So what if there is no case law or a specific one on the books. My logic tells me if medical practice cannot save both, at least save one. That might be considered constructive. When lawyers meet such a conundrum of no law or case history, they must give a constructive solution, a third choice and prove it is best..
toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Save one, but don't actively kill the other.
Cruciform
New member
Yes---"First, do no harm..."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
So since the zygote does not have a heartbeat, actively removing it from the mother is not the same as killing it. Gotcha.
Someone dying because you can't save then is not the same as stabbing them to death.:dunce::duh:
This sounds remarkably close to, "And then you can kill the baby."
Cruciform
New member
"I cannot save the baby" and "I can kill the baby" sound "remarkably close" to you?
Doctor concerning a car-crash victim: "I cannot save this man."
Accompanying nurse: "Here's an overdose of morphine to kill the patient, doctor."
Accompanying nurse: "Here's an overdose of morphine to kill the patient, doctor."
This actually makes sense to you...?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Welcome to the middle of the conversation."I cannot save the baby" and "I can kill the baby" sound "remarkably close" to you?Doctor concerning a car-crash victim: "I cannot save this man."This actually makes sense to you...?
Accompanying nurse: "Here's an overdose of morphine to kill the patient, doctor."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Whatever... :carryon:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
This is not an accurate representation of the situation. In order to save the life of the mother-person, the doctor must take a knife and end the life of the baby-person. In some circles, the argument has been presented that any legislation that ends in, "And then you can kill the baby" is unacceptable. This is a situation wherein the law needs to clearly specify whether the life of the mother-person allows the baby-person to be killed."I cannot save the baby" and "I can kill the baby" sound "remarkably close" to you?Doctor concerning a car-crash victim: "I cannot save this man."This actually makes sense to you...?
Accompanying nurse: "Here's an overdose of morphine to kill the patient, doctor."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
What makes it different is the key. In your scenario, the person is allowed to die due to the extent of their injuries. In the ectopic pregnancy scenario the baby-person will only die after its development causes a rupture in the fallopian tube that will very likely kill the mother. It is not a case wherein simply withhold medical treatment results in death.
What?
Thank you."I cannot save the baby" and "I can kill the baby" sound "remarkably close" to you?Doctor concerning a car-crash victim: "I cannot save this man."This actually makes sense to you...?
Accompanying nurse: "Here's an overdose of morphine to kill the patient, doctor."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Anything recognizably person-like in any possible subjective or objective way. An embryo isn't sentient. I've covered some of this ground previously in the thread.
So it isn't possible to remove the baby without actively killing it first?
The act of removing it kills it.
It dies because it cannot survive, because we don't have the means to save it.
Don't you think we should try to find a way to do something about that?
If we keep saying it's okay to kill it since you can't save it what incentive is there to find a way to save it?
I don't know the reason, but I suspect the problem is they must remove the damaged falopian tube and the baby dies from lack of blood supply. The uterus wall with the hypertrophied endothelial cells is needed. The human placenta is different from many others and few if any women want to be a guinea pig. I doubt medicine can develop a weeks old placenta and the uterine response in a hour's surgical procedure.
Evey 6 year old farm boy and girl knows "like breeds like".
So since you are a person....................!
This we know. And as long as it's legal to kill the baby then what incentive is there fore medical science to move forward to where we can one day save that child.
I don't think it is legal to murder the baby. Roe vs. Wade didn't annul any state's law against premeditated murder. It opined that abortion (the premature removal of a fetus from the maternal tissue) was legal. And it didn't make the words murder and abortion Legal synonyms.
ThePresbyteers
New member
When is it fetus and when is it a baby?