There are thousands of pregnant women who become diagnosed with cancer. In many cases they have to wait until the baby is born before chemo or radiation treatments. So the current ruling by the high court and the laws being passed in red states seem to suggest that such a woman must choose between saving her own life or that of her fetus. So does the law imply that the life of the fetus is MORE important than the life of the mother?
"So does the law imply that the life of the fetus is MORE important than the life of the mother?"
Not in SB 1 in Indiana
Abortion. Makes abortion a Level 5 felony unless: (1) the abortion is necessary to prevent a substantial permanent impairment of the life of the mother; or (2) the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest and the fetus has a specified postfertilization age.
"So the current ruling by the high court and the laws being passed in red states seem to suggest that such a woman must choose between saving her own life or that of her fetus."
You're not objectively or accurately describing the realities for the VAST majority of cases.
cutworm elaborated some truth into it.
This isn't at all about a clear cut decision about choosing her own life vs saving the life of the fetus.
Being pregnant, however does reduce some options at certain stages(chemo for instance is ok in stages 2 and 3) and radiation is not advised at all in many cases.
I do understand your point though, as one would want a person with cancer to have 100% of all the options all the time.
But mischaracterizing with such absolute verbiage..... "a woman must choose between saving her own life or that of her fetus."
is more of a political statement than an accurate medical one.
Don't you agree?
I'm prolife based on the science but do see the points of those that are baby killers (-:
Totally kidding but I know that many who are pro life think of it that way.
Seriously, regardless of what the law is, people will follow their own morals and ethical standards and I'm not in the business of telling other folks what that should be for them..........other than insisting on honesty/truth based on facts/evidence/science.
Maybe the medical definition for life should be different than the legal definition?
This is probably the most extremely polarizing/divisive and emotional political topic of all.
Do you agree?
I agree. Very polarizing. 9 out of 10 abortions are first trimester.
Cutworm correctly points out that it is a state by state matter of law. But some states are passing draconian laws. No abortions - no exceptions.
I do understand this unfairness and different standard for people, especially the poor, in a state where abortion laws are very strict compared to more liberal states, where they can make their own choice.
And also see the rationale with your original post.
Despite having a personal pro life ideology, I do see the unfairness and much more challenging circumstances imposed on some people to adhere to these laws then others.
There are actually good options to get around this that I would think vocal pro choice people would be advocating for but am not hearing as much as would be expected. As you mentioned, they can try to restrict these options, however, they will never stop medications coming from overseas.
Having an abortion is as simple as taking a couple of pills in many cases. You will NEVER be able to stop that.