Do you agree with the PBA ban approved by the SCOTUS today?

[Jerry]

Many pro-choicers DON'T have a problem with it, others of us don't want legislators making medical decisions for us. Some of us believe that doctors are better prepared to advise us on what medical procedures are appropriate. Even if it is a procedure that is rarely needed, why shouldn't it be available when the best medical advice recommends it?

SOTUS didn't make any medical decisions for anyone.
SCOTUS interpreted the law and found it to be allowable under Roe-v-Wade.

If anyone is making medical decisions for anyone, it would be the state in question itself. However, the law comes about through the people themselves, as represented in the state congress. Therefore the people are making public policy for themselves.

Of, by and for the people. Not everyone of, by and for themselves. That's how this crazy place works.

 

[Jerry]

I am Pro-Choice and also prefer there to be no legislator against it and to allow the medical professionals make the decisions on medical procedures, not politicians and non-medical government officials.

Now where's your cartoon of a doctor pretending to be a Supreme Justice?

See, I can play this game also:
I am Anti-Choice and also prefer there to be no doctor for it and to allow the legal professionals make the decisions on law and public policy, not doctors and non-legal officials.

 

[jallman]

I am Pro-Choice but I celebrated the partial birth abortion ban. I was glad to see it finally happen, especially considering there are other medical procedures to use in the event of a woman's health being at risk.

Partial birth abortion was a barbaric practice that did not abort a pregnancy but rather gave unscrupulous doctors license to commit infanticide. I applaud the Supreme Court for finally showing some compassion and reason in this decision.

However, it will be interesting and necessary to see that this does not become a justification for limiting access to reasonable abortion procedures.

 

[OKgrannie]

SOTUS didn't make any medical decisions for anyone.
SCOTUS interpreted the law and found it to be allowable under Roe-v-Wade.

If anyone is making medical decisions for anyone, it would be the state in question itself. However, the law comes about through the people themselves, as represented in the state congress. Therefore the people are making public policy for themselves.

Of, by and for the people. Not everyone of, by and for themselves. That's how this crazy place works.

Many pro-choicers DON'T have a problem with it, others of us don't want legislators making medical decisions for us. Some of us believe that doctors are better prepared to advise us on what medical procedures are appropriate. Even if it is a procedure that is rarely needed, why shouldn't it be available when the best medical advice recommends it?

SCOTUS decided that our legislators COULD make medical decisions for us or least not allow our doctors to provide the choices they feel best under the circumstances. Those who insist abortion decisions belong at the state level of government must be very disappointed that the SC ruled the US Congress ban was constitutional, so much for states' rights.

 

[Jerry]

SCOTUS decided that our legislators COULD make medical decisions for us or least not allow our doctors to provide the choices they feel best under the circumstances. Those who insist abortion decisions belong at the state level of government must be very disappointed that the SC ruled the US Congress ban was constitutional, so much for states' rights.

You’re still going off on the "legislature making medical decisions for us" nonsense.

SCOTUS found that PBA is never medically necessary, so your argument is moot.

You're going to have to let this one go. Know which peaces to sacrifice.

 

[Gibberish]

Now where's your cartoon of a doctor pretending to be a Supreme Justice?

Are doctors trying to pass laws?

See, I can play this game also:
I am Anti-Choice and also prefer there to be no doctor for it and to allow the legal professionals make the decisions on law and public policy, not doctors and non-legal officials.

Medical policy is a thin line and requires educated medical professionals to make decisions per situation and in the best interest of the patient. You cannot declare a global law for all scenarios when it comes to medical or you will in fact be sentencing some citizens to their death with the law. When the medical health and well-being of an American citizen is in jeopardy then the doctor should be able to act in the best interest of the citizen. The ruling, as it sits now, forces the citizen to die in extreme circumstances and disallows any doctor to save said person's life.

I do not agree with abortions after 4 months and most certainly do not agree with partial birth abortions as a solution out of patient convenience (just not wanting to have a baby). The problem I have with this ruling is there are no exceptions for the well being and safety of the mother in extreme circumstances, or if the fetus is declared brain damaged and/or incapable of obtaining consciousness while still in the womb.

 

[Jerry]

Are doctors trying to pass laws?

Lawyers and judges aren’t trying to practice medicine so what's your point here?

Medical policy is a thin line and requires educated medical professionals to make decisions per situation and in the best interest of the patient. You cannot declare a global law for all scenarios when it comes to medical or you will in fact be sentencing some citizens to their death with the law. When the medical health and well-being of an American citizen is in jeopardy then the doctor should be able to act in the best interest of the citizen. The ruling, as it sits now, forces the citizen to die in extreme circumstances and disallows any doctor to save said person's life.

I do not agree with abortions after 4 months and most certainly do not agree with partial birth abortions as a solution out of patient convenience (just not wanting to have a baby). The problem I have with this ruling is there are no exceptions for the well being and safety of the mother in extreme circumstances, or if the fetus is declared brain damaged and/or incapable of obtaining consciousness while still in the womb.

Such exceptions are irrelevant as the extreme circumstances you speak of, which allegedly require the very spicific type of abortion this case concerns, are not evidenced to exist.

I think you need to sit down and read the decision in it's entirety. You don't speak as though you know the basics here.

 

[OKgrannie]

You’re still going off on the "legislature making medical decisions for us" nonsense.

SCOTUS found that PBA is never medically necessary, so your argument is moot.

You're going to have to let this one go. Know which peaces to sacrifice.

I suppose that strictly speaking it is true that PBA is never medically necessary, since doctors CAN use the method whereby the fetus is chopped to pieces within the womb and then withdrawn piece by piece. That method may not be the one best for the woman however. Also doctors can perform a hysterotomy, there again it may not be the best medical choice for the woman.

Hysterotomy abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Hysterotomy abortion is a form of abortion in which the uterus is accessed through an abdominal incision and the fetus is removed. It is used in emergency situations where the fetus is too large for less invasive procedures and an intact dilation and extraction procedure is either medically inadvisable or illegal. It is similar to a caesarean section, but does not result in a live birth."

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

so sad
if the man has no choice in teh matter, he should have no responsibility
that is the crux
Man should not be held hostage

if man has a say, he has a responsibility
if man has NO say, he has no responsibility

_________
How can the Man have no choice in the matter? Ya ever hear of condoms? Ya ever hear about the BILLIONS of $$$ in profit made by these companys?
I guess the millions of "RESPONSIBLE" guys must use them for them to make BILLIONS of $$$ from there sales.

Held Hostage?:rofl How does "hit and run" equate to being held hostage?

 

[Jerry]

I suppose that strictly speaking it is true that PBA is never medically necessary, since doctors CAN use the method whereby the fetus is chopped to pieces within the womb and then withdrawn piece by piece. That method may not be the one best for the woman however. Also doctors can perform a hysterotomy, there again it may not be the best medical choice for the woman.

For a very rare few individuals this may, unfortunately, be the case; but the public is best served with this SCOTUS decision, so I suppose some could regard it as a necessary evil.

 

[Jerry]

_________
How can the Man have no choice in the matter? Ya ever hear of condoms? Ya ever hear about the BILLIONS of $$$ in profit made by these companys?
I guess the millions of "RESPONSIBLE" guys must use them for them to make BILLIONS of $$$ from there sales.

Held Hostage?:rofl How does "hit and run" equate to being held hostage?

If I agreed that it is in the best interests of the child to let the dad desert him/her in every way then I would slap you down right here with your last line. However, I don't, so I won't.

Carry on.

 

[OKgrannie]

For a very rare few individuals this may, unfortunately, be the case; but the public is best served with this SCOTUS decision, so I suppose some could regard it as a necessary evil.

How does this decision serve the PUBLIC? In fact, how does PBA or any abortion effect the PUBLIC at all? It effects individuals, not the public as a whole.

 

[Navy Pride]

How does this decision serve the PUBLIC? In fact, how does PBA or any abortion effect the PUBLIC at all? It effects individuals, not the public as a whole.

It affects the public because taxpayers money is used to fund some abortions and I don't want my taxes going there........

 

[1069]

It affects the public because taxpayers money is used to fund some abortions and I don't want my taxes going there........

So abortions that don't involve taxpayer dollars don't bother you?
You're a-okay, for instance, with my abortion, which I paid for in cash, out of pocket?

Most states either disallow any public funding for abortion, or allow it only in cases where low-income women who cannot afford abortions are at significant health risk by continuing their pregnancies.
New York and (possibly) California are the notable exceptions.
And really, voters there consider providing low-income women with access to state- or federally-funded abortion to be in the "public interest".
The states simply cannot afford to absorb the cost of so many unwanted, impoverished children.
At some point, it becomes about what's realistically feasible and what isn't.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

If I agreed that it is in the best interests of the child to let the dad desert him/her in every way then I would slap you down right here with your last line. However, I don't, so I won't.

Carry on.

_
Uhhh! I am the SERGEANT. You cannot slap me down.
Carry on with your :toilet: latrene dutys. :toilet:

 

[Jerry]

How does this decision serve the PUBLIC? In fact, how does PBA or any abortion effect the PUBLIC at all? It effects individuals, not the public as a whole.

I'm not sure how you can ask that question seeing as how you just argued that PBA should be available.

If it is available then the public has access to it.
If it is not available then the public does not have access to it.

Those are how the public is affected.

As to how the public is served:

GONZALES v. CARHART section 3a;

(a) The contention that the Act’s congressional purpose was to create such an obstacle is rejected. The Act’s stated purposes are protecting innocent human life from a brutal and inhumane procedure and protecting the medical community’s ethics and reputation. The government undoubtedly “has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702 . Moreover, Casey reaffirmed that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman. See, e.g., 505 U. S., at 873. The Act’s ban on abortions involving partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the Government’s objectives. Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant.

 

[Jerry]

_
Uhhh! I am the SERGEANT. You cannot slap me down.
Carry on with your :toilet: latrene dutys. :toilet:

It is my duty to inform the Sergeant that this private has already been ordered to kitchen duty by his wife, and therefore is unable to perform latrine duties at this time.

 

[debate_junkie]

It is my duty to inform the Sergeant that this private has already been ordered to kitchen duty by his wife, and therefore is unable to perform latrine duties at this time.

oooh snap, Jerry.. I hope you ran to the kitchen. The wife outranks the Sergeant anyday

 

[Stinger]

The fact that the human does not implant does not make it not a human.

I never said otherwise did I.

It's a miscarried human.

It was never carried.

Yes, spontaneous abortions happen frequently.

Not a spontaneous abortion, it was never carried, just the normal passing through that occours to every woman who is sexually active.

The difference in the case of the miscarried human in the case of BC is that the hormone that was introduced to the woman was not her body naturally not ready for pregnancy--it was an intentional act AGAINST the natural functioning of her body.

So what?

Only the stong can survive the vacuum aspirator too

Birth for that matter too.

So what?

That is exactly what the pro-choice abortion proponants say. You just have an earlier cut off for when it's okay to kill humans.

Should we force everywoman who is sexually active to enter a hospital after every incidence of intercourse to check to see if an egg was fertilized and try to make sure it survives?

 

[1069]

Should we force everywoman who is sexually active to enter a hospital after every incidence of intercourse to check to see if an egg was fertilized and try to make sure it survives?

Perhaps it would be better if every act of sexual intercourse simply took place in the hospital, under medical supervision to ensure that any potentially fertilized egg has an optimum chance at implantation and survival.
:thinking

 

[Jerry]

Perhaps it would be better if every act of sexual intercourse simply took place in the hospital, under medical supervision to ensure that any potentially fertilized egg has an optimum chance at implantation and survival.
:thinking

I could link to a related video.....

 

[Jerry]

How does this decision serve the PUBLIC? In fact, how does PBA or any abortion effect the PUBLIC at all? It effects individuals, not the public as a whole.

Everything effects everybody. We may not always know how, but it does.

Case in point:
A cop friend of Stace's is killed (see her avatar), this influences Stace to act towards me in an unusual and unwelcome fashion, which in turn influences me to act out in a recent post, which prompts CapitanCourtesy to PM me with corrective mod action, and we've been arguing for a few days now.

So, CapitanCourtesy and I are arguing because a cop friend of Stace's (who neither CapitanCourtesy nor I know) died.


Another case in point:
Some freak azz mother ****er shoots up a school in Virginia. The media covers this obsessively. The obsessive media coverage stirs chit up in teacher, who lost a child some time ago. These feelings influence teacher to act out upstairs recently. One thing leads to another and if you will notice teacher is suspended.

So, teacher is suspended because some freak azz mother****er shoot up an unaffiliated school.

Funny how that works, aye?

We are all connected. The actions of an individual do impact society as a whole. Science minded pro-choice demands that we be able to demonstrate this at every turn, but we don't know the exact path a given action will take for certain. We can predict a general outcome for a population, but not a spicific outcome for a given end individual.

PC wants direct cause and effect, but we’re not dealing with direct cause and effect.
It's chaos theory.

So, how does a woman's abortion affect me? I don't know if I will ever be able to explain specifically how, but I know it will, and the pattern on society shows that it is a negative effect.

 

[1069]

Case in point:
A cop friend of Stace's is killed ( see her avatar), this influences Stace to act towards me in an unusual and unwelcome fashion, which in turn influences me to act out in a recent post, which prompts CapitanCourtesy to PM me with corrective mod action, and we've been arguing for a few days now.

So, CapitanCourtesy and I are arguing because a cop friend of Stace's ( who neither CapitanCourtesy nor I know) died.

I hope this is hypothetical; otherwise, you're probably in for an arse-whuppin.
You're not allowed to post such things.

 

[Jerry]

I hope this is hypothetical; otherwise, you're probably in for an arse-whuppin.
You're not allowed to post such things.

No, this is not hypothetical. It is real and it is current. If the Mod team finds that I need a few points for that post then so be it. I'm not being defiant here, it's that I have proof read my post many times to be careful not to reveal anything confidential; like the contents of those PMs, for example.

I don't think it's a breach of confidentiality for me to say that Capt'n and I have a disagreement at the moment, because you really don't know what it's about.

Everything else I've said is public information..."Temp Suspended" is displayed under teacher's name...Stace's avatar can be viewed by anyone....

Point is I made that post in good faith to make a point, but if I have crossed a line despite my best efforts then I accept responsibility for that.

 

[OKgrannie]

Everything effects everybody. We may not always know how, but it does.

Case in point:
A cop friend of Stace's is killed (see her avatar), this influences Stace to act towards me in an unusual and unwelcome fashion, which in turn influences me to act out in a recent post, which prompts CapitanCourtesy to PM me with corrective mod action, and we've been arguing for a few days now.

So, CapitanCourtesy and I are arguing because a cop friend of Stace's (who neither CapitanCourtesy nor I know) died.


Another case in point:
Some freak azz mother ****er shoots up a school in Virginia. The media covers this obsessively. The obsessive media coverage stirs chit up in teacher, who lost a child some time ago. These feelings influence teacher to act out upstairs recently. One thing leads to another and if you will notice teacher is suspended.

So, teacher is suspended because some freak azz mother****er shoot up an unaffiliated school.

Funny how that works, aye?

We are all connected. The actions of an individual do impact society as a whole. Science minded pro-choice demands that we be able to demonstrate this at every turn, but we don't know the exact path a given action will take for certain. We can predict a general outcome for a population, but not a spicific outcome for a given end individual.

PC wants direct cause and effect, but we’re not dealing with direct cause and effect.
It's chaos theory.

So, how does a woman's abortion affect me? I don't know if I will ever be able to explain specifically how, but I know it will, and the pattern on society shows that it is a negative effect.

:damn You were going along so well, explaining your point in such a clear manner evoking agreement (for once) from me...UNTIL...you got to the last statement "the pattern on society shows that it is a negative effect". I'd like to see you prove that point. Well, it can't be done, since any negative effects on society could have been caused by any number of things, just as I cannot prove legalizing abortion has had a positive effect, though I believe it has. Particularly for those women who are alive and healthy who would have died or suffered health complications from illegal abortions.