Quote:
Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
Based on legal precedent, the mother's health does. The government is allowed to restrict access to abortions, but there must always be an exception for the mother's health. It's the law. I'm willing to bet that if this makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll uphold the decision.
If you want to have the sanctity of human life argument, we can start another thread for that....
|
I'm not really a sanctity of life person.
I've just looked at the facts, and my view is that this particular procedure is unnecessary, irresponsible and barbaric.
I'm actually perfectly okay with some earlier term abortion procedures -- in fact, I would go so far as to say that in the case where the potential mother excercises responsibility and good decision making skills early, she's got every right to terminate that pregnancy.
However, once a fetus reaches a point where it would be viable outside the womb, I begin to have a problem with killing it. That's where I think this procedure is unnecessary.
In the brief research I did on this topic, I could not find one specific instance of a mother's health being brought into jeapordy. However, I'm all in favor of a stipulation in the law requiring that so long as doctors use it responsibly (and I'm talking murder trials for the ones that don't).
Threaded Mode