You have the same thought process that allows health insurance companies to decline paying for cancer treatments. If they are not involved, not the person or their doctor, why is "necessity" a thing they can make a judgement on? Is the person making that decision an oncologist? Did they provide an alternate treatment plan?

It's the person asking if the abortion is necessary the woman or their gynecologist? Obstetrician? Yoga instructor? Are they providing an alternate treatment plan?

[–] Free_Opinions 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If it was necessary for someone involved, it was necessary.

This reasoning can be used to justify a whole bunch of acts

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

Yeah, like most personal freedoms boil down to first party judgements being more valid than 3rd party.