baddog1 wrote:
Given this new information - you admit that there are exceptions to your previously staunch rule of Mom having complete control over the unborn. Please offer a list of exceptions.
I've made several exceptions to the idea of absolute discression for a very long time now. To recap I believe the below is the conditions in which abortions should be permitted.
First trimester exceptions
1) risk to woman
2) elective
Second trimester exceptions
1) risk to woman
2) elective with council and review (at woman's cost)
Third trimester exceptions
1) risk to woman
I've posted this before, I still see it as being very balanced and fair.
baddog1 wrote:
What if Mom had provided a list of alternatives to the surgical team prior to surgery? ["If my fetus has this wrong - kill it. If this vertebra on my fetus is not where I want it to be - kill it. If it has red hair - kill it. If the hand shown in the photo has a minor skin blemish - kill it. And so on...]
As stated before, you have entered a different realm of law with this line of questioning. One that is independant of the abortion issue. However, I'll answer anyway.
As outlined in the above criteria, the woman would be able to this if it was in her first trimester. In her second trimester, she would have to have counsil and review before making such surgical caveats. In the third trimester, only if she was at serious risk.
Again, you have landed on a topic that represents a statistically miniscule anomoly not representitive of the topic at hand.
If the woman is electing to have fetal surgery, most likely some issue has already been identified. It would not be logical that some characteristic of the unborn would be discovered in the opening of the womb. Further, why would a woman put herself at serious risk with fetal surgery to ultimately have an abortion via an extremely intrusive procedure as opposed to just having an abortion in the first place? You question demands some very counter intuitive assumptions before it can be answered.
baddog1 wrote:
You speak of "sound mind". Now you're saying that women should be tested and proven to be of "sound mind" prior to killing their unborn? Talk to me about that. What is the procedure to determine sound mindedness prior to abortion? Who makes the determination? What is the criteria? Who pays for it?
"Now" nothing. I've said for some time now that I'm not opposed to counsil and review. I've said very clearly that I think women should have full inpatient and outpatient care for their abortions, and that they should be done in a hospitol. Physicians often review patients to make sure they are of sound mind. This practice is particulary exercised with elective surguries and proceedures. Plastic surgeons when faced with a person who has had multiple operations will require a pschological review to be done prior to operation. If the person is found to be of sound mind, then they will proceed. Many surgeons will even require a secondardy review before proceeding. I find this to be appropriate for the second trimester, and I find it appropriate for the woman to pay for this counsil.
T
K
O
Post script - The above is an example of a direct answers to your questions. In the future when I ask a direct question, I expect no less from anyone.
