Go blind and get arrested

[beej]

The way it was explained to me, is that doctors want to be able to make potential life saving decisions without worrying about the legal ramifications.

continuing with the socratic method and leaving politics out of it. Should a doctor suffer legal ramifications if his decision is allow a person to die, even if normal life saving methods could have saved him. for example, a diabetic adult with Down Syndrome has low blood sugar and the doctor thinks that it would be better for the person not to continue living with down syndrome? So the question is, should there be legal ramifications against a doctor that makes a decision like that? (If this sounds off track, this is how Socrates, who was not Christian and not overly political got to the truth of an issue through philosophy.)

I think this points to the fact that there are some decisions a doctor should not be able to make unilaterally, but that he should be required by law to save a life through simple life saving techniques if they are available.

[neurosis]

Should a doctor suffer legal ramifications if his decision is allow a person to die, even if normal life saving methods could have saved him. for example, a diabetic adult with Down Syndrome has low blood sugar and the doctor thinks that it would be better for the person not to continue living with down syndrome?

Is that really happening?

[beej]

Is that really happening?

read my post again, I edited for clarity after you probably read it.

[neurosis]

I think this points to the fact that there are some decisions a doctor should not be able to make unilaterally, but that he should be required by law to save a life through simple life saving techniques if they are available.

Doctors aren't able to make decisions unilaterally in any State that I know of? They still have to follow the law.

I think that it's a difficult philosophical discussion to have that could potentially get buried in nuance and I don't see a path that wouldn't turn religious or political?

[beej]

Doctors aren't able to make decisions unilaterally in any State that I know of? They still have to follow the law.

I think that it's a difficult philosophical discussion to have that could potentially get buried in nuance and I don't see a path that wouldn't turn religious or political?

It's an important subject for all involved and you said to set politics aside. And I'm doing that. but my sense is that if these questions make you uncomfortable it points to an error in logic. Not a sin, not a political point, but an error in logic.

So we agree that a doctor should be held to legal standards in medicine and not free to make any decision he wants based on his own personal system of beliefs.

That gets back to the question is there a point where it would be ethically acceptable to end the fetus and a point where it is ethically unacceptable to end the fetus and why is that point the correct point? I can help you with some points if you like, there is conception, there is the heartbeat, there is the point where they feel pain, there is survivability outside the womb, and there is birth.

So there has to be some point where the law says, just like in the case of the Diabetic Down syndrome adult, where we draw a line with the doctor and say, you made an illegal decision you should have saved that person's life. What point is that for the fetus and why?

[neurosis]

It's an important subject for all involved and you said to set politics aside. And I'm doing that. but my sense is that if these questions make you uncomfortable it points to an error in logic. Not a sin, not a political point, but an error in logic.

So we agree that a doctor should be held to legal standards in medicine and not free to make any decision he wants based on his own personal system of beliefs.

That gets back to the question is there a point where it would be ethically acceptable to end the fetus and a point where it is ethically unacceptable to end the fetus and why is that point the correct point? I can help you with some points if you like, there is conception, there is the heartbeat, there is the point where they feel pain, there is survivability outside the womb, and there is birth.

So there has to be some point where the law says, just like in the case of the Diabetic Down syndrome adult, where we draw a line with the doctor and say, you made an illegal decision you should have saved that person's life. What point is that for the fetus and why?

If you're asking my personal opinion on abortion, you're probably not going to like it. That's why I said it could easily buried in nuance. Is it better to force a woman who couldn't afford to raise a child, who may or may not end up in an abusive situation for both her and the child, that could potentially create generations of the same cycle, to have the child, or end the pregnancy?

Then this is going to start turning in to "baby killer" talk, not from you, but from others who have strong opinions on the subject.

If we're still talking about late term abortion, I think you'd be better served talking to a doctor and have them explain it to you.  I'm just telling you what I was told and feel like a man in the middle. I'm not a doctor. I'd have to give you the google version of someone else's opinion.

But no, the questions don't make me uncomfortable.

[mowens]

Some women seek a late term abortion because the fetus is dead. Yet, some would still argue against abortion for her.

[beej]

If you're asking my personal opinion on abortion, you're probably not going to like it. That's why I said it could easily buried in nuance. It's it better to force a woman who couldn't afford to raise a child who may or may not end up in an abusive situation that could create generations of the same cycle, to have the child, or end the pregnancy?

Then this is going to start turning in to "baby killer" talk, not from you, but from others who have strong opinions on the subject.

If we're still talking about late term abortion, I think you'd be better served talking to a doctor and have them explain it to you.  I'm just telling you what I was told and feel like a man in the middle. I'm not a doctor. I'd have to give you the google version of someone else's opinion.

But no, the questions don't make me uncomfortable.

This is just a discussion. I'm not asking you to make me like your decision about abortion. But in you original question about it. You said to leave politics aside and that's what I'm doing and I'm leaving my religious views aside as well to have a real conversation. I know you're not a doctor. But we are a country that is governed by people who are elected by people who are not necessarily doctors. And there is a question about this in our country right now and a decision needs to be made. If that decision is to be logical rather than political or religious, to suit the masses then so be it. As a religious person, I am willing to concede that my religious views should not be binding on someone else. So win me over base on secular logic. I have talked to doctors personally about the late term abortion issue. They have told me that there is no medical reason for late term abortions. I have asked specifically about hyperclampsia where a woman's blood pressure spikes during pregnancy. Both doctors said that they can still deliver a live baby through c-section with that condition. I asked about medical conditions of the fetus that make it medically necessary. They said that baby can be made completely comfortable after it is delivered whether it's condition is terminal or not. But either way the baby has to be delivered, whether through late term abortion procedure or normal birthing. It is the same stress on the mother. They also agreed with many on the left, that these late term abortions are exceedingly rare, because so few doctors consider them necessary. Which begs the question, if so few doctors consider them medically necessary, doesn't that lend itself to the logic of making them illegal?

You stated you have an opinion about abortion, is it a logical opinion? If you are not basing your opinion on politics or religion, then I'm guessing that it's logic. I just want to see what that logic is.

[beej]

Some women seek a late term abortion because the fetus is dead. Yet, some would still argue against abortion for her.

who is against ending a miscarriage. Even Catholic hospitals, which are about as anti abortion as you can get, will still do a DNC for a miscarried baby. I know that for a fact because my daughter miscarried in 2023 and had a DNC at a catholic hospital.

[mowens]

They have told me that there is no medical reason for late term abortions.

That statement is only true if you don't believe that saving the life of a mother is a medical reason. Or severe fetal abnormalities. Or a dead fetus.

[mowens]

who is against ending a miscarriage. Even Catholic hospitals, which are about as anti abortion as you can get, will still do a DNC for a miscarried baby. I know that for a fact because my daughter miscarried in 2023 and had a DNC at a catholic hospital.

A dead fetus does not always result in a miscarriage. I remember reading articles about George Tiller that included interviews with patients. Several of them came to him because their fetus had died and laws where they lived would not allow them to have the dead baby removed before term, since they were past the deadline for abortions.

[beej]

That statement is only true if you don't believe that saving the life of a mother is a medical reason. Or severe fetal abnormalities. Or a dead fetus.

Let's just get the dead fetus argument out of the way. that's a miscarriage. And miscarriage and abortion is not the same thing. You can go to any hospital in America and get a DNC after a miscarriage.

The doctors that I was talking too specifically said that there is no condition a mother might have that causing a late term abortion would fix. In any condition, the baby has to come out. either vaginally or c-section. So in what condition could they not do an emergency c-section to extract the baby and then save the life of the mother?

In the case of severe abnormality? the baby still has to be extracted. Once the baby is outside the womb there are many palliative care methods to keep the baby comfortable that would be less painful than killing it inside the womb. But all of that aside, modern ultrasounds keep women from finding out about these conditions in the last term.

[Smit]

They also agreed with many on the left, that these late term abortions are exceedingly rare, because so few doctors consider them necessary. Which begs the question, if so few doctors consider them medically necessary, doesn't that lend itself to the logic of making them illegal?

All those words to get to this point.

We agree that late term abortions are exceedingly rare, because it's true. Good for you for recognizing that.

In the exceedingly rare cases they do happen, why do they happen? Except in exceeding rare occasions it's because there is something that went terribly wrong in the pregnancy. Do we also agree on that?

Now I may be wrong here but I don't think any states allow late term abortions just because somebody might change their mind in the last few weeks. If there are I'd like to hear where they are allowed.

If there aren't then I'd suggest there are already laws, or restrictions, or whatever your choice of wording is, against late term abortions, except in tightly regulated circumstances. Which it should be, IMO.

Where is the need to create a law for something that virtually never happens and is already regulated?

One more point, the idea of the repeal of Roe vs Wade is the federal government should allow the states to regulate as they see fit. Are you suggesting a federal intervention?

Let's just get the dead fetus argument out of the way. that's a miscarriage. And miscarriage and abortion is not the same thing. You can go to any hospital in America and get a DNC after a miscarriage.

The doctors that I was talking too specifically said that there is no condition a mother might have that causing a late term abortion would fix. In any condition, the baby has to come out. either vaginally or c-section. So in what condition could they not do an emergency c-section to extract the baby and then save the life of the mother?

In the case of severe abnormality? the baby still has to be extracted. Once the baby is outside the womb there are many palliative care methods to keep the baby comfortable that would be less painful than killing it inside the womb. But all of that aside, modern ultrasounds keep women from finding out about these conditions in the last term.

Let's just get the dead fetus argument out of the way. that's a miscarriage.

No it's not.

Everything You Need to Know About Miscarriage

The doctors that I was talking too specifically said that there is no condition a mother might have that causing a late term abortion would fix.

There are no conditions that might threaten the life of the mother? None at all? Never?

I think you need to expand the number of doctors you seek knowledge from outside those you already know. It sounds like they have an agenda.

[mowens]

From the internet, so, you know....

A C-section is not usually the preferred method for removing a dead fetus, but it may be necessary in certain situations. A C-section is a major abdominal surgery that carries more risk than an abortion.
Why an abortion may be preferred
Safer for the mother
A C-section can increase the risk of complications for the mother, such as severe bleeding, infection, and blood clots.
Faster recovery
After an abortion, a patient may be able to try to get pregnant again sooner than after a C-section.
When a C-section may be necessary
If the patient has a condition that makes vaginal delivery unsafe, such as large fibroids, an abdominal cerclage, or a placenta over the cervix
If the patient or fetus is too sick to undergo labor
If labor cannot be induced
Other considerations
If the baby dies before labor begins, medicine to induce labor is usually safer for the mother than a C-section
Retaining a dead fetus can cause severe blood loss or infection

[beej]

There are no conditions that might threaten the life of the mother? None at all? Never?

If I ask you tell me what conditions would require that, you'll say. I'm not a doctor. We have already had this discussion. When I say that I asked a doctor you say that I'm talking to the wrong doctors.  But I'll try again, what condition would a woman be in that would require an abortion to save her life rather than an emergency c-section.


If we are talking late term pregnancy, whether it is a later term abortion or because of the baby's death. It still has to be delivered.

Since George Tiller was brought up, He admitted, in his own words that 75% of his late term abortions were teens who waited too long to get an early term abortion and were doing so, not because their life was in danger but because they did not want to have the baby.