Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

Endangered in what way?

 

As in a significant chance she will die if she carries the pregnancy to term that is eliminated or significantly reduced if she terminates the pregnancy.

 

Situations where the fact that she is pregnant is so taxing on her body that she can't sustain either the fetus nor herself.

There are also cases where she is diagnosed with an aggressive cancer that will claim her life, and possibly the baby's, without immediate treatment that will in fact kill the baby.

 

So I'll pose the question back: The mother's life takes priority over the baby's because why?

Again, we're talking theory here, so if I have to wade through charges of how heartless I'm being...

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Because the fetus is in the woman. No woman, no fetus.

 

This fits definition of an abortion? This kind of thing would have been illegal before Roe v. Wade. We're confident of that?

 

Well, I wasn't intending to. But I know other people read posts and want to preempt any sort of unusual outrage.

 

Do you mean to say that if the woman dies the life inside her dies? Or, because it requires a woman to carry the life, the woman's life is more important?

How does materially change once the baby's outside the womb? It still can't care for itself.

 

It's a fair question, though I can't imagine a single mainstream politician has ever expressed it.

I'm not even sure what the Church says on the topic.

 

I guess one answer would be self-awareness. The woman has it. The baby does not. From a utilitarian standpoint where the aim is to make the choice that leads to the least amount of suffering, I would say it's fair to say that the person who would suffer psychologically the awareness of her impending death should probably be spared.

 

Yes, the woman's life is more important. She is already a person, because of the material change. The fetus is no longer inside and attached to the woman. That's the material change.