Why not punish her? If we can find a doctor who says she did not really need that abortion and deserves to be punished. Do you have a problem with "trusting doctors", Bowerbird? What's good for the goose (the unborn child) is good for the gander (the woman).
You ignore the fact that Dr Gosnell was doing very late term abortions. Obviously not for legitimate medical reasons, otherwise those women wouldn't have been going underground. And the only reason his clinic wasn't shutdown sooner is the state he was in had very little political will to want to investigate abortion clinics. So the politicians and state officials wanted to protect abortion clinics. They had previously received a couple of suspicious reports about that clinic, but it looks like any push towards investigation had been shut down.
You wouldn't know it given the number of states and the people in them that have put abortion restriction laws in place such that a 10 year old would have been forced to give birth, not to mention even ectoptic pregnancies can't be aborted. What corporation? Yuo are seriously off on another red herring again, aren't you? STD's are only related in that they can have the same ultimae cause as that which precipitates the condition that without an abortion cannot occur. And they are a problem in and of themselves worthy of discussion and prevention, with many points for which bodily autonomy also plays a factor. But they simply do not have an impact on the abortion issue, nor does abortion have an impact on the STD issue. We already legalize murder. That is what the death penalty is after all. That's what is frequently involved in war. It's the conditions under which it happens which is important. Let me ask you this. If a woman is being raped, and the only way to stop her assailant is to kill him, should that be considered murder?
Texas has those allowable for women's life exceptions and then the AG outright told doctors in several cases if hey performed the abortion the state would charge them. One case, IIRC as being Texas, was for a fetus with intestines outside of it's body and that giving birth would result in its death and quite likely he death of the mother, and assuming she survived, the certainty of her sterility.
In your first sentence, remember that patients need to sign permission for such care. In the end, it is the doctor presenting diagnosis and care options and the patient deciding (with exceptions for emergency conditions). The rest of your post is just another attempt to make legislatures and prosecutors the healthcare decision makers.
Pro-lifers have no problem with that. If we required that, no woman would be able to get an abortion. You seemed to have missed the whole point of the analogy.
You misunderstood. "Pro-lifers" do have a problem with that, as they want to add laws restricting doctors. You don't want it to be about a doctor and a consenting patient. Instead, you want to add legislators and prosecutors to be there when the patient and doctor come to a care decision. Remember that this affects all women interested in procreation, as OB/GYN doctors have been moving away from states that have harsh "pro-llifer" laws. Plus, new medical students look for training positions in states that do not have these laws. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/...are.html?login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock (Copied due to pay wall) This is nowhere near a list of states with reducing OB/GYN access due to laws against abortion.
I'm okay with it being about a doctor. But the question is which doctor. It's not just about "a doctor" in general, if the woman is the one who can pick that doctor out of hundreds. Could you imagine if there was a financial disagreement between you and me, and you had to abide by the final decision of a private arbiter who listened to the case; but the thing is, I got to handpick and select that arbiter, and even ask him what his judgement would be about the case before selecting him? It would be clear in that case this isn't an independent and nonbiased arbiter. If anyone were permitted to do anything just because they could find and pay an expert who would be willing to agree with them, then there would be chaos. I'm sure I could be able to find a doctor out there who would say female circumcision on infants is just fine, who might even say it is justified for "health reasons". Does that mean it should be legally permitted if I take my baby girl to that doctor to get it done?
No, he facilitated live births after which he killed the baby. That is not abortion. Beyond that, I see no serious medical specifics for any of those cases of live birth followed by terminating life. You need to present you cases without adding the spin, otherwise people can't trust your posts.
OF COURSE a woman can pick the doctor she wants. She faces some restrictions, such as what providers are covered by her insurance, what doctors are appropriate for her case, etc. Yes, many differences are resolved by arbitrators who are usually retired judges, lawyers, etc. The result may or may not be binding. If not, it could still be taken to court. No, female genital mutilation is not legal in America (or the world?) and has not been shown to be therapeutic for any disease or condition. It has nothing to do with this topic.
Remember again that an abortion may be life saving for the woman. And, a fetus may be known to not be able to live until birth - thereby knowing it is a health rise. Also, a fetus may have numerous kinds of disease. Consider fetuses that will have no brain, or whose bones are so brittle that they are breaking in the womb and would continue to break after birth - known to be terminal. As you know, the number of diseases is large.
