Adds Magiver to mental “hard to reason with” list.
And would you feel the same if he raped her because his religion demanded it? Because there’s no moral difference between what he is doing and rape; he is asserting that he, not she owns her body and has the right to use it as he desires.
Their refusal to do so will result in the death of the mother as well as the death of the baby (in my cite the baby was nowhere near viability…mom dies, it dies).
More though is the issue of treatment.
Maybe YOU would be willing to let your wife die.
I am not.
If my wife was in medical distress I would want to take her to the nearest hospital for treatment.
In your view tough shit if I have different beliefs. The hospital’s beliefs trump mine and if that means the death of my wife then so be it.
All I can say is “Fuck you” to that.
You and your obsolete opinions should not make me watch my wife die so your fucked up religious views can be assuaged.
If she needs an emergency abortion to save her life then there should be no argument about it. Tell her the deal, let her make the decision and that is the end of it. The doctors should abide by her choice. The doctor’s religious beliefs have no place in that decision.
Plenty of people think that murder is wrong for ethical reasons. So I think if the poster swiped out “religious” and put in “ethical”, then it would hold better. But I do agree with what you say - religious beliefs do not trump the well being of citizens.
What?
In the case of hospitals that don’t provide elective abortions, aren’t they required to treat a woman who needs an abortion to save her life? If not, how is that hospital treating people in emergency medical situations? I feel like that hospital would just open itself up to malpractice.
imho, hospitals that don’t provide abortions should have their federal funding jacked. but that’s a harsh stance.
Did you see my cite in post #161?
The hospital performed an abortion. The Catholic Church excommunicated the nun who allowed it to happen.
All other administrators of Catholic hospitals will be aware of that an unwilling to to allow it in the future.
Yes I saw your cite. But that nun could’ve saved the hospital some trouble.
I am talking about what happens when a Catholic hospital actually lets a woman die because they would not perform an emergency D&C.
That woman did not die.
The hospital in question had an ethics board (as do all to my understanding) which was convened in this case and they made a decision. If the doctors said no based on their code of ethics then I support it. The hospital in question does not perform abortions on demand.
What’s your point?
The assessment seems to have been, in my cite, that the woman would have died without an abortion. The baby was far too young for viability. Dead mom = dead baby. So they chose to save the mom by giving her an abortion. Live mom who already had four kids is preferable to dead mom. Either way the unborn child was going to die.
The nun who administrated the hospital was excommunicated for allowing this.
Don’t just read the post I cited. Read the article cited. Google it and read more if you want.
Administrators were certainly aware of it prior to this. This is why there are ethics boards. These decisions are not left up to individuals.
This was not an abortion on “demand”. This was a medical emergency. I am pretty sure the woman wanted the baby.
And the ethics board did their job and she got the abortion. The doctors were not fired nor was the administrator (she WAS moved to a different job so she may have suffered financially for it).
And what do you think the effect is on the next woman in the same position?
The next administrator, knowing she will be excommunicated and suffer financially, may well decide to say “no”. We cannot say for sure but certainly the pressure on her to deny the procedure has been increased.
Again I ask you, if your wife (or GF or sister) is in that position would you be ok with the hospital denying service and watching her and her baby die as a result?
MY POINT IS THAT I AM ASKING WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD THAT HOSPITAL NOT ALLOWED AN ABORTION AND SHE HAD DIED?
Is that better? Sorry, but I’m tired of repeating myself. You’re acting like I’m arguing with you. I’m not. I was musing aloud. Clearly you don’t know the answer. Movin’ along now…
I answered the question. A physician should not be forced to kill a baby. This isn’t a black and white question nor was it treated as such. The value of both mother and child’s survival was weighed. Everybody involved who weighed in publicly made a sound case for the abortion. It was provided.
No, it’s not better no matter how big you make the font.
I am guessing had the hospital allowed her to die that’d be the end of it.
As some here would have it they are protected by “conscience clauses”.
I suppose the family could sue. You’d have to ask an attorney what chance they’d have with that. Given conscience laws I am guessing they wouldn’t have a whole lot legally they could do. Just a guess though.
No, you did not answer the question.
It is YOUR wife/sister/GF whose life is at stake.
YOU are told by the hospital, “We will not save her, and by extension, the baby. Sorry, go say goodbye.”
If you are ok with that you are not human.
But if he decides to kill a woman, the bitch deserves it, right?
If you are ok with killing babies you are not human. See how that works. We could argue where the line is drawn but not that the baby doesn’t count. I would venture to say that pregnancies are a guaranteed risk factor to a mother’s health. Anything short of 100% mortality becomes a choice for both the doctor and the patient.