Scenario 1. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman agrees; the litigation is performed.
Scenario 2. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman disagrees. The state intervenes and forces the woman to be sterilized.
Scenario 3. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman disagrees. The state does not intervene. The doctor continues to perform abortions.
At which point you Steely_D jump in here and give us stylized facts of the health risk for women who frequently receive abortions.
All situations where the state decides what should be medically done are wrong. Physicians should be trained in good health care, communicate options to and work with the patients or their proxies, and be censured/defrocked by a medical board if they're giving bad care (which includes assault if they perform care that the patient doesn't want). "Bad care" isn't decided in the giant compromise of the legislature.
No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Jan 28, 2023 - 7:02pm
Steely_D wrote:
No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
And you get this information where? And what business is it of yours how many "abortions" a woman has? Do you consider Plan B or morning after pill an abortion?
You're kinda jumping in late, so read a few posts prior to this instead of asking me to do it for you.
And, you could give your opinion on the topic instead of just throwing more question bombs.
No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
'You' is definitely not me. All the same.....
Scenario 1. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman agrees; the litigation is performed.
Scenario 2. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman disagrees. The state intervenes and forces the woman to be sterilized.
Scenario 3. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman disagrees. The state does not intervene. The doctor continues to perform abortions.
At which point you Steely_D jump in here and give us stylized facts of the health risk for women who frequently receive abortions.
...how did I do all that without the internet (& cell phone)? I mean, canoe routes, canoe rentals, freight train schedules, rendezvous in Michigan, etc. Planning took a lot more time in the old days.
Yup, it did.
Still prefer foldable maps for overall directional context instead of a focus on nearby restaurants.
No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
And you get this information where? And what business is it of yours how many "abortions" a woman has? Do you consider Plan B or morning after pill an abortion?
...how did I do all that without the internet (& cell phone)? I mean, canoe routes, canoe rentals, freight train schedules, rendezvous in Michigan, etc. Planning took a lot more time in the old days.
Woa General Patton; I see what you did there. Had no idea you were Hall Monitor over the rules. Buttons noted.
Yes, I agree politicians shouldn't be legislating anti-abortion or any other sort of medical care.
No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
* - I didn't say anything about "brutal." You're adding in your own thoughts there, not mine.
** - let's save gun control for a different time, since this is such a complex topic on its own.
*** - doesn't matter what you "believe." The fact is that it's a different, separate thing - yes, dependent on the mother's body.
**** - not sure why you brought that up. My post doesn't include the words sacred/special/angelic.
***** - like you are hanging at the Neo natal ward? Be careful what criteria you set up as "truly caring."
****** - and yet, true. There are women out there IRL that have had that many abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
*******- Wait, it takes sperm to make pregnancy? Well that's news to me. But the post was talking about abortion. Let's stay in that arena for a bit, OK?
And I think you missed the point of the whole post: politicians shouldn't be legislating anti-abortion or any other sort of medical care. Are you with me on that or do you just want to get lost in the weeds?
Woa General Patton; I see what you did there. Had no idea you were Hall Monitor over the rules. Buttons noted.
Yes, I agree politicians shouldn't be legislating anti-abortion or any other sort of medical care.
You guys probably know I have a medical background, so I've had to think about this abortion topic a bit. I've delivered nearly 100 babies. Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.
I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for more than one woman who has had almost twenty abortions.
But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.
To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)
So abortion is really talking about the consequence to another -potentially- living thing. But let's not get too black&white about it. Truly, up to a certain point, it can be something as non-human as a morula, which is not something I would consider a baby or fetus or whatever. So I'm gonna jump completely out of the topic of "but when is it a baby?"
But here's where I do jump back in, and the point of this ramble: politicians have no business legislating health care, and that includes abortion. They don't know enough, and the knowledge base of health care changes constantly, when it's done right. In my home town, one of the elected officials was a C student but a good basketball player and I completely believe that he can't read a lot of the polysyllabic words in this screed. And yet he's pontificating at meetings about what "should" be done on this topic and others, and frequently by invoking Christianity. Makes me livid.
TL;DR: medical care decisions shouldn't be legislated by people who don't know the topic; they need to stay in their lane and let medical boards decide who is/isn't giving bad medical care.
Thanks for your insightful and personal comments.
In that world, where we all understand the existential value of our existence, and weighed that in each of our choices, I agree. Leave it 100% to the individual. But that's not the world we live in.
Eventually, at some stage of the debate, politicians will play a role...and I'm searching for the best way they can play that role, and in the most informed way.
Don't know at what stage that abortion was performed, but if it was as brutal as it must have seemed to you *, its too bad the politicians who rally for zero gun control didn't have to look at the mutilated bodies of unidentifiable fourth graders**. Perhaps if they did, they would be as circumspect as you.
As for me, the woman's body supports the pregnancy before viability, so if SHE dies, the fetus dies as well. It IS and must remain part of her body until viability. My belief is its NOT a separate life form until it can thrive outside the womb.*** Fertilized eggs are often flushed with menses without a woman's (or society's) knowledge and we all know that the first three months are a time where most spontaneous abortions - miscarriages - take place. There is nothing sacred, special or angelic about this. ****
And yes, politicians who decide medical issues are controlling the woman's body, because if they truly cared about Life, they'd be at the nearest neo natal ward, holding infants and writing checks for their care, not protesting or sitting behind a keyboard to use the issue as a cudgel to bash women with.*****
Your assertion that you've been with women who've had nearly 20 abortions sounds a bit dramatic,****** yet its telling that you comment that pregnancy prevention is the woman's body.
Surely you know it takes male sperm to make a pregnancy and they can and should use contraception too. We'd have a lot fewer unplanned pregnancies if women could simply take Daddy's DNA to the State and say he's gotta pay and help raise what he helped make. Condom sales would go through the roof. *******
* - I didn't say anything about "brutal." You're adding in your own thoughts there, not mine.
** - let's save gun control for a different time, since this is such a complex topic on its own.
*** - doesn't matter what you "believe." The fact is that it's a different, separate thing - yes, dependent on the mother's body.
**** - not sure why you brought that up. My post doesn't include the words sacred/special/angelic.
***** - like you are hanging at the Neo natal ward? Be careful what criteria you set up as "truly caring."
****** - and yet, true. There are women out there IRL that have had that many abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
*******- Wait, it takes sperm to make pregnancy? Well that's news to me. But the post was talking about abortion. Let's stay in that arena for a bit, OK?
And I think you missed the point of the whole post: politicians shouldn't be legislating anti-abortion or any other sort of medical care. Are you with me on that or do you just want to get lost in the weeds?
Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.
I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for women who have had almost twenty abortions.
But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.
To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)
Don't know at what stage that abortion was performed, but if it was as brutal as it must have seemed to you, its too bad the politicians who rally for zero gun control didn't have to look at the mutilated bodies of unidentifiable fourth graders. Perhaps if they did, they would be as circumspect as you.
As for me, the woman's body supports the pregnancy before viability, so if SHE dies, the fetus dies as well. It IS and must remain part of her body until viability. My belief is its NOT a separate life form until it can thrive outside the womb. Fertilized eggs are often flushed with menses without a woman's (or society's) knowledge and we all know that the first three months are a time where most spontaneous abortions - miscarriages - take place. There is nothing sacred, special or angelic about this.
And yes, politicians who decide medical issues are controlling the woman's body, because if they truly cared about Life, they'd be at the nearest neo natal ward, holding infants and writing checks for their care, not protesting or sitting behind a keyboard to use the issue as a cudgel to bash women with.
Your assertion that you've been with women who've had nearly 20 abortions sounds a bit dramatic, yet its telling that you comment that pregnancy prevention is the woman's body.
Surely you know it takes male sperm to make a pregnancy and they can and should use contraception too. We'd have a lot fewer unplanned pregnancies if women could simply take Daddy's DNA to the State and say he's gotta pay and help raise what he helped make. Condom sales would go through the roof.
You guys probably know I have a medical background, so I've had to think about this abortion topic a bit. I've delivered nearly 100 babies. Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.
I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for women who have had almost twenty abortions.
But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.
To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)
So abortion is really talking about the consequence to another -potentially- living thing. But let's not get too black&white about it. Truly, up to a certain point, it can be something as non-human as a morula, which is not something I would consider a baby or fetus or whatever. So I'm gonna jump completely out of the topic of "but when is it a baby?"
But here's where I do jump back in, and the point of this ramble: politicians have no business legislating health care. They don't know enough, and the knowledge base of health care changes constantly, when it's done right. In my home town, one of the elected officials was a C student but a good basketball player and I completely believe that he can't read a lot of the polysyllabic words in this screed. And yet he's pontificating at meetings about what "should" be done on this topic and others, and frequently by invoking Christianity. Makes me livid.
TL;DR: medical care decisions shouldn't be legislated by people who don't know the topic; they need to stay in their lane and let medical boards decide who is/isn't giving bad medical care.
thanks, cause i was just about to say something similar
except the delivering babies part
You guys probably know I have a medical background, so I've had to think about this abortion topic a bit. I've delivered nearly 100 babies. Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.
I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for more than one woman who has had almost twenty abortions.
But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.
To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)
So abortion is really talking about the consequence to another -potentially- living thing. But let's not get too black&white about it. Truly, up to a certain point, it can be something as non-human as a morula, which is not something I would consider a baby or fetus or whatever. So I'm gonna jump completely out of the topic of "but when is it a baby?"
But here's where I do jump back in, and the point of this ramble: politicians have no business legislating health care, and that includes abortion. They don't know enough, and the knowledge base of health care changes constantly, when it's done right. In my home town, one of the elected officials was a C student but a good basketball player and I completely believe that he can't read a lot of the polysyllabic words in this screed. And yet he's pontificating at meetings about what "should" be done on this topic and others, and frequently by invoking Christianity. Makes me livid.
TL;DR: medical care decisions shouldn't be legislated by people who don't know the topic; they need to stay in their lane and let medical boards decide who is/isn't giving bad medical care.
I understand your passionate response, but it didnât really address my question.
As for following the constitution on this issueâ¦itâs an arguable point. But if we look at it from a practical, historical perspective, abortion was largely allowed up until the point of âquickening,â which I believe is around mid-term. Still, thatâs only so relevant for the current debate that is needed.
Its a personal, private individual issue, not the issue of the community or the state. Period. There should never be any debate in a secular country regarding governing the operations or conditions of any American's internal organs. Period.
Or should I start reporting the conditions of my bowel movements too?
Either People who claim to care about "LIFE" do so at every point: Wars, Guns, Healthcare, etc. or its just merely indulging in Selective Morality. A preponderance of evidence supports the latter.
I see what you are after, and I think there is merit in it as a discussion. But there are significant differences in the issues that I think limit the usefulness of a 1:1 argument. Guns are a personal freedom and while they are specifically mentioned in the constitution, there are many personal freedoms where we accept limits (even guns). Abortion is a medical procedure that impacts many portions of the person's life, and honestly it impacts 0% of the lives of those protesting other than their ability to inflict their will on someone else.
I'm still okay with a few restrictions, but they would pretty much fall in line with what 99% of abortions already are. And I'd leave a wide swath of "medically necessary as defined by a doctor not a politician" that would probably wind up cover another 0.99%. I'm sure there are a handful of abortions that we could agree to take issue with, but I'd also say that a healthy society would have sex education, and health care systems that would eliminate the vast majority of what's left.
But I also don't really want broad gun restrictions. I think common sense would cover most of it. But since either we are lacking, or my definition is overly broad, then I do think there are a lot more restrictions that make sense. Mostly mine would be around where you should have them (theaters, stores, public venues, ect.), but I don't really think that's a solution. I think we need a cultural shift that would mock and shame someone sending a christmas card with the family holding guns. This is also the same cultural shift that would probably give more public health and general public societal support that would eliminate a lot of abortions. Not surprising then that while we are at a political stalemate, we won't be making much progress on these items.
See you next week after the next mass shooting where I'll just copy/paste this.
I can get behind your points, as a healthy start...and especially the bold.
Especially the point we could improve the overall health of our society, and the majority of issues we face, with better overall education.
Which brings to mind another thought, I think that (better education) might require an even more radical discussion... a real no child left behind policy.
