This thread so far:
Care's point: This should be a decision for the patient and doctor
Allie's point: Care's point is that all babies should be butchered if not absolutely perfect because they are an abomination
STH's point: I agree with care AND abortion should have been available to her in this instance
Ceclie's point: omg fuckwit article didn't say anything about abortion or blue!
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.
That's a good example. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to the situation at hand, but does indirectly answer the question: the differences between necessity and warranted is determined by the the risk and damages. Also keep in mind the "HAVE to have an abortion" is in reference to it's availability, not the procedure itself. If any medical procedure is WARRANTED because of direct health risks, be it loss of life, limb, or quality of life, that procedure ought to be available to the patient. Clearly a procedure that is completely elective does not apply to this. Somewhere in between lies a line in the sand.
Don't try to tell me how the health care world operates because I am in a better position to know than you.
Internet people always are. Cecilie saw two people with lung problems and she's an expert pulmonologist. Let me guess, you've seen a parent in the hospital? No no wait I got it: your sister dropped out of nursing school.
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 did in fact identify a starting problem, that her hopes and plans fell apart, but in doing so completely dismissed the ethical issue at hand: WHAT TO DO AT THAT TIME. That is the topic on the table: not the start of the problem but how to react. I insist the woman would have benefit from whatever her decision was because it was her decision. I insist that allowing for abortion would have benefited the baby if the patient desired it. I also insist that ignoring the patient's desires and removing the possibility of abortion in this case was of benefit to NO ONE. Again I ask which you have avoided countless times: who benefited from the current law in this situation? What justice or good did it serve?
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.
You keep saying things like this, yet I can't help but notice you never actually back it up. Let's look at your knowledgeable view on the health care industry. You claim it is not in the business of killing people just because they are suffering. Let's just ignore Oregon for a moment, which COMPLETELY destroys that claim, and instead look at the anticipated suffering itself. Healthcare in every way seeks to diminish suffering. The entire field of anesthesiology is claim to that. In end of life issues, this can also be seen in
the double effect.
But the fact that you continue to compare this issue to mid-life issues based on whatever limited exposure you have to medicine as you keep alluding to is foolish. Medicine doesn't kill to remove TEMPORARY suffering, but there are tremendous and widely used actions used to removed terminal suffering. Those pesky details matter, and comparing this baby to any random person with a little aches or pains is not appropriate.
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.
What do you think is the point of law or justice if not the striving to seek fairness and increase overall benefit to society? Why would you EVER support a law that is to the detriment of EVERYONE affected by it? I can't seem to think of any right now, but can you point out a law that is bad for everyone involved? "Sometimes shit happens" is not an appropriate response to a law. I agree that laws should not be written for rarities, but EXCEPTIONS to the law should be. This is tax season, and this statement should be obvious. If we took your stance of no exceptions for rarities, abortion wouldn't even be possible if the mother's life was in danger. Ridiculous.
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.
It's about both. It's about the suffering of her child as well. Sure, let's remove her anguish or even the physical impact of carrying a non-viable fetus in a compressing uterus. Those are two of the three points I have continued to bring up. Take them off the table completely, and the third still remains: it was human inaction that directly allowed for a known and anticipated suffering of a baby until it died from asphyxiation. Why should we have laws that permit such things? If it were a terminal adult, a multitude of actions would have been taken to reduce the suffering, even at the cost of hastening death, so why is it fine in this situation?
I haven't ignored anything. ... (maybe here I kinda ignored that point at first, but that's because I have an understanding of how health care works,
Clearly not, if you are unfamiliar with the double effect or the purpose of anesthesiology. Wait let me guess, your familiarity with health care comes from your second cousin once removed being a dentist. Am I getting closer?
A late term abortive procedure would have been about as much benefit to her as giving her a bottle of bourbon.
Wow. Just wow. Maybe we should have given the bourbon to the baby instead, by your reasoning. You are clearly a clearly a health care and mental health expert.
