Since you seem to be unable to read regular size text, again:
THIS IS YOUR OWN FUCKING OPINION THAT YOU ARE SUBSTITUTING FOR FACT,
it is a matter of legal and medical debate, and you are coming out of left field now by adding that in the case of rape or incest abortion is suddenly less of an "elective procedure" than it would be otherwise.
Yes, if someone was deformed in an auto accident or due to a birth defect such as cleft palette, then it is obvious that the plastic surgery neccesary to correct these deformities would not be merely elective since their features are grossly far from normal, and the plastic surgery would be an attempt to bring their features closer to normal so that they can function normally or not be ashamed of their appearance in public. There is a definite and obvious physiological distinction to be made between the condition of the person needing non-elective sugery and the condition of person with features clearly in the range of what's considered normal that just wants to look prettier.
However, whether the child was concieved in a consensual sex act or by rape, there is no difference in the physiological condition of the pregnant woman. The act of abortion would still be just as elective (or non-elective) in either case because the initial physiological conditions are indistinguishable.
MrTroy is making the same error in his argument that I made earlier. Doctors don't have to make available every legal medical procedure. They must make available every non-elective , "neccesary" medical proedure. The argument is then one of whether abortion is a neccesary medical procedure or not.
It is obvious that some medical procedures which merely but profoundly affect quality of life are considered non-elective, such as the correction of non-life-threatening but abnormal facial defects or the prevention or correction of conditions that threaten hearing and sight. So should abortion be considered non-elective? Plan B? Contraception? That is not so clear and is hardly a moot point.
Bookmarks