Is supporting term limits and exceptions for abortion radical thinking?

[CJD]

(06-26-2024, 11:40 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You lost me when you mentioned put mother's life in jeopardy. I can't speak for others, but if a mother's life is in danger in month 8, it should be her and her partner if they have one to choose to abort the baby to save the mom's life.

My OP was it is radical to ask for term limits on abortion other than the health of the mother. In an earlier post you mentioned who determines need. The doctor who signs an oath has to be trusted with the decision, but after a term limit is surpassed, it should be eligible for POSSIBLE REVIEW IMHO only if there may be a case of impropriety by the doctor and those nurses attending to to the pregnant mothers.

Which was one of my original options.

The problem with it, as I said, is that could lead to doctors simply turning away women in need because they don't care for the scrutiny and potential financial or legal issues if this review board thinks their judgment was not in line with whatever standards they hold.

Like I said, what is the line? Is 25% chance that the mother dies enough to justify an abortion? What about 15%? 10%? At what point is the mother's life worth protecting at the expense of the unborn child? If you put restrictions on this, the likelihood that it causes harm is much higher than the likelihood that it prevents it.

At the end of the day, the medical board is just a group of people, just like the doctor, so why is their judgment held above a doctor's who, as you said, has signed an oath to protect his patients from harm?

Creating a system where doctors have the potential to be prosecuted if a medical board does not agree with their judgment calls that are unverifiable in hindsight is very risky and the gains are extraordinarily small, if existent at all.