Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
To answer the question....if science were to determine that then the laws could be tightened to reflect that. However, we are still aborting fetuses right up until birth....
|
Are they? I find it difficult to believe that someone could walk into a hospital 8 1/2 months pregnant where both are healthy and get an abortion no problem? Is it that different down there? Less than 1% of abortions are after 20 weeks here from what I understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
I'm not sure how restricting abortion based on the ability to live, when it's possible that an earlier date could become morally responsible in the future, is at all out of line.
|
In theory, between the woman and the doctor the best course of action should be able to be determined without the need for a legal restriction.
I don't think it necessarily is out of line though, I don't think I'd oppose restricting abortions based on viability would be a bad thing as long as provisions were made with regards to the mother's and fetus' health. Viability would also cover cases where the fetus had no skull and such like that. But there are potential down sides.
The problem in doing that is the flip side; by making some legal restrictions on abortion do you open the door to further restrictions? Just like there's people on the pro-choice side who have an agenda, there's people on the other side with the same agenda who won't stop until even the morning after pill (or unprotected sex!) is illegal.
Plus if you put those restrictions in law, you have to quantify them somehow. The devil's in the details and if you try to ensconce a complicated decision like that in law, well you just end up undermining the doctor's authority and judgment. If there's no restriction, the doctor can use their best judgment to advise on health issues, complications, etc. If there's a law restricting late term abortions but allowing them in cases of health, how does that get decided? By what criteria? Or will all but the most radical refuse to do them just so they don't get sued (thereby harming women's rights)?
Some of the questions that pop to mind anyway.