We all understand that sometimes a fetus is removed from a mother because a continuation of the pregnancy may threaten the mother's life.
Well, please don't make it sound so cavalier. The courts have determined that the fetus may be killed when the life of the mother is at risk (late term)...and for any reason during the first trimester...
You say this is favoring the mother
DUH!!
In later term pregnancy, the fetus might survive, but the the mother would be saved, too, thus favoring neither.
In Partial Birth Abortion the fetus is killed and the head is chopped up so that it may be removed from the birth canal. This is obviously unfavourable to the fetus. Any attempt to save the fetus at the expense of the wife (such as through a cecearean section) is prohibited by law. Obviously, there are a few billion or so real life situations where the survival of the fetus could be focussed upon at the expense of the mother. Simply removing a fetus and attempting to keep it alive outside of the maternal host is not a difficult concept; but it is illegal if it compromises the health and safety of the mom.
The courts have ruled that it is illegal to place the interest of the fetus ahead of that of the mother. It would be simple to chop up a mother who is experiencing complications, and to place the fetus in an incubator(something I am familiar with, BTW). But the law disallows it as it has a peculiar bias...
The safety of the wife trumps the safety of the zygote, whether it is one cell or one ounce--no difference under the law...
Your "either/or" requires that there be some circumstance wherein it is possible to save the fetus by killing the mother. You are going to have to tell us what this circumstance could possibly be.
The fetus can almost always be saved if it is late term. You don't seem to be well versed in this field. If the court would favor the fetus over the mother, and state that the life of the fetus must be protected where there is danger of "physical disorder, physical ilness, or physical injury...then millions of them would survive world-wide every year...and millions of mothers would die.
Does it matter whether it is easier to save a viable fetus by killing a mother, or if it is easier to save a viable mother by killing a fetus? Do you think that the courts instructing the medical profession to look to the life of the mother first is simply an example of people having too much time on their hands???
Do you think it is impossible to favor the life of the mother over the foetus and vice versa, such that the court cases and the instructions to the medical profession are just a bunch of people having fun?
Viable fetuses can almost always be saved, Mr. Dithers. They are not allowed to be saved if such action would risk the health of the wife. But wives are allowed to be saved, whether or not it jeopardises the health or life or the growth of the foetal tissue.
The viable fetus can almost always be saved; but the medical profession has been instructed by the courts to protect the life and health of the mother.
BTW, Mr. Dithers...Do you agree with the courts? Or do you think the bias should be toward the fetus? Or do you think that there should be no clause directing us to look to the health and safety of the wife/sister/mother? Many people (CLAIM) to believe--that the fetus is a person and (obviously) entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is to their everlasting disgrace that many of them (apparently 99+% of them) still discriminate against the fetus when its life is at stake against the life of their wife...or the mother of their children. The world is full of phoneys and hypocrites; isn't it, Mr. Dithers?? |
