It does. But there's a point where they cross. Again, you haven't gone back and read the accounts earlier. Fine, I'm summarize: a woman with fibroid tumors and a baby with no lungs. A woman with psychotic breaks and a baby with no brain. Would I kill my grandmother because she was ill? No. But then my grandmother, I assume, as lived a long life, full of experiences, and has her own opinion on these matters, moreover, I also assume that her potential to continue living is not measured in hours. And, I also assume, is not attached to my body and causing me medcial issues. A baby that CAN NOT live, that will die at birth or shortly thereafter, and is causing serious health problems to the mother, is an entirely different thing.
I'm mostly making a point about the lack of a health exception. You clearly know more about gestational diabetes than I do. I'm trying to point out that you can have intersections of circumstance that make the lack of a health exception particularly problematic. I'll assume that you don't think mental illness is a good reason to abort a baby. Fine, there's a good arguement for that. But to abort a baby that will DIE soon after birth, no doubt about it? (the longest an anaencephalic baby has ever lived was just shy of 2 years, with drastic intervention. Most die, with care or without, within hours, if they are not stillborn). Or perhaps my fiance's mother should have risked those fibroid tumors causing her serious harm . . . to give birth to a baby that would die a gasping death minutes afterwards? Why? What's the point? And do you think the government should force these women to go through this? To risk their health to give birth to a baby (a baby they wanted) only to watch it die in front of them?
I'm making a point of these complicated cases for a reason: that it is not black and white, that "health exception"/"no health exception" is not an easy question. That risks that make sense with a healthy baby make no sense with one that is already dying. Mostly, that these are calls that the law should not be making.
Edit: I'm not arguing whether you should, or should not, vote for McCain. At this point I'm making another point: that the law is a blunt instrument, and that many, on both sides, but especially on the pro-life side, have strong feelings and little information, and moreover, that political leaders have very little information . . . and a great incentive to whip up people's feelings to get them to vote for them. "Vote for me and I will save babies!" I can't argue with that. Unfortunately, the result could easily be poorly written laws that will have horrible consequences for people or are either perfectly innocent or who are making decisions that most people would make under those circumstances. That's really my point. McCain probably knows nothing about women's health (why would he?) but he's willing to make laws about it.
I'm mostly making a point about the lack of a health exception. You clearly know more about gestational diabetes than I do. I'm trying to point out that you can have intersections of circumstance that make the lack of a health exception particularly problematic. I'll assume that you don't think mental illness is a good reason to abort a baby. Fine, there's a good arguement for that. But to abort a baby that will DIE soon after birth, no doubt about it? (the longest an anaencephalic baby has ever lived was just shy of 2 years, with drastic intervention. Most die, with care or without, within hours, if they are not stillborn). Or perhaps my fiance's mother should have risked those fibroid tumors causing her serious harm . . . to give birth to a baby that would die a gasping death minutes afterwards? Why? What's the point? And do you think the government should force these women to go through this? To risk their health to give birth to a baby (a baby they wanted) only to watch it die in front of them?
I'm making a point of these complicated cases for a reason: that it is not black and white, that "health exception"/"no health exception" is not an easy question. That risks that make sense with a healthy baby make no sense with one that is already dying. Mostly, that these are calls that the law should not be making.
Edit: I'm not arguing whether you should, or should not, vote for McCain. At this point I'm making another point: that the law is a blunt instrument, and that many, on both sides, but especially on the pro-life side, have strong feelings and little information, and moreover, that political leaders have very little information . . . and a great incentive to whip up people's feelings to get them to vote for them. "Vote for me and I will save babies!" I can't argue with that. Unfortunately, the result could easily be poorly written laws that will have horrible consequences for people or are either perfectly innocent or who are making decisions that most people would make under those circumstances. That's really my point. McCain probably knows nothing about women's health (why would he?) but he's willing to make laws about it.
As far as forcing laws onto people in places the government should stay out of. Well that is why I am more afraid of Obama being president.