Cause this republican North Dakota senator does! no exceptions he says!
NEW: Republican U. S. Senator from North Dakota Kevin Cramer says the fetus is worth losing the mother's life, says there's no exceptions. pic.twitter.com/1kqnp1uGCr— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) May 5, 2022
So if a mother is pregnant and something goes wrong and removing the fetus is the only way to save her life? tough shit according to this guy!
I do think a fetus is worth losing the mothers life over
I don't think a fetus is worth losing the mothers life over
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
How many of you think a fetus is worth losing the mothers life over?
I like that there are 5 guys who believe that it's worth losing a mother. I think if that woman loved that child, then maybe not worth it but I certainly don't think that child should have to live with any sort of guilt. Their mother lives on through them.
If that guy is talking about abortions in the case that it risks the mother's life, then what fucking ever. Of course, it's a guy saying that about a women's reproductive rights. 😜
I think in the law-making sense that this post is geared toward, that's a choice for the mom to make 1000000% These old men need to keep their laws out of our uterus.
Aside from that, I definitely agree with your opinion!
@kudoma Totally!! I guess I forgot to say that, sorry 😭
But I totally agree! It's a mother's right to choose whether or not she's willing to risk her life with a pregnancy or not. But at the same time, she should never be forced into the position.
Most women choose their lives over the fetus, who’s going to judge them? She can have 20 more children if you wish, why should a woman sacrifice her life for a fetus?
Is that what men want? Would you rather see you mother, sister, daughter, wife die over unborn child if she can save herself and try again in the future?
@crossdressingrihno Then stop saying life of a fetus is more precious than life of a woman who is already born, who has her dreams, who loves and who is loved.
You also said there are mothers who’d rather pick the lives of a fetus rather than a life of her own, woman wouldn’t choose to do that if she’s not forced to do this, life is the most precious thing we have, and women don’t need to have any more pressure or moral restrictions from men to give them pressure to think their life is less relevant than a life of a fetus.
So, if that’s not what you wanted to say, what’s the purpose of your first reply, because what I read there between the lines is that you kinda encourage or approve the decision of a mother who can choose the life of fetus and die herself. It is a moral pressure to women and they don’t need to be under this pressure.
Maybe they choose the life of fetus, because everyone expects mothers to be the ones who sacrifice, so what will their husbands or people think if they choose their own life.
Women shouldn’t have to justifying their right and decision to live.
It's irrelevant. It will soon be a state to state determination. More than likely aside from the West Coast and East Coast most states will outlaw abortions past the 1st trimester without medical reasons, in the South where I'm at there will be an aggressive move to outright ban. Really that should be as it should be. The US is huge, and prevailing beliefs and values vary from State to State, region to region.
It's acceptable to kill people in New Orleans which is less than an hour away for less than 1000 a head, in the community I live in murder is rare however, with the last murder for hire I remember being about 27 years ago when I was a kid. Needless to say there are different laws to reflect those values just between these two regions, much less different states, it's simple to go somewhere else to get an abortion. It's much less simple to find somewhere else to live based on values and beliefs. This could serve as a flag for those who feel deeply to relocate accordingly.
Yes because that was a risk she took when she made her choice to have sex. For those that like to argue "Well what about rape?", rape is unfortunate and not right but there are measures one can take to protect themselves. In EVERY rape case (again the victim never deserved it) the woman failed to take/was ignorant of some safety measure that could have prevented the rape.
For example, walking alone at night, getting too drunk to control your own reflexes and thoughts, not taking the time to truly see someone for who they are, etc. None of those measures should determine if you get raped or not because rape is inexcusable, but we live in a cruel world where people need to protect themselves because help just might be too far away or out of reach. At the end of the day, the only person responsible for you and your safety is YOU. And for those who want to argue "A woman should not have to take these measures because she should be free to walk around without being harassed", again that is true but remember criminals do not abide by what "should be". Criminals take the opportunities given to them, regardless of legalities.
If you had sex willingly, you knew what you were doing, knew that pregnancy could result and knew that complications can happen to even the most healthy women in pregnancy. That would be like me playing Russian Roulette and hoping I do not shoot myself and die. If you were raped, again that is wrong but the child inside you does not deserve a death penalty for what someone else did. You were aware that the world is evil, the dangers you can face if you are not careful and that the authorities cannot always save you in time and that should a criminal who does not care what is right come up on you you only have yourself.
Whether or not the sex was willing, the child had nothing to do with it. However it is formed, all life is valuable. A woman having sex has obviously had a chance to live and make decisions that led up to this point and could have made decisions to prevent pregnancy from happening. There is NO legitimate argument for abortion DESPITE how anyone may feel about it.
@ including the woman who raped on the subway where everyone watch I’m petty guns aren’t allow on most subways or are you saying women should avoid subways to avoid being which means those with less money who depend on public like the women aren’t doing everything they can to avoid being raped.
that logic is just appalling in every way. in the meantime guys can fuck as much as they want and just about face no real consequences if they use condoms.
@Still-alive this user says every rape case could have been prevented well what about the 11 year old girl sleeping in her bed who gets raped by a family member, or even an intruder or heck a full grown women who is raped by an intruder, I guess if she's too poor to own an alarm system, or too sound asleep to grab a gun she may own and can't prevent it it's her fault, yes there is EC or Plan B for rape victims but that's only up to 89% percent effective, the world is dangerous, no women or man is safe from never being raped and/or murdered and to believe that is just plain ignorance, never mind the fact that women in war are raped by soldiers, who know maybe that's preventable too 🤦♀️. I know you get it @Still-alive but some people just really don't.
If the child is born but the mother is dead, who will provide the child with the unique milk only a mother can provide. We are not machines. A new born child needs to feel safe. The child is able to smell the mother. It is because a child is able to smell the mother, the child can automatically reach the nipples for milk even when eyes are closed or it is half asleep. There is a natural, biological bond that even the top doctors have not been able to replicate. A living mother is definitely needed.
Not to forget that the same mother may also give birth to other children as well. The mother's life over the child. This is my take on the question.
Her and her family's choice. Babies bring joy to many so you nevwr know what they will say.
I personally might give up my life for my baby...
I think it depends but the value of life is equal in my opinion.
1) if it is medically unsafe for mom then losing the baby is REASONABLE.
2) if mom is just uncaring who has unprotected sex , reckless, see abortion as the first means to prevent pregnancy... I think the babies life is more worth it just because I scoff at this woman.
Sadly he’s not the only one that thinks this way there are other states that are considering making no exceptions as well. Basically they’re saying an unborn fetus is more important than woman who’s fully developed and had been here for many years I don’t know how that’s exactly being pro-life if it’s trading one life for another.
We've gotten too deeply into this form of political discussion. I've bypassed several questions that basically ask the same thing. When does the soul enter the body of the fetus or is it after? Should the mother lose her life rather than kill the fetus to save her? I posted an example of what would we do if the mother was killed in a car crash but wasn't a full term with her pregnancy. Should the EMT or a doctor perform a Cesarean section to save the child or let it die because the definition of abortion is the removal of a fetus before full term?
There are as many opinions concerning life and death situations as there is the number of ways one can lose their life.
Anyone who puts a fetus (not a conscious human being) over the life of the mother is a psychopath and should be locked up in a mental hospital. These types of people are a danger to society. We need to sterilize all of them so that they either do not reproduce or they stop reproducing. I'm glad most people have enough common sense and reason to not place a fetus over the life of the mother in dire circumstances. Smh at 19% of people who voted A.. 🙄
Why not work on having a better system to take care of and protect CHILDREN!!! Children are being abused, raped , killed off by so-called parents who don't want them! 🙄 . A system that continues to baby child molesters and murderers!!! . The Whole system is flawed and Fucked up. These old pedophile Men don't care about OUR children. They only care about controlling Women!!! . Why don't they make laws to stop Men from abandoning their children or make laws to stop Men from taking part in the reproduction process kmttttt
I don't think a 2 year old is worth losing the mother's life over. No offense to children but being younger doesn't make them any more valuable as a person. You can't legislate that shit. At that point its not even abortion, that's like telling a woman dying of cancer she can't have chemo therapy because she's pregnant. Fucked up.
10.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
If the fetus's health is that dangerous to a mother's health and it could cause the mother to die this is a big decision maker, I know a woman who was giving birth to a baby born without a brain but she still wanted to give birth to that baby, She gave birth and the baby lived for one hour while she held it in the delivery room, I believe that she did in fact bury that baby too When politics want to play with one's health this when you pray to God for them to be voted out or impeach from office.
I think in these cases, where the living breathing life is at risk, the woman should decide if at all possible. If she cannot, the family should have the decision based on her expressed wishes.
If you are referring to / including her financial / social life, then the fetus should have the states full protection.
I would bet you any amount of money that if it was his daughter or his wife he would look at things a lot different that's what's so fucked up about the whole thing until their daughter gets raped or your daughter has complications and is ready to lose her life because of this that's the only way that you would change his mind and that's what's wrong it's been his fucking business
This fetus may be alive, but it's not a sapient, sentient, self-aware organism yet. The woman is a person who's SUPPOSED to have unalienable rights which would include being sentenced to lose your life because the fetus MIGHT survive childbirth.
govt over stepping it's bounds, but I understand why and the perspective. It's a tough call, it's an awful decision to end a life or risk one or both. I don't envy such people.
To be clear... Jesus of Nazareth would not do what they are doing, nor how they would do it. There are other things Jesus would do...
It’s irrelevant what other people think, the only person who can make that decision is the dying mother, and believe it or not, many many women have made that choice to sacrifice their life so that the baby mat live! My God, if nothing else, you HAVE to respect the commitment these mothers!
Hey guys, first one to vote opposing here, I think its wrong because we can't take a life from a child, the mother's life is out of our hands and it's not our place to play God and kill a child to save a mother. We should however do all we can to save both. Intentional murder is wrong guys.
Look I get the argument you are making and it's an important one but with that philosophy of leaving everything in gods hands we have to reject every life saving medical intervention. If an accident happened that caused the mother to be brain dead before viability and the only way the fetus could survive was say to keep the mother alive by machines would we say, "nope we can't do that, it's not gods will to be kept alive by machines" even though the baby won't survive and it happens, www.cnn.com/.../index.html this is just one article it happens, not keeping this women alive would have caused the fetus to die, one could say the doctors were playing god. Look I respect everyone's opinion even if I fundamentally diagree because I believe for most (not all) it comes from a good place but if I had daughters which I don't I'd hate to have to tell her our lives as women were most important and most valued when we were unborn, after that, they become secondary to the unborn fetus we might carry, even if it was possibly against our will to be impregnanted through rape and evenj if it possibly could end our lives, even in those cases our lives would still be the lesser of value. However, I do believe in a kind and merciful god, so god bless you and be well.
We've been playing god for as long as humans have been practicing any form of medicine. Even devoutly religious people undergo, urge loved ones, and support others who undergo life saving surgeries. If god is benevolent, they would probably prefer someone to survive and keep bringing happiness to others. And if god is omnipotent, they would know which fetuses are not going to survive via miscarriage, abortion, or death of the mother, so unless god is sadistic in the extreme, they wouldn't imbue the fetus with whatever form of divine gift that religion believes in, like a soul.
If god created humans in his image and granted people intelligence, I doubt they would be impressed if humans didn't push forward in every field possible, including medicine. People are using their "god given gifts" to heal the sick, alleviate suffering, and save lives. A benevolent god would understand and want that to continue, rather than fold our hands and say 'it's not our place'. If you believe god gave you the gift of intelligence, they gave you the ability to think critically. Do it.
@TheLoneTerran You misunderstand, just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. For example we made the nuke, that’s not inherently a bad thing, should we have dropped it on a civilian population? No
@ deadlycread I guess I come to it from a different prospective because I work in healthcare, so not interventing to save someone's life in my mind is the same as taking a life, just like not responding to a code blue might not seem like taking a life, but it 's not intervening for someone who wants heroic measures. So not ending a pregnancy before viability, or not delivering a baby early like is often done to save the mother in my perspective is taking a life to save another. That doesn't mean I don't think everything that can be done in these situations shouldn't be done, I just know that medicine has a lot of gray areas. However, that being said, I do understand you're argument and I'm not saying you're wrong, what I'm saying I'm I have a come at from a different perspective, but these are tough moral and ethical questions that Americans as voters need to start having because the laws and restrictions or whatever you want to call them may largely be on us to decide as we vote at the state polls.
@whirled_up_girl I want you to repeat that in your head, but don’t say “ending the pregnancy” say killing the child. Changes a thing or two doesn’t it?
Your thought process does not make sense to me. There is a procedure where the woman's life will be saved, but the fetus will not survive but we shouldn't do it, even if we can. So the woman doesn't under the procedure, she dies, and there's a chance at saving the fetus.
This is why I feel your argument is disingenuous and in bad faith. Letting the woman die is intentionally killing someone. What you claim to want to avoid.
Woman = living, breathing person, obviously already born. She is sentient, she is sapient, self-aware, and has recognized mortality and everything that means for the average human.
Fetus = living mass of cells, good chance to become a living, breathing, independent human that is self-aware, sentient, sapient, and recognizes mortality, understands the concept of death. Barring miscarriage, accident, or disease.
If it's based off morality, you can't legislate morality, it's been tried for thousands of years and it always fails. And your morals mean nothing when concerning other people's situation. If it's religion, there is no place for a god in the law. That whole separate church and state. The US is not a christian nation, it wasn't even founded by christians but by deists. It has a christian majority population, but that doesn't allow for christian legislation. It also ignores the fact that the Bible had instructions on how to induce abortions. It was common practice. And okayed by the Bible. If the Old Testament doesn't matter, then their god isn't all knowing and all benevolent as god wouldn't need another Testament which goes against the tenants of the old. And if god is benevolent, then they aren't putting souls into fetuses they know will be aborted. Unless they're not all knowing.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions