How is it not an abortion? Because in a state of nature the fetus would have died to? Does that mean that babies not born naturally (delivered via c-section) are not technically 'alive'? I think Macbeth might disagree with you.
The mother is already on life-support and has received some of the most advanced medical care known to man so it's no good appealing to what would otherwise have happened naturally. None of this is natural, and their are perfectly 'natural' means of inducing abortion anyway.So in essence, it's the next-of-kin who are trying to force the issue and terminate one or both lives now, and the hospital who is saying, "Hey, why don't we just take a step back, and see if this doesn't shake down to everyone's satisfaction anyway, either in a miscarriage, or with a perfectly healthy baby being delivered?"
From what I've read, she expressed a desire not to be kept alive on machines if she was in a situation where there was no hope of recovery. Therefore, what should have happened is her wishes carried out.
Unfortunately, she lives in Texas, where religious fundamentalists have done an end run around the U.S. Constitution to get their interpretation of what their Sky Daddy® wants for humanity imposed on others by force. The hospital is being made under state law to keep her alive because said fundamentalists want the State to be our mommies and daddies (so long as it does so enforcing their agenda).
That is the core issue: people who are not content to apply their moral code to their own lives and attempt to persuade others by example, but who instead co-opt the State to force it onto others. I am perfectly fine with people who believe there is a God and who want to live their
lives according to some interpretation of some holy book. But just like I
wouldn't co-opt the State to bulldoze their church even though I think it's silly to spend a Sunday morning praying to a non-existent God, I expect them to likewise butt out of the lives of others. And to be fair, some theists do just that. But some don't, and that's the problem here.
I just don't see the (tangible) harm in letting the parents and husband stew for a couple months when there are plenty of parents of soldiers and disaster victims who go their whole lives never knowing.
I don't see anything wrong with someone stealing your boat. After all, millions of people have never owned a boat.
I don't see anything wrong with someone walking up to you and clocking you in the face. After all, thousands of people have been beaten by baseball bats and lead pipes and maces.
I don't see anything wrong with someone burning down your house. Suck it up--there are millions of homeless people in the world.
See the problem with this line of thought? Just because a tortious act or other trespass or violation of civil rights has happened to others, and you would still be better off than some others after it was done to you, doesn't justify
it now, does it?
Either the child will die, prove nonviable, or be proven to be healthy over the course of the next few months and no matter which way it works out Mr. Munoz and the Machados (her parents) still get a corpse out of the deal.
Irrelevant. In a week or so you'd heal if someone punched you in the nose, but that doesn't make it right