where her next scrap of food is coming from. The person who can't afford any kind of health care. The person who starves herself so her children can eat. Compared to them, Lincoln lived in the lap of luxury. So did Jesus.
.
...or unwanted...
.
With all due respect, that's the WHOLE issue here, isn't it?
.
No, its not the whole issue. Not at all.
.
.
What about the baby, when choosing the baby's life over that of the mother, means other children, already living, will grow up without a mother?
.
If you're referring to protecting the life of the mother, I think just about every pro-life person (myself included) supports abortion rights in that case.
.
I beg to differ. There have been several cases reported in the national news where pro-life people stepped in and took legal action to prevent an abortion which would have saved the woman's life. One of those pro-life people, when asked about the children who would be left motherless, said, in essence, he didn't care. What was right was more important.
.
What about the baby who is already dead in its mother's womb? Would you insist she should carry that child to term? Do you have any idea how cruel that is?

Come on, PaperTurtle! It seems like you're just going off here. I never said anything like this. IF the baby is already dead, then it's already dead. OF COURSE....you get the baby's body out of the mother - and do so with the utmost regard for the mother's health and well-being.
.
No, I'm not getting off. A D & E (what pro-life refers to as a "partial birth abortion") is one of the methods choice in removing a dead foetus from a mother's womb. I was thinking about my daughter, who lost a child earlier this year, and had to unndergo a D & E. I was thinking about how cruel it would have been had she had to carry that child to term.
.
.
If there were moral/ethical issues regarding prostate health or male pattern baldness, I would not presume to know how it would feel to be a male with those conditions, nor would I presume to know what would be right for a male.
.
If I were going through a male-oriented health issue, I would want my wife involved.
.
Yes, but would you want an all-woman supreme court telling you you couldn't have a procedure which would alleviate your suffering because THEY deemed it immoral/unethical (while you did not)? Would you not feel just the least bit miffed because no one consulted you (or at least some male representatives) in making their decision?
.
.
You simply do not know what it is like to be a woman. You might be able to identify with a woman's feelings. You might have sympathy for her situation, but you have no idea how it feels to be pregnant, all the issues involved, for *any* woman, whether or not she is considering an abortion.

True, but does this mean I can't speak to ANYTHING women do? Forget abortion. Can I not have an opinion, speak out, vote, or actively seek to influence society on ANY decision, issue, or action that pertains to women?
.
Of course you can. I'd have to say that since women have plenty of opinions about what would be best for men (wink). But when it comes to issues that you or I can't personally experience, I think we need to be aware we may not be able to *fully* understand.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

.

-- posted by paper_turtle