Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[tsubaki]

As for your 2nd point, you only get to the point of safe medical treatments (which is what an abortion is) it needs to be legalised. You seem to contradict yourself a little there.

Not really - as I said, we do not legalize (or make illegal) medical treatments now in the vast majority of cases.

 

[catcherintherye]

Not really - as I said, we do not legalize (or make illegal) medical treatments now in the vast majority of cases.

So what is your understanding of a medical treatment. Surely any termination is by its nature, a medical treatment?

 

[tsubaki]

So what is your understanding of a medical treatment. Surely any termination is by its nature, a medical treatment?

It is, but again you do not get medical treatments done to you solely because you want them. There has to be a real need for the procedure and the medical staff have to assess whether that is the right thing to do based on the needs of the patient.

I mean, if you turned up at the nearest A&E and demanded they cut your right foot off, they would not do it no matter how much you cited the body autonomy argument at them. If you'd mangled it in a motorbike accident and they needed to do it to save the rest of you, they would.

At no point has Parliament, Congress or anyone else said they have the right to do that or that they are forbidden to do it because of God, or something; we just accept it is a medical issue. That is how this should be treated.

 

[catcherintherye]

It is, but again you do not get medical treatments done to you solely because you want them. There has to be a real need for the procedure and the medical staff have to assess whether that is the right thing to do based on the needs of the patient.

I mean, if you turned up at the nearest A&E and demanded they cut your right foot off, they would not do it no matter how much you cited the body autonomy argument at them. If you'd mangled it in a motorbike accident and they needed to do it to save the rest of you, they would.

At no point has Parliament, Congress or anyone else said they have the right to do that or that they are forbidden to do it because of God, or something; we just accept it is a medical issue. That is how this should be treated.

Well what qualification is it of (an overwhelmingly male) doctor to decide whether she needs an abortion or not.

That just sounds to me like more attempts for men to police womens bodies to be honest.

Is that doctor going carry the foetus for 9 months for her?

I dont know a single doctor, that would make someone carry a collection of cells they didnt want, for 9 months, against their will.

Likewise, what if the woman has been raped, but theres no medical need for the treatment?

As indicated, it just sounds like more ways for men to control womens bodies to me, and clearly why you dont like the bodily autonomy argument. Because you're not comfortable with women having the same bodily autonomy as men.

 

[tsubaki]

Well what qualification is it of (an overwhelmingly male) doctor to decide whether she needs an abortion or not.

That just sounds to me like more attempts for men to police womens bodies to be honest.

Is that doctor going carry the foetus for 9 months for her?

I dont know a single doctor, that would make someone carry a collection of cells they didnt want, for 9 months, against their will.

Likewise, what if the woman has been raped, but theres no medical need for the treatment?

As indicated, it just sounds like more ways for men to control womens bodies to me, and clearly why you dont like the bodily autonomy argument. Because you're not comfortable with women having the same bodily autonomy as men.

You are asking medical professionals to carry out a medical procedure; in literally every other respect we'd expect that they should ethically examine whether that procedure is required and this should be no different.

 

[RAFUH]

 

[catcherintherye]

You are asking medical professionals to carry out a medical procedure; in literally every other respect we'd expect that they should ethically examine whether that procedure is required and this should be no different.

Well in what situation, wouldnt it be required?

If somebody doesnt want their body distorted and damaged from pregnancy, what possibly medical reason is there to challenge that?

And secondly, what if there wasnt a medical reason, but a psychological issue, like the woman had been raped? The woman was in an abusive marriage/relationship? What is a doctor meant to do then in your paradigm.

 

[Prevenger17]

I like this bloodthirsty version of Catcher

 

[catcherintherye]

You are asking medical professionals to carry out a medical procedure; in literally every other respect we'd expect that they should ethically examine whether that procedure is required and this should be no different.

And I'm not asking them to do that really.

What I'm stating is that medical professionals work for the populace. If somebody wants a procedure done, it is their job to facilitate it. It's not a male doctors body, so it's not his choice.

Everything else is just hypocrisy and noise.

 

[catcherintherye]

I like this bloodthirsty version of Catcher

I dont!

 

[RAFUH]

Well what qualification is it of (an overwhelmingly male) doctor to decide whether she needs an abortion or not.

Nearly 60% of OB-GYNs are female (in the US) and that is increasing as recent residency classes are more like 80% female.

 

[catcherintherye]

Nearly 60% of OB-GYNs are female (in the US) and that is increasing as recent residency classes are more like 80% female.

Ok fair enough.

They work within a patriarchal framework though, don't they?

The 40% who are not female, are completely unqualified to tell any female they are wrong about choices on her body. It's not up to a man, what a woman wants to do with her body. This isnt the middle ages. Feminism happened, and it was a good thing.

 

[tsubaki]

And I'm not asking them to do that really.

What I'm stating is that medical professionals work for the populace. If somebody wants a procedure done, it is their job to facilitate it. It's not a male doctors body, so it's not his choice.

Everything else is just hypocrisy and noise.

No, it isn't. Medical professionals should not be required to facilitate someone having a procedure done, they should be required to do it after ethical considerations as to whether patients really need to have it.

 

[Ruairi77]

View attachment 171750

outlander!

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

The issue isnt around heart beats. It is around bodily autonomy. People have a right to bodily autonomy.

If men dont like it, fine, then dont get an abortion. If other people want to do as they choose with their body, that is their basic human right.

And let's be frank here, this debate is not about allowing situations where womens (or often childrens) life is in danger, or their has been rape. There is no opt out for those in the laws being made. It completely shows the hypocrisy of the alleged pro life argument, which is pro death of women and children by denying them medical treatment. They are actual humans, not foetuses/groups of cells. If you care about human life, you protect human life. It's not complex, it's very simple.

Let's not forget some of the biggest proponents of the pro-death, pro-rape, anti-choice side, The Catholic Church. They harboured peadophiles for generations. They flushed babies down toilets. They stole babies born out of wedlock. But they want to deny women rights over their bodies, by claiming they care about babies. Complete rubbish, and wholly at odds with their conduct.

They want to subject women and girls to murder, to go along with the rampant peadophilia they covered for. That's their agenda. Anyone not calling it out, is complicit as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree. Humans beings reason by concepts and definitions, we make laws on concepts and definitions. To disregard the heartbeat is silly, like I said in my earlier post. Some people define life through the heartbeat, others define life after birth, it is important to settle which is in fact true or at least understand both sides of that debate.

It seems from your posts that you believe life begins at birth, that's fine but you come across as very much I AM RIGHT.

I personally would lead towards a heartbeat defines life and I am the least religious person you could meet, so while agree that the Catholic church and nearly all organized religions are terrible, it has no relevance in the point I am making.

I personally disagree with abortions after a heartbeat, I also believe in freedom of choice and bodily autonomy so I would not try to impose my views upon a person who sits on the other side of the argument.

Generally I like reading your posts on this forum and consider you well balanced and fair but I think you are displaying anything but that in this thread. As other posters have called out you can't go round calling for the murder of judges who have made a perfectly legal decision. They have just said it is not a constitutional right as they interpret the constitution. I disagree when a state completely bans abortion, but I am not going after the SCOTUS as it's simply irrational.