You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
U.N. Officials Push for "Therapeutic Abortion" before Nicaraguan Supreme Court
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JLSacred
Guest
Why is the U.N. interfering in the matters of a nation on this, but ignoring so many other things of interest? (Such as the ban on Bibles in oil-rich Muslim nations) Why are they picking on such a small country like this?
S
seekerz
Guest
What exactly is therapeutic abortion?
I just ask because this article disturbed me.
Even in the US (and among Catholics), some treatments for ectopic pregnancies are accepted as legal and moral. No American woman has to wait for her tubes to rupture before she can get the care she needs.
Is this really what the law is about? If so, should we be supporting it? Issues like that can create a serious social backlash, impeding the very cause we’re trying to further.
Just because the term used is “abortion” doesn’t necessarily mean that the treatment given to the woman is wrong because science sometimes uses the word in a different sense from lay people. If we’re just going to focus on the word “abortion”, a woman having a miscarriage would be guilty too.
I just ask because this article disturbed me.
Even in the US (and among Catholics), some treatments for ectopic pregnancies are accepted as legal and moral. No American woman has to wait for her tubes to rupture before she can get the care she needs.
Is this really what the law is about? If so, should we be supporting it? Issues like that can create a serious social backlash, impeding the very cause we’re trying to further.
Just because the term used is “abortion” doesn’t necessarily mean that the treatment given to the woman is wrong because science sometimes uses the word in a different sense from lay people. If we’re just going to focus on the word “abortion”, a woman having a miscarriage would be guilty too.
I
Ilroy
Guest
Here’s a definition of Therapudic Abortion from emedicine.com which shows it’s not just to save the life of the mother:
Therapeutic abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health. In its broadest definition, therapeutic abortion can be performed to (1) save the life of the mother, (2) preserve the health of the mother, (3) terminate a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child with defects incompatible with life or associated with significant morbidity, (4) terminate a nonviable pregnancy, or (5) selectively reduce a multifetal pregnancy.
Therapeutic abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health. In its broadest definition, therapeutic abortion can be performed to (1) save the life of the mother, (2) preserve the health of the mother, (3) terminate a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child with defects incompatible with life or associated with significant morbidity, (4) terminate a nonviable pregnancy, or (5) selectively reduce a multifetal pregnancy.
S
seekerz
Guest
But just what is the Nicaraguan law prohibiting? Is it actually saying that a woman who needs treatment for a life-threatening condition cannot get it if that treatment will interfere with the pregnancy? We have to be clear on this.
There is the usual hysteria in the press and sometimes it’s hard to separate fact from fiction. A report I read online stated that a mother admitted to hospital with signs of an infection of the uterus was allowed to die; the implication being that treating her would have meant death of the fetus. Of course you can’t believe everything you read out there.
It would help to see what the law actually says. It’s difficult to believe there would be no exceptions allowed for deaths resulting from necessary, life-saving treatment of mothers.
There is the usual hysteria in the press and sometimes it’s hard to separate fact from fiction. A report I read online stated that a mother admitted to hospital with signs of an infection of the uterus was allowed to die; the implication being that treating her would have meant death of the fetus. Of course you can’t believe everything you read out there.
It would help to see what the law actually says. It’s difficult to believe there would be no exceptions allowed for deaths resulting from necessary, life-saving treatment of mothers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.