I don't believe you get clean outcomes no matter what. You can put more limits but then it is quite likely doctors will be unwilling to treat women who are at risk of severe complications etc..
I don't believe you get clean outcomes no matter what. You can put more limits but then it is quite likely doctors will be unwilling to treat women who are at risk of severe complications etc..
Trees don't grow on money
Pro-choice here with nothing else to add.
They're all about book banning--at least one knuckle-dragging Tennessee legislator is OK with book burning, even.
some of them might even be ok with witch burning, even![]()
Trees don't grow on money
DH often says when describing an idiot that the best part of that person got left on the sheets. It's all pretty random who comes to be and who doesn't anyway.
That would seem to indicate that the physician was not willing to do an abortion on a viable fetus without a medical reason. It sounds like "should be between the woman and her doctor" worked to achieve what most of us would consider the "correct" outcome. No government involvement required.
What are the current rules/laws regarding forcing parents to do something like donate a kidney to a child that will die without that transplant? Or a life saving blood transfusion where the parent and kid have a rare blood-type and no other suitable blood donor can be found. Would that parent be forced to make the donation and, if not willing, charged with homocide if he/she said "nope. Not doing it."
Yes that was my take on it, and from what I vaguely remember it was a healthy fetus and the woman was from France. There are doctors who would do it however, that guy in Pittsburgh would have done the deed for the right money.
Then, there are plenty of doctors who do perfectly awful things for the money. I think of all the cosmetics surgery horror shows paraded on Instagram.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)