Curious, most "pro-lifers" say they support abortion if a woman's life was threatened

Okay.....who makes that call?

 

I'm sure some would prefer they were personally asked for permission, and told who the woman was, so they can go wag their finger at her first.

 

If the woman's life is actually threatened. All too often it is just used as an excuse to abort a normal pregnancy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9846014/Mental-health-excuse-to-sign-off-abortions.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/w...-routinely-forged-abortion-consent-forms.html

 

Wouldn't her doctor(s) be the most qualified to determine whether or not an abortion would be necessary to save the woman's life?

 

Yes, but who's to say she won't just go get a second opinion if she doesn't like what she hears? Preferably an abortion doctor. And what do you think that doctor will tell her?

 

Doctors who perform illegal abortions would face a murder charge (just like they already do) in some cases now. Kermit Gosnell for example.

Banning abortions with certain exceptions to allow for them in cases of rape or to protect the life of the mother wouldn't change very much in how the existing laws are enforced. The laws would simply allow for abortions in fewer situations than they currently allow them.

Ideally, it would only be allowed when it can be Constitutionally justified to take the child's life and even then, I would like to see laws which require doctors to do everything they can do (within reason) to save both or all of the lives involved.

 

Doctors? You mean the "evil butchers" that you guys want to run out of business or even see guys like Scott Ritter "take care of"???

- - - Updated - - -

As somebody new or not around for a while, perhaps you've missed my other question-


How exactly, under an abortion Prohibition, would you PROVE that a woman was pregnant before charging her or her doctor with "committing abortion"???

 

Is that so wrong though? Perhaps if you understood their reasons behind it you would understand why women choose abortions or feel like it's their only choice at the time.

 

Look at what they're saying on YOUR thread, PK. Your abortion was needed because it was an extopic pregnancy that threatened your life....and they attack you for it.

You really think these people who claim they are "okay with an abortion if the woman's health is threatened"...aren't going to risk the woman's health or life over their religious belief?

And again, WHO diagnoses if a pregnancy is life-threatening....a doctor. Yet these same folks distrust doctors. So who's left for them to turn to....but some "council" THEY would appoint in their Utopia...a...."death panel" if you will....whereby if they judge your life wasn't threatened "that much"....no abortion.

And these are the same folks who say they are for "smaller Government" "personal liberty" and hate the President's health care reform because it "takes away the relationship between a patient and a doctor and gives it to the Govt.".

In other words.....they're liars and hypocrites.

 

Well, some of these reasons are better than others...

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/289679-women-who-get-abortions-over-over-again.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/306522-but-i-only-wanted-one-baby.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/309216-guest-your-home-parallel-does-illustrate-point.html
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/280416-how-could-you-kill-your-own-baby.html

 

Anders, in your "pro-life Utopia" America......who will decide if a pregnancy is life-threatening and thus approve an abortion?

 

Most women that have abortions don't have abortions to save their own lives.

 

Just as most, if not all, women don't have elective late-abortions, so why focus on it

 

Well then why did you even bring this issue up in the first place?

 

for the same reason you said "Most women that have abortions don't have abortions to save their own lives.", now explain how your comment has any relevance to the subject being debated, and how it is relevant to Gorn captain's comment?

 

But SOME do, Sam.....so stick to the topic (a frequent refrain of yours)....

in the perfect "pro-life world" of yours, Anders, etc.......WHO gets to decide if a pregnancy is life-threatening and thus approve an abortion?


Or is this another of the questions that Michael "Savage" never raises when discussing abortion...so you never really ever thought about it???

 

How was your statement even relevant to Gorn Captain's comments?

 

It wasn't a response to Gorn's, it was a response to your comment, which had nothing to do with his .. ergo, I followed your lead of going off topic.

 

1. Yeah... That's the ones.

2. Same as we do now.

 

all pregnancies come with risk of death or other complications for the women, which of course is why only they can decide to take the risks or abort

.

 

1. Okay then who would YOU get to decide if a woman's life was threatened and thus approve an abortion?

2. Details. How do you PROVE that a woman was pregnant on Tuesday....when she's not on Friday?

 

1. Like I said, the doctors would make that determination. I would also like to see laws which required those doctors to do all that they can do (within reason) to save both patients... by the way.

2. You are being very vague... We have cases on the books where women have been tried for illegal abortions. So why you acting as though that is new ground?

 

What if the doctor is pro-choice and determines that an abortion at six weeks will threaten the life of the woman if she goes to term....but he's really only doing it because he believes in her right to have an abortion if she wants one? How are you going to prove him wrong? WHO will prove him wrong?

Again, you mentioned "evidence" on the other thread.....how do you obtain the evidence to charge a woman with "murder"...i.e. abortion....if she takes RU-486 with nobody present in the room? And what will that evidence be?

 

How can we tell if he's writing legitimate prescriptions or not?

1. Like i've already said - not all of the cases could be or will be known about. I never claimed that that could be.
2. Why do you keep ignoring my point that some laws against crimes are legitimate despite how difficult they are to be prosecuted?
3. What about the cases where it can be prosecuted? Where the woman tells the father what she's going to do? Where the drug can be traced? Where she ends up in the ER with complications?

We both agree that the cases would be hard to prove.

Can we move on now?

 

Looks like you just go from one abortion thread to another. Got any other hobbies?