(07-27-2022 03:26 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-27-2022 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Jumping in here, but to the bolded, I think the answer to that question is best left to a doctor and the mother - not to elected officials or the Supreme Court.

Do you recognize any situation in which the judgment of the doctor and mother should be held wrong, and the parties punished?

As an analogy, consider the case of a shooting in self-defense, which takes the life of another person. Procedurally that decision is left to the self-defender, but substantively it still must be objectively reasonable, else the shooter is punished. To say otherwise would be to say that any claim of self-defense must always be accepted as exculpatory -- which would essentially make nearly all shootings legal. While that is a resoundingly "pro-choice" outcome ("keep your laws off my trigger finger!"), it is not an outcome anyone thinks is a good idea.

I think your example is somewhat analogous here.

The question that I was referring to was born out of weighting the odds of viability and risk to the mother. Once we start talking about pregnancy complications that are increasing the risk to the health of the mother, I think the state should back out of the equation and let the doctor and mother make the decision. My comment was not related to a blanket, absolute zero restriction on abortion at any time.

There's confusion now as to whether some states afford that option or don't - see the Texas story where the hospital clearly felt they did not have that option. And we're also seeing some law makers try and take that away completely.