Abortion -cpr on the fetus?

[answer-is-42]

@mh. I didn't ask about the law not have I argued from authority that my moral position is valid BECAUSE I'm a doctor. I merely stating that I understand fetal development and if a fetus is potentially viable then why should it not be delivered and attempted to be salvaged? Morally? I don't care what the law says, that's not the question at hand. Please give a moral arguement rather then citing legislation. I have yet to hear one from you

[brewer]

@mh. I didn't ask about the law not have I argued from authority that my moral position is valid BECAUSE I'm a doctor. I merely stating that I understand fetal development and if a fetus is potentially viable then why should it not be delivered and attempted to be salvaged? Morally?  I don't care what the law says, that's not the question at hand. Please give a moral arguement rather then citing legislation. I have yet to hear one from you

Still can't type or spell like an intelligent being, OK I, I'll let that slide. I'm sure your former colleges and the medical community at large weep for you.

Applying the law removes the moral debate in your viable fetus scenario. Afraid to read the legislation because it won't support your scenario and position? It appears to me that you believe that in all pregnancies when there is a potentially viable fetus, the ability to choose should not be an option. Correct me if I'm wrong. To expanded this line of thought, do you want to remove choice from the mother and enforce continuation of the pregnancy until the fetus is viable? If you want the option of choice removed then band together enough others that hold your same moral position and pass legislation that will hold up in court.

Moral and morality is/are subjective. I will not argue morals with you. I don't believe that what you consider moral (which evidently includes lies) and what I consider moral are anywhere close to being the same. I believe that each individual has to determine what they consider moral. Their option to change what they consider moral is theirs and theirs alone. You are allowed to have your position and I mine. You do not get to enforce your deluded morals on another person. As far as I'm concerned my moral position is not open to debate. There is nothing that you can say, no fictitious scenario of killing that you dream up that can use to change my mind. My opinion of your moral position and argument to this point, infantile and uneducated.

If you continue to hold on to your medical delusion you might need to consider getting some mental health treatment.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I only insulted snake oil because he continued to insult me and challenged me to do so.

This is the childish behavior that gives the lie to your claim of being an MD: "But he did it first, Mommy!"

Seriously, kid, this audience is a bit more sophisticated than you seem to think.

[Minimalist]

@Minimalist. Correct me if I'm wrong but your argument (like snake oil) is don't do it because it's expensive? That does not seem like a moral arguement. It maybe a practical one, but I aske about the morality. There is currently a new treatment for small cell lung cancer (nasty disease) that improves survival dynamically. It costs >$1 million dollars a year. I highly doubt an uninsured patient is getting it outside of a research trial. Is that moral too? I may be real life but does that make it moral ?

Oh, I see.  You want  your vision of "morality" as long as someone else pays for it?  Well, that may work in whatever delusion filled land you live in but it sure as hell doesn't work in the real world.

While you are speaking of this morality of yours, where is the morality in forcing someone else to have a kid they do not want?

[answer-is-42]

@mh - You are a pathetic person. You hurl personal attacks and insults because you cannot justify your beliefs and you cannot bear to reconsider them. I didn;t cry to mommy, but did politely ask him/her (snake oil) to stop insulting me and he challenged me to continue so I did. Your own posts obviously show you have no problem with people hurling insults, so why do you have a problem with mine. I personally tried to chide him/her in a way I found humorous (they all refer to snake oil). What does that have to do with you? You state that insults are childish yet you have attacked me personally on innumerable occasions (actually I am not interested to go back and count but there are quite a few) and I have not once personally attacked you despite our disagreement until this post.
I have nothing to prove to you on a persona or professional level, but how can you at all justify the claim that because I defer from you personally on a moral issue that I practice poor medicine? I disagree with Ben Carson on many social issues, but he has risen to a very high position in his professional career so I must assume that regardless of his social policies, he is probably a good neurosurgeon. My spelling is off because of the spell check on this device that keeps changing my words, I did not figure this forum was all about grammatical perfection.
@Parker Tan - see above
@Minimalist - what are you talking about? I never stated that payment had anything to do with morality, infact I oppose that idea. I gave a specific example where morality and practical experience are in conflict and ASKED IS IT MORAL, I DID NOT MAKE A MORAL JUDGEMENT ON IT. I have repeatedly said that if you belief is that healthcare is only for those who can pay then we have a difference. READ MY ACTUAL WORDS RATHER THAN MAKING UP YOUR OWN to argue about.
@ Cato & Pyrhhia -> you have atleast tried to be on point and I would be interested in trying to continue some type of reasonable conversation with you. PM me or continue to post to this thread. The rubbish much of the juvenile rabble is spouting is too annoying to listen to any further.

Thanks out

[Cato]

@ Cato & Pyrhhia -> you have atleast tried to be on point and I would be interested in trying to continue some type of reasonable conversation with you. PM me or continue to post to this thread. The rubbish much of the juvenile rabble is spouting is too annoying to listen to any further.

I left the ball in your court asking whom else besides the mother you think has better moral qualifications to make a decision regarding the future of the potential person she has been carrying and caring for for five months. The mother, more than any other person, will be making decisions for the baby once it's born. Knowing this, your argument will have to be fairly compelling.

[answer-is-42]

@ 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

[Thumpalumpacus]

@mh - You are a pathetic person. You hurl personal attacks and insults because you cannot justify your beliefs and you cannot bear to reconsider them. I didn;t cry to mommy, but did politely ask him/her (snake oil) to stop insulting me and he challenged me to continue so I did. Your own posts obviously show you have no problem with people hurling insults, so why do you have a problem with mine. I personally tried to chide him/her in a way I found humorous (they all refer to snake oil). What does  that have to do with you? You state that insults are childish yet you have attacked me personally on innumerable occasions (actually I am not interested to go back and count but there are quite a few) and I have not once personally attacked you despite our disagreement until this post.
I have nothing to prove to you on a persona or professional level, but how can  you at all justify the claim that because I defer from you personally on a moral issue that I practice poor medicine? I disagree with Ben Carson on many social issues, but he has risen to a very high position in his professional career so I must assume that regardless of his social policies, he is probably a good neurosurgeon. My spelling is off because of the spell check on this device that keeps changing my words, I did not figure this forum was all about grammatical perfection.
@Parker Tan - see above

Nah. You see, you've insulted me there but I'm choosing to forgo a reply in kind, because you need maturity demonstrated to you.

My point, which you obviously missed, is that someone mature enough to have passed through such a rigorous scholastic and occupational regime would have the maturity to ignore the insults of someone beneath them. Lacking that, your fakery is the more obvious.

You are crying about someone insulting you, replying in kind, and then ignoring the point that that makes about your own maturity. I cannot spell it out any simpler than that; if you cannot understand such a simple formulation, you impeach your own intelligence, through no insult of mine.

[Minimalist]

@Minimalist - what are you talking about? I never stated that payment had anything to do with morality, infact I oppose that idea.

It doesn't matter what you said. 

You may as well say "in a perfect world, every baby would be born into a loving family that is going to cherish it."

Well, guess what?  The world isn't perfect.  So again.  If you want to do cpr on a 20-week fetus, whose lungs are not even developed, who is going to pick up the tab for that treatment? IF you want to insist that "morality" exists in a vacuum then you should be in the philosophy forum with all the other pointless questions.

[answer-is-42]

@Minimalist - what are you talking about? I never stated that payment had anything to do with morality, infact I oppose that idea.

It doesn't matter what you said. 

You may as well say "in a perfect world, every baby would be born into a loving family that is going to cherish it."

Well, guess what?  The world isn't perfect.  So again.  If you want to do cpr on a 20-week fetus, whose lungs are not even developed, who is going to pick up the tab for that treatment? IF you want to insist that "morality" exists in a vacuum then you should be in the philosophy forum with all the other pointless questions.

Emphasis mine
Look at the top of the page dumb dumb