I favor forcing women to have children against her wishes.
I oppose forcing women to have children against her wishes.
I don't think anyone is arguing this fact. Seems to me the debate revolves around when said Zygote/fetus/embryo has developed
enough to be classified as a human being. Life is somewhat irrelevant in this, as every cell we have, and every creature we eat is alive. yet we either shed millions, or slaughter them when needed. The criteria is obviously Humanity...which requires a human brain...we get those around month 5-6.
The next level then is (for some) whether primarily male politicians may and should use laws, courts, cops, doctors, trials, judges, forced physical examines, prisons, interrogations, subpoenas and possibly executions to enforce prohibited ideologies or to TRY to enforce ideologies dictated upon females of our species.
It isn't an unreasonable statement. It's the same process of moral reasoning that protects our civil liberties and our Constitutional rights-- "it doesn't matter what the consequences are, violating human rights is wrong"-- and the same process of moral reasoning that must, if it is to function at all, apply to all of the law.
The more jeopardy placed on doctors, they less they will risk and the less people should risk going to a doctor. There are certain types of miscarriages (late term) for which determining if it was an abortion or miscarriage would be exactly impossible. The government and AMA DO set regulations doctors just will not cross - denying patients and doctors both decision process. Same for midwives.
A woman went into sudden early labor (close to due date) using a midwife. However, it was a frank breach. The midwife told she had to immediately go to the emergency room because she could not, by law, deliver the child. She could in skill, but it was illegal for her to try and she'd lose her license. At the hospital, they informed her they HAD to do a C-section and their regs also would not allow them to attempt a natural childbirth. The woman absolutely refused to allow them to cut her open. She was at one of the highest volume birthing hospitals in the USA, which also doubled as a training hospital for doctors and nurses in that exact area. As she did her breathing with each growing contraction, they tried to convince her to agree to a C-section.
She absolutely refused. What to do? Nothing would stop the growing contractions and she had dialated to 8. 10 is the "launch number," like it or not. That baby was coming out - and if something not done would kill both mother and child - unless the father pulled the extremely difficult procedure again. The odds are considered very low for a lay person. The pay person can save the mother, but usually lacks time to save the baby, which instead suffocates during the extended removal process. But they had already done it once - had no choice being alone that time. But now the same situation they are in one of the top birthing hospitals in the USA.
Forcibly drug her down and slit her open against her will to 'save the child?" What authority did they have to do that?
It was complicated by the fact that the husband had done an emergency exact same situation birth with her on no-notice with the two of them alone at home with her uninjured and the child just fine. Now the greatest doctors in the world were declaring they couldn't even try to do what she and her husband had done out of necessity alone. Since within a minute they could do a C-section if the natural birth was actually failing, there was no real risk. Only required government directed medical protocol stood in their way.
Nor did the father agree with her. He had been through it, he had to do CPR and mouth-to-mouth to save the one he did with her. He did NOT want to try it again. BUT he did not see himself as having authority to order her, nor would she have let him.
Fortunately, the section chief MD on duty finally said to hell with this, realizing there was nothing they could do to stop her again going into natural frank breach birth with only her husband attending (and in that case "attending" is as absolute must. That baby CAN NOT come out on its own and the birthing would kill it and tear the mother apart if no one assisting the to baby come out. The mother unable to hold off going birthing by breathing anymore, the husband had final said ok, he'll do his best. And she began praying, "Dear heavenly father, please save my baby..." Calmly. Confidently. An entire medical staff just watching, paralized by regulations!
With that, the Chief said exactly "Oh to hell with this bull****! EVERYONE IN HERE, NOW! WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS!!" Guided by the midwife they manually and with extreme force turned the baby while inside her - strictly rules prohibited but a practice of midwives for centuries. And then she gave birth to a perfectly healthy son, her totally uninjured and they both out of there literally before the end of that day.
During it all she never let out so much as a peep in pain, calm the entire time. many times they commented on her endurance of pain as "impossible." No drugs. They declared her the greatest mother they ever had there.
The government NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF MEDICAL CARE IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL CARE IN MANY REGARDS (I'm not referring to insurance, rather what doctors may and may not do). If not, people need to stay away from doctors.
Last edited by joko104; 02-06-12 at 05:22 PM.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller