No, you went off on another tangent ..YOU NEVER answered: cd8ed said: ↑ What crime did the woman commit that it is acceptable for the state to force her to carry a fetus to term?
I answered she did not commit a crime, but she would be committing one if she got out of carrying the fetus.
So prove you did....what's the number of the post where you answered? Or IF you had an answer you could've stated it in the last two posts....and you COULDN'T
This is NOT a decision to be imposed by government. There are women who would choose to die and those who would choose to look to building a family subsequent to this situation. Do you really think that it's possible to look at a case and decide the exact likely % of a healthy outcome might be? Beyond that, there are so few of these cases that making laws on the grounds that it might save fetuses is ridiculous.
The issue isn't that she loses her rights because she committed a crime, it's that she loses her rights because to do (or not do) that thing would involve a crime. If a woman wants to get an expensive fur coat, and the only way to do that is to rob the store, then sorry, she does not have the right to get that coat. She didn't have to commit a crime for her right to do that to be taken away. Or if the woman wants to drive out of the city, but there's a continuous parade of people going by past the only road out of town, she doesn't have the right to run them over. She'll have to wait. Even if it's a very long parade. She does have the right to travel out of that city, but not that very same hour!
What do you mean "no real difference"? The previous has been born -- The line could not be any clearer than that and birth has been celebrated as a major event in all cultures. It is not like we celebrate Jesus' "Conception Day" is it?
Are we talking any health issue, or does it have to a serious one? If it's any issue, no matter how trivial, you're pretty much being a proponent of abortion of viable fetuses.
You might read Luke 1:24-41. John - as a baby in the womb - leaps when Jesus - who is also in the womb at this time - draws near.
I'm going to make my objection here stronger. There is no such percent. Death is NOT the only negative outcome for the woman. And, judging the likelihood of death down to a percent is ridiculous. AND, there are issues related to the health and viability of the fetus. You didn't even bother to pretend there is a percent for that. If the fetus has problems, including problems that can not be repaired, that the woman's religion would not allow to be repaired, that limit the life of the fetus or anyr related issue there could be less reason to risk the mother's death. Also, it doesn't address cases where it will be impossible for the mother to supply the health care required - which may sound cruel, but is a fact in our system. Your flat rate percent is just plain not acceptable. It is a fiction that such a number can be derived for a specific case and it simply does not cover more than a fraction of the issue even at that. You can't have the government forcing these decisions by writing laws against those involved.
Does the woman decide whether a post-viability abortion is justified, or does the government? Or maybe you think her doctor does? Can she keep shopping around for a doctor that will give her the green light, in that case?
Yes, but that involves withholding extraordinary care. That is a little bit different. A mother giving gestation in her uterus until birth is something that's normal and expected. Just like giving food to a baby. If on the other hand, a woman tries to stop doctors from performing an easy surgery that is absolutely necessary to save her child's life, then custody of that child might be taken away from the woman, or she won't get to choose.
Yes. I consider more than whether a fetus is "viable" - which means it will survive birth, but does NOT mean it is free of serious debilitating deficits, doesn't address whether deficits will be addressed due to parental religious beliefs, views on how much pain a newborn should undergo and for how long, etc. And, I consider the woman and the full range of questions concerning herself and her fetus that only she can answer.
What does "post-viability abortion" mean? Does it mean an abortion after it is clear that the fetus can not survive to birth? In that case, an abortion can be absolutely required in order to save the woman's life. When the issue is the law, people absolutely shop for the support needed for the direction they want to take. That's true in every aspect of our society. You shop for your church - refusing churches that don't have the product that makes you happy. And, people SHOULD shop for their health care.
NO doctor may perform a surgery without consent of the individual (or guardian, when incapacitated or below age of consent) when either is available. You keep striving to make serious medical decisions for others. That's just not legit.
I've tried to be clear. Let me try again: The governemnt can stay the HELL out of issues that involve her body. And, not only is this a matter of the woman's rights, but it is in recognition of the FACT that legislatures can not possibly know all the elements that come to bear so well that they can document a single decision making process to be forced against women under penalty of law. Does that alleviate your "tip toe" concern? Let me know. I might be able to help.
I think you missed that the issue was about fetuses. And, you clearly do NOT understand life insurance.
In case it dies. Burial is expensive Emotional trauma can cause family to miss work People buy life insurance for many different reasons Why would a fetus need it?
