A common argument for legalized abortion is that abortion is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother. Even Mitt Romney makes this claim as he favors the legality of abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk.
According to the following video from the Life Institute, this argument is not valid. While doctors may do everything they can to save the life of the mother, even if it risks the life of the baby, this is not the same as murdering the child in the womb since there is no intention to harm the unborn baby.
It is never OK to murder a child in the womb or outside the womb. No exceptions.
HT: Abolish Human Abortion (AHA)
Posted in: Abortion, Christian Issues
airō 
wpuymac
November 2, 2012
A couple thoughts, brother. Thanks for sharing.
But first, let me point out for anyone reading the comment that I oppose abortion and am not trying to defend Romney’s stance, nor am I defending murder in any way.
1. You state Romney “favors” abortion in the case of incest, rape and mother safety. This is not my understanding. My understanding is that Romney supports legality of choice in these situations. This is similar, but different. The phraseology used would imply not only that Romney believes abortion should continue to be a legal choice in these situations, but, in fact, promoted above choosing life. That is not my understanding.
Granted, this doesn’t change the WRONGNESS of the stance, but I believe it more accurately represents what is really being said. Correct me if I’m wrong and the truth is that Romney actually favors abortion in these situations.
I would also argue that this stance is not only wrong in and of itself, but a slippery slope which will lead to many more abortions that statistics would indicate it would lead to. Again, NOT defending Romney – just hoping to clarify the stance in order that you cannot be accused of embellishing.
2. I want to comment on the phrase “It is never OK to murder a child in the womb. No exceptions.”
I have had a problem with this phrase since 180 movie came out. The implication becomes that children outside the womb are unprotected. What would you say about a fertilized ovum created in vitro fertilization? When people do IVF, they make as many babies as they can and destroy the least desirable. At least that’s my understanding. My belief would be that these “womb-less” people are as much in need as our protection as all other innocents.
There is also a condition where embryos end up in the fallopian tubes and not the “womb” per se. Would you consider these babies ok to abort? I doubt you would, dear brother. I suppose “womb” could mean the entire area…but I think most people equate it with “uterus.”
Just my 2 cents.
Justin Edwards
November 2, 2012
Hey brother, thanks so much for pointing these things out. You are correct, I poorly stated what Romney favors, so I amended the article to more correctly represent his position. As to your other point, I absolutely agree with you. I also tightened up that line so to not leave any room for any exceptions. Thanks again, brother.
wpuymac
November 2, 2012
I had this conversation the other night with a neighbor and she talked about her pro-life friend who is not opposed to slaughtering innocent life in the case that the life is the result of rape and I said, “Oh, your friend is pro-choice.” And she said, “No, she’s pro-life.”
And we got into a nice discussion about it because neither of us wanted to claim her friend! LOL.
I’m pro-choice though. I believe people should have the right to choose things. I just happen to be pro-CONSEQUENCE for murder.
I wrote about it last December (wow). You can read what I thought then here: http://www.michaelcoughlin.net/blog/index.php/2011/12/pro-life-pro-choice/
Mike Peek
November 2, 2012
I’m a Registered Nurse who works with cardiovascular critically ill patients. Over the many years I have been doing this type of nursing I have taken care of several pregnant mothers who were critically ill because of a heart problem. I assure you that not one time in 16 years of doing this has the mother’s life been at risk because of the baby, in every case it was the life of the baby that was at risk because of the health of the mother. I have been in cardiovascular procedures (Heart Caths) in which the mother is pregnant and when this has happened on standby (This isn’t normal for cardiovascular procedures but with a pregnancy it is.) two Surgical teams are on standby just outside the room ready to spring into action; Anesthesiologist, a team of nurses and a cardiovascular surgeon for the mother, a team of nurses and Obstetrician to deliver the baby by C-Section if the mother comes under distress during the procedure risking the life of the baby, not killing the baby delivering the baby to save his/her life. Now having seen all that and everything that went into it, with all the care that went into assuring the life of the mother, and the baby, if the mother suddenly doesn’t want the baby the baby suddenly is not a human life, this is illogical and makes know since. I wrote a blog myself talking about some of these things on 9/30/2012 because of our two presidential candidates. Called: “Unlawful Premeditated Killing” http://www.mikepeek.blogspot.com/2012/09/unlawful-premitated-killing.html . There is however a medical condition that can occur with pregnancy called Pre-Eclampsia & Eclampsia. In Pre-Eclampsia the mother’s blood pressure rises during pregnancy and puts her at risk for Eclampsia. The normal course of treatment is bed rest, blood pressure medication, & close monitoring of the babies heart tones, and the mother’s blood pressure, edema in the mother and neurological changes. The goal is to deliver the baby as close to full gestation as possible. Pre-Eclampsia does not develop until the third trimester of pregnancy usually after 32 weeks in rare cases it may develop as early as 20 weeks. If the mother begins to develop signs & symptoms of Eclampsia then the pregnancies must end early, but is done so to preserve the life of the mother and the baby and this is done so in the third trimester. You don’t kill the baby to save the mother, you deliver the baby early to save the mother and you care for the baby to support him/her as a premature birth.
Thank You brother for your continued work for the Glory of God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ,
Mike Peek a slave of Jesus Christ
wpuymac
November 2, 2012
Amen, Mike!
Let’s suppose for a second that a mother’s life was really in jeopardy; I would still maintain that in that situation it is the parents’ privilege and honor to risk their life for their child, anyway!
I pray that God will grant me the grace if I am ever in that position to lay down my life for my kids.
Mike Peek
November 6, 2012
The problem with that thought is this; if your life is in jeopardy then the babies life is in jeopardy too. I hope you understand that what I was talking about was preserving the life of both the mother and baby, not abortion. Abortion is intentionally killing the baby (murder – malice of for thought). But what I was talking about in the rare case of Eclampsia was an early delivery to save the life of both mother and baby. Preserving life. God the Father has given His elected children salvation by grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ. Since He has given us life and saved our lives, we can do nothing else but love life and save as many lives as possible, both through preaching the gospel and pleading for the lives of the unborn. “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” (2 Timothy 4:2) The world wants to believe that there are cases when abortion saves the mothers life so that they can go on killing, like there father Satan. But it is up to us the body of Christ to reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. I just wanted you all to know all the facts when you are hit with them. There is know justification for killing the baby in the womb, killing the baby in the womb does not save the life of the mother, ever!
Michael Coughlin
November 6, 2012
I am not sure we are understanding each other, Mike. My point was that abortion is never the answer. If the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, killing her baby to attempt to save her life is not the right answer. You seem to agree with that but in your comment you say there is a problem with something. I don’t understand the problem.
I never stated that a mother should not try to save her own life and her baby’s life. I stated that a parent should be willing to risk their life for their child as opposed to kill their child to ensure their own life. Did I miss something? That seems to be your point as well.
Please help me to know what you mean as I think I am not getting something!
Mike Peek
November 6, 2012
I had no problem in anything you said. I wrote quite a bit to try and do away with miss understanding. I’m sorry if there is one. It’s difficult to communicate in this format properly. I’m just trying to reiterate the fact that a woman is never at risk because of the baby, it is the baby that is at risk because of the mothers health. 🙂
wpuymac
November 6, 2012
Thanks for replying. I understand now and we are in agreement. I hadn’t understood previously but your explanation has opened my eyes to the full intent of your original comment!
Looking forward to laboring with you. I saw your name on the SBO 13 roster. 🙂
Justin Edwards
November 6, 2012
Glad you brothers sorted that out…I knew you could do it. 😀
And Mike, that’s a really important point you made, eg “a woman is never at risk because of the baby, it is the baby that is at risk because of the mothers health.” That really lasers in on the issue.
Justin Edwards
November 4, 2012
Thanks so much for giving your valuable perspective, Mike – it was very helpful to me.
Mike Peek
November 5, 2012
🙂 Hope to meet you one day Justin, Lord willing.
julie
November 2, 2012
Amen, amen amen. In fact if the real truth would ever be told the mother’s life is often (yes I said often) put in jeopardy because of abortion. There are a whole host of problems that can and do happen, sometimes days or weeks after an abortion. and then we have the abortion and breast cancer link. The lies about abortion have been told so long that people repeat them with little clue that what they are believing is a lie.
Linda
November 3, 2012
Amen.. I agree with you mike. The problem I have is that the advice they usually give stems more for encouraging this exaggerated appeal to a sense of presenting the most dramatic rare cases that are taken to outweigh the statistical evidence. Why do they believe in and fight for the worst case scenarios? this just boggles my mind
When I was pregnant with my son before I was even a Christian, they ask the woman questions. One of the questionnaires is does the woman have Jewish in her family. Well I said yes to having Jewish and so they tested me for Tay Sachs disease. When It came up positive that I was a carrier they asked if my husband had Jewish in him and I said NO. They tried to encourage me to go further to make sure. They always thought of the worst case scenario even after I stated that My husband was NOT Jewish. They offered for me to undergo to test the amniotic fluid of the baby and I said NO. I had heard that numbing your tummy to stick a long needle in there to extract the fluid was very dangerous anyways. I said I’m having this baby no matter what. I got the feeling that they were more concerned for me as a human being than my baby who is equally a human being.
I had my son and he is just fine. But what if I had followed their warped advice?