I’ve been a supporter of Amnesty International for several years now. As a result, I receive on a regular basis emails regarding current matters. Yesterday I received the following appeal via email:
Today El Salvador’s Supreme Court continues to debate a young mother’s request for a life-saving abortion. However, the President, Attorney General and other officials continue to stand idly on the sidelines.
Here’s what you should know about Beatriz:
- She has a one-year old son and is 23 weeks pregnant with an anencephalic baby
- She has lupus, high blood pressure and is experiencing kidney problems
- 15 doctors have recommended an abortion
- Beatriz may not survive without this operation and is quickly running out of options
This is cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and it violates international human rights law.
Anybody care to wade in based on the facts of the case? Would anybody advocate that Beatriz be denied an abortion? And for those who would affirm that she should receive one, what is the moral reasoning behind the decision? Does it depend on the fetus’ anencephaly and anticipated non-existent quality of life? Or is it based on a conception of the fetus as an aggressor? Or the principle of double effect? Or a principle of utility?