|Originally posted by gardenmommy
Of course the mother's rights do not disappear the moment she becomes pregnant. That is absurd. She is a person, she has rights, feelings, choices. The problem is, she must now also think about how those rights, feelings, choices, etc. affect another person, one who is completely dependant on her. Just because the baby is dependant on her for survival doesn't make the baby's needs, rights, feelings, etc. any less important.
I think that viability is a red herring. Babies are "viable" from about 24 weeks, but no baby is truly able to be "viable" until at least age 5 yrs. Babies and children are extremely dependant on adults to make decisions for them, feed them, clothe them, educate them, and the list goes on.
My point is this: there is no one on earth equipped to make such a dramatic decision as ending another human being's life. No doctor can know for sure which babies are or are not viable. And no woman can truly know how a baby will affect her life. If she really cannot handle adding a child to her life at that time, she needs to investigate adoption, grandparents care, or placing the child with another family member. Why kill the child, especially in such an inhumane and barbaric manner as PBA, when there are other options available?
Why kill the baby? If you don't want it, find someone who does. If the baby is sure to die, birth the baby as peacefully as possible, then be there during its final moments. If the baby is already dead, then birth it, and hold the body while you grieve. Don't use a cruel procedure such as this to end a precious life.
If you agree that the woman's rights do not disappear when she becomes pregnant, why does the "pro-life" position place those rights of a living human below the rights of something that has the possibility of life?
Babaies are only "viable" at that early stage of gestation with millions of dollars in equpment and resources to keep it alive. Again there may be a "few" exceptions to that but without massive life support systems and an amazing amount of resources, any birth at that time would not survive. It's not nice to mess with mother nature. At the point yu start saving every premmie, you are "playing god" and intevening in the natural process anyways. Just in the "opposite" direction. You say life at all cost, which are HUGE in resources and equipment, technology, etc..
The fact there is no one equippped to make the choice and or decision is exactly why it should be left up to the woman and not you or anyone else that "thinks" they know what is best for everyone, or that the decision they make meets with your approval.
How far will the law go with giving women's children to a "better" suited person to raise? Will it go to the point that there will be only "approved" members of the society, that all have the "same limited beliefs, motivations, and "moral self-righteousness" will be the only ones allowed to raise children? Once we start down that road, it is bound to get really strange, really fast imho.
I have seen a few posts mention "giving the baby something to stop it's heart" in order t make this a "more humane" procedure. If I recall correctly, a fetus is attached to the mother by the placenta and anything you would give to the fetus at that point could and probably would enter the mother's system through the exchange of blood through the placent and "stop the heart" of the mother as well. I am no medical expert, but it someow makes sense to me.
Why should a woman take the risks involved in having a c-section when they are not necessary to deliver a dead fetus? As with any surgery, there are risks involved and to take them unessarily, putting the mother in a higher risk situation just doesn't make sense.
Should we go to the point where there is absolutely no medical intervention in ANY pregnancy? Then all of the women that have c-sections because it is impossible to give vaginal birth, along with the fetus they are attemting to deliver would die. If a mother hemmorages after birth, she would be left to bleedto death. Medical intervention is ok as long as it is used to do anything and everything possible to save a life or lives regardless of the consequences of that intervention? Regardless of the fact that at some point that is "playing god" as well? Personally, I can't draw that line, pass that judgement, or see myself or anyone else making those choices for another person. Each woman must be able to make her own choice about these things.