@ Cato - At the point that the mother no longer has the fetus/child's best interest in mind, she then loses the right to make medical decisions and the fetus/child is a ward of the state. If a mother tried to poison her 3 year old, would she then have the right to decide about it's life support?
People keep implying that I am requiring the mother to continue to care for the infant, I never made that proposition. This is no different then if a woman delivers then decides she does not want her 2 week old. She may make it ward of the state, but as such she loses all parental rights. In fact I would argue that the mother is the WORST person to be making decisions because she has proven that her goal is the termination of the fetus/infant which is rarely in the child's best interests.
Finally, to clarify, if the fetus is non-viable (eg again acephaly or other terminal condition) then there is no survival issue. However more then 1 woman has terminated pregnancy for reasons such as trisomy 21 (Down's) or other conditions which may not be to THE MOTHER'S POV acceptable but how can we extrapolate that to the child's wishes?
So in conclusion to answer your question as far as I am concerned, the mother's wishes no longer apply when she terminates the pregnacy, her POV is not necessarily aligned with the fetus/child's. Who cares for them later is irrelevant, but I would suppose a ward of the state with a state medical POA is the answer to your questions.
My only rebuttal analogy would be if a 15 year old falls and has a C2/C3 cervical fracture that is going to leave them quadriplegic and vent dependent for life, the parents would normally have to care for them. If the parents don't WANT to care for them because it;s hard, expensive, interferes with their own life in some way then do they have the right to terminate the patient? What if the patient communicates that they want to live despite their limitations, does the parents who are currently financially responsible for the child have any standing to intercede? I am not making a moral judgement here, but asking you questions to think about.
Thanks
People keep implying that I am requiring the mother to continue to care for the infant, I never made that proposition. This is no different then if a woman delivers then decides she does not want her 2 week old. She may make it ward of the state, but as such she loses all parental rights. In fact I would argue that the mother is the WORST person to be making decisions because she has proven that her goal is the termination of the fetus/infant which is rarely in the child's best interests.
Finally, to clarify, if the fetus is non-viable (eg again acephaly or other terminal condition) then there is no survival issue. However more then 1 woman has terminated pregnancy for reasons such as trisomy 21 (Down's) or other conditions which may not be to THE MOTHER'S POV acceptable but how can we extrapolate that to the child's wishes?
So in conclusion to answer your question as far as I am concerned, the mother's wishes no longer apply when she terminates the pregnacy, her POV is not necessarily aligned with the fetus/child's. Who cares for them later is irrelevant, but I would suppose a ward of the state with a state medical POA is the answer to your questions.
My only rebuttal analogy would be if a 15 year old falls and has a C2/C3 cervical fracture that is going to leave them quadriplegic and vent dependent for life, the parents would normally have to care for them. If the parents don't WANT to care for them because it;s hard, expensive, interferes with their own life in some way then do they have the right to terminate the patient? What if the patient communicates that they want to live despite their limitations, does the parents who are currently financially responsible for the child have any standing to intercede? I am not making a moral judgement here, but asking you questions to think about.
Thanks
