Zone1 Should She Have Been Allowed to Terminate Her Pregnancy?

[ChristisKing]

Certainly no (normal, decent) parent wants their kids to die young, die before they do.

If someone is dying of cancer and they haven’t eaten or drank anything in seven days, I certainly don’t advocate anyone giving them a lethal dose of something; I would want someone doing that to go to prison. They’ll
die soon enough, just hold their hand, talk to them, keep them comfortable.

Is the situation sad? Sure. Of course it is. But that doesn’t justify killing another human being like this. If they’re doomed to die anyway, so be it, that isn’t your fault or your responsibility. You do the right thing and take care of what is your responsibility.

Laws can’t bend for emotionally manipulative situations - the act of attacking and killing innocent human beings is always wrong.

You make good points, especially with that cancer thing and I even agree with the end part. If I was doomed to die but there was a chance my child could live I would most definitely go through with it.

 

[alang1216]

Certainly no (normal, decent) parent wants their kids to die young, die before they do.

If someone is dying of cancer and they haven’t eaten or drank anything in seven days, I certainly don’t advocate anyone giving them a lethal dose of something; I would want someone doing that to go to prison. They’ll
die soon enough, just hold their hand, talk to them, keep them comfortable.

Is the situation sad? Sure. Of course it is. But that doesn’t justify killing another human being like this. If they’re doomed to die anyway, so be it, that isn’t your fault or your responsibility. You do the right thing and take care of what is your responsibility.

Laws can’t bend for emotionally manipulative situations - the act of attacking and killing innocent human beings is always wrong.

I truly loved my dog but I put him down because I loved him and didn't want him to suffer.

 

[Papageorgio]

Is that your professional legal opinion? Where did you say you got your law degree?

I didn’t know you had to have a law degree, where did you get yours? How many times has it been tried and had convictions?

 

[Coyote]

"Should She Have Been Allowed to Terminate Her Pregnancy?"


No, absolutely not. We don't kill folks just because they might or likely will die. Those who do are murderers and should die in prison.

That is your son or daughter, love them, name them, bury them or cremate them as is proper - don't murder them and dispose of them like garbage.

That is the trashiest thing I’ve heard said about this. Are you serious? This is a baby the couple wanted, very much so. This is an agonizing decision for them. At the end, they did not want their baby to be born only to suffer an agonizing death because her lungs were non functional as well as having no kidneys. This was certainly not a baby that was going to be disposed of like trash.

It is also an example of how LITTLE you really care about the mother who you feel should be forced to carry term a dying fetus, which also can carry significant risk to her. Some women can do this, but they get a choice. You remove any choice.

 

[Coyote]

Certainly no (normal, decent) parent wants their kids to die young, die before they do.

If someone is dying of cancer and they haven’t eaten or drank anything in seven days, I certainly don’t advocate anyone giving them a lethal dose of something; I would want someone doing that to go to prison. They’ll
die soon enough, just hold their hand, talk to them, keep them comfortable.

Is the situation sad? Sure. Of course it is. But that doesn’t justify killing another human being like this. If they’re doomed to die anyway, so be it, that isn’t your fault or your responsibility. You do the right thing and take care of what is your responsibility.

Laws can’t bend for emotionally manipulative situations - the act of attacking and killing innocent human beings is always wrong.

But it isn’t the same. Not all. Because you are condemning one human being by forcing her to carry a fetus she knows will die at birth, against her and against her desire not to have it suffer. You are condemning HER to take all the risks of what is now a high risk pregnancy for dying fetus. In your other exampkes, no one else’s body is involved.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

That is the trashiest thing I’ve heard said about this.

Have you read your own words? That's often a great source for garbage when one is actively searching.

Are you serious? This is a baby the couple wanted, very much so.

Relevance is zero and evidence is against this claim given they wanted to kill the kid and were stopped from doing so by law.

That's a great thing. The law worked. We had some trashy parents who were going to give into their worst impulses and were unable to do so.

This is an agonizing decision for them.

It's a self-serving decision, killing their inconvenient kid. This is nothing special compared to the usual abortion nonsense excuses.

At the end, they did not want their baby to be born only to suffer an agonizing death

So you have a kid already, your kid is alive, but doomed, so you think it's best to just kill them now because they're doomed? I think that's despicable. You as a parent would not be to blame for the horrible circumstance of their disease or disability, but you absolutely would be responsible for their murder. You thinking you're some merciful or justified murderer wouldn't change that you'd be a dangerous murderer with no respect for the lives and rights of others.

It is also an example of how LITTLE you really care about the mother who you feel should be forced to carry term a dying fetus, which also can carry significant risk to her. Some women can do this, but they get a choice. You remove any choice.

Yeah, I don't think murder should be casually discussed in a positive light, I think it reflects poorly on those advocating for it - they have the free speech rights to whine about the good this law just did, but the law is good.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

But it isn’t the same. Not all.

It's literally the same.

What elements are different?

A mom wants to hire someone to kill their kid because their kid is dying / going to die soon

vs

A caregiver [presumably a son or daughter] wants to issue a lethal, toxic dose of medication to kill a dying patient in their care [parent.]

Other than the fact that the first case has at least one additional killer and some accessories to the needless violent homicide, what is the difference? Nothing of significance in terms of the act or the victim.


I don't support needless violence against helpless innocents - I can't fathom how anyone could support it, and I know they can't rationalize it and use consistent logic.

Any one involved in either killing is dangerous - monstrous even - and should die in a prison.

 

[Coyote]

But it isn’t the same. Not all. Because you are condemning one human being by forcing her to carry a fetus she knows will die at birth, against her and against her desire not to have it suffer. You are condemning HER to take all the risks of what is now a high risk pregnancy for dying fetus. In your other exampkes, no one else’s body is involved.

@gtopa why do you disagree?

 

[martybegan]

What doctor would perform an abortion knowing he could be targeted for prosecution under the law when the doctor's judgement is later questioned?

If they are so gung ho about abortions they should be willing to martyr their license for it.

 

[martybegan]

Sounds like hospital lawyers made the decision in error, not the law.
The law quite clearly states that an abortion is legal if 2 doctors sign a document that the fetus has a lethal condition that is not treatable.
Clearly this condition is lethal and untreatable.
So it isn't the law that is wrong. It is the hospital applying it wrong

It's the abortion rights doctors and hospital staff trying to get the law overturned by lying about it.

 

[Coyote]

It's literally the same.

What elements are different?

A mom wants to hire someone to kill their kid because their kid is dying / going to die soon

vs

A caregiver [presumably a son or daughter] wants to issue a lethal, toxic dose of medication to kill a dying patient in their care [parent.]

Other than the fact that the first case has at least one additional killer and some accessories to the needless violent homicide, what is the difference? Nothing of significance in terms of the act or the victim.


I don't support needless violence against helpless innocents - I can't fathom how anyone could support it, and I know they can't rationalize it and use consistent logic.

Any one involved in either killing is dangerous - monstrous even - and should die in a prison.

What is different?

Your complete and utterly heartless disregard for the woman carrying to term a fetus who will die at birth. You have, over and over voiced your contempt for pregnant women, whether it is forced gestation as a result of rape or forcing a woman to carry a fetus with conditions incompatable with life.

She is nothing more than a vessel for another life as far as you are concerned.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

What is different?

Your complete and utterly heartless disregard

Blah blah blah blah emotional bullcrap.

Yes, yes, you're very concerned with selfish people who want to abandon responsibility and kill their kid.

You have, over and over voiced your contempt for pregnant women

Whaleshit. What an insane lie.

I have zero "contempt for pregnant women."

I do, as any moral person must, have contempt for mothers who kill their own kid, which is really just a subset of having contempt for anyone of either sex who attacks and kills any innocent human being in cold blood... aka violent sociopathic murderers.

whether it is forced gestation

Ridiculous phrase, pure nonsense. Indicative of sociopathy

 

[Coyote]

Blah blah blah blah emotional bullcrap.

You can’t remove emotion from a pregnancy, especially one that ends like this.

Yes, yes, you're very concerned with selfish people who want to abandon responsibility and kill their kid.

Whaleshit. What an insane lie.

In every instance where a mother is confronted with a horrible decision, you express zero compassion.

Reading your posts, while she is pregnant, she is nothing more than a body to house a new life. The right’s of that new life to her body are greater than hers. She has to be essentially, at death’s door before you will grant her the option of “emergency medical triage”.

You want her to be forced to carry a non viable fetus to birth or, presumably, she miscarries or goes into septic shock where her life is in danger enough to finally intervene. Of course septicemia can to organ damage, brain damage, amputations.

You support forced pregnancy. That in itself is horrible. Even if the pregnant person is herself just a child. Most decent people will at least grant exceptions for rape, incest or lethal fetal deformities. You are one cold fish and certainly not in a good position to be calling others vulgur expletives for supporting the pregnant woman’s right to have a choice.

I have zero "contempt for pregnant women."

I do, as any moral person must, have contempt for mothers who kill their own kid, which is really just a subset of having contempt for anyone of either sex who attacks and kills any innocent human being in cold blood... aka violent sociopathic murderers.

In your world, an 11 yr old who was raped will forced to bear the consequences of something she had no say over and that her body is not even ready for.

Ridiculous phrase, pure nonsense. Indicative of sociopathy

Silly.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You can’t remove emotion from a pregnancy

Incorrect.

And if you can’t remove emotion from your judgement, it is at best suspect, though in this case the fact it was lacking was already well-established.

In every instance where a mother is confronted with a horrible decision, you express zero compassion.

There isn’t a “decision” to be had here.

There is not, to a moral person, any dilemma. If you are a moral person and not a dumb animal, you know you are not supposed to attack and kill a helpless, innocent human being.

Reading your posts, while she is pregnant, she is nothing more than a body to house a new life.

If you employ basic literacy, I state that mothers should refrain from attacking their own kids.

If you find that somehow limiting and defining their entire existence, that the only thing that they are is a psychopath who needs to lash out in violence - then it is a good thing they have been restricted from doing so. Perhaps they can branch out and find some new hobbies that don’t involve slaughter.

The right’s of that new life to her body are greater than hers.

Stupid.

Implies any number of magical or science fiction scenarios to be the case.

There is no ownership of the mother to her son or daughter, nor vice versa. Humans are not or
should not be property. There was this whole war about the topic - maybe we need another one for folks like you to get the hint?

She has to be essentially, at death’s door before you will grant her the option of “emergency medical triage”.

Yes, emergency medical triage is the only possible justification for taking an action that will accelerate or cause the demise of one of the patients in your care - you save the ones you can save and the ones who are dead no matter what you do, well, you do your best to keep them comfortable.

If we’re not at that and all you have is “giving birth will make me the big sad” that is sure as shit NOT an emergency.

99.9xx% of abortions are not emergency medical triage, they are selfish homicides for personal gain, period, end of story.

You want her to be forced to carry a non viable fetus to birth

I want a mother to refrain from attacking and killing her living son or daughter. If the son or daughter dies from natural causes, so be it, but the imminence of their death will NEVER justify attacking them.

You support forced pregnancy.

Retarded lie.

I don’t support forcing anyone to become a parent. When you do the thing that makes kids, though, you might become a parent. That’s how that works. Sorry you didn’t know, but now you do.

pregnant person

Mother.

Most decent people

There is nothing decent about supporting executions of the innocent for something awful one of their parents did.

There is nothing decent about supporting murdering someone just because they might die soon.

Anyone who supports any such thing isn’t within a light year of decency.

You are one cold fish and certainly not in a good position to be calling others vulgur expletives

I’m in a pretty good position actually. I support human rights and equality and condemn those who attack others, or support these attackers.

I note that there is no moral or logical basis in the statements of support people like you proffer.

In your world, an 11 yr old who was raped

Emotionally manipulative garbage.

 

[Coyote]

Incorrect.

And if you can’t remove emotion from your judgement, it is at best suspect, though in this case the fact it was lacking was already well-established.

Incorrect. Most human beings are not emotionless entities. Pregnancy and having children are among the most emotion laden parts of life. It is your very lack of emotion that likely explains a complete lack of empathy or compassion for the woman.

There isn’t a “decision” to be had here.

There is not, to a moral person, any dilemma. If you are a moral person and not a dumb animal, you know you are not supposed to attack and kill a helpless, innocent human being.

Yet you think it is moral to force a woman to carry a pregnancy from a man who raped her, or force her to a carry a pregnancy she know will die at or before birth. It is a very one dimensional code of morality.

If you employ basic literacy, I state that mothers should refrain from attacking their own kids.

If you find that somehow limiting and defining their entire existence, that the only thing that they are is a psychopath who needs to lash out in violence - then it is a good thing they have been restricted from doing so. Perhaps they can branch out and find some new hobbies that don’t involve slaughter.

You are the one who wants to remove their agency upon pregnancy, even when it was forced upon them in an act of violence. That sounds psychopathic.

Stupid.

Implies any number of magical or science fiction scenarios to be the case.

There is no ownership of the mother to her son or daughter, nor vice versa. Humans are not or
should not be property. There was this whole war about the topic - maybe we need another one for folks like you to get the hint?

Indeed. They are not property. So why do you reduce pregnant women to property?

Yes, emergency medical triage is the only possible justification for taking an action that will accelerate or cause the demise of one of the patients in your care - you save the ones you can save and the ones who are dead no matter what you do, well, you do your best to keep them comfortable.

So you advocate waiting until the baby’s host is going to die before intervening?

99.9xx% of abortions are not emergency medical triage, they are selfish homicides for personal gain, period, end of story.

Maternal mortality rate in 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. That is not insignificant. You seem to dismiss it as “collateral damage” that you find acceptable. Again, your contempt for women.

I want a mother to refrain from attacking and killing her living son or daughter. If the son or daughter dies from natural causes, so be it, but the imminence of their death will NEVER justify attacking them.

So what is a woman’s option in cases like these?

She had 'a baby dying inside' her. Under Missouri's abortion ban, doctors could do nothing.

With the reversal of Roe, Missouri banned abortions. This woman wants others to know what happens when complications arise in a non-viable pregnancy.

www.usatoday.com

At 41, Farmer worried that, by the time there was an emergency, it would be too late for both her and Maeve. And even if Farmer did live through it, she worried about what her recovery would be like.

She was already at "risks of maternal thrombosis given her history of (deep vein thrombosis during a COVID-19 infection), infection/sepsis, severe blood loss, hysterotomy, hysterectomy and even mortality," according to the medical record.

These sort of complications are not uncommon. The laws in some states require her to be at eminent risk of death before they can intervene, which usually means she is already in sepsis. Sepsis is serious and if it doesn’t kill, can leave lasting organ damage.

Her water broke early, the fetus was alive but was slowly dying.

Retarded lie.

I don’t support forcing anyone to become a parent. When you do the thing that makes kids, though, you might become a parent. That’s how that works. Sorry you didn’t know, but now you do.

Forcing the victim of rape or incest to carry a pregnancy to birt IS a forcing someone to become a parent due to circumstances she had absolutely no control over.

 

[alang1216]

I didn’t know you had to have a law degree, where did you get yours? How many times has it been tried and had convictions?

It was not me who declared an opinion to be completely legal, I only noted that it has not yet been decided and might go either way.

 

[alang1216]

If they are so gung ho about abortions they should be willing to martyr their license for it.

Obviously the doctors are not 'gung ho' and it is the mother who suffers. You should be overjoyed.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Incorrect. Most human beings are not emotionless entities. Pregnancy and having children are among the most emotion laden parts of life. It is your very lack of emotion that likely explains a complete lack of empathy or compassion for the woman.

If you can’t be impartial and unemotional, if all you have is hysterics, then you abandon logic and consistency. Which means you’ve abandoned debate altogether, really, just hoot and holler to your hearts content and bang on something, set something on fire, I don’t know, but rational discussion about political dispute is out the window at that point.

Yet you think it is moral to force a woman to carry a pregnancy

I think your framing of not killing innocent human beings is grossly dishonest and immoral, actually.

You are the one who wants to remove their agency upon pregnancy, even when it was forced upon them in an act of violence. That sounds psychopathic.

You are the one who wants innocent human beings, guilty of no wrongdoing whatsoever, to be violently killed in clear violation of their natural human rights. That is psychopathic… or perhaps more like sociopathic.

Indeed. They are not property. So why do you reduce pregnant women to property?

Parenthood is not slavery. Your claim here to the contrary is laughably stupid and warrants only laughter and mockery.

If there was any doubt you had abandoned good faith debate or reason, you have removed all doubt.

So you advocate waiting until the baby’s host is going to die before intervening?

Mothers are not “hosts.”

Your understanding of basic biology is nil. Embryology is not parasitism. The comparison is ignorant and disgusting - you are demonstrably just dehumanizing those you hate and want dead, directly on par with a genocidal Nazi. Just awful.

So what is a woman’s option in cases like these?

I don’t care about “cases like these” or any specific anecdote or scenario - one should set a clear and universal standard, divorced from emotional appeal.

You can’t do that, which is why you and those like you should be kept from any and all levers of power.

Emergency medical triage only should be the standard.

Forcing the victim of rape or incest to carry a pregnancy to birt IS a forcing someone to become a parent due to circumstances she had absolutely no control over.

That is the fault of the rapist, not the kid. If you want to argue the penalties for rape are too mild, preaching to the choir on that.

If you want to blame civilization and reason for not allowing someone to kill a third party innocent just because a second party hurt them, then we’re completely at odds.

 

[SavannahMann]

She is allowed to per the article. Once again the headline is an absolute lie.

There are a few exceptions, including one that would allow for a later abortion “if two physicians certify in writing that the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality and has not reached viability”.

After consulting with the hospitals legal team, the couple was told that they would have to wait to terminate the pregnancy until week 37 of gestation, which is near full term.

And those Doctors will not say so knowing that if the State can find an expert who will claim that the child could have lived and be subjected to criminal penalties.

 

[Coyote]

If you can’t be impartial and unemotional, if all you have is hysterics, then you abandon logic and consistency. Which means you’ve abandoned debate altogether, really, just hoot and holler to your hearts content and bang on something, set something on fire, I don’t know, but rational discussion about political dispute is out the window at that point.

What you call logic and consistency is neither.

You support the death penalty.
You define “innocent” as ONLY the unborn.
Don’t know how you feel about war.

A person can be consistent, logical, and emotional. The value of emotion is in being able to put yourself in another’s shoes. If you are incapable of that then it is easy to condone cruelty in the name of “logic”.

Here is my logic.

There is no inherent value in human life simply because it is human. None. Value is what we choose to give it at any point in time. (Objective)

Life has a value after birth (or viability, which ever you prefer), before that it is only potential. (Subjective)

A life that is sentient, feeling, aware by virtue of birth and living has a greater value than a clump of cells called a blastocyst or an embryo (subjective).

A dog, a whale, a raven, a wolf….have greater value than a literal clump of cells that might some day develop into a baby (subjective and opinion).

A woman’s life has greater value and priority than the pregnancy she carries within her unless she herself chooses other because she is the one who gives it value (subjective).

A woman’s body is not a vessel nor is it the property of anyone else at any time. (opinion).

I think your framing of not killing innocent human beings is grossly dishonest and immoral, actually.

I think you denying reality in order to restrict the definition of innocence is grossly immoral.

You are the one who wants innocent human beings, guilty of no wrongdoing whatsoever, to be violently killed in clear violation of their natural human rights. That is psychopathic… or perhaps more like sociopathic.

It’s psychopathic to view a woman’s body as the property of another and remove from all rights to it.

Parenthood is not slavery. Your claim here to the contrary is laughably stupid and warrants only laughter and mockery.

Parenthood is many things and your resorting to insults is a notable Deflection

Before birth control, married women were subject to pregnancy after pregnancy. My great grandmother had 14 children, out of which 8 survived past childhood. The burden it places on the human body is immense (fistulas, pelvic floor collapse, mortality). A married woman was not allowed to say no to her husband. If you don’t this, it can be a form of slavery.

An 11 yr old child impregnated by her uncle. A rape victim. They didn’t want to become pregnant. It was forced on them and then their rights to their own bodies taken away. Slavery?

If there was any doubt you had abandoned good faith debate or reason, you have removed all doubt.

Deflection. You never provided a good faith debate to begin with.

Mothers are not “hosts.”

Your understanding of basic biology is nil. Embryology is not parasitism. The comparison is ignorant and disgusting - you are demonstrably just dehumanizing those you hate and want dead, directly on par with a genocidal Nazi. Just awful.

That depends upon your view. Someone who places greater value on motherhood than on the rights of an individual woman will of course take that view no matter how unwilling the woman was.

By the way, ”host” does not necessarily equate to parisitism.

For a person who portrays him/herself as “logical” and unemotional you are emoting quite a bit here. I think I’ve got your number.

I don’t care about “cases like these” or any specific anecdote or scenario - one should set a clear and universal standard, divorced from emotional appeal.

Of course you don’t. As far as you are concerned, they are acceptable collateral damage. Lives of lesser value to you.

You can’t do that, which is why you and those like you should be kept from any and all levers of power.

I find it far more concerning that you are willing to sacrifice a woman’s life in favor of the life within her. Pretty scary.

Emergency medical triage only should be the standard.

No. A woman’s life should always come first.

That is the fault of the rapist, not the kid. If you want to argue the penalties for rape are too mild, preaching to the choir on that.

It isn’t the fault of the woman either. Or the child he impregnated. I’m sure they feel real good that the rapist faces punishment while they are being punished with a pregnancy they neither wanted nor had a choice in.

If you want to blame civilization and reason for not allowing someone to kill a third party innocent just because a second party hurt them, then we’re completely at odds.

There isn’t much “reason” in your arguments and I question a “civilization” that forceably subjugates a woman’s rights to that which she carries within her.