You’ve never heard of Mary Matalin & James Carville, I take it?
Not everyone has a political litmus test for whom they’ll date and marry. And since neither Wash nor Zoe is politically active, they could easily have fallen in love and/or married before realizing they disagreed. And it seems to me that a pro-choice husband and pro-life wife are more compatible than the reverse, since, under most circumstances, the wife is not going to perceive the husband as trying to control her body. His position, after all, is that the decision is hers alone to make.
The fetus isn’t dying in order to save her life. It’s dying anyway. A nonviable fetus being carried by a dying woman is a lost cause. If she is truly so fanatical that she’ll hate me for saving her life, then the marriage was doomed anyway. At least my living children will still have a mother.
Good reason to believe, or is certain? It seems to me that you’re waffling a bit.
I already voted for all of the “would terminate” options based on the formulation in the original post, but if Zoe were conscious, and expressed that she didn’t want to terminate under the circumstances, I would regretfully honor her choice. Similarly, if she’s unconscious and I’m certain of what she would want, I’d feel ethically bound to honor that – although I confess I might choose to act unethically under the circumstance.
Any uncertainty at all though, and I’m not going to kill my mate on even the very, very likely chance that I’m right about what she’d choose.
I thought the word pro-choice pretty much covered that, but I’ll grant that the OP does not use the exact phrase you quoted. But if a man is willing to describe himself as pro-choice, to me it means that he is saying, “A woman has the right to unilaterially decide whether she will carry a given pregnancy to term or not, and neither the fetus’s father nor the government may gainsay her choice.”
Zoe isn’t deciding whether she will carry the pregnancy to term or not, because either way, the baby is going to die long before that can happen. The only effect of her decision is whether she dies.
What kind of pro-lifer doesn’t support abortion to save the life of a mother, who already has children no less?
And to be clear, in the hypothetical in the OP, there is literally no way to save the foetus’s life. If Zoe dies, so does the baby. There is no life to save but hers.
I’ve never seen that show, but from your pics I take it that Alpha from Dollhouse married either Hel from* Cleopatra 2525* or Cheryl from* Standoff*. (I’m guessing Anna Espinosa is pro-choice for some reason.) I would save Hel or Cheryl from death reflexively, & in your scenario Alpha apparently already has two hellspawn he’s unable to care for properly by himself.
That’s not what it means to me. I don’t know if it means that to anybody but you. Had you mentioned that in the OP, I would have said I would never believe that so I couldn’t respond to the question.
While I might have a reasonable belief she might choose to die, I hope she would understand I would need to be certain thats the case before allowing it to happen. In this case I could not claim to feel that way given its a choice of a few more hours or days of life rather than her child actually getting to be born and I do not feel clear she thinks it is worth dying under those circumstances vs the needs of her life and her born children.
IF there is no way for the fetus to survive no matter what happens, yes abort. She’s going to die either way.
HOWEVER, if it was a choice between the baby or Zoe, and knowing Zoe’s beliefs, I would not authorize an abortion. That’s why it’s called pro-CHOICE. If a husband did that to me, knowing how I felt, I’d leave him. MY body, MY choice. And it’s ZOE’s body, ZOE’s choice. You may not like it, but it’s not up to you.
If it were ME, I would absolutely choose an abortion. But it’s not me, and I don’t like the idea of forcing my beliefs on someone else. (Or vice versa)
See, here, I think Skald painted himself into too tight a corner. I’m not specially educated in pre-natal care, but I know enough to be very leery of any attempt to save a foetus in an incapacitated & “doomed” mother. Of course I would have the physicians perform the abortion in the first two trimesters, but I would even push for that past the point of legally recognized “viability.” Given even chances for survival, it would still be strange to me to choose the life of a helpless obligate over an adult woman with two other children already. Unless I wanted her dead & was moving on.
Which given that this is apparently a Gina Torres analogue, ain’t happening. Even if Cheryl freakin’ Burke is in the wings.
That would be fine with me, were I the husband. Better for me, my ex-wife, AND OUR TWO CHILDREN to have my ex-wife alive and pissed than for her to be dead and me to have three children to raise without a mother.
Really this is a no-fucking-brainer, to me. But again, I think any woman who would willingly sacrifice herself for a fetus is batshit insane, and would not marry her in the first place.
And in the reality of hospital medicine, you’re right. The staff is trained, even in Labor and Delivery (where one can assume the fetuses are viable) to treat and save the mother first, and the fetus second.
Which is why I mentioned lawyers, et al. While theoretically, a person with Power of Attorney could refuse any medical treatment on the patient’s behalf, you can bet there will be a whole lot of people arguing against it, and a judge may very well be on speed dial for an order.
Where the hypothetical could get *really *interesting is if it happened around week 22 or 23 - technically pre-viable as generally considered, but occasionally fetuses delivered this early via c-section have survived (including my daughter.)
If she said “I would rather die than have an abortion for any reason, even to save my life when I’m carrying an unviable fetus” then I would have left her already because she’s a selfish bitch.
Ahem.
But if I knew that and hadn’t left, I think the best choice is letting her die.
If she said only the words in the OP, I’d authorize the abortion, since her death would be pointless.
Nonsense. You’re assuming that the only ethical issue at play here is pro-life versus pro-choice. But someone may have strong feelings on the subject of abortion, which are nonetheless overruled by a stronger opinion on a different issue. For example, I’m pro-choice. But I’m also anti-suicide. I believe that, as a general rule, people (not just women) should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. But this is not an absolutist position, because I don’t think that right extends to terminating one’s existence. The right to self-determination is, in my view, predicated on the idea that the person in question has sufficient mental faculties to understand the ramifications of the decisions they make. If someone is suicidal, they are, by definition, not capable of understanding the ramifications of the decision they’re making. (And, of course, even that isn’t an absolutist position, because I believe in making an exception for people in the final stages of a terminal illness.)
To me, in the situation described by the OP, not having an abortion is not a rational decision. The baby is dead no matter what. Killing yourself to avoid aborting a wholly nonviable fetus is crazy. If my wife hasn’t shown any previous indications of craziness, I’m not going to assume that she’s going to want to take a course of action that’s patently insane - and in this circumstance, I would interpret previous statements such as, “I’d rather die than have an abortion,” as hyperbole, and not an definite statement of intent.
