Originally Posted by iamgine
Abortion is one of those issues which both sides have sufficient merit. That's why people who are for or against shouldn't be too hard on on their opponents and a compromise might be the best solution.
There are checkpoints along the way of a pregnancy that attempt to regulate the pregnancy.
If anomalies are detected: abortion aka stillbirth, aka miscarriage occurs to the tune of 1 in 3 pregnancies.
Some of these anomalies include, but are not limited to: chromosomal defect, uterine size, uterine health, blood supply to placenta, and overall health of mother and fetus.
Sometimes during a pregnancy the checks fail too. When you consider that 1 in 3 pregnancies fail for one reason or another, that's a lot of pregnancies that require the checkpoints to work.
When the checkpoints fail, medicine takes over.
There is no argument in science or medicine. The argument only comes into play when a medical professional's religion deems it unacceptable to step in in what they have determined to be God's decision.
The problem in my view, is who the **** are you to decide that a baby that is going to have a tragic, doomed existence because it is going to die eventually should be born and live out a brief life of suffering and misery by being kept alive artificially on life support? So medicine should not decide to end suffering when it could, but it should prolong suffering because it can in pro-life's view? Because that was God's plan?
That is short-sighted and cruel. The religious folk tend to not think that far ahead however.
If you want to believe in God, fine. I believe that God/nature gave us the capability to do better with science. Period.