What's the difference between HAVE to have an abortion, and it being warranted?
Let's use an example within the medical framework. A breast augmentation is WARRANTED any time a patient decides they want one done. But there is no requirement under the law or good faith and conscious that such a procedure be necessarily available to a woman. However, it becomes NECESSARY when a woman has breast cancer and other treatments are ineffective.
Seems to me it's just a line in the sand.
That's because you know very little about the logical distinction between necessary and sufficient causes, or of anything having to do with the health care field.
You say it HAD to be available if there was risk to her life. Why only that extreme? Because you said so?
Because that is all that is protected by constitutional rights in the case of late term abortion.
See the medical world generally operates on the principle that services should be available to people to improve their well being and quality of life.
Don't try to tell me how the health care world operates because I am in a better position to know than you.
Certainly that would apply if the conception was a risk to her life, but it's clear to most people in this thread, as well as the doctors caring for her, that availability of abortion would have been a benefit to all involved.
No, it's not clear from anyone. You insist that the woman would have benefited from an abortion, but your insistence is unsubstantiated and based on nothing more than your own biases. The real problem for this woman is not that she had to carry the fetus a few more days. It's the fact that she was ready to become a mother, and at the last minute her hopes and plans fell apart.
You seem to be repeatedly overlooking the fact that the baby suffered for the entirety of its limited existence.
This argument has no merit, and if you knew anything about the health care field you would already know that. If you are going to invoke the suffering of the fetus as any kind of justification, then you logically must deal with the fetus on equal terms as any living and breathing human being, just like you and myself. The health care industry is not in the business of killing off people just because they are suffering. It would be a violation of medical ethics.
Again I ask and you ignore: who benefited from denying an abortion in this case?
Who said that anyone had to benefit for the law to be just? Sometimes shit happens and there are no winners. But as has already been said by someone else, the law should not be written based on special rarities. The fact that this woman found herself in a very unusual and unpleasant circumstance does not make the law unjust. At the end of the day, the law did not require her to die or endure any risk to her well being. The only thing she has suffered is the very traumatic loss of her newborn baby. And as much as my heart goes out to this woman, the law is not to blame.
I think a woman who wants to have a child suffers more from being forced to see it suffer and die shortly after birth. But as you said, you think her mental anguish is completely irrelevant to the issue.
In terms of identifying whether it is a just law, unfortunately yes, her mental anguish is pretty much irrelevant. The world is not perfect. Sometimes people have very disturbing experiences. But you're really doing a discourtesy to this woman by trying to wallow in her suffering, as opposed to having a more positive attitude. As painful as this is for this woman, she CAN go on. She may need to seek some professional help to help her cope with the loss of her child. But the truth of the matter is that what has happened to this woman is NOT ABOUT THE DAMN LAW. It is about the tragic loss of her child.
Once again I state three things that could have been helped with an abortion, and once again you completely ignore 2 of them.
I haven't ignored anything. I've simply explained away how the various things you're trying to push are not relevant, or have no place exerting influence here. Invoking the suffering of the fetus in support of your invokes logical problems that lead to violations of medical ethics (maybe here I kinda ignored that point at first, but that's because I have an understanding of how health care works, such that it was pretty much unthinkable to me to even think that someone would suggest what you say, while you are simply willing to invoke such things in ignorance). I've I had also already dispensed with your invoking the "mental anguish" of the mother because based on the standard to which you held me, you have no standing to invoke such. That left me with one point left, which I subsequently addressed.
Sure. Let's say you're right in that abortion would have provided this woman no comfort even though she herself states it would have in the various articles and VIDEOS of her.
Like I said,
something had to be done, right? Not much different than someone being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. They want SOMETHING to be done, even though any potential operation will not actually provide them any physical results, and their "mental anguish" will not actually be alleviated in the end. If you knew anything about mental health, you wouldn't even be talking about this. This woman's emotional problem is that she lost her baby. A late term abortive procedure would have been about as much benefit to her as giving her a bottle of bourbon. Anyone who is in the health care field can easily recognize that this woman's current reactions are typical defensive mechanisms, and part of the normal grieving process.
Will you continue to ignore the issue of continuing to carry a nonviable fetus and the suffering of the baby itself?
As already explained, trying to raise this issue creates logical problems that would subsequently require your position to violate medical ethics, since invoking the suffering of the baby logically requires that the fetus be afforded all of the rights, privileges, and standings of a fully born person. Except where state law explicitly provides, medical ethics does not recognize active euthanasia. Even when the patient is suffering greatly, passive measures must be employed. I.E. nature must take its own course. You are advocating that other people should hold the power to make the decision of taking a life just because the person is suffering. You're arguing that the law and medical ethics should allow for mercy killings.
and clearly not the baby's. Interesting double standard you have there.
Again, by making an argument from the baby's condition, you are arguing for mercy killings under the law and medical ethics.
In your mind, it's ok as long as the mother doesn't PHYSICALLY suffer for it to any substantial degree, but it's ok if the baby suffers horribly until its inevitable death in a few minutes.
If you understood anything about medical ethics you would not try to present the case in such an artificially inflammatory manner. You are trying to present the issue as if I only have compassion for the mother and not the baby. That is not the case, and it's offensive to all people in the health care field that you would paint the ethics of the profession in such a way. The sad truth of life is that sometimes people suffer, sometimes they suffer greatly. It is considered ethical under certain situations to conduct passive euthanasia, i.e. letting nature take its course, as a means to end human suffering. This usually involves things like Do Not Rescusitate orders, living wills, etc. This also at times involves decisions to refuse treatment, or to remove life sustaining treatment (like the Terry Shiavo case). But active euthanasia is a different matter. With the exception of where specific laws make specific provisions, it is beyond a health care provider's ethical role to actively end a life, even if to alleviate suffering. That is the rules by which the health care profession operates. So for you to try to invoke the suffering of the baby in support of your position only creates unresolvable logical circles.
