Vampyroteuthis

So in the case of my friend that I posted the previous story about:

I had a friend who had this particular procedure done. After blood tests showed signs of trouble and several ultrasounds her obgyn gave her the terrible news that her fetus had only half a head. She said it was the most horrible experience of her life. She and her husband had one child before and one after that had no trouble at all. The doctor said it was just a chance thing that can happen to anyone.

This was done just to "enhance the mental state of a woman by destroying the life within her"?

Loren Pechtel

Yup. That's an elective abortion. It's done for her peace of mind.


In other words, just because it's elective doesn't mean there isn't a good reason for it.

Vampyroteuthis

Yeah I'm sure she would agree with you. Like getting your teeth whitened, eh?

blastula

A condition can be life threatening without needing immediate care, but that's beside the point because the bill allows an exception for life threatening conditions.

Bomb#20

Yes; and also the 13th. If you're suggesting abortion violates the unborn's right to equal protection, the law enables them to exercise the same right to the use of another person's body against her will as the born have.

blastula

No, the swing was Alito. In Stenberg, another partial birth abortion case, O'Connor sided with the majority to overturn the ban. Kennedy dissented. Alito replaced O'Connor.

This is of course a matter of opinion. I think the Roe formula setting the limit for state intrusion at viability is a good compromise.

The fetus is only pulled outside of the womb to kill it. It's not being pulled out to birth it. It most likely would not survive if they did. In my opinion, the personhood depends on how far along the fetus is. I don't believe it's a person at any point from a zygote up until it's viable.

This bill is ultimately about the aesthetics of the procedure. If another procedure is used, the fetus is killed either way.

In the Supreme Court case the petitioner was in favor of the bill, and so of course that's what they argued. And of course the respondents presented testimony to the contrary.

If a doctor decides IDX is the best procedure to use for a patient, I don't see any good cause to intrude on that practice, since the end result to the fetus is the same, and that doctors have said it may be safer in certain cases.

If the primary issue was concern for the woman, then they'd let the woman have access to all available medical options - not limit her choices out of superficial arbitrary concerns.

Giving birth is more life threatening to a woman than having an abortion.