OrionTheWolf -> RE: Abortion (10/8/2007 9:13:57 AM)
|
There may be discussion about end-of-life choices, but that has not yet changed the law. If someone needed to be on life support of some type for a temporary amount of time, then why should they be denied that, unless there is other legal arrangements. If an unborn child can be delivered prematurely and their life sustained by medical means, then that is a life. Just as if someone has a medical condition (accidental or natural), their respiration stops for some reason, they are usually placed on a bipap or vent, to do their breathing for them. A medical assessment is then done, a prognosis created, and then a determination of other things are made. To me, once the emotion is removed, they are almost the same thing. Now someone will say that it is the woman's body and she should make the choice to go through with the pregnancy or not. Well there are laws in some states about rendering aid. To me this is a very similar thing. At some point the rights of the unborn child, outweight the rights of the mother. At a certain points legal rights kick in, and the emotions of an individual be damned. It does not seem that difficult to me, but then again I am called a mean, bastard often, and I just say "ayep". Orion quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote:
If a human can be kept alive, via medical procedure, then they are alive. Why is that hard to understand? I don't think things are quite that simple. There's a lot of discussion/debate about end-of-life choices and what measures should be taken to prolong bodily life.
|
|
|
|