Abortion

[evolvedForm]

In another thread, Mindflayer posted this article, which I think has broader implications than the author mentions.

[ QUOTE ]
Which leads me to ..
December 1996 XVIII/4

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS & LIFE SAVING THERAPY

Last month in the Saint Louis area, a 40 year old woman and her son died after the woman refused a blood transfusion. As a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, Bettye Joyce Beal believed that blood transfusions are prohibited by her religion. When she slipped and fell in her home, she was quickly losing blood. After entering a hospital, it was determined that the baby in her womb was not getting the blood and oxygen he needed. According to medical opinion offered in the press, both mother and child might have survived if blood were transfused at the proper time. The rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions for themselves or for their children is often posed in ethics classes as a problem in applying the principle of informed consent. But this actual case provides some controversial aspects and an impetus to look more closely at the fundamental and related issues arising from the refusal to utilize a seemingly innocuous and successful life prolonging therapy.
full discussion here


[/ QUOTE ]

This case brings up an intriguing angle on abortion. If pro-abortionists argue that she was irresponsible for not taking into account the child in her womb, then they are conceding that the child is a human being. However, if they uphold the lady's decision to reject a blood transfusion on religious grounds, at the risk of her baby, then they are forced to concede that religion can play a role in the law (the law that allows religious people to decide upon medical care based upon their religion).

By the same token, if anti-abortionists promote her religious freedoms, then they must concede that she has the right to put her baby in harm.

I think this poses a provacative dilemma.