It's tough.

A....friend.....got a girl pregnant. They'd been together for like 3 years, but were in no situation to have a baby. He chumped out and said, basically, "I'll support the child or I'll pay for the abortion, your choice." But, what real response can a man have?

Just one more reason I'm glad I'm married. No more dealing with shit like that.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Your friend's response is pretty much the best he can do (he could also offer to marry her...in the sense of a "had-to-get-married" situation, and expect either an imminent divorce or a life of unhappiness) when he is personally involved in that situation. [edit] Many men actually are emotionally torn up about a mutual decision to make a choice, quite possibly as much as many women are (those who actually care, that is). [/edit]

But I see nothing wrong with civil discourse about the issue as a whole from both men and women.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I haven't voted yet because i'm not sure what option really fits my opinion on the matter best, but one other reason maybe an abortion may be granted on compassionate grounds...well this whole Palin thing got me thinking...

If you know before hand throuh scans and tests the child is going to be born unable to live a normal life or may not even survive, is that a just reason for an abortion?

You're pro-choice but would that be a viable choice of "exceptions" for you and enough maybe that you would support a ban on other types of early/first term abortions? With that, say the health of the mother and also rape, could you support a ban? (In general to other pro choice/non interferance folks like Speakeasy and Doc, would that help?)

I imagine that matter could be resolved without resorting to statistics.

I could foresee a system that required a doctor (if terminating a pregnancy under an exception clause) to issue a sworn statement that, in his/her professional medical opinion, the pregnancy represented a severe and unusual threat to the life of the women (the language would have to be created by people more familiar with medical lingo).

If that particular abortion was challenged, the doctors statements along with relevant medical records supporting his/her evaluation could be sent to some committee, made up of physicians, set up for that purpose (perhaps part of the Dept. of Health?). The committee would review the case and conclude that either (A) The doctor's opinion was valid or at least competent, (B) The doctor's opinion was flawed, but perhaps not intentionally so, or (C) The doctor's opinion was blatantly and obviously incorrect, and may represent intentional deception.
In case (A), the challenge would be dropped. In case (B) further proceedings could take place which could possibly result in the loss of the doctor's right to perform abortions in the future. In case (C), the issue would go to trial with the findings of the committee as relevant medical testimony.
That should keep politicians or judges from rendering medical opinion, and only threaten the doctor's whose opinions diverge significantly from the opinions of their fellow physicians.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

To me, it would depend on when the abortion was going to happen. If it was pre-viability, I would say yes. Post? That's a much more difficult question. I would say that it's a decision that needs to be made by an interaction between the woman and her doctor.

For me, no, that wouldn't be sufficient.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

There's a couple problems that I see here. First, that kind of document wouldn't be in the language of a medical practitioner; it would be in the language of a lawyer. It would have to be remarkably complex, and I suspect that said level of complexity would be disincentive for most doctors to sign it and put their medical license on the line.

Second, a committee system would be problematic in the inherent violation of a patient's right to privacy in her medical records.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Agreed.


What's amazing to me is how civil this particular thread has been.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

It would also cause doctor's to split along pro life/choice lines, with pro-life doctors rendering decisions to affect the outcome of removing other doctor's 'right' to perform abortions, and pro-choice doctors probably rubber stamping every abortion performed.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I suspect we write from opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue, but bravo. We need to realise that most women get abortions because they don't want to have a baby, and that's fine. As I am blue in the fingers from typing, either abortion is murder or it isn't. If it is, ban it in all circumstances. If it isn't, let women use it however thay see fit. Don't give me any of the "only in the case of rape/incest/danger to the life of the woman" crap. You can't only allow abortion when you approve of the woman's reasons. That's not your business.

There's an interesting article on the topic at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1645946.ece

That language would almost have to be a mixture of the two, though I don't think it would be necessary to endanger anyone's license. If, in the opinion of a committee of his/her peers, one particular doctor's judgement on the necessity of abortion is faulty, he/she could merely be prevented from carrying out future abortions and otherwise allowed to practice as normal while referring abortion patients elsewhere.

I doubt there would be any way around that; though the advantage of the committee (in addition to leaving medical evaluations to physicians) would be that the medical records would never have to be examined in court, but only by the doctors on the committee and even then only in case of a legal challenge to the abortion.

I would hope we could find at least some medical practitioners capable of rendering medical, rather than moral/political, opinions.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

My position is very similar to yours, except without the "pre-natal". We're discussing the possible termination of a proto-human, with one aspect of the discussion being when the 'proto' disappears. Some common arbitrary delineations are second trimester, third trimester, or birth.

I'm of the opion that we should not discuss 'humans' so much as 'persons'. A hospital patient who is unresponsive, brain dead, and is only breathing because of a machine is unarguably a human, but even by the most generous of assessments not much of a person. As such, many people agree that there's nothing wrong with ceasing the metabolic functions involved. I'd apply similar standards on the other end of the life cycle. What makes a human a person? It's not a heartbeat, brainwaves, or even birth, or my dog would be a person. It's not purely genetics, or my twitching hand left after the rest of me was eaten by a shark would be a person. It's not just viability, as that is largely technology-dependent, as you've pointed out. Is it abstract reasoning? Language skills? Sense of humor? Self-awareness? Some other vaguely similar attribute(s) I'm not thinking of? My restriction would be 'until any one or more of the above are expressed', which in my limited experience is a few months after birth.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I missed the part about removing the ability to perform abortions in my first read-through. Sorry about that.


That'd require huge changes to the laws already in place. To the best of my knowledge, your medical records cannot be released, viewed, or even subpoenaed without your explicit consent. IMHO, that's a good thing. My discussions with my doctor and the care upon which we agree is, and should remain, absolutely private.

One could hope, absolutely. But, I fear that as politicized as the procedure has become, DGT's scenario is probably closer to the the way things would happen.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

No doubt there are. But, I'd imagine that once the system was established, you'd have crusaders for one cause or the other affecting objectivity to get a coveted spot on the panel.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson