Abortion Ban Blocks Chemo for Cancer Teen, page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

Topic started on 26-7-2012 @ 02:37 AM by silo13

An abortion ban in the Dominican Republic is blocking chemotherapy treatment for a pregnant teenager with leukemia. The 16-year-old girl, who's nine weeks pregnant, needs aggressive chemotherapy to fight acute leukemia. But the treatment would likely end the pregnancy, so it's being withheld.

My anger has no limits. None.

The girl's mom is pleading with doctors to treat her child.

Feed her some penny royal tea. Get this DONE!

"My daughter's life is first. I know abortion is a sin and that it goes against the law, but my daughter's health is first,"

So, please explain to me (Mamma) and everyone else - how is allowing this lovely girl to die not murder?

Rose Hernandez told CNN. Doctors and administrators at the Semma Hospital in Santo Domingo, where the girl is a patient, are believed to be considering starting treatment, but may fear being prosecuted under the strict abortion ban, say observers.

Obviously you can tell the Doctors in the Hospital Semma by the yellow streak that runs down their back.

Travesty?
Injustice?
BS!
All...

peace

reply posted on 26-7-2012 @ 02:41 AM by silo13

CNN link with video. I can't 'see' the video in my region - but there you go.

Pelegrin Castillo, one of the architects of Article 37, says the constitutional ban does not prevent doctors from administering the treatment. It does, however, prevent them from practicing an abortion in order to treat the patient with chemotherapy.

Interesting - at the link above - the Doctors can go ahead with the chemo for the girl. It also states the family can decided. So something is a bit fluky here. If the family can decide and the Mother says 'start chemo' - then why have the doctors not done as instructed?

Sounds like some double-talk going on here. Obviously there's more to the story.

peace

reply posted on 26-7-2012 @ 02:59 AM by Liv07

Wow. That poor girl. I really hope that she can get her treatment soon. It makes no sense what so ever to keep her from getting her treatment. To me those doctors need a smack in the head. She is dying, if she happens to die before her 9 months are up would it of been worth it. Just wow..... People in this world today just sicken me....

reply posted on 26-7-2012 @ 03:04 AM by igor_ats

Christians are happy their doctrines are strictly enforced on third worlders but in Italy, home of the Catholic Church they let abortion happen with little to no radical backlash to ban it.

ppl need to wake up.

Italy is the home of the Catholic Church, and it's ARR (Anti Reproductive Rights) doctrine extends all over the world. It's stern stance against abortion even when children are concerned or where a womans health is at risk have nothing worthy to them as seen in South America and Africa. Yet Italy has a population of which 96% is Catholic yet abortion is legal there.

I guess the tyranny of forced birth is ok on brown skin third worlders, except not on your own populace.

The Catholic Church clearly doesn't care about the health of women. The Catholic doctrine has no problem forcing children to carry rape pregnancies to term and introducing laws that only allows women to save their lives once tubes are ruptured (as documented in Central and South America)... Catholic doctrine was the reason Poland was fined too. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 25,000 for pain and suffering and EUR 14,000 for legal fees because they forced her to give birth despite risk to her health.

reply posted on 26-7-2012 @ 03:08 AM by Maslo

No ban on abortion should apply if the mothers life is endangered. This is not a question of abortion, but simple self-defense. I can understand those who want to ban abortion in some cases, but if you want to ban it when medically required, then you are just nuts.

reply posted on 26-7-2012 @ 03:15 AM by CloseEncounter

Not to sound harsh, but couldn't she just get an abortion pill and end it herself?

reply posted on 26-7-2012 @ 03:31 AM by BayesLike

reply to post by silo13

So, please explain to me (Mamma) and everyone else - how is allowing this lovely girl to die not murder?

How is choosing death for the baby not intentional murder?

I have no issue with a state allowing murder to occur in this situation as many people are not capable of anything beyond choosing selfishly for themselves. But don't ask me to respect that choice or those who enable it. To me, one who chooses abortion for their convenience is no better than any other murderer. And since it involves their own child, is probably worse than most murderers.

"It's an artificial debate," Castillo said. "What we have clearly said is that in this case doctors are authorized by the constitution to treat the patient. They don't have to worry about anything. They have the mandate of protecting both lives."

It would seem this was written primarily for political purposes than to document a real plight. Only at the end do you see the truth. It's well known that only the headline is remembered by most. A more honest headline would appear to be: "Debate Over Dominican Republic Abortion Ban Is Artificial"

edit on 26-7-2012 by BayesLike because: no reason

reply posted on 26-7-2012 @ 06:20 AM by igor_ats

Originally posted by BayesLike
reply to post by silo13

How is choosing death for the baby not intentional murder?

Because murder is a legal term with a legal definition.

In the U.S. even when it was illegal it wasn't murder.

Maybe self-defence should now be referred to as simply "the right kill" and you should write to your congressman to complain about it.

Even pro-lifers don't want it to be murder because they don't want to deal with the implications so they find reasons why the woman shouldn't be punished and reply with things like

"I don't think they necessarily should be exempt, but certainly they should not be punished as severely as the provider. This is just common sense..."

They just want to criminalize it.

Pages: ^^TOP^^