To: Solon who wrote (38159 ) 11/21/2001 6:40:31 PM From: J. C. Dithers Read Replies (1) | Respond to This whole argument is entirely specious....killing a fetus is necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. If potentially fatal complications occur in a pregnancy, a reputable doctor's first objective would be to save both lives. In later term pregnancies, this would often be possible through Caesarian deliveries or induced labor. In these cases, there would also be instances where the baby did not survive, but clearly there was no intent or effort to kill the baby. In earlier term pregnancies, the doctor is confronted with a situation where the fetus is likely (but not certain) to die if removed from the womb. At the same time, given that the complications are potentially fatal to the mother, they are therefore potentially fatal to the fetus if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. A doctor who refused to act under such circumstances would be violating his sworn oath to use best effort to save lives. If the doctor removed the fetus in this circumstance, his intent still is clearly to save lives, not to take them.per se . Pregnancy is a normal condition for a woman. A complication must, by definition, be something abnormal in the pregnancy. Whatever this abnormal condition may be, it is not the fetus itself. The doctor, therefore, attempts to correct the abnormality. In the course of doing so, the fetus may sometimes die. Once again, this outcome cannot reasonably be characterized as "killing the baby," as if that was the intent, and a deliberate act.
