There’s a difference between refusing a C-section and an abortion
Here’s the news story: Utah woman charged with murder because she refused a C-section, and later delivered a pair of twins, one alive, one stillborn. The murder charge stems from the fact her doctors advised her that if she didn’t undergo the procedure, there was a good chance that both twins would not survive.
Does this scare anyone else that the pro-life movement is so determined to “preserve life” that their analogizing refusing a Caesarean, an invasive procedure where a woman’s belly is cut open, to the affirmative act of having an abortion? (Please note, that I consider myself pro-life, but I have always been disturbed by “vigilante,” fundamentalist pro-lifers.) (After typing and submitting the previous sentence, I had to shudder…it feels so weird announcing that conservative stance.)
jacob
March 13, 2004 @ 11:23 am
hi, eva!
the woman shouldn’t be charged with murder. “a good chance” sounds very ambiguous to me (probably on purpose by the ever clear mds). the woman was offered a choice, and made it. by offering her a choice, weren’t the mds also recognizing that she had a right to choose, and that either choice was a valid, legal one?
david bang
March 13, 2004 @ 6:40 pm
The technicalities of the whole abortion discussion still escape me. So much of the “law” seems to be based on small details and semantics of what is considered what, and what is implied by “the word” in a particular context. I Guess I am in the wrong path if this disturbs me. Anyhow…
The pro life agenda might be “disturbing”, but I must confess that I have found some of the pro choice book hard to swallow as well. Not to say that I prefer one or the other for if it were up to ME, massive campaigns of contraception would be instituted a la authoritarian China.
papilion
March 14, 2004 @ 3:54 pm
Choice does not imply anything about leagilty of the choices. The government allows you to buy a car that is capable of speeding, there by allowing you to choose whether to speed or drive legally. However, if you drive 130mph you will be arested, if stopped.
I think what was at issue here is that the woman, decided that not having a scar was preferable to her child’s health. If she had the faintist religious, or medical reason there would be no issue. She alledgedly made her choice for vanity, and that is the legal issue.
That being said, I don’t think this is something the government should be involved in. Since, it could open door like charging people with attemped murder by refusing to take their TB medication.