ChiefsPlanet Mobile
View Poll Results: In this scenario what would you do as a parent?
Get the abortion? 7 20.00%
Try to carry the baby to term? 21 60.00%
If yes on 1, Get it at week 12 before confirmation 4 11.43%
If yes on 1, Get it at week 16 amnio only confirmation 4 11.43%
If yes on 1, Get it week 17 to 22 with 100% confirmation 3 8.57%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll
Page 1 of 15
1 234511 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Real Talk: Abortion For or Against
Nirvana58 09:38 AM 07-08-2020
You just went to the doctor and found out you and your wife are 12 weeks along with a baby boy. However, they ran an NIPT blood test and say that you are 84% likely that the baby you are having has Edwards Syndrome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome

If you don't know what that is I linked the wiki page. Summary is this is basically the worst disease imaginable that I can think of. The average life span of children born with this is 3 to 14 days. Most babies are born still born if they even make it that far. It is even worst for male children who it seems to effect even more severely. Basically this is every parents worst nightmare.

The doctors can't 100% confirm until you receive an amnio and ultra sounds. This can be around 17 to 20 weeks along in your pregnancy. Even for a rush screening with amnio only you won't be able to get the results and make a decision on the abortion till 16 weeks if your lucky.

You can get a CVS earlier but doctors pretty much retired that for the NIPT test that you already received.

No matter your stance on abortion what do you do in this scenario? I am asking you to put yourself in the parents shoes and state your answer. This is not some hypothetical. People have to make this choice every year.

I have 2 questions for you. I will try to link the poll but never done one so we will see what happens.

Do you get an abortion or take it to delivery which most likely will be a still born or have an average life span of 3 to 14 days?

If you do decide to get an abortion when do you do it? The longer you wait the less humane it is but can you abort a child without 100% certainty it has this disease?

You can explain your reasoning or any questions in the replies.
[Reply]
Nirvana58 10:37 AM 07-08-2020
For any who answer I would love to hear the thought process or reasoning for their decision.

What was the driving force that made you chose that option?
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 10:49 AM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
For any who answer I would love to hear the thought process or reasoning for their decision.

What was the driving force that made you chose that option?
It is wrong to kill another human being unless "you have to". The fetus is another human being. Is there anything about this situation that makes killing it a "you have to" situation?
[Reply]
Randallflagg 10:59 AM 07-08-2020
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and Adolph Hitler would be so proud. 58 million babies murdered and counting.....

And yet "we" are the "shining city on a hill" - and God slowly turns his back on the country, as was predicted.
[Reply]
Jenson71 11:00 AM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
For any who answer I would love to hear the thought process or reasoning for their decision.

What was the driving force that made you chose that option?
Thereís no indication that a symptom of this disease is pain. Is that correct? If so, the decision to me is pretty simple because it is based on a bedrock principle that you donít kill a human life except in either proportionate self-defense, defense of others or just war, or in extremely rare scenarios where senseless and extreme constant pain to an irrational human can be avoided.

Thereís a chance your baby doesnít have it until confirmed, so an abortion prior to confirmation seems senseless. An abortion after confirmation may be reasonable, but still violates the principle of no killing. In the worse case scenario, your child is still born, and you have no opportunity to spend time with your child while child was alive. That is vastly superior in my beliefs than killing the child prior to birth.
[Reply]
Nirvana58 11:00 AM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
It is wrong to kill another human being unless "you have to". The fetus is another human being. Is there anything about this situation that makes killing it a "you have to" situation?
I think it is more about limiting the babies suffering. There is basically no quality of life in this scenario.
[Reply]
idrapethat 11:01 AM 07-08-2020
I put 16 weeks. I'd regret forcing a nightmare baby live in pain for any length of time when it didn't have to.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 11:02 AM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Jenson71:
Thereís no indication that a symptom of this disease is pain. Is that correct? If so, the decision to me is pretty simple because it is based on a bedrock principle that you donít kill a human life except in either proportionate self-defense, defense of others or just war, or in extremely rare scenarios where senseless and extreme constant pain to an irrational human can be avoided.

Thereís a chance your baby doesnít have it until confirmed, so an abortion prior to confirmation seems senseless. An abortion after confirmation may be reasonable, but still violates the principle of no killing. In the worse case scenario, your child is still born, and you have no opportunity to spend time with your child while child was alive. That is vastly superior in my beliefs than killing the child prior to birth.

Damn Son!! Big thumbs up! :-)
[Reply]
stevieray 11:04 AM 07-08-2020
We don't get to play God.
[Reply]
eDave 11:04 AM 07-08-2020
Planned? No.
Unplanned? Moot.











It's a joke.

You keep your child and live that life and take care of your child, as you were chosen to do and for as long as ordained. We have a member here doing it and I admire the hell out of him and his family.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 11:09 AM 07-08-2020
[QUOTE=eDave;15057187]Planned? No.
Unplanned? Moot.











It's a joke.


:-)
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 11:15 AM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
I think it is more about limiting the babies suffering. There is basically no quality of life in this scenario.
If killing another human being is the only way to alleviate suffering that human being is enduring, we have to do it?

What about full term already born babies with Edward's Syndrome? Should they be killed?
[Reply]
cosmo20002 11:23 AM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by stevieray:
We don't get to play God.
There's a can of worms.
Is keeping someone alive on life-sustaining machines "playing god?"
Removing a failing organ and replacing it with a healthy donor organ?
[Reply]
idrapethat 11:35 AM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
If killing another human being is the only way to alleviate suffering that human being is enduring, we have to do it?
This is a bad argument. The baby would have zero good moments in its life to offset the suffering, and you know that's how it will be before it's born. There should be a difference between being a compassionate conservative and being cruel.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 11:37 AM 07-08-2020
Originally Posted by idrapethat:
This is a bad argument. The baby would have zero good moments in its life to offset the suffering, and you know that's how it will be before it's born.
His question/argument is not a bad one. It's a perfectly valid question/argument.
[Reply]
Page 1 of 15
1 234511 > Last »
Up