Does abortion play a role?

Red Kryptonite · Nov 29, 2014

SoaringOwl said:
Wow. I'm pro-killing? No, I'm pro-human rights. If I got pregnant tomorrow, I would need an abortion because of a medical condition that contraindicates pregnancy. So because I want to live, I'm pro-killing? Your lack of compassion is astonishing to me.

What about the human rights of the human being that gets killed?

liberated847 · Nov 29, 2014

If God designed and created human beings, and fertilized human eggs are people, God has personally orchestrated the largest, ongoing slaughter of human beings, ever.

Does that sound ridiculous? It should. Because the whole concept is ridiculous. But, as the pro-life crowd would have us believe, a fertilized human egg, a zygote, is a full human being. (This is, among a slew of bad arguments, often the justification for opposition to birth control, on the mistaken premise that birth control prevents the "preembryo" from implanting in the uterine lining). Of course, as anyone who knows anything about human reproduction knows (and now you, pro-lifers reading this), one third to one half of those never implant. In other words, up to half of all those "egg babies" simply get flushed out of a woman's body, naturally. As God designed it to happen, if you so believe.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2013/08/06/1229159/-God-is-not-pro-life

klone, MSN, RN · Nov 29, 2014

Red Kryptonite said:
What about the human rights of the human being that gets killed?

The problem is that two "beings" with completely divergent needs cannot have both of their "rights" realized. So....whose rights trump?

Most pro-lifers would say that the fetus's does. I don't agree.

Red Kryptonite · Nov 30, 2014

No, they're equal. They're both human beings with a right not to be killed. If a woman will be killed by pregnancy, she's responsible to not create lives that need to be exterminated to preserve hers. But for the vast majority of women, a pregnancy presents no such hazard. We choose to get pregnant, either intentionally or by knowingly taking the risk, and it's wrong to escape the consequences of our choices by killing other human beings.

Red Kryptonite · Nov 30, 2014

Liberated, there's a huge moral difference between a naturally occurring death and intentional killing. If you can't recognize that, then I don't know what to say to you. While I am religious, there are plenty of people who are pro-life and not religious.

klone, MSN, RN · Nov 30, 2014

Red Kryptonite said:
No, they're equal. They're both human beings with a right not to be killed. If a woman will be killed by pregnancy, she's responsible to not create lives that need to be exterminated to preserve hers. .

No, they're not equal. The woman is a sentient being who has people, responsibilities, a life. The embryo/fetus is a potential life and only that.

As to the bolded, the only 100% reliable form of birth control is abstinence. And if you're familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy, you will see that sex is on the very first level of basic human need. And the fact is, abortion is LEGAL. And safer than pregnancy and childbirth.

Red Kryptonite · Nov 30, 2014

They're equally human and equally alive. The only difference between them is time and location. But I know many people like to tell themselves differently.

Legal =/= moral.

liberated847 · Nov 30, 2014

Red Kryptonite said:
They're equally human and equally alive. The only difference between them is time and location. But I know many people like to tell themselves differently.
Legal =/= moral.

Granting rights to a fetus, a potential life, at the cost of the mother is a perversion of individual rights. Simply because you disagree with someone's value system does not give you the right to impose that system on another human being through the use of force.

A fetus becomes a human being when it is no longer attached to the mother. There's an important reason for that. The progression of fetal develop goes from an embryo, with zero viability, towards a fully developed fetus, with, hopefully, full viability. Along the way, there is a continuum of viability that depends on development, health, genetics, etc. As an example, at around 24 weeks, a fetus has developed lung surfactant, a significant milestone in development, yet legally, 20 weeks is viable, a contentious point in ethical law. Therefore, viability is anything but a simple matter.

Regardless, while viability exists on a continuum, rights are absolutes. A complete, living woman, has absolute rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She does not lay claim to the efforts of others through requiring their sacrifice, nor may others lay claim to her efforts. This is an absolute. A fetus, in a strictly descriptive term, is a parasite, i.e. it exists at the cost of the mother. She may choose to surrender her values, her effort and energy, to mature this fetus and bring it to term and deliver it, or she may choose to discontinue the support. This is abortion.

Arguing, "well at 36 weeks, the fetus is viable, so it is illegal to abort" raises some interesting ethical concerns. If she cut herself open and clamped the cord, choosing to discontinue support of the potential human, she would not be harming the fetus, but simply choosing to no longer support it. To say that our country has the duty to protect the rights of the fetus that is still attached to another human being is akin to protecting the rights of one person at the harm of another. If the 36 week pregnant mother says, "I want an abortion," the state does not have the right to say, "Ok, we will cut it out of you, induce labor, or force you to carry that child a little long until your body delivers."

The reason this is so important is because making the above argument in defense of a potential life at the cost of the rights of another life, the mother, sets a dangerous precedent that it would be foolish to think would not happen. The pro-life (absolutely no abortion) groups believe that a woman has no right to herself once she conceives. They are wrong. To give an inch, to say that a connected fetus has rights that must be protected by infringing upon the rights of the mother, is a compromise and a foothold for those who wish to impose their morality on free men and women.

elkpark · Nov 30, 2014

Red Kryptonite said:
They're equally human and equally alive. The only difference between them is time and location. But I know many people like to tell themselves differently.
Legal =/= moral.

This is your personal belief, not some absolute truth. Some people share your view, others feel differently. There is a wide range of opinions and beliefs on this issue, all equally valid and legitimate.

liberated847 · Nov 30, 2014

elkpark said:
This is your personal belief, not some absolute truth. Some people share your view, others feel differently. There is a wide range of opinions and beliefs on this issue, all equally valid and legitimate.

Just because one or many believe in something it doesn't make it true.

xoemmylouox, ASN, RN · Nov 30, 2014

For the OP.. You can still be a CNM. You will face some challenges. It will be essential to know wherever you work, there will always be someone else to take over care for patients you morally cannot care for. You must also not allow your beliefs affect your patients. Good luck to you in your future career.