Freethought & Rationalism Archive

AlphaandOmega · 03-18-2004, 10:14 PM

Today how the law is written on abortion a Gynecologist could latterly force a woman to have an abortion against her will. Yes, a woman could see a doctor and he/she could force her to undergo an abortion claiming it is for her health even if she does not want it. A judge has petition the Supreme Court to rule that a woman has a right to saw NO as in No she does not want an abortion. Do you think do you think Freedom of choice should include the freedom to continue an abortion even if a doctor says it might have negative health affects?

Mods can you move this I thought I was in the Moral Forum.

Chuck · 03-18-2004, 10:18 PM

Could you please provide a link to the law in question so that I may read it for myself? Or even an example of this happening.

Contrary to what a lot of conservatives like to say, abortions are not fun things, and I doubt many doctors go around handing them out unsolicited.

Chicken Girl · 03-18-2004, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlphaandOmega
Today how the law is written on abortion a Gynecologist could latterly force a woman to have an abortion against her will.

Do you have any evidence of this ever happening? If so, I suggest you pony it up.

Quote:

Mods can you move this I thought I was in the Moral Forum.

Your wish is my command...

AlphaandOmega · 03-18-2004, 10:25 PM

http://www.preciouslife.net/show-new...ewsArticle=108

They said she needed the abortion or she would die. But do they have a right to force her to do it against her will. She had asked the to stop in the begging before the fetus was destroyed.

reprise · 03-18-2004, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlphaandOmega
http://www.preciouslife.net/show-new...ewsArticle=108

They said she needed the abortion or she would die. But do they have a right to force her to do it against her will. She had asked the to stop in the begging before the fetus was destroyed.

Are we reading the same article?

The article says that the women went to the clinic for an abortion. When complications arose during the abortion (ie, while the procedure was already in progress) and she experienced pain, she wanted to be allowed to leave.

Quote:

The woman claimed that when she went to the clinic in March 1997 for an abortion she experienced pain in her stomach. She demanded that Egherman stop the procedure, said she wanted to leave and alleged that she was held down while the doctor continued.

She was restrained in order for her condition to be medically stabilised - not in order for the abortion to be continued (the foetus was not removed until she was at the hospital emergency department - where it was found that she had a perforated uterus and a lacerated colon).

Quote:

But Egherman and clinic officials argued that the woman was restrained to save her life so she could be medically stabilized and taken to a hospital by ambulance because of complications that had arisen during the abortion.

Quote:

The woman was eventually taken by ambulance to a hospital emergency room. She suffered a perforated uterus and a colon laceration. After the fetus was removed, she underwent surgery to repair the damage.

Now this women may well have a case for suing the doctor who was performing the abortion for the perforated uterus and lacerated colon, but I'm afraid he did the right thing ethically and legally by refusing to let her leave mid-surgery and transferring her to hospital.

AlphaandOmega · 03-18-2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reprise
Are we reading the same article?

The article says that the women went to the clinic for an abortion. When complications arose during the abortion (ie, while the procedure was already in progress) and she experienced pain, she wanted to be allowed to leave.

She was restrained in order for her condition to be medically stabilised - not in order for the abortion to be continued (the foetus was not removed until she was at the hospital emergency department - where it was found that she had a perforated uterus and a lacerated colon).

Now this women may well have a case for suing the doctor who was performing the abortion for the perforated uterus and lacerated colon, but I'm afraid he did the right thing ethically and legally by refusing to let her leave mid-surgery and transferring her to hospital.

Actually the abortion had just started when she said Stop. She was restrained inorder for the abortion to continue. Yes the procedure just started so it was in progress but the fetus was not dead yet. She told them to stop they had no right to restrain her. Even the court said it doesn't mater that she told them to stop if they felt it was in her best interest then it is ok for them to force her. Read the article the court says it did not mater if she told them in the begining all that mater is that they where trying to protect her health. Ie to the court since the abortion would protect her health then they could do it.

She actually told him to stop right after he dialated her cervix, that was when things started to go wrong.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=37482 this is a better article.

reprise · 03-18-2004, 10:58 PM

I would agree that this case definitely needs to be appealed, if only so that another court gets an opportunity to determine the facts of the case - because whether what occured is "right" or "wrong' in this particular instance is UTTERLY dependent on which party is telling the truth.

The nature of the woman's internal injuries and her allegation that the doctor used forceps (I'm somewhat curious about how she was able to see what instruments he was using) raise serious questions about the doctor's competence, and if I ignore the hysterical reporting of the incident in the second article, then there is a real possibility that the basic facts reported by the woman are correct.

Presumably an ambulance service would remember a comment such as the one allegedly made by the doctor - do you know whether the ambos were called as witnesses?

AlphaandOmega · 03-18-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reprise
I would agree that this case definitely needs to be appealed, if only so that another court gets an opportunity to determine the facts of the case - because whether what occured is "right" or "wrong' in this particular instance is UTTERLY dependent on which party is telling the truth.

The nature of the woman's internal injuries and her allegation that the doctor used forceps (I'm somewhat curious about how she was able to see what instruments he was using) raise serious questions about the doctor's competence, and if I ignore the hysterical reporting of the incident in the second article, then there is a real possibility that the basic facts reported by the woman are correct.

Presumably an ambulance service would remember a comment such as the one allegedly made by the doctor - do you know whether the ambos were called as witnesses?

Yes it is being appeal to the supreme court but we all know how slow they are.

Also I think the lawyer was incompitent. It looks like he based the whole case on one law. He should have said he violated her civil rights by forcing her to do this..

reprise · 03-18-2004, 11:13 PM

Just found a link to the actual complain which was filed with the court.

ORLANDO DIVISION CASE NO.: 99-850-CV-19-A

The gestational period is not mentioned in the complaint, but the procedures allegedly followed don't sound like those generally used for a first trimester abortion. I'm trying to hunt down more information on this.

reprise · 03-18-2004, 11:19 PM

The 911 dispatch :

Quote:

Dispatcher: Fire/Rescue.
Aware Woman: We need a transport, we have a possible perforation and we'd like transport with no lights, no sirens.
Dispatcher: Okay, ma'am, we are 911. We have to come emergency.
Aware Woman: Okay, so you have to have lights and sirens.
Dispatcher: Yes ma'am.
Aware Woman: Okay.
Dispatcher: And what's wrong with her?
Aware Woman: A possible perforation.
Dispatcher: What's that?
Aware Woman: Where the uterus has been perforated. She was having an abortion.

The Court Decision

03-18-2004, 10:14 PM	#1
AlphaandOmega Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Davis, CA Posts: 691	Should a woman have a right to refuse an Abortion Today how the law is written on abortion a Gynecologist could latterly force a woman to have an abortion against her will. Yes, a woman could see a doctor and he/she could force her to undergo an abortion claiming it is for her health even if she does not want it. A judge has petition the Supreme Court to rule that a woman has a right to saw NO as in No she does not want an abortion. Do you think do you think Freedom of choice should include the freedom to continue an abortion even if a doctor says it might have negative health affects? Mods can you move this I thought I was in the Moral Forum.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2004, 10:18 PM	#2
Chuck Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: gone Posts: 3,953	Could you please provide a link to the law in question so that I may read it for myself? Or even an example of this happening. Contrary to what a lot of conservatives like to say, abortions are not fun things, and I doubt many doctors go around handing them out unsolicited.

03-18-2004, 10:25 PM	#4
AlphaandOmega Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Davis, CA Posts: 691	http://www.preciouslife.net/show-new...ewsArticle=108 They said she needed the abortion or she would die. But do they have a right to force her to do it against her will. She had asked the to stop in the begging before the fetus was destroyed.

03-18-2004, 10:58 PM	#7
reprise Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sydney Posts: 3,997	I would agree that this case definitely needs to be appealed, if only so that another court gets an opportunity to determine the facts of the case - because whether what occured is "right" or "wrong' in this particular instance is UTTERLY dependent on which party is telling the truth. The nature of the woman's internal injuries and her allegation that the doctor used forceps (I'm somewhat curious about how she was able to see what instruments he was using) raise serious questions about the doctor's competence, and if I ignore the hysterical reporting of the incident in the second article, then there is a real possibility that the basic facts reported by the woman are correct. Presumably an ambulance service would remember a comment such as the one allegedly made by the doctor - do you know whether the ambos were called as witnesses?

03-18-2004, 11:13 PM	#9
reprise Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sydney Posts: 3,997	Just found a link to the actual complain which was filed with the court. ORLANDO DIVISION CASE NO.: 99-850-CV-19-A The gestational period is not mentioned in the complaint, but the procedures allegedly followed don't sound like those generally used for a first trimester abortion. I'm trying to hunt down more information on this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.