An abortion agreement that could be put into place.

[AGENT J]

Perhaps you have never confronted the hypocrisy of your views before.
It is not a difficult concept to argue that female reproduction should be entirely under the control of the individual female, so I am not surprised that you can not support your opposition to that idea.

that must be it!
ill let everybody know in the groups I've worked with and in my local Pittsburgh chapter that we are all doing it wrong and have been for all these years.
ill report back to you and let you know if you started a revolution of true prochoicers instead of the faux ones they have all been!!!!

i feel an awakening coming! it will be like Q but even better!!!!!

 

[AGENT J]

How come authoritarian abortion prohibitionists never point out that 'late-term' abortions are rare

because that would ruin their fantasies they sell to suckers that "babys" are being "murdered" just moments before they are born or born and just left in the corner to die!!!
dont you know thats how us prochoicers really want it lol

 

[roguenuke]

Any doctor should be expected to provide the range of medical services consistent with their training in the context of the medical need and practice arrangement.
No healthcare provider should be allowed to deprive patients of needed medical care because the provider has moral, religious, or ethical objections to that care.

It was merely an analogy. Plastic surgery is often not supported by health insurance and that limits the decisions in most cases.

No. Doctors should not be forced to provide any procedure they feel is not necessary, including an abortion. That being said, if a doctor wants to provide that procedure, including an abortion, for whatever reasons their patient feels is important to them, that should not be restricted unless there is evidence of unnecessary harm, violating their oath.

Not sure why you are so adamant about this, but it feels more like someone trying to be able to say "see, you really aren't for all abortions" than someone really caring about this issue.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

No healthcare provider should be allowed to deprive patients of needed medical care because the provider has moral, religious, or ethical objections to that care.

It was merely an analogy. Plastic surgery is often not supported by health insurance and that limits the decisions in most cases.

BS. Nobody is "deprived". There is a multitude of [government-licensed] 'doctors.' Mind your business and stop using government to force people to do what YOU want.

 

[holbritter]

Why should there be anything before viability (~24 weeks) when almost none are done for elective reasons after 20 weeks? They are due to medical reasons or less likely, women are unable to get one earlier because of lack of access/need to travel/save funds.

What is it about that timeframe that makes some distinction for the unborn or the woman between other times?

If almost none are elective after 20 weeks, why do you care if that's the cut off? Why not agree to that compromise and have the issue settled? BTW I'm for a 24 week limit for elective abortions.

 

[Spock]

No. Doctors should not be forced to provide any procedure they feel is not necessary, including an abortion. That being said, if a doctor wants to provide that procedure, including an abortion, for whatever reasons their patient feels is important to them, that should not be restricted unless there is evidence of unnecessary harm, violating their oath.

Many healthcare providers are exerting religious objections to lawful healthcare and that should be prohibited.

Not sure why you are so adamant about this, but it feels more like someone trying to be able to say "see, you really aren't for all abortions" than someone really caring about this issue.

Rather than criticizing me, you should be examining the hypocrisy of your position. One cannot rationally argue that women should have autonomy for some arbitrary interval and then impose restrictions unless the argument for that restriction is that suddenly the pregnant female has lost bodily autonomy. Are you willing to support laws that restrict your other medical decisions at ANY time in your life outside pregnancy?

 

[holbritter]

Should the state take control of the pregnancy at late term, as you suggest, then the logical next step would be to demand that pregnant women preserve the health of the fetus by all means possible. Drug and alcohol addicts should be incarcerated; horseback riding by pregnant women should be outlawed; specific nutritional regimes and behaviors should be required of women to produce optimum human husbandry (ironic term). In the event of a homicide involving the mother, the perpetrator should be charged with multiple murders. In the event of a sudden fetal demise, there should be a presumption of guilt directed toward the mother.

That is a far from logical next step

 

[Spock]

That is a far from logical next step

Not really. It has been suggested by some people that the state has a vested interest in preserving late term pregnancies and the best preservation would involve ensuring the best possible physiologic support of the fetus.

 

[Spock]

BS. Nobody is "deprived". There is a multitude of [government-licensed] 'doctors.' Mind your business and stop using government to force people to do what YOU want.

Not making much sense there.
American healthcare is highly selective and increasingly influenced by arbitrary decisions by providers. There are insufficient resources in the US to indulge the personal religious biases of healthcare providers.

 

[roguenuke]

Many healthcare providers are exerting religious objections to lawful healthcare and that should be prohibited.


Rather than criticizing me, you should be examining the hypocrisy of your position. One cannot rationally argue that women should have autonomy for some arbitrary interval and then impose restrictions unless the argument for that restriction is that suddenly the pregnant female has lost bodily autonomy. Are you willing to support laws that restrict your other medical decisions at ANY time in your life outside pregnancy?

If it is medically necessary, then they shouldn't be allowed to simply declare religious exemption from performing a medical procedure. However, elective surgeries have always had exceptions when it comes to whether a doctor has to perform them. For example, you cannot simply go into the ER and tell doctors you want one of them to remove your appendix, even if they may need to do so in other circumstances.

I'm criticizing your complaints that are based around basically trying to take away other people's rights. Rights are always balanced. In this case, the doctor does have rights to refuse, including for abortion.

I support laws that restrict some of my medical decisions, absolutely, based on a doctor refusing to perform it for me. That doesn't mean that I'm support the doctor's decision. But I don't want a doctor performing a procedure on me that they didn't want to do but by law were forced to do when it comes to something especially not life threatening.

I want doctors to understand that women should not be forced to show they've had kids or wait until their over 30 to get a tubal ligation. If a woman comes in and says they don't want kids, want a TL, even in their early 20s, then I'd prefer there are doctors around that would do that for them. But I wouldn't want doctors forced to perform these surgeries on anyone simply because they asked for it.

I don't support abortion restrictions from the government. However, again, doctors should still be able to refuse for most reasons.

 

[Spock]

I don't support abortion restrictions from the government

Do you support abortion restrictions at or near term?

 

[roguenuke]

Do you support abortion restrictions at or near term?

Not legal ones, no. I believe it should be left up to the patient and doctor. No legal restrictions. I trust those who are pregnant and the doctors.

 

[Atreus21]

View attachment 67468851


View attachment 67468850

Try again, perhaps?

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Not making much sense there.
American healthcare is highly selective and increasingly influenced by arbitrary decisions by providers. There are insufficient resources in the US to indulge the personal religious biases of healthcare providers.

Forcing people to perform functions they find immoral, disgusting, etc. is monstrous, stooooooooooooopid, etc. Same with forcing someone to decorate a cake in a way that is immoral and disgusting to the decorator. This is simple common sense and respect for the rights of others.

[Authoritarians HATE people being able to say NO to them!]

 

[roguenuke]

Forcing people to perform functions they find immoral, disgusting, etc. is monstrous, stooooooooooooopid, etc. Same with forcing someone to decorate a cake in a way that is immoral and disgusting to the decorator. This is simple common sense and respect for the rights of others.

[Authoritarians HATE people being able to say NO to them!]

There is a huge difference in refusing a service that you would not perform for anyone and refusing to perform a service due to their race, sex, religion, sexuality, etc. I think that if an abortion doctor was refusing to perform an abortion at 32 weeks pregnancy for a white woman or couple but agree to do one for a black woman or black/mixed race couple, then that should be a valid reason for a lawsuit, if it can be shown their reasoning was based on race or relative race of the couple alone for the difference in decision.

 

[Atreus21]

You think you are being cute - but we had a dear friend recently recognize the 1 year anniversary of their FOUR YEAR OLD passing.

Their FAMILY decided along with their DOCTORS to move the FOUR YEAR OLD to hospice care because the child had a terminal illness that was NEVER GOING TO GET BETTER. So they made her comfortable with a LOT of pain killers and allowed that child to pass.

So, yes…I think the government should stay out of it if there is a 2 year old that has a terminal condition and the family and doctors decide that allowing that child to pass away is the most merciful thing that can be done for it.

But…do continue to flounce around pretending to be in a morally superior place or know better. It’s a good look.

I mean no disparagement to your friend - this is strictly hypothetical. If the four year old hadn't been terminally ill and they simply murdered her, do you think the government should have a say in that?

 

[Atreus21]

Show where a healthy 39 week old fetus was killed in the US from an elective abortion.

But attachment, living off the woman's resources is the delineation there. The reality is though that at 39 weeks, they would induce labor anyway, not perform an abortion.

Not the point. Hamish Howl said that if it's in the womb, it's not a baby. Are you going to contend that a 39 week fetus still in the womb isn't a baby?

 

[Spock]

Not the point. Hamish Howl said that if it's in the womb, it's not a baby. Are you going to contend that a 39 week fetus still in the womb isn't a baby?

How do you want to define "baby"? I think you have a problem there.
It certainly isn't a newborn if it is still in the uterus.

 

[Spock]

I mean no disparagement to your friend - this is strictly hypothetical. If the four year old hadn't been terminally ill and they simply murdered her, do you think the government should have a say in that?

You cannot distinguish "intrauterine" and "extrauterine" conditions. Most people can.

 

[Atreus21]

No, that wasn’t the premise…but you weren’t going for an actual representation of my premise.

You're not the OP. The OP said this: "History has shown that you cannot stop abortions, it cannot be done. Since the end of Roe the number of abortions have incresed even with many states passing restrictive laws. So, what shoulld we do, set up reasonable laws."

My summation of "abortion can't be prevented and, presumably, should therefore be legal" seems reasonable enough to me.

So, since you want to go at the “murder” angle:

Is hospice care “murder”?

If you are deliberately killing an innocent human being yes. If someone is dying of an illness and is kept alive only by life support, there things get complicated. But what you aren't doing is deliberately killing them - the disease is deliberately killing them.

Is assisted suicide “murder”?

That probably depends on circumstances.

Is refusing medical treatment “murder”?

Again, that depends on circumstances. But all of these are murky and complicated areas. Abortion is most often not murky. If a mother wants to kill her 20 week old fetus when both are perfectly healthy, should that be allowed?

You toss out the word “murder” very cavalierly…

Okay, then we'll use theft. Theft can't be 100% prevented. Should it therefore be allowed?

 

[vanceen]

It is hard for you to distinguish an autonomous human child from the physiologic parasite that is a gestating fetus.
Which can breath? which can breast feed? which can typically walk and often talk? which is capable of problem-solving cognition?

So, logically, your position is that any human who can't breathe unaided, or breast feed, or walk, or talk, or who does not have problem solving cognition...

Does not deserve to live.

 

[Atreus21]

Being able to have their lungs inflate and breathe oxygen vs. receiving their oxygen and nutrients via the umbilical cord after the mother’s body has done all of the metabolic work of creating oxygen rich blood and nutrients that the fetus absorbs and utilizes to grow.

Being an independent human being not reliant upon the woman’s body for life giving sustenance.

Infants are reliant on their mothers for sustenance, in fact probably more so after birth. Why can't we kill them for the same reasons we kill the unborn?

 

[Spock]

So, logically, your position is that any human who can't breathe unaided, or breast feed, or walk, or talk, or who does not have problem solving cognition...

Does not deserve to live.

Should I have stated air breathing to make the comparison clearer to you. However, we currently view those who cannot breath spontaneously and do not have more than vegetative brain activity to be dead. We should probably require you to stipulate if you believe humans exist from conception because if you do, your subsequent reasoning is purely religious and not consistent with physiology.

 

[BirdinHand]

Infants are reliant on their mothers for sustenance, in fact probably more so after birth. Why can't we kill them for the same reasons we kill the unborn?

No, infants aren’t reliant upon their mothers.

Any human can feed them, care for them, etc.

You realize you can even feed an infant breast milk without the actual mother producing it, right?

A fetus is INSIDE the mother’s body. A baby is outside the mother’s body.

I know it is a very hard concept to understand - the difference between being INSIDE a uterus and being OUTSIDE and not attached to the woman and reliant upon her bodily functions.

Should we resort to pictures and crayons? Would that help?

 

[BabaVoss]

History has shown that you cannot stop abortions, it cannot be done.

Agreed.

Since the end of Roe the number of abortions have incresed even with many states passing restrictive laws. So, what shoulld we do, set up reasonable laws. First, I am a Catholic and do not like the idea of abortions, but my religion should not control everyone in the country. I think a reasonable law would be the 20 weeks set by the Roe decision. rape, incest, and the woman's health. Considering the woman's health, her doctor should decide when it is necesssary and that should not be questioned by the law or the courts.

This kind of decision belongs in the hands of the woman involved, her loved ones, and her doctor. End of story. It should NOT be up to the government - which is what the forced-birth crowd wants.