Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was âdetermined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.
Not in this case though. Worst thing the doctor could ask for a confirmation that ge informed the patient about the associated risks. Iâd imagine a conversation like this:
âI inform you that this medication can cause severe birth defects in any baby in case you are pregnant. If you are pregnant you should not take this medicationâ
âI am not pregnant and do not plan to get pregnant. If i should be pregnant without my knowledge iâll not keep the baby.â
âGiven the strong risk associated with possible birth defects from this medication, could you please sign here, that i informed you about the risk?â
The moral grey area here is the person that ends up with birth defects I think. Not sure I agree with the policy, but remove it with a large enough population you will end up with some women ignoring advice and carrying to term.
There is no person and would never be a person. In some other case, where the pregnancy is on the table, sure, maybe then we can talk about it. But this precrime bullshit is nothing more than just another strive to remove agency from women.
There is no person and would never be a person
Based on the full context, Iâm actually on the womanâs side here. Even if I supported expanding fetal rights (I donât), those rights should never start before conception.
But this statement is not something we can know. Iâve known plenty of people who âarenât pregnant and wouldnât keep a baby if I wereâ that are now happy parents of that baby they wouldnât keep. Iâve also known people who wanted children and then flipped a 180 and opted for abortion.
