Meanwhile, they still have a young father who is in the military. Replacement wife shouldn't be much of a hard thing to find for a guy in his position.
People make stupid and selfish decisions all the time. Killing yourself doesn't require rational deep thought.
That's no reason to assume there was none, though I suppose he said "I believe".
I think it's probably best to assume someone has different ideals from you instead of assuming that they're stupid or weak enough to do something as life-altering (heh) as suicide without even weighing options, but I guess that's just me. Moreover the article and summary pretty heavily hint that she did think a lot about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
It is selfish. It is selfish because ultimately she would rather have her existing child deal with living without a mother than put herself through the remorse of having an abortion. Suicide is usually a selfish act. This isn't like jumping in front of a train to save another person - that's self-sacrifice. This is suicide, and it is ugly and vile. How awful for her current child.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
People might be uncomfortable with the word "selfish" but it's appropriate here; she prioritized her religious beliefs over the well-being of her child. It was an immoral decision.
It is selfish. It is selfish because ultimately she would rather have her existing child deal with living without a mother than put herself through the remorse of having an abortion.
She believes killing her unborn child is murder, robbing it of any chance at life. You may not think it counts as a life but she does, and it's her own child. You want her to murder her own child or else she's being "selfish". Sorry but that's sick.
People might be uncomfortable with the word "selfish" but it's appropriate here; she prioritized her religious beliefs over the well-being of her child. It was an immoral decision.
No, she didn't prioritize her religious beliefs, she prioritized her child's life. And people would actually try and shame her for that because her decision doesn't fit their agenda.
Obviously, I don't agree with her decision. I wish this hadn't happened to her, for sure. It's an awful situation, and I'm really glad she was lucky enough that her decisions didn't cost both her and her daughter their lives. But I definitely don't respect the decision, nor should I have to. And if she hadn't gone on a major news network to talk about it in a fluff piece clearly designed to garner sympathy and portray her as a tragic hero in the hopes that strangers would donate money to help pay for these decisions, I wouldn't have anything to say about it except 'that sucks, I wish her the best'.
As a side note, I'm curious. Did any of you donate to the campaign (both for and against the choices)?
No, she didn't prioritize her religious beliefs, she prioritized her child's life. And people would actually try and shame her for that because her decision doesn't fit their agenda.
She prioritized the foetus' life. She abandoned her child. In order to satisfy her own religious convictions. Then went on television about it.
Her child did not deserve to be treated as morally equivalent to the foetus. He is not. He is a person. Our personhood is the sum of our experiences, opinions, passions, skills, memories. These things give us moral worth. Her child did not deserve this to be on the receiving end of a tragedy turned worse.
Your use of the word "agenda" is ridiculous. You have no idea whether I have a horse in this race. In fact you should know I likely don't.
No, she didn't prioritize her religious beliefs, she prioritized her child's life. And people would actually try and shame her for that because her decision doesn't fit their agenda.
She prioritized the foetus' life. She abandoned her child. In order to satisfy her own religious convictions. Then went on television about it.
Her child did not deserve to be treated as morally equivalent to the foetus. He is not. He is a person. Our personhood is the sum of our experiences, opinions, passions, skills, memories. These things give us moral worth. Her child did not deserve this to be on the receiving end of a tragedy turned worse.
Your use of the word "agenda" is ridiculous. You have no idea whether I have a horse in this race. In fact you should know I likely don't.
Her child did not die... she prioritized one (unborn) child's life over a chance for her own life and her other child growing up with her. Millions of children grow up without one or both parents. It's hardly the equivalent of a death sentence.
I don't understand the outcry here. One mother chose to die to save her unborn child versus taking a chance at living. Where is the outcry for the thousands of mothers that selfishly put their unborn children at risk with drugs and alcohol? Or the outcry for the thousands of parents that just take off and remove themselves from their children's lives?
Her child did not die... she prioritized one (unborn) child's life over a chance for her own life and her other child growing up with her. Millions of children grow up without one or both parents. It's hardly the equivalent of a death sentence.
I disagree that this was a 'selfish' decision. It was selfless by it's definition, I just don't consider it be a very good decision.
The issue here is that she essentially killed herself over a risky bet for what was, at the time, an embryo. At 10 weeks, it might have barely barely qualified as a fetus. Had she lost the embryo on her own, she might have chalked it up to an exceptionally bad period.
The baby was at serious risk due to her mother's health issues (not the cancer itself, but complications resulting from her mother's deteriorating health), and the little girl had to be induced a month early - something the doctors definitely would have warned her was a risk. This whole thing was a pretty big gamble with a bittersweet outcome.
If she had fought to live, she could have had more children when her cancer went into remission AND still have been a mother to her son AND had more children with her fiance.
I don't respect the decision because I would want my wife to fight for her life and all the future potential children we could have AND raise together.
I don't understand the outcry here. One mother chose to die to save her unborn child versus taking a chance at living. Where is the outcry for the thousands of mothers that selfishly put their unborn children at risk with drugs and alcohol? Or the outcry for the thousands of parents that just take off and remove themselves from their children's lives?
You find a deadbeat dad who goes on TV asking for money to support his deadbeatness, then post it here in WCT and I'll happily criticize him, too. In the meantime, this isn't really relevant to the topic at hand, is it?
No, she didn't prioritize her religious beliefs, she prioritized her child's life. And people would actually try and shame her for that because her decision doesn't fit their agenda.
Her child did not deserve to be treated as morally equivalent to the foetus. He is not. He is a person. Our personhood is the sum of our experiences, opinions, passions, skills, memories. These things give us moral worth.
I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying here or respond cheaply, so I'm asking this to clarify your position. If our worth is simply the sum of those things you listed, then do you believe that an older person is worth more than a younger person? Or does a human have value simply by virtue of being human?
Her child did not die... she prioritized one (unborn) child's life over a chance for her own life and her other child growing up with her.
"Child" is a disingenuous word to use for a ten week-old embryo, often meant to mislead. Children laugh and cry. They fall over a lot. They chase their dog around the back yard and refuse to eat their Brussels sprouts. One example of a child is the one the mother chose to abandon to feed her sense of religious righteousness.
I don't understand the outcry here.
The rationale has been explained to you, both by Jay, myself and others. If you don't understand then we can clarify.
Where is the outcry for the thousands of mothers that selfishly put their unborn children at risk with drugs and alcohol? Or the outcry for the thousands of parents that just take off and remove themselves from their children's lives?
Speaking of agendas. I DO have an active agenda against drug use, especially amongst potential parents. This was our number one most fought subject when I volunteered with the Vancouver Humanist Association and my local United Church. So please don't tell me I can't be outraged at more than one thing. It's not only fallacious thinking, it's just plain insulting. Those other outrages are just not the subject of discussion right now. Besides, you can't find the outcry against these things? Then you aren't looking very hard.
Ok, so what if she was not pregnant and just decided to refuse treatment because "reasons"? Would you still be outraged that a parent would make that choice? Would you be for trying to pass some kind of legal measure to prevent it in the future? If not... why the outrage? People do stupid things all the time, I see no reason to criticize someone's very personal decisions.
Ok, so what if she was not pregnant and just decided to refuse treatment because "reasons"? Would you still be outraged that a parent would make that choice?
I would like the decision even less, because at least with the child there was a arguably valid reason to refuse treatment. I don't agree with the decision, but I can see a fair rationale for it.
I'm not necessarily arguing with you Jay. I just don't like the venomous tone I see from several of the other posters. To me it seems that some people are basically saying that what she did is the moral equivalent of murdering her born child. Whether you agree with her or not, in her mind she was choosing between murdering her unborn child and dying. Given that choice there is no reason to be so venomous toward her decision. You can disagree with her, but her decision comes from a disagreement that has been debated for years(decades) and it serves no purpose to hate on this dead woman so much because of her decision.
If you want people in the future to be less likely to make this decision, don't say this woman did something deplorable by leaving her children motherless. Convince people that abortion is not murder. Until that point is universally accepted there will be people that will easily weigh that decision as murder versus death. I can't fault someone for choosing against what they believe to be murder.
Would you be for trying to pass some kind of legal measure to prevent it in the future? If not... why the outrage?
Are we only allowed to express opinions when something is illegal?
I think the point is more that if it really is *that* deplorable of an act, then you should be in favor of making it illegal. (Not saying I agree with that position necessarily).
I'm squarely on the Noble, Selfless, and laudable act side of this issue.
I think the point is more that if it really is *that* deplorable of an act, then you should be in favor of making it illegal. (Not saying I agree with that position necessarily).
I'm squarely on the Noble, Selfless, and laudable act side of this issue.
Sure. Let me be clear (to both you and Fluffy), that I'm just trying to present the more reasonable side of this argument. It's important because being exposed to bad arguments innoculates you to more reasonable ones.
So, anyway, making it illegal just because I don't like it is exactly the behavior I don't like (if that makes any sense). There are countries out there where women are prosecuted for having miscarriages, which (I hope) we can all agree is a terrible thing.
I think, except for my intial knee-jerk reaction, my position has just been more that she considered a small cluster of cells more important than her life and her ability to be a mother to her actual child. If she had been in the second or third trimester, my opinion on that might vary, but I've got a hard time accepting a 1st trimester embryo as a life worth dying for.
I'm all for sacrificing yourself for your children, I just believe that 'people' are defined by their minds, not their bodies. A cluster of cells without a mind is just a cluster of cells like any other.
To put the opposing point of view here a little more eloquently than some of my fellow posters: from our point of view she let a superstition about a 'soul' prevent her from fighting for her life. I'm not trying to offend, just illustrate why this would seem abhorrent to some people. And she was lucky, we're also thinking about how the baby could had died due to complications from either her mother's worsening health or the premature delivery. It seems like a very reckless gamble to us, and just because a reckless gamble succeeds doesn't make it a good decision in the first place.
If our worth is simply the sum of those things you listed, then do you believe that an older person is worth more than a younger person? Or does a human have value simply by virtue of being human?
A person is worth more than a non-person. Our personhood is the sum total of our experiences, our interests, our opinions, our talents, our personalities. An embryo has none of these things. Whether your moral worth increases with the "volume" of experiences/opinions/skills/etc. is a different and obviously more difficult discussion. But it's not really important here. All that's important here is whether some is more than none.
Ok, so what if she was not pregnant and just decided to refuse treatment because "reasons"?
That would depend on what those "reasons" were, wouldn't it? But they would have to be pretty darn good reasons to justify abandoning her child.
I'm not necessarily arguing with you Jay. I just don't like the venomous tone I see from several of the other posters. To me it seems that some people are basically saying that what she did is the moral equivalent of murdering her born child.
I have been frank but not inflammatory. And I have never once implied that her abandonment will kill her child. Is abandonment okay so long as the child survives?
The rest of your comments boil down to having your feelings hurt on her behalf. This is a discussion forum, and in this thread it was asked whether this woman did the right thing. She did not do the right thing and I expressed such, and given that she is not reading this thread there is no reason to sugar-coat it.
PS. And no, we should not throw people in jail for bad decisions. That does not make them good decisions.
If our worth is simply the sum of those things you listed, then do you believe that an older person is worth more than a younger person? Or does a human have value simply by virtue of being human?
A person is worth more than a non-person. Our personhood is the sum total of our experiences, our interests, our opinions, our talents, our personalities. An embryo has none of these things. Whether your moral worth increases with the "volume" of experiences/opinions/skills/etc. is a different and obviously more difficult discussion. But it's not really important here. All that's important here is whether some is more than none.
What about a newborn? What opinions or interests do they have? What about a third trimester fetus with no "experiences"? I understand your basic position, but you either need to explain it better or re-examine your criteria for "personhood".
If I need to reexamine my criteria, then you've given me no reason to suppose I should. Please don't passive-aggressively chastise people's positions while offering no superior ones.
Re: the newborn. Ask any mother and they'll be happy to answer this.
Re: a higher-trimester foetus. There are circumstances, such as ectopic pregnancies, where a higher-trimester foetus is a threat to the mother's life. Time for you to do some talking. Are they truly equal? Is it truly a coin toss who should live and who should die? Do you truly believe the best solution is not that the mother survive and conceive another child?
If I need to reexamine my criteria, then you've given me no reason to suppose I should. Please don't passive-aggressively chastise people's positions while offering no superior ones.
He's got a bit of a point though. Boiling a person down to experiences isn't really the way to go (and in my opinion, defining them by being human genetic material isn't either). That line falls a little flat when you talk about an amnesiac, a new born, someone with dementia or in a coma, for instance. Yes, we're made up of our experience, but that isn't what makes us people. Every animal out there has some sort of memory and has experiences.
But of course that's not the only thing I've listed, nor have I meant to imply the several things I have listed are comprehensive. I feel I listed enough to get my point across, given this is the water cooler and not the debate forum.
If I need to reexamine my criteria, then you've given me no reason to suppose I should. Please don't passive-aggressively chastise people's positions while offering no superior ones.
Re: the newborn. Ask any mother and they'll be happy to answer this.
Re: a higher-trimester foetus. There are circumstances, such as ectopic pregnancies, where a higher-trimester foetus is a threat to the mother's life. Time for you to do some talking. Are they truly equal? Is it truly a coin toss who should live and who should die? Do you truly believe the best solution is not that the mother survive and conceive another child?
Minor point here, in an ectopic pregnancy, it is not a choice between the mother or the child dieing, it is a choice between the mother and the child dieing, or just the child dieing. Even then, there are procedures (with an extremely low liklihood of success) that attempt to transplant the child to the uterus.
On a more significant point, you can't rationally rely on the mother's statement that a newborn is a person and at the same time decry this mother for stating that her child was a person.
You may not see a fetus as a person... but I would be willing to bet that most parents, grandparents and other close family of a fetus would already consider the fetus a person.
If we regulate fetuses to non-person status what do we charge someone with that attacks a pregnant mother and kills the fetus? Is it not murder? At what point in a pregnancy does that event switch from not murder to murder? Is it only murder after the fetus has been born?
The ****?
The **** x2?
I think it's probably best to assume someone has different ideals from you instead of assuming that they're stupid or weak enough to do something as life-altering (heh) as suicide without even weighing options, but I guess that's just me. Moreover the article and summary pretty heavily hint that she did think a lot about it.
It does work most of the time.
That's sort of why most conventional cancers, provided that they're caught early, are no longer an automatic death sentence.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
She believes killing her unborn child is murder, robbing it of any chance at life. You may not think it counts as a life but she does, and it's her own child. You want her to murder her own child or else she's being "selfish". Sorry but that's sick.
No, she didn't prioritize her religious beliefs, she prioritized her child's life. And people would actually try and shame her for that because her decision doesn't fit their agenda.
As a side note, I'm curious. Did any of you donate to the campaign (both for and against the choices)?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
She prioritized the foetus' life. She abandoned her child. In order to satisfy her own religious convictions. Then went on television about it.
Her child did not deserve to be treated as morally equivalent to the foetus. He is not. He is a person. Our personhood is the sum of our experiences, opinions, passions, skills, memories. These things give us moral worth. Her child did not deserve this to be on the receiving end of a tragedy turned worse.
Your use of the word "agenda" is ridiculous. You have no idea whether I have a horse in this race. In fact you should know I likely don't.
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Her child did not die... she prioritized one (unborn) child's life over a chance for her own life and her other child growing up with her. Millions of children grow up without one or both parents. It's hardly the equivalent of a death sentence.
I don't understand the outcry here. One mother chose to die to save her unborn child versus taking a chance at living. Where is the outcry for the thousands of mothers that selfishly put their unborn children at risk with drugs and alcohol? Or the outcry for the thousands of parents that just take off and remove themselves from their children's lives?
I disagree that this was a 'selfish' decision. It was selfless by it's definition, I just don't consider it be a very good decision.
The issue here is that she essentially killed herself over a risky bet for what was, at the time, an embryo. At 10 weeks, it might have barely barely qualified as a fetus. Had she lost the embryo on her own, she might have chalked it up to an exceptionally bad period.
The baby was at serious risk due to her mother's health issues (not the cancer itself, but complications resulting from her mother's deteriorating health), and the little girl had to be induced a month early - something the doctors definitely would have warned her was a risk. This whole thing was a pretty big gamble with a bittersweet outcome.
If she had fought to live, she could have had more children when her cancer went into remission AND still have been a mother to her son AND had more children with her fiance.
I don't respect the decision because I would want my wife to fight for her life and all the future potential children we could have AND raise together.
You find a deadbeat dad who goes on TV asking for money to support his deadbeatness, then post it here in WCT and I'll happily criticize him, too. In the meantime, this isn't really relevant to the topic at hand, is it?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying here or respond cheaply, so I'm asking this to clarify your position. If our worth is simply the sum of those things you listed, then do you believe that an older person is worth more than a younger person? Or does a human have value simply by virtue of being human?
"Child" is a disingenuous word to use for a ten week-old embryo, often meant to mislead. Children laugh and cry. They fall over a lot. They chase their dog around the back yard and refuse to eat their Brussels sprouts. One example of a child is the one the mother chose to abandon to feed her sense of religious righteousness.
The rationale has been explained to you, both by Jay, myself and others. If you don't understand then we can clarify.
Speaking of agendas. I DO have an active agenda against drug use, especially amongst potential parents. This was our number one most fought subject when I volunteered with the Vancouver Humanist Association and my local United Church. So please don't tell me I can't be outraged at more than one thing. It's not only fallacious thinking, it's just plain insulting. Those other outrages are just not the subject of discussion right now. Besides, you can't find the outcry against these things? Then you aren't looking very hard.
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
I would like the decision even less, because at least with the child there was a arguably valid reason to refuse treatment. I don't agree with the decision, but I can see a fair rationale for it.
Are we only allowed to express opinions when something is illegal?
... Does going on TV to announce something to the world make it 'very personal' these days? I'm honestly confused by this statement.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
If you want people in the future to be less likely to make this decision, don't say this woman did something deplorable by leaving her children motherless. Convince people that abortion is not murder. Until that point is universally accepted there will be people that will easily weigh that decision as murder versus death. I can't fault someone for choosing against what they believe to be murder.
I think the point is more that if it really is *that* deplorable of an act, then you should be in favor of making it illegal. (Not saying I agree with that position necessarily).
I'm squarely on the Noble, Selfless, and laudable act side of this issue.
Sure. Let me be clear (to both you and Fluffy), that I'm just trying to present the more reasonable side of this argument. It's important because being exposed to bad arguments innoculates you to more reasonable ones.
So, anyway, making it illegal just because I don't like it is exactly the behavior I don't like (if that makes any sense). There are countries out there where women are prosecuted for having miscarriages, which (I hope) we can all agree is a terrible thing.
I think, except for my intial knee-jerk reaction, my position has just been more that she considered a small cluster of cells more important than her life and her ability to be a mother to her actual child. If she had been in the second or third trimester, my opinion on that might vary, but I've got a hard time accepting a 1st trimester embryo as a life worth dying for.
I'm all for sacrificing yourself for your children, I just believe that 'people' are defined by their minds, not their bodies. A cluster of cells without a mind is just a cluster of cells like any other.
To put the opposing point of view here a little more eloquently than some of my fellow posters: from our point of view she let a superstition about a 'soul' prevent her from fighting for her life. I'm not trying to offend, just illustrate why this would seem abhorrent to some people. And she was lucky, we're also thinking about how the baby could had died due to complications from either her mother's worsening health or the premature delivery. It seems like a very reckless gamble to us, and just because a reckless gamble succeeds doesn't make it a good decision in the first place.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
A person is worth more than a non-person. Our personhood is the sum total of our experiences, our interests, our opinions, our talents, our personalities. An embryo has none of these things. Whether your moral worth increases with the "volume" of experiences/opinions/skills/etc. is a different and obviously more difficult discussion. But it's not really important here. All that's important here is whether some is more than none.
That would depend on what those "reasons" were, wouldn't it? But they would have to be pretty darn good reasons to justify abandoning her child.
I have been frank but not inflammatory. And I have never once implied that her abandonment will kill her child. Is abandonment okay so long as the child survives?
The rest of your comments boil down to having your feelings hurt on her behalf. This is a discussion forum, and in this thread it was asked whether this woman did the right thing. She did not do the right thing and I expressed such, and given that she is not reading this thread there is no reason to sugar-coat it.
PS. And no, we should not throw people in jail for bad decisions. That does not make them good decisions.
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
What about a newborn? What opinions or interests do they have? What about a third trimester fetus with no "experiences"? I understand your basic position, but you either need to explain it better or re-examine your criteria for "personhood".
Re: the newborn. Ask any mother and they'll be happy to answer this.
Re: a higher-trimester foetus. There are circumstances, such as ectopic pregnancies, where a higher-trimester foetus is a threat to the mother's life. Time for you to do some talking. Are they truly equal? Is it truly a coin toss who should live and who should die? Do you truly believe the best solution is not that the mother survive and conceive another child?
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
He's got a bit of a point though. Boiling a person down to experiences isn't really the way to go (and in my opinion, defining them by being human genetic material isn't either). That line falls a little flat when you talk about an amnesiac, a new born, someone with dementia or in a coma, for instance. Yes, we're made up of our experience, but that isn't what makes us people. Every animal out there has some sort of memory and has experiences.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
Minor point here, in an ectopic pregnancy, it is not a choice between the mother or the child dieing, it is a choice between the mother and the child dieing, or just the child dieing. Even then, there are procedures (with an extremely low liklihood of success) that attempt to transplant the child to the uterus.
On a more significant point, you can't rationally rely on the mother's statement that a newborn is a person and at the same time decry this mother for stating that her child was a person.
If we regulate fetuses to non-person status what do we charge someone with that attacks a pregnant mother and kills the fetus? Is it not murder? At what point in a pregnancy does that event switch from not murder to murder? Is it only murder after the fetus has been born?