woman has 15 abortions in 17 years

[msmith198025]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220095/American-abortion-addict-15-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html


A woman has admitted to being 'an abortion addict' after having 15 terminations over 17 years.
Irene Vilar said she had the abortions not from poverty or fear but as an extraordinary act of rebellion against her 'controlling' husband who did not want children.
The 40-year-old's confession has unleashed a torrent of attacks from anti-abortion activists on the internet, including death threats and demands for her to be jailed.
The cycle of pregnancies and abortions, which began when she was 16 and ended when she was 33, was also punctuated by several suicide attempts.

Anyone that is for the right to abortions that thinks this is ok?

[Skyhi]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220095/American-abortion-addict-15-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html
Anyone that is for the right to abortions that thinks this is ok?
Notwithstanding the fact that this lady's body and mind are probably fubar'd, I think its OK.

[msmith198025]

Notwithstanding the fact that this lady's body and mind are probably fubar'd, I think its OK.

I cant agree with that in any way. She was basically using it as a form of birth control. Not acceptable to me. Of course you already know my stance on abortion in general, but I would think this would be excessive in anyones eyes.

[Skyhi]

I cant agree with that in any way. She was basically using it as a form of birth control. Not acceptable to me. Of course you already know my stance on abortion in general, but I would think this would be excessive in anyones eyes.
I like to stay consistent. In my opinion (and lets not have this stalemate debate :)), a parasitic blob of cells isn't exactly "life." If I'm OK with somebody having 1 abortion, then I'm OK with somebody having 100.

[msmith198025]

I like to stay consistent. In my opinion (and lets not have this stalemate debate :)), a parasitic blob of cells isn't exactly "life." If I'm OK with somebody having 1 abortion, then I'm OK with somebody having 100.

And I simply disagree.

Any other pro choicers ok with this?

[Derwin0]

okay, why didn't see just get her tubes tied?

The easy availability of that method makes me doubt the numbers she is giving and make me think she made the up in order to sell the book.

[Derwin0]

I like to stay consistent. In my opinion (and lets not have this stalemate debate :)), a parasitic blob of cells isn't exactly "life." If I'm OK with somebody having 1 abortion, then I'm OK with somebody having 100.
When is it no longer a "parasitic blob of cells"? 1 week? 4 weeks? 20 weeks? 40 weeks?

[msmith198025]

okay, why didn't see just get her tubes tied?

The easy availability of that method makes me doubt the numbers she is giving and make me think she made the up in order to sell the book.

Or any other easily available method of birth control...

Good point.

[Skyhi]

okay, why didn't see just get her tubes tied?

The easy availability of that method makes me doubt the numbers she is giving and make me think she made the up in order to sell the book.
You're probably on to something there.


When is it no longer a "parasitic blob of cells"? 1 week? 4 weeks? 20 weeks? 40 weeks?
When the fetus is viable outside of the womb.

[Derwin0]

When the fetus is viable outside of the womb.And yet we allow abortions after that point. Should the laws be changed?

[Derwin0]

You're probably on to something there.
Whenever there is a book ($$$) involved, I always have doubts.

[Skyhi]

And yet we allow abortions after that point. Should the laws be changed?
I really don't care either way.

[Skyhi]

Whenever there is a book ($$$) involved, I always have doubts.
That we can agree on. :)

[msmith198025]

I really don't care either way.

I dont understand that. It becomes viable outside of the womb, which I would take to mean it can survive if it is out. Hence it becomes a child if you remove it. The law allows people to abort inside the womb at that stage, and you dont care if they change the law or not?

[msmith198025]

Whenever there is a book ($$$) involved, I always have doubts.

I agree with that as well. Would it not be fairly easy to confirm though? I assume there are records for this.

[Derwin0]

I agree with that as well. Would it not be fairly easy to confirm though? I assume there are records for this.
Medical records are confidential, so there would be no legal way to verify.

[msmith198025]

Medical records are confidential, so there would be no legal way to verify.

True. It is a slow brain day

[Derwin0]

True. It is a slow brain daycoffee my friend, coffee... which reminds me, time to fill up. :)

[msmith198025]

coffee my friend, coffee... which reminds me, time to fill up. :)

Three cups already.....:(

[Skyhi]

I dont understand that. It becomes viable outside of the womb, which I would take to mean it can survive if it is out. Hence it becomes a child if you remove it. The law allows people to abort inside the womb at that stage, and you dont care if they change the law or not?
What stage are you talking about? 20 weeks? Late-term abortions are so rare that it just doesn't matter to me.....I guess I'd be a little upset if they were outlawed because I support the option as a means to save the mother's life.

[msmith198025]

What stage are you talking about? 20 weeks? Late-term abortions are so rare that it just doesn't matter to me.....I guess I'd be a little upset if they were outlawed because I support the option as a means to save the mother's life.

Well for me, I am against them at any stage, but for the purpose of this discussion, pick a stage I guess. Anytime the baby would be able to survive outside of the womb.
It doesnt matter because it is rare?
Man, I look at that kind of logic as, well he killed him with a butter knife, but that is so rare, just let him go. I dont get it.

[Skyhi]

Well for me, I am against them at any stage, but for the purpose of this discussion, pick a stage I guess. Anytime the baby would be able to survive outside of the womb.
It doesnt matter because it is rare?
Man, I look at that kind of logic as, well he killed him with a butter knife, but that is so rare, just let him go. I dont get it.
Viability varies from fetus to fetus....I support late term abortion as a method to protect the mother's life. I don't understand your logic.....you'd rather protect a 1lb fetus with a 20% chance of survival than a completely viable grown woman.

[msmith198025]

Viability varies from fetus to fetus....I support late term abortion as a method to protect the mother's life. I don't understand your logic.....you'd rather protect a 1lb fetus with a 20% chance of survival than a completely viable grown woman.

That is not what I said. Edit: (I guess I did didnt I ;) )


The question was if you thought the law should be changed after the fetus was viable outside of the womb. We never said changed to what, but there would be a way to tweak it to outlaw late term, with exceptions for the cases that you bring up here. And you answered that you didnt care one way or the other.

In the case of whether I want to protect a fetus with a 20% chance of survivability over the mother, I am against abortion in any case, however if there is an argument for it this would be it. That said, aborting the fetus, no matter the survival rate may not guarantee the survival of the mother in all cases one would assume. So where would you draw the line?

[Skyhi]

That is not what I said. Edit: (I guess I did didnt I ;) )


The question was if you thought the law should be changed after the fetus was viable outside of the womb. We never said changed to what, but there would be a way to tweak it to outlaw late term, with exceptions for the cases that you bring up here. And you answered that you didnt care one way or the other.

In the case of whether I want to protect a fetus with a 20% chance of survivability over the mother, I am against abortion in any case, however if there is an argument for it this would be it. That said, aborting the fetus, no matter the survival rate may not guarantee the survival of the mother in all cases one would assume. So where would you draw the line?
I'll change my answer then. I do care - - it should remain legal if for no other reason than to protect the life of the mother. Passing a law to make it illegal "except in cases to protect the life of the mother" would be an absolute mess. Courts would become involved, medical experts, etc. etc. etc. It sounds good in theory, but it would be too difficult in practice.

I think there are cases where its a clear choice between mother and fetus. Why you would choose a fetus with a low survival rate and an extremely low survival rate w/o serious complications over a healthy 24 year old woman is beyond me......

If it was up to you, would you give a donated liver to a 30 year old raging alcoholic or a 40 year old teetotaler?

[Skyhi]

Try thinking about it using a real-life hypothetical that you can relate to:

Your wife is 18 weeks pregnant. She has severe complications and will die in the next few weeks if the fetus is not aborted. If she dies, the fetus has a 20% chance of surviving....If the baby is lucky enough to survive, it is nearly certain that he will be severely disabled and require intensive long-term care for the remainder of his life.

For me, this decision is a no-brainer. I just can't understand why you would chose to have your wife die.....

[Derwin0]

my take.

Allow the "oops" pill, its just a high dosage birth control pill, and really only works by preventing implantation.

Early term, allow for medical (physical, not "mental") reasons or for rape. And if the mother is claiming rape, there better be a criminal report filed.

Mid to Late term, allow only to save the life of the mother (to late to be claiming "rape). Usually to save the life of the mother though, an abortion is not performed, but usually there is instead an emergency c-section.

[Skyhi]

my take.

Allow the "oops" pill, its just a high dosage birth control pill, and really only works by preventing implantation.

Early term, allow for medical (physical, not "mental") reasons or for rape. And if the mother is claiming rape, there better be a criminal report filed.

Mid to Late term, allow only to save the life of the mother (to late to be claiming "rape). Usually to save the life of the mother though, an abortion is not performed, but usually there is instead an emergency c-section.

I disagree, but thats definitely a reasonable stance.

[msmith198025]

I'll change my answer then. I do care - - it should remain legal if for no other reason than to protect the life of the mother. Passing a law to make it illegal "except in cases to protect the life of the mother" would be an absolute mess. Courts would become involved, medical experts, etc. etc. etc. It sounds good in theory, but it would be too difficult in practice.

I think there are cases where its a clear choice between mother and fetus. Why you would choose a fetus with a low survival rate and an extremely low survival rate w/o serious complications over a healthy 24 year old woman is beyond me......

If it was up to you, would you give a donated liver to a 30 year old raging alcoholic or a 40 year old teetotaler?

Ok, I dont agree, but at least I can understand your answer now.

You dont understand my answer or thinking because we have a different idea of when life begins IMO.

[Derwin0]

Your wife is 18 weeks pregnant. She has severe complications and will die in the next few weeks if the fetus is not aborted. If she dies, the fetus has a 20% chance of surviving....If the baby is lucky enough to survive, it is nearly certain that he will be severely disabled and require intensive long-term care for the remainder of his life.
Simple, save the wife and perform an emergency c-section. Yes there is only a 20% chance of surviving, but 20% is better than nothing, and we don't shoot cancer patients who have a low chance of surviving.

As for Disability or long term care, I'd take that over death. Every life should be cherished, or should we just kill all the Down's Syndrome (or other disability) people out there?

As it is though, knowing my wife and the several miscarriages we've gone through, she'd make the decision to keep the baby and take the risks.

[msmith198025]

Try thinking about it using a real-life hypothetical that you can relate to:

Your wife is 18 weeks pregnant. She has severe complications and will die in the next few weeks if the fetus is not aborted. If she dies, the fetus has a 20% chance of surviving....If the baby is lucky enough to survive, it is nearly certain that he will be severely disabled and require intensive long-term care for the remainder of his life.

For me, this decision is a no-brainer. I just can't understand why you would chose to have your wife die.....

She wouldnt choose to abort, so there would be no choice to make.
We have already discussed the possibility when she was pregnant. She shares the same view as me.

As derwin said though, there are other options, and an emergency C is one.

I also agree, I would take a child with disabilities over having their death on my hands anyday.

[Skyhi]

Simple, save the wife and perform an emergency c-section. Yes there is only a 20% chance of surviving, but 20% is better than nothing, and we don't shoot cancer patients who have a low chance of surviving.

As for Disability or long term care, I'd take that over death. Every life should be cherished, or should we just kill all the Down's Syndrome (or other disability) people out there?

As it is though, knowing my wife and the several miscarriages we've gone through, she'd make the decision to keep the baby and take the risks.

At 18 weeks a c-section is an abortion.

[Skyhi]

I also agree, I would take a child with disabilities over having their death on my hands anyday.

How politically incorrect and insensitive is this: I'd rather have my wife than a child who cannot walk, breath, talk, or eat on his own.

[msmith198025]

How politically incorrect and insensitive is this: I'd rather have my wife than a child who cannot walk, breath, talk, or eat on his own.

I was agreeing with Derwins statement. Do the c section, possibly save the wife and the child.

If it turns out the child has disabilities and survived, I would rather have that any day than abort the child without giving them the chance at life.

[Derwin0]

At 18 weeks a c-section is an abortion.
Being prior to viability (which I think now is about 22 weeks due to medical advances) yes, but you yourself said there was a 20% chance of survivability, therefore my comments on saving the child were based on that.

For saving the life of the mother, then I would support the abortion (see my position on early and mid/late term).

My wife I know would try to carry to viability, but as we all know, there are no guarantees in life, so the termination might have to happen to save her life.

[Skyhi]

I was agreeing with Derwins statement. Do the c section, possibly save the wife and the child.

If it turns out the child has disabilities and survived, I would rather have that any day than abort the child without giving them the chance at life.
But at 18 weeks its not a c-section. Its an abortion.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

they need to remove her uterus.

[stevenl]

That of course is very selfish way of thinking. You care more about you having somthing on your hands then the quality of life the person will have.

[msmith198025]

At 18 weeks a c-section is an abortion.

Same possible outcome sure. However there have been cases of as early as 22 weeks (maybe sooner) being taken. At least the CHANCE is there for survival. With abortion, there isnt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17237979/

[Derwin0]

But at 18 weeks its not a c-section. Its an abortion.
Then why did you say there was a 20% chance of survival for the child? All our comments were based on that premise.

If you had stated zero chance of survival, our responses would have been different.

[msmith198025]

That of course is very selfish way of thinking. You care more about you having somthing on your hands then the quality of life the person will have.

Not selfish at all. I want to give my wife AND my child the best chances of survival.

And yes, I would rather have a disabled child than a dead one. You wouldnt??

[Skyhi]

She wouldnt choose to abort, so there would be no choice to make.


Let's do some crazy hypotheticals......would you put a bullet in your head if it meant giving a 22wk fetus a small chance of survival?

[msmith198025]

Let's do some crazy hypotheticals......would you put a bullet in your head if it meant giving a 22wk fetus a small chance of survival?

How does that relate? lol

[Derwin0]

And yes, I would rather have a disabled child than a dead one.My oldest boy has been diagnosed with a mild form of autism (aspergers), OCD and ADHD. I know I'd never trade him in.

One of my mother's cousin has a severely disable daughter. The whole family loves here, and would never conceive of her not being around.

And looking at the love in this mother's eyes from that article, shows me that she's not thinking any differently.
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070220/070220_preemie_vlrg_6a.widec.jpg

[Skyhi]

Then why did you say there was a 20% chance of survival for the child? All our comments were based on that premise.

If you had stated zero chance of survival, our responses would have been different.

When the dire news is given to your wife, she's 18 weeks......She'll die in the next few weeks, but you don;t know exactly when. If she has a c-section when the news is given, its an abortion....not a c-section.



Your wife is 18 weeks pregnant. She has severe complications and will die in the next few weeks if the fetus is not aborted.

[Derwin0]

Let's do some crazy hypotheticals......would you put a bullet in your head if it meant giving a 22wk fetus a small chance of survival?
Would you take a bullet for one of your children who is already alive?

I know I would, how is that any different?

And yes, for my child (born or unborn) I would.

[stevenl]

Not selfish at all. I want to give my wife AND my child the best chances of survival.

And yes, I would rather have a disabled child than a dead one. You wouldnt??

With the medical tests they can do now you can determine many disabilities prior to birth. If one that was really bad happend to show up on the test, I would not be against aborting. If the child was born however and later found out it had a disability id of course love it and take care of it as any child. But if with our medical advances we were able to stop a child from being born with a major disability why wouldnt we? We can try again next time.

Before my daughter was born about 5 months ago, during the pregnancy they ran all kinds of tests to make sure shed be born perfectly healthy. Depending on how some tests came out and the odds of the test being right/wrong we may of decided to terminate the pregnancy and try again.

[msmith198025]

My oldest boy has been diagnosed with a mild form of autism (aspergers), OCD and ADHD. I know I'd never trade him in.

One of my mother's cousin has a severely disable daughter. The whole family loves here, and would never conceive of her not being around.

And looking at the love in this mother's eyes from that article, shows me that she's not thinking any differently.
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070220/070220_preemie_vlrg_6a.widec.jpg

I pray that we never have to go through that, for the childs sake and ours. However if that were the case, it would not change how I would feel about the child, and I would never choose death over that.

[Skyhi]

How does that relate? lol

You wife is willing to die to give a fetus a small chance of survival. Are you?

[Derwin0]

When the dire news is given to your wife, she's 18 weeks......She'll die in the next few weeks, but you don;t know exactly when. If she has a c-section when the news is given, its an abortion....not a c-section.You are now contradicting your original scenario

Your wife is 18 weeks pregnant. She has severe complications and will die in the next few weeks if the fetus is not aborted. If she dies, the fetus has a 20% chance of surviving....If the baby is lucky enough to survive, it is nearly certain that he will be severely disabled and require intensive long-term care for the remainder of his life.

Why would the baby's chance be any different if the mother lives or dies?

Again, all our responses were based on you giving a chance of survival.

[Skyhi]

Would you take a bullet for one of your children who is already alive?

I know I would, how is that any different?

And yes, for my child (born or unborn) I would.

Yes I would. I wouldn't take a bullet for a fetus that is most likely going to die anyway......not fair to my family.

[stevenl]

[QUOTE=Derwin0;42444]My oldest boy has been diagnosed with a mild form of autism (aspergers), OCD and ADHD. I know I'd never trade him in.

One of my mother's cousin has a severely disable daughter. The whole family loves here, and would never conceive of her not being around.

And looking at the love in this mother's eyes from that article, shows me that she's not thinking any differently.
[QUOTE]

But would she of rather have a normal child? Not sure this particular story, but if the mother knew prior to birth would she of made a different choice?

My youngest son has ADHD pretty bad, He cant sit still for a second, but thats not really a disability. Im talking about serious ones that will cause them to not be able to live a normal life.

[msmith198025]

You wife is willing to die to give a fetus a small chance of survival. Are you?

If I were in her situation, absolutely. However, My death in the scenario you gave would do NOTHING to help a baby live or die. Which is why I ask, how does it relate.

I will say, if it came down to me giving my life for the life of my child, I would do it in a heartbeat. Any parent I know would.

[Skyhi]

You are now contradicting your original scenario

Why would the baby's chance be any different if the mother lives or dies?

Again, all our responses were based on you giving a chance of survival.

Hypotheticals are messy. :) If she dies, its going to be at a time when the fetus may be viable...

[msmith198025]

Would you take a bullet for one of your children who is already alive?

I know I would, how is that any different?

And yes, for my child (born or unborn) I would.

IF it would save the childs life, sure. I fail to see how you or I taking a bullet would have any bearing on the outcome of the childs survival in this case though. I know it is hypothetical, just seems like a silly "get ya" question. No offense sky.

[msmith198025]

Yes I would. I wouldn't take a bullet for a fetus that is most likely going to die anyway......not fair to my family.

Of course it isnt. Because it would do NOTHING to help the situation.

[Skyhi]

If I were in her situation, absolutely. However, My death in the scenario you gave would do NOTHING to help a baby live or die. Which is why I ask, how does it relate.

I will say, if it came down to me giving my life for the life of my child, I would do it in a heartbeat. Any parent I know would.

Its just a hypothetical. I know it has no basis in reality.....I'm just curious. Would you put the bullet in your head to give a potentially viable fetus a small chance at life? I would not.

[msmith198025]

Its just a hypothetical. I know it has no basis in reality.....I'm just curious. Would you put the bullet in your head to give a potentially viable fetus a small chance at life? I would not.

Well then I guess I answered it already:)

[cybok0]

Its just a hypothetical. I know it has no basis in reality.....I'm just curious. Would you put the bullet in your head to give a potentially viable fetus a small chance at life? I would not.

No.

[Skyhi]

IF it would save the childs life, sure. I fail to see how you or I taking a bullet would have any bearing on the outcome of the childs survival in this case though. I know it is hypothetical, just seems like a silly "get ya" question. No offense sky.

It is a silly hypothetical....not trying to be a "gotcha." I'm just curious why you can;t answer it. :)

Would you rather be president of the USA or the president of Afghanistan? Neither will happen (not a knock on you), but I'm sure you're able to answer it.

[Derwin0]

My son was born with a large growth on the side of his head. You can see how tall is in the picture, suffice it to say the growth was round, so it wrapped around to the back.

Quite scary when he was born, but my wife and I knew we'd never love or treat him any less.

If we had seen it on an ultrasound, abortion would never have been a consideration, even with any unknowns involved. We actually declined some genetic tests (my wife was offered some because she is French Canadian and Tay-Sachs runs in those lines) because we knew any results would never change our plans.

Fortunately the growth was benign and mostly superficial (the scalp was very thin there). 3 plastic surgeries later and all that's left is a big scar.

[stevenl]

Whats wrong with breeding control? Its nature. Survival of the fittest.

[msmith198025]

It is a silly hypothetical....not trying to be a "gotcha." I'm just curious why you can;t answer it. :)

Would you rather be president of the USA or the president of Afghanistan? Neither will happen (not a knock on you), but I'm sure you're able to answer it.

I did answer, in the post you quoted.:)

And I do plan on being president....my parents told me I could be anything....:free-happy-smileys-

[msmith198025]

Whats wrong with breeding control? Its nature. Survival of the fittest.

Well hell steve, lets just go round up all the weak, disabled, and old people and thin the herd.

[Derwin0]

Its just a hypothetical. I know it has no basis in reality.....I'm just curious. Would you put the bullet in your head to give a potentially viable fetus a small chance at life? I would not.I would run into a burning building to try and save my child, even though I would likely perish as well. It may not be "fair", but I'd still take the chance.

That is a scenario with the same premise and has a basis in reality.

[msmith198025]

I would run into a burning building to try and save my child, even though I would likely perish as well. It may not be "fair", but I'd still take the chance.

As would I.

[Skyhi]

I did answer, in the post you quoted.:)

And I do plan on being president....my parents told me I could be anything....:free-happy-smileys-

You said you'd do it if it would save the life of the child....thats an unknown. I have to say......you must have some balls. You'd be willing to orphan your child and widow your wife to give a fetus a 20% chance of living. I must be a wimpy liberal. :)

[Derwin0]

You said you'd do it if it would save the life of the child....thats an unknown. I have to say......you must have some balls. You'd be willing to orphan your child and widow your wife to give a fetus a 20% chance of living. I must be a wimpy liberal. :)
Would you run into a fire with only a 20% chance of saving your child and thus risk widowing your wife and leaving the other children fatherless?

[stevenl]

Well hell steve, lets just go round up all the weak, disabled, and old people and thin the herd.

Would it make us a more productive society? You betcha. However we also not only follow nature (survival of the fittest) but we also show compassion. So while I dont advocate killing all those already born. I do advocate having genetic tests and other testing prior to birth to weed out the bad eggs.

[Skyhi]

I would run into a burning building to try and save my child, even though I would likely perish as well. It may not be "fair", but I'd still take the chance.

That is a scenario with the same premise and has a basis in reality.

I would do the same, but that scenario does not have the same premise. Under the fire scenario, we're talking about two viable humans with a chance of both surviving.

[msmith198025]

You said you'd do it if it would save the life of the child....thats an unknown. I have to say......you must have some balls. You'd be willing to orphan your child and widow your wife to give a fetus a 20% chance of living. I must be a wimpy liberal. :)

And a lawyer to boot:D

[Skyhi]

Would you run into a fire with only a 20% chance of saving your child and thus risk widowing your wife and leaving the other children fatherless?
Absolutely. Because there is a chance that we'll both survive. (and because I have a much greater attachment to my living child than I would to a 1lb fetus who is probably going to die.)

[msmith198025]

Would you run into a fire with only a 20% chance of saving your child and thus risk widowing your wife and leaving the other children fatherless?

Yes

[Derwin0]

Absolutely. Because there is a chance that we'll both survive. (and because I have a much greater attachment to my living child than I would to a 1lb fetus who is probably going to die.)And there is a chance for the baby to survive, you yourself gave us the 20% survival chance.

[stevenl]

Can I play the hypothetical game to?

You have two kids, both about the same age. One with a major disbility the other perfectly normal.. Somthing happens where you have to save one or the other. If you do nothing they both die. If you try to save both, they both die. Who do you save?

[msmith198025]

Absolutely. Because there is a chance that we'll both survive. (and because I have a much greater attachment to my living child than I would to a 1lb fetus who is probably going to die.)

Ok, would you run into a burning house knowing you would die to give your child a 20% chance of survival then? Or would you just sit outside and yell burn baby burn:)

[Skyhi]

And there is a chance for the baby to survive, you yourself gave us the 20% survival chance.
In the fire scenario, both parties have a chance of survival. In my scenario, at least 1 will die. That is the difference.

[msmith198025]

Can I play the hypothetical game to?

You have two kids, both about the same age. One with a major disbility the other perfectly normal.. Somthing happens where you have to save one or the other. If you do nothing they both die. If you try to save both, they both die. Who do you save?

I would hypothetically save both, because I AM batman

[Derwin0]

You have two kids, both about the same age. One with a major disbility the other perfectly normal.. Somthing happens where you have to save one or the other. If you do nothing they both die. If you try to save both, they both die. Who do you save?
The closest one first. Then try to get the second.

[Skyhi]

Ok, would you run into a burning house knowing you would die to give your child a 20% chance of survival then? Or would you just sit outside and yell burn baby burn:)

That's a good one.

I wouldn't hesitate going into the fire. I couldn't live with the thought of my kid burning in the fire and wondering when dad was going to come and save him.

[msmith198025]

The closest one first. Then try to get the second.

I dont understand. Are you assuming that we are still in a fire situation?

[Derwin0]

I dont understand. Are you assuming that we are still in a fire situation?
Nope, I was actually thinking of a water situation for my answer, as there aren't many others that would leave you in a one or the other scenario.

[msmith198025]

Nope, I was actually thinking of a water situation for my answer, as there aren't many others that would leave you in a one or the other scenario.

Ah, ok. Gotcha

[stevenl]

Thats because you let emotions get into your rational thought process. You have an equal chance of saving either or but not both.

[Skyhi]

Can I play the hypothetical game to?

You have two kids, both about the same age. One with a major disbility the other perfectly normal.. Somthing happens where you have to save one or the other. If you do nothing they both die. If you try to save both, they both die. Who do you save?

If its a fire/water situation, I save the closest. If we're in the completely unrealistic world that I like to play in, I save the one who I believe will have the highest quality of life.

[stevenl]

If its a fire/water situation, I save the closest. If we're in the completely unrealistic world that I like to play in, I save the one who I believe will have the highest quality of life.

Thats the same thing any rational person should say. In the situation above it was an all things equal situation. Meaning you had the same odds/distance whatever to either child. So of course emotionally you may be drawn to save the disabled child first as youd think he is at greater risk. Rationally though knowing that you can only save one or the other youd save the non-disabled child as you know he will live a more productive and better quality of life.

[Skyhi]

Thats the same thing any rational person should say. In the situation above it was an all things equal situation. Meaning you had the same odds/distance whatever to either child. So of course emotionally you may be drawn to save the disabled child first as youd think he is at greater risk. Rationally though knowing that you can only save one or the other youd save the non-disabled child as you know he will live a more productive and better quality of life.
Eh.....I don't know. It depends on the disability.

[HDRoberts]

Well, hypothetical aside, here is my opinion, refined over the years.

I'm personally against abortion. I find it heinous. I think God is against it. That said, Matt 7:1 says we need to stop judging. God will deal with it. Until then, people can do what they want to their fetuses, and God will judge.

[vurbano]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220095/American-abortion-addict-15-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html



Anyone that is for the right to abortions that thinks this is ok?

Why she's a liberal's wet dream. A model citizen