Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Mimir
The reason we don't like over-arching Federal Laws, is because every situation is unique.
Every situation is unique agreed, but You can still make general guidlines or even laws to avoid risk of late aborts, except for the special cases
like the one You descibe next.
What about the case of severe abuse and incest of a young girl, maybe 12 or 13. The pregnancy is covered up until late into the second
trimester when she finally escapes and gets help. The doctors find plenty of potential health problems in the fetus, and it is the product of rape
and incest, plus the girl is far too young to be a mother. The baby will likely survive, but never be self-sufficient and require life-long care from
a mother not much older than the baby. I can see a Doctor, and a victim's advocate, and the young mother deciding that it is better to abort, even at
that late stage, and I might agree with them.
Good example on why You cant have a law without makeing it flexible. Thats also why i use the word guideline instead of law. In You'r example theres
no doubt, in my eyes, that abortion would be the best option for the girl, even if the fetus was healthy.
I just hope that in these kind of cases doctors can make it painless and in a way so the child dont feel/see whats comming....I wouldent like to be
the one doing the surgery...or makeing the decision. And in a way it's not fair I ask doctors too do it, but sadly there's no perfect solution's or
answer's on the suject of abortion's.
However this is not very common, so hopefully only a few doctors would have to do stuff like this.
Also, what about a difference of opinion among doctors? One doctor decides to abort a complicated pregnancy because the mother's life is in
danger, but another doctor reviews the case and thinks both lives could have been saved, and now the first doctor could face criminal
What if the second doctor gets hes will and both mother and child dies...or if only the mother die leaving the child with one parent (hopefully).
Should the second doctor face crimnal charges?
Like I said, I am pro-life, but I think the laws need to be on a more local level, and there needs to be plenty of flexibility in administering
I fully agree.
A Federal law is incapable of flexibility.
But the state's is alot better at this? I would think the federal government had to make some solid guideline's. Not too remove Your states right to
decide if its legal or not, but to avoid things run out of hand and one of the states decide abortion is ok untill 32th week in general.
Our Constititution provides very limited power to the Federal Government, and everything else falls to the states. It isn't a shirking of
responsibility, it is just a better way of making sure the human element is apparent in the administration of all laws.
Again I agree it's good to get the decisions and decisionmaker's closer to the people. But in some cases like abortion which is an extremly emotional
topic, clouding the mind of those involved. I prefere to follow the words of the mainstream scientist, doctor and physician, compared to listen to
diffrent interpretation of morale and ethic's.
On the same note, I despise 10-20-Life and all other mandatory sentencing laws. I despise 3-strike laws,
Well here i tend to disagree, but the reson for that is that the Danish penalty system is far to soft. 10-20-life may be an exageration, but I would
vote for double up if the crime is a repetition of the same type of crime that you did before.
In my small town there is a mean psycho who spend the last 30 year's of he's 47 year old life beating up people, selling drugs and other stuff.
He has been sentenced to jail 20+ times within those 30 years, sentences from a few months and up to 4-5 years in jail.
Every time he has been jailed he also beat someone up very badly, sometimes even molesting hes subject's.
Tell me why people like this shouldent be jailed for more than a few months, even thou he beat the crap out of some random bypasser and knocked out
half of he's teeth's just because "glared in the wrong way".
If he had a doubleup sentence for repetitious crimes, the public wouldent have to "constantly" worry aslong as he's jailed.
(May be a extreme example, cause this dude is totally brainblown, he likes brawling and been in atleast a few hundred fistfights).
and I despise all of the "nanny-state" laws like SeatBelts and Drinking ages. Most of those laws are State laws, not Federal, and they still
get mis-used. Nothing is perfect, but the smaller the government the better!
Last but least I'm not the toughtpolice, everyone is welcome to make their own decision on this subject.
edit on 16-8-2011 by Mimir because:
(no reason given)