Pro Choice Life of the Mother Vs Live of the baby

For those who consider themselves prochoice for abortion rights I would like to ask what should be done if a pregnant women in order to deliver the baby would have to give her life in the process, though aborting would insure her life.

Is this acceptable? Should she be forced into a abortion? What rational can be used to allow her to deliver given current laws that a fetus is not a child?

You must be confused by the idea that pro-choice means pro abortion.

The woman is making her personal decision, and I will accept it, provided that there is no evidence of mental issues.

Prochoice means the woman gets to choose. Not somebody else.

Exactly my point would it be a mental health issue by definition.

Why would it be? We don’t consider people that refuse to have surgery because of a brain tumor to have a mental health issue. Or people that have DNR orders.

And it would be very rare to find cases that would be affected by the mental issues. So almost in all cases the decision of the woman triumphs.

You have a woman willing to die in the believe that another still legally non-existent human life will somehow come into existence. Sounds legally psychotic, and therefore unable to make rational decision.


And if for some reason the woman was unable to make the choice, because of mental issues, there should be someone with medical power of attorney to make it for her.

is there anything surprising or even controversial about this?

Out of curiosity, what is the Catholic position on this? When we lived in Louisiana, my wife didn’t want to go near the Catholic hospital because she was convinced they would let her die to save a baby - not that she was pregnant when we were there.

What is the real story?

It’s blatantly obvious what you are fishing for, and I think also obvious to most observers that you’re rather off base.

There is nothing illegal (or even immoral) about refusing medical treatment that will save your life as long as you are of legal age and sound mind. This includes surgery, including abortion.

Every day many people chose to remove themselves from life support, or stop chemo, or any number of medical decisions that will result in their death. Nobody (well, outside of pro-life types…) is trying to make them continue, just like nobody is trying to make women get abortions.

Don’t be silly. There is nothing irrational or psychotic about disagreeing with the view embodied in law that your about-to-be-born child is not human (assuming that we accept that that view is embodied in the law, which is a whole 'nother discussion). And, in any event, there is no such think as “legally psychotic”, any more than there is “legally arthritic” or “legally depressive”.

Somebody who believes that what is legally prescribed must in every case by definition be morally true and correct - now that would be psychotic.

If you choose to believe that carrying a pregnancy to term is worth the risk of dying, that’s a choice you’re free to make.

Take the example of a woman who discovers early in pregnancy that she has a virulent form of breast (or other) cancer and needs chemotherapy and/or radiation. She has a right to choose to forego/delay treatment, or to have an abortion so that she can have optimal therapy without risking fetal malformation and death.

As an aside, kanicbird, you are equating “human life” with “human being”. Those who are pro-abortion rights generally recognize a difference between the two.

I do not believe that there is any law that says a fetus is a non-human or not a human life. The Supreme Court declined to answer that question in Roe:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

The individual is left to decide when a human life is created. If the woman wants to believe that her fetus is a human life, she is perfectly free to believe just that.

No, that is not the legal definition of incompetence.

Here’s the deal: if a patient can explain to her doctors what will happen if she chooses not to get a procedure, medicine or test, and acknowledge that death is a likely result of her choice, and articulate that she’s okay with dying, then she’s considered mentally competent and has the legal right to refuse any or all medical intervention recommended to save her health or life. To even so much as touch her without her permission is battery (and to threaten to touch her, say, to place an IV line, is assault.)

Now, if you want to get into a *real *sticky area of medical ethics, then the question you really want to be asking is what would happen if a woman refused a c-section when without it, her baby would die. That’s an ugly debate, and it really depends on what hospital, what doctor and what family members you’re dealing with. Hospitals have indeed gotten court orders to compel a woman to have a c-section she tried to refuse, in the interest of protecting the infant. More than once, even, and in different states.

Since “abortion” means that the fetus is expected not to survive the process, I don’t believe there have been any women forced into having abortions against their will to save the fetus, of course. But there have been forced c-sections. A woman can choose to die herself, but she can’t make the same choice for a term infant.

I’m not convinced you can discuss this issue rationally (or at least, I’ve never seen you do so), but I can imagine a circumstance where a woman would make a rational decision to continue a pregnancy, even if doing so would hasten her own death. If she was suffering from some terminal illness that did not adversely affect the pregnancy and even under ideal conditions had a very bag prognosis (i.e. a type of cancer that is at a stage that even with aggressive chemo and radiation, life expectancy is measured in months), I can picture her deciding to forgo treatment to see (or at least try to see) the pregnancy to term.

I have no problem with this. I’d advocate doing everything possible to make her comfortable, induce labor as soon as safely possible, hope for the best.

I have to figure if I had a terminal illness, how I spend my final months should be even more my choice than usual. If I want to spend my finals days shooting heroin or bungee jumping, that’s my call, and fuck anyone who tries to tell me different. If their interference becomes too troublesome and the only way to make them stop was to kill them, I think I might seriously consider it.

What do you mean by “Should she be forced into a[n] abortion?” When have you heard of women being forced into having an abortion?

I see you really don’t have a clue about the meaning of the phrase ‘pro-choice’, do you? It is the woman’s life. It is her body. It is therefore entirely her choice to bring the fetus to term or not. Contrary to the willful ignorance of some Christians, pro-choice also means the choice to have the child.

Note: kanicbird does not represent the thinking of the more rational members of the pro life movement.

Is this the same kanicbird who insisted in the past, on this board, that women should be happy and joyful to die knowing that the infant would live, if it came to that?

I swear I remember reading that.

I have no doubt it was.

You see when kanicbird states:

It’s clear to me that he is going to argue that

  1. it’s irrational to give a woman this choice as long as we’re discussing a “legally non-existent human life”

  2. if you are of the opinion that the woman in this scenario has the right to choose you must therefor be of the opinion that any unborn “child” regardless of it’s stage of development must be a considered a human life.

Let’s see just how close or far off I am when he comes back to explain.

It wouldn’t surprise me coming from a guy who believes that a woman who’s been raped and becomes pregnant has a “soul tie” with the rapist.