> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snippage> > In addition to this, I would add the recent > ballyhooed case of a woman > causing the death of her unborn child by refusing a > Caesarean Section who > is now being accused of murder. While the facts > of the case are in > doubt, let us just assume for a moment that the > facts are as prosecutors > describe them - that the woman in question refused a > C-Section because she > feared the permanent scaring that would result. > Even in this extreme > case, however, isn't that decision every bit a > woman's right under > pro-choice logic? After all, how can anyone, be > it you, the law, or > anyone else argue that a woman has a right to > consciously end the life of > the unborn child she is carrying, but does not have > the right to end the > life of the unborn child she is carrying by refusing > an unwanted medical procedure? > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4509692/ > > Sadly, the "abortion logic" in this country has > never been particularly consistent.
I'm going to turn the question around, in that parents have been allowed to refuse life-saving medical procedures for their already-born children because of their religious beliefs: should these people be prosecuted because such a procedure offends their personal philosophy? (I've posted articles previously about a couple of cases - at least one here in Colorado - so am not providing a link again.) FWIW, I've read somewhere the the woman in question already had multiple scars from a prior C-section, so the notion that she refused for cosmetic reasons seems foolish - of course, she might be mentally ill and that actually was her "reason." One possible solution WRT somebody who refuses a lifesaving procedure for a child (which does not also endanger their own life to a large extent), and whose mental illness is not correctable, would be quite radical - permanent sterilization. That way they could never again 'sin by omission.' Terminal illnesses like relapsed cancer or massive severe brain damage should of course be excepted; similarly, a destitute family would have to be assisted financially or the penalty could not apply. But that's rather totalitarian, and an after-the-fact solution as well; reversible birth control that permits breeding after the candidate has shown appropriate mental and physical criteria would be a more pro-active solution. Just as radical, IMO; and who would set the standards? Sit on the Review Board? Perhaps some thought should be given to a public health program, beginning before or at the onset of puberty, that incorporates education about reproduction, birth control, and personal responsibility, and which identifies and assists those who are currently unstable. Just a thought. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
