Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 67
  1. #31  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I didn't liken abortion to a tumor, Ody did.
    Okay, you're back to upper layer sediment again.:)
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Okay, you're back to upper layer sediment again.:)
    How kind.

    Now for something more interesting - a new thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Since this Senator is interested in fairness then I am sure she would be for allowing me the same right to abort any financial responsibility if they dont want to be a father right? How is it not discriminatory to let a woman choose after conception and not give a man the same chance? If women want equal rights then they have to give up the special rights they have now. All men want the right to is not support the child, women want the right to kill them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Which other therapy has its own law requiring "informed consent" in a specific way and a way specific to the therapy?
    Only in your twisted world could abortion be considered "therapy"....
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    Only in your twisted world could abortion be considered "therapy"....
    I'm thinking Nova was a breach birth and was starved for oxygen at a crucial time in his development.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    Only in your twisted world could abortion be considered "therapy"....
    Therapy simply means a service or procedure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I have had several epidurals and have not been warned once of it possibly being fatal. Perhaps that was because the epidural wasn't optional in my case. It was however gross- the "sound" or sensation it makes when the doctor hits the spot is what I call "chicken bones".

    The ultrasound is not medically necessary. You can inform a woman of the gestational stage based entirely on her pregnancy date.
    When my wife had a kidney stone, she was warned in graphic detail about the potential issues, including paralysis. Of course, she had hers in California, and Florida may be different, but I said that if it was a ridiculously remote possibility, why even mention it, and the docs said that they had to, by law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Derisive terms? You mean like "nasty little POS"? I don't think so. I think you mean "scientific terms" or "medical terms".
    "Cluster of cells" isn't scientifically accurate, although it sounds it. It's a derisive term meant to downplay the significance of what is being done. What is accurate is real-time information about the specific fetus in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Significant women regret having married some jackass, but the law doesn't require they be warned not to marry a guy who looks studly but has no prospects or breeding.
    And if Planned Parenthood were leading her to the altar and downplaying all of her doubts, lying to her about her intended's record and prospects because they make federal money from convincing her to get married, regardless of the merits of her decision, then the situation would be analogous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Which other therapy has its own law requiring "informed consent" in a specific way and a way specific to the therapy?
    Abortion isn't therapy, it's elective surgery. It is not medically necessary in 94% of the cases.
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I have had a tumor removed. The doctor told me what he planned to do and how long it would take to recover. He actually didn't warn me about all possible side effects, including that my leg might go necrotic and require numerous surgeries, but he did warn me that I might lose my leg. He didn't try to discourage me from having the surgery.

    What you want is an effort to discourage these women from having abortions. They have a right to have an abortion prior to viability. It's not conditional on making them feel like shit for making that decision.
    Nobody is saying that the doctors should discourage them, only that the ultrasound be viewed. I'd go one step further and bar the doctors from saying anything, yeah or nay, during the ultrasound, so that the woman can make up her own mind without any undue influence. To put it another way, you demand that she have the right to choose, but refuse to provide her with the information that will inform her choice, especially since it might discourage her from making the choice that you obviously want her to make, which leads to my next question: Why do you want a complete stranger to abort her child? The underlying assumption to both of our arguments is that if a woman sees an ultrasound, she may decide not to exercise her right to destroy it. In other words, you aren't simply pro-choice, you're pro-abortion. You so emotionally invested in seeing her choose to destroy the life that's growing inside her that you oppose anything that might dissuade her. The question is, why?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Abortion isn't therapy, it's elective surgery. It is not medically necessary in 94% of the cases.
    Therein lies the rub: the 6% creates the legal and ethical paradox.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Why do you want a complete stranger to abort her child? The underlying assumption to both of our arguments is that if a woman sees an ultrasound, she may decide not to exercise her right to destroy it. In other words, you aren't simply pro-choice, you're pro-abortion. You so emotionally invested in seeing her choose to destroy the life that's growing inside her that you oppose anything that might dissuade her. The question is, why?
    It's purely academic for me. If I would allow for abortion in the case of rape, threat to the life of the woman, or medical problems of the fetus (and I do), then any moral argument for the prevention of abortion is out the window. There is no moral difference between a product of rape and a product of lust in terms of abortion. That is why this discussion is pointless. Even amongst the anti-abortion crowd, the majority would make an exception for a woman who had been raped by some scumbag, especially if the future child will be the obvious product of a crime.

    Moreover, if abortion is murder then women who have abortions are murderers, not just the doctors who perform them. So we want to send those murdering women to jail for life, right? When have you heard an anti-abortion group make such a demand? They don't. Why?

    If abortion is murder then it's always murder as long as the zygote, embryo, or fetus has not ceased to function prior to the procedure. No exceptions, not even for your idiotic daughter who thought her coolness would protect her as she jogged through Central Park at 125th.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Therein lies the rub: the 6% creates the legal and ethical paradox.
    No, the 6% doesn't. If an abortion is medically necessary, then the sonograms have already been done, and the mother knows exactly why she is on the table and what the consequences are. In the case of rape or incest, which account for less than 1% of all cases, the law invariably provides an opt-out. This isn't about that 6%, it's about the 94%, which are elective and medically unnecessary, which takes me back to my question: Why do you want those women to choose to abort?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •