Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog
If you can use Shady McQuack at 8 months, you could have used him at 3.
Either way, there is NO valid reason for aborting/murdering a viable baby. Period.
And you want your CHOICE? You got it, and you CHOSE to get nekkid. Choice made. That's my version of pro-choice.
|
This is easy enough to say when one is a member of the majority and has broader access to a number of medical procedures, elective or otherwise, but according to the court documents, this case is not as cut and dry as it would be if you or I were to go to Planned Parenthood or another reputable gynocological clinic to seek reproductive medical treatment (for any variety of procedures).
Women of lower socioeconomic status have limited access to these types of resources, including regular gynocological visits, prenatal care, etc., and abortion is not really an exception in that regard. Because they more than likely did not have health insurance (or did not have a plan that covered abortion as a valid medical procedure), they would need to save up the money to pay for the procedure ahead of time. Because they need to save up (and an abortion, IIRC, is a fairly expensive procedure), they get later and later into their pregnancies before they can do it, which leads to higher instances of illegal abortions.
Add on to it that women of lower socioeconomic status are also more likely to be victims of sexual abuse and assault and that makes the lines extremely blurry.
I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that the type of procedures the "doctor" was performing should be legal or were not disgusting, more that his victims included both the babies delivered and the mothers, no matter how willing the participant. His alleged actions were reprehensible and if found guilty he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Threaded Mode
