01-06-2013, 04:01 AM
1
The mothers rights or the childs rights?
Always a contentious issue and this case highlights it, set in a a strong catholic country San Salvador.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...an-el-salvador
the mother will undoubtedly be catholic herself and know the rules of her religion and state. However the state has found a way around the dilemma - allow a caesarian birth. The judges had ruled 4-1 not to allow an abortion despite her lawyers argument that her life was in extreme danger. They argued that the unborn childs life should not be endangered in anyway and took precedence over the mothers life - a hard call for all of us but easy call for the catholic church?
Where do you stand on this?
01-06-2013, 12:21 PM
7
Re: The mothers rights or the childs rights?
There are three established facts here which cannot be ignored whatever anyone's beliefs about the rights and wrongs of abortion. They are all important, but the third carries the most weight and is of prime relevance IMO.a) The woman has kidney failure and lupus (her health is at risk)
b) The foetus is 26 weeks+
c) The foetus has only a brain stem and no chance of surviving
It would not matter whether the pregnancy went to full time - the child would not survive - the foetus is not viable.
To make a woman (whether in full health or not) go to term in a situation like this is cruel and unnecessary, although if the law states that an abortion cannot be performed on a 26+ week foetus then there is a dilemma which must be overcome, (although I think an exception should be made to the 26 week. This would be the most humane answer for both mother and child). Hopefully she won't have to go to full term - further risking her health - and the caesarean will be performed without further delay.
|
|
