RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion

RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mzbehavin -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/22/2008 10:24:36 AM)
I am so glad to hear that, wonderful news... It wasnt always so. This is a positive then. :c ) quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: It may be worth noting that medicaid doesnt pay for women having their tubes tied not true in California. Medi-cal WILL pay for tubal ligations AND vasectomies as part of it's family planning services, but will NOT pay for a hysterectomy if the only reason for it is to render the woman sterile.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/22/2008 10:52:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mzbehavin I am so glad to hear that, wonderful news... It wasnt always so. This is a positive then. :c ) quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: It may be worth noting that medicaid doesnt pay for women having their tubes tied not true in California. Medi-cal WILL pay for tubal ligations AND vasectomies as part of it's family planning services, but will NOT pay for a hysterectomy if the only reason for it is to render the woman sterile. they also offer to pay for birth control options other than the pill, for those women who can't take it.

Briena -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/22/2008 3:33:04 PM)
So I sat in my chair and read this entire thread... EVERY POST! It took me a good 45 minutes but I think I am ready to make my point now... As a woman who not only has a son, but has also had an abortion, I must say that I am 100% pro choice. Calling a fetus a baby is just the rights way of making their point. My son was a fetus until he was born. You cannot be a baby until you are out of the womb and take your first breath. When I look back at the situation, I would do exactly the same thing. I have a responsiblity to care for the child that I already have, and if that means I have to abort than so be it. What good am I going to do if I have a baby that I cannot afford, then the state takes my kids, I become homeless, unable to support myself, let alone any children? Id be worthless not only to the child I already had but to the child that I should have aborted. I love it when people say "Adoption is always an option"... Are you serious? Ok, how many adoptive children do you have? How many have you fostered? If the answer is none, than obviously adoption is not always an option. I dont know about any other woman, but I could not carry a child for almost 10 months and then turn around and give it up as soon as I pop it out. As for birth control... NOTHING is 100% effective. My sister is living proof of that. She took her pill every single day, never skipping, religiously. She made sure she took her BC because she NEVER EVER EVER wants children. Guess what??? She still got pregnant, and you know what she did? She drove right over to planned parenthood, puking out the window the whole way, and got an abortion. As for my abortion, all $400 that it cost came straight out of my pocket. As for now, if my BC fails, I have to have an abortion. That would be number two if it comes down to it. The medication I am on would severly deform any fetus that is inside of me. Abortions are a personal choice, and should be made after considerable thought. It should also be kept between a woman and her doctor, not the woman, her doctor, the protestors outside, and the entire country. Its a personal and private matter. As for if the women getting the abortions deserve to live... Well I say, Do you? What makes a person deserving of life? If we knew from the very begining if a child was going to grow up into a monster would you not destroy it at conception? Would you allow a child to become a predator? Do you think that if Charlie Mansons mother knew what he was going to grow up to become she would have kept him and carried him to term? I think not. So in what way do you have to decide if a woman deserves to live? She is already here, shes already established a life for herself, whereas a fetus has not. What makes a man deserving to live? What if its a man who is pushing for the woman to get an abortion? What if he is the one that edges her to the decision? Should he be allowed to live? The right to life starts at birth, not at conception. If it starts at conception let me go ahead and sue the state of Callifornia for unlawful death on my sons twin... I was only 6 1/2 months when I lost him, they should have saved my fetus.

caitlyn -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/22/2008 7:28:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You personally disagree with a medical procedure and the idea alone makes you angry: see your distatesful comment about making abortion more dangerous, see how you suddenly make terminations an economic matter when all your other arguments failed. But your personal opinion has no bearing on availability, and neither should it - by your logic, poor women should not have access to the procedure because they can't pay for it. It's ethically wrong, no matter what you believe. You are entitled to your opinion: women are entitled to their right to choose. And rightfully so. Incidentally, if you don't like it, then don't do it - you make it sound like you're unlikely to ever need it anyway. You're awfully judgemental, for someone who claims to disapproving of judging others, but your vision and experience aren't universal truths. Some things are a terrible fact of life, a little like war, and abortion is one of these things. I never get angry kSol ... not at anything. Anger is a pointless emotion. There are no arguments to fail one way or the other, so there is actually no way for either of us to fail, or be right,or be fully wrong. You can't prove without doubt that a fetus isn't a human life, and I can't prove that it is. That I choose a position on the side of caution, just is what it is.

Irishknight -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 5:01:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol . Unless you wish to start arguing that smokers shouldn't get cancer treatment, fat people should be left to starve, people who fall off horses and break a limb shouldn't have their legs mended, teachers should be denied trauma counselling, soldiers should be left to die bleeding on the battlefield... because all these people asked for it. Right? And how do you propose to forcefully sterilise people? There's a thread on eugenism next door: I recommend your add your reflexions on the subject over there. I believe that we, as a society, should not have to pay for someone else's habits. As you say, people have free will and the supposed intelligence to make a choice. As for your examples.... I have to pay if I fall off my horse and break something. I don't believe in paying for smokers' cancer treatment. I've never known a fat person to demand multiple operations at taxpayer expense. And I have no idea why teachers need trauma counseling. As for soldiers, they are serving the government and earning every bit of help they get. Now the sterilization is easy to do when they are already on the table. Many man hos would volunteer for the chance to screw all they want without getting pregnant. As for your suggestion about where I post, its niether your choice nor your right to tell me where and when I can post. Since I posted in regard to what was being posted andd then answered a question about my post, it wasn't even a threadjack. Come down off your cross and use the wood to build a bridge to get over the fact that some of us can have opinions different than yours on this subject.

kittinSol -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 5:29:06 AM)
What can I say, Irishknight? Your idea that people should endure forced sterilisations sickened me - you still haven't told me how you propose to implement that kind of "program". Would women who committed multiple abortions get captured and forced on to an operating table? How do you propose to find doctors to carry out such a medical procedure? It goes against everything that the Hippocratic oath stands for. For a man who wants as little government intervention in his personal life as possible, it boggles the mind that you would advocate in favour of the government intervening on women's lives and bodies in such a way as to force an operation on them like that. People get pregnant for a plethora of reasons - would there be exceptions in your program, like rape? After all, nobody asks to be raped and get pregnant as a result, and sometimes this happens more than once. Some women aren't lucky... If a woman payed for her abortions, and it cost you nothing, would you still want her snipped against her will, or would that treatment be reserved for those poor women who can't afford the operation twice? Would you set up sterilisation clinics on every street corner? Why was your initial reaction to snip off women, without making any mention of the men (you did later, but first reactions are telling)? That's why I suggested the eugenism thread: both forced abortion and sterilisation have been used to promote the eugenistic agenda - these were dark, dark days when these kind of things happened. I for the life of me have no idea why you would want to go back on progress and return to a quasi-medieval society - certainly, I'm glad few people think the way you do.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 5:39:18 AM)
quote: It goes against everything that the Hippocratic oath stands for. You are aware that the Hippocratic oath forbids abortion as well, I trust?

kittinSol -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 5:43:54 AM)
No, it does not, not anymore.

kittinSol -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 5:46:34 AM)
Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help. Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

celticlord2112 -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 5:57:12 AM)
How convenient....Dr Lasagna's articulation does not alter the reality that the Oath of Hippocrates explicitly forbade any practitioner of the healing arts whom had sworn the Oath from participating in or facilitating an abortion. Note, however, that Dr Lasagna's articulation forbids the practitioner from "playing God", and also that the practitioner has "...special obligations to all ... fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm." If you claim to define the unborn child as not human that is playing God. If you acknowledge the unborn child as human but abort anyway where is the special obligation to the infirm? Even under Dr Lasagna's articulation, the act of abortion is on ethical thin ice. Under the classic (and more ethically sound) rendition, it is wrong. Practitioners of the healing arts should not abort unborn children.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 6:24:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 If you claim to define the unborn child as not human that is playing God. If you acknowledge the unborn child as human but abort anyway where is the special obligation to the infirm? No one is claiming an embryo or a fetus isn't a human embryo or fetus and god has nothing to do with it, god is for people who want to remain ignorant. Human women should make the decision as to whether they want to carry on with a pregnancy or not. Medical staff can make the decision if they want to perform the medical procedure or not. I can't see anything in the hippocratic oath that says doctors shouldn't carry out an abortion procedure and even if there is, other medical staff are adequately trained to carry out this simple procedure.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 6:27:23 AM)
Your argument fails for lack of internal logic and egregious imprecision.

kittinSol -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 6:50:40 AM)
[sm=biggrin.gif]How did I know you would argue against the plainest evidence ? Such sophistry! You asked; I answered; so you argue that the truth is wrong because you don't like it. The prohibition of abortion in the Oath derives from the principles of the Christian church. Before, people didn't think twice of aborting - in fact, check this out: "One immediate inconsistency is the [original] Oath’s prohibition against abortion. The Hippocratic Corpus [the treatises on medicine written by Hippocrates] contains a number of allusions to the methods of abortion and the use of pessaries. The Oath’s prohibitions did not echo the general feeling of the public either. Abortion was practiced in Greek times no less than in the Roman era, and it was resorted to without scruple. In a world in which it was held justifiable to expose children immediately after birth, it would hardly seem objectionable to destroy the embryo." The original oath as we know it has little to do with Hippocrates: much of its principles are in fact attributed to the Pythagoreans (nothing to do with Gor then): as you will see, the Pythagoreans didn't like for blood to be shedded no matter what: "Pythagoreanism is the only dogma that can possibly account for the attitude advocated in the Hippocratic Oath. Among all the Greek philosophical schools, the Pythagoreans alone outlawed suicide and abortion and did so without qualification. The Oath also concurs with Pythagorean prohibitions against surgical procedures of all kinds and against the shedding of blood, in which the soul was thought to reside. Again, this interdiction against the knife is especially out of keeping with the several treatises in the Hippocratic Corpus that deal at length with surgical techniques and operating room procedures." And just as a matter of historical interest: "The prohibition against abortion and suicide were (and remain) in consonance with the principles of the Christian Church. The earliest reference to the Oath is in the first century CE, and it may have been appropriated soon after to fit the religious ideals of the time. The substitution of God, Christ, and the saints for the names of Asclepius and his family was easy enough. It is ironic that the Hippocratic Oath, in its present form [not the modern version] with its religious subtext, is associated with Hippocrates, the man who first separated medicine from religion and disease from supernatural explanations." http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/antiqua/hippocrates.cfm It's the Christian church that started making noises about abortion being an ethical question. You choose to continue this tradition, but luckily for you, you won't ever have to make that decision for yourself.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 7:01:39 AM)
Kittin, do you have to be a bible thumping Christian to find abortion wrong? I rarely chime in on the topic of abortion, because I find myself in the middle on the issue. On one hand, I have some moral problems with the practice. I see it as very close to infanticide. However, I do not want the practice outlawed again. I don't want women going to unscrupulous, back alley abortion practicioners and placing their life in jeopardy. Saying all that, I fail to see why restrictions can't be placed on the practice. I see no reason why abortions past the first trimester should be allowed except in the most dire of circumstances. I also think that easier access to the morning after pill and better education would drastically reduce the frequency of the procedure. The extremists on both sides have refused any compromise on the issue, and the majority of us would welcome some compromise.

kittinSol -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 7:15:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Kittin, do you have to be a bible thumping Christian to find abortion wrong? You do not, but you have to understand that Christianity is its most vociferous opponent - before, people aborted with few ethical scruples. Nobody denies the right to have an opinion, as long as that opinion doesn't try to take our freedoms away from us. Do you see where I'm coming from here? quote: I also think that easier access to the morning after pill and better education would drastically reduce the frequency of the procedure. You are 100% correct here. We live in a very puritanistic society where, paradoxically, sex sells pretty much everything and women's bodies are seen as a commodity, but where you can't see two people make love on the television (yet war, blood and murder is routinely broadcasted as a matter of fact). It's no wonder there is a high level of confusion. But to address this particular social and cultural issue takes political clout, and so far nobody in power has taken the plunge. On the other hand, many unwanted pregnancies result from contraceptive failure (this is what happened to me, and to quite a few others, as you can see from this thread). quote: The extremists on both sides have refused any compromise on the issue, and the majority of us would welcome some compromise. I don't see how I am an extremist, unless you want to say that arguing in favour of women's right to choose is an extreme position. How do you propose a compromise of any kind is reached? I'm afraid this is one particular issue where the dichotomy "for/against" is very well defined - there's not much move for leeway here.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 7:45:23 AM)
quote: Do you see where I'm coming from here? I see were you are coming from. But I don't see placing some restrictions on the practice as a hindrance on choice. As I said before, I see no reason why the procedure can't be limited to the first trimester. quote: On the other hand, many unwanted pregnancies result from contraceptive failure (this is what happened to me, and to quite a few others, as you can see from this thread). I am aware of this, and it's one reason why abortion creates a moral dilemma for me. quote: How do you propose a compromise of any kind is reached? I'm afraid this is one particular issue where the dichotomy "for/against" is very well defined - there's not much move for leeway here. You're never going to make everyone happy. Statistics have shown that most people support the idea of limiting abortion to the first trimester. As I said, I don't see the problem with that. I see it as a perfectly acceptable compromise. Of course, the most vehemenent opponents of abortion would not be satisfied with this. But that is the way of the world.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 7:45:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Your argument fails for lack of internal logic and egregious imprecision. Not at all, your 'playing god' was imprecise and illogical. No one is playing god when a woman decides to have an abortion and as far as I can see, there is nothing in the hippocratic oath to stop a doctor performing an abortion. The woman is his patient, not the unviable embryo or fetus.

kittinSol -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 8:00:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou As I said before, I see no reason why the procedure can't be limited to the first trimester. Because it happens that a woman does not realise she is pregnant until after that delay. It's rare, but it happens. It also happens that a woman (or a person that isn't yet a woman) doesn't have regular cycles which makes it very difficult to judge. There is denial. There is fear. Etcaetera. quote: You're never going to make everyone happy. Statistics have shown that most people support the idea of limiting abortion to the first trimester. As I said, I don't see the problem with that. I see it as a perfectly acceptable compromise. Of course, the most vehemenent opponents of abortion would not be satisfied with this. But that is the way of the world. Two examples: in France the delay is ten weeks: it's too short in my opinion. In the UK, the delay is incredibly long: twenty-four weeks. But very few women abort at that late stage, and those that do usually do so because of extreme birth defects or the endangerement of the woman's life. Where do you set the mark?

celticlord2112 -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 11:47:03 AM)
The sophistry, kittin, is attempting to argue that abortion is not the ending of a human life. Abortion is infanticide. It is the deliberate extinction of human life. It is nothing but this.

kittinSol -> RE: The Deviding Issue-Palin's veiw Abortion (9/23/2008 11:49:32 AM)
You're entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong. You have the right to be wrong.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875