Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 16,848
- 13,784
- 146
Yes, that does tend to be how both the law and medicine work. For example, with normal pregnancies, women generally aren't allowed to schedule a C-section instead of a vaginal birth. But under certain circumstances (such as very large babies, prior C-sections, complications during labor that increase the risk of problems during a vaginal delivery) an exception is made and a woman is allowed to choose to have a C-section.
It wasn't actually my intent to argue over what a woman can choose to do with her body, I just don't like when people use bad arguments to try to demonize people with different fundamental beliefs as irrational hypocrites. That said, we don't allow women to do whatever they want with their bodies. We don't allow them to get third-trimester voluntary abortions, we don't allow them to ingest opiods without a prescription, we don't allow them to schedule voluntary C-sections in normal, first pregnancies two weeks in advance of their projected due date, etc... The argument that we shouldn't restrict woman from choosing what to do with their bodies at all would require some major changes to our society. However, that doesn't mean we should go the other way and say that women should never be allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with hospital births but in my area hospitals are 40+% C-section rates. For all intents and purposes if a woman wants a C section she's getting it. The quote I've heard from doctors are "The only C-sections I get sued for are the ones I didn't do".
This is despite C-sections having much longer recovery times and slightly worse maternal mortality rates.