Remember how upset pro-abortion types are at the idea that pro-life medical clinics perform ultrasounds without doctors? It didn’t matter to them if they were certified ultrasound technicians.
Well just to prove that their concern was only a tactic.
As states across the country are passing laws to restrict access to abortion, California lawmakers are considering a significant expansion of who would be able to perform the procedure in the state. Under a bill that passed its first committee hearing Tuesday, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants would be able to perform what is known as an “aspiration” abortion, which is the most common abortion procedure and takes place in the first trimester of a pregnancy. [Source]
Of course they were also not upset about abortion telemedicine – abortion via teleconference performed by non-doctors.
121 comments
Remember how upset pro-abortion types are at the idea that pro-life medical clinics perform ultrasounds without doctors?
No. I think they were upset at the idea that women would be forced to have ultrasounds as if they were stupid and had no idea that pregnancy means.
>Of course they were also not upset about abortion telemedicine – abortion via teleconference performed by non-doctors.
Huh? They perform abortions over the phone? What are you talking about?
Mifepristone and misoprostol used in combination, also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill.
As for the ultrasound, isn’t it best for someone to make an informed decision? I know many post-abortive women who deeply regret their choice and mourn for their lost children.
Of course they wouldn’t mind – it doesn’t take any brains at all to commit murder and there are huge $$ in abortion. I read a statistic that there are 46 million abortions a year. If you multiply that times whatever it cost, there is enough money incentive to bring out Satin himself!
>As for the ultrasound, isn’t it best for someone to make an informed decision?
It’s none of your, mine or the state’s business about anything to do with a woman’s medical decisions. Why can’t you understand that?
Otherwise you must think women so stupid, so baffled by their own selves that they don’t understand what pregnancy or an abortion means.
> I know many post-abortive women who deeply regret their choice and mourn for their lost children.
That’s nice, I know many post-abortive women who don’t give it a second thought and do not mourn for their lost zygotes.
These women you’re talking about are not mourning lost children, you can’t abort a child, you can only abort a fetus. They are two separate things.
You might want to look up the definition of child 🙂 Are you okay with uniformed consent in other matters, or just when it concerns abortion?
You might want to because all the definitions of children I’ve ever read made no mention of the child living inside the mother’s womb wheres you can’t define a fetus without mentioning that rather salient point.
>Are you okay with uniformed consent in other matters, or just when it concerns abortion?
Wow. You just can’t understand the point, my okay, your okay, ANYONE’S okay is meaningless when it comes to health care. It doesn’t matter that it is abortion.
IT’S NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
IT’S NONE OF YOU BUSINESS.
If you are so compelled to save children, great, go save children, once they’re outside of the womb they can become your problem but as long as they are inside another human being your opinion is no necessary anymore than it is welcome.
When a woman goes in for an abortion the doctors give her all the information she needs.
It’s so bizarre the way you think the world works, like the doctors are all a bunch of baby killers eager to flush the innocent child out cuz they’re evil or Satan or something. They tell the woman it’s like having a sneeze! Then they harvest the stem cells to buy another gold plated yacht.
The intentional killing of a child in his or her mother’s womb is not medicine. It is the opposite of medicine. Doctors and medicine are brought into disrepute when abortionists are called doctors. Abortionists do the opposite of what doctors do – and doctors ought not to be smeared by an association with people who kill babies by cutting them up or burning them. Abortion is not medicine, abortionists don’t practise medicine. The killing of innocent defenceless babies concerns all of us. We all have a duty to do what we can to ensure their protection. “Foetus” is Latin for “little one”. Our right to life as human beings doesn’t depend on our being a certain size or being in a certain place.
>It’s none of your, mine or the state’s business about anything to do with a woman’s medical decisions. Why can’t you understand that?
If you decide to involve someone else in your medical decision, then it becomes their business. So if women want to give themselves abortions, then it’s nobody else’s business. If they want the doctor to give them one and the doctor requires an ultrasound, tough luck.
Patients have to go through all sorts of red tape for medical procedures. I’m sure that most people would rather not have a blood test during a cholesterol check and several patients aren’t thrilled at having to present their IDs to receive Sudafed. Most of us suck it and deal.
>That’s nice, I know many post-abortive women who don’t give it a second thought and do not mourn for their lost zygotes.
I also now men who cheated on their wives and abandoned their children and are as happy as clams. Does that mean their actions aren’t repulsive?
>These women you’re talking about are not mourning lost children, you can’t abort a child, you can only abort a fetus. They are two separate things.
Try to deny a pregnant woman maternity leave by saying: “You don’t have any children, just a fetus.” Or tell a woman who miscarried that she didn’t lose a baby.
You’re officially a jacka$$, salvage. I just had a miscarriage last week. I’m not mourning a zygote, thank you very much, I’m mourning my BABY.
BABY.
BABY.
Play all the word games you want, it doesn’t change the truth of the matter.
>The intentional killing of a child in his or her mother’s womb is not medicine.
Quite right that would be science fiction because the womb does not contain a baby, it contains a fetus which is not a baby.
>If you decide to involve someone else in your medical decision, then it becomes their business.
In as much as a doctor can provide information and advice but all decisions still rest with the patient.
>If they want the doctor to give them one and the doctor requires an ultrasound, tough luck.
Uh no, that’s not “tough luck” it’s a bunch of self-righteous busybodies imposing their beliefs upon another persons medical decisions.
>Patients have to go through all sorts of red tape for medical procedures.
No, they do not have to get unnecessary procures demanding by the State.
>I’m sure that most people would rather not have a blood test during a cholesterol check and several patients aren’t thrilled at having to present their IDs to receive Sudafed. Most of us suck it and deal.
The blood test is necessary, there is no law that demands it, it’s a medical thing and presenting ID to buy a drug isn’t like having an invasive examination.
You have provided two examples of sensible policies as rebuttal to one that makes no sense.
Once again do you think women are stupid and they don’t know what pregnancy and abortion is?
Do you think that once a woman is pregnant she can no longer have any say over her body? That it’s right for the State to make laws dictating what she can do with it?
>I also now men who cheated on their wives and abandoned their children and are as happy as clams. Does that mean their actions aren’t repulsive?
It means their actions are none of your business. Another point you just stroll past.
Once again, your feelings, my feelings, the State’s feelings, doctors’ feelings, they don’t matter, the only ones that do are the woman’s.
If you disagree with this I do wish you would just say so rather than all this apples and oranges nonsense. Just say that women lose right when they become pregnant. It’s obvious you feel that way, why won’t you just say it?
>These women you’re talking about are not mourning lost children, you can’t abort a child, you can only abort a fetus. They are two separate things.
>Try to deny a pregnant woman maternity leave by saying: “You don’t have any children, just a fetus.”
Uh, you can’t, maternity leave is for pregnant women and you know they are pregnant because they have a fetus inside of them. Do you really no understand that?
>Or tell a woman who miscarried that she didn’t lose a baby.
She didn’t lose a baby, she lost a potential baby and that of course is upsetting but what’s worse? Losing a “baby” in the first trimester of losing a child when it’s a year old? Or are they the same thing?
>Play all the word games you want, it doesn’t change the truth of the matter.
It’s not a word game, we have two separate words for two different things, a fetus is a fetus and a baby is a baby.
And even if it weren’t the only fetus/baby that you have a say over is the one inside you, all the rest are none of your concern.
Dear Margaret – I’m sorry for your loss. I’ve also held my perfectly formed baby in my hands after a miscarriage so I know your pain. My children have been my children since they were created, not since they first drew breath. Did you know that a mother indefinitely carries stem cells from all the children that she conceived? And the babes carry ours! That has given me comfort…
Blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn (or the more descriptive Säugling), infant, toddler, etc. are merely stages in human development. To use those terms to deny humanity is patently ridiculous – I could just as easily tell you that you are not human, you are a young adult, or you’re not a child but an adolescent.
>are merely stages in human development.
Sure, doesn’t change the fact that a fetus is a fetus. Once the fetus is no longer inside the woman’s body its status changes until then the mother is the only one who has a say.
>I could just as easily tell you that you are not human,
No you couldn’t, because I am human.
>you are a young adult, or you’re not a child but an adolescent.
Those all have clear demarcation and none have the quality of a fetus that defines it; being inside the mother.
It’s weird that you can’t understand that simple and obvious fact.
Of course a fetus becomes a baby just as an egg and a sperm become a fetus but one would not call an egg and a sperm a person.
Well I wouldn’t but you seem confused about this sort of thing.
Salvage —
Your sophistry is showing. Science has demonstrated conclusively that a zygote/fetus IS a human being. You cannot rationalize these facts away however hard you try and however angry you become.
I guess you can either believe the science in this area or you can make up your own explanations.
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).” (Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization…” (Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3)
“The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” (Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3)
Apparently the concept that life begins at conception is a fact so basic to the study of embryology that it is presented almost on the first page of these textbooks
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.” (Human Embryology and Teratology, 1996, p 8)
This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” (Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)
I’m so sorry for your loss, Margaret.
The foetus, if you wish to be that technical, and by all means let’s be technical is a human foetus.
If you perform DNA testing on the foetus, the DNA would come back as human DNA. Not the mother’s DNA, not the father’s DNA, not a virus’s DNA, or a bacterium’s DNA, not cancer DNA, but his or her unique Human DNA. And as any forensic scientist who has testified at a murder trial will tell you the ONLY place from which you can get HUMAN DNA is from human beings.
The foetus may not be a baby but science clearly tells us that it is HUMAN.
My deepest sympathy also for your lost Margaret.
Those who don’t believe that GOD does not mourn with you for your lost certainly have a right to think that way and who am i to tell them to mind their own business. If one says that a cell is not alive and someone else says that “IT” is then who do we believe?
Some will call me a crazy dreamer but I believe that all Christians can do is follow their human heart in hope while continuing to pray that GOD will in someway ease our pains.
I’m not a preacher and I don’t yet read The Bible but I do recall a good priest (God Bless his soul) saying that Jesus said in so many words that unless a seed falls to the ground and dies it remains only a single seed but if it dies, it produces many more seeds. I know that Jesus spoke in story form so that we could believe what we want to believe because we were all given “Free Will”. Long story short, I believe that we’re going to reep the seeds that we sow and if we destroy seeds that GOD gave U>S (usual sinners) we’ll need to answer for “IT” during Eternity.
I hear ya sinner vic! Keep your believes to yourseff Victor and mind your own business! 🙂
Peace be with ya.
Might as well have whomever perform abortions as it isn’t “health care” to begin with, it’s an annhilation of a human life. Executioners need not be m.d.s.
Weren’t abortions made legal so that DOCTORS could provide safe abortions, now they want it legal for NON doctors to perform abortions.
Non-Doctors in back alleys with coat hangers bad , non doctors in clinics, with vacuums good. OKAY?!
I just don’t see that Salvage has so far been able to establish that abortion is a good for society. As we all know the rights talk is very amorphous and I think it is pretty much impossible to argue that slaughtering a generation of children is overall good.
>The foetus, if you wish to be that technical, and by all means let’s be technical is a human foetus.
Yes, yes it is.
>If you perform DNA testing on the foetus, the DNA would come back as human DNA.
Sure.
>Not the mother’s DNA, not the father’s DNA, not a virus’s DNA, or a bacterium’s DNA, not cancer DNA, but his or her unique Human DNA.
Of course.
And as any forensic scientist who has testified at a murder trial will tell you the ONLY place from which you can get HUMAN DNA is from human beings.
You mean like hair, blood, saliva or seamen stains? Are those people too?
>The foetus may not be a baby but science clearly tells us that it is HUMAN.
Yes, and as long as the foetus is inside a woman’s body it’s no one’s business but her own.
Why can’t you understand that?
>I just don’t see that Salvage has so far been able to establish that abortion is a good for society.
I can establish that theism isn’t good for society so does that mean you shouldn’t be allowed to pray to your gods and perform your rituals?
What I have established is that society doesn’t matter in this case because the only one who matters is the woman whose body contains the fetus.
If you want to find the “good” it would be in that the state cannot tell a woman what to do with her body, that she is completely free.
But I’m assuming that doesn’t matter / appeal to you?
The fetus is a separate entity from the woman’s body. Why can’t you see that.
And, you didn’t finish your sentence. “That she is completely free” …to? To what?
Puff, I believe the back alley term was in reference to women entering the doc’s through the back alley so no-one would see them. Horatio Storer’s account is pretty interesting. As for baby, it’s the youngest member of a group. Personally, I can’t think of a time I was younger than when I was conceived.
>The fetus is a separate entity from the woman’s body. Why can’t you see that.
Because it is not, it’s inside the mother, it is part of the mother until it is born. Whatever rights you want to grant a fetus they will always be superseded by the rights of the mother. Otherwise you are saying that once a woman becomes pregnant she is no longer free.
>And, you didn’t finish your sentence. “That she is completely free” …to? To what?
I’m sorry, did your browser not render the period at the end of the sentence?
Free to do whatever she likes to do with her own reproductive systems if you want it narrowed to a point.
(((Free to do whatever she likes to do with her own reproductive systems if you want it narrowed to a point.
..)))
Folks salvage is right and if ya Christians don’t agree with “IT” then get together and lobby your government representitives cause “IT” is crystal CLEAR that your God won’t do anything about “IT”!!!
sinner vic that will be enough out of ya because the way I see “IT” cursing this man would not do any good for his soul.
I hear ya! What Soul Victor?
Folks! Don’t feed the trolls!
Victor Satan’s angels must eat too and if you don’t believe me just ask Cain and Abel who were free to follow which ever angels they chose to follow but personally I draw a line when “IT” comes to having sex with them. If ya don’t believe that also then just check with Henry the VIII’s wives who lost their heads over “IT”?
Folks see what can happen when you feed the trolls!? 🙂
Peace be with ya
Ah, but look at the good it brought – we are now praying for Margaret, who needs our prayers. And for the conversion of souls, *sigh*….
(((Ah, but look at the good it brought – we are now praying for Margaret, who needs our prayers. And for the conversion of souls, *sigh*….)))
Beate! I guess you’re right, there’s good in everything if we simply look long enough, we usually find “IT” but in the mean time please keep praying for this poor Annoying Super Sinner.
Peace
Something is a person if, by nature, it can or has the potential to think rationally, to express emotion, the list goes on. Since this capacity is a part of nature, it is something that a person has as soon as he begins to exist. Would you argue, Salvage, that a fetus does not have the potential to rationalize? I know, of course not. It’d be insane. Then the human fetus is in fact a human person.
Victor you make as much sense as your typical theist but it’s refreshing to see it so well vocalized.
salvage, I think “I” know who you are and or should “I” say that sinner vic who claims to be a god does, but between you and me, these so called 97% skitso cells of sinner vic are not for real and they are simply guessing on “IT” and me, myself and i say to them, stop trying to hi-Jack human brain cells.
I hear ya salvage! Ya! Just like this imaginary god of sinner vic’s 3% DNA cells who go around implying that they know this man called jesus and with all due respect Victor, every “Word” He said was “True” or he’s the biggest con liar that ever walked the face of our galaxies (“I” mean world) but personally speaking I think that He was just a nice guy like you!
Careful sinner vic cause you don’t really know salvage and you have no right putting words in his mouth and what if “Jesus” is for real, will your spiritual cells not be responsible during eternity if this man’s soul, spirit and/or human heart are destroyed by Satan and/or his Army of deception???
What do you mean, out of sight out of mind?
Play “IT” again Sam!
Piece,
NO! NO! you skitsos, “IT” is Peace be with ya!
Jeff! Please! Stop feeding the trolls!!! 🙂
Shhh Victor, I get it, theism has driven you a bit mad. It happens.
(((Shhh Victor, I get it, theism has driven you a bit mad. It happens.)))
..
Ha! Ha! Mad ya say? There’s nothing wrong with me, “IT” is the rest of “The World”!
I hear ya! That will be enough out of the pee nut galery theism or I”ll tell The Easter Bunny on your spiritual dogs of 1946 Victor and they might just get mad!
Sick em Jack!
Jack who? 🙂
Peace
Peace
It wasn’t too long ago that the LAW stated that though blacks were human they weren’t human enough and could therefore be bought and sold.
Why can’t you see that the argument for permitting abortions is virtually the same as permitting slavery. Dehumanize the subject and that justifies everything you want to do to them.
When you start making distinction on the extent of someone’s humanity, you place your feet on a very slippery slope, on having others decide whether you are human enough to be allowed to live. YOu are very lucky Salvage, you are an adult and born, you can speak and defend yourself, and all the rest of it. I pray that you keep your freedom and your strength to stand up for yourself for ever
But what will you do if you are struck paralyzed and mute and cannot speak, and others decide that because you can’t do anything on your own you should be put out of society’s misery.
What would happen if a natural event silenced you and society began to think you weren’t human enough to continue existing?
Margaret, I’m very sorry for your loss.
Salvage, I’m going to address your post point by point:
>In as much as a doctor can provide information and advice but all decisions still rest with the patient.
And how does the ultrasound policy change the fact that all decisions rest with the patient? Patients are required to go through an extra pre-screening medical procedure to receive another medical procedure: it happens all the time.
.Uh no, that’s not “tough luck” it’s a bunch of self-righteous busybodies imposing their beliefs upon another persons medical decisions.
How? Provided that he doctor is not allowed to preach to the patient, it is simply more medical information.
>No, they do not have to get unnecessary procures demanding by the State.
Oh yes, they do. I assume that you meant ‘procedures’, not ‘procures’? Patients with STDs are required to report to their partners. Patients in paternity suits are often required to give their DNA.
>The blood test is necessary, there is no law that demands it, it’s a medical thing and presenting ID to buy a drug isn’t like having an invasive examination.
There is no law to demand it, but there’s no law to demand that women must have ultrasounds unless they want an abortion.
And the ‘invasive examination’ loses a great deal of weight when you consider that surgical abortion involves insertion of foreign instruments into the uterus, to a degree that is much more invasive than an ultrasound.
>You have provided two examples of sensible policies as rebuttal to one that makes no sense.
There are perfectly sensible, non-theistic reasons for the ultrasound.
1. The majority of non-first trimester abortions are performed due to the women misjudging their conception dates
2. Several states have severe restrictions on non-first trimester abortions
3. Even women who favor abortions are less likely to favor later term abortions unless for medical reasons
Therefore, it makes perfect sense to gauge the development of the fetus via ultrasound before an abortion.
>Once again do you think women are stupid and they don’t know what pregnancy and abortion is?
I don’t, but clearly you think that women are so weak willed that they can’t handle more information about their own pregnancies.
>Do you think that once a woman is pregnant she can no longer have any say over her body? That it’s right for the State to make laws dictating what she can do with it?
I believe that since pregnant women are granted special rights under the law, that it is reasonable to expect certain obligations in return. If you would like to argue that they
have no reason to be a protected class, then State has no stake either way.
>It means their actions are none of your business. Another point you just stroll past.
Have you ever heard of suing for child support? Another law/restriction that you seem to be ignorant of.
>If you disagree with this I do wish you would just say so rather than all this apples and oranges nonsense. Just say that women lose right when they become pregnant. It’s obvious you feel that way, why won’t you just say it?
I feel that women should be able to make an informed decision and while what she does in private, of her own volition, is her own business, once other parties become involved, the decision becomes a joint one.
What about men’s rights? Do you feel that women have the right to child support if the man used birth control and waives custodial rights to the child? If you disagree, clearly you feel that men have no reproductive rights and no rights to their own sperm.
The forced sonograms are medically unnecessary, it’s a speed bump put in place to make a legal medical procedure difficult. I don’t know if you’re being coy / obtuse on purpose or are naturally not understanding the tactic. I have already answered all of your other points, once again, women are not unaware of what pregnancy and abortion means.
>There are perfectly sensible, non-theistic reasons for the ultrasound.
Well that’s obviously wrong / a lie. If there were then they would already be performed. There is not, it only started when idiots started making it a law.
Tell me, the people that demanded these laws, were they medical doctors or pro-lifers?
>the decision becomes a joint one.
Not unless the fetus is in both parties, if not there is no joint.
What about men’s rights?
They have the exact same rights over their bodies as women do.
>Do you feel that women have the right to child support if the man used birth control and waives custodial rights to the child?
How I feel is neither here nor there. I would say that local laws would apply and if they do not that it would be a family court’s job to work out what would be fair and just.
See that’s one of the many differences between you and me, I’m not so arrogant to think that believing in gods makes me some sort of expert on the personal affairs of complete strangers.
You can come up with all kinds of “What if?! What if?!” scenarios but each one ends with it being the woman’s choice. Not the man’s not your goofy god’s, her’s and none of yours.
> If you disagree, clearly you feel that men have no reproductive rights and no rights to their own sperm.
When their sperm is inside them it is theirs when it is outside of them and inside a woman turning into a fetus it is not. It’s that simple.
Do you really not understand the difference between inside and outside?
>Why can’t you see that the argument for permitting abortions is virtually the same as permitting slavery.
A stunningly stupid thing to say and think.
>The forced sonograms are medically unnecessary, it’s a speed bump put in place to make a legal medical procedure difficult. I don’t know if you’re being coy / obtuse on purpose or are naturally not understanding the tactic. I have already answered all of your other points, once again, women are not unaware of what pregnancy and abortion means.
No, you have not. I laid out 3 very sensible reasons for requiring a sonogram that had nothing to do with ‘goofy gods’ or theism and you completely ignored them. Now who’s being coy or obtuse?
>Well that’s obviously wrong / a lie. If there were then they would already be performed. There is not, it only started when idiots started making it a law.
Give me a reason why. The “reasons aren’t good because if so, then we’d already have them” doesn’t count. Countries pass all sorts of new laws based on updated medical information all the time.
> Tell me, the people that demanded these laws, were they medical doctors or pro-lifers?
If the legal reasoning is sound, then it doesn’t matter who passed the laws.
>Do you feel that women have the right to child support if the man used birth control and waives custodial rights to the child?
> See that’s one of the many differences between you and me, I’m not so arrogant to think that believing in gods makes me some sort of expert on the personal affairs of complete strangers.
No, just arrogant enough to believe that people will always make good decisions regarding who lives and who dies.
>You can come up with all kinds of “What if?! What if?!” scenarios but each one ends with it being the woman’s choice. Not the man’s not your goofy god’s, her’s and none of yours.
I’m not the one who brought God into this. Every single one of my posts has been regarding medical decisions and the law. You’re the one who keeps brings up theism. Go back and read my posts and try to find a single instance where I say: “God says”.
>Do you really not understand the difference between inside and outside?
Do you not understand that it’s not as clear cut as that? A perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy fetus goes for an abortion at 7 months. Most doctors – and the majority of states – are likely to refuse her request. If the law is absolute on ‘inside it’s the woman’s decision, outside, it’s not’ then it should be legal to have an abortion, right up to the point where the fetus has been delivered and the umbilical cord is still inside the mother. Yet abortions after the 24th week are illegal in almost every developed country, even the secular ones such as France.
>>Why can’t you see that the argument for permitting abortions is virtually the same as permitting slavery.
>A stunningly stupid thing to say and think.
Not stupid at all if you accept the fact that the fetus is in reality a human person.
Thanks for doing that Jamie. I think the main point of difference is that we judge that the pre-born person should have the same rights granted her mother. Savage disagrees. We also judge that having a qualified person actually providing care in a safe place is important. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case in the vast majority of states, where dental clinics have higher standarts than abortion fascilities. Further, RU 486 is contraindicated in tubal pregnancies, which really ought to be ruled out via ultrasound to lessen the risk to the mother.
>No, you have not. I laid out 3 very sensible reasons for requiring a sonogram
Yes, sensible reasons that never occurred to doctors around the world in the last 30 years of sonogram use and have only come up in the last few when pro-lifers agitated local government to enact them.
> Tell me, the people that demanded these laws, were they medical doctors or pro-lifers?
>If the legal reasoning is sound, then it doesn’t matter who passed the laws.
The answer is pro-lifers with an agenda and the legal reasoning is not sound, no even slightly hence the court challenges.
>No, just arrogant enough to believe that people will always make good decisions regarding who lives and who dies.
Ah, so you on the other hand do make good decision, even about people and situations you don’t know or understand! And we’re not talking about “who” we are talking about a fetus. I know you think they are people but people don’t live inside wombs. That is pretty clear-cut.
>I’m not the one who brought God into this.
Oh forgive me, so you’re not a theists whose religion commands you to be against abortion no matter what? That if someone explained all the rational points about how abortion was the lesser of two evils you would reject the catechisms?
>Do you really not understand the difference between inside and outside?
>Do you not understand that it’s not as clear cut as that?
Because it is, inside the woman, not your or society’s choice, outside the woman the child has rights. It is exactly that clear cut being a theist makes seeing the very obvious difficult, I understand that.
>A perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy fetus goes for an abortion at 7 months.
Whoa, hold on there, now it’s 7 months? Why not 7 minutes after sex? There’s no difference right?
> Most doctors – and the majority of states – are likely to refuse her request.
And they are wrong to do so.
Let’s say the fetus is endangering the woman’s life, who gets to choose?
>If the law is absolute on ‘inside it’s the woman’s decision, outside, it’s not’ then it should be legal to have an abortion, right up to the point where the fetus has been delivered and the umbilical cord is still inside the mother.
Correct. However it’s rather unlikely that a woman would choose to wait that long, see abortion it’s not like getting winter tires for the car, one tends not to put it off.
>Yet abortions after the 24th week are illegal in almost every developed country,
Is it? See other nations don’t rabbit on about abortion like Americans, because they have this crazy idea that’s it’s NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. You aren’t so burdened, you clearly think all wombs are yours, why is that?
But again, if you don’t get an abortion in 24 weeks you probably want to have the baby and if you do it’s because of a medical reason and then I suppose you’d scream that the baby should be delivered because the mother has less rights.
>even the secular ones such as France.
AHAHAHAH! Remember how annoyed you got that I dared imply that religion was driving your “pro-life” stance? “Even the secular ones such as France!” Because secularism leads to baby murder of course!
Hey answer me this, women have miscarriages quite often, that’s why couples never say anything until the 2nd trimester. There are many reasons for this one of them is the woman’s body detects a flaw in the fetus and hits the natural “abortion button”. So is that your god aborting the baby / punishing the mother? Is it Satan? Does the fetus have a soul? If so where does it go? Didn’t get baptismal so it can’t go to Heaven and be with Jesus…
>>Not stupid at all if you accept the fact that the fetus is in reality a human person.
Well I don’t because it isn’t. You should look up the definition of fetus and the definition of a person because you don’t understand they aren’t the same.
The big clue is fetuses live inside women, people do not.
>I think the main point of difference is that we judge that the pre-born person should have the same rights granted her mother. Savage disagrees.
Quite right (and I see what you did there, Savage! Hysterical!) and you agree that fetuses aren’t people, see how you called them “pre-born”? Would you call a person “pre-born”? No, that’s because people aren’t pre-born, they’re already-born.
>Unfortunately, that isn’t the case in the vast majority of states, where dental clinics have higher standarts than abortion fascilities.
Yes! And if you make abortion difficult to finance or illegal that’ll only get better!
>Further, RU 486 is contraindicated in tubal pregnancies, which really ought to be ruled out via ultrasound to lessen the risk to the mother.
Really doctor? How long have you been practising medicine?
I love the crocodile tears you shed for the risk to the mother. Tell me, do you think it’s okay for unmarried women to have sex?
I started studying medicine back in the early 80’s, what about you?
>You should look up the definition of fetus and the definition of a person because you don’t understand they aren’t the same.
Thanks for clarifying, I understand. Perhaps you missed my earlier post. The fetus has the potential to reason, does it not?
>The big clue is fetuses live inside women, people do not.
Where a person is does not affect his personhood. Or are you saying that because he is dependent on his mother for survival, he is not a person? What if in eighty years he is on a lung machine? Is he no longer a person? You might say the machine is not affected in the same way as the mother. Right. But, does who/what is affected by you determine whether you are a person? Of course not.
Salvage – I’d like to address your initial arguments about the definition of fetus/baby/child. Do you not have access to a Merriam-Webster dictionary? Here are the definitions and they are not what you say they are.
Definition of FETUS: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
1in·fant noun \ˈin-fənt\
1: a child in the first period of life
2: a person who is not of full age : minor
Definition of BABY
1a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal
b : the youngest of a group
Definition of CHILD
1a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant
2a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age
and for your convenience:
Definition of PERSON
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
> The fetus has the potential to reason, does it not?
I have no idea, what I do know is that it doesn’t matter in regards to a woman’s right to her own body.
>The big clue is fetuses live inside women, people do not.
>Where a person is does not affect his personhood.
Absolutely.
>Or are you saying that because he is dependent on his mother for survival, he is not a person?
No, I’m saying a fetus is a fetus and a person is a person.
>What if in eighty years he is on a lung machine?
Then he is a person on a lung machine and no inside a woman’s womb.
>Is he no longer a person?
No. Do you know what a womb is? You seem very confused.
>You might say the machine is not affected in the same way as the mother.
Uh… yes?
> But, does who/what is affected by you determine whether you are a person? Of course not.
Um… what?
See it’s further proof that you don’t even understand the situation, you can’t even make coherent arguments to express your point.
Please stop talking about things that are not fetuses and saying that they are like fetuses.