Pregant Teen with cancer....

[Racket_Man]

dies after being refused treatment because the cancer drugs would abort her 9 week old fetus

this happened iin the Dominican Republic where the constitutions states:

According to Article 37 of the Dominican Constitution, "the right to life is inviolable from the moment of conception and until death." Dominican courts have interpreted this as a strict mandate against abortion. Article 37, passed in 2009, also abolished the death penalty.

The mother finally got into treatment but had to fight tooth and nail to get treatment but rejected the blood transfusion and did not respond to the chmotherapy, miscarried and then died.

This sort of zero-tolerance black and white no shades of grey absolutism is just sick.

[gremcint]

what about the mother's right to life?

[Nyoibo]

what about the mother's right to life?

Incubators don't have rights.

[Aethian]

So in order to save the baby they made sure the Mother would die which would cause the baby to die.

[draco664]

So in order to save the baby they made sure the Mother would die which would cause the baby to die.

Yep. But the retards in charge didn't have to consider the possibility that they were wrong, so what's a young woman's life when compared to that?

[Sarah Valentine]

*facepalm* If she got knocked up once she can get knocked up again, if you have cancer you get treated. You do not just say that you don't want treatment because you and your boyfriend got stupid one night and now you're stuck with the consequences of your stupidity, get your ass to a cancer treatment center and go through with the damn chemotherapy! And if you fully recover then if you want to get knocked up again that's your choice.

[HYHYBT]

I can see a certain logic to this.

If you start with the assumption that a pregnancy means two equal people are temporarily sharing a body, the mother has already had a few years to live; the "child" has not had that yet. Similar to the rationale provided for that pregnant 9 year old, the mom with cancer *might* live long enough to give birth... or, perhaps, to have a caesarian at 8 months and then start treatment. And it's a risk that people not having to *make* that risk themselves are willing to take.

(Please do not take this to mean I hold that view! Only that I can understand it.)

[RedRoseSpiral]

You also have to remember that this is a very Catholic dominated region. Official Catholic stance is that a pregnant woman should die with the fetus when things go wrong. It is a sin for an abortion to occur for any reason. The health and life of the woman do not matter.

[TheHuckster]

You also have to remember that this is a very Catholic dominated region. Official Catholic stance is that a pregnant woman should die with the fetus when things go wrong. It is a sin for an abortion to occur for any reason. The health and life of the woman do not matter.

That's not an entirely true statement. The Catholic Doctrine has The Principle of Double Effect, which in essence obliges one to make decisions based on the "lesser of two evils." Many Catholics teach that if saving the life of the woman has the side-effect of killing the unborn fetus, it is acceptable and possibly even morally obligatory.

http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...ional_abortion

There are still some mistaken zealots who feel the "right to unborn life" trumps all other decisions, including the lives of others, as in this case, but it's not necessarily even the official stance of the Catholic Church. The Principle of Double Effect is in the Catechism and is officially practiced and considered by the clergy.

[MrsEclipse]

*facepalm* If she got knocked up once she can get knocked up again, if you have cancer you get treated. You do not just say that you don't want treatment because you and your boyfriend got stupid one night and now you're stuck with the consequences of your stupidity, get your ass to a cancer treatment center and go through with the damn chemotherapy! And if you fully recover then if you want to get knocked up again that's your choice.

She DID want treatment- they just wouldn't give it to her. She was in the hosppital for almost a month before they decided to go ahead.

[Seifer]

They killed the mother to save the child, who in turn died along with the mother. Wait, what?

Abortion laws are ridiculous. I understand people dislike the idea of killing a pwecious baby, but they forget that they also have to take other things into consideration.

1. IT'S NOT THEIR BABY. Why bitch and moan over a child THEY WILL NEVER SEE, HEAR, TOUCH, OR KNOW? They need to get the fuck over themselves and stop making decisions for other people.

2. Is the mother's health in danger? Obviously, the case in the OP dealt heavily with this issue. Due to the idiocy of "PROTECT THE CHILD212Q@@!!" laws, the mother and unborn child both died. Congratulations, it's a fail all around!

3. What kind of life will the child have? Do they have a serious birth defect that would leave them helpless for the rest of their lives? Will they even know what's going on around them? Or will they have the mindset of an infant their entire lives?

Now, this is going to sound horrible, but stay with me: Why is it okay to humanely euthanize animals but not humans? (Unborn children or even those who have terminal illnesses?) I don't understand why it's seen as humane in one instance and horrendous in the next. I suppose it's because humans are "better" than animals, but that doesn't change the fact that the person in question is going to live a less than desirable life.

Since an unborn child can't make the decision to end their own life (and wouldn't even understand the concept of life, anyway), it's up to their mother. Contrary to what the pro-lifers would like everyone to believe, it's not easy for a mother to abort her child. Once you have a life inside of you, it's hard to let it go.

[telecom_goddess]

Now, this is going to sound horrible, but stay with me: Why is it okay to humanely euthanize animals but not humans? *snip*

Since an unborn child can't make the decision to end their own life (and wouldn't even understand the concept of life, anyway), it's up to their mother. Contrary to what the pro-lifers would like everyone to believe, it's not easy for a mother to abort her child. Once you have a life inside of you, it's hard to let it go.

I have to agree with this. We are so quick to euthanize animals but humans have to stay alive at all costs, even if they are a brain dead vegetable! It's stupid.

As for abortion not being easy, that's very true. After I had my first child I had a miscarriage and that was very hard to deal with. I also have had two abortions which were not easy decisions to make but they were the best ones at the time. But it's difficult to let that go even if you have to.

I've also given birth two more times, so I've been pregnant at least 6 times in my life.

[TheHuckster]

Abortion laws are ridiculous. I understand people dislike the idea of killing a pwecious baby, but they forget that they also have to take other things into consideration.

1. IT'S NOT THEIR BABY. Why bitch and moan over a child THEY WILL NEVER SEE, HEAR, TOUCH, OR KNOW? They need to get the fuck over themselves and stop making decisions for other people.

Since an unborn child can't make the decision to end their own life (and wouldn't even understand the concept of life, anyway), it's up to their mother.

I dislike these kinds of arguments on the abortion front because the points you make can just as easily be applied to a born infant or even a toddler. Most children don't even have a concept of death for their first few years of life, so based on those arguments, it should be just as valid to commit infanticide if, say, within the first few weeks it's discovered that the child had developed some rare debilitating disease which couldn't be detected in the womb.

I also have a big problem with aborting based on a debilitating disease or genes that will, either immediately or later on in life, render a person paralyzed or worse. That doesn't guarantee a horrible life for those afflicted, not to mention where do you draw the line?

[RedRoseSpiral]

That's not an entirely true statement. The Catholic Doctrine has The Principle of Double Effect, which in essence obliges one to make decisions based on the "lesser of two evils." Many Catholics teach that if saving the life of the woman has the side-effect of killing the unborn fetus, it is acceptable and possibly even morally obligatory.

http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...ional_abortion

There are still some mistaken zealots who feel the "right to unborn life" trumps all other decisions, including the lives of others, as in this case, but it's not necessarily even the official stance of the Catholic Church. The Principle of Double Effect is in the Catechism and is officially practiced and considered by the clergy.

Was going based off of research I did a few years ago for a paper. Thanks for the updated info.

[Seifer]

I dislike these kinds of arguments on the abortion front because the points you make can just as easily be applied to a born infant or even a toddler. Most children don't even have a concept of death for their first few years of life, so based on those arguments, it should be just as valid to commit infanticide if, say, within the first few weeks it's discovered that the child had developed some rare debilitating disease which couldn't be detected in the womb.

I also have a big problem with aborting based on a debilitating disease or genes that will, either immediately or later on in life, render a person paralyzed or worse. That doesn't guarantee a horrible life for those afflicted, not to mention where do you draw the line?

There's a genetic disease that children can have which basically causes their body to deteriorate over the first few years of their lives. Their final time on Earth is terrible and they're in constant pain and anguish until they ultimately die a slow and painful death. I'd be all for putting those children out of their misery when they were still infants and didn't have a concept of life and death yet. I'd say a peaceful death would be much better than slowly wasting away and eventually dying before your fourth birthday.

I suppose there's also some selfishness when it comes to the problem of a debilitating disease. You not only have to take into account the child's life, but also the lives of everyone who will be directly affected. Who is going to pay the medical bills? Who is going to stay home with the child and take care of their needs? Not everyone is generous enough or has the patience to take care of someone who has special (and incredibly numerous) needs.

So, have the child and take care of them for the rest of their lives? Put them up for adoption and hope they end up with a loving family (which isn't likely, if the financial burden of their medical bills will skyrocket as they get older)?

It sounds awful, but it's something someone would have to consider if they knew they had a child with a debilitating disease.