To: mdittmar
Hard to argue in this case. The baby has no hope and can only endanger the mother.
To: Always Right
Absolutely. The government would pay for a molar pregnancy and chemotherapy, it would pay for ectopic pregnancy, it should pay for this.
5 posted on
06/01/2002 5:05:53 AM PDT by
SarahW
To: Always Right
I agree that this is not a case that one should argue from the standpoint of the fight against legalized abortion (see
Considerations In The Debate Over Abortion). But there is another legal question here, as to whether the Military should pay for this non-service related problem. That is a legitimate issue in its own right. I would have ruled against the reimbursement, that has apparently been ordered, even though I would never condemn the mother for the decision she made under these circumstances.
This case involves a real tragedy, and it is a pity that anyone would want to use it as part of a debate on a public issue. Thus while I do not condemn this mother for her original decision, I most certainly condemn her for the use she is making of it now. You do not prove a point by politicalizing your personal tragedy. (Sarah Brady is not the Joan of Arc of modern America.)
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
20 posted on
06/01/2002 8:33:40 AM PDT by
Ohioan
To: Always Right
Hard to argue in this case. The baby has no hope and can only endanger the mother. As the saying goes: Hard cases make bad law.
To: Always Right
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money to support opinions which he disbelives and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson.
Whether you might be able to justify having an abortion in this limited circumstance or not is irrelevant to whether those of us who are pro-life should be forced to pay for it. To force pro-lifers to pay for this woman's abortion is sinful and tyrannical.
45 posted on
06/01/2002 1:21:38 PM PDT by
TBP
To: Always Right
I do not believe you are correct that carrying an anecephalic baby -- fetus, if you will -- carries a greater risk to the mother than submitting to any one of the abortion procedures now in use. Miscarriage or birth is safer than chemical induction or c-section by everything I've read in preparation for my home birth some years ago.
56 posted on
06/01/2002 7:03:11 PM PDT by
Havisham
To: Always Right
The baby has no hope and can only endanger the mother.Says who?
125 posted on
06/02/2002 8:25:05 AM PDT by
ppaul
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson