The case hinges on the "is she sick enough" test applied to justify the elective abortion - irrespective of how healthy the unborn baby is.
Clearly showing that you do not understand. We aren't talking about elective abortions!
Are you saying there's a legally enforced
compulsion to abort the baby?
Again, you don't understand.
Whats the answer to the question?
Is there a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?
You still do not understand "elective".
In the medical world anything that's scheduled is "elective."
Obviously.
If the patient didn't choose to proceed they wouldn't be scheduling the procedure the patient elected to have.
The thing is "elective" does not mean "not required to sustain life."
The statute doesn't say that.
It it only compels hospitals to offer.
You're twisting things.
Im just repeating what I read - that hospitals are compelled to offer the procedure in certain cases. They can't refuse to perform an abortion in those cases.
Except what we are seeing is waiting until the situation is dire.
What they are saying is when the life of the mother is in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment.
No, the imminent danger to the mother need not be the
direct result of a medical condition caused by the pregnancy or '
maldevelopment' of the fetus..
Rosenbaum...told reporters last week. “It is a sad but true fact that you can have a medical emergency that may have nothing to do with pregnancy..."
Whether it was caused by the pregnancy or not is irrelevant.
Thats what I just said, and its why I quoted Rosenbaum.
Then what's the point?
The point was to correct Jimmy's mistaken belief that imminent threat to life caused by fetal maldevelopment was the only relevant threshold test.
A perfectly healthy unborn baby might be a stakeholder in such cases.
No, it's not possible. If delivery is a viable option that's what they'll do. Thus the case of a perfectly healthy baby isn't an option.
The question is whether the pregnancy poses a danger, not how that danger came to be
Jimmy Higgins said "...in grave danger
due to fetal maldevelopment."
That's one scenario, not all of them.
Tell that to Jimmy Higgins who said these prospective abortions were only being contemplated because of fetal abnormality posing a threat to the mother's life.
He wasn't saying that all such abortions are. Rather, he was discussing one path by which things can go badly wrong.
Let's consider one of my wife's relatives. The pregnancy itself was fine, the problem was elsewhere. Abort/expect major fetal damage/go blind. What should she have done?
I assume you're pro-choice.
Choice means choosing - electing.
Many women choose to procede with their pregnancy despite potential risks.
First, whether someone is willing to take the risk doesn't mean they should be compelled to.
Obviously.
If there is an unavoidable threat to the mothers life equal to or greater than a parallel threat to the baby's life and its a case of saving one or neither, then its morally neutral.
And the only cases where that is even a possibility are where there's some other medical issue that's a threat if not treated. The relative I mentioned for example.
Second, in her case it wasn't a risk, it was basically a given. No treatment = blind, treatment = messed up fetus.
"Messed up" ???
Is that a medical term?
Understand that this is third hand with a language barrier--I do not know exactly what would have happened. And the doctors very well might not have, either--consider the grand daddy of pregnancy class X drugs: thalidomide. There's no way of predicting exactly what will happen, just that very bad things are likely.
(And note that her case would be considered an "elective" abortion. The word doesn't mean what you think it means.)
Elective means elective.
<Throws Lion IRC out of an airplane>
Pulling your chute is elective.
We've already agreed that if you can't save both lives it's not a dilemma. If I pull the chute my baby dies. If I don't pull the chute we both die. You aren't committing murder. You are deciding to save one life rather than zero lives.
But you are arguing about cases where that's the correct model--yet the states are trying to force delaying pulling the chute.
FWIW - many mothers elect to die when then learn that it's a choice between them or their baby.
It's not a likely scenario in the first place. It's not "many" that make that choice outside religious fiction.
...Who in the fuck do these assholes think they are to make these fucking morally and legally bankrupt arguments? They are supposed to be the best Judges in the country.
In what universe do you think highly qualified senior judges are all supposed to unanimously agree on every possible philosophical/legal argument about the interpretation of a statute?
The only reason this even reached SCOTUS is the Heritage Foundation has severely corrupted our Judiciary.
You think it's unfair that
both sides of the abortion debate have access to the constitutional legal appeal system?
It should have been shot down by the first court to see it.
What? Roe V Wade?
No, the case we are talking about now, whether the federal government can force the states to allow abortions to save the woman's health.
Note that we already have a case out of Texas where the delays from an inevitable abortion took her fertility.
Simply apply the normal self-defense laws, I believe in all 50 states the law now is the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense in order to get a conviction. And others can always step into your shoes in self defense (although some states restrict what others.) Legally that puts them in exactly the same position you were--if it would have been legal for you to take the action then it's legal for them, also.
I (already) hold the view that if there's no medical care that can save both the mother and the unborn baby then saving one at the expense of the other is morally neutral.
It's a simple trolley dilemma where you aren't given an option to save two lives - so saving one life is better than saving neither.
And you fail to understand that in most cases the options are woman lives or everybody dies.
I'm not arguing over how many cases there are numerically or as a percentage.
Apparently you don't understand that the emtala case is about these cases you are saying are acceptable. Baby killer!!
Water breaks before viability, that's it. There are three possible outcomes: miscarriage/abortion/everyone dies. Note that in no scenario does the fetus survive, it's death is inevitable. This is the sort of garbage you seem to favor:
How many times do I need to repeat my view that if there is an unavoidable threat to the mothers life equal and its a case of saving one or neither, then its morally neutral.
Find another strawman to argue with. I don't hold the view you're attacking.
I now realize you don't know what you're actually supporting.
