Can they do what was done with my aunt? After she refused to have an abortion (which the obgyn had taken for granted would take place, although they were illegal at the time), the delivery was induced as soon as the baby was viable, then the mother was whisked over to the nearest oncological center, while the baby stayed in one of the country’s first incubators.
The baby is now a 1’80m tall photographer with a wife and a kid of their own on the way, the mother is told that her bone problems stem in large part from the radiological treatments but is in general decent health.
I agree with Bricker and (apparently) the Cardinals. Even if you are adamantly pro-life, treating a mother, which would risk harming her fetus, is not the same as actively killing a fetus.
However, I can also see why the hospital would want judicial clarification before proceeding. Sadly, every hour that passes is another hour that this girl goes without treatment. Wouldn’t it be nice if SOMEONE would be courageous enough to stand behind their beliefs, treat the mother because it’s the right and moral thing to do, and THEN take on the courts. Where is civil disobedience when we need it?
P.S. This is yet another example of why it is bad public policy to pass such black-and-white laws. “Three strikes” laws and mandatory sentences are two other examples where black-and-white laws get in the way of justice.
P.P.S. I also agree that curlcoat would help her own cause if she’d listen more and talk less.
While I agree with this, I have to wonder whether there is any precedent to look at in Dominican law – possibly not because the amendment is so new. And presumably there has been legislation with penalties enacted to enforce this part of the constitution. If not – how could anyone be charged?
Still, even if treatment isn’t aimed at the fetus, I could see that the doctors later could be charged with, for instance, some form of unintentional homicide if the fetus dies. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to imagine how they wouldn’t be, given the rather harsh and uncompromising terms of the amendment. And if the actual legislation that (I assume) has been passed to enforce it contains exceptions to save the mothers life, what are the physicians hesitating over?
In the Dominican Republic, can individuals just be charged directly with “violating the constitution”, or does there have to be some legislated statute that defines the crime and the penalty?
Well it’s nice to hear a good story to balance out the crappy one from the OP.*
Also this is a wierd anit-abortion thread. We need to get back on track. Anit-aborting cancer babies is bad, mmmkay.
*Not a shot at the OP but the story in the OP.
Does the law distinguish between a direct intent to kill a fetus, as opposed to intent to take an action where all parties know that it will certainly result in the death of the fetus?
I’m not saying this is true for this particular case because there is some chance the fetus will survive. But presumably some other case could arise where the treatment of the woman would equate to a 100% certainty of the death of the fetus.
Human reasoning is filled with “exact same result” examples that we nonetheless feel, and treat, very differently.
You see an out-of-control train trolley hurtling towards five people who will without doubt die if hit by the trolley. You can throw a switch on the train track and divert the trolley down a side track saving the five but with equal certainty killing an chubby bystander on that track line. There is no chance to yell, warn them, or otherwise avoid the disaster. Do you throw the switch?
Most folks say they will.
Now the hypothetical changes. The chubby guy is near you on a footbridge overlooking the tracks. The only way to stop the trolley is to push the chubby guy off the bridge; he’s fat enough to stop the train with his body – but of course, he will definitely die.
Do you shove him?
Most folks say they will not.
It’s the exact same result – but pretending otherwise is not silly.
My wife is a Dominican lawyer, and I’ll ask her. But from the moral reasoning of the church, the certainty is not the issue: the issue is with what intent you undertake the task. If your intent is to save the life of the mother, even knowing the certainty of the death of the unborn child, you may do so.
Perhaps you could ask her about my last question in post #46 – the stories I’ve seen about this refer only to the passage in the constitution, and not to any specific legislation that was passed to enforce it.
I get what you’re saying. I’ve even heard that example before (maybe from you, I dunno.) But that example is ridiculous and inapplicable for a variety of reasons that go beyond the scope of this thread.
She doesn’t have to make her mind. It was made by her by some old men. I am not even sure if the girl is a Catholic, she might be another variety of Christian (the comments made by the mother leads me to believe they are Christians).
Hers is a very early pregnancy. She’ll die if they wait that long. Not that your idea is no less insane (although maybe you are just throwing the scenario on the table).
Here’s the thing: Not even the hospital legal counsel could determine the way to go. The amendment is new and this might be the first time it’s on the table (I am sure there were a lot of abortions that didn’t make the news). Every lawyer I hear seem to have a different opinion. This was not a well thought-out thing.
One thing everybody seems to agree on is that the doctors have more to lose than the mother, which is a pretty sneaky way to go about it. If my life were in danger and there was a penalty for an abortion I would certainly take the chance. Would my doctor?
It’s one of the most common moral dilemmas, the other being the Heinz dilemma. The trolley problem has a lot of issues on its face, though can demonstrate proximal and distal commission. One of the primary problems of the trolley problem (one not common to all dilemmas, such as their lack of ecological validity and the presence of socially desirable results) is that the dilemma simply isn’t practically possible, which introduces ambiguity which may interfere with the validity of the results. In real life, we can be fairly certain pulling a switch will divert the track, but we have no way of knowing whether we’d be capable of pushing an obese person from a bridge, nor is it practical to assume that a single obese person would slow down a tram whereas three normal sized people would not. Each of those points detracts from the external validity, where people would be making decisions (various health models attempt to analyse the components of such behaviour, and likelihood of success is usually a factor). That said, Catholic dogma is based on deontology, not utilitarianism.
Just wanted to put this out there again to all of you who seem to think that I was the only one to misunderstand Boyo Jim’s post. And remember, there will come a time when you all misunderstand something and the assholes will jump on you too, pretending they are perfect. :rolleyes:
The problem wasn’t with the original misunderstanding. The stupendously stupid part was where you were incapable of rereading the post for comprehension purposes after it was pointed out to you repeatedly that you misread it.
I see. Because I found the post unclear that must mean I’m “stupendously stupid”? That it wasn’t until it was explained that I was able to see what he was trying to say, so therefore I am completely lacking in intelligence, even tho I wasn’t the only one to not get it until the explanation? That there is a good chance that due to the incredible rudeness of the first few responders it may have been difficult to see what they were trying to say?
Did you not read what I said, what you just quoted? I get now what he was saying, but at the time it wasn’t clear to me AND the first few responses were more interested in telling me I’m stupid and not in clarification. When that shit happens, I really don’t care what those folks are saying and tend to just respond in kind.
Nope. I’ve made mistakes, lots of times. People came forward, matter-of-factly (not politely, and not impolitely, just stating facts) and corrected me. And y’know what I did?
(Sulked, whined, beat the cat, tweeted my best friend,) wrote, “Oh, my mistake. Sorry.” And no one ever jumped on me over it.
You blundered. And you’re still blundering. Just admit: “I goofed. Could have happened to anybody.” It ends. You don’t even have to say “Sorry,” although it’s generally considered graceful to do so.