Really, I am just trying to understand

Sort of the same way a newborn is as valued a person as the 9YO.

They are markedly different but they are valued as created in the image of G-d.

Attempted murderer equal to the victim? I don't get that either. When there is a homocidal bombing in Israel (I HATE the term suicidal bomber) every mainstream media outlet except FOX counts the murderer in the number of casualities.

This makes me yell out loud, makes my kids think I'm insane yelling at the screen.

Just my opinion, I guess.

I'm just editing to add Someone would need to literally go through my body to get to my children. I teach my children to never start a fight but if they're attacked they have every right to defend themselves. Nobody bothers with the Bakers.

Debra Baker

I wouldn't think twice about killing someone to protect my child.

I have a hard time understanding those that wouldn't, and i guess they feel the same way about me. I was stalked for 4 years, learned how to use a handgun, and man, i got good at lock and load. no way some crazed lunatic is going to get a piece of me. I'm taking him *out*. and i almost did. I would do the same for my kids.

I wonder though, if the folks that wouldn't, would in fact defend their kids to the death if faced with the situation? My guess would be yes, because i feel it motherly instinct to do so. I mean, what woman would just stand there and let it happen all in the name of pro life?

As far as the pregnant 9 yr old, if she were mine, i would have her terminate the pregnancy. To me, her life, her health, is paramount and supersedes the embryo.

I will try to explain the principles I am "operating from".
Firstly, though I am not attempting to debate, but just to understand the view that i don't understand, I will explain my view of a fetus. Since the fetus is dependant solely on the mother's body for life and is not "born" it is therefore not a fully living being. So although it sacred because it is a form of life it is NOT the same as a person. It is sacred, therefore, it is not to be disposed of without reason. Yet it is not a person, and jewish law does not consider its "death" murder. If someone causes a woman to miscarry, as far as I remember, they must pay damages as if they harmed a limb of her body.

The second priciple which is relevant here is the law of "rodeph" a rodeph is one who is persuing a person with the intent to kill them. Killing a rodeph is considered self defense and not murder. A fetus, in addition to not being a full fledged person can also be a rodeph if its presense is a threat to life or limb of the mother it can be killed and this is not murder. Because the fetus is not a full person and the fact that it is impossible to remove it from the situation where it is harming the mother *without* killing it, the principle of rodeph can be used more freely then it is used with a full person. (Where a person harrassing another person to the point that they will be driven insane can be put in jail, a fetus cannot.)

I hope that explains my view somewhat. Although all the translation and the introduction of for *general* you new concepts probably make it confusing- oh and my crappy writing skills.

Quote:
Let me see if I sorta understand (it takes me a while ):

Let's say you have two women, both with severe schizophrenia or terminal cancer, or are homeless living under a bridge, or what ever the case may be.

One has a newborn and one is pregnant. The newborn can be taken to Social Services. But the pregnant woman must wait X months until she gives birth to give away the child.

???

I agree (if this is what you're saying.).

Actually, I don't know anyone who wouldn't protect their own children, either by fighting back, or by standing in the way to let thier kids get away. I also think most pro-lifers would accept a "self-defense" reasoning if carrying a child were *certain* to result in death of the child and death of the mother. Ectopic pregnancy is one such example. There is currently no way the baby in that case can survive. Leaving it there can cost the life of the mother. Therefore, removing it is a necessary evil. But, a baby is not an "attacker". They havr no intent to harm, even if theit existance comes sometimes in an unpleasant manner.

However, while a 9-year-old carrying a baby to term is *not* desireable at all, and will likely be much more difficult than a normal pregnancy of an adult woman, the risk of her dying is pretty low, especially being in a Western country and having access to good medical care.

Therefore, since I believe a baby born or unborn has equal value and a right to life, and since I believe that having an abortion would only compound her pain, more than birthing the child, I could never encourage or support an abortion in that situation. Unfortunately, there is *no* easy answer to her situation, and whatever she does, this is going to be part of her life forever. I'm disgusted that her parents allowed her to ride around with a man with no supervision, and I think the man himself is a vile beast.

That's my opinion--does that give you a better idea of why some wouldn't encourage an abortion? I'm not interested in debate, just giving my beliefs.

Interestingly enough, some months ago I saw a small article in the paper about a 9-year-old girl in South America who was also raped (by her father ) and refused an abortion. I was amazed at what she said about it. She could have justifiably gone down the path of bitterness, misery, pain, and anger. Instead, she was posititive. She kept the baby, and even was able to love him in her own child-like way.

"You're saying that even in a situation where the child would survive but its birth would assuredly result in the death of the mother, you wouldn't support termination? How is it that the fetus is so much more important than the mother - particularly where that mother hasn't made the choice to conceive?"

I don't think the child is more important. I think they are EQUALLY important. I don't feel that the desire of the mother has any impact. Doesn't mean it's not tragic and terrible, or that I don't hate it and wish that abortion were an okay solution. Killing one person to save another makes no sense, IMO. And I don't think I should make the choice, who lives and who dies. Letting the situation be and seeing what happens is what I feel is right. Just MO.

"I also don't get how anyone can assume that carrying a baby to term will have less of an impact on a 9-year-old girl than an abortion. That's an awfully ballsy assumption to make... I'd be more inclined to call it projection."

I didn't say that. I have a feeling an abortion might be psychologically better than carrying the child, for all involved. Doesn't make it right.

I have universal morals. I don't believe that because a situation is terrible, or beyond my comprehension, or too hard that the morals laws can suddenly be broken. I believe that abortion is killing (I choose not to say murder). Killing is not okay. No matter what the situation (except direct self defense). Just because this situation is sickening and terrible does not mean God suddenly says killing is okay.

Does that make sense?

Quote:
I think my living, breathing son here on Earth is a little more important. I can't imagine a mother choosing the life of a fetus over her children, partner, friends, and family. Idealistically, it makes a nice story. Giving up her life, for her unborn child. But, realistically, I find it a tad selfish and makes the woman seem like she's trying to martyr herself.

If both lives are equal, why should she give up her life? Then that is saying that the fetuses life is more important. Obviously, there's no answer to my question, because the alternative is having an abortion. But that logic seems wierd to me.

Abortion is such a frustrating topic. Everything becomes so muddy...

Quote:

Wow. Yes. I'm glad someone gets me here.

Dragonfly, right. I don't understand either (hence this thread). That was my point in bringing up the "attempted murderer". A person and a person are equal in importance, until one is effecting, or attempting to effect the other to the detriment, then there is an issue of self defense (rodeph).....
still trying to understand HOW self defense does not make a difference here.

Killing one person, who is causing serious harm, to save another DOES make sense to me...mabey that is the crux of it.

Quote:
Um, I have morals to. Mabey they are just more developed than yours, more complex. As I explained above. I think the insuation that others that don't agree with your *view* don't have morals is insulting. My highly developed, documented moral system does not dictate that there are times for killing because the situation is beyond *my* comprehension. We see killing as nesasary is certain situations (like self defense) because "G-d's word" tells us so, by our interpretation. No moral law is being broken in those cases.

Quote:
What religion or system do you use? As I said above... Are you vegan? How do you define "direct self defense" (situational examples please). Where is it written that G-d says all killing is *no* ok? Why is "direct self defense" ok if G-d says that all killing is wrong? What words did G-d use to differentiate between plain self defense and "direct" s.d.

Quote:
I respectfully disagree. How can an embryo be equal to a child or an adult? i dont get that. The unborn childs life should never supersede the life of its mother. ever. (unless of course, the mother chooses to).

Quote:
I am so glad you do.

I cant tell you how many times i have sent women to the OR *emergently* because of an ectopic. I had one woman who was barely conscious, had a blood pressure of 70, heart rate of 140, and we did an ultra sound at her bedside. there it was. a tiny embryo, looking exactly like it should, with a heart beat of 150. a seemingly perfect "baby". but both it and its mother would have died (and almost did right there) had they not taken the baby and the tube (she couldnt keep the tube, it was disecting).

"I think the insuation that others that don't agree with your *view* don't have morals is insulting."

I didn't say, or mean that you dont have morals, just not universalist morals. Like, that something is ALWAYS wrong. I respect you and your religion, and I don't think anyone is an immoral person just b/c they disagree with me.

Please don't rolleyes at me, sweetbaby3. I am so annoyed. I got suckered again. This thread was calmly, politely asking for infomation as to how people like me might see this situation. I explain my point of view, and you act snarky.

"I respectfully disagree. How can an embryo be equal to a child or an adult? i dont get that"
It just is, to me. The same way a handicapped person is the same as a healthy person, or a newborn is the same as an adult. I agree the baby's life does not supercede the mothers. That has nothing to do with it.

"What religion or system do you use? As I said above... Are you vegan? How do you define "direct self defense" (situational examples please). Where is it written that G-d says all killing is *no* ok? Why is "direct self defense" ok if G-d says that all killing is wrong? What words did G-d use to differentiate between plain self defense and "direct" s.d."
I hope if I explain this, and answer it respectfully, I wont be mocked or made fun of. I am a Christian, probably what you would call a Fundamentalist, though I tend to be very socially liberal on all matter but abortion.

What you must see is that I equate abortion with murder. I tried not to use that word, out of respect, but I have to to explain myself. I see it as the killing of an innocent. The bible says that we may kill in self defense. I do not see killing a fetus whose existence threatens the mother as self defense. Some do, I understand that. It's a small distinction, and I can see both sides. But I see abortion of that fetus as a murder, but allowing myself (if I were the mother in question) to die not as a murder. In that case, God has decided that I will die, and I won't commit murder just to stop him. KWIM?

No, I am not a vegan or a vegetarian. I do not believe animals have souls or are the same as humans. I have no problem killing animals for our use, but I think we must be responsibile with that ability and power. I do not see it as murder.