So what you are saying, is that it's a womens rights violation to enforce policies and regulations on a medical trade due to the fact that it limits their freedom to go to any ol' corner shack abortion clinic, and get an abortion after such time has passed that the apparent "not a full human, without rights, etc" fetus can "possibly" feel pain, which of course, is ok, because it's an obvious non-human growth of cells. *Sarcasm*
But realistically, shouldn't some of the regulations be in place for the safety of the patient? I mean, look at the strict regulations for heart transplants. Why should this sector of the medical trade not be regulated in the same fashion as any other surgical procedure? Any regulation of any kind can be construed to be a way to take away rights from a specific set of people who previously enjoyed the lack of regulation for example, smokers bans inside public areas. I'm sure the smokers found it an attempt to remove their rights specifically, but it was for the overall health of those who frequented those public areas. It may be slightly less convenient but it will probably save a lot of lives. After the Gosnell clinic, you don't think that maybe we should keep a closer eye on these peoples' safety?
And FYI, not ALL pro-life arguments center around religious beliefs.
As a woman, if I ever chose to have an abortion, for whatever reason, I would want it to be in a surgical ambulatory center, not just any ole clinic. A lot of these reconstructions make sense to me. I don't understand all the fuss about it.
As LogicViking pointed out, a lot if medical procedures, have restrictions. What is so wrong with that?
Edited by Kowalski, 15 July 2013 - 12:01 AM.