Why does that matter? We don't have an "unless you are a coward" exception for murder.
Maybe some doctor can explain it to me but can't the vast majority of those "health is in danger" scenarios detectable before a pregnancy occurs? Or at worst case within the first few weeks?
Occasionally bad shit does just happen that makes the need to pick one or the other necessary. Human body is complex so sometimes shit just pops.
But in a lot of cases yes, the woman should have or did in fact know the risks and her feelings came before reality. She believes she had a right to have a baby, no matter the risk to it or anything else. This is especially prevalent of a problem in older women, women whose body has be ravaged by birth control, or simply unlucky illnesses that effected reproductive ability, yet they still believe they have a god given right to own a child.
Thats the kind of thing that would be handled on a case by case basis. But a blanket "health of the mother" exemption might as well say "do whatever you want".
But a blanket "health of the mother" exemption might as well say "do whatever you want".
Only if you're the sort of habitual liar who says men are women, arson is peaceful protest, abortion is privacy and human traffickers are undocumented immigrants. A reasonable person would not accept an unwillingness to follow through on your decisions as a health risk, and unreasonable people should be removed from their positions of authority rather than trying to craft a rule they cannot deliberately misinterpret.
Why does that matter? We don't have an "unless you are a coward" exception for murder.
Maybe some doctor can explain it to me but can't the vast majority of those "health is in danger" scenarios detectable before a pregnancy occurs? Or at worst case within the first few weeks?
99.9% of abortions are elective procedures. Rape, incest, health of the mother are all bad faith arguments trotted out by leftists.
Occasionally bad shit does just happen that makes the need to pick one or the other necessary. Human body is complex so sometimes shit just pops.
But in a lot of cases yes, the woman should have or did in fact know the risks and her feelings came before reality. She believes she had a right to have a baby, no matter the risk to it or anything else. This is especially prevalent of a problem in older women, women whose body has be ravaged by birth control, or simply unlucky illnesses that effected reproductive ability, yet they still believe they have a god given right to own a child.
Thats the kind of thing that would be handled on a case by case basis. But a blanket "health of the mother" exemption might as well say "do whatever you want".
Only if you're the sort of habitual liar who says men are women, arson is peaceful protest, abortion is privacy and human traffickers are undocumented immigrants. A reasonable person would not accept an unwillingness to follow through on your decisions as a health risk, and unreasonable people should be removed from their positions of authority rather than trying to craft a rule they cannot deliberately misinterpret.