If one or other must die - which one?

[joko104]

This is to question pro-lifers who claim that in total literal terms a ZEF is "a baby."

MOST people, pro-choice or pro-life, believe if the circumstance came up, a parent should sacrifice his/her life for his/her child. IE a parent should use his/her body to block an assailant's bullet from hitting his/her child, rather than holding up the child as a bullet shield.

While certainly a rare circumstance, IF a medical choice had to be made between saving the mother's life OR saving her unborn "baby" - and that decision given to you about it (the woman NOT your wife nor ZEF yours either so you are making ONLY an ethical, not personal decision) - which would you say dies - the mother or the "baby?"

I suppose a counter=part to pro-choice would be if your wife said "if it comes to it, save our baby's life, not mine" and then that actual decision came to you, could you tell the doctors "save the baby, not her?" as her choice-right? Could you let her die as her choice right vetoing your own preference?

 

[Scrabaholic]

I voted before I read your post and didn't realise it was meant for anti choicers. Sorry about that.

 

[lizzie]

Logically, and protective instincts aside, the mother's life would have precedence, as a mother is required to take care of the baby.

 

[Bodi]

I voted mother lives...

 

[MaggieD]

This is to question pro-lifers who claim that in total literal terms a ZEF is "a baby."

MOST people, pro-choice or pro-life, believe if the circumstance came up, a parent should sacrifice his/her life for his/her child. IE a parent should use his/her body to block an assailant's bullet from hitting his/her child, rather than holding up the child as a bullet shield.

While certainly a rare circumstance, IF a medical choice had to be made between saving the mother's life OR saving her unborn "baby" - and that decision given to you about it (the woman NOT your wife nor ZEF yours either so you are making ONLY an ethical, not personal decision) - which would you say dies - the mother or the "baby?"

I suppose a counter=part to pro-choice would be if your wife said "if it comes to it, save our baby's life, not mine" and then that actual decision came to you, could you tell the doctors "save the baby, not her?" as her choice-right? Could you let her die as her choice right vetoing your own preference?

I would opt to save mom's life.

There was a time in the Catholic church that, if one entered a Catholic hospital to give birth, moms signed papers agreeing that it was the other way 'round, however.

Biologically speaking, it only makes sense to save the mother's life, since mom can presumably have more children.

 

[Goshin]

This is to question pro-lifers who claim that in total literal terms a ZEF is "a baby."

MOST people, pro-choice or pro-life, believe if the circumstance came up, a parent should sacrifice his/her life for his/her child. IE a parent should use his/her body to block an assailant's bullet from hitting his/her child, rather than holding up the child as a bullet shield.

While certainly a rare circumstance, IF a medical choice had to be made between saving the mother's life OR saving her unborn "baby" - and that decision given to you about it (the woman NOT your wife nor ZEF yours either so you are making ONLY an ethical, not personal decision) - which would you say dies - the mother or the "baby?"

I suppose a counter=part to pro-choice would be if your wife said "if it comes to it, save our baby's life, not mine" and then that actual decision came to you, could you tell the doctors "save the baby, not her?" as her choice-right? Could you let her die as her choice right vetoing your own preference?

If I know nothing else but what you've said, then the decision is an equal one. Each life has potentially infinite value, therefore without knowing anything more about the individual lives in question it falls to personal preferences or bias... or a coin toss.

If Mama is a psycho-bitch or a crack ho or otherwise of negative worth, then it is an easier choice.... save the baby.

If Mama is a research scientist working on cure for cancer and believes she is near to achieving it.... save the Mama.


Otherwise you might as well flip a coin, or decide on emotion, or whatever... there is no way to choose between one generic life and another if there is no basis on which to make a value judgement.


Personally I'd probably choose to save the baby, if I had no other info and no emotional connection at all. In my personal bias I see the baby as more of an innocent and more in need of aid, and my natural love for children would incline me that way. :shrug:

 

[JayDubya]

No one has a "greater right to life."

I voted before I read your post and didn't realise it was meant for anti choicers. Sorry about that.

You didn't realize the poll was meant for people that don't exist?

As far as this poll is concered, I would die to save my daughter's life and my wife says she would do the same. So that gives you an answer.

 

[NitroHangover]

In that scenario, I would choose the mother's life, hands down. Always. And I think I see the point you are subtly trying to make here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are essentially saying this: If we would save the life of a born mother over the life of an unborn fetus, but we would save the life of a born child over the life of a born mother, then how can we say that there is literally no difference (at least insofar as the validity or value of their life) between an unborn fetus and a born child? Like, if we truly believe they are the same, then why would our decisions in each scenario be any different? Is that what you are getting at? Sorry if I spoiled your "gotcha" moment :2razz:

It's an interesting question. I have actually been in a situation where I have had to make a split-moment decision between saving the life of a mother, or saving the life of her child. More or less, at least. It wasn't a medical situation, and there are variables that make it a slightly inexact analogy, but the basic concept is the same. And you're right, the decision I made, based on my initial on-the-spot instinct, was to automatically focus on the kid and worry about the mother later. I agree that there is this sort of unwritten rule, a societal assertion that kids' lives are more precious or more valuable in some way. Yet, I also still assert that I would save the life of the mother over the life of the baby if the baby were unborn.

Seems contradictory, I agree. So how do I reconcile these two things?

Well basically, I don't. I am pro-life, but I DO believe there is inherently more worth in the life of a born person compared to an unborn person. They are NOT exactly the same, I admit it. But it's a matter of degree. Is an unborn person worth less to the degree that I would allow it to naturally die to save a grown woman? Yes. Is an unborn person worth less to the degree that I think it's ok for a born person to purposefully KILL it, for reasons other than to save their own life? Absolutely not.

THAT'S where the difference is, to me.

 

[PirateMk1]

This is to question pro-lifers who claim that in total literal terms a ZEF is "a baby."

MOST people, pro-choice or pro-life, believe if the circumstance came up, a parent should sacrifice his/her life for his/her child. IE a parent should use his/her body to block an assailant's bullet from hitting his/her child, rather than holding up the child as a bullet shield.

While certainly a rare circumstance, IF a medical choice had to be made between saving the mother's life OR saving her unborn "baby" - and that decision given to you about it (the woman NOT your wife nor ZEF yours either so you are making ONLY an ethical, not personal decision) - which would you say dies - the mother or the "baby?"

I suppose a counter=part to pro-choice would be if your wife said "if it comes to it, save our baby's life, not mine" and then that actual decision came to you, could you tell the doctors "save the baby, not her?" as her choice-right? Could you let her die as her choice right vetoing your own preference?

An interesting scenario. I have no idea how I would manage to end up said sitution, but I digress. Answer, save the babies. Assuming of coarse woman is not of capacity to make said decision. Thats what she would probably do. To presume otherwise is to go against natural instinct. I would find it more likely to be the right decision the later the term. Earlier not so much. Thats my take.

 

[AGENT J]

going just off the OP and not making up scenarios in my head

I pick the mother hands down every time.

For me there is no other logical, rational, choice, its not even a second thought. I have to choose the already born viable human being over who is already an american citizen over the ZEF, which is an unknown.

 

[joko104]

If I know nothing else but what you've said, then the decision is an equal one. Each life has potentially infinite value, therefore without knowing anything more about the individual lives in question it falls to personal preferences or bias... or a coin toss.

If Mama is a psycho-bitch or a crack ho or otherwise of negative worth, then it is an easier choice.... save the baby.

If Mama is a research scientist working on cure for cancer and believes she is near to achieving it.... save the Mama.


Otherwise you might as well flip a coin, or decide on emotion, or whatever... there is no way to choose between one generic life and another if there is no basis on which to make a value judgement.


Personally I'd probably choose to save the baby, if I had no other info and no emotional connection at all. In my personal bias I see the baby as more of an innocent and more in need of aid, and my natural love for children would incline me that way. :shrug:

Interesting logic in terms of evaluating the worth of each in the decision process.

I would save the mother UNLESS she specified otherwise as I am pro-choice - and choice means HER choice. My wife is well along on pregnancy. She is MILITANTLY pro-choice. Her pregnancy is a known high risk pregnancy. She has made it 100% clear and in writing that if that decision came, save the baby. As much as I absolutely would not want to do so and would want to veto that anyway possible, I would respect her decision if I had to ratify it.

This is not idle words from her. Her first pregnancy was also a known high risk for which a no-notice early C premie delivery was a real possibility. That was her "choice" then and it is now. That would not be my choice, but it is not my choice to make. And it SCARES ME more words than I could find to write too.

 

[Fisher]

Momma of the dead baby is gonna sue your butt for all you are worth for killing her child after you save her so walk away and let God decide :hammer:

 

[AGENT J]

Interesting logic in terms of evaluating the worth of each in the decision process.

I would save the mother UNLESS she specified otherwise as I am pro-choice - and choice means HER choice. My wife is well along on pregnancy. She is MILITANTLY pro-choice. Her pregnancy is a known high risk pregnancy. She has made it 100% clear and in writing that if that decision came, save the baby. As much as I absolutely would not want to do so and would want to veto that anyway possible, I would respect her decision if I had to ratify it.

This is not idle words from her. Her first pregnancy was also a known high risk for which a no-notice early C premie delivery was a real possibility. That was her "choice" then and it is now. That would not be my choice, but it is not my choice to make. And it SCARES ME more words than I could find to write too.

well im sorry for your fear and concern, its most certainly understandable, I wish, hope and pray the best for you and yours.

and this is just another reason im glad our country is smart enough to leave it as choice and she has one. Thank god for her freedom.

 

[nota bene]

Let's just get to it. How often is the choice presented of saving the life of the mother or the life of the baby?

So many variables to consider, including the long-term survival of one over the other.

But this is NOT what the abortion debate is about. If the decision is literally between the life of the mother or the baby, there are unique particulars, including the mother's wishes. If I had to choose between my life and the life of my child, I know what I would choose.

But if I were unable to make a decision, that decision would fall to my husband and/or medical professionals. Each situation is different.

Just don't kid a kidder. Nobody ever seriously debates this choice. The debate is about "convenience choices," which I think the Guttmacher Institute lists pretty clearly.

 

[Goshin]

Interesting logic in terms of evaluating the worth of each in the decision process.

I would save the mother UNLESS she specified otherwise as I am pro-choice - and choice means HER choice. My wife is well along on pregnancy. She is MILITANTLY pro-choice. Her pregnancy is a known high risk pregnancy. She has made it 100% clear and in writing that if that decision came, save the baby. As much as I absolutely would not want to do so and would want to veto that anyway possible, I would respect her decision if I had to ratify it.

This is not idle words from her. Her first pregnancy was also a known high risk for which a no-notice early C premie delivery was a real possibility. That was her "choice" then and it is now. That would not be my choice, but it is not my choice to make. And it SCARES ME more words than I could find to write too.

A good many women feel that way about their unborn baby, with childbirth approaching. My respects.

If I read your original scenario rightly though, then as the hypothetical decision-maker I had no knowlege of what choice the mother wanted, so her choice was irrelevant to my choice because I could not know it.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

This is to question pro-lifers who claim that in total literal terms a ZEF is "a baby."

MOST people, pro-choice or pro-life, believe if the circumstance came up, a parent should sacrifice his/her life for his/her child. IE a parent should use his/her body to block an assailant's bullet from hitting his/her child, rather than holding up the child as a bullet shield.

While certainly a rare circumstance, IF a medical choice had to be made between saving the mother's life OR saving her unborn "baby" - and that decision given to you about it (the woman NOT your wife nor ZEF yours either so you are making ONLY an ethical, not personal decision) - which would you say dies - the mother or the "baby?"

I suppose a counter=part to pro-choice would be if your wife said "if it comes to it, save our baby's life, not mine" and then that actual decision came to you, could you tell the doctors "save the baby, not her?" as her choice-right? Could you let her die as her choice right vetoing your own preference?

When it comes to life of the mother or the unborn child, I would always personally choose to save the mother.

Any pro-life stance that I may have is based entirely on elective abortions where the mother's life is not in danger and it is done simply for convenience.

 

[molten_dragon]

I'm not pro-choice, so the question doesn't really mean as much to me, but I'd most likely pick the mother unless she was a junkie or something.

If it was my wife and my child, I'd choose the life of the wife I know and love over the life of the baby I've never met, and I'd possibly even go over my wife's head to do so.

 

[JayDubya]

Ultimately, I really don't like these extreme scenario discussions because the pro-abortion people always seem to operate on rhetoric about extreme cases and then generalize negatively about anti-abortion folks.

As a practical matter, the number of pregnancies that end up this dangerous are extremely rare. The number in which it is even possible to play this sort of game - i.e. save one or the other - would be a rarity amongst rarities, dependent on the offspring having adequate surfactant in his or her lungs to be viable outside the womb, in which case most (but not all) pro-abortion people already consider the unborn child to be an equal human and thus now inappropriate for being made a homicide victim.

 

[minnie616]

An interesting scenario. I have no idea how I would manage to end up said sitution, but I digress. Answer, save the babies. Assuming of coarse woman is not of capacity to make said decision. Thats what she would probably do. To presume otherwise is to go against natural instinct. I would find it more likely to be the right decision the later the term. Earlier not so much. Thats my take.

What if woman had young child/children at home?
I think that in that case the woman would chose to live so that she can be around to take care of the child/children she already has.

 

[minnie616]

Interesting logic in terms of evaluating the worth of each in the decision process.

I would save the mother UNLESS she specified otherwise as I am pro-choice - and choice means HER choice. My wife is well along on pregnancy. She is MILITANTLY pro-choice. Her pregnancy is a known high risk pregnancy. She has made it 100% clear and in writing that if that decision came, save the baby. As much as I absolutely would not want to do so and would want to veto that anyway possible, I would respect her decision if I had to ratify it.

This is not idle words from her. Her first pregnancy was also a known high risk for which a no-notice early C premie delivery was a real possibility. That was her "choice" then and it is now. That would not be my choice, but it is not my choice to make. And it SCARES ME more words than I could find to write too.

I also hope and pray that all goes well for you and yours.
I will keep you and your loved ones in my thoughts and prayers.
PLease keep us informed.

 

[Dittohead not!]

This is to question pro-lifers who claim that in total literal terms a ZEF is "a baby."

MOST people, pro-choice or pro-life, believe if the circumstance came up, a parent should sacrifice his/her life for his/her child. IE a parent should use his/her body to block an assailant's bullet from hitting his/her child, rather than holding up the child as a bullet shield.

While certainly a rare circumstance, IF a medical choice had to be made between saving the mother's life OR saving her unborn "baby" - and that decision given to you about it (the woman NOT your wife nor ZEF yours either so you are making ONLY an ethical, not personal decision) - which would you say dies - the mother or the "baby?"

I suppose a counter=part to pro-choice would be if your wife said "if it comes to it, save our baby's life, not mine" and then that actual decision came to you, could you tell the doctors "save the baby, not her?" as her choice-right? Could you let her die as her choice right vetoing your own preference?

Such a decision should be totally up to the mother, and no one else.

If it were my wife, I'd want her to be the one to live, but it wouldn't be my decision.

 

[joko104]

I also hope and pray that all goes well for you and yours.
I will keep you and your loved ones in my thoughts and prayers.
PLease keep us informed.

Thank you.

 

[wolfman24]

Over thirty years ago the NAS stated that death in HUMANS occurs when higher brain functioning ceases. Higher brain functioning in fetus's begins at around 10 weeks. IMHO R v W used this as their line in the sand in determing when the end point for abortions could occur. 1st trimester.
I support abortions in cases of rape/incest/life of the mother/ and the quality of life of the child after it is born. Accordng to Ryan so does the Reps except for the last one. I doubt it.

The reasons I support the first two should be obvious to most people. To force a woman to bring the product of her violation into this world, is inhuman, sick, warped and shows a complete lack of compassion.
The third one is my opinion. I beleive that if a fetus is threatening the life of the mother for whatever reason it should be aborted. Now after the 1st trimester this would be a judgement call on the part of the woman and her doctor and none of any body elses business.
The last one is for me a no brainer. A child who is born with a severe physical or mental disability or deformity has no quality of life. Many die before too long and that becomes an emotional burden on the parents. Others deteriorate over time which is also a severe emotional and psychological strain on the parents. The only two arguments that I see here is
1. What constitutes a severe physical and/or mental disability/deformity?
2. Can current detection methods used prior to the end of the first trimester catch all of these?

I have my own ideas as to the first question, but again this would be soley between a doctor and the women.
as to the second i know the answer is no, so again a decision would have to be made when and if it could be determined.

I do not support what I call recreational abortions. Where a woman uses abortion as a means of birth control because she does not want to take responsibility for her actions. It would probably be better is such a person was made incapable of having children at some point but that is not my decision to make.

I hear pro life people talk all the time about the right of the fetus. Ok if you want to go that route fine, but don't leave out the woman. If she MUST in your opinion have a rape baby then you should take some responsibility for her unwanted child for the womans psychological health and for grief counseling for the womans family after the woman has killed herself for not being able to bear the idea of having the child of her rapist.
You should also take some responsiblity for the unwanted physically/mentally deformed child that you mandated had to come into this world, for the care and treatment of those children who are kept. (This stuff is not cheap) as well as the care and therapy or 5h3 parents of these kids. You should also be prepared to provide grief counseling for the women who kill themselves after being forced to have their children.

You want abortion to stop? fine take responsiblity for the consequences of your actions and beliefs.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Over thirty years ago the NAS stated that death in HUMANS occurs when higher brain functioning ceases. Higher brain functioning in fetus's begins at around 10 weeks. IMHO R v W used this as their line in the sand in determing when the end point for abortions could occur. 1st trimester.
I support abortions in cases of rape/incest/life of the mother/ and the quality of life of the child after it is born. Accordng to Ryan so does the Reps except for the last one. I doubt it.

The reasons I support the first two should be obvious to most people. To force a woman to bring the product of her violation into this world, is inhuman, sick, warped and shows a complete lack of compassion.
The third one is my opinion. I beleive that if a fetus is threatening the life of the mother for whatever reason it should be aborted. Now after the 1st trimester this would be a judgement call on the part of the woman and her doctor and none of any body elses business.
The last one is for me a no brainer. A child who is born with a severe physical or mental disability or deformity has no quality of life. Many die before too long and that becomes an emotional burden on the parents. Others deteriorate over time which is also a severe emotional and psychological strain on the parents. The only two arguments that I see here is
1. What constitutes a severe physical and/or mental disability/deformity?
2. Can current detection methods used prior to the end of the first trimester catch all of these?

I have my own ideas as to the first question, but again this would be soley between a doctor and the women.
as to the second i know the answer is no, so again a decision would have to be made when and if it could be determined.

I do not support what I call recreational abortions. Where a woman uses abortion as a means of birth control because she does not want to take responsibility for her actions. It would probably be better is such a person was made incapable of having children at some point but that is not my decision to make.

I hear pro life people talk all the time about the right of the fetus. Ok if you want to go that route fine, but don't leave out the woman. If she MUST in your opinion have a rape baby then you should take some responsibility for her unwanted child for the womans psychological health and for grief counseling for the womans family after the woman has killed herself for not being able to bear the idea of having the child of her rapist.
You should also take some responsiblity for the unwanted physically/mentally deformed child that you mandated had to come into this world, for the care and treatment of those children who are kept. (This stuff is not cheap) as well as the care and therapy or 5h3 parents of these kids. You should also be prepared to provide grief counseling for the women who kill themselves after being forced to have their children.

You want abortion to stop? fine take responsiblity for the consequences of your actions and beliefs.

That sounds like a pretty reasonable stance.

Should it be imposed on everyone by force of law?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What a depressing ****ing topic - damn. The last thing I want to ever do is fantasize about such a horrible situation. And I've even been there - and I don't want to even discuss it. But let me tell you - it's a horrid situation to be in and no one can imagine how they'd really feel and act without experiencing it.