01-06-2013, 04:47 PM
11
Re: The mothers rights or the childs rights?
I think that the woman may survive if the child is aborted but if it isn't neither will survive.I knew a couple who found the woman had Leukaemia after the birth of their first child. She was treated and 'cured'. A couple of years later they asked about having another child and were given the ok.
Half way through the pregnancy the Leukaemia returned. She was given choice of treatment and baby wouldn't survive or baby and she would have less chance of survival.
He couldn't decide so she took the decision to have the baby. She had a perfectly healthy baby girl but she didn't see her daughters first birthday.
01-06-2013, 04:50 PM
12
Re: The mothers rights or the childs rights?
Originally Posted by Aerolor
->
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.
01-06-2013, 06:55 PM
15
Re: The mothers rights or the childs rights?
Originally Posted by mindbender
->
sal savador is catholic - the mother is catholic - abortion is against the doctrine of the church - your scientific evidence don't work here - you need to pray for an answer!
A caesarean section was agreed as a solution and seems to make sense to me as it avoids what we think of as conventional abortion. Because of what was known about the foetus it was realised it would not survive once independent of the mother. My only hope (prayer if you prefer the word MB) would be that the c.section is done sooner rather than later for the sake of the mother.
01-06-2013, 08:23 PM
16
Re: The mothers rights or the childs rights?
Too emotive a subject matter really for me to chip in but the little I know about San Salvador and the Catholic Church contraception is the way to go even if it goes against the Church's beliefs somewhat. Better to avoid getting pregnant than being pregnant and wishing you weren't cos in that country your options are very limited. Far too many orphans and unwanted pregnancies going on. Messy business whichever way you look at it.01-06-2013, 11:52 PM
17
Re: The mothers rights or the childs rights?
Originally Posted by Twizard
->
I'm with you lot. Was she ill before the pregnancy though? If she knew risks why take the chance of getting pregnant?
01-06-2013, 11:53 PM
18
Re: The mothers rights or the childs rights?
Originally Posted by ben-varrey
->
As with all others that have posted, I also see no point in risking the woman's life when the foetus won't survive anyway.
|
|
