>> Of course it's not a moral issue. It's a mere medical decision
>> by a woman.
>
>Many women who have abortions do not have them because there is a
>medical reason to do so, so I would not frame abortion as a
>medical decision. Unless the woman's life or health are
>threatened it is not medically necessary to have an abortion. It
>is a social decision that the woman makes: to propagate or not to
>propagate. The procedure is a medical procedure but the woman's
>decision often exists independent of the practice of medicine.
If only a grave threat to a person's life or health is to be a criterion to determine what counts as medicine, many "medical" decisions can't be called medical. What is the criterion for "medical necessity" of flu shots, eyeglasses, massages to ease back pains, orthodontic & prosthodontic procedures, well-balanced diets, assisted living, etc., given such a criterion? Most of us _can_ manage to "live" without them, can we, but lives without them aren't the same as lives with them, as institutionalization is not the same as assisted living. I think that you may be equating "medical" with "medically necessary to prevent death or gravely ill health" in the above remarks of yours.
Given the current attacks on access to health care, we might have to be careful not to narrow the scope of what counts as medical decisions. This question of definition has repercussions beyond reproductive health and concerns health in general and who pays for it. It is tragic that what is said to be "merely desirable" -- a matter of "choice" -- has to be not socially but individually paid for. In the context of privatization & deregulation, we individually assume risks, do "comparison shopping," watch out for "waste," and become efficient & effective "consumers" of medical services. What should be a matter of medical decision-making becomes a "consumer" decision in rhetoric, an object of statistical cost-benefit analysis for HMOs, insurance companies, etc. in fact. Therefore, we might endeavor to give a more holistic account of what counts as medicine and health; otherwise, why not make disabled persons individually pay for home care & assisted living -- it's a matter of "choice," calculated against the "choices" of institutionalization & care by family members & friends? Under capitalism, we have either an "individual choice" or "medical necessity" -- we have _by definition_ no "social decision," for capitalism doesn't allow "social decisions" to exist (except for the purpose of social control). So, the contraction of "medical necessity" usually translates into the expansion of "individual choice," which means "personal responsibility" in effect. And that's bad for all of us.
I long for the day when abortion, as well as a host of other services such as assisted living, will become generally regarded as a _socially beneficial_ service to be made use of _individually_, but such a day has yet to come.
Yoshie