Yes, I would say the mother’s doctor is the most qualified doctor to form an opinion.
Courts decide medical issues based on qualified medical information all the time. Examples are whether a person is legally incompetent and requires a guardian, whether life support should be removed from a brain-injured person, should a child receive medical care to which the child’s parents are opposed. There are lots of others.
I think it is reasonable that courts should do this when necessary; most of the time it likely will not be.
Actually, you need to review the thread, my argument, language and presentation which has not varied or changed. It has pretty much been:
“No person’s ‘right to life’ entitles them access to another person’s body in order to survive.”
But yours sure has, by engaging in some elaborate mental gymnastics that first started with whether a person was inside or outside another persons body (say what?). And then that zygotes/embryos/fetuses need kidney transplants in order to survive (another wtf). With a bunch of nonsense about ‘intentional killings’ and totally invented claims about my personal experience with pregnancy and childbirth (um, do you even know my gender? ). Culminating with more drivel you disingenuously attribute as ‘my way’ or ‘my method’, which ironically is really just a projection of your own. And of course, my personal favorite:
[QUOTE=huck]
Since no born child or adult has a legally enforceable right to a kidney donation from a particular person, no unborn child has the right to live.
[/quote]
If you can’t see what a logic fail that ^^ is, then I don’t know what. The conclusion doesn’t even logically follow the premise. Quit attributing your nonsensical claims to me - they are entirely your own.
If you can only argue by repeatedly misrepresenting your opponents claims in order to invent a strawman to argue against rather than address the point as presented, you are not capable of debating in good faith.
I don’t see any reason. But if the woman’s doctor says there is no risk or the risk is not significant, and she disagrees, she should have recourse to the courts.
And your posts reveal that you are incapable of considering the argument as actually presented. Whilst, seemingly having confused me with another poster (my experience with pregnancy and childbirth? Don Johnson?) or that you simply can’t be bothered to accurately follow the thread, but continue to respond anyway.
You are absolutely correct, I did mix you up with “Why Not,” who (on a different thread) brought up the “convincing” argument that because a woman can’t legally be forced to donate a kidney to her born child, a woman has the right to kill her unborn child.
I am very sorry, that mistake was extremely careless and stupid of me.
We’re saying a person has no right to live, if they require something that only my body can provide, and I don’t choose to donate it.
You don’t have the right to a single ounce of my blood, if I choose not to donate it.
(As it so happens, I do donate, and am on the bone marrow donor registry also. But, again, the point is choice. I freely choose to donate…but I will fight against any law that attempts to seize my blood – or my sister’s uterus – by force.)
You have a far more hopeful and trusting perspective on our Government than I … as far as I can tell, politicians are a bunch of opportunistic con artists playing “royalty” at our expense, and the only reason they grovel around election time is because the haven’t quite gained enough confidence and nerve to just declare America a Totalitarian regime. Yet.
Again, it’s a false analogy. You did not cause the folk whoare in need of your blood to hemorrhage or have surgery or whatever situation madethem require it, and by refusing to donate you are not killing them.
Whereas a pregnant mother (except in a pregnancy resulting from rape) did cause the child to be dependent on her body, and by aborting is killing her.
I think the honest version of what you are saying is obviously that the mother’s right to not be pregnant trumps the child’s right to live. I’m not sure why you are unwilling to admit it.
" … the mother’s right to not be pregnant trumps the child’s right to live."
That’s it exactly. I understand to point of view that condemns this. I don’t understand the opinion that is reluctant to admit it.
Until the state can transplant an embryo into a willing host or bring a fetus to term in an artificial womb, abortion must remain legal and obtainable. Even if embryos can be transferred to vats, it must be the mother’s choice, and if she chooses an abortion, that should be available regardless.
I can’t imagine a reasonable scenario where abortion is logically and ethically banned.
In the spirit of moderation and compromise – and if the procedure isn’t too horribly intrusive – I could cope with the state mandating the transfer of an unwanted embryo to a vat, and grown to viability and birth (or decanting.)
(Obviously, the woman would then have to be free of any financial obligation, and, if she wishes anonymity, the child should have no legal right to obtain the mother’s – or father’s – identity. This is a stance I feel strongly about in the adoption dispute, too…)
Until it can be recognized as such, it is not an unborn human, it will become a human when it can be recognized as such.
One cannot freeze a human but can freeze a potential one. and that can last for many years! Any animal , plant or fertile ova or seed is not what it is ,but what it will become.
Once a child has been formed and is out of the womb, then it belongs to society (in a way) and is protected by law. Women also have rights but too many would deny them that because it is wrong according to their religion. I have noticed that for as long as there have been human on this planet many unborn and born are killed in a war and it is justified by the so called right to life people. Even a woman has the right to life or the right to take the risk or not when it comes to childbirth.
If one looks at it( like) a woman should be forced to carry a fertile egg against her will, it is not pro-life but pro- birth. If it were any other way all pro-birth people would be making big sacrifices to help the child once born , but in my experience those same people do not want to support it, complain about poverty but think nothing of denying the born child all the benefits it should be entitled to. giving a few hundred dollars that they think is enough to support the Mother and born child is not enough, there are other factors to consider. The state of mind of the mother, her health, and in some cases the health of the rest of her children.
One need look to Haiti or the Sudan and see the need for help, so many starve to death because of lack of food alone not to mention the woman’s health.
The only thing I would add (and you are free to disregard, of course), is in theory you should be responding to the* post*, not the poster, *within the context of the thread you are posting. *
Otherwise, as evidenced by our pointless exchange, it leads to massive miscommunication and reflects very little consideration for arguments as actually presented. Even if I was WhyNot (which I’m not) attributing claims to someone’s posts, out of context of the thread at hand, is simply a poor debating tactic. If you must do it, then cite the context, so the other poster has some idea what you are even referencing.
Do you want another apology? You are welcome to that if one isn’t good enough. I did mix you up with another poster, who had written a post that was similar in some respects to yours, and that was the reason I thought you had given birth–it was in Why Not’s post.
As for the rest of this, are you some sort of moderator or officer here? If not, do you lay down principles for all other posters, or just the ones who made a mistake and apologized for it?
In either case, I’d say you’d better study up on debate and logical discourse before you do so.