(January 6, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Heywood Wrote:Even if the fetus was a life, you don't have a duty to sacrifice and possibly endanger your physical integrity (no surgery is 100% safe) to save it - The law [should] only require people to save others from danger if their most fundamental human rights are not violated - Bodily autonomy is one of those in case you don't know - Just like I'm not forced to save someone that has a gun pointed to his head if that endangers my own life. It doesn't mean I can't, but I'm not obligated to it.(January 6, 2015 at 6:00 pm)Blackout Wrote: Just a small detail - Any medical procedure taken without the patient's consent, and specially against explicit lack of consent, is considered physical aggression and punishable by law (I hope so America) - Unless the patient is incapable, at the moment, of giving consent AND not taking any measures can result in his death. So basically the guy is advocating to infringe upon human rights, it's the same as forcing someone to donate a kidney when he/she clearly doesn't want, that's not saving anyone, that's fascism
Abortions in which the child lives would be elective...just like abortion now are elective. Assuming the technology comes into existence which allows pregnancies to be safely terminated while maintaining the life of the child, the only reason to continue to allow abortions in which the child dies is to give the mother the right to decide a particular person should not exist. This is evil in my opinion.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you