• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

AGENT J

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia - CNN.com

The mother of a pregnant leukemia patient who died after her chemotherapy was delayed over anti- abortion laws is accusing doctors of not putting her daughter's health first. The 16-year-old's plight attracted worldwide attention after she had to wait for chemotherapy because of an abortion ban in the Dominican Republic.
Doctors were hesitant to give her chemotherapy because such treatment could terminate the pregnancy -- a violation of the Dominican Constitution, which bans abortion. Some 20 days after she was admitted to the hospital, she finally started receiving treatment.
She died Friday, a hospital official said.
Click to expand...


Thank god we dont do this here in America.

This is exactly why the core of the abortion debate is Woman's rights VS ZEFs rights. Anybody that denies that just isnt grasping reality.

This is way I said if you grant person hood at conception it turns the woman in to a second class citizen for 9 months and she loses her rights, freedoms, and liberties.

Now personally the article doesnt have enough info and theres nothing that says she factually died from not getting treatment but I would NEVER want the government treating women like this and taking their rights away and denying them needed treatments because it might impact the ZEF.

Abortion isnt a "pretty" reality but its a reality none less and this is why I personally side with womans rights over ZEF rights. One has to be picked, cant have equal rights in this situation.
 
Objective-J said:
Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia - CNN.com

Thank god we dont do this here in America.

This is exactly why the core of the abortion debate is Woman's rights VS ZEFs rights. Anybody that denies that just isnt grasping reality.

This is way I said if you grant person hood at conception it turns the woman in to a second class citizen for 9 months and she loses her rights, freedoms, and liberties.

Now personally the article doesnt have enough info and theres nothing that says she factually died from not getting treatment but I would NEVER want the government treating women like this and taking their rights away and denying them needed treatments because it might impact the ZEF.

Abortion isnt a "pretty" reality but its a reality none less and this is why I personally side with womans rights over ZEF rights. One has to be picked, cant have equal rights in this situation.
Click to expand...

"'My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first,' said Rose Hernandez, the woman's mother."
 
RadicalModerate said:
"'My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first,' said Rose Hernandez, the woman's mother."
Click to expand...

Thats the way I would feel I would hold my daughters health and life first every time BUT it would ultimately be up to my daughter if she was 18 or older (this girl is 16), if she CHOSE to risk her own life and that would be her choice, if she CHOSE to save her own life and risk that of the ZEFs than that would be her choice. There would be NOBODY else telling FORCING her choice. Thats for sure. :)
 
For me this situation doesn't go to the core of the argument at all. I am not for abortion on demand but this is a circumstance where I think abortion is permissable. Two lives are at stake and we have to make a common sense decision. This was an unusual circumstance that cannot be used in general to support abortion from the point my point of view.
 
jambalaya said:
For me this situation doesn't go to the core of the argument at all. I am not for abortion on demand but this is a circumstance where I think abortion is permissable. Two lives are at stake and we have to make a common sense decision. This was an unusual circumstance that cannot be used in general to support abortion from the point my point of view.
Click to expand...

It goes to the core because it shows factual proof how there can not be equal rights given to the woman AND the ZEF. It has to be one or the other many people fail to comprehend this fact, not saying you, just making a general statement.

It doesnt have to SUPPORT abortion it just shows that there is no such thing as equal rights in the equation, its a fallacy many try to promote that doesnt exist in reality.

If one is against abortion, fine, simply admit in most cases you are siding with ZEF rights (which dont exist currently) and thats what you want, do not deny that and claim its equal because there's nothing further from the truth and reality.

Again to be clear not saying YOU feel this way at all just making a general statement.

SOME of the prolife people want person-hood granted at conception and abortion to be murder, if that would happen this is what you would get and the woman would be come a 2nd class citizen for 9 months in many circumstances.
 
The writeup is emotionally biased. There is no way to know if the treatments started 20 days prior would have saved either lives.
I'm unsure if this was a 'common sense' decision because IMO all life is worth saving. This decision should be up to the doctors, mom & the family but only because it was life threatening.
 
vauge said:
The writeup is emotionally biased. There is no way to know if the treatments started 20 days prior would have saved either lives.
I'm unsure if this was a 'common sense' decision because IMO all life is worth saving. This decision should be up to the doctors, mom & the family but only because it was life threatening.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with the bolded part 100%
the underlined part is true if you let be true


my point is though I would NEVER want a women denied her chemo based on the health of her ZEF. I know thats my opinion but its the one I hold and would never cave on because personally I cant find any rational or logic to do so.
 
This is the sort of thing that happens when the government decides when abortion is "permissible" and when it isn't, as well as the sort of problems that happen when laws are based on religion. There is a reason why our founders wanted a separation of church and state, after all.

Yet, we have quite a few authoritarians in this country who would have the government make the decision for the pregnant woman, rather than leave it up to her and her doctor.

The astounding thing is how many of those authoritarians consider themselves to be "conservatives" and rail on about the pro choice "liberals". Which one is really standing up for freedom?
 
Objective-J said:
my point is though I would NEVER want a women denied her chemo based on the health of her ZEF. I know thats my opinion but its the one I hold and would never cave on because personally I cant find any rational or logic to do so.
Click to expand...
In very rare situations like this, a discussion with the doctors and all the facts need to be on the table before coming to a decision on which life the family wishes to increase the likelihood of survival. To choose either is a decision the government should not be able to make.
 
vauge said:
In very rare situations like this, a discussion with the doctors and all the facts need to be on the table before coming to a decision on which life the family wishes to increase the likelihood of survival. To choose either is a decision the government should not be able to make.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartily with the bolded part, but where we probably disagree is while "I" would do what you said, talk to the doctors and family etc before I made a decision I have no problem if the woman makes the decision completely on her own no matter the outcome.

If the doctor says you need chemo and it will INCREASE you chance of survival form 75% to 95% and she chooses to do so, then I support her in her choice even if "I" personally would have made a different one.

if the follow-up info was the ZEF has 100% chance of survival currently and with the chemo that drops to 30% I still side with her choice, even if again "I" would make a different one.

For me the bottom line is its her choice and this is just one of the nasty situations (though statistically rare but where does it stop) that could come up if the government had the right to make these decisions for women and take away their freedoms.
 
Objective-J said:
I agree whole heartily with the bolded part, but where we probably disagree is while "I" would do what you said, talk to the doctors and family etc before I made a decision I have no problem if the woman makes the decision completely on her own no matter the outcome.
Click to expand...
We do disagree. I do not think any one person has the right to end a human life. Her doctors and family (and possibly church) need to be involved and they need to make the decision together. If it becomes a case were they disagree (unlikely), the doctors should have the final say. Again, this case is very rare and there are no morally right answers.
 
vauge said:
We do disagree. I do not think any one person has the right to end a human life. Her doctors and family (and possibly church) need to be involved and they need to make the decision together. If it becomes a case were they disagree (unlikely), the doctors should have the final say. Again, this case is very rare and there are no morally right answers.
Click to expand...

Yes we definitely do, and thats fine that we do as I see what you are saying I just wouldnt want government deciding how it happens and that we agree on.

I view it as saving hers and if the ZEF is impacted by that then unfortunately so be it.

If i was a woman

I personally would NEVER leave it up to the doctors, ever. Who knows what their beliefs are and that could cloud their judgment.
They give me the info and i decide, never them.

I personally wouldnt consult my church as I wouldn't struggle with the decision in that fashion at all but I would see how one may take this path in other circumstances.

I personally wouldn't consult my family (not the father) but only because I know my decision would be for the chemo (unless my survival was basically nil and the ZEF was great.

I would consult the father but is opinion would only be listened to and valued and I may very well decided differently.
would never leave it up to the do.

I also agree theres no moral answer here but thats because I dont think this is to be judged in that fashion, my morals, your morals, hers morals could all be different.

Good talk though!
 
Objective-J said:
I agree whole heartily with the bolded part, but where we probably disagree is while "I" would do what you said, talk to the doctors and family etc before I made a decision I have no problem if the woman makes the decision completely on her own no matter the outcome.

If the doctor says you need chemo and it will INCREASE you chance of survival form 75% to 95% and she chooses to do so, then I support her in her choice even if "I" personally would have made a different one.

if the follow-up info was the ZEF has 100% chance of survival currently and with the chemo that drops to 30% I still side with her choice, even if again "I" would make a different one.

For me the bottom line is its her choice and this is just one of the nasty situations (though statistically rare but where does it stop) that could come up if the government had the right to make these decisions for women and take away their freedoms.
Click to expand...

I find insulting that men on this thread determining what women should do with their bodies. What creditability do men in this thread have on this subject. Women are control of their bodies. They decide when, how, who have sex with. I'm of the camp that women lives shouldn't be up to men that have suppress their rights for over 600+ years.
 
Vallista said:
I find insulting that men on this thread determining what women should do with their bodies. What creditability do men in this thread have on this subject. Women are control of their bodies. They decide when, how, who have sex with. I'm of the camp that women lives shouldn't be up to men that have suppress their rights for over 600+ years.
Click to expand...

I find it insulting that ANYBODY wants to force thier views on another in this manner and want to force women to do what they want. Womans rights is the way to go for me also.
 
In the US, I don't think this could have happened even if personhood was granted at conception. We allow killing in self defense. This would fit the bill.

It's definitely a sad story. Although, if she died that quickly, I doubt chemo would have helped much.
 
If anything, this is more an illustration of how absurd government can be. It shouldn't take 20 days to determine whether it is better to save the mother or let both die. Everyone knows the answer but nobody is qualified to make the decision.
 
Objective-J said:
Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia - CNN.com




Thank god we dont do this here in America.

This is exactly why the core of the abortion debate is Woman's rights VS ZEFs rights. Anybody that denies that just isnt grasping reality.

This is way I said if you grant person hood at conception it turns the woman in to a second class citizen for 9 months and she loses her rights, freedoms, and liberties.

Now personally the article doesnt have enough info and theres nothing that says she factually died from not getting treatment but I would NEVER want the government treating women like this and taking their rights away and denying them needed treatments because it might impact the ZEF.

Abortion isnt a "pretty" reality but its a reality none less and this is why I personally side with womans rights over ZEF rights. One has to be picked, cant have equal rights in this situation.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, I don't think there are many people on either side of the abortion isle that would say that when the mother's life is in danger, as it was here, that they cannot have abortions.
 
that's so sad it makes me sick.

#1) a 16 year old was pregnant to begin with.
#2) she suffered from cancer
#3) she was denied care because they favored the child more than her
#4) she died because of it

How ****ing tragic is that - that's just horrible on so many levels. One thing after the other :(
 
Ikari said:
Quite honestly, I don't think there are many people on either side of the abortion isle that would say that when the mother's life is in danger, as it was here, that they cannot have abortions.
Click to expand...

hmmm
I dont know Id tend to agree, I know there is at least one here maybe two but in general the number is probably low

but the point is this is what can happen if you give womans rights away, one has to have more rights and this is a perfect example.


now this is just food for thought but how fast would this scenario change is numbers were involved?

no meds womans changes of living 0% and ZEFs 0%

no meds womans changes of living 0% and ZEFs 100% (mom will live at least a year and ZEF will survive)

no meds womans changes of living 50% and ZEFs 0%

no meds womans changes of living 50% and ZEFs 100%

with meds womans changes of living 100% and ZEFs 0%

with meds womans changes of living 100% and ZEFs 50%

etc etc

I think these matter to a lot of people but I could be wrong.

to me they are just almost always meaningless I always want it to be the womans choice
 
Aunt Spiker said:
that's so sad it makes me sick.

#1) a 16 year old was pregnant to begin with.
#2) she suffered from cancer
#3) she was denied care because they favored the child more than her
#4) she died because of it

How ****ing tragic is that - that's just horrible on so many levels. One thing after the other :(
Click to expand...

just to be fair not sure she died because she was denied treatment, its possible though but I agree tragic none the less and she should not have been denied.
 
Objective-J said:
but the point is this is what can happen if you give womans rights away, one has to have more rights and this is a perfect example.
Click to expand...

Well first off, you don't give anyone's rights away. Rights cannot be given away. Secondly, this point is easily remedied by making law that says when mother's life is in danger as such, that abortion is legal. So it's not a very strong point. The nominal argument for abortion isn't woman's right to life vs. ZEF's right to life since in that it is widely accepted that the woman wins out. But rather the woman's right to I guess property is the most used argument, vs ZEF's right to life. And there are and continue to be many arguments along those lines. But things as this OP are easily circumvented and nigh universally accepted.
 
this is one of those cases where I believe abortion to be the lesser evil... in no case should a woman have to submit herself to mortal danger like this...

when the mother dies they both die... it isnt nice, but it is the truth, I choose the lesser loss in this case.
 
Ikari said:
Well first off, you don't give anyone's rights away. Rights cannot be given away. Secondly, this point is easily remedied by making law that says when mother's life is in danger as such, that abortion is legal. So it's not a very strong point. The nominal argument for abortion isn't woman's right to life vs. ZEF's right to life since in that it is widely accepted that the woman wins out. But rather the woman's right to I guess property is the most used argument, vs ZEF's right to life. And there are and continue to be many arguments along those lines. But things as this OP are easily circumvented and nigh universally accepted.
Click to expand...

well in this case womans rights would in fact be taken away and if people voted to do so they would be taking them away :shrug: in reality not talking about theory

also odd you left out the rest of my post.


the womans life in danger is NOT enough, defined danger? are you talking ANY percent of danger?

the purest foundation of the abortion debate is definitely rights vs rights / life vs life the rest is just add ons in one direction or another.

and I totally disagree that things like in the OP are "easily circumvented and nigh universally accepted" based on what.

thats what my examples were for they quickly change lots of peoples minds unless again im asking are we talking any percentage of danger?
 
Objective-J said:
well in this case womans rights would in fact be taken away and if people voted to do so they would be taking them away :shrug: in reality not talking about theory
Click to expand...

No, you use government force to prevent the exercise of the right.

Objective-J said:
also odd you left out the rest of my post.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was quite necessary to quote the whole of it given what I was responding to.
the womans life in danger is NOT enough, defined danger? are you talking ANY percent of danger?

the purest foundation of the abortion debate is definitely rights vs rights / life vs life the rest is just add ons in one direction or another.

and I totally disagree that things like in the OP are "easily circumvented and nigh universally accepted" based on what.

Objective-J said:
thats what my examples were for they quickly change lots of peoples minds unless again im asking are we talking any percentage of danger?
Click to expand...

There is innate danger with pregnancy in general given human biology. I think it's somewhere in the vicinity of ~500 women die each year in childbirth in the US. So that would probably be a baseline and you'd argue off of statistically resolved probabilities above that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom