Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Trying to support a pre-term fetus costs money, takes resources, and isn't successful often enough to - in my opinion - justify the idea that it should necessarily be kept alive and then forced into an often-miserable world of being a ward of the state - depending on the term. I won't unreasonably claim that a 39-week fetus should be tossed in the trash and left to die. However, that's not what this is about. This is about removing the fetal tissue from the woman's body. What they do after that? I could give a **** in this case because it's not what we're discussing. We can have separate talks about that. But please note that in late-term cases, if the mother doesn't want the obligation of the child, she shouldn't have to have it if the medical professionals choose to try to keep it alive!
|
This is where those
arbitrary cut-offs come in. Were a fetus to have a largely likely chance of survival, it becomes a question conflict for a medical professional who took a hippocratic oath. The miserable world of being a state-kid is again debatable, as bad as foster homes might be, adoption is often successful and worthwhile. Cynicism can't decide something this important, and I agree doing something like this process too early would be wasteful both in terms of resources and in legislation since it would wind up becoming a bargaining chip for other agendas, but that's the one sting I have in being otherwise entirely pro-choice. A woman should be able to choose at
any stage to safely have the fetus removed from her, but if it is likely to be viable (i.e. quite late-term) then it just seems morally correct to induce labor or c-section and remove it this way.