Prolifeguyswife #fundie

Prolifeguyswife #fundie theologyonline.com

I don't want to continue to derail the thread, but imagine this:

There is a car on fire. A mother is in the front seat, and her child is strapped in the car seat in the seat behind her. You are the police officer who arrives on the scene first. When you approach the vehicle, the mom yells at you from the front seat, "Save me! Save me instead!"

You pull the mother from the burning vehicle, then pull your gun from its holster and shoot the baby in the backseat, moments before the vehicle explodes.

Yeah. That's what abortion to "save the life of the mother is life." Save them both. You clearly have to save the mother first, anyway, or they both would die. If you can't save the baby, also, it's a tragedy. If you kill the baby intentionally, as Tiller did routinely, it's murder.

97 comments

old comment by tracer

JohnTheAtheist wrote:

"The difference, which you fail to recognize, is that an embryo in a woman's womb does not have equal protections under the law that a live child does."

I believe the issue being addressed by Prolifeguyswife, here, is late-term abortions where the fetus is viable outside the womb but continuing the pregnancy would seriously endanger the mother.

Prolifeguyswife is bringing up the objection that, if the fetus is viable outside the womb, why not just perform a C-section or other premature delivery, instead of a late-term abortion, and try to save both of their lives instead of snuffing out the fetus a priori as a matter of course?

old comment by ausador

I don't want to continue to derail the thread,

But your going to aren't you?

but imagine this:

Oh boy, I can hardly wait.

Ok, I can imagine that, mom is paniced because the car is on fire. Thats really not entirely farfetched but I wouldn't think it would be common.

You pull the mother from the burning vehicle, then pull your gun from its holster and shoot the baby in the backseat, moments before the vehicle explodes.

Ok I can understand the pulling the mom from the car part, but why would you shoot the baby? Your not making any sense at all here, unless the baby was trapped in the wreckage of an accident and was burning to death why would the cop shoot the baby?

Even if I were to concede that what you are saying about Dr. Tiller was correct, which it isn't. Your analogy is still a complete non-sequitur that has nothing to do with the actual facts.

Really, is that the best you can do?

old comment by Swedish Pagan

These guys are getting reeealy booring and repetitive.

Why whould you have the baby behind you in the car? Then you can't monitor it safely. It should be besides you in the passenger's seat. Yes, both places are as safe in a crash, but having the child beside you will lower the risk of a crash.

I do not know exactly how third trimester abortions are perfomed, but if you can save both the mother and the baby, they probably try that first. Prematures has been saved as early as in the 22nd week. But if the fetus does not have a brain or lungs, or have vital organs growing outside the body, then there is no saving it.

What Tiller did, as far as I understand it, is the equivalence of turning off the heart and lung machines for a brain-dead former person. There was no possibilty of a viable life for the fetus, or the mother was in imminent mortal danger.

And, as to defining yourself as your husbands appendix, aren't you a separate sentient person? I would never define myself as constructoress, or something. In olden Swedish ( up to about the 70's, maybe) the wife of a Doctor had a female ending to the title, not like the German female suffix meaning you actually were a female Doctor, but a separate one, meaning "married to the doctor". But we stopped doing that at least thirty years ago.

old comment by tracer

Swedish Pagan wrote:

"Why whould you have the baby behind you in the car? Then you can't monitor it safely. It should be besides you in the passenger's seat. Yes, both places are as safe in a crash, but having the child beside you will lower the risk of a crash."

Here in the U.S., passenger-side air bags have been standard equipment in all vehicles for several years. In the early days, there was no way to deactivate these air bags, and they were powerful enough to snap the necks of small children.

Thus, "put your kids in the back seat" practically became a mantra. It's still practiced today, even though all modern cars allow you to turn the passenger-side air bag off.

old comment by EvoPagan

No, it's more like this scenario:

Mother discovers she has aggressive terminal cancer during the sixth month of pregnancy. Treatment will kill the fetus. Not having treatment will kill the mother and the fetus. Mother and Father make a difficult decision WHICH IS NONE OF YOURS OR ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS and terminate the pregnancy so that Mother can receive treatment and stay alive for her husband and the already-living children they have.

I knew a woman who died due to a sudden catastropic medical condition caused by pregnancy. She already had two kids. I often wonder if that pregnancy had been terminated, would she have lived rather than living behind a devastated family and two motherless children.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot, fuck you up the ass with a rusty pickax for thinking that someone else's private medical decisions are any of your concern.

old comment by Vince

as a random observation.

none of the pro lifers I've known have a single utilitarian bone in their body. they regularly display a pointless sentimentality towards life, that any killing no matter what is evil. the entire approach is stupid nieve and usually dripping with hypocrisy.

if your pulling, "anything with the potential to "become" a human is the same as human" argument then the length of the term is meaningless. yet I often hear them complain about the fact that tiller was a late term abortionist. despite the fact they themselves define that as meaningless.

and if you follow the line of thinking that the potential is most important then killing sperm is the same as murder, then also, by wasting a limited lifespan of the sperm you have, not having sex is murder. at any given moment you could have made someone pregnant and didn't, it's murder. you can't keep going back like that, it never ends. if you want to use a slippery slop to your advantage then be prepared to fall the whole way.

I've also noticed most of the time they're the same group that back the death penalty.

old comment by nutcase

From this analogy, we learn that

a woman’s health is disconnected from her body, such that she can be saved without damage while her health burns down.

a woman who terminates a pregnancy that endangers her health is precisely the same as a woman who sits passively in a burning car until a cop comes along, then demands to be saved first, thereby selfishly condemning her child to a fiery death. (Such a woman is, quite naturally, a cold-hearted bitch, the flames around her notwithstanding.)

the cop is like an abortion doctor who pulls the woman from her burning health, then shoots the baby to save it from a fiery death.

Some proper responses in this situation would be to

save the (already hideously maimed) baby from the burning health, shooting the mother to spare her the pain of a fiery death.

”What if the baby could grow up to be another Gandhi?”

pull the mother out of her burning body and by that, I mean the car and save the baby next, except the baby is horribly burned and will die anyway.

let them both burn; the mother wouldn’t be in that situation if she hadn’t been driving like a slut.

old comment by OhBabyPersecuteMeYesYes

The analogy is flawed on so many levels. First, it assumes that the baby in question has a chance at survival if the mother’s life is tossed aside. That’s not true. All late term abortion babies are either horribly deformed, stillborn, or somehow mangled beyond any chance at a decent life. Otherwise, why would they be affecting the chance of the mother’s survival in such a way that their death could potentially save her life? A more accurate analogy would be made if the baby in the burning car was already dead from the toxic fumes when the cop arrived or something. Also, why shoot the baby? Everything in a late term abortion is performed to maximize the chances of the mother’s survival, not to minimize the chances of the baby’s already extremely unlikely survival. Since shooting the baby in your scenario has zilch to do with her living, it would be the real life equivalent of Dr. Tiller suddenly deciding to pull an apple out of nowhere and juggle it with his surgical knives while singing “Hello Dolly”. Completely pointless, utterly non sequitur.

old comment by Swedish Pagan

"In the US they put carseats in the back seat. Also it's the law that until a child reaches a certain height, he or she has to ride in the back. It's because of the airbags."

I'm sorry that I turned parts of this discussion away from stupid fundies. But the analogy he/she uses is so bad anyway, this seems more interesting.

In most cars, at least outside the US, the airbag can be deactivated. Maybe it's not 100% effective, but what in this world is? Having your baby beside you (facing backwards of course, as the baby's neck is not strong enough to support the head in a collition) still reduces the risk of the airbag being needed, as the mother or father can give the baby a pacifier or pat the baby without even taking the eyes off the road. In Sweden, when the child has grown out of the baby car seat it has to be placed on a car booster seat in the backseat until twelve years of age, I think.

old comment by

Well, the analogy fails in many levels and indicates that this lady has not much imagination or basic knowledge of biology, for that matter.
In case a, the officer can save BOTH people, there is not a dicothomy. Second, the survival of one of them is not dependent on the other(not even to think that the mother can save the baby, because she's in the same leaky boat, they need another person from outside).
In the case of pregnancy, the baby is dependent on the mother to survive, because he is INDEED inside the mother and lives through her. The case invoked to "Save mother's live" is because the pregnancy can provoke complications in the mother which may lead her to death, and, unless the baby is at least six or seven months, consequently, the baby. Indeed, I had an old schoolmate who was diagnosed with cancer soon after she learnt she was pregnant and she was considering abortion, for that circumstance. At the end, she miscarriaged the baby(she had decided to carry on with the pregnancy, regardless)because the state was more serious than initially thought and she died 1 month later.Bearing in mind that she was just one 8 weeks pregnant when it happened, the only thing that the doctor told her husband is that, even if the baby had not miscarriaged, he was also likely to die because you can't keep alive a fetus of 16 weeks. That is the hard reality.

old comment by Antichrist

I think a better analogy would be the mother is outside the car, and unable to rescue the burned screaming baby from inside. The cop tries to rescue the baby, realizes it's beyond hope and shoots it to end its suffering.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense.

What bothers me is they believe that pulling out a 26 week old foetus is the same as a C-section at 40 weeks. A 26-week baby is barely viable, will weigh less than two pounds and is on average about 9" long. It will also probably be developmentally disabled, especially if it's being aborted for issues with development in the first place.

Oh, who the fuck am I kidding, they live in their own little world where it's a fully formed baby as soon as egg meets sperm, it just gets bigger along the way.

Prolifeguyswife #fundie theologyonline.com

97 comments

Confused?