Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic
All true but I feel better for it. Sometimes the atmosphere can be so stifling, intellectually I mean, that it's good just to let rip...
|
I know what you mean. Sometimes you just gotta blow off some steam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic
Now to the point. This a medical issue but religion is invoked. For me that indicates the paucity of thinking about the issue. In a nominally secular society like the US, religion should have no place in public policy. But there it is.
The policy should be decided without reference to any religion. The policy should be strongly advised by the medical profession - preferably medical advisers that are disciplined enough to keep their religious views out of their medical judgements. The policy should be decided on grounds that focus on the woman and her right to choose whether or not she should give birth to the child. Her decision should be informed by medical advice - secular medical advice. Above all, the wellbeing of the mother is of prime importance.
|
Are you you talking about this particular bill or about abortion law in general?
If the latter, then you're acting as if the primary question is already decided. The primary question is whether or not basic human rights extend to humans any time prior to birth. At present, there's considerable disagreement on that question in the United States.
That isn't really a medical question, since it deals with human rights.
And if that question is answered such that some pre-borns are recogized as having human rights, then the wellbeing of the mother naturally bows in importance to the life of the child, and her right to choose whether or not to give birth yields to the right of the child to live.
The court answered it one way in Roe v. Wade, but the population hasn't really come to any consensus. This latest ruling indicates that the court now entertains at least some measure of doubt as to the veracity of the previous ruling.