[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[American Legionaries]

Prove that a doctor is legally obliged to kill a recovering patient instead of provide him life support during his recovery.

I said they are legally required to withdraw life support from a patient who is functionally incapable of decision-making/braindead. Not recovering.

Okay, but a foetus is recovering. As a matter of fact modern medical science knows so much about the recovery of people in that specific situation that they can anticipate the date the person will be disconnected from the life support mechanism with reasonable accuracy, even months in advance.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

I said they are legally required to withdraw life support from a patient who is functionally incapable of decision-making/braindead. Not recovering.

Okay, but a foetus is recovering. As a matter of fact modern medical science knows so much about the recovery of people in that specific situation that they can anticipate the date the person will be disconnected from the life support mechanism with reasonable accuracy, even months in advance.

No. It is not conscious yet, therefore had never been alive. It had potential to be alive, but it was not yet alive, therefore, not alive. It does not have a birth certificate or ID, it is not alive.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I said they are legally required to withdraw life support from a patient who is functionally incapable of decision-making/braindead. Not recovering.

Okay, but a foetus is recovering. As a matter of fact modern medical science knows so much about the recovery of people in that specific situation that they can anticipate the date the person will be disconnected from the life support mechanism with reasonable accuracy, even months in advance.

>"recovering"

[American Legionaries]

Okay, but a foetus is recovering. As a matter of fact modern medical science knows so much about the recovery of people in that specific situation that they can anticipate the date the person will be disconnected from the life support mechanism with reasonable accuracy, even months in advance.

No. It is not conscious yet, therefore had never been alive. It had potential to be alive, but it was not yet alive, therefore, not alive. It does not have a birth certificate or ID, it is not alive.

It is.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

No. It is not conscious yet, therefore had never been alive. It had potential to be alive, but it was not yet alive, therefore, not alive. It does not have a birth certificate or ID, it is not alive.

It is.

Does it have a birth certificate? It is not legally alive.

[American Legionaries]

It is.

Does it have a birth certificate? It is not legally alive.

Do you think it's legal to kill people without birth certificates?

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Does it have a birth certificate? It is not legally alive.

Do you think it's legal to kill people without birth certificates?

No. But they are alive, they exist, they are not part of someone else, they were born. And if you do not have paperwork anywhere, you basically do not exist.

[American Legionaries]

Do you think it's legal to kill people without birth certificates?

No.

So why do you keep bringing it up?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No.

So why do you keep bringing it up?

very kosher of you to cut out the rest of their post

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

So why do you keep bringing it up?

very kosher of you to cut out the rest of their post

Hmmm, yes. Not bending my words at all.

[The Black Forrest]

If the guardian (family or court appointed) was against it; sure.

It would be unethical regardless of their views. No doctor would be permitted to disconnect an adult in similar circumstances from life support.

Why? If the brain is gone; the person is gone.

So if they are to be stored somewhere; who pays for it?

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

It would be unethical regardless of their views. No doctor would be permitted to disconnect an adult in similar circumstances from life support.

Why? If the brain is gone; the person is gone.

So if they are to be stored somewhere; who pays for it?

And there are yet more issues with America that I will not talk about. Britain may be a trash heap, but it’s still somehow better than America

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

When's the time for America's first flurry of cases like Savita?
Or Sheila Hodgers?

[New Rogernomics]

When's the time for America's first flurry of cases like Savita?
Or Sheila Hodgers?

Probably next year as even stronger enforcement is put in place, including punishing over state-line abortions.

[Fahran]

They are legally obliged to. Unless they want to lose their jobs, they will. And once again, your ethics are not the ethics of everyone.

A healthcare professional who shut off life support on a patient who could realistically expect to recover would likely find themselves in hot water legally and ethically, even if the decision was approved by a family member with power of attorney. That said, in legal terms, abortion is a different matter altogether. You mentioned that you didn't care about the ethics involved before, and I think that's a mistake. You have to care about the ethics if you're going to make arguments against abortion restrictions that, at present, have the force of law. Everyone involved in this conversation cares about the ethics.

Beyond that, the typical definition of brain-deadness denotes a comatose state, an inability to breathe on one's own, and the complete cessation of brain activity - especially that associated with the brain stem. Depending on the week of pregnancy, a fetus arguably only ticks one of those boxes since they can often breathe on their own if born at Week 28 and have some level of brain activity, likely beginning at Week 16 and for a certainty by Week 25. So, no, fetuses aren't, by definition, brain-dead - at least not by the end of the second trimester.

[Fahran]

I said they are legally required to withdraw life support from a patient who is functionally incapable of decision-making/braindead. Not recovering.

Incapable of making a decision is not the same thing as being brain-dead. A patient in a coma isn't necessarily brain-dead.

No. It is not conscious yet, therefore had never been alive. It had potential to be alive, but it was not yet alive, therefore, not alive. It does not have a birth certificate or ID, it is not alive.

It's not at all disputed that fetuses are alive. What is disputed is if it possesses personhood and some degree of legal recognition and rights. Nobody serious thinks that fetuses are not alive.

[Zookistan]

Life =/= sentience.

We wouldn't think twice about killing a mouse.

The question was always about whether fetuses are sentient enough to be given the same right to life as a born human is. Whether they are "alive" or not is a red herring.

[Spirit of Hope]

Life =/= sentience.

We wouldn't think twice about killing a mouse.

The question was always about whether fetuses are sentient enough to be given the same right to life as a born human is. Whether they are "alive" or not is a red herring.

Even if we give a fetus the same rights as a born person that doesn't justify banning abortion. A born person doesn't have the right to use another persons body without permission.

[Fahran]

Life =/= sentience.

We wouldn't think twice about killing a mouse.

The question was always about whether fetuses are sentient enough to be given the same right to life as a born human is. Whether they are "alive" or not is a red herring.

I do think twice about killing mice. But, yes, this is the correct take. We also potentially need to weigh the rights of the mother against any consideration we give to the fetus - even supposing we don’t wholly reject personhood and/or protections altogether.

[Fahran]

Life =/= sentience.

We wouldn't think twice about killing a mouse.

The question was always about whether fetuses are sentient enough to be given the same right to life as a born human is. Whether they are "alive" or not is a red herring.

Even if we give a fetus the same rights as a born person that doesn't justify banning abortion. A born person doesn't have the right to use another persons body without permission.

At what level of assault is it permissible to kill a child in self-defense? Again, you seem to be waving any argument that a fetus is not a person so it makes sense, at that point, to treat them as a dependent child for ethical purposes. Mind you, I don’t think that’s the correct approach for much of gestation, but it does logically follow from the position you’ve assumed. Can you kill a toddler for kicking you? What if they kick you repeatedly and refuse to stop? What if you have no other means to stop such assaults except by killing them?

And I want to be clear. This isn’t a gotcha question or even a particularly difficult one. It’s just people will likely give wildly different answers. Some folks likely perceive a toddler stepping on their lawn as a violation of the NAP and will reserve the right to launch McNukes at the toddler just to be safe. Others will support an argument that it’s never acceptable to kill a child even if that child is stabbing you repeatedly. And most people will fall somewhere between those two extremes.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

I am pro-life. Now, time to see the carnage

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I am pro-life. Now, time to see the carnage

Please comment on this case of severe medical malpractice.

[Vassenor]

I am pro-life. Now, time to see the carnage

OK.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

I am pro-life. Now, time to see the carnage

Please comment on this case of severe medical malpractice.

That's sad. However, this doesn't undermine that I am still pro-life. That was just one instance where strict religous folks did not realize the consequences, not my promblem.

[The Black Forrest]

Please comment on this case of severe medical malpractice.

That's sad. However, this doesn't undermine that I am still pro-life. That was just one instance where strict religous folks did not realize the consequences, not my promblem.

Actually you are part of the problem. Tacit support is still support.

The news just had a woman in Texas where the pregnancy went wrong. Lost too much amniotic fluid for the pregnancy to be successful. Normally an abortion would be advised as the fetus would die in the womb.

She could not get an abortion due to the new “pro life” laws and nearly died from the incident. What followed? She can no longer have a child.

Texas hospitals actually debated letting an ectopic pregnancy burst so they can’t be punished for doing an abortion.

There are other stories like this.