What if the heirs don’t want their inheritance spent on keeping their benefactor’s body alive until the money runs out?
it depends on the DNR, Power of Attorney and the Living Will.
If that doesn’t exist, then it goes to the courts if someone objects.
If no one objects then palliative care happens.
Not your problem
Show us where that is written. Leagally, religiously or ethically? Bet ya can’t! Where is it written that any fetus has any right?
Is it? Should the government stay out of all other killing of human beings?
You don’t know that. The fetus reacts to all sorts of stimuli including music and the sound of its mother’s voice and touch. They play with their body parts and appear to exhibit fear, pleasure and happiness. Nobody knows what goes on in their minds or at what stage of development their sense of self kicks in.
And yes, Roe v. Wade was a compromise, but that ruling was heavily in favor of the rights of the pregnant woman and extremely unfair to those most affected by abortions … the baby itself. A great many, perhaps a majority, of the people believe the pendulum swung way too far in 1973, and it is lng past time for it to swing back. Given the polarized nature of this issue, a true compromise would be when nobody is completely happy with the descision of the Court.
I don’t think most people who are on the pro- life side want women who abort or the doctors who perform the abortions to go to jail like a common murderer, they just want the procedure to only be extremely rare. Most of that ilk would be very pleased if women took the moral high ground and seriously looked at what they are actually doing to another human being … their own child … and as a result refused to abort them. But obviously, that tact has failed miserably, overcome in large part by a well funded campaign to promote the “its our body” meme. Criminalizing the casual use of the procedure and imposing the threat of severe punishment for it is really the only way left to accomplish that.
You are back to talking law. The law is what says that the fetus has no rights. The law could just as well say that rights apply at the moment of conception. But the one thing that the law does not and cannot do … which is really the crux here … is to say that the fetus is not a living human being. That is a biological fact that no man made law can supersede.
What are they? Dogs? Cats? Chimpanzees?
That is not biology, that is a definition, the specifics of which change with technology. A hundred years ago, viable was at around 7 1/2 months, now it is about 21 weeks.
It is also noteworthy that in most States abortion is legal through the second trimester (26 weeks) and sometimes permitted “for the well-being of the mother beyond that. Viability has little to do with it anymore … until recently that is, when several States began heading in that direction.
Its not a human being…it is potential and nothing more.
Again, that’s law, not biology. No serious argument can be made that the fetus is not both alive and human, so the law saying that the personhood and thus rights begin at birth, rather than some period of time before or later, is by any sense arbitrary. (It has actually been proposed by some that personhood be established at two years after birth, thus allowing infanticide up until that age.) Thus, changing the law to say that an unborn baby cannot be killed after x number of weeks, days, or minutes after conception would be just as valid. Law is the last thing you want to hang your hat on when discussing the morality of abortion.
Biological science disagrees with you.
Perhaps you are once again confusing the law which establishes personhood at birth with what being human means in biology. One could argue that before the zygote becomes an embryo or even before the embryo becomes a fetus (which occurs about week 9) it is not yet human, but certainly not after that. Even the English language dictionary defines the word fetus as: “a developing human from usually two months (9 weeks) after conception to birth” It is also noteworthy that, in Latin, fetus means “little one,” referring to the small size of the unborn baby.
Do you agree that the girl should be advised on what has statistically proven to be the healthiest long-term course of action for rape victims?
Or do you think she should be kept from that information by agents who will profit financially by her aborting the fetus?
"The reason most people reach the wrong conclusion about abortion in cases of rape and incest is that the actual experiences of sexual assault victims who became pregnant are routinely left out of the debate. Most people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, are therefore forming opinions based on prejudices and fears which are disconnected from reality.
For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.1This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.
Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many also feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage of pregnant rape victims believe abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children.
Second, some believe that their child’s life may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.
Third, victims of assault often become introspective. Their sense of the value of life and respect for others is heightened. They have been victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child through abortion is repulsive.
Fourth, at least at a subconscious level, the victim may sense that if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he was destroying, she can be nurturing.
If giving birth builds self respect, what about abortion? This is a question which most people fail to even consider. Instead, most people assume that an abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and go on with her life. But in jumping to this conclusion, the public is adopting an unrealistic view of abortion.
Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to make a woman “un-pregnant.” Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with ramifications on a woman’s life, then we must carefully look at the special circumstances of the pregnant rape victim. Will an abortion truly console her, or will it only cause further injury to her already bruised psyche?
In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape.2 This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand.
Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: “It’s too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now.” And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.
This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an assault.3 This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women.
Second, research shows that after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being “dirty,” resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them."
Not yet human…thank you…you proved my point.its a fetus and thus has no right to her body…in fact the woman flushes many egg that the sperm connected with before it even reaches the uterus. Natures own abortion…
Fetus…and none of your busines
A fetus is Human … by definition.
Eggs are not human by any definition. And if they are fertilized and do not implant in the uterus, I already noted that the argument can be made that the zygote is not yet a human being. It is that fact that makes the “morning after” pill not an abortion.
Fetus … human being … every moral person’s business.
No its not…stay out of my life samm. You arent welcome