And let's not forget the operating team, doubtless discussing, debating, struggling through the same soul-searching ordeal, while Mom looks on.
How can you be so witless, Mr. Dithers? As was indicated by the poster who claimed that almost 100% of people would support the exception of saving the life of the mother, the medical team already have this mandate as to what they are to do.
I know of no exception to the laws that have been passed allowing partial birth abortions to save the mother's life. Generally the state statute reads similar to the following: "...may perform a partial-birth abortion if the physician or other individual reasonably believes that performing the partial-birth abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury and that no other medical procedure would accomplish that purpose."
Now you may think that these cases are being fought through the courts every day because there are no philosophical or social concerns involved (the converse , of course being the claim I have made, and which you hereby attempt to ridicule), but your inane comments are gainsayed by the impassioned arguments of lawyers, doctors, philosphers, and interested parties in court rooms all across this land.
Your remarks, intended to insult, are merely ridiculous...and are indicative of an extreme prejudice which eschews thoughtfulness and honest consideration.
As far as I know, 100% of rulings on this issue have supported the right to kill the fetus in cases where the "woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury". Indeed, the Supreme Court has even held that this restriction is Unconstitutional. I don't have the time to look that up right now as I have to get to a garage. Perhaps you will make the effort.
Let us (if you are sufficiently chastened) return to the point of the issue as originally framed by myself: WHY do people place the life of the mother (or the wife, if you prefer) ahead of that of the fetus when it is either an either/or situation, OR when there is risk of impairment to the mother's health--NOT NECESSARILY her death??
This was the point I was asking clarification for: why should almost 100 % of people be willing that a fetus should die if it is necessary to honor the stipulation that the mother's "life (or health) is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury?"
There are huge numbers of anti-abortion people who claim that the fetus is a child and a person. They are attempting to make the fetus into a "legal" person. Why are they part of the 99+% of people who favor an exception for the mother?
Perhaps the 99+% figure is inaccurate. If so, simply say so, and produce your evidence. Otherwise, I am perplexed as to why people would find it appropriate that a clause which discriminates against the fetus should stand.
All I asked was for a rationale for this perplexing question. For you to trivialize the serious issues that are involved here with your opening remarks, simply denigrates the entire issue, and belittles the sincere passions of people who struggle with the ethics of abortion. If you beleive that mockery is an argument then all power to you.
I don't think your description of a woman "fighting for her very life ... while all the while pondering the "critical philosophical and social implications" of her travail" is either very smart or very kind. I think the woman and her husband and society would normally fight to preserve her life, and not that of her fetus. And this, in fact, is what the courts are instructing the medical profession to do. It has been suggested here that 99+% of people would support this intention. However, we know that a large percentage of people believe a fetus is a person. This lack of correspondence or hypocricy requires some sort of explanation. |
