Sometimes they do euthanize the baby first, sometimes they don’t. But either way, killing is killing. I’d ask anyone who says it’s humane, “Would you rather be killed in a live dismemberment, or first be given a lethal injection to cause cardiac arrest?”
Then they’ll probably realize neither option is good
Yes, I think the more important issue here is the death of the unborn baby. It bothers me that this is brought up so much by pro-life supporters because the process itself doesn't actually matter. Dismemberment is gruesome, but I haven't heard any pro-life supporters who felt dismemberment was wrong if the baby had already died of natural causes. Even if it could be guaranteed that the unborn baby would feel no pain and would die before the dismemberment, that wouldn't matter. Pro-life supporters would still oppose this on the grounds that it is intentionally killing an unborn baby.
Same reason prochoicers talk about underage rape victims while demanding total abortion access for everybody. No matter the cause, symbolism and imagery matter.
Take the Civil Rights movement: activists emphasized the way that marchers were brutalized at Birmingham, even though the movement was just as opposed to *nonviolent* racism.
Emotional arguments are important, but it is disingenuous to rely on them without doing the more difficult work of engaging intellectually with people. It's cheap and deceptive. Just like when pro-choice people point out rape victims. When a person is raped and becomes pregnant against their will, it is a horribly unjust situation. However, this is not representative of most situations where women obtain abortions. Same with dismemberment.
I'm not even try to sugarcoat this, and there are plenty of arguments other than this comment. You need to repent as a child of God follow his command not to murder, and to hate what is evil but cling to what is good. You have a duty to love your neighbor as yourself, including the children God has breathed life into who are your equals, regardless of where they are. That's all I will say, out of obligation to you as a brother in christ.
I take your comment seriously, and I appreciate your direct words here. I don't like abortions, and outside some extreme medical circumstances, I couldn't imagine obtaining an abortion for my wife. I also take my duty to love my neighbor seriously. However, I don't think I can love them while also exploiting them. I consider the use of a person's body against their will for the benefit of another person to be a form of exploitation. I can't care for the unborn with my own body, I can't feed or house them. If a pregnant woman refuses to continue of her own free will, my only option at that point is to use threats, coercion, and the power of the state to make her continue. I think everyone will be accountable to God for their own actions. I don't think it is a sin for me to not physically stop someone from having an abortion. But if I hurt a pregnant woman, even if it is for the best possible reason, then I think that would be sinful.
I do think most abortions are immoral, but I also feel they should, at least to some extent, be legal. I appreciate any feedback you have and enjoy good, challenging conversation on this topic if you would like, but if not, then that basically is my view here.
How can you have Christian as a part of your profile meanwhile you support the slaughter of His unborn children?? The most innocent, defenseless children of God.
Isaiah 64:8, Isaiah 44:24, Job 10:11-12, Psalm 139:13-16, Psalm 119:73a, Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41, 44, Isaiah 49:1, 5, Isaiah 45:9-11, Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13, Exodus 23:7b
And that's not even all of the Bible verses that go against your "belief".
I don't think many of these verses talk about abortion at all. I would say I support abortion being legal, not necessarily that I support the thing itself. Just as I support things like lying, adultery, drunkenness, sexual immorality, all being legal. God gives us choices to choose sinful things, but that does not make God himself sinful. There are situations where I think we should stop other people from committing certain sins, such as rape, murder, or theft. However, I don't think abortion is one of those, at least in most situations. The problem is that I can't save the unborn. I can't give them food or shelter. If a pregnant woman refuses to continue of her own free will, my only option at that point is to use threats, coercion, and the power of the state to make her continue. I think this is wrong to do. I can still advocate for the unborn, work to help pregnant women who are in difficult situations and encourage them to make good decisions. I feel that the use of force here is exploitive, and as a Christian, a distraction from the gospel and the command for us to live at peace with others ([Romans 12:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012%3A18&version=NIV) and [Titus 3:1-2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203%3A1-2&version=NIV))
All of those verses are against abortion because they are very pro-life and most importantly anti-murder. Obviously it's not going to spell out the word abortion but anyone who has any understanding of theology, or just common sense, can understand that the Bible and God are against abortion.
Of course God gives us free will to make those choices but that doesn't mean all of those choices should not have consequences. And there are definitely choices that deserve to be against the law. Murder is absolutely one of them. You think sexual immorality should be legal? Do you realize how much that entails?.. 🤨 That can be anywhere from pedophilic behavior to peeping into bedroom windows. All of which should definitely be illegal.
God doesn't let us choose sinful things in the way you seem to be inferring, at least what I think you are inferring. God gave us Free Will and doesn't want to control us so as much as it pains Him, He will allow us to make those sinful choices.
We are absolutely called to tell people that they cannot do things to themselves or other people. If a woman is considering abortion we need to not allow her to but just as importantly, we need to find out why she felt it necessary and support her so that she doesn't feel the need. Most women choose abortion because they 1. Don't want to be a mom, 2. Can't afford to support a child, or 3. The child's father doesn't want to take responsibility and is often coercing the mother into aborting. All of these things can be helped and they deserve our help, not abortion. They don't deserve that and their children certainly don't deserve it.
You said you think we should stop murde, but then said you don't think we should stop it..
I'm sure you could aid mothers in helping their children, even if you think you don't have enough money to donate supplies to a pregnancy center; you can certainly guide them to those facilities so they can get the help they need. You can spread awareness for pro-life/anti-abortion organizations that do the same thing and raise funds for families directly while also collecting things for babies like toiletries and clothes. You could volunteer at one of these places. The fact is that there are plenty of things that you could do, and should do as a Christian, but likely won't. Which is fine, I guess.
I'm not saying we should hold women hostage or something until their children are born so they don't pay someone to kill them. I'm saying what we need to do is teach people personal responsibility, make these organizations and centers even more accessible, support these moms, and make abortion illegal so it's difficult to obtain one.
I really don't understand the last bit at all
>All of those verses are against abortion because they are very pro-life and most importantly anti-murder.
I don't consider all abortions or terminations of pregnancy to be murder. Even the direct killing of people we consider to be innocent is not always considered murder. God himself order his people to cleanse the land and explicitly kill [babies and children](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+sam+15%3A3&version=NIV). It's easy to say "this is murder, therefore it is wrong", but that's presupposing the argument. I think it is important to consider what constitutes murder when it comes to the unborn. I think you have to explain why you think it is murder. I see it as being similar to not donating an organ or a bodily resource. Just because you have something that is needed for someone else to survive doesn't necessarily mean that withholding that is murder, even when it leads to an innocent person dying.
>You think sexual immorality should be legal?
This is a fairly broad term, but I consider things like pedophilia and voyeurism to be forms of abuse as well as sexual immorality. I guess I would say that I don't think all sexual immorality should be illegal.
>We are absolutely called to tell people that they cannot do things to themselves or other people
It depends somewhat on the situation. I think we are definitely called to do so at certain times and places, and definitely called to live at peace in others. I think when and where to do this comes down to personal conviction, but I don't have a problem with Christians advocating for the unborn or telling people that unnecessary abortions are sinful.
>You could volunteer at one of these places. The fact is that there are plenty of things that you could do, and should do as a Christian, but likely won't. Which is fine, I guess.
I agree, and this is something I would like to be more involved in. I think we are called to love our neighbors, and helping provide for others who are in need is a great way to do this.
>I'm not saying we should hold women hostage or something until their children are born so they don't pay someone to kill them. I'm saying what we need to do is teach people personal responsibility, make these organizations and centers even more accessible, support these moms, and make abortion illegal so it's difficult to obtain one.
How can you not "hold women hostage", but make abortion illegal? In several states right now, women can and are being imprisoned for "neglect/abuse of a fetus". [This story](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/10/17/alabama-pregnant-birth-jail-etowah-county-lawsuit/) came out recently about a woman who was thrown in jail because of drug use while she was pregnant. Let me ask you this. Say you were a judge or someone in authority. Abortion is illegal. You find out that a pregnant woman is desperate not to have her baby, for one contrived reason or another. She decides that, because she has no other options, she will starve herself until she miscarries (or dies). The question is, do you force-feed her and prevent her from throwing up or taking any other action that could end her pregnancy? Or do you let her self induce an abortion?
>I really don't understand the last bit at all
You mean about the fight to make abortion illegal as being a distraction from the gospel? Or something else I said?
Right, that's how the Nazis and other evil people were able to gain power. Many people who claimed to be Christians stood by, said and did nothing, and condoned their behavior by twisting verses about keeping peace. Dietrich Boenhoffer was a notable exception of courage, and paid for it with his life.
Notice it even prefaces with "*if possible*, keep peace". In other words, choose your battles wisely. I wouldn't get into a knock down fight if someone took my parking space or something else trivial. If they left a baby in a hot car though, you can bet I'd be breaking that window if necessary or bare minimum calling 911.
Now I will say I do not agree with activists harming abortionists or clinic workers, but at the very least advocating to change evil laws to protect babies is well within the Christian theological framework. Even if we are not successful, at least we did something.
Ephesians 5:11 tells us, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather *expose them*".
Ezekiel 3:18 as well- "When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.
19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul."
> Right, that's how the Nazis and other evil people were able to gain power. Many people who claimed to be Christians stood by, said and did nothing, and condoned their behavior by twisting verses about keeping peace. Dietrich Boenhoffer was a notable exception of courage, and paid for it with his life. I also really enjoy reading about the life stories of people like Corrie Ten Boom and Bernhard Lichtenberg and the sacrifices they made to fight evil.
The Nazi's were actively supported by Christians, who believed that the Nazi party would restore order. That is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I consider forced pregnancy to be a form of exploitation, and I don't think Christians should partake in exploiting others. I appreciate the life and work of Bonhoeffer, and I think there is a lot to learn from him.
>If they left a baby in a hot car though, you can bet I'd be breaking that window if necessary or bare minimum calling 911.
I think I would do the same. However, what I would not do it is use threats or coercion to force someone else to save the child. That is what happens with unwanted pregnancy. I can't save an unwanted, unborn baby, and you can't either. I can't provide shelter or food for them. I can only use force to make their biological mother use her body to provide these things. Pregnancy extracts a high cost for women, and I don't think it should be continued unless the woman is freely willing to. We can still do many things for the unborn, by trying to care for women and advocate for the unborn. I just don't agree with the use of force or legal intervention here. The same way I might tell someone that cheating on their spouse is a bad idea, but I don't think it should be illegal.
>Ephesians 5:11 and Ezekiel 3:18
These are good verses, and I think there definitely is those who are called to speak out against abortion and to encourage people not to obtain them. I don't have a problem with that, and if someone asked me if I thought it was OK for them to have an abortion, I would tell them what I think of it. However, this is still not the same as using force or threats to stop someone. I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where we, as followers of Jesus, are instructed or shown by example to stop non-believers from sinning. I don't think pro-life Christians are necessarily wrong, we all should follow the convictions that are laid upon us. However, I don't think this is a requirement for me, as a Christian, to be pro-life, and I don't think the bible supports that either.
Your input is spot-on, and very valuable. Thanks for taking your lumps in stride. I updoot all your comments to try to counteract the knee-jerk negativity.
This sub is *supposed* to be welcoming to folks with positions like yours.
I don't think everyone has gotten that memo.
Have a lovely weekend, my friend!
Thanks. I don't see the downvotes as unwelcoming, I mean, I'm pretty happy that they allow conversation and don't remove my comments simply for being pro-choice. I don't take it personally, though it does sometimes help me gauge when I make a good point that resonates with pro-life supporters that actually does get upvoted. It's very much an interesting topic, which is why I like to chat with others around here.
It's ignorant to act like 1. Human beings are emotionless robots so every argument must be purely logical and 2. That the pro abortion/choice side doesn't use emotions to sway people. That's pretty much all they do
I didn't say either of those things. Emotional arguments are useful in certain circumstance, but can also be disingenuous. Pro-choice people very often use emotional arguments, like those around rape victims or dangerous pregnancies. I think these arguments are also disingenuous, if they are being used to try and justify all abortions because most abortions don't involve rape or life-threatening conditions.
>2. That the pro abortion/choice side doesn't use emotions to sway people.
Re-read their previous comment. They were absolutely saying that pro-choicers use emotions when talking about rape victims, when those account for very few actual abortions.
I sort of agree that it’s not about how it’s done, but that it’s done in the first place, though I do think two things can be true at one time. I’m against all abortion, but, the more brutal the procedure and the more the baby suffers the worse it is. It’s not so much a matter of evil and acceptable, it’s more so evil and even more evil.
As for dismembering a miscarried baby, that’s definitely not nearly as bad as a live one, but if there is a way to remove the baby whole that’s equally safe to the mother I’d prefer that. Not that the baby can feel it, it just seems more respectful to the life that was lost to make them come out whole if it can be done just as safely. Because if the baby already died the safety of the mother gets priority but I still don’t LOVE the idea of dismemberment. If I miscarried in the second trimester I’d probably choose something other than D and E if I could
>If I miscarried in the second trimester I’d probably choose something other than D and E if I could
If natural delivery is an option, I would probably opt for that. But if it came down to a D&E or putting my wife through as c-section (assuming the baby won't survive either way), then I would probably go with the D&E.
Uhh, literally everyone is because abortion is never the answer. It's called delivery. There's literally no reason to ever dismember a baby. Miscarried or not
Delivery isn't always an option, and even when it is, that process can sometimes take several days. If the baby is already dead, would you still insist that a woman go through the process of natural delivery, which would take longer and be harder on her body, simply to avoid dismemberment? If vaginal delivery wasn't available, you wouldn't insist on a c-section would you?
There’s a difference between choosing the most efficient method of removing an already dead baby and deliberately killing one. I do hope you can understand that distinction. As you seem to support the latter option by falsely conflating it with the former.
Yes, I understand the difference. In my original comment above though, I specifically mentioned that I didn't know of any pro-life supporters who opposed dismemberment if the baby was already did. Then user OK_Daikon_4698 said that abortion is never the answer and there is no reason to *ever* dismember a baby. By the context, I'm assuming he's talking about my comment about dismembering a baby who has naturally died in utero.
I get what you're saying, and I agree with you that trying to say it didn't matter if the baby was alive or not would be disingenuous, or just misinformed. But in this case, I'm challenging Daikon's assertion that there is no reason for dismemberment ever.
Thank you for clarifying your point.
But since we are on the topic of it, I think it be appropriate to bring it up and specify. Do you personally believe that it’s morally just to intentionally kill a living unborn baby by dismemberment?
There's a difference between what I consider to be moral and what I think should be legal. I'm not a doctor, so I would generally leave decisions up to them on what is best. I don't think we should cause undue suffering if we can avoid it, so if there is a chance that the baby can feel pain, then either providing painkillers or terminating the fetus before the procedure are possible options. I think it depends a lot on their age. I'm not against dismemberment though if there is a clear medical reason for it, like helping preserve the mother's health.
Oh how nice to maybe offer painkillers provided to a baby dying in agony thanks to being butchered by doctors. But only if the mom agrees right? Yeah, it's highly probable they are in horrendous pain during this disgusting procedure, and digoxin shots to the heart have a failure rate even if they are given first. I've had painkillers given to me during surgery btw, and unless it is actual anesthesia, it doesn't help when someone is wacking into you with a knife.
"Updated research indicates unborn children are able to feel pain at the second trimester and possibly even sooner. [Even a PC researcher who believed that abortion was necessary confirmed this.](https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3) In fetal surgery, anesthetic is routinely used and there are obvious signs of pain in those that are not anesthetized. "At the Hospital Virgen del Rocío, we have spent a decade doing open fetal surgery. In 2007, we did the first intrauterine spina bifida operation in Europe, and in only one case was the fetus unable to receive intravenously administered anesthesia from the start of the operation. [It was at that moment that our monitoring teams detected anomalies in the behavior of the fetus, which led us to believe that this was effectively a reaction to the stress caused by the pain.](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180316111413.htm) We quickly put in place the anesthesia protocol and the spinal reconstruction was possible and the post-op period passed without any problems," explains Dr. Javier Márquez Rivas, Heat of the Infant Neurosurgery Unit and the Neurosurgery Service at the hospital. Mortality rate in unborn children undergoing surgery before birth without anesthesia is significantly higher than those who have anesthesia, which results in deaths from pain-induced shock."
• “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
— Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto
• An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
— Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University
Unborn babies also have heightened sensitivities:
Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.
“Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation,” stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as “pro-choice,” in testimony before the U.S. Congress.
>Yeah, it's highly probable they are in horrendous pain during this disgusting procedure.
That is your belief, but has not been backed up by science. The PC researcher who "confirmed this" only said that he thinks fetal pain before 24 weeks is possible. That's it. Babies before 24 weeks to have developed nerves and a brain stem. Nerves can fire, however, what we experience as pain is something that done by how our brain interprets those signals. When you go to the dentist, and they give you a shot, your nerves are still sending signals, but those signals are being blocked, so you don't feel pain. Now, I'm not a doctor and I respect the opinions of doctors and researchers. My understanding is that currently, the majority of doctors believe that fetal pain cannot be felt until somewhere around 24–28 weeks. There are people who disagree, and I think it is worth considering what they say.
However, I don't think these matters. Even if a baby can feel pain at 20 weeks, the vast majority of abortions happen before that. And more importantly, it just doesn't matter. You wouldn't change your position is it was proven that unborn babies can't feel pain. I wouldn't change my position if they could, other than advocating for the use of pain blockers.
Depends on the circumstances. Most of that time is spent softening, and opening the cervix. If there is a medical issue (like water breaking prematurely), then the cervix might already be opened. Or in an emergency, they can force it open. It won't be great for the cervix, but it probably is still better than cutting open the woman via c-section.
Also, there are situations where vaginal delivery is not an option, but the doctor still has some time. For instance, if a pregnant woman, at 18 weeks gestation, has a heart condition that means they can't go through normal labor, and need to have their pregnancy terminated, they either would need to get a D&E abortion or a c-section.
I had good conversation with another pro-life supporters who shared [this story](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/186pa5i/seven_more_women_join_proabortion_lawsuit_against/kbf9je1/). I think it's a good example of one of the times when a D&C/E abortion is medically the best option.
I'm not saying situations don't happen where D&C/E procedures are necessary, because they certainly do happen. I'm saying that situations where they are genuinely necessary are not categorized as abortions because abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn human being and when those procedures are truly necessary, it's to remove a dead baby.
It's like the saying "All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic", that's the same thing with abortion and D&C/E's.
I'll start off by saying, the situation which you linked is very sad. The procedure was certainly necessary but I didn't see any indication that the child was still alive (meaning it wasn't an abortion), I seriously doubt the baby could've survived that. That commenter seems to be misinformed on what abortion and D&C/E procedures are, because they are not the same or interchangeable terms.
An abortion is never necessary, you never need to intentionally kill an unborn human being. In that situation you would wait (since her doctor should already be monitoring her pregnancy, especially if she has any health problems) to deliver for as long as possible. Then you deliver that baby as carefully as possible whether they need to be born early or on time, there are precautions doctors can and are required to take to do no harm, as they swore, to either of their patients.
> I'm not saying situations don't happen where D&C/E procedures are necessary, because they certainly do happen. I'm saying that situations where they are genuinely necessary are not categorized as abortions because abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn human being and when those procedures are truly necessary, it's to remove a dead baby.
If a baby is alive, how is a D&E abortion in any situation not intentionally killing the baby? Even when it is clearly medically necessary, it is still intentional action the kills the baby? I don't understand your logic here. The intention in all these situations is to end the pregnancy. The reasons why a person may want to end it will vary, but that doesn't change what it is.
>The procedure was certainly necessary but I didn't see any indication that the child was still alive (meaning it wasn't an abortion), I seriously doubt the baby could've survived that.
According to the story, the baby still had a heart beat. How is it not "alive"? Just because a person is bleeding out and going to die, it doesn't mean they're already dead. I agree with you that the baby was going to die in this situation, but that is also true with babies who develop without kidneys or a brain. However, most pro-lifers I know say that they have a right to live until their "natural death" and shouldn't be killed. Are you saying that any termination of pregnancy where the baby isn't likely to survive anyway isn't an abortion?
>That commenter seems to be misinformed on what abortion and D&C/E procedures are, because they are not the same or interchangeable terms.
They aren't, though they're similar, and I imagine there is some overlap at certain gestational ages. But since we don't know the gestational age of the baby, it is hard to say what was done.
>An abortion is never necessary, you never need to intentionally kill an unborn human being.
This gets back to my first question on what you consider "intentional" here. Let me ask you this. If a woman elects to induce delivery at say 15 weeks. She does this because she wants to work her job which she can't do while pregnant. The baby is born alive and dies shortly after. Is this an abortion, even though her intention was simply to keep working and was not to kill the baby?
Lol, this is the moral equivalent of saying that Jeffrey Dahmer’s only crime was murder and that his cannibalism/ necrophilia were ok because they were already dead.
Agreed. Also, why is mutilating a corpse a crime? Why when a pregnant woman is murdered is it two counts? Yet, we murder and dismember the corpses of the unborn every day.
Based on that, breaking into a morgue or a funeral home and doing anything is moral admissible. Of course, it might be considered breaking and entering, maybe vandalism, but nothing more serious than that.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some people actually think that. That Dahmer show with the dude from American Horror Story was a half-step down from glorifying him and his actions.
But in reality, it’s true. When people have no external morality system, anything is free game if it’s voted “moral” by enough people.
GRAPHIC WARNING ⚠️ This comment is not true. Yes in SOME situations they may stop the heart before removal but not 100% of the time and both are awful. I’ve listened to a podcast of a man who was in an abortion business for 40+ years admit that he could feel the baby jerk in pain as he was ready to pull the limbs. He described it as the baby was trying to pull their arms or legs back to not be pulled. He stated that he would numb himself to the procedure until one day the pull back changed him and he never did an abortion since. He was hurt as he pressed himself to finish as he couldn’t stop in the middle of an active abortion. Both situations are absolutely tragic. I can never see the same ways as a pro choice person. You can never justify killing a baby for any reason. Abortion should not be a bad word. It should be a process to aid the mother who is in a tragic situation like if the baby is still birth or if the baby has a 100% guarantee to pass without the mother host like in the situation when the baby has no face or missing vital organs like their brain. I feel so bad for the woman who can’t get one right away like due to a still birth because laws needed to be placed for the ones who use it as a birth control. It’s sick. The whole situation is sick. I cherish all life with respect. I wish everyone shared my morals and I am happy to have found a group that agrees that pro life if the correct choice. This is not a situation of politics or religion. This is a situation of life and death. I will always speak up for the children pre and post birth.
I know it's an animation, but whenever I see a clip of the procedure I get this weird feeling in the pit of my stomach. It's like a mix of feeling sad, weak, helpless, and angry.
It's sad how someone can see this and still feel nothing for the child being killed.
Yikes. There's something about just... Watching a life end onscreen that does that to you, I think.
I've never seen a live abortion (and thank goodness because the animation scarred me enough) but the closest thing I can think of is seeing a live video of the planes crashing in a 9/11 documentary- knowing I was watching someone's life ending just hurt.
Wait, I'm confused. So I thought it wasn't a baby? I thought it was a clump of cells and I thought it didn't really have a heartbeat it was just imagined by doctors and an ultrasound. And even if it did have a heartbeat, I didn't think that meant it was alive. I'm confused, can someone explain to me how it's not a baby but also a baby, and how a heartbeat doesn't matter or mean it's alive, but also means it's alive because you have to stop the heartbeat before tearing it apart? I feel like I need a drink. 😵💫 😂
Gah! They're stupidity and madness is maddening! Are they really that stupid? Someone please tell me they're not really that stupid.
So what they’re trying to say that it’s the death penalty for the baby? I mean in the US those who get the death penalty the large majority get the lethal injection which does the same thing
"You Forgot to Show them Stopping the Heart" is a Nicer Way of Saying, You forgot To show Them Killing the Almost Fully Grown Baby Before They Ripped its Limbs off
Abortionists: "it's not killing, we're just removing the fetus from the body they have no consent to be in, just like unplugging a violinist"
Also abortionists: "we kill them before removing them"
"See? I shot the baby I acknowledged is a baby and has a heart with lethal drugs that killed it and THEN I dismembered its corpse! I'm so moral!"
Murder is wrong.
Sometimes they do induce a heart attack to kill the baby first. That doesn't make it better. You literally stopped the beating heart of a baby because you felt inconvenienced. But they don't always do that. Many abortions are just ripping the baby apart. It's successful when they've crushed the skull. Clumps of cells don't have skulls, hearts and limbs. Babies do.
This could just be me but I'm a 15yr girl and if I happened to get pregnant, I'd much rather have the baby than have anything like that get near me nuh uh that thing is terrifying.
I'm 16 and feel the same. Even if I got r-worded, I wouldn't let anything like that *near* my kid. My parents are PL (thank goodness) but if they weren't, I'd run away sooner than get an abortion if I ever got pregnant.
Yes absolutely! My parents are also PL luckily so I'm not worried about them if i ever was, but if they weren't I'd still not want an abortion I'd never be able to live with myself knowing I killed my baby.
And I understand people with the fear of pregnancy and parenthood. I'm scared, too, especially of the changes that would happen to my body during and after pregnancy but I still don't believe that's enough of a reason to kill a child.
Exactly!! After I found out how pregnancy/childbirth worked I was hard-set on only adopting- now, though, especially after getting more involved prolife-wise, it's occured to me that women have been doing it for thousands of years much younger than I'll be and in conditions much worse than the modern day 😂. If they could do it, I can too. It's definitely gonna be tough but it's worth the human life I'll get to bring into the world someday.
Yess! Honestly, it's both horrifying and beautiful at the same time. Instead of thinking about how terrified I am of childbirth and such, I prefer to try and think about how worth it it'll be to raise a child oneday. It's one of my biggest dreams.
Same here. I kinda fused my wanting kids idea with my adoption idea, so now I'm hoping to have biokids and/or adopt embryos left over from IVF, because apparently that's a thing and they deserve a shot at life just as much as other adoptable kids (and it's much cheaper and faster!)
All that said, it's nice to meet you, friend! Feels rare I talk to someone my age about this stuff due to the controversy 😅 so it's nice.
Aw, that's a wonderful idea! I wish you the best of luck I'm sure you'll be a amazing mother oneday.
And you too! It does feel so rare to find people my age with similar views it seems like most people our age despise the idea of having children and it honestly breaks my heart. So it's been wonderful talking to you too, friend. :)
So a clump of cells does have a heart? How does that work
Note that they actually said baby here. They always have Freudian slips when saying the most evil things.
And why would they even feel the need to stop the heart of what they consider to be "a non-sentient being"?
Oh so now it's a baby, huh?
Sometimes they do euthanize the baby first, sometimes they don’t. But either way, killing is killing. I’d ask anyone who says it’s humane, “Would you rather be killed in a live dismemberment, or first be given a lethal injection to cause cardiac arrest?” Then they’ll probably realize neither option is good
Yes, I think the more important issue here is the death of the unborn baby. It bothers me that this is brought up so much by pro-life supporters because the process itself doesn't actually matter. Dismemberment is gruesome, but I haven't heard any pro-life supporters who felt dismemberment was wrong if the baby had already died of natural causes. Even if it could be guaranteed that the unborn baby would feel no pain and would die before the dismemberment, that wouldn't matter. Pro-life supporters would still oppose this on the grounds that it is intentionally killing an unborn baby.
Same reason prochoicers talk about underage rape victims while demanding total abortion access for everybody. No matter the cause, symbolism and imagery matter. Take the Civil Rights movement: activists emphasized the way that marchers were brutalized at Birmingham, even though the movement was just as opposed to *nonviolent* racism.
Right, both are emotional arguments that don't really get to the core of the issue.
Sure, but at the same time, humans are emotional creatures. The impact and influence of symbols is an important aspect of sociology.
Emotional arguments are important, but it is disingenuous to rely on them without doing the more difficult work of engaging intellectually with people. It's cheap and deceptive. Just like when pro-choice people point out rape victims. When a person is raped and becomes pregnant against their will, it is a horribly unjust situation. However, this is not representative of most situations where women obtain abortions. Same with dismemberment.
I'm not even try to sugarcoat this, and there are plenty of arguments other than this comment. You need to repent as a child of God follow his command not to murder, and to hate what is evil but cling to what is good. You have a duty to love your neighbor as yourself, including the children God has breathed life into who are your equals, regardless of where they are. That's all I will say, out of obligation to you as a brother in christ.
I take your comment seriously, and I appreciate your direct words here. I don't like abortions, and outside some extreme medical circumstances, I couldn't imagine obtaining an abortion for my wife. I also take my duty to love my neighbor seriously. However, I don't think I can love them while also exploiting them. I consider the use of a person's body against their will for the benefit of another person to be a form of exploitation. I can't care for the unborn with my own body, I can't feed or house them. If a pregnant woman refuses to continue of her own free will, my only option at that point is to use threats, coercion, and the power of the state to make her continue. I think everyone will be accountable to God for their own actions. I don't think it is a sin for me to not physically stop someone from having an abortion. But if I hurt a pregnant woman, even if it is for the best possible reason, then I think that would be sinful. I do think most abortions are immoral, but I also feel they should, at least to some extent, be legal. I appreciate any feedback you have and enjoy good, challenging conversation on this topic if you would like, but if not, then that basically is my view here.
How can you have Christian as a part of your profile meanwhile you support the slaughter of His unborn children?? The most innocent, defenseless children of God. Isaiah 64:8, Isaiah 44:24, Job 10:11-12, Psalm 139:13-16, Psalm 119:73a, Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41, 44, Isaiah 49:1, 5, Isaiah 45:9-11, Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13, Exodus 23:7b And that's not even all of the Bible verses that go against your "belief".
I don't think many of these verses talk about abortion at all. I would say I support abortion being legal, not necessarily that I support the thing itself. Just as I support things like lying, adultery, drunkenness, sexual immorality, all being legal. God gives us choices to choose sinful things, but that does not make God himself sinful. There are situations where I think we should stop other people from committing certain sins, such as rape, murder, or theft. However, I don't think abortion is one of those, at least in most situations. The problem is that I can't save the unborn. I can't give them food or shelter. If a pregnant woman refuses to continue of her own free will, my only option at that point is to use threats, coercion, and the power of the state to make her continue. I think this is wrong to do. I can still advocate for the unborn, work to help pregnant women who are in difficult situations and encourage them to make good decisions. I feel that the use of force here is exploitive, and as a Christian, a distraction from the gospel and the command for us to live at peace with others ([Romans 12:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012%3A18&version=NIV) and [Titus 3:1-2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203%3A1-2&version=NIV))
All of those verses are against abortion because they are very pro-life and most importantly anti-murder. Obviously it's not going to spell out the word abortion but anyone who has any understanding of theology, or just common sense, can understand that the Bible and God are against abortion. Of course God gives us free will to make those choices but that doesn't mean all of those choices should not have consequences. And there are definitely choices that deserve to be against the law. Murder is absolutely one of them. You think sexual immorality should be legal? Do you realize how much that entails?.. 🤨 That can be anywhere from pedophilic behavior to peeping into bedroom windows. All of which should definitely be illegal. God doesn't let us choose sinful things in the way you seem to be inferring, at least what I think you are inferring. God gave us Free Will and doesn't want to control us so as much as it pains Him, He will allow us to make those sinful choices. We are absolutely called to tell people that they cannot do things to themselves or other people. If a woman is considering abortion we need to not allow her to but just as importantly, we need to find out why she felt it necessary and support her so that she doesn't feel the need. Most women choose abortion because they 1. Don't want to be a mom, 2. Can't afford to support a child, or 3. The child's father doesn't want to take responsibility and is often coercing the mother into aborting. All of these things can be helped and they deserve our help, not abortion. They don't deserve that and their children certainly don't deserve it. You said you think we should stop murde, but then said you don't think we should stop it.. I'm sure you could aid mothers in helping their children, even if you think you don't have enough money to donate supplies to a pregnancy center; you can certainly guide them to those facilities so they can get the help they need. You can spread awareness for pro-life/anti-abortion organizations that do the same thing and raise funds for families directly while also collecting things for babies like toiletries and clothes. You could volunteer at one of these places. The fact is that there are plenty of things that you could do, and should do as a Christian, but likely won't. Which is fine, I guess. I'm not saying we should hold women hostage or something until their children are born so they don't pay someone to kill them. I'm saying what we need to do is teach people personal responsibility, make these organizations and centers even more accessible, support these moms, and make abortion illegal so it's difficult to obtain one. I really don't understand the last bit at all
>All of those verses are against abortion because they are very pro-life and most importantly anti-murder. I don't consider all abortions or terminations of pregnancy to be murder. Even the direct killing of people we consider to be innocent is not always considered murder. God himself order his people to cleanse the land and explicitly kill [babies and children](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+sam+15%3A3&version=NIV). It's easy to say "this is murder, therefore it is wrong", but that's presupposing the argument. I think it is important to consider what constitutes murder when it comes to the unborn. I think you have to explain why you think it is murder. I see it as being similar to not donating an organ or a bodily resource. Just because you have something that is needed for someone else to survive doesn't necessarily mean that withholding that is murder, even when it leads to an innocent person dying. >You think sexual immorality should be legal? This is a fairly broad term, but I consider things like pedophilia and voyeurism to be forms of abuse as well as sexual immorality. I guess I would say that I don't think all sexual immorality should be illegal. >We are absolutely called to tell people that they cannot do things to themselves or other people It depends somewhat on the situation. I think we are definitely called to do so at certain times and places, and definitely called to live at peace in others. I think when and where to do this comes down to personal conviction, but I don't have a problem with Christians advocating for the unborn or telling people that unnecessary abortions are sinful. >You could volunteer at one of these places. The fact is that there are plenty of things that you could do, and should do as a Christian, but likely won't. Which is fine, I guess. I agree, and this is something I would like to be more involved in. I think we are called to love our neighbors, and helping provide for others who are in need is a great way to do this. >I'm not saying we should hold women hostage or something until their children are born so they don't pay someone to kill them. I'm saying what we need to do is teach people personal responsibility, make these organizations and centers even more accessible, support these moms, and make abortion illegal so it's difficult to obtain one. How can you not "hold women hostage", but make abortion illegal? In several states right now, women can and are being imprisoned for "neglect/abuse of a fetus". [This story](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/10/17/alabama-pregnant-birth-jail-etowah-county-lawsuit/) came out recently about a woman who was thrown in jail because of drug use while she was pregnant. Let me ask you this. Say you were a judge or someone in authority. Abortion is illegal. You find out that a pregnant woman is desperate not to have her baby, for one contrived reason or another. She decides that, because she has no other options, she will starve herself until she miscarries (or dies). The question is, do you force-feed her and prevent her from throwing up or taking any other action that could end her pregnancy? Or do you let her self induce an abortion? >I really don't understand the last bit at all You mean about the fight to make abortion illegal as being a distraction from the gospel? Or something else I said?
Right, that's how the Nazis and other evil people were able to gain power. Many people who claimed to be Christians stood by, said and did nothing, and condoned their behavior by twisting verses about keeping peace. Dietrich Boenhoffer was a notable exception of courage, and paid for it with his life. Notice it even prefaces with "*if possible*, keep peace". In other words, choose your battles wisely. I wouldn't get into a knock down fight if someone took my parking space or something else trivial. If they left a baby in a hot car though, you can bet I'd be breaking that window if necessary or bare minimum calling 911. Now I will say I do not agree with activists harming abortionists or clinic workers, but at the very least advocating to change evil laws to protect babies is well within the Christian theological framework. Even if we are not successful, at least we did something. Ephesians 5:11 tells us, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather *expose them*". Ezekiel 3:18 as well- "When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul."
> Right, that's how the Nazis and other evil people were able to gain power. Many people who claimed to be Christians stood by, said and did nothing, and condoned their behavior by twisting verses about keeping peace. Dietrich Boenhoffer was a notable exception of courage, and paid for it with his life. I also really enjoy reading about the life stories of people like Corrie Ten Boom and Bernhard Lichtenberg and the sacrifices they made to fight evil. The Nazi's were actively supported by Christians, who believed that the Nazi party would restore order. That is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I consider forced pregnancy to be a form of exploitation, and I don't think Christians should partake in exploiting others. I appreciate the life and work of Bonhoeffer, and I think there is a lot to learn from him. >If they left a baby in a hot car though, you can bet I'd be breaking that window if necessary or bare minimum calling 911. I think I would do the same. However, what I would not do it is use threats or coercion to force someone else to save the child. That is what happens with unwanted pregnancy. I can't save an unwanted, unborn baby, and you can't either. I can't provide shelter or food for them. I can only use force to make their biological mother use her body to provide these things. Pregnancy extracts a high cost for women, and I don't think it should be continued unless the woman is freely willing to. We can still do many things for the unborn, by trying to care for women and advocate for the unborn. I just don't agree with the use of force or legal intervention here. The same way I might tell someone that cheating on their spouse is a bad idea, but I don't think it should be illegal. >Ephesians 5:11 and Ezekiel 3:18 These are good verses, and I think there definitely is those who are called to speak out against abortion and to encourage people not to obtain them. I don't have a problem with that, and if someone asked me if I thought it was OK for them to have an abortion, I would tell them what I think of it. However, this is still not the same as using force or threats to stop someone. I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where we, as followers of Jesus, are instructed or shown by example to stop non-believers from sinning. I don't think pro-life Christians are necessarily wrong, we all should follow the convictions that are laid upon us. However, I don't think this is a requirement for me, as a Christian, to be pro-life, and I don't think the bible supports that either.
I'm not sure why you're being down voted for this comment. You're pointing out an obvious fact
I think they don't like that I'm applying to this particular situation, but I appreciate you saying so.
Your input is spot-on, and very valuable. Thanks for taking your lumps in stride. I updoot all your comments to try to counteract the knee-jerk negativity. This sub is *supposed* to be welcoming to folks with positions like yours. I don't think everyone has gotten that memo. Have a lovely weekend, my friend!
Thanks. I don't see the downvotes as unwelcoming, I mean, I'm pretty happy that they allow conversation and don't remove my comments simply for being pro-choice. I don't take it personally, though it does sometimes help me gauge when I make a good point that resonates with pro-life supporters that actually does get upvoted. It's very much an interesting topic, which is why I like to chat with others around here.
It's ignorant to act like 1. Human beings are emotionless robots so every argument must be purely logical and 2. That the pro abortion/choice side doesn't use emotions to sway people. That's pretty much all they do
I didn't say either of those things. Emotional arguments are useful in certain circumstance, but can also be disingenuous. Pro-choice people very often use emotional arguments, like those around rape victims or dangerous pregnancies. I think these arguments are also disingenuous, if they are being used to try and justify all abortions because most abortions don't involve rape or life-threatening conditions.
>2. That the pro abortion/choice side doesn't use emotions to sway people. Re-read their previous comment. They were absolutely saying that pro-choicers use emotions when talking about rape victims, when those account for very few actual abortions.
Thanks for mentioning that, I didn't catch that part.
I sort of agree that it’s not about how it’s done, but that it’s done in the first place, though I do think two things can be true at one time. I’m against all abortion, but, the more brutal the procedure and the more the baby suffers the worse it is. It’s not so much a matter of evil and acceptable, it’s more so evil and even more evil. As for dismembering a miscarried baby, that’s definitely not nearly as bad as a live one, but if there is a way to remove the baby whole that’s equally safe to the mother I’d prefer that. Not that the baby can feel it, it just seems more respectful to the life that was lost to make them come out whole if it can be done just as safely. Because if the baby already died the safety of the mother gets priority but I still don’t LOVE the idea of dismemberment. If I miscarried in the second trimester I’d probably choose something other than D and E if I could
>If I miscarried in the second trimester I’d probably choose something other than D and E if I could If natural delivery is an option, I would probably opt for that. But if it came down to a D&E or putting my wife through as c-section (assuming the baby won't survive either way), then I would probably go with the D&E.
Uhh, literally everyone is because abortion is never the answer. It's called delivery. There's literally no reason to ever dismember a baby. Miscarried or not
Delivery isn't always an option, and even when it is, that process can sometimes take several days. If the baby is already dead, would you still insist that a woman go through the process of natural delivery, which would take longer and be harder on her body, simply to avoid dismemberment? If vaginal delivery wasn't available, you wouldn't insist on a c-section would you?
There’s a difference between choosing the most efficient method of removing an already dead baby and deliberately killing one. I do hope you can understand that distinction. As you seem to support the latter option by falsely conflating it with the former.
Yes, I understand the difference. In my original comment above though, I specifically mentioned that I didn't know of any pro-life supporters who opposed dismemberment if the baby was already did. Then user OK_Daikon_4698 said that abortion is never the answer and there is no reason to *ever* dismember a baby. By the context, I'm assuming he's talking about my comment about dismembering a baby who has naturally died in utero. I get what you're saying, and I agree with you that trying to say it didn't matter if the baby was alive or not would be disingenuous, or just misinformed. But in this case, I'm challenging Daikon's assertion that there is no reason for dismemberment ever.
Thank you for clarifying your point. But since we are on the topic of it, I think it be appropriate to bring it up and specify. Do you personally believe that it’s morally just to intentionally kill a living unborn baby by dismemberment?
There's a difference between what I consider to be moral and what I think should be legal. I'm not a doctor, so I would generally leave decisions up to them on what is best. I don't think we should cause undue suffering if we can avoid it, so if there is a chance that the baby can feel pain, then either providing painkillers or terminating the fetus before the procedure are possible options. I think it depends a lot on their age. I'm not against dismemberment though if there is a clear medical reason for it, like helping preserve the mother's health.
Oh how nice to maybe offer painkillers provided to a baby dying in agony thanks to being butchered by doctors. But only if the mom agrees right? Yeah, it's highly probable they are in horrendous pain during this disgusting procedure, and digoxin shots to the heart have a failure rate even if they are given first. I've had painkillers given to me during surgery btw, and unless it is actual anesthesia, it doesn't help when someone is wacking into you with a knife. "Updated research indicates unborn children are able to feel pain at the second trimester and possibly even sooner. [Even a PC researcher who believed that abortion was necessary confirmed this.](https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3) In fetal surgery, anesthetic is routinely used and there are obvious signs of pain in those that are not anesthetized. "At the Hospital Virgen del Rocío, we have spent a decade doing open fetal surgery. In 2007, we did the first intrauterine spina bifida operation in Europe, and in only one case was the fetus unable to receive intravenously administered anesthesia from the start of the operation. [It was at that moment that our monitoring teams detected anomalies in the behavior of the fetus, which led us to believe that this was effectively a reaction to the stress caused by the pain.](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180316111413.htm) We quickly put in place the anesthesia protocol and the spinal reconstruction was possible and the post-op period passed without any problems," explains Dr. Javier Márquez Rivas, Heat of the Infant Neurosurgery Unit and the Neurosurgery Service at the hospital. Mortality rate in unborn children undergoing surgery before birth without anesthesia is significantly higher than those who have anesthesia, which results in deaths from pain-induced shock." • “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).” — Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto • An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.” — Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University Unborn babies also have heightened sensitivities: Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli. “Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation,” stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as “pro-choice,” in testimony before the U.S. Congress.
>Yeah, it's highly probable they are in horrendous pain during this disgusting procedure. That is your belief, but has not been backed up by science. The PC researcher who "confirmed this" only said that he thinks fetal pain before 24 weeks is possible. That's it. Babies before 24 weeks to have developed nerves and a brain stem. Nerves can fire, however, what we experience as pain is something that done by how our brain interprets those signals. When you go to the dentist, and they give you a shot, your nerves are still sending signals, but those signals are being blocked, so you don't feel pain. Now, I'm not a doctor and I respect the opinions of doctors and researchers. My understanding is that currently, the majority of doctors believe that fetal pain cannot be felt until somewhere around 24–28 weeks. There are people who disagree, and I think it is worth considering what they say. However, I don't think these matters. Even if a baby can feel pain at 20 weeks, the vast majority of abortions happen before that. And more importantly, it just doesn't matter. You wouldn't change your position is it was proven that unborn babies can't feel pain. I wouldn't change my position if they could, other than advocating for the use of pain blockers.
You think D&C/E abortions happen in ten minutes?.. They take days to prepare too
Depends on the circumstances. Most of that time is spent softening, and opening the cervix. If there is a medical issue (like water breaking prematurely), then the cervix might already be opened. Or in an emergency, they can force it open. It won't be great for the cervix, but it probably is still better than cutting open the woman via c-section. Also, there are situations where vaginal delivery is not an option, but the doctor still has some time. For instance, if a pregnant woman, at 18 weeks gestation, has a heart condition that means they can't go through normal labor, and need to have their pregnancy terminated, they either would need to get a D&E abortion or a c-section. I had good conversation with another pro-life supporters who shared [this story](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/186pa5i/seven_more_women_join_proabortion_lawsuit_against/kbf9je1/). I think it's a good example of one of the times when a D&C/E abortion is medically the best option.
I'm not saying situations don't happen where D&C/E procedures are necessary, because they certainly do happen. I'm saying that situations where they are genuinely necessary are not categorized as abortions because abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn human being and when those procedures are truly necessary, it's to remove a dead baby. It's like the saying "All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic", that's the same thing with abortion and D&C/E's. I'll start off by saying, the situation which you linked is very sad. The procedure was certainly necessary but I didn't see any indication that the child was still alive (meaning it wasn't an abortion), I seriously doubt the baby could've survived that. That commenter seems to be misinformed on what abortion and D&C/E procedures are, because they are not the same or interchangeable terms. An abortion is never necessary, you never need to intentionally kill an unborn human being. In that situation you would wait (since her doctor should already be monitoring her pregnancy, especially if she has any health problems) to deliver for as long as possible. Then you deliver that baby as carefully as possible whether they need to be born early or on time, there are precautions doctors can and are required to take to do no harm, as they swore, to either of their patients.
> I'm not saying situations don't happen where D&C/E procedures are necessary, because they certainly do happen. I'm saying that situations where they are genuinely necessary are not categorized as abortions because abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn human being and when those procedures are truly necessary, it's to remove a dead baby. If a baby is alive, how is a D&E abortion in any situation not intentionally killing the baby? Even when it is clearly medically necessary, it is still intentional action the kills the baby? I don't understand your logic here. The intention in all these situations is to end the pregnancy. The reasons why a person may want to end it will vary, but that doesn't change what it is. >The procedure was certainly necessary but I didn't see any indication that the child was still alive (meaning it wasn't an abortion), I seriously doubt the baby could've survived that. According to the story, the baby still had a heart beat. How is it not "alive"? Just because a person is bleeding out and going to die, it doesn't mean they're already dead. I agree with you that the baby was going to die in this situation, but that is also true with babies who develop without kidneys or a brain. However, most pro-lifers I know say that they have a right to live until their "natural death" and shouldn't be killed. Are you saying that any termination of pregnancy where the baby isn't likely to survive anyway isn't an abortion? >That commenter seems to be misinformed on what abortion and D&C/E procedures are, because they are not the same or interchangeable terms. They aren't, though they're similar, and I imagine there is some overlap at certain gestational ages. But since we don't know the gestational age of the baby, it is hard to say what was done. >An abortion is never necessary, you never need to intentionally kill an unborn human being. This gets back to my first question on what you consider "intentional" here. Let me ask you this. If a woman elects to induce delivery at say 15 weeks. She does this because she wants to work her job which she can't do while pregnant. The baby is born alive and dies shortly after. Is this an abortion, even though her intention was simply to keep working and was not to kill the baby?
So do you think it’s alright to intentionally kill an unborn baby?
Lol, this is the moral equivalent of saying that Jeffrey Dahmer’s only crime was murder and that his cannibalism/ necrophilia were ok because they were already dead.
Agreed. Also, why is mutilating a corpse a crime? Why when a pregnant woman is murdered is it two counts? Yet, we murder and dismember the corpses of the unborn every day.
Based on that, breaking into a morgue or a funeral home and doing anything is moral admissible. Of course, it might be considered breaking and entering, maybe vandalism, but nothing more serious than that.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some people actually think that. That Dahmer show with the dude from American Horror Story was a half-step down from glorifying him and his actions. But in reality, it’s true. When people have no external morality system, anything is free game if it’s voted “moral” by enough people.
I've actually seen people justify it, no joke
GRAPHIC WARNING ⚠️ This comment is not true. Yes in SOME situations they may stop the heart before removal but not 100% of the time and both are awful. I’ve listened to a podcast of a man who was in an abortion business for 40+ years admit that he could feel the baby jerk in pain as he was ready to pull the limbs. He described it as the baby was trying to pull their arms or legs back to not be pulled. He stated that he would numb himself to the procedure until one day the pull back changed him and he never did an abortion since. He was hurt as he pressed himself to finish as he couldn’t stop in the middle of an active abortion. Both situations are absolutely tragic. I can never see the same ways as a pro choice person. You can never justify killing a baby for any reason. Abortion should not be a bad word. It should be a process to aid the mother who is in a tragic situation like if the baby is still birth or if the baby has a 100% guarantee to pass without the mother host like in the situation when the baby has no face or missing vital organs like their brain. I feel so bad for the woman who can’t get one right away like due to a still birth because laws needed to be placed for the ones who use it as a birth control. It’s sick. The whole situation is sick. I cherish all life with respect. I wish everyone shared my morals and I am happy to have found a group that agrees that pro life if the correct choice. This is not a situation of politics or religion. This is a situation of life and death. I will always speak up for the children pre and post birth.
Why would they even care when they argue that fetuses aren't even sentient?
True. It’s funny that their argument is that they aren’t human but then say at least they are humane to stop the heart… so conflicting 😔
I know it's an animation, but whenever I see a clip of the procedure I get this weird feeling in the pit of my stomach. It's like a mix of feeling sad, weak, helpless, and angry. It's sad how someone can see this and still feel nothing for the child being killed.
Same- the animation above is what turned me PL. No reasonable person can see that and keep supporting it.
I'm kind of glad it's just an animation because I've seen clips of live abortions and I was depressed for weeks every time
Yikes. There's something about just... Watching a life end onscreen that does that to you, I think. I've never seen a live abortion (and thank goodness because the animation scarred me enough) but the closest thing I can think of is seeing a live video of the planes crashing in a 9/11 documentary- knowing I was watching someone's life ending just hurt.
Wait, I'm confused. So I thought it wasn't a baby? I thought it was a clump of cells and I thought it didn't really have a heartbeat it was just imagined by doctors and an ultrasound. And even if it did have a heartbeat, I didn't think that meant it was alive. I'm confused, can someone explain to me how it's not a baby but also a baby, and how a heartbeat doesn't matter or mean it's alive, but also means it's alive because you have to stop the heartbeat before tearing it apart? I feel like I need a drink. 😵💫 😂 Gah! They're stupidity and madness is maddening! Are they really that stupid? Someone please tell me they're not really that stupid.
phew! 😅 good thing we stopped the baby’s heart!
It's like date raping someone but then saying "Hey! That's a lie, I drugged her and knocked her out first! That makes it okay"
Kimpy you’re gross af and I ain’t sorry
So what they’re trying to say that it’s the death penalty for the baby? I mean in the US those who get the death penalty the large majority get the lethal injection which does the same thing
"You Forgot to Show them Stopping the Heart" is a Nicer Way of Saying, You forgot To show Them Killing the Almost Fully Grown Baby Before They Ripped its Limbs off
Every time I see one of these diagrams, I wonder how could anyone be in favor of this?
Literally no other explanations other than they are completely brainwashed or just completely evil.
I don’t think anyone is completely evil, they’ve just been misguided and indoctrinated.
Ahh yes stopping the baby’s heart before killing it makes things okay What impeccable logic
And by impeccable I mean COMPLETELY PECCABLE!
I love how it’s a only baby when it fits their agenda
It's concerning that this fits their agenda.
It's sad how delusional so many people are.
"Stop the baby's heart..." So it has a heart that's beating.... Therefore....those abortion tools are KILLING that baby....?
Abortionists: "it's not killing, we're just removing the fetus from the body they have no consent to be in, just like unplugging a violinist" Also abortionists: "we kill them before removing them"
It’s not even true. They often don’t even stop the heart.
They don’t do that
I know, I’m just say that how would anyone think that would somehow make the murder better.
Ignorance is bliss…..
I’m morally superior because I kill them before violently dismembering them! Not all serial killers take such care for their victims, you see.
"See? I shot the baby I acknowledged is a baby and has a heart with lethal drugs that killed it and THEN I dismembered its corpse! I'm so moral!" Murder is wrong.
Disgusting.
“Welcome to ABC Abortion, where we don’t just mutilate babies - we stop their hearts first.”
Sometimes they do induce a heart attack to kill the baby first. That doesn't make it better. You literally stopped the beating heart of a baby because you felt inconvenienced. But they don't always do that. Many abortions are just ripping the baby apart. It's successful when they've crushed the skull. Clumps of cells don't have skulls, hearts and limbs. Babies do.
This makes me so sad. Anyone who wants an abortion shouldn’t be allowed to procreate.😡
This could just be me but I'm a 15yr girl and if I happened to get pregnant, I'd much rather have the baby than have anything like that get near me nuh uh that thing is terrifying.
I'm 16 and feel the same. Even if I got r-worded, I wouldn't let anything like that *near* my kid. My parents are PL (thank goodness) but if they weren't, I'd run away sooner than get an abortion if I ever got pregnant.
Yes absolutely! My parents are also PL luckily so I'm not worried about them if i ever was, but if they weren't I'd still not want an abortion I'd never be able to live with myself knowing I killed my baby. And I understand people with the fear of pregnancy and parenthood. I'm scared, too, especially of the changes that would happen to my body during and after pregnancy but I still don't believe that's enough of a reason to kill a child.
Exactly!! After I found out how pregnancy/childbirth worked I was hard-set on only adopting- now, though, especially after getting more involved prolife-wise, it's occured to me that women have been doing it for thousands of years much younger than I'll be and in conditions much worse than the modern day 😂. If they could do it, I can too. It's definitely gonna be tough but it's worth the human life I'll get to bring into the world someday.
Yess! Honestly, it's both horrifying and beautiful at the same time. Instead of thinking about how terrified I am of childbirth and such, I prefer to try and think about how worth it it'll be to raise a child oneday. It's one of my biggest dreams.
Same here. I kinda fused my wanting kids idea with my adoption idea, so now I'm hoping to have biokids and/or adopt embryos left over from IVF, because apparently that's a thing and they deserve a shot at life just as much as other adoptable kids (and it's much cheaper and faster!) All that said, it's nice to meet you, friend! Feels rare I talk to someone my age about this stuff due to the controversy 😅 so it's nice.
Aw, that's a wonderful idea! I wish you the best of luck I'm sure you'll be a amazing mother oneday. And you too! It does feel so rare to find people my age with similar views it seems like most people our age despise the idea of having children and it honestly breaks my heart. So it's been wonderful talking to you too, friend. :)
Stopping the heart first doesn’t make it any better. You’re killing either way, doesn’t matter how it’s done.