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

[catcherintherye]

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.

Well what if a doctor doesnt think a woman needs the treatment, but she does? Have you considered that?

Why is it a woman's job to convince a hostile medical establishment what is right for her?

 

[catcherintherye]

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.

Denying women the right to bodily autonomy and life saving treatment is not "a perfectly legal decision" in anything other than a tyrannical state. What the Nazis did was legal, it wasnt morally right, and they were rightly using for it.

Frankly you can believe what you like about when life starts. Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion, so dont have one. If somebody else thinks differently, it's their right to have an abortion.

The fact you wouldnt let somebody have an abortion after 6 weeks is a major red flag though. What if a minor, was raped by a man, and was in life threatening danger and wanted an abortion at 8 weeks (after the feotus has a heartbeat). Would you deny her that life saving treatment?

 

[LinekersLegs]

Good

 

[tsubaki]

Well what if a doctor doesnt think a woman needs the treatment, but she does? Have you considered that?

Why is it a woman's job to convince a hostile medical establishment what is right for her?

Of course I have considered it - that is my point; if the person asked to do the procedure genuinely does not think it is in the best interests of the patient then they should not be made to perform that procedure. They shouldn't be prevented from doing it if they think it is in the best interests of the patient, either.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Be quite ironic if this is what gets Rudy convicted of a crime

New York City Mayor Eric Adams calls for probe of Rudy Giuliani for possibly filing a false police report

“I believe, just as we’ve done in other instances like the 'Karen' incident in Central Park, I believe the D.A. should look at that,” Adams said. “I don’t want to see innocent people in jail.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[carolinablue232]

Well what if a doctor doesnt think a woman needs the treatment, but she does? Have you considered that?

Why is it a woman's job to convince a hostile medical establishment what is right for her?

Is your argument here that patients know better than doctors what is medically necessary for them? Idk if that’s a bridge you want to cross.

See: Covid-19

Also can you share evidence that the medical industry is a hostile establishment, particularly when it comes to care planning at a clinician level?

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

Denying women the right to bodily autonomy and life saving treatment is not "a perfectly legal decision" in anything other than a tyrannical state. What the Nazis did was legal, it wasnt morally right, and they were rightly using for it.

Frankly you can believe what you like about when life starts. Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion, so dont have one. If somebody else thinks differently, it's their right to have an abortion.

The fact you wouldnt let somebody have an abortion after 6 weeks is a major red flag though. What if a minor, was raped by a man, and was in life threatening danger and wanted an abortion at 8 weeks (after the feotus has a heartbeat). Would you deny her that life saving treatment?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I have no problem with an abortion in cases like that and I have said that previously in this thread.

I also said it's just my personal opinion and I have no problem with people making their own decisions and having abortions if they want to? So stop being so disingenuous and trying to strawman me, it's pathetic.

I certainly don't agree with individual states decisions to ban abortions I think it is terrible. I don't know the constitutional law so can't comment on whether or not an abortion is constitutional, that is down to the judges interpretation of it but the process by which they arrived at that decision is in fact, perfectly legal as many people have already said.

 

[catcherintherye]

Of course I have considered it - that is my point; if the person asked to do the procedure genuinely does not think it is in the best interests of the patient then they should not be made to perform that procedure. They shouldn't be prevented from doing it if they think it is in the best interests of the patient, either.

Well in what universe wouldnt it be in a woman's best interests to have to carry an unwanted foetus, and do enormous damage to her body in the process? When is that ever the best thing for her body?

 

[catcherintherye]

Get his hard drive checked.

 

[catcherintherye]

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I have no problem with an abortion in cases like that and I have said that previously in this thread.

I also said it's just my personal opinion and I have no problem with people making their own decisions and having abortions if they want to? So stop being so disingenuous and trying to strawman me, it's pathetic.

I certainly don't agree with individual states decisions to ban abortions I think it is terrible. I don't know the constitutional law so can't comment on whether or not an abortion is constitutional, that is down to the judges interpretation of it but the process by which they arrived at that decision is in fact, perfectly legal as many people have already said.

Well you said you dont think abortion is correct after 6 weeks.

I have asked you to clarify in the instance I gave. Would it be acceptable to have an abortion in those circumstances.

Perfectly legal is not moral is it? And if it's legal, why wasnt it legal 50 years or so ago? Why are these judges right, and the previous ones wrong? What has changed?

Who defines what is or isnt legal?

I dont think denying women life saving treatment is ever legal. That's what this judgement has done.

 

[tsubaki]

Well in what universe wouldnt it be in a woman's best interests to have to carry an unwanted foetus, and do enormous damage to her body in the process? When is that ever the best thing for her body?

Those are things that have to be discussed between the woman and her doctors though, they can't be legislated in advance for or against by other people.

The absolute position on both sides of this debate is wrong.

 

[catcherintherye]

Is your argument here that patients know better than doctors what is medically necessary for them? Idk if that’s a bridge you want to cross.

See: Covid-19

Also can you share evidence that the medical industry is a hostile establishment, particularly when it comes to care planning at a clinician level?

The medical industry is hostile to women, at a structural level. Many feminist organisations have written at length on that and its widely established.

I also think, in tbehe sspecific case of a termination, how is a doctor going to possibly be able to judge what's better than the woman herself. What medical advantages can the process of carrying an unwanted foetus bring. I'm happy to hear that medical argument. But I dont think it exists, and you can guarantee if it was men, no man would be expected to do it. I dont think theres a single restriction of any sort of equivalence placed upon men.

 

[catcherintherye]

Those are things that have to be discussed between the woman and her doctors though, they can't be legislated in advance for or against by other people.

The absolute position on both sides of this debate is wrong.

That's a complete cop out answer.

What is to discuss? Give me 1 medical advantage of carrying an unwanted feotus.

Your position is the problematic one, because as (I can only assume a man) you dont think women deserve bodily autonomy. You think they have to be able to convince a structurally hostile medical establishment of their right to some bodily autonomy.

So dont fob me off with a none answer, give me a concrete example of where carrying an unwanted feotus for 9 months, and the pain, trauma and danger of childbirth has any positive medical advantages?