|
|
|
|
|
|
by TalEs
911 days ago
|
|
|
Ah, the classic debate of whether biologically a clump of cells constitute an entire person or "victim", or is it something we are made to believe due to our teachings/religious beliefs. Out of the biggest global religions, 2 out of the 3 Abrahamic religions allow abortions, when necessary and if the mother is at risk. By that logic, abortion is allowed and should be done whenever necessary for the health of the mother. Allowing women to apply their rights to their own health does not make our society a majority of sociopaths.
I am not saying to use abortion for irresponsible actions, but abortion in it's self, is not a sociopathic activity. |
|
|
I would like to know if there is a case where the baby is viable where it's necessary to kill the baby and remove the dead baby rather than removing a living baby?
I am concerned that if you give me a problem to solve (a sick pregnant woman) I might remove one complicating factor (the baby) to simplify my work load.
I know in Texas, during the era of Roe v. Wade, if a doctor recommended an abortion saying the baby was non-viable and was wrong, there was no liability on the doctor. If the doctor recommended against abortion, and the baby was in the least bit deformed, the doctor could be held liable for millions of dollars. This lead to a lot of pro-kill-the-baby bias.