The 'Safe, Legal and Rare' Lie

[TitanTiger 20,708]

The ‘Safe, Legal, and Rare’ Lie

by Rod Dreher

In the UK, it has been discovered that abortionists are performing sex-selective abortions — that is, ending the lives of unborn baby girls because their mothers would prefer not to have female children. British law is supposed to ban this kind of abortion. But of course that is unenforceable. Anthony Daniels, the physician who writes under the name Theodore Dalrymple, says that the “health of the woman” exception in UK abortion law offers a loophole as big as the world. Excerpt from his essay:

In fact, the whole sorry story illustrates the mess we get into when two notions become culturally prominent: on the one hand of rights and on the other of consumer choice.

Whatever the law says, most people now think that abortion is a right under all circumstances and not something that is permissible if certain conditions are met, as the framers of the law surely intended. That particular slippery slope has long been slid down.

And the same people now conceive of life as an existential supermarket in which they are consumers, choosing the way they live much as they choose cranberry juice or the flavour of crisps that they want.

And the customer in the existential supermarket, as in Tesco, is always right.

Into this poisonous mixture we must add the notion that any form of distress, or even the slightest frustration arising no matter how self-indulgently, constitutes an impairment of mental health: for the mentally healthy person is always happy and never experiences any difficulties in life.

In short, inconvenience is the greatest of all threats to our well-being, and must at all times be avoided. It is our right to avoid it.

The Abortion Act was intended as a humane response to genuine hardship: the type of hardship that drove women to back-street abortionists. I supported it, not realising that its intentions would soon be subverted by a change in the character of the population, including that of doctors, who would easily affix their names to declarations they knew or suspected to be false. But now the genie is out of the bottle, and I fear there is no getting it back.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/02/24/the-safe-legal-and-rare-lie/

Barbaric. And liberals wonder why pro-life people balk at "health of the mother" exceptions. They aren't exceptions, they are the rule used to justify any and all abortions for any reason whatsoever.

[arnaldoabru 11]

The ‘Safe, Legal, and Rare’ Lie

by Rod Dreher

In the UK, it has been discovered that abortionists are performing sex-selective abortions — that is, ending the lives of unborn baby girls because their mothers would prefer not to have female children. British law is supposed to ban this kind of abortion. But of course that is unenforceable. Anthony Daniels, the physician who writes under the name Theodore Dalrymple, says that the “health of the woman” exception in UK abortion law offers a loophole as big as the world. Excerpt from his essay:

In fact, the whole sorry story illustrates the mess we get into when two notions become culturally prominent: on the one hand of rights and on the other of consumer choice.

Whatever the law says, most people now think that abortion is a right under all circumstances and not something that is permissible if certain conditions are met, as the framers of the law surely intended. That particular slippery slope has long been slid down.

And the same people now conceive of life as an existential supermarket in which they are consumers, choosing the way they live much as they choose cranberry juice or the flavour of crisps that they want.

And the customer in the existential supermarket, as in Tesco, is always right.

Into this poisonous mixture we must add the notion that any form of distress, or even the slightest frustration arising no matter how self-indulgently, constitutes an impairment of mental health: for the mentally healthy person is always happy and never experiences any difficulties in life.

In short, inconvenience is the greatest of all threats to our well-being, and must at all times be avoided. It is our right to avoid it.

The Abortion Act was intended as a humane response to genuine hardship: the type of hardship that drove women to back-street abortionists. I supported it, not realising that its intentions would soon be subverted by a change in the character of the population, including that of doctors, who would easily affix their names to declarations they knew or suspected to be false. But now the genie is out of the bottle, and I fear there is no getting it back.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/02/24/the-safe-legal-and-rare-lie/

Barbaric. And liberals wonder why pro-life people balk at "health of the mother" exceptions. They aren't exceptions, they are the rule used to justify any and all abortions for any reason whatsoever.

You do realize that this not a wide spread practice in England

It's illegle

And certain cultures place more emphasis on males.Meaning somewhere some male is forcing women into this

Those doctors that breakthe law will be prosacuted.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

The ‘Safe, Legal, and Rare’ Lie

by Rod Dreher

In the UK, it has been discovered that abortionists are performing sex-selective abortions — that is, ending the lives of unborn baby girls because their mothers would prefer not to have female children. British law is supposed to ban this kind of abortion. But of course that is unenforceable. Anthony Daniels, the physician who writes under the name Theodore Dalrymple, says that the “health of the woman” exception in UK abortion law offers a loophole as big as the world. Excerpt from his essay:

In fact, the whole sorry story illustrates the mess we get into when two notions become culturally prominent: on the one hand of rights and on the other of consumer choice.

Whatever the law says, most people now think that abortion is a right under all circumstances and not something that is permissible if certain conditions are met, as the framers of the law surely intended. That particular slippery slope has long been slid down.

And the same people now conceive of life as an existential supermarket in which they are consumers, choosing the way they live much as they choose cranberry juice or the flavour of crisps that they want.

And the customer in the existential supermarket, as in Tesco, is always right.

Into this poisonous mixture we must add the notion that any form of distress, or even the slightest frustration arising no matter how self-indulgently, constitutes an impairment of mental health: for the mentally healthy person is always happy and never experiences any difficulties in life.

In short, inconvenience is the greatest of all threats to our well-being, and must at all times be avoided. It is our right to avoid it.

The Abortion Act was intended as a humane response to genuine hardship: the type of hardship that drove women to back-street abortionists. I supported it, not realising that its intentions would soon be subverted by a change in the character of the population, including that of doctors, who would easily affix their names to declarations they knew or suspected to be false. But now the genie is out of the bottle, and I fear there is no getting it back.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/02/24/the-safe-legal-and-rare-lie/

Barbaric. And liberals wonder why pro-life people balk at "health of the mother" exceptions. They aren't exceptions, they are the rule used to justify any and all abortions for any reason whatsoever.

You do realize that this not a wide spread practice in England

It's illegle

And certain cultures place more emphasis on males.Meaning somewhere some male is forcing women into this

Those doctors that breakthe law will be prosacuted.

Yeah, I realized it's illegal because of that part in the story I quoted where it said, "British law is supposed to ban this kind of abortion."

The problem is, when you make broad exceptions like "health of the mother," you leave a gap you can drive a semi through. People can use abortion as sex selection, call it a "health of the mother" decision, and there's no way to enforce the meaningless law against it.

[Justin5 20]

Its the law. If you want it changed, get Roe v. Wade overturned. Until then...

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Its the law. If you want it changed, get Roe v. Wade overturned. Until then...

Or...do like the Democrats do when they want to create new rights out of thin air while simultaneously undermining ones actually written in the Constitution. Presidential fiat! Except this time we'd be recognizing actual rights already granted while dispensing with the made up ones.

[AFTiger 282]

Some time ago Women's Heath came to mean abortion.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Democrats spend more time trying to protect the lives of whales and birds and less time protecting the lives of people, yet they want us to think they know what's best for adults.

Sad world we live in. When can we agree that the lives of all equal the same protection, under the law?

[Justin5 20]

Democrats spend more time trying to protect the lives of whales and birds and less time protecting the lives of people, yet they want us to think they know what's best for adults.

Sad world we live in. When can we agree that the lives of all equal the same protection, under the law?

Thats not the question. The question is 'what is a life?'.

[au2004ece 30]

Democrats spend more time trying to protect the lives of whales and birds and less time protecting the lives of people, yet they want us to think they know what's best for adults.

Sad world we live in. When can we agree that the lives of all equal the same protection, under the law?

Thats not the question. The question is 'what is a life?'.

The question is "who decides what is a life?"

Each person can have their own answer to your question.

I could decide that the person that cut me off on the way to work is not really "alive" and legally "abort" them if I get to decide on my own. I mean, I'll be healthier if this thing isn't there anymore to possibly cause me to get into an accident.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Democrats spend more time trying to protect the lives of whales and birds and less time protecting the lives of people, yet they want us to think they know what's best for adults.

Sad world we live in. When can we agree that the lives of all equal the same protection, under the law?

Thats not the question. The question is 'what is a life?'.

Evidently, that's not the question at all, or the answer is more macabre than you want to admit. Because we allow abortions right up until delivery in many parts of this country as long as someone claims "health of the mother." A perfectly healthy infant can be chemically burned and sucked out of the womb just because. So apparently the definition of life favored by the Left simply means, "he/she hasn't traveled a few inches down a vagina and magically been bestowed with "You're a person" Fairy Dust.

[Grumps 3,706]

Democrats spend more time trying to protect the lives of whales and birds and less time protecting the lives of people, yet they want us to think they know what's best for adults.

Sad world we live in. When can we agree that the lives of all equal the same protection, under the law?

Thats not the question. The question is 'what is a life?'.

Evidently, that's not the question at all, or the answer is more macabre than you want to admit. Because we allow abortions right up until delivery in many parts of this country as long as someone claims "health of the mother." A perfectly healthy infant can be chemically burned and sucked out of the womb just because. So apparently the definition of life favored by the Left simply means, "he/she hasn't traveled a few inches down a vagina and magically been bestowed with "You're a person" Fairy Dust.

I have serious doubts as to whether it is common practice for pregnancies to be terminated for "the health of the mother." There is no doubt that the state of being pregnant is more dangerous than not being pregnant, but I think that most elective abortions are done at the request of the female patient, not to protect her health.

I have said this before, but while I think abortions all abortions are bad, I am not willing, at this point, to say that in all circumstances having an abortion is worse than not having an abortion. I would feel arrogant saying that I know what is in the best interest of all pregnant women. I absolutely think that a U.S. citizen should have more rights than should a fertilized egg. To say that personhood should start at conception seems silly to me. Approximately half of all pregnancies result in miscarriage (though most of the time the woman did not know she was temporarily pregnant).

On the other hand, there is no legitimate reason to have a 3rd trimester abortion...NONE. It should be outlawed today. There are situations when the mother's life is at risk and pregancy is induced even though it puts the child at extreme risk due to prematurity, but I have NEVER heard of a situation where it was medically necessary to perform a 3rd trimester abortion. When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights.

[au2004ece 30]

When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights.

No child is fully viable even after it is born or for many years after that time. A child cannot go get its own food.

[Justin5 20]

I'll respectively leave this issue alone any further. I understand the problems some have, but as I said earlier - its the law. Change the law, and I'll follow the new law.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I'll respectively leave this issue alone any further. I understand the problems some have, but as I said earlier - its the law. Change the law, and I'll follow the new law.

Then I would ask, at what point does a law become morally problematic enough for you to engage in civil disobedience or at least fervently fight to get it changed? Surely you're not suggesting that we should just follow laws no matter what they are.

[Grumps 3,706]

When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights.

No child is fully viable even after it is born or for many years after that time. A child cannot go get its own food.

This seems like way too important of an issue to playing semantic games, but here:

vi·a·ble

adj.

1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights.

No child is fully viable even after it is born or for many years after that time. A child cannot go get its own food.

This seems like way too important of an issue to playing semantic games, but here:

vi·a·ble

adj.

1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

The problem is, there respected intellectuals in this country that are actually arguing that infanticide is justifiable in certain circumstances, based largely on the very same reasoning you guys just went through above...viability, ability to survive on it's own, etc. So it's not just an exercise in semantics.

What au2004ece asked also matters because modern medicine and science is backing up the date of "viability" for a child within the womb further and further. We're now at approximately 20 weeks gestation, well within the 2nd trimester, for a child to be known to have survived outside the womb.

The details matter.

[Grumps 3,706]

When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights.

No child is fully viable even after it is born or for many years after that time. A child cannot go get its own food.

This seems like way too important of an issue to playing semantic games, but here:

vi·a·ble

adj.

1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

The problem is, there respected intellectuals in this country that are actually arguing that infanticide is justifiable in certain circumstances, based largely on the very same reasoning you guys just went through above...viability, ability to survive on it's own, etc. So it's not just an exercise in semantics.

What au2004ece asked also matters because modern medicine and science is backing up the date of "viability" for a child within the womb further and further. We're now at approximately 20 weeks gestation, well within the 2nd trimester, for a child to be known to have survived outside the womb.

The details matter.

There is a huge difference is "the details" and in semantics. "Viable" is a medical term with a specific meaning. Yes, the age of viability is being changed via medical advances. But, it is a fact that a 24 week baby or fetus or whatever you call it is viable. It does no good to argue when a child can survive on its own with no help from an adult. All that argument does is distract everyone from the real issues.

[Grumps 3,706]

The real issue isn't even "when does life begin?" The real issue is "when does a life obtain legal rights?" and "how are a life's legal rights affected by its mother's legal right to control her body?"

[au2004ece 30]

When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights.

No child is fully viable even after it is born or for many years after that time. A child cannot go get its own food.

This seems like way too important of an issue to playing semantic games, but here:

vi·a·ble

adj.

1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

The problem is, there respected intellectuals in this country that are actually arguing that infanticide is justifiable in certain circumstances, based largely on the very same reasoning you guys just went through above...viability, ability to survive on it's own, etc. So it's not just an exercise in semantics.

What au2004ece asked also matters because modern medicine and science is backing up the date of "viability" for a child within the womb further and further. We're now at approximately 20 weeks gestation, well within the 2nd trimester, for a child to be known to have survived outside the womb.

The details matter.

There is a huge difference is "the details" and in semantics. "Viable" is a medical term with a specific meaning. Yes, the age of viability is being changed via medical advances. But, it is a fact that a 24 week baby or fetus or whatever you call it is viable. It does no good to argue when a child can survive on its own with no help from an adult. All that argument does is distract everyone from the real issues.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

Perhaps in your bitterness that somebody questioned you, you were unable to see my point.

My point is not to play semantics. My point is to remove such an arbitrary distinction of viable vs non-viable from the process of determining human life because there are certain conditions that must be met for all of our lives to continue whether we are in a womb or have already been born. It is my opinion that the existence of one set of conditions (needing to be in womb) cannot be used to make us "not alive" or "without rights" if the existence of any other condition (needing others to give us food) doesn't have the same effect.

It is a logical error to say:

Condition A is required for continued life/development of organism X.

Condition B is required for continued life/development of organism X.

The requirement of Condition A means X is not a life and doesn't have rights. The requirement of Condition B does not matter, X is still a life and still has rights.

Is this point valid enough or do I still need to not read your posts?

You say I'm distracting from the real issue. I say the discussion of viability that you brought up is a distraction from the real issue of ending a pregnancy by intentional force because without the intentional force, the pregnancy would have later led to a point where the baby met your standard of viability.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Good article on this topic.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/02/thirdtrimester-abortions-facts-stories-and-how-you-can-help-0

It appears that about 1% of abortions are what you would call "late term".

[autigeremt 6,970]

Good article on this topic.

http://www.rhreality...-you-can-help-0

It appears that about 1% of abortions are what you would call "late term".

Planned Parenthood's own records now show 5,320,095 surgical and medical abortions done at Planned Parenthood centers from 1970 through the end of 2009. That's more than the existing population of 29 states. 1% of that group would be a huge number. I'm not against abortion in situations that involve the life of the mother or rape. If there's a reason that involves the life of the mother or a woman is forced into sex I cannot fault her. However, if the abortion is due to irresponsibility then there should be options presented to include adoption. We have aborted way too many children in this country due to the lack of responsible choices.

Like Ron Paul stated, morality cannot be changed from government. I say he's right, but I'd add that morality must present itself in law to protect those who cannot protect themselves, including the unborn. This issue is a tough one for many, but LIFE should represent everyone involved, not just the mother or the child.

[arnaldoabru 11]

There is an option, the women can give it up for adoption

[Grumps 3,706]

When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights.

No child is fully viable even after it is born or for many years after that time. A child cannot go get its own food.

This seems like way too important of an issue to playing semantic games, but here:

vi·a·ble

adj.

1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

The problem is, there respected intellectuals in this country that are actually arguing that infanticide is justifiable in certain circumstances, based largely on the very same reasoning you guys just went through above...viability, ability to survive on it's own, etc. So it's not just an exercise in semantics.

What au2004ece asked also matters because modern medicine and science is backing up the date of "viability" for a child within the womb further and further. We're now at approximately 20 weeks gestation, well within the 2nd trimester, for a child to be known to have survived outside the womb.

The details matter.

There is a huge difference is "the details" and in semantics. "Viable" is a medical term with a specific meaning. Yes, the age of viability is being changed via medical advances. But, it is a fact that a 24 week baby or fetus or whatever you call it is viable. It does no good to argue when a child can survive on its own with no help from an adult. All that argument does is distract everyone from the real issues.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

Perhaps in your bitterness that somebody questioned you, you were unable to see my point.

My point is not to play semantics. My point is to remove such an arbitrary distinction of viable vs non-viable from the process of determining human life because there are certain conditions that must be met for all of our lives to continue whether we are in a womb or have already been born. It is my opinion that the existence of one set of conditions (needing to be in womb) cannot be used to make us "not alive" or "without rights" if the existence of any other condition (needing others to give us food) doesn't have the same effect.

It is a logical error to say:

Condition A is required for continued life/development of organism X.

Condition B is required for continued life/development of organism X.

The requirement of Condition A means X is not a life and doesn't have rights. The requirement of Condition B does not matter, X is still a life and still has rights.

Is this point valid enough or do I still need to not read your posts?

You say I'm distracting from the real issue. I say the discussion of viability that you brought up is a distraction from the real issue of ending a pregnancy by intentional force because without the intentional force, the pregnancy would have later led to a point where the baby met your standard of viability.

1. I apologize for misinterpreting what you meant. I was wrong and I did not mean to come across as being bitter.

2. One of the reasons I misinterpreted what you meant was that I do not consider "viable" to be an arbitrary term, for the most part. Either you are capable of living outside the womb or you are not...the operative word being "capable." That does not mean that other forces are not allowed to help you survive. Based on the medical definition of viable, I assumed that you were being silly by implying that a 2 year old child is not viable. I overreacted to what I thought was you being silly on this extremely important and complex topic. Again, I apologize.

3. I stated "When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights." I was stating my opinion. I may be wrong, but that is still my opinion. Right now a viable fetus has almost no rights. I truly do not even have a good opinion of when I think a fetus should start being protected by the U.S. Constitution. I put that sentence out there because it is certainly my opinion. When do you think a fetus should start having rights? I would sincerely like to know.

[au2004ece 30]

When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights.

No child is fully viable even after it is born or for many years after that time. A child cannot go get its own food.

This seems like way too important of an issue to playing semantic games, but here:

vi·a·ble

adj.

1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

The problem is, there respected intellectuals in this country that are actually arguing that infanticide is justifiable in certain circumstances, based largely on the very same reasoning you guys just went through above...viability, ability to survive on it's own, etc. So it's not just an exercise in semantics.

What au2004ece asked also matters because modern medicine and science is backing up the date of "viability" for a child within the womb further and further. We're now at approximately 20 weeks gestation, well within the 2nd trimester, for a child to be known to have survived outside the womb.

The details matter.

There is a huge difference is "the details" and in semantics. "Viable" is a medical term with a specific meaning. Yes, the age of viability is being changed via medical advances. But, it is a fact that a 24 week baby or fetus or whatever you call it is viable. It does no good to argue when a child can survive on its own with no help from an adult. All that argument does is distract everyone from the real issues.

I would suggest either making a legitimate point or just reading the other people's posts.

Perhaps in your bitterness that somebody questioned you, you were unable to see my point.

My point is not to play semantics. My point is to remove such an arbitrary distinction of viable vs non-viable from the process of determining human life because there are certain conditions that must be met for all of our lives to continue whether we are in a womb or have already been born. It is my opinion that the existence of one set of conditions (needing to be in womb) cannot be used to make us "not alive" or "without rights" if the existence of any other condition (needing others to give us food) doesn't have the same effect.

It is a logical error to say:

Condition A is required for continued life/development of organism X.

Condition B is required for continued life/development of organism X.

The requirement of Condition A means X is not a life and doesn't have rights. The requirement of Condition B does not matter, X is still a life and still has rights.

Is this point valid enough or do I still need to not read your posts?

You say I'm distracting from the real issue. I say the discussion of viability that you brought up is a distraction from the real issue of ending a pregnancy by intentional force because without the intentional force, the pregnancy would have later led to a point where the baby met your standard of viability.

1. I apologize for misinterpreting what you meant. I was wrong and I did not mean to come across as being bitter.

2. One of the reasons I misinterpreted what you meant was that I do not consider "viable" to be an arbitrary term, for the most part. Either you are capable of living outside the womb or you are not...the operative word being "capable." That does not mean that other forces are not allowed to help you survive. Based on the medical definition of viable, I assumed that you were being silly by implying that a 2 year old child is not viable. I overreacted to what I thought was you being silly on this extremely important and complex topic. Again, I apologize.

3. I stated "When the fetus is viable then I can start to see giving it rights." I was stating my opinion. I may be wrong, but that is still my opinion. Right now a viable fetus has almost no rights. I truly do not even have a good opinion of when I think a fetus should start being protected by the U.S. Constitution. I put that sentence out there because it is certainly my opinion. When do you think a fetus should start having rights? I would sincerely like to know.

1. OK, cool.

2. I believe viability is arbitrary, not in the medical sense but in the moral or legal sense, because without intentional force the pregnancy will continue in the womb, so the ability to survive outside of the womb is irrelevant.

3. I find it very difficult to look at the issue from a legal perspective. I believe that nobody should choose to have an abortion just because they don't want to have a child. I believe they decided they were OK with a pregnancy when they decided to have sex.

However, I believe assigning rights to the unborn is impossible. But, they doesn't mean the unborn cannot be protected. We have laws against animal cruelty and no animal has constitutional rights.

On the issue of the "choice" of the mother, we have other laws that limit "choice" when it comes to what drugs individuals are allowed to take. The doctor gets to decide what drugs to prescribe us, and the doctor has a legal responsibility to be sure there is sound medical reason to prescribe us a certain drug. I believe the same responsibility should fall on doctors when it comes to abortions. If doctors perform abortions for non-medical, purely choice, reasons, they should lose their license to practice medicine because they are no longer upholding the principle of "first, do no harm".

[Grumps 3,706]

We know that women have legal rights when it comes to their bodies. It seems to me that unless we give the unborn legal rights THAT TAKE PRECEDENT over a woman's right to control her own body, then you cannot really protect the unborn. The point of protecting animals even though they don't have legal rights is a good one, but protecting an animal doesn't infringe on another person's legal rights, as far as I can tell.

Regarding physicians, the way I see it is that a physician's responsibility is to his/her patient, first and foremost. If a physician competently performs an approved, legal procedure on his/her patient then I do not see how that physician should be subject to any disciplinary action, even if the result of the procedure is death to a fetus. Once again, this is a legal matter. Whether the physician has any guilt related to performing the procedure seems irrelevant. If abortions are outlawed then physicians who perform them should be prosecuted.