Doctors Let Woman Die Rather Than Harm Fetus

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

I don't see how this view is not the logical outcome of anti-abortion. Anti-abortion places the babies rights above those of the mother, just as how this happens here.

Anti-abortion places the baby's life above the rights of the mother.

[Nikose Tyris]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Anti-abortion places the baby's life above the rights of the mother.

What's the difference? A Fetus has no desire for any other right. >.>

Edit: A fetus has no desires at all. You know what I meant.

[Sun-Wukong]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Anti-abortion places the baby's life above the rights of the mother.

In this case, here life.

[Funka Genocide]

It seems like the procedure(s) necessary to save the woman's life might have lead to a miscarriage. That's not the same thing as performing an abortion.

Honestly even by the wording of their own law these doctors are still liable. They weren't commissioned to perform an abortion, the unfortunate side effect of a necessary procedure might have been a miscarriage, but oh fucking well.

You really shouldn't be allowed to practice if you won't perform an abortion anyways.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

It seems like the procedure(s) necessary to save the woman's life might have lead to a miscarriage. That's not the same thing as performing an abortion.

Yeah. My point was that it was the same backwards mentality that anti-abortion people have.

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by NonCon

Yeah. My point was that it was the same backwards mentality that anti-abortion people have.

Yeah I can dig it. I mean the number of vocal "Pro-lifers" on this forum has to be dangerously low by this point however.

I mean this is a tragedy no matter how you slice it, and it really rests on the shoulders of whatever doctors this woman went to (as well as her family and herself for being, at the least, ignorant.)

I can kind of see how forcing someone to kill a fetus might lead to severe professional difficulties, but at the same time its like saying I can kind of see how forcing someone to kill an insurgent could do the same. You chose your profession, either deal with the realities of it or quit.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

What's the difference? A Fetus has no desire for any other right. >.>

Edit: A fetus has no desires at all. You know what I meant.

The idea is that the right to life is more important that all other rights. So while the right of the fetus to live trumps the other rights of the mother, the right of the fetus to live does not trump the right of the mother to also live, as the right to life is equally important in both.

That, at least, is my understanding of the pro-life/anti-abortion stance.

[Nikose Tyris]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

The idea is that the right to life is more important that all other rights. So while the right of the fetus to live trumps the other rights of the mother, the right of the fetus to live does not trump the right of the mother to also live, as the right to life is equally important in both.

That, at least, is my understanding of the pro-life/anti-abortion stance.

It's a silly discussion to begin with, granted, but the disagreement I had brought up was based on your word choices more then anything. "Baby's Life" has a much... harsher audible consequence then "rights of a fetus" and is a cruel tactic used by Anti-Choicers. Like forcing out "Anti-Life" "Anti-Abortion" throws a negative into the mix. Your phrasing hit and kind of irked me, and I was interested in drawing out the conversation into something more.

Also, really, a Fetus has 0 needs/wants. It isn't a thinking being. It has/needs less rights then the young in any animal's Loins. It's the mother's task to do what she will with it.

**Removed because I decided it was too inflammatory.**

Edit: I've typed and retyped this post like 8 times tonight to try and be as clear, and polite, as possible. D: I am not trying to target or be rude or ANYTHING here. I'm still firmly of the stance that men don't have any stakes or rights to involve themselves in the pro-life/pro-choice debates at all. I'm only participating here because I've been wondering what the viewpoints of a few known pro-lifers are, and how they approaches things.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

It's a silly discussion to begin with, granted, but the disagreement I had brought up was based on your word choices more then anything. "Baby's Life" has a much... harsher audible consequence then "rights of a fetus" and is a cruel tactic used by Anti-Choicers. Like forcing out "Anti-Life" "Anti-Abortion" throws a negative into the mix. Your phrasing hit and kind of irked me, and I was interested in drawing out the conversation into something more.

I understand that. I used "Baby" because that's how I tend to think of it, not to be inflammatory. I often use baby and fetus interchangeably (though yes, I know, it's not technically accurate to do so), which is why I happened to use "fetus" in my last post.

And actually, I've heard it expressed, and used to identify with this frustration myself, that the term "fetus" was introduced into the debate by pro-choicers to purposefully dehumanize the baby inside the mother. Which really bothers anti-abortionists.

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

Also, really, a Fetus has 0 needs/wants. It isn't a thinking being. It has/needs less rights then the young in any animal's Loins. It's the mother's task to do what she will with it.

I would argue that rights are rights, regardless of the mental capacity of the person. If the fetus is a human, it has rights just like the mother. If it isn't, it doesn't.

[Magus]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

If you could, they wouldn't still all be swearing to a god nobody believes in anymore. One of several reasons I went into pharmacy originally and not medical school (I previously had thought of becoming a vet (I know veterinary school is totally different, but I was, like, twelve)).

Yes, no one believes in God anymore. Indeed.

As for the origins of the term "foetus", Ryanderman, it has been in use since 1594 in Britain, Ireland, etc. to refer to an unborn child, so I highly doubt it was introduced in the past 50 years or whatever to try and dehumanize unborn children.

Anyway, my stance on the whole thing is that people shouldn't have any problem with therapeutic abortions, but some people do and I don't really understand it, since it implicitly states that the fetus right to life overrules the woman's right to life. Obviously there is more of a moral quandary over elective abortions,although personally I find that a large number of the pro-life/anti-abortion bloc seems to encourage the perpetuation of the problem of unwanted babies via encouraging abstinence only sex education programs and otherwise making it difficult for teenagers to learn about and get ahold of birth control, and a smaller but equally numerous group within this larger group is also very zealously opposed to any form of abortions even when it makes little sense to oppose them, such as in the case of therapeutic abortions and rape/incest cases, which further removes discussion from what might actually be worthy moral discussion of elective abortions.

Plus there were basically no objections to abortion in general prior to the 19th century, at least via the law.