Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Right. Which is a separate argument and one that is logically inconsistent with the position that it shouldn't matter to you when an abortion is performed, because whether it's late term or early term, it's simply a medical decision between the woman and her doctor with no morally relevant third person involved. That's what Altaguy's position is. Which is why I said the number of late term abortions that actually take place in practice is a separate argument that doesn't align with his primary position.
|
It's not inconsistent. For the state to limit access to a medical procedure and take it out of the hands of the doctor and the patient, then there is the burden to show that there's some sort of harm taking place. Absent that, it's purely a medical decision, which is what Altaguy is saying. Sure, if doctors were aborting infants during labor, or people were regularly getting 35+ week abortions for non-medical reasons, then maybe it would warrant government intervention. But we can only deal with the reality that exists, and that's one where late term abortions for non-medical reasons are basically non-existent.
When someone gets a limb amputated or goes on chemotherapy, we don't require that the patient and the doctor justify that to the state and get permission. That's because those things (like late term abortions) are invariably done for medical reasons. Now if people started abusing that and causing widespread harm as a result, then maybe there'd be an argument that the state should intervene as they do in other medical situations (i.e. restricting access to some prescription drugs).