The Death of a Polish WomanDemonstrates the Dangers of Abortion Bans

submitted by jet199 from bylinetimes.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]turtlew0rk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Even if the baby is gonna die either way and this is to save your wife? Does she get a say in that? Isn't that murdering her in a way?

[–]LearningTheLand 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Natural process, direct action is always murder if it intentionally ends an innocent life.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What about inaction? What if you could stop a person's death but chose not to because of lets say for example some religious dogma that you ironically claim is about the sanctity of every life? Is allowing her to die the only just course of action there?

[–]LearningTheLand 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Actions fine, so long as said action isnt abortion.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Read my question again. I think you may have misunderstood it.

[–]LearningTheLand 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I understood it perfectly. If the only action was abortion then you do nothing and hope it works out. Inaction is never as evil as action.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If I saw a child drowning and could easily save them but choose not to because I don't feel like getting wet. Is that kosher then? Is inaction.

[–]LearningTheLand 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No that's just murdering the kid. You made the active choice not to help save the child. Unless you couldn't cause you;d die at at the same time, or you'd have to murder someone innocent to do it.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you know what active means? Is English not your first language? (serious question, not being a dick)

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

“The problem is that according to Polish law,” wrote Budzowska, “emptying the uterine cavity [to prevent septic shock] while the foetus is alive is treated as termination of pregnancy. In the described situation, it could be performed if the doctor decided that the pregnancy poses a threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman. At what stage … and under what conditions, can a doctor safely, from the point of view of his possible criminal liability, consider that the pregnancy poses a threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman?”

Better to let the mother die, simply because removing the dying baby that's killing her might be illegal? That doesn't seem right, or defensible.

[–]LearningTheLand 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well the time would be them removing the child with the intent to save both and render aid to both - even if there isn't a 100% effective treatment that can be given to the child its better than a 0% chance and having the intent to kill them.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't remember the specifics of the child's condition, or its development stage, but I agree that it shouldn't be "aborted" if it could potentially be saved.

The part I don't agree with is knowing the child was dying, and doing nothing to save the mother with a high chance of dying too - simply because they left the dying child inside her. It's irrational, and only makes sense in the context of a dysfunctional law.

[–]LearningTheLand 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Correct the law needs to be adjusted for that.