wat0n wrote:Clearly you didn't read or understand the article nor the paper. The paper mentions explicitly that the proximate cause of death was not the direct or immediate cause of death.
No. It is you that do not understand the paper.
The context of an assault leading towards a severe medical state that eventually culminates in death hours/days/weeks/months later is distinctly different than the context of an assault leading towards you having a decision in the future that causes you harm.
How many rapists are you aware that have been convicted of murder after their victims commit suicide weeks/months later? You don't think this happens?
We don't have a criminal system based on the "butterfly effect" in which you are responsible for every ripple that can be linked to an event that you started. If we had such system, we all belong in jail. You don't go to jail for selling alcohol to someone that will later drink and drive and kill someone, you don't go to jail for selling a cooking book that a serial killer will later use to cook and serve the flesh of his victims.
What you are suggesting is utter bullcrap.
If you died from complications arising from the back surgery, yes, I'd be charged for homicide as well. This much is clear.
Read your own source bro. They even explain it:
But suppose the driver must go to physical therapy to recover from the back injury I caused. While at the therapist’s office, the driver sits in a chair that collapses, causing him to fall to the ground and break his arm.
Can he sue me for damages related to his arm injury?
The driver would argue that “but for” the back injury he suffered at my hands, he wouldn’t have needed to go to physical therapy and thus wouldn’t have sat in the defective chair. However, this argument is unlikely to be successful because the link between my negligent driving and the collapsing chair is too remote to hold me responsible for the driver’s broken arm.
Also from your article:
However, certification by a medical examiner that the death is a homicide isn’t the same as the determination by a judge or jury that the accused is guilty of a homicide.
and:
For example, in 1966, William J. Barnes shot a Philadelphia police officer, Walter T. Barclay Jr., leaving him paralyzed. Barnes served 20 years in prison for the crime. In 2007, Barclay died from a bladder infection, a condition from which paralyzed individuals commonly suffer.
The district attorney pursued murder charges against Barnes, arguing that he was to blame for the infection that ultimately killed Barclay. But the jury acquitted Barnes. The prosecution had failed to prove that there was an unbroken connection between Barnes’ shooting of Barclay in 1966 and his death 41 years later because Barclay had reinjured his spine several times since the shooting, and hadn’t gotten adequate medical care.
There is no way you can justify the killing of a fetus (person) and blame this "murder" on the rapist and cite those as precedent, a jury would laugh at you and throw the woman and doctor in jail for the murder of the infant.
This much is clear.
Quite the opposite. If anything you supplied evidence against your case.
Read your sources at least.
And we will have to keep going through it, because as you said it is materially possible to kill the fetus in utero and then deliver the stillborn. Doing so would still be an abortion.
But few doctors would do it. Why?
Because abortion is a pregnancy termination procedure. People are not out to kill fetuses. Why so obtuse?
You just mentioned one way in which you'd be effectively performing an abortion. Kill the fetus in utero, then dispose of it as desired.
Again, what is your point? Where are you going with this? Can you get there sometime this week?
I can taste the salt here.
Some tumors can falsely give salty sensations, you should have that checked.
Plenty would not say a 20 weeks old fetus is viable.
I don't think anyone would claim that at this point in time 20w is viable. A quick search in the webz reveals the record holder is 21w +1 day, a full 8 days later and more importantly, a record holder is not the measuring stick, we don't say humans live 116 years because there was 1 woman that lasted that long, in reality the expectation is significantly lower.
It's not that complicated.
I agree. You are the one that is trying to make this significantly more complicated by trying to argue rapists being the reason for abortions, allowing pregnant women to commit murder if they are raped and to try to abort term pregnancies, stab babies, etc.
You're saying it is reasonable to take into account the interest in keeping the 37 weeks old fetus alive in the process of terminating the pregnancy.
It has never been my position otherwise.
No doctor would attempt to deliver a normal 37 weeks old fetus if doing so would kill the mother, unless she specifically consented to it.
I don't think you have a firm grasp on the medicine on this one. Deliver the baby is what is needed to save the mother in just about any complications in pregnancy.
HELLP Syndrome -> Deliver the baby
Eclampsia/Pre-eclampsia -> Deliver the baby
Uterine rupture -> Surgery/Deliver the baby.
At this point in the gestational state, a "get the fetus out of me" effectively translate into "deliver the baby".
If it's materially possible, no, it doesn't lose its meaning. For the mother it also has practical meaning as that means she at the very least is responsible for putting the baby for adoption.
Alright, I'll bite. What the statistic say about 37w abortions. How many of those occurred in the last year?
None, thankfully. But a serious request to do so by a competent pregnant woman would be denied if not medically justified. Am I correct here?
I cannot speak for all doctors. It is possible some crazy dude, after all there have been cases of gastroenterologists doing colonoscopies and endoscopies with equipment that was just "lightly cleaned" rather than properly sterilized.
You can always find an unscrupulous doc that would do sloppy medicine.
I don't even know how a conversation with a 37w old woman would go about. Hey doc, I spent 37w incubating this fetus but now I want to abort it doc: Well, you don't have to, dead or not, you will push him/her out anyway as if it was alive because it has to come out anyways so you might as well have him/her alive and you can keep it if you want or give for adoption. Woman: You don't get it, I really really want a dead fetus....
This is where "page psychiatry right away".
Maybe there are a couple of crazy people in the world like that, we don't need to make federal laws to cater to that handful of lunatics.
You're getting it backwards. Experts provide the guidelines, courts will follow them.
No. Experts provide and follow the guidelines. When I prescribe you BP medications to keep your BP below a set target, I am following guidelines that were put forth by other experts. I am not a court or a judge, I am a fellow medical practitioner, an expert in my field.
I simply refer to the third proposal for operationalizing "fetal viability".
Good luck with that.
They are under a legal obligation to respect expert opinion, even more so in these type of cases.
Sure.
So she'd not get what she wants, for obvious reasons.
This is not about getting anything/everything you want. You cannot force a doctor to surgically remove your head from your body and/or to put 1kg ingots of gold inside your uterus. The principle of body autonomy is not to give you some sort of coercive power over others to do whatever the fock you want but rather to prevent others to place intrusive restrictions/demands/abuse on your body.
The fact of the matter is, as a society we respect body autonomy to a very high degree. To the point, even dead people get body autonomy despite not being "person" anymore. If I declined being a organ donor and I die, even though I am no longer alive, even though I am no longer a "person" my wishes in this society would be respected. How crazy is that a dead person would have more rights about his/her own body than a pregnant woman? You don't think my dead body's organs would save lives? Likely even more than 1. Yet we protect this autonomy, we don't force people to donate blood, bone marrow, kidneys, livers, etc even though we could save thousands of lives every year, perhaps even millions.
It doesn't matter if it's a coincidence or not. What matters is what you're doing. If it looks like a duck...
Of course, it matters if it is a coincidence. If I note that the sun comes out every morning because there is a powerful god with a charriot in the heavens dragging the sun around every morning, I would coincidentally agree that the sun comes every morning, that does not mean I successfully described the mechanism by which the sun appears every morning. The fact that my assessments can from time to time correlate with yours, does not mean we have the same system and/or agree on the same premises. For instance, I need not to consider a fetus a person as it is irrelevant in cases of abortion. If it looks like a duck sometimes, it does not mean it is always a duck.
No, it's not. Suicide is definitely a problem here.
It is quite irrelevant indeed. If not just make the case for it and I'll show you how irrelevant it is.
- By SpecialOlympian
- By Unthinking Majority
- By Saeko
- By Tainari88