Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Were you required to see them even if you didn't want to? By law?
Couldn't tell if you if there was a law - I'd be okay if there were, because no one should be able to sign off on "informed consent" without having seen all relevent information, be it ultrasounds, x-rays or test results. I don't agree that anyone should be "forced" - as in, if they want to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and go "na na na", then you've done all you reasonably can do.
Which is NOT what the law says. Which law? Which state? You don't specify so I don't know to which law you are referring. What part of a politician telling a woman that she MUST view an ultrasound of her fetus before she can get an abortion is NOT paternalistic, misogynist or an attempt at manipulation? Again this is not about a doctor being required to view an ultrasound for medical reasons, this is about a requirement on a patient.
See above - you are subjectively deciding that seeing an ultrasound would be manipulation. If, as those who object to the idea argue, it isn't yet a baby - it's just a clump of cells, then what is the big deal? I could argue that it is paternalistic and misogynistic to think you have to protect women from the realities of what exactly they will be expelling from their womb. If a women is to be free to chose, why shouldn't it be a choice informed by the very specifics unique to her, rather than some generalization about what precisely is to done?
Of course it's not a 100% chance of disability, but that wasn't my point. One of the major reasons you can't just say X weeks is the absolute cut off is that there is a lot of gray area. In addition, if a fetus is now "viable" but is only 24 weeks do you allow the woman to induce delivery so she can give birth and then abandon the child to the care of the state, or do you force her to carry it longer?

I'm making a second post with some data I did find. I would not call the Guttmacher Institute unbiased - but I will admit it is just about impossible to find research that doesn't bear some taint from either side.


I'm not saying restrict the information to the medical profession, I'm saying that medical professionals should make the decisions about medical care, not politicians (particularly not male politicians who REALLY have no right telling a woman what to do with her body)You do realize this is an argument ad homnieum, right? A logical fallacy.This particular one drives me crazy. Either the law proposed is logical, or it is not. It does not matter whether the person making it has a penis or uterus. Should only those who've had an unplanned pregnancy have a voice? Only fertile women? Should juries be made up only of the defendent's gender, race, class, educational background? Should only bankers make banking laws? Etc. - Nope. A proposed law should stand or fail on its merits. . I'd rather that my medical care, whether abortions or surgery not go up for a public vote. I'd be willing to bet it you are not quite ready to have state and federal oversight of medical care withdrawn. That's totally different than having your medical care put up for a vote.

Every time I try and post weird stuff happens. This is my third attempt - if it doesn't work I give up. Drole - I know you aren't going to change my mind, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change yours, so I don't want to continue to go back and forth. I am very familiar with your arguments - when I was avidly "pro-choice" I made them myself.

So back on topic - DF, if increased regulations aren't the answer, what should PA do as far as enforcing current ones? Should oversight go to another state/federal body?