wat0n wrote:And yet as you see several states are willing to consider pregnancy after rape as an injury, despite the prevailing positive cultural view on pregnancy.
Whether or not a state/country considers something legal/or fair does not actually ensure that said something is in fact fair. For instance, there are countries that have sharia law... is this right?
I think I already addressed all the other ideas.
Certainly. Not satisfactory though.
So if the mother told the doctor to repeatedly stab the fetus to death right before cutting the cord (because she doesn't want to be a mother) then it's not butchery anymore?
You can play dumb all you want. If the mother does not want to be mother, she can just give the newborn for adoption.
Stabbing the fetus once it is outside of her does absolutely nothing to safeguard the mother's body autonomy and it is harming the creature for no reason whatsoever. This "stabbing frenzy" is not compatible with what I have presented in the past few weeks.
It seems to me you'd be okay with one if the woman wanted to, regardless of risk, as long as she gives informed consent. Am I correct here? Why would this be ethical?
If the two options are abortion vs no abortion, then yes, she should have the right to stop the pregnancy.
But at this stage in pregnancy, it is not an abortion, it is a delivery. You either deliver a stillborn (aka baby is dying due to health issues and this is what is triggering the consideration for abortion) or has severe malformations that will likely lead to its demise during labor or shortly after. The patient will come to her doctor, and have a discussion regarding the options for treatment, etc and the decision should vary depending on the values of the patient, what is medically feasible and what the doctor's expertise w/ consideration of general medical society guidelines.
Please elaborate. If the woman says she wants an abortion no matter what, do you perform it? It's her bodily autonomy after all. You said she, as a consenting adult, has every right to do as she wishes as long as she's informed. OK. She chose to do that.
Again, an abortion is to terminate the pregnancy, the goal is never and has never been to kill a fetus. You want to terminate the pregnancy? By all means, we will help you deliver the baby.
She has body autonomy to request the fetus to come out, she does not have the say as to also kill the fetus on purpose for the sake of killing it. At 37 weeks, she delivers, and this does not come into conflict with body autonomy at all, she can, in fact, have it out.
Then giving a straight up answer should not be too hard. Would you perform an abortion to a 37-week pregnant woman who wanted one, after learning of the risks? Why or why not?
What you are suggesting is not really a thing. Abortion is a pregnancy termination procedure, not a fetus killing one. That they are related early on in the pregnancy does not mean that later in the pregnancy they must also come together.
Oh, it is definitely possible, it just doesn't happen because I'm sure the majority of doctors would refuse to perform the abortion in that case. Am I correct?
No you are not correct. At 37 weeks you are actually dealing with a term pregnancy (early term), assuming everything else is OK, this is a newborn that would not be expected to need any sort of heroic medical interventions.
But the interests of both conflict with each other both pre- and post- birth. That's the point.
Even of post-birth the interests were in direct conflict, it does not matter because each individual is a different entity with their individual bodily autonomy. Before birth, this is not the case, there is only 1 body capable of sustaining life for both, therefore, the mother is the one that can make the choices.
Why not? You can terminate the pregnancy without killing the fetus, yet you chose to kill it instead.
Who is choosing to kill the fetus? seems to me you are just making shit up now.
Then what you are saying is that 20-weeks old fetuses are not viable in your view. Am I correct?
Viability is an spectrum and depends heavily on resources available and technology. What we consider viable today is a farcry compared to what was possible 50 years ago and in turn, what will be possible in 2070 will put to shame our best NICU today. "My definition of viable" is at best subjective and personal and that is going to vary significantly from people to people depending on their values. The short answer, no 20 weeks is not a viable fetus.
Use the following definition of viability if you want: The probability the fetus will survive the induced birth is greater than or equal the probability of surviving a non-induced birth.
You mean induced labour? That is not a meaningful endpoint. A better endpoint would be survival to hospital discharge (aka when the infant is reasonably healthy enough to survive outside of the hospital, presumably under the care of his or her parents). At ~24w you might have a slightly higher odds of surviving than dying, (AKA slightly over 50/50) that is assuming excellent care. There is a 50% chance of those surviving will have some sort of disability and about ~10-20% that it will be a severe disability (blindness, deafness, severe lung disease, heart problems, cerebral palsy, just to name a few). With those odds and complications, I'd be hesitant to label it "viable".
So she will normally be denied the abortion then. Awesome, bodily autonomy is not being granted in this scenario.
You are incorrect. Exercising body autonomy, in this case, would be to have the fetus removed, not to have the fetus removed and executed. Again, abortion is a pregnancy-terminating procedure, not a fetus killing one. 37 weeks is a term, early term but term pregnancy. At 37 weeks it is not even considered a preemie.
You're still unclear. Would you perform an abortion on a 37-week pregnant woman who provides informed and free consent?
What you are describing is not an abortion lol. 37 week is a term pregnancy, early term but term nonetheless. It does not make sense. Is like putting a pizza in the oven, the instructions say 8-10 mins to cook it, and you call for it to "cancel the cooking" at 8mins. At this time it is cooked, it might not be fully toasted but it is already cooked.
Body autonomy should give you the right to terminate the pregnancy, delivery is a termination of the pregnancy, it is compatible with my views and not contradictory in the absolute.