3 ms·

Just to be clear — you’re saying that yes, mothers should be forced, under threat of prison, to undergo dangerous surgery if it will save their child’s life? Th

Just to be clear — you’re saying that yes, mothers should be forced, under threat of prison, to undergo dangerous surgery if it will save their child’s life? That’s what you’re advocating here, right?

credit_guy 4y ago
I'm not saying that. I'm saying the mother has to do the things reasonably expected from her to keep the baby alive. Like feeding the baby, either using her own breast milk or a formula. Or like taking the baby to the doctor if the baby is sick. If she does not do these things and the baby dies, then there is a lawsuit, and many times the mother (or care giver) goes to prison. There are situations when the mother has to first take care of herself, like the famous airplane instructions "secure your mask first, then assist the other person". Society does not expect mothers to endanger themselves in order to save the life of their babies. It only expects mothers to do the reasonable things to keep the baby alive. Some people think that not aborting a baby is such a thing. Most pregnancies do not endanger the mother. Keeping a baby to term is not comparable with undergoing a dangerous surgery to keep a baby alive. If the life of the pregnant mother is in danger, then sure, it is reasonable to advise an abortion. But the idea that abortion is simply a matter of "personal freedom" is just too simplistic. There is another human being involved, a human being who cannot protect themselves any more than a one year old baby can protect themselves. Society has a right (and a duty) to step in and enact these protections. Let me turn the question back to you: are you saying it is ok for a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion 2 weeks before term? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? I don't know for sure, but I can appreciate that this is not an easy problem to solve. Certainly not by simply waving a banner "My body, my choice", or labeling the issue "personal freedoms".

credit_guy 4y ago

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the mother has to do the things reasonably expected from her to keep the baby alive. Like feeding the baby, either using her own breast milk or a formula. Or like taking the baby to the doctor if the baby is sick. If she does not do these things and the baby dies, then there is a lawsuit, and many times the mother (or care giver) goes to prison. There are situations when the mother has to first take care of herself, like the famous airplane instructions "secure your mask first, then assist the other person". Society does not expect mothers to endanger themselves in order to save the life of their babies. It only expects mothers to do the reasonable things to keep the baby alive. Some people think that not aborting a baby is such a thing. Most pregnancies do not endanger the mother. Keeping a baby to term is not comparable with undergoing a dangerous surgery to keep a baby alive. If the life of the pregnant mother is in danger, then sure, it is reasonable to advise an abortion. But the idea that abortion is simply a matter of "personal freedom" is just too simplistic. There is another human being involved, a human being who cannot protect themselves any more than a one year old baby can protect themselves. Society has a right (and a duty) to step in and enact these protections. Let me turn the question back to you: are you saying it is ok for a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion 2 weeks before term? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? I don't know for sure, but I can appreciate that this is not an easy problem to solve. Certainly not by simply waving a banner "My body, my choice", or labeling the issue "personal freedoms".