My condemnation is not supposed to be a safeguard, medical ethics are. But I’m glad we can agree that the doctor was wrong.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
Doctors should not hesitate, but in an urgent situation a doctor must make an executive decision utilizing their training and experience. Ideally there will be another doctor on call for a second opinion, or a member of the hospital ethics committee.
If a doctor is unwilling to perform a medically necessary procedure in an urgent situation and cannot find immediate coverage, they are failing their duty as a doctor. There will be twice the legal trouble when the patient and the fetus dies, so this is a no-win situation. The doctor is in deep no matter what decision is made, including indecision.
That may be the primary effect from your viewpoint, but from my viewpoint the primary effect is protecting the rights of the fetus. I will admit that if the fetus has no rights, anti-abortion advocates haven’t a leg to stand on.
Perhaps, but unjustly so. If I conceded the fetus has no rights, I would have to abandon my position entirely. My opposition to abortion in this thread is not motivated by misogyny, and I would appreciate it if you refrained from labeling all anti-abortion advocates as misogynists.
I’m sorry, but I must deny your hypothetical. No nine year old is safe to deliver a baby. We are talking about unthinkable horrors. I tried doing some research to explain why, but… I had to stop.
Either the doctor fulfills his duty or he does not. No mere law will save the girl.
In an emergency situation you don’t have a choice. If there is one doctor at the emergency center, it doesn’t matter what the law says - if the doctor refuses to operate there is no second line of defense. You drive to another hospital and hope she can hold out.
And that stuff about doctors not listening to patients in the Oprah Magazine article is probably not because of racism - doctors discount patients concerns all the time regardless of race. It’s a problem, and in that case it was linked to race-specific demographics. Race has a role and race-specific demographics in medicine make for useful heuristics, but in cases like that the doctor brushed off the patient’s concerns. He should have ordered a PPCM test.
It’s the same way if one officer arrives during an emergency situation. You don’t have a choice in who you get or how they act, the only thing keeping them in check is the rest of society’s reaction after the fact.
Then make her 11 or 13 in my hypothetical. I’m trying to see if you are willing to force a little girl who was raped to endure months of pain, discomfort, and permanent damage to her body, under certain scenarios, when it would be very easy to avoid.
Which means you’re okay with women being charged with murder because they’ve lost a pregnancy. An estimate 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. If all it would take is a “tip” to create probable cause, then that’s going to be a lot of women being arrested and interrogated for something that currently is considered no one’s business except hers. Some fraction is going to wind up in jail because a jury found them guilty of throwing themselves down the stairs instead of accidentally tripping, or whatever.
And you’re okay with all of this. Where I see immediate cause for alarm in allowing the government to concern itself with the discharges coming out of my body (or my daughters’ bodies), you have a real casual attitude about it. Just as you’d expect a man who has no skin in the game to have, or one that hasn’t thoughtfully considered the impact these laws could have on those that do.
And this is why I just donated to Planned Parenthood. I hope others are doing the same right now. Throw a few bucks at ACLU too, y’all.
I think that’s pretty simplistic; and no, you are not correct.
For one point: One can consider that at some point in the process a fetus has a right to life, but still consider that a woman’s right to have a life outweighs it. You’re talking about ‘right to life’ as if in all cases that right overwhelms all and any other rights. But we don’t claim that in any other case of conflicting rights. As has been pointed out – again, over and over and over – we don’t, as a society, claim that conscripted soldiers can’t be ordered into battle, or that people dying for lack of a kidney transplant can order a matching donor to provide one, or that it’s legally required to jump into a river to try to rescue a drowning victim. We don’t even claim that billionaires must spend all of their money down to the last ten million or so on paying for other people’s heart transplants and diabetes test strips.
For another point: the term “fetus” covers a really wide range. I disagree that there’s a simple answer to whether the fetus has a right to life that covers both an 8-weeks-from-conception fetus and an 8-months-from-conception fetus; let alone that there’s a simple answer as to how to balance any such rights against the pregnant woman’s rights that’s the same for both of those stages.
I’ve got a lot of sympathy with raventhief on this one; though, for the moment, I still seem to be in the discussion. Max S, if you really don’t understand why people are outraged that you want to take control of every detail of our lives in the name of your belief that this issue is simple, I don’t know where to start.
So all it takes is a jealous or upset significant other to begin an investigation?
Why only on purpose? We prosecute people for vehicular homicide all the time, even if they didn’t do it on purpose. If the spawn is a legal person, then why should it not get the same protections as a garbage truck worker?
Not near impossible, just problematic. I have a friend who is diabetic, and her doctors recommended that she not get pregnant. She really wanted to have children though, so she got pregnant (with her husband), and thankfully, things worked out and they delivered a healthy baby, but the odds were not on her side. Had things worked out differently, and she lost the pregnancy, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
What odds would you consider acceptable? 90% 50% 10%? As is 10-20% of pregnancies don’t come to term through no specific action or internet. Your “baby” has better odds playing russian roulette.
If a fetus is a person, then they have the same protections as a person. I cannot play russian roulette with a person, but are we allowed to play it with a pregnancy?
So, all it takes to get someone prosecuted is a tip or complaint?
Exactly my point. What benefit does it give to those who are already here?
No, environmental concerns are for everyone. We all need to have somewhere to live, and if we destroy this place, we are going to have a hard time finding another. If things go off the rails there, there may not be any future potential people, or at the very least, they will have their lives substantially degraded.
These are individual “potential” people that you are protecting at the cost of the actual people that exist now. Not the same thing at all.
Even a Devil’s advocate should argue with logic and reason.
So, it is not only women’s bodies that you want to control, but all of society. You wish to impose your morality or religion upon others through legislation, because you cannot control them through logic or reason. I certainly doubt that many pro-lifers get a sick pleasure out of restricting people’s freedoms, but rather, a smug satisfaction for when people are forced to bend to their will.
How is this determined? Not just talking about the 9 year old, but in general.
If the doctor thinks that she has a 90% chance of death, should she have to go against the odds? at a 50/50 chance, should she have to flip that coin? If it is only a 10% chance that the pregnancy kills her, does she have to take that risk?
How does this comport with quality of life? If she will have to spend 5 months in excruciating pain, is that the cost that she must endure? If it is only 2 months, 1 month, a week?
What about after effects? If she will be able to deliver a healthy baby, but be left crippled after, what level of quality of life reduction must she endure? If it leaves her with diabetes, is that fine, since diabetes is treatable? If it leaves her crippled and unable to walk, is that acceptable, as the baby is worth more than her “convenience”? If delivering this baby means that she will never be able to have another, is that just really for the best?
Who exactly is deciding this? Can any doctor make these calls, and will they be second guessed? Will the people making these decisions be all licensed doctors, or will there be lawyers and real estate developers on the board? Who is appointing these people, the medical community, the public, or the legislature?
Will there be an appeals process? If you go to one doctor, and they refuse based on their opinions, can you go doctor shopping for one who will, or will you need to appeal to that doctor’s superior? How long will these appeals take? If they have a backlog, so they come back and say, “We would have approved you application when you submitted it in the 10th week, but as it is now the 21st week, we will not.”, or even “We see the medical necessity in performing this abortion immediately to protect the life of the mother, unfortunately, she has already died due to complications, so, ummm, sorry?” If someone is in excruciating pain while waiting for a reply, even if it comes, it still is essentially torturing people while waiting for wheels of bureaucracy.
These are all hard questions, and need to be applied to every case. I don’t have answers, and anyone who claims they have them all is either a god or a liar.
Since I do not believe that these questions (and dozens more that I can think of) can adequately be answered, I find the best solution is to leave the decision to the person most equipped and involved, and that would be the mother.
There is a risk of malnutrition: during pregnancy the girl would be sacrificing nutrients for the fetus, but during this time in her life she needs those nutrients to develop her own body. The baby has a higher chance of being delivered preterm.
The pelvic floor is not adequately developed until the late teens regardless of puberty. 16 at the earliest but more likely 18 or 19. Caesarean section also carries the risk of permanently damaging the pelvic floor muscles, especially in young girls. Young girls are at a higher risk for all sorts of complications: haemorrhage, infection, eclampsia/pre-eclampsia, fistulas, etc.
Then there are the mental aspects. That girl should be in school learning but instead she is stressed out over her pregnancy. The state has an interest in educating girls. As if being raped wasn’t bad enough, she has to deal with the social stigma of being pregnant and birthing a child. Not to mention trying to go back to school with fecal or urinary incontinence. There is a legitimate concern that the girl might develop a permanent psychological disorder, or attempt suicide.
There might be hundreds of teenager who can safely bring a child into this world, but not teenage rape victims. Even in the extreme position I defend in this thread, I would be amenable to a law allowing a minor to request abortion on her own authority, especially underage rape victims, and I would oppose a law threatening funding of institutions who perform abortions on minors. I am not a doctor, and there might be some cases where a minor’s abortion is not medically necessary. In my opinion these are so rare that society is justified in leaving that decision to the mother.
This also means I would support a law which, in extremely rare situations, requires a doctor to perform a medically unnecessary operation.
It will take more than losing a pregnancy. The police must have enough evidence to convince the district attorney that they might win the case.
Even today there are laws in most states criminalizing self-induced abortion. If someone calls 911 and tells dispatch you are attempting to abort your own baby in your own house, police already have the duty to enter your house and investigate. The standard in that case is reasonable, articulable suspicion - not probable cause - that the mother is in grave and immanent danger. If the courts had ruled that a fetus is a person, the officers would also enter because of a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the fetus is in immanent danger. Even today an anonymous tip can be enough to warrant police intervention (Navarette v. California), but I am not sure if that carries over to breaking and entering a home, certainly not after-the-fact.
If a mandatory reporter informs the police that you may have already willfully induced your own miscarriage, that information goes to a judge who decides based on the evidence and credibility of the reporter whether a warrant is justified. Only if the warrant is issued do the police violate your privacy, and depending on the methods you might not even know you are under investigation until they have a solid case. For example they might subpoena online purchases or text communications before starting interviews. If they don’t have a case, the DA should hesitate to press the investigation without a pattern. Miscarriages are punishment in and of themselves; without clear intent I don’t see the benefit in pressing charges.
That being said, if the boyfriend or husband complains police should investigate. At the very least he can bring a civil suit (he may well lose) regardless of what the police do.
If there is a case and it goes to trial, I would prefer if legislation allowed for the defense to request the case be sealed. Abortion and miscarriage are intensely personal and there’s absolutely no public benefit in airing dirty laundry if the defense prevails, and only minimal public benefit (deterrence) if the prosecution prevails.
If the fetus is a person. If not, I’m not okay with any of it. Even if the fetus is a person, I’m not quite as casual about the matter as your synopsis above would imply - at least I try to be considerate. Even so, I am not a woman and you are right to say I am somewhat removed from the personal consequences.
Indeed, I make an exception and allow abortions where the woman’s life is in danger. Given a choice between the woman’s life and the child, the woman should be saved, possibly unless she clearly waives her right to life.
Ideally they wouldn’t be, but this is a concession made when society as a whole demands it, otherwise it is immoral.
It is not the fault of the fetus that they require support from the mother, that is a fact of life and a consequence of the mother having sex.
To make this relevant, it would have to be a scenario such as me stabbing you in the kidney then you asking the courts to force me to give you one of my kidneys. Mandatory organ donation is a debate unto itself.
What if you pushed the victim in the river? Isn’t that a crime itself?
If the billionaire caused those people’s problems, I would in fact demand that they pay for it.
What I am saying is that it when a fetus becomes a person is the debate, not whether controlling a woman’s body is justified. You can’t debate the second point if the only disagreement is over the first point.
I do understand your outrage in a sense, but only if I deny the rights of the fetus. So it does not make sense to me for you to bring up outrage about pro-lifers controlling women’s bodies in the abortion debate, because in my opinion the abortion debate is about when the fetus acquires rights.
Human rights do not exist outside of our insistence that they do. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is a wonderful cop-out, we can’t prove it, and we don’t have to. They are a gift we give to one another. An excellent device, in my opinion, and one we still have not lived up to. Not a reason to give up, but a reason to keep trying.
There is no answer. In my estimation, the extreme “pro-life” contingent adopted the “moment of conception” premise by default, they had no place to go and refused to accept the impossibility of any other criteria. So now they are stuck insisting that a mere zygote is fully human and fully endowed with “rights”. Nonsense. They refuse to accept that the truth is messy and uncertain, and demand definite rules and certainty where they simply cannot be found.
Yes (officially), no. See [POST=21663602]post #270[/POST].
Being a fetus is more “accident-prone” than being a garbage truck worker, and that is just a fact of life for everybody. Also fetuses don’t have the capacity to make decisions while a garbage truck worker does. That’s why it can be a crime in cases of intentional abortion or extreme negligence.
Being a fetus is inherently dangerous and there is no way around it. The fetus has no control and can’t “shop around” or make any decisions at all. That’s why I put the bar for negligence extremely high, it’s got to be almost certain to require abortion or miscarry.
And at that point, in my opinion the woman is entitled to an all-expenses paid sterilization (and possibly birth control) if she so wishes. It’s the least we can do.
There are older people who take the opinion that environmental issues do not concern them because they will die before the effects become apparent. It may affect their children and grandchildren, who they have great investment and emotional attachment to. But say there was some operation that would adversely affect the environment, not a few years or decades out but centuries in the future. The operation is necessary to prevent distress for people in the near-future but necessarily will kill people in the distant future, and only potential future people can suffer the consequences.
That’s what I’m comparing a law against abortion to. It doesn’t offer any benefit to people existing right now, even if fetuses are people.
I try.
Well, I wish to shape legislation with logic and reason. I would be unjustified going out as a vigilante and killing a provider of abortions. It is not my place to force legislation upon society, but I can try to convince society to adopt my position through debate. It is not about bending people to my will, it is about convincing people that the disagreement is over the rights of the fetus.
In an emergency situation where one doctor is available, your life is in the hands of that doctor. There is no time for an appeal. I am generally against forcing doctors to perform medically unnecessary operations and if there isn’t time to second guess the doctor’s opinion, or the second doctor agrees that the abortion is medically unnecessary, you are out of luck. It’s just like if I had a temporary and painful tumor and asked for it to be removed, but all the doctors said it’s unnecessary and my insurance won’t cover unnecessary operations and the tumor has the right to live unless it threatens your life. If that sounds weird and unrealistic, it is, because there is nothing quite like pregnancy and childbirth. Perhaps conjoined twins.
Okay, and why do you think this a high bar? Depending on the jurisdiction and how conservative the population is, enough evidence to win could boil down to very little. If people in a town don’t like a woman because she has tattoos and a bad reputation, she has a target on her back if she makes one false move while pregnant and then miscarries. Gets caught smoking? Drinking? Eating sliced deli meat? God forbid she falls down the stairs while doing all three things. A jury of her peers could totally vote guilty in this situation.
This could happen, sure. I don’t expect to worry about this happening very often in a society where abortion is legal and accessible, though. I also don’t expect the state to barge into my home uninvited in a society that treats my right to privacy as a protected concern, irrespective of what is growing in my uterus.
Uh, yeah. Ruling that a fetus is a legal person is no small thing; it changes what is at stake in the eyes of the law. It means the difference between being charged with murder and being charged with something less severe.
But you see, I don’t want my daughters to ever have to worry about whether their text messages will get them in trouble simply because they asked a friend about misoprostle or the morning after pill when their period is a month late. I would rather them get the help they need rather than be paralyzed by fear into inaction and silence. I don’t want them to be pulled into court to testify against a dear friend who got an abortion or had a suspicious miscarriage, and I don’t want that friend to go prison simply because she wasn’t mentally or emotionally prepared for a baby. I don’t want any of this madness to happen to any woman just because some man doesn’t see this nanny state madness as a big deal.
We’ve been through this song and dance before, so we already know what happens when laws like the one you’re proposing occur. Your vision for the future may look neat, orderly, and fair in your mind, but all I’m seeing is dead women bleeding out alone and desperate in motel rooms. if you doubt me, go look link at that NSFW link that monstro shared earlier. Why you think we need to go back to that ugly time, I.Do.Not.Understand.
And let’s not forget: what about the abortions that are WANTED pregnancies?
You know, you’re all excited, and then you find out there are some severe abnormalities, which most likely makes the fetus incompatible with life, or will only survive a day or so?
Let’s say a woman falls down the stairs and claims to have had a miscarriage. As stipulated in state code, the hospital takes blood and urine samples from her.
Her toxic screen comes up positive for a sedative and alcohol. The concentrations of both are low, but investigators find out from friends that the woman has been depressed lately and recently admitted to having unhappiness over her pregnancy. She told her mother and best friend she wasn’t interested in a baby shower. She didn’t let her coworkers even know she was pregnant. Her google searches include “How not to gain weight when pregnant”, “Myths about miscarriages”, and “Is it normal to hate being pregnant?” Her ex-boyfriend doesn’t have one good thing to say about that “selfish bitch”. They broke up before she knew she was pregnant.
Max S., if you were the lead detective in this case, what would be your next step? Do you find that there is insufficient evidence to charge her with a crime, do you try to nail her on something based on the facts you do have, or do you keep rooting around for more evidence? What if your boss tells you that there’s been an uptick in suspicious miscarriages over the past year, and his boss thinks it’s about time the department start Sending A Message. What do you do?
You know what I worry about? I worry about the woman who miscarries before she’s told anyone she was even pregnant. And because she hasn’t told anyone, she has a choice not to report her miscarriage to the authorities and not go to the hospital. Why would she want to tell anyone? The police will ransack her home looking for evidence, and they may just find incriminating evidence in her blood and urine. Even if she doesn’t get charged with abortion, she may get charged with something based on what shows up in her tox screen. So she doesn’t go to the hospital. And then she winds up dead from an infection because no one told her that there can be lethal complications from a miscarriage.
A parent can tell a friend that they could just “wring their kid’s neck” and their friend will understand that it was just a figure of speech. Chances are the kid isn’t going to wind up dead, so there wouldn’t even be any need for the friend to recall that conversation to the police. But a pregnant woman who says anything bad about her pregnancy, who then winds up losing that pregnancy, suddenly becomes prime suspect. An abortion ban silence pregnant women. They won’t be able to search the internet for blog posts that reflect their own feelings. They won’t be able to tell their friends, family, or mandated reporters (counselors) about the feelings they are going through. They will have to keep their sadness, regret, and anger to themselves, unless they want to become the prime suspect in the case of a miscarriage. Maybe you, Max S., are bothered by that idea, but a lot of pro-lifers probably aren’t. After all, they are of the mind if you don’t love the Lord with all of your heart, you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. So why wouldn’t they want to prosecute an unhappy pregnant woman for not “feeling” the right way?
This is the problem with formulating policy based on religious ideology. The crazy never stops.
Are you saying that the garbage truck worker chose to die?
So you accept that being a fetus is a risky proposition, with many things that can go wrong and end its existence, but cannot abide that one of those things that could go wrong is that it is not wanted in this world?
But she doesn’t want an all-expense paid sterilization, she wants a baby. So, do you mean entirlited, or required? Are you saying that if you have a health issue that lowers your chances of being able to bring a pregnancy to a healthy ending below some arbitrary threshold, you would force them to be sterilized, or prosecute them if they choose to have sex?
That’s what we are doing now, with the use of fossil fuels to power our modern conveniences, and I am against the continuation of such short sighted acts. There’s something to be said for kicking the can down the road, and hoping that our descendants will find solutions to the problems that we have created for them, but no, making future generations pay for our indulgences now is not a proposition that I agree with.
Your comparison completely breaks down and is invalid. The environment benefits everyone. Who does that fetus benefit?
And if that doesn’t work, try to convince legislators to pass bills that codify your desires into law?
There is no convincing needed, I get that the disagreement is over the rights of the fetus. I believe that the fetus has the rights that the host mother chooses to grant to it, others believe that it has rights above and beyond that of her own. It is you that makes the assertion that the fetus does have rights, and then goes from there, as opposed to trying to explain why exactly I should extend the rights of full personhood to a clump of cells residing in someone else’s body.
That actually doesn’t answer any of the questions that I asked, and only demonstrates that you cannot answer those questions.
Well, maybe they should have been aware of the possibility of such severe abnormalities, and not had sex. Depending on where the generic mutation (possibly) originated, maybe sterilizations are in order. Maybe mom, maybe dad- maybe both. Is it negligence to attempt to reproduce if there is a >x possibility of abnormality? Men who father children later in life have an increased risk of issues, so maybe that’s another thing to add to this future. Vasectomies after age… Let’s say 45, how does that sound?
So, order to protect a clump of cells, we now have men getting forced vasectomies, women getting forced tubal litigation, young girls being forced to carry pregnancies based on the whim of a doctor (and if they both die, maybe the doctor will lose his license! That could happen if another doctor thinks the first doctor shouldn’t have aborted so doctors are at risk no matter what they do), girls and women fearing a vindictive ex may drop a dime, or their friends being called to testify against them, medical conditions being ignored because “maybe it’ll go away” and as long as a woman doesn’t KNOW she’s pregnant she shouldn’t be blamed for a miscarriage, and just generally a whole bunch of people being forced to live around the possibility of an egg and sperm meeting and fucking up everything for everyone.
Or, hey, don’t have sex. Totally valid choice, that. Men AND women, of course.
