(February 1, 2019 at 10:16 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Killing is killing. Abortion is nothing but a woman's decision to escape the dept that might result from a moment of lust that she failed to control.

And, of course, SHE is the only one who has to pay that debt.

(February 1, 2019 at 10:16 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Killing is killing. Abortion is nothing but a woman's decision to escape the dept that might result from a moment of lust that she failed to control.

So, what should be the punishment for the lust of the man who also failed to control himself? Maybe we should tie up his dick for the nine months the woman is forced to carry the baby, eh?

(February 2, 2019 at 5:32 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Medicine is guided by extremely strict ethical practices. If a late term abortion is performed it would be due to extremely good and ethical reasons.

To pretend otherwise is to misrepresent the entire medical profession.

Are you sure? Doctors are human beings, and human beings sometimes place their ideology, politics, and beliefs ahead of ethics. Doctors are as guilty as anyone of rationalizing atrocities. You have heard of Dr. Mengele, right? And last month an American doctor was busted for saying that she would give Jews the wrong medication. Those are extreme examples. But trusting doctors to self regulate is a bit naive. Self regulation gets weird. Self regulation inherently becomes a bit arrogant, and the self regulated always become convinced that what is best for them is best for everyone.

I am not against abortion. But the law says that a doctor has the right to perform the procedure if they determine that it is in the best medical interest of their patient. I want their decision to perform the procedure to be based on their medical assessment, and not on their politics or ideological garbage. Bodily autonomy is rationalized ideological garbage. And before anyone goes there, I think that it is in the patient's best medical interest if the doctor is concerned that a woman will seek the services of an unqualified provider if the doctor refuses to perform the procedure.

I am aware that feminists don't like the legal reasoning behind legalized abortions. They want the reasoning to revolve around 'bodily autonomy'. But bodily autonomy is more of a self flattering rhetorical concept than a legal one. The legal justification for abortions is less than flattering, because one of the most common justifications is that we do it to protect women from themselves-- if the doctor doesn't do it, she might find an unqualified practitioner.

I agree that is not a very flattering medical justification for performing the procedure. But purpose of the law is not to flatter people. Women who want the law to say that bodily autonomy gives them the right to abortions simply want the law to be flattering and empowering, rather than simply protecting them from themselves. But the law is there to protect you and not to stroke the ego.

(February 1, 2019 at 10:16 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Abortion is nothing but a woman's decision 

Full stop.

---

(February 1, 2019 at 10:16 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Pure evil, disgusting if you ask me.

Nobody's asking you. It's not about you.

(February 2, 2019 at 10:27 am)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 2, 2019 at 5:32 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Medicine is guided by extremely strict ethical practices. If a late term abortion is performed it would be due to extremely good and ethical reasons.

To pretend otherwise is to misrepresent the entire medical profession.

Are you sure? Doctors are human beings, and human beings sometimes place their ideology, politics, and beliefs ahead of ethics. Doctors are as guilty as anyone of rationalizing atrocities. You have heard of Dr. Mengele, right? And last month an American doctor was busted for saying that she would give Jews the wrong medication. Those are extreme examples. But trusting doctors to self regulate is a bit naive. Self regulation gets weird. Self regulation inherently becomes a bit arrogant, and the self regulated always become convinced that what is best for them is best for everyone.

I am not against abortion. But the law says that a doctor has the right to perform the procedure if they determine that it is in the best medical interest of their patient. I want their decision to perform the procedure to be based on their medical assessment, and not on their politics or ideological garbage. Bodily autonomy is rationalized ideological garbage. And before anyone goes there, I think that it is in the patient's best medical interest if the doctor is concerned that a woman will seek the services of an unqualified provider if the doctor refuses to perform the procedure.

I am aware that feminists don't like the legal reasoning behind legalized abortions. They want the reasoning to revolve around 'bodily autonomy'. But bodily autonomy is more of a self flattering rhetorical concept than a legal one. The legal justification for abortions is less than flattering, because one of the most common justifications is that we do it to protect women from themselves-- if the doctor doesn't do it, she might find an unqualified practitioner.

I agree that is not a very flattering medical justification for performing the procedure. But purpose of the law is not to flatter people. Women who want the law to say that bodily autonomy gives them the right to abortions simply want the law to be flattering and empowering, rather than simply protecting them from themselves. But the law is there to protect you and not to stroke the ego.

Am I sure? yes I am I used to work at a hospital and have an understanding of how medical ethical decisions are made.

Also the abortions being suggested would only happen in extreme situations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opini...cX6B081S9Y

Quote:French appears to be worried that women will seek, and doctors will perform, late-term abortions for trivial reasons. But there’s contempt for women embedded in the idea that, absent legal prohibition, someone on the verge of giving birth might instead terminate her pregnancy to avoid the brutalities of labor.
“No matter what the law were, in real life, these things don’t happen,” said Frances Kissling, president of the Center for Health, Ethics and Social Policy and the former head of Catholics for a Free Choice. “I am not saying that there would not be one woman out of 20 million who decided at the 33rd week of pregnancy that she needed an abortion, and I would suggest that she probably does have mental health problems. However, this woman is not going to find anyone who will do this.”
Kissling is well known in the pro-choice movement for thinking deeply about the ethical gray areas surrounding abortion. As she points out, there are only about a dozen doctors in the country who perform third-trimester abortions at all, and she’s spoken to several of them, asking specific questions about patients they’ve turned down. “What I have learned is that all of them have limits and have declined to do abortions in certain circumstances for certain reasons,” she said. (The murderous abortionist , serving a life sentence in prison, is an exception, but he was operating outside the law.)
A person who is ambivalent about abortion might wonder why, if the situations put forward by Gilbert and French are so unthinkable, pro-choice people would object to laws making them illegal. But the law is a blunt instrument for making judgments about extreme and unusual contingencies.

(February 2, 2019 at 11:12 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 2, 2019 at 10:27 am)Yonadav Wrote: Are you sure? Doctors are human beings, and human beings sometimes place their ideology, politics, and beliefs ahead of ethics. Doctors are as guilty as anyone of rationalizing atrocities. You have heard of Dr. Mengele, right? And last month an American doctor was busted for saying that she would give Jews the wrong medication. Those are extreme examples. But trusting doctors to self regulate is a bit naive. Self regulation gets weird. Self regulation inherently becomes a bit arrogant, and the self regulated always become convinced that what is best for them is best for everyone.

I am not against abortion. But the law says that a doctor has the right to perform the procedure if they determine that it is in the best medical interest of their patient. I want their decision to perform the procedure to be based on their medical assessment, and not on their politics or ideological garbage. Bodily autonomy is rationalized ideological garbage. And before anyone goes there, I think that it is in the patient's best medical interest if the doctor is concerned that a woman will seek the services of an unqualified provider if the doctor refuses to perform the procedure.

I am aware that feminists don't like the legal reasoning behind legalized abortions. They want the reasoning to revolve around 'bodily autonomy'. But bodily autonomy is more of a self flattering rhetorical concept than a legal one. The legal justification for abortions is less than flattering, because one of the most common justifications is that we do it to protect women from themselves-- if the doctor doesn't do it, she might find an unqualified practitioner.

I agree that is not a very flattering medical justification for performing the procedure. But purpose of the law is not to flatter people. Women who want the law to say that bodily autonomy gives them the right to abortions simply want the law to be flattering and empowering, rather than simply protecting them from themselves. But the law is there to protect you and not to stroke the ego.

Am I sure? yes I am I used to work at a hospital and have an understanding of how medical ethical decisions are made.

Also the abortions being suggested would only happen in extreme situations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opini...cX6B081S9Y

Quote:French appears to be worried that women will seek, and doctors will perform, late-term abortions for trivial reasons. But there’s contempt for women embedded in the idea that, absent legal prohibition, someone on the verge of giving birth might instead terminate her pregnancy to avoid the brutalities of labor.
“No matter what the law were, in real life, these things don’t happen,” said Frances Kissling, president of the Center for Health, Ethics and Social Policy and the former head of Catholics for a Free Choice. “I am not saying that there would not be one woman out of 20 million who decided at the 33rd week of pregnancy that she needed an abortion, and I would suggest that she probably does have mental health problems. However, this woman is not going to find anyone who will do this.”
Kissling is well known in the pro-choice movement for thinking deeply about the ethical gray areas surrounding abortion. As she points out, there are only about a dozen doctors in the country who perform third-trimester abortions at all, and she’s spoken to several of them, asking specific questions about patients they’ve turned down. “What I have learned is that all of them have limits and have declined to do abortions in certain circumstances for certain reasons,” she said. (The murderous abortionist , serving a life sentence in prison, is an exception, but he was operating outside the law.)
A person who is ambivalent about abortion might wonder why, if the situations put forward by Gilbert and French are so unthinkable, pro-choice people would object to laws making them illegal. But the law is a blunt instrument for making judgments about extreme and unusual contingencies.

Medical ethics is such a big subject because it has historically been such a huge problem. The medical ethics that you experienced being so scrupulously observed were the product of a history of abuses.

Drich are you honest enough to answer my question? You got a pinecone stuck in your ass again, didn't you? Rhetorical, I know you did. Bless.

RAmen.

(February 1, 2019 at 10:50 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: What department is she escaping?

This one?

(February 1, 2019 at 2:18 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 1, 2019 at 1:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I consider myself pro-choice, but I’m very personally conflicted on the subject. We have bodily autonomy and new life, and I’m not sure how we can ever fairly prioritize one over the other. It’s sucky thing no matter which way you slice it.

not for nothing the same feeling you feel now is how we feel some from inception. it all boils down to when you feel life starts.

No, it does not. As long as you continue to lie and claim that things are as they aren't, you will continue to be shat upon.

I believe the book you so highly admire says that you reap what you do sow. If you don't like what you're getting back, maybe you should consider what it is you're throwing out there, instead of hoping to escape responsibility by putting the responsibility upon someone else, as you do with Christ. Grow the fuck up, at the very least. I've long past given up expecting you to be ethical, intelligent, or to possess a reading comprehension above that of a fourth grader. All of these are your problems and not someone else's. But you're too stupid and egotistical to have any of it. And the combined result is a perfect storm which makes you a thoroughly despiccable person who has no right casting aspersions upon other people for minor failures, or their unwillingness to condone your clearly unacceptable behavior.

"Alex, I'll take why am I an asshole for $200."

Now, fuck off you moronic, incompetent, and unethical wanker.

---

---

(February 2, 2019 at 10:27 am)Yonadav Wrote: Bodily autonomy is rationalized ideological garbage.

You're welcome to believe that, if you so choose, but your doing so is likely itself rationalized ideological garbage. You're not blessed with a particularly high level of personal insight, are you?

Bodily autonomy is something men have the liberty of taking for granted, with the notable exception of circumcision, but most of you can't remember that. (Poor Jews can be much older when snipped.) I would definitely remember being forced to carry a baby. I'm terrified of it, and I know it would put me through more than I could handle. I guess that's not the lifers' problem, though.