Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante
I don't see how he's making a mischaracterization. Based on the quotes provided, the ACOG was only comparing the method in question to other methods of abortion.
All he's down in specify the context in which the remarks were made. How does that mischaracterize their position?
|
No. The ACOG said that they could not envision a circumstance in which alternative methods of abortion were not comparable. This says absolutely nothing about the necessity or morality of the method used.
All they said was that the decision should be made between the doctor and the woman/mother.
There are other methods which can be used at ANY stage of pregnancy and in fact, I could stab a healthy, full term, breathing baby through the heart and accomplish the same thing as any other abortion except that the baby is alive outside the womb. We have not begun to discuss viability of the fetus or health of the mother - at this point, the method is moot!
It is NOT the method that should be the issue. This is a ploy and nothing more. It matters not whether you are pro life or pro choice.
I can't fathom that I'm the only person to see this. Surely someone else has considered this. Saving a life and leaving someone on a ventilator but brain dead is gruesome, grotesque and morally questionable. Ending a pregnancy is gruesome, grotesque and morally questionable.
In what circumstance is it OK to refer to a law, rule, or job description in defense of a right action NOT taken? NEVER! Refer to Nuremberg trials as an example.
God/Nature WILL insist on illustrating the necessity of difficult decisions regardless of the politics of small men.