Abortion question

[Rau]

…They were discussing the specific sticking point of rights to bodily autonomy to rights of a person’s life. At this point, everyone regardless of born or preborn, has a right to life. That is why the parents get into legal trouble for not caring for the life of their child. But that right to life ends at the use of the body of the parents to keep the child alive. So preborn have a right to the use of the body of their parent, but post-born, they do not. The argument was that is giving special rights to a group of people, the preborn, that the rest of society do not have a right to, even if it kills them. For instance, the drunk driver is not required to give up any of their organs to save the life of the victims they hit, even if it is their own children, because the bodily rights of the individuals supersede the right of other individual’s right to life. Or do you see it differently?

It is entirely different than you present it, as explained in this short thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1048096

 

[minkymurph]

I’d like to summarize my response the original post.

As I understand it what is being argued here is at present the right to life trumps bodily autonomy after the second trimester (approx) up to the point of birth. Subsequent to birth the right to life does not trump bodily autonomy. This an an arbitrary imbalance and as such the law should be changed. Have I got that right?

Assuming I’ve got it right, how should the law be changed? For me, it is not sufficient to say the law should be changed. I couldn’t possible say whether or not I would support the change unless I knew what the change was. Is it being proposed bodily autonomy should trump the right to life at every stage of a pregnancy?

If it is being advocated bodily autonomy should trump the right to life at every stage of a pregnancy, what it the rationale behind this right? The only rationale advocated here is current law is arbitrary in that the fetus enjoys rights the born do not, and pregnant woman are denied a right afforded those of born children.

The rationale behind most laws is protection of property and the person. We bestow rights on individuals to protect property and the the person. There are of course exceptions - I just can’t think of one off hand at the moment. I personally could not advocate any right unless I knew what purpose bestowing it on individuals serves in advance.

In my view this argument fails in a legal sense as a property argument as their is a general reluctance at law to view the human body as property. That leave us with protection of the person. If protection of the fetus became solely reliant on the consent of the woman to remain in her womb, then ultimately it would have no legal protection at all. I personally could not advocate a law that affords the unborn no legal protection at all and for this reason would have to disagree with the argument proposed.

It is argued that until we pass laws that allow the hospitals to force the parents to use their bodies to save their born children’s lives, we can not force mothers to use their bodies to keep their fetus alive. Ever heard the saying be careful what you wish for you might just get it? The perceived arbitrariness of this law could equally be addressed through bestowing rights on the born to use the parents body. In certain circumstances an argument of this nature may in fact succeed.

In conclusion, I don’t feel I can comment any further unless it can be clarified what in manner the law should be changed and the rationale behind it.

 

[Rau]

Mink - did you review the thread referenced in post #139? The idea that there is some equivalence of the situation of an unborn child and a sick dying person - seemingly the premise in the current debate - is dealt with (rejected) there.

 

[minkymurph]

Mink - did you review the thread referenced in post #139? The idea that there is some equivalence of the situation of an unborn child and a sick dying person - seemingly the premise in the current debate - is dealt with (rejected) there.

No haven’t had a look at it - will do.

 

[minkymurph]

Mink - did you review the thread referenced in post #139? The idea that there is some equivalence of the situation of an unborn child and a sick dying person - seemingly the premise in the current debate - is dealt with (rejected) there.

OK I’ve now looked at it.

Initial reaction - people who come up with these bizarre scenarios in my view have too much time on their hands. That said I’m engaging in discussing them so perhaps I should evaluate how much time I have on my hands.

The violinist could be hooked up to machine or get a transplant. There is no need to hook them up to another person. I don’t understand why anyone would reach for such a bizarre scenario when there are real ones’s that would illustrate the point equally well.

Conception and the subsequent development of a fetus is a naturally occurring phenomenon following sexual intercourse at a fertile time. Hospitals do not hook fetuses up to women. For this reason the hooking up argument in my view fails.

There a well established legal principle that where the outcome of an act or course of action is foreseeable, the individual who carries out that act or course of action bears responsibility for it irrespective of the fact that outcome may be one they did not intend on the ground they ran the risk. We don’t pass laws and bestow rights on individuals so they may avoid the consequences of their actions. Abortion is not a method of birth control and I would say even the most ardent pro-choice person would have to agree with this. If you want to avoid pregnancy you can even get an app for your phone now.

A parent owe’s their child a legal duty of care. Thus, it is not arbitrary to impose a a legal duty of care on a pregnant woman. It is true we do not have a law that says a born child can use their parents body, but perhaps that’s because we don’t need one. Let’s be honest - how many parents would refuse blood, a lobe of their liver, bone marrow or even a kidney in order to save their child’s life? If they did in the absence of a legitimate reason, what would we think of them? Being honest we wouldn’t think very much. The hospital cannot force them, but is it not the case they would try to persuade them?

On the point of bodily autonomy, a chemical or medical procedure facilitated or performed by another is required to give effect to the right proposed - that of terminating a pregnancy on the ground the fetus does not have consent to use the woman’s body. To my knowledge there is no law on which we can rely in order to force a hospital to perform a chemical or medical procedure of any kind. Thus, would the proposed change to current law result in women being able to demand abortions against medical advice and performed under duress?

In conclusion, the violinist and the scenario presented here are in my view ‘puff’ arguments. By ‘puff’ arguments I mean a hypothetical debate that will never get off the page. As a hypothetical it’s pretty meaty. You can get your teeth into it but realistically the legal profession would run a mile from it quickly followed by the medical profession, and I don’t predict it would be embraced by a politician who has serious aspirations of being in office. In short, it’s an interesting debate but one not destined to achieve anything.

 

[Russell_SA]

The reason I am telling you this is because the decision to have an abortion is not one to entered into lightly, and I don’t believe the majority of women do enter into it lightly. For many women it is a heart rendering decision that cannot be reduced to technicalities, legalities and rationalization. I firmly believe in the rule of law but the law is not our moral guardian, and it is not the role of the courts to impose morals. Your argument is my view a moral argument and not a legal one and as an advocate I know only too well we cannot legislate for every eventuality.

I disagree with the distinction between morality and legality. The law is a reflection on the moral values we wish to operate under so that others, who have not figured out the moral pathway of that society, can be held accountable for their immoral actions. In America, we value bodily autonomy over even the right of another person’s life because we have an institutionalized fear of a government that can have a say in how we are able to control our own body’s use. But this comes into conflict with religion when it tries to adhere to those tenants of “murdering” yourself through assisted suicide and “murdering” the unborn by not granting another person leave to use your body without your consent, even if your actions created the scenario. For instance, the drunk driver dies in the car crash and his body can save the victim’s life, but they can’t use his body unless he consented to being an organ donor. Even after death we can not use someone’s body without their consent, even if it kills the victims involved in the circumstance.

Rather than advocate abortion rights I think we owe women more. Sexual crime and don’t blame the victim, . Adoption is a lovely idea but let’s not romanticize it. Stop judging. If someone says they want an abortion and they are judge for considering it,maybe they will have it.

So perhaps the best way to address this is to allow for the choice but to campaign for the other options as the best - socially acceptable choice. Plenty of gay couples would love an infant. But this runs the risk of a child being raised by the state and in shifting foster care. No one really expects those children to be well adjusted after going through that situation, so we are under no illusions that those people will grow up to be a psychological burden on everyone around them for the rest of their lives. We have to have an honest discussion on what it takes to raise a good child, not to just let one have the option to survive.

To be honest Russel, I don’t think your line of argument can achieve this objective - and you need to. You’re line of argument views the issue as merely a right, and the issue is more complex.

I’m not really trying to argue one side or the other, just trying to find the exact point where both sides on this issue are at an impasse.

One group believes that the right of bodily autonomy always supersedes someone else’s right to life, regardless of the situation. There can be legal consequences of creating the situation where someone else is the victim, of course, but the state can not use the perpetrator’s body as a means to fix the situation. So the drunk driver that hits a by-stander goes to prison for manslaughter, but the state can not force the driver to use their body to save the by-stander.

The other side is arguing that the person’s right to life supersedes a person’s right to bodily autonomy if the person responsible for the situation knew this was a possible outcome. However, they are not applying this through out the life of people, only when they are preborn. So this moral rule does not apply once the child is born, allowing mother and father to be off the hook for sacrificing their bodies to save their child. This stinks of male special privilege because the men would then be just as legally and medically responsible for their child’s life as much as the mother was during pregnancy.

 

[Russell_SA]

Thanks Russell. Respectfully, I see it differently. As I originally noted, the analogy ignores the relationship between mother and child.

To be clear, we are specifically talking about ending a pregnancy (i.e. ending the life of a child) So, it is only the mother’s bodily integrity that is at issue. A father’s bodily integrity is a non-issue.

Ending a pregnancy, late term, by the mother’s choice and where the fetus get’s to survive is just called a C-Section.

Ending a pregnancy, early term, by the mother’s choice, where the fetus would die naturally as a result but is facilitated to die before naturally dying is an abortion. It’s the same idea of someone choosing not to donate bone marrow to save someone’s life. They never lost the ability to choose how and when their body will be used to save someone else’s life. Or do you see this differently?

Setting aside for the time being a pregnancy arising without legal consent to sexual intercourse, any woman carrying a child in her womb gave full consent to the act that by it’s very nature is oriented toward the creation of a child. Under those circumstances, a woman’s right to bodily integrity for a temporary period of time should give way to a corresponding duty that subordinates for a time that right to the child’s right to live within the environment that the woman is responsible for putting him or her into. This is entirely consistent with child welfare laws that obligate mothers and fathers to care for helpless born children, and impose civil and criminal penalties for the failure to do so. It is also entirely consistent with the notion of a recognizable legal duty arising from foreseeable circumstances and from a special relationship between the protector and the protected.

The drunk guy that drives home and plows over by-standers understood the risks he was taking on for that choice to drive, but he never has to give up any of his bodily autonomy to save the lives of the people he hit. He can go to jail for man slaughter, but the government can not force the guy to give up his bodily rights as compensation, even if his organs, blood, etc, would save the lives of his victims.

That was my point. Any argument that disregards the location of the child is unpersuasive. The argument that was described Ignores the maternal relationship and the location of the child where it was entirely foreseeable. These are significant factors that have to be considered when weighing the life of a child against the relatively minor and temporary risks of a normal pregnancy.

Peace,
Robert

The location of the victim is irrelevant once a person is born, but is not irrelevant when they are preborn. That is granting special rights to one group of people and not to others. Such as the child, that is born, is in a different location and therefore the parents are not legally required to use their body to save the life of their child, but the location of the fetus forces the parents to give up their bodily autonomy to save the life of their child. This stinks of special privilege for men. Where the men never have to loose the rights over their bodies to save the life of their child, but women do during pregnancy. To make it fair, all parents should have to give up their bodily rights for the term of the child’s care, regardless of born or unborn, till the child is an independent adult.

 

[Rau]

I disagree with the distinction between morality and legality. The law is a reflection on the moral values we wish to operate under so that others, who have not figured out the moral pathway of that society, can be held accountable for their immoral actions. In America, we value bodily autonomy over even the right of another person’s life because we have an institutionalized fear of a government that can have a say in how we are able to control our own body’s use. But this comes into conflict with religion when it tries to adhere to those tenants of “murdering” yourself through assisted suicide and “murdering” the unborn by not granting another person leave to use your body without your consent, even if your actions created the scenario. For instance, the drunk driver dies in the car crash and his body can save the victim’s life, but they can’t use his body unless he consented to being an organ donor. Even after death we can not use someone’s body without their consent, even if it kills the victims involved in the circumstance.

So perhaps the best way to address this is to allow for the choice but to campaign for the other options as the best - socially acceptable choice. Plenty of gay couples would love an infant. But this runs the risk of a child being raised by the state and in shifting foster care. No one really expects those children to be well adjusted after going through that situation, so we are under no illusions that those people will grow up to be a psychological burden on everyone around them for the rest of their lives. We have to have an honest discussion on what it takes to raise a good child, not to just let one have the option to survive.

I’m not really trying to argue one side or the other, just trying to find the exact point where both sides on this issue are at an impasse.

One group believes that the right of bodily autonomy always supersedes someone else’s right to life, regardless of the situation. There can be legal consequences of creating the situation where someone else is the victim, of course, but the state can not use the perpetrator’s body as a means to fix the situation. So the drunk driver that hits a by-stander goes to prison for manslaughter, but the state can not force the driver to use their body to save the by-stander.

The other side is arguing that the person’s right to life supersedes a person’s right to bodily autonomy if the person responsible for the situation knew this was a possible outcome. However, they are not applying this through out the life of people, only when they are preborn. So this moral rule does not apply once the child is born, allowing mother and father to be off the hook for sacrificing their bodies to save their child. This stinks of male special privilege because the men would then be just as legally and medically responsible for their child’s life as much as the mother was during pregnancy.

The moral equivalence you draw between abortion and declining to make your body available to save someone is flawed. This was demonstrated on another thread referenced above.

 

[Rau]

The drunk guy that drives home and plows over by-standers understood the risks he was taking on for that choice to drive, but he never has to give up any of his bodily autonomy to save the lives of the people he hit. He can go to jail for man slaughter, but the government can not force the guy to give up his bodily rights as compensation, even if his organs, blood, etc, would save the lives of his victims.

I am not a lawyer. Is there a principle of law (as distinct from morality - plse don’t tell me they are the same…) which impedes legislatures or courts imposing such a requirement?

 

[Russell_SA]

I am not a lawyer. Is there a principle of law (as distinct from morality - plse don’t tell me they are the same…) which impedes legislatures or courts imposing such a requirement?

Not sure about this, could you elaborate on the concept you are getting at here?

 

[minkymurph]

I disagree with the distinction between morality and legality. The law is a reflection on the moral values we wish to operate under so that others, who have not figured out the moral pathway of that society, can be held accountable for their immoral actions.

I can see why you would say that. I would also agree that law does reflect moral values we wish to see in society, but only up to a point. There are many actions we may consider moral but we have no legal obligation to perform those actions. There are actions many people would consider immoral, but they are not unlawful.

The reason I would draw a distinction between morality and legality is more because courts are not moral guardians. They are guardians of the law - not morals. The legislature however does have an obligation to protect society as a whole, thus the laws they create are a reflection of the moral values we wish to operating in society.

There is also a distinction between public and private morality but I am going off the point.

In America, we value bodily autonomy over even the right of another person’s life because we have an institutionalized fear of a government that can have a say in how we are able to control our own body’s use.

I take your point on this also. I would be a great advocate of autonomy.

But this comes into conflict with religion when it tries to adhere to those tenants of “murdering” yourself through assisted suicide and “murdering” the unborn by not granting another person leave to use your body without your consent, even if your actions created the scenario.

Use of the term ‘murder’ is not helpful concerning suicide. I once attended a Mass for victims of suicide and it was so emotive. In the homily the priest said suicide is an illness, and the person with that illness wants not to end their life but to end the pain they are in to end.

I can’t understand why religion uses the term ‘murder’ concerning abortion. Let’s be honest a surgical abortion is pretty gruesome. It’s an emotive and distasteful topic. When I had my first scan I could see my babies heartbeat and through technology could hear. The very thought of doing something to stop that heartbeat tore me up, and it tears many women up.

There was a very sad case of a woman here who traveled to England to have an abortion. She had recently married and her baby was much wanted. It was discovered it’s brain was virtually non-existent and if born live, though this prospect was considered highly unlikely, would not live very long. She had her baby cremated and brought it home to bury. Use of the term ‘murder’ in these circumstances is really not helpful.

By contrast - women who have more than one abortion for no valid reason? I know pro-choice people who have serious issues with this.

For instance, the drunk driver dies in the car crash and his body can save the victim’s life, but they can’t use his body unless he consented to being an organ donor. Even after death we can not use someone’s body without their consent, even if it kills the victims involved in the circumstance.

They can here, but they need consent from relatives. An opt-out system was also advocated here not so long ago. I don’t know what happened to it but as our politicians are currently not speaking to each other I don’t think I will find out in the foreseeable future.

Several European countries have opt-out systems in that unless you opt-out consent is assumed.

 

[arthra]

So until we pass laws that allow the hospitals to force the parents to use their bodies to save their born children’s lives, we can not force mothers to use their bodies to keep their fetus alive.

I don’t know about the “use of bodies” but my understanding for Baha’is is that we acknowledge the foetus is a being with a soul and whose life should be respected. We oppose abortion for convenience of the parents…

"Abortion and surgical operations for the purpose of preventing the birth of unwanted children are forbidden in the Cause unless there are circumstances which justify such actions on medical grounds, in which case the decision, at present, is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the Teachings.

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 344)

Say they want a male child and the foetus is female… we oppose aborting the foetus.

There may be economic or other reasons as well… if the abortion is just for societal reasons we oppose the abortion.

If the abortion is for medical reasons then that would be between the mother and her physician.

 

[minkymurph]

So perhaps the best way to address this is to allow for the choice but to campaign for the other options as the best - socially acceptable choice.

To be clear, I don’t agree with abortion but dealing with the issue only in terms of crime and punishment in my view will not reduce the number of women seeking abortions, nor prevent them from having them. We cannot stop abortions in total in one foul swoop.
I personally think there is more could be achieved in reducing the number of women seeking abortions through campaigning for other options as the best socially acceptable choice rather than advocating abortion should be illegal in any and every circumstance other than where the mother’s life is at risk. I floated this about on CAF one time but it wasn’t well received.

Plenty of gay couples would love an infant. But this runs the risk of a child being raised by the state and in shifting foster care. No one really expects those children to be well adjusted after going through that situation, so we are under no illusions that those people will grow up to be a psychological burden on everyone around them for the rest of their lives. We have to have an honest discussion on what it takes to raise a good child, not to just let one have the option to survive.

I would agree we can’t discuss this issue productively in purely a rights centered manner and the absence of honesty and the realities on the ground. I don’t really understand what you mean by plenty of gay couples would love an infant but this runs the risk of a child being raised by the state an in shifting foster care? Do you mean the child being taken away if they use a surrogate?

I’m not really trying to argue one side or the other, just trying to find the exact point where both sides on this issue are at an impasse.

For Catholics abortion is wrong - end of. That’s their impasse. I doubt any argument would have the capacity to persuade. However, for productive debate it may help if you could cite any circumstances in which atheists would say a woman should be refused an abortion. We could then work from there.

One group believes that the right of bodily autonomy always supersedes someone else’s right to life, regardless of the situation.

If one group believes the right of bodily autonomy always supersedes someone else’s right to life, they are talking abortion on demand. There are pro-choice people who would not advocate abortion on demand.

The other side is arguing that the person’s right to life supersedes a person’s right to bodily autonomy if the person responsible for the situation knew this was a possible outcome.

I don’t think that is strictly true. To my knowledge, terminating a pregnancy is permissible for Catholics were the mother’s life is in danger. So in these circumstances bodily autonomy prevails, but only in these very limited circumstances and obviously this is not sufficient for the other group. Thus, the impasse appears to be abortion on demand v only when the mother’s life is in danger. Huge gap to fill.

However, they are not applying this through out the life of people, only when they are preborn. So this moral rule does not apply once the child is born, allowing mother and father to be off the hook for sacrificing their bodies to save their child. This stinks of male special privilege because the men would then be just as legally and medically responsible for their child’s life as much as the mother was during pregnancy.

I take your point in that the focus is all on the woman and the guy who impregnated her
gets to take a back seat and gets none of the heat other than as a by the way side reference at best.

If you don’t mine I’d like to refine your scenario. Reason being I don’t think your scenario is sufficiently accurate. A better comparison in my view would be where a parent voluntarily engages in act they know in advance may result in them being hooked up to their child. They don’t want to be hooked up to their child and hope it will not be the case, but they know it’s a possibility. The hospital has nothing to do with it, it’s their own voluntary act. They then find themselves hooked up to their child. Whilst they knew it was a possibility it was not what they wanted, and they decide they don’t want to continue want to be attached but they cannot detach themselves and require assistance from the medical profession. How about discussing the issue in this context?

 

[Russell_SA]

Minky,
How’s the book coming along?

 

[Rau]

Not sure about this, could you elaborate on the concept you are getting at here?

Read post #147. I think it’s clear. I asked you to support your assertion about the restraint on the law to force a person to give up bodily autonomy eg. Hand over blood for a trsnsfusion.

 

[Rau]

…To my knowledge, terminating a pregnancy is permissible for Catholics were the mother’s life is in danger. So in these circumstances bodily autonomy prevails, but only in these very limited circumstances and obviously this is not sufficient for the other group. Thus, the impasse appears to be abortion on demand v only when the mother’s life is in danger. Huge gap to fill.

Giving birth terminates a pregnancy, so you may need to be more precise about what you mean.

If the mother’s life becomes endangered, the mother stands in need of medical care (and given context, so does the child). What may not be done is to deliberately kill the child to end the threat to mum (or vice versa were such even conceivable).

Ectopic pregnancy is imminently life threatening. The simplest resolution for the mother is an injection that kills the child. That’s not permitted. But other treatments which save the mother and do not attack the child are available. The child will surely die and cannot be saved by any known procedure.

 

[minkymurph]

Minky,
How’s the book coming along?

Thanks for asking.

We are in the research phase - historical and contemporary. The historical aspect serves to demonstrate the validity of our theory. We then aim to demonstrate application of the theory in contemporary society. I reckon we will have to throw Martin McGuinness into the equation given his recent death and subsequent collapse of the government.

Ultimately our position is Northern Ireland is a failed state. It’s not actually state so it could also be described as a ‘failed experiment.’ Political theory is about identifying problems and formulating solutions. It is not difficult to identify Northern Ireland’s problems, but a permanent solution to these problems in terms of establishing social, political and economic stability continues to elude us. We seek to argue the reason stability continues to elude us is solutions to our problems have historically been formulated in accordance with essentially utopian notions. What we should be aiming for is autopia as only an autopian society will produce stability, and an autopia can only be established if a positive free radical with the capacity to generate sufficient support and mobilize the electorate emerges as a political leader.

 

[minkymurph]

Giving birth terminates a pregnancy, so you may need to be more precise about what you mean.

I’ll try but I’ll admit my knowledge in this area is pretty limited.

Giving birth does terminate pregnancy. Birth is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The baby can’t stay in there forever and when it wants out it is not terribly concerned about the woman’s bodily autonomy should she be of a mind to keep it there a bit longer.

Neither will it make it’s appearance before it’s ready to do so. Should the woman decide she would ideally like to have her baby on a certain date there is no guarantee it will cooperate. When I was pregnant I heard if you went into labour in Marks & Spencer’s you got what was in your trolley. I regularly wandered around Marks & Spencer with a full trolley in the last couple of weeks of my pregnancy but to no avail.

Nothing to do with the thread but have to say this - my claim to fame is Jamie Dornan’s dad delivered both my children. That said it’s not much of claim to fame here as he probably delivered half the population.

There are occasions when labour is induced, but induced as the baby can’t stay in there forever. There are babies delivered by C section as it may be safer for the mother, the baby, or both.

In all of the above circumstances the mother may no longer want to be pregnant - and who would want to be pregnant forevermore, but she wants the baby. In the case of abortion the it can be said the woman does not want to be pregnant, but neither does she want the baby. Thus, bringing about birth by artificial means in these circumstances does not just bring pregnancy to end, it simultaneously end the life of the child and intentionally so.

Don’t know if this is what you were asking for?

If the mother’s life becomes endangered, the mother stands in need of medical care (and given context, so does the child). What may not be done is to deliberately kill the child to end the threat to mum (or vice versa were such even conceivable).

Ectopic pregnancy is imminently life threatening. The simplest resolution for the mother is an injection that kills the child. That’s not permitted. But other treatments which save the mother and do not attack the child are available. The child will surely die and cannot be saved by any known procedure.

I admit I am not up on all the technicalities. I did find this.

cuf.org/2004/04/ectopic-for-discussion-a-catholic-approach-to-tubal-pregnancies/

Here is an exert:

*‘There is no treatment available that can guarantee the life of both. The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and which are illicit. Most reputable moral theologians, as discussed below, accept full or partial salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube), as a morally acceptable medical intervention in the case of a tubal pregnancy.’
*

If I am misinterpreting please feel free to clarify as what I said was said in a generalist sense, and said as I was told if it is a toss up between the life of the mother and life the child it is for the couple to decide which life to save. That said, the nature of this particular discussion was not in fact in regard to ectopic pregnancies or anything like that. It was in regard to the superstition that once prevailed in that it was believed the life of the child should take priority where the mother had been baptized.

 

[Rau]

Mink - tube removal is the moral course. It is a procedure directed at the mother’s body (the tube will soon rupture) and indirectly causes the child to die but does not will that result. The far simpler and less impactful on the mother is a chemical injection to kill the baby. The “situation” then resolves itself naturally (after the child dies). This latter approach is immoral as it is an attack directed at the child. As a practical matter, the child dies either way, but only in the latter case was the act done intending - indeed requiring - the child to die.

 

[Vonsalza]

Giving birth terminates a pregnancy, so you may need to be more precise about what you mean.

I think that most who have been following the discussion know exactly what Minky meant.