This sort of thing makes me quite quite cross. Even the Catholic Church, an institution that is about as anti-abortion as you can get, clearly states that the mother's life has priority over that of the unborn child's. In any mother/foetus descision, the mother is meant to have priority. Any other descision is madness - you are sacrificing an adult life for a life that may not make it through the birth _either_. And they try to make this a political issue!
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] this</a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
in a similar vein, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,961894,00.html"this</a> just turned up on <lj site="livejournal.com" comm="vaginapagina">.
I do think it's disgusting that a politician is making any decisions around this. It is not an issue of politics, it is an issue for the woman's doctor(s) and/or next of kin to work out. However, I don't think its as straightforward a case of "this woman should have an abortion" as a lot of people are making out.
This article is obviously written by a person with the opinion that the child should be aborted, and as such we shouldn't rely on it to give a balanced view.
Since we don't know the woman in question, it is impossible to know the level of risk involved in giving birth to the baby, or if anything can be done to lessen that risk. We should remember that it is a somewhat risky process for anyone to go through.
We are expected to agree that this woman was raped because she was too retarded to give consent for sex. How, then, can we imagine she will be able to give her consent for an abortion? For this reason, an abortion would, in my opinion, be a further violation of this woman's body (as well as a murder, but lets not even go there!) You'd have to be talking about a massive risk to justify that.
There is a massive risk in this case. And I'm nearly certain they would use a general anaesthetic for the procedure for her, seeing as she has the mental age of a one year old.
From my reading of the article, he's not blocking her from getting an abortion - it's not got that far yet. He's actually blocking her being examined to determine what the risk levels of the various options even are. That's pretty crappy, imho.
You're right about the obvious bias of the article, but I don't see any reason that the woman shouldn't be examined so that any decisions taken are done so with full information, at least.
That is bad. I didn't realise the woman couldn't be examined and get a medical opinion of what should be done. I thought it was more that if the doctors do say she should have an abortion, they would have to argue their case against that of the child's advocate before they are allowed to carry it out.
Hmmm. Isn't it nice that the most powerful family in the world are that considerate.
Quick thought for you. Bush the Selected won Florida by a minute margin. Some rules were bent, such as the registering of overseas votes. His cousin runs the state that decided a nation's fate. As the Americans say: You do the math.
It's about time there was a credible opposition to these domineering fools. With the Democrats becoming Reupblicans MK2 (parallels with Blair anyone?), the two party system is throwing up more and more travesties such as this. I fear for the world. I really do.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 04:21 am (UTC)How stupid!
Date: 2003-05-24 04:25 am (UTC)And they try to make this a political issue!
I am very glad I don't live in America.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 04:34 am (UTC)People like that almost make me feel ashamed of my beliefs. Ugh Ugh Ugh.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 05:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 05:37 am (UTC)how did he get into a position of power?!
:-/
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 05:55 am (UTC)oddly enough, the very last page i visited before this was about jeb bush's part in florida death row executions. bastard.
i have a penpal on death row there who i haven't written to in ages. i should really get onto it. especially when someone like jeb is in charge.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 07:40 am (UTC)*gets very angry*
*swears a lot*
*decides not to throw things*
*simmers*
grrrrrrr....
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 07:44 am (UTC)newspapers are not good for blood pressure.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 09:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 12:30 pm (UTC)This article is obviously written by a person with the opinion that the child should be aborted, and as such we shouldn't rely on it to give a balanced view.
Since we don't know the woman in question, it is impossible to know the level of risk involved in giving birth to the baby, or if anything can be done to lessen that risk. We should remember that it is a somewhat risky process for anyone to go through.
We are expected to agree that this woman was raped because she was too retarded to give consent for sex. How, then, can we imagine she will be able to give her consent for an abortion? For this reason, an abortion would, in my opinion, be a further violation of this woman's body (as well as a murder, but lets not even go there!) You'd have to be talking about a massive risk to justify that.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 03:15 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-05-25 03:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 04:29 pm (UTC)You're right about the obvious bias of the article, but I don't see any reason that the woman shouldn't be examined so that any decisions taken are done so with full information, at least.
Re:
Date: 2003-05-25 03:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-25 03:58 am (UTC)Quick thought for you. Bush the Selected won Florida by a minute margin. Some rules were bent, such as the registering of overseas votes. His cousin runs the state that decided a nation's fate. As the Americans say: You do the math.
It's about time there was a credible opposition to these domineering fools. With the Democrats becoming Reupblicans MK2 (parallels with Blair anyone?), the two party system is throwing up more and more travesties such as this. I fear for the world. I really do.