Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified? / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified? What if someone brought up these arguments to justify the killing of an infant: "The baby was conceived through rape" - "The infant is deformed and mentally handicapped" - "The mother's health is suffering as a result of her baby." Would anyone who endorses abortion in the womb openly justify the killing of an infant using these excuses? No, they would not. This proves that these objections are insincere and that the heart of the matter is whether the fetus is a living human. If it could be proven that the human fetus is just as alive and just as human as the infant, then these objections would not justify aborting a fetus any more than an infant. We must respond to all tragic circumstances of pregnancy from the unshakeable foundation of two indisputable premises: human life begins at conception, and it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The unborn child's right to life and liberty is given by his or her Creator, not by his or her parents or by the state. The right to life is inalienable: that is, not to be trespassed upon by another. In tragic circumstances such as rape or incest, we want to care for both the mother and her unborn baby. We want to relieve the suffering of the mother and her unborn baby. It is never right to intentionally kill an innocent person, even if it does relieve another's emotional or physical suffering. It's not up to a vote, and our obligation to submit unto divine judgments does not sway with our circumstances. We should not kill an unborn baby to alleviate the suffering of the mother any more than we should kill her infant to alleviate her suffering. Neither should we commit an abortion of a malformed fetus in order to prevent his or her suffering later in life. Being handicapped is not a capital crime. The intentional destruction of health is not compassionate and it is not healthcare, it is assault. We must not be swayed from our pro-life ethic by emotional appeals that admittedly swell our eyes with tears. Truth and compassion prevent us from this fatal compromise. We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. Politicians who herald the title "pro-life" on the campaign trail frequently tout this health exception, as well as exceptions for rape and incest, as pragmatic compromises that will not offend political moderates and not alienate the pro-life community. We do not consider this compromise consistent with pro-life Hippocratic principles at all. To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered "pro-life" at all. A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying! When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother's life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother's illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary. It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand. Public domain text. All images from Fair Use.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• abortion
• pro-life
• prolife
• abortions
• life
• anti-abortion
• pregnancy
• pregnant
• pro
• choice
• ectopic
• fetus
• pro-choice
• prochoice
• video
• rare
• cases

[OhaiMegazine]

Okay; if you people want to start counting abortion as murder, then you should count mothers who smoke and drink while carrying as child abuse and they should get charged with that as well, but thats not likely to happen is it? Nooo thats never a big deal even though it endangeres the baby's life just as much. Or mothers with STD or genetic disorders who have the risk of passing it on to the child, shouldn't that be counted as cruelity as well?

[rosaryfilms]

OhaiMegazine, we have posted over 10 videos on fetal alcohol syndrome.

[FordCopChrist1995]

No offense, but you think in a case where aborting a baby would save the mom from death or severe life effects. The baby is more important then the mom??? [I'm against abortion in most cases except death/severe life effects]

[OhaiMegazine]

No, Im saying, if abortion is going to be illegal, then so should smoking and drinking just like child abuse is illegal. But thats most likely not going to happen. So Im just saying, if you people attack pro-choicers by calling them murderers, I want to see you do the same to mothers that are smoking and harming their babies as well.

Also if the mother is smoking and consuming alchol enough it can end the life of baby. I know it has to be severe though.

[LongLiveLink3]

@seximammazzbaby That's what this is: it's a pro-life movie :U

[LongLiveLink3]

@OhaiMegazine How is this a valid argument at allll? 0___o This has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice... But, in fact, I bet you a TON of money that the person who made this is also against what you're saying D:

But they're not going to bring up random points here:

That's like saying "Hrrrm yes, animal cruelty is terrible: just a schpeal in there about being vegetarian"

No - it just doesn't work that way D:

[NoSpeakieInternet]

I have a heart defect, so too much stess on my heart while giving birth could kill or seriously harm me. If a want to have kids someday would having a seasection be easier on my heart than natural birth? I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.

[alkebest1]

I have given up arguing with both creationists and people who take a scientific aproach to issues regarding when a human life starts, and what is right and wrong with abortion.

I do not care if abortion is right or wrong. I rather think that it is ones own choice, and nobody elses business. If I were a woman, and considered having an abortion, then that would be my own choice, and nobody elses. This is what is called FREEDOM!

[1ssny]

If I get pregnant again and yet again have another ectopic I will end that pregnancy immediately. I've already lost one tube and nearly my life because of an ectopic pregnancy that burst before I found out I was even pregnant. I would like to have a child someday but if I have another ectopic and I 'wait and see" what happens I will lose my only remaining tube, my chances of having a baby someday, and maybe my life. If you've never experienced an ectopic don't even respond with an opinion!

[RedWOLF4Life96]

You can never justify murder, if i was giving birth and it was either me or my child, my child will be more important as me, you need to research what a partial birth abortion is and see if you can honestly say it is justifiable to kill a baby like that