Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I agree here, in the sense that doctors should normally be the ones to make the call on whether a pregnancy is life-threatening. But I also support government oversight on whether doctors are making any blatant abuses of the "life of the mother" exception (to the not-yet existent abortion prohibition), which you can be sure would occur in a world without Roe v. Wade. If there was no medical basis for the abortion, punishment would be in order. License revocation would certainly be one possible legal consequence, perhaps more depending on the case. Perhaps the partial birth abortion ban needs to be rewritten to reflect a greater trust in doctors, I'm not sure. Perhaps this particular implementation is bad. But I don't quite see how a ban would necessarily be in conflict with what you're saying.
|
If by "government oversight" you are referring the the state medical regulatory boards, I am in complete agreement with you. These boards are made up of medical professionals who are more than capable in determining the need for a particular procedure, and have the power to sanction any doctor who willfully chooses to ignore the regulations. I strongly oppose politicians attempting to legislate medical procedures or someone's moral vision on the entire populace. Whenever politicians have attempted to do so, they produced a black market in what they were trying to prevent. Prohibition, the illegality of abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, and medical marijuana are cases in point.