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

[catcherintherye]

Good

These are the backbone of the "pro life" side.

Scumbag peadophiles, or peadophile protectors. They think they have the right to normalise about life and death. Those reprobates and their side lost that right as soon as they engaged in mass, organised peadophilia.

 

[carolinablue232]

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.

Sorry, could you share the actual research or studies to back that up? Where is a woman’s care planning and/or treatment lesser? I can find opinion pieces and anecdotes, but I can do that on pretty much any subject to back any perspective I want.

And personal awareness/decision making is different than medical necessity. You’re now reverting back to, “It should be a choice.” I agree, but again, that’s a totally different argument.

It’s the doctor’s job to evaluate the medical risk and plan/offer options accordingly. You’re suggesting physicians won’t do that or can’t because they’re not the woman. I disagree. That’s exactly what they do and will continue doing.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

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.

I said it's my personal opinion and I dont care what other people do and that I also completely disagree with banning abortions outright. I totally agree that in those horrific circumstances it should be allowed, so again stop getting emotional and attacking everyone that has a slightly different opinion to you.

 

[tsubaki]

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?

Who defines "unwanted", though?

A woman who doesn't want her baby because she has been convinced by the Church / Glenn Beck / whoever that it is evil because it was concieved out of wedlock; a woman who doesn't want her baby because its a girl rather than the boy her abusive partner wants; a woman who doesn't want her baby because she's read that it might carry the gay gene.

What I am trying to explain to you is that this decision for this procedure is far too complex to ever be safely legislated for or against; it can only ever be done properly, safely and ethically in discussions between the person concerned and the people she needs to carry the procedure out. Any attempt to bring about an absolutist, absurdist all-or-nothing position is dangerous.

 

[catcherintherye]

Sorry, could you share the actual research or studies to back that up? Where is a woman’s care planning and/or treatment lesser? I can find opinion pieces and anecdotes, but I can do that on pretty much any subject to back any perspective I want.

And personal awareness/decision making is different than medical necessity. You’re now reverting back to, “It should be a choice.” I agree, but again, that’s a totally different argument.

It’s the doctor’s job to evaluate the medical risk and plan/offer options accordingly. You’re suggesting physicians won’t do that or can’t because they’re not the woman. I disagree. That’s exactly what they do and will continue doing.

There was a report out last year, that looked at treatment of women, and specifically black women in childbirth in the NHS, and found structural problems.

I think Bell Hooks has also written about it. It's a relatively new area of research, so there will be increasing texts coming forward as we go. Womens experiences, and certainly women close to me, report a complete lack of care in relation to womens health from the health establishment.

What I'm suggesting, is I cant see any medical benefit, from the trauma, risk and danger that comes from carrying an unwanted feotus for 9 months, and then having to give birth.

There may well be subsequent benefits from having birth to a human. And where the pregnancy is wanted, there is a good argument that the benefits of having a child, outweight the medical drawbacks of pregnancy and childbirth.

However this is a separate argument to strictly looking at the medical wellbeing of the woman, with an unwanted feotus. I cant see how that wouldnt be a medical problem. I cant see a single medical upside.

 

[catcherintherye]

I said it's my personal opinion and I dont care what other people do and that I also completely disagree with banning abortions outright. I totally agree that in those horrific circumstances it should be allowed, so again stop getting emotional and attacking everyone that has a slightly different opinion to you.

You did say that, and I agree with you. If people dont support abortions, then don't have an abortion. That's absolutely fair enough.

Fair enough for acknowledging that. In such an instance though, that would mean aborting a feotus that has a heartbeat. It's not an easy choice, but in any rational universe the rights of a human, outweigh the rights of a feotus with a heartbeat every day. So we are in agreement.

 

[catcherintherye]

Who defines "unwanted", though?

A woman who doesn't want her baby because she has been convinced by the Church / Glenn Beck / whoever that it is evil because it was concieved out of wedlock; a woman who doesn't want her baby because its a girl rather than the boy her abusive partner wants; a woman who doesn't want her baby because she's read that it might carry the gay gene.

What I am trying to explain to you is that this decision for this procedure is far too complex to ever be safely legislated for or against; it can only ever be done properly, safely and ethically in discussions between the person concerned and the people she needs to carry the procedure out. Any attempt to bring about an absolutist, absurdist all-or-nothing position is dangerous.

Well surely the woman, who's body it is, decides what is best for her?

If she doesnt want to carry a child for 9 months, what business is it of a doctor?

The examples you have given are fair, but they are not really medical issues are they? They are different none medical reasons. Theres no medical advantage to keeping a feotus from a medical instance, where it's not wanted. Its dangerous.

And I'm not absolutist at all. If people are against abortion, they shouldnt have an abortion. But what if a woman has been raped, or her life is in danger, but a doctor doesnt ethically agree with abortion. Should he have the right to subject her to secondary abuse by denying her that right? What gives him that right?

 

[RAFUH]

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.

The whole of the western world is patriarchal. I'm not going to paint male OB-GYNs as misogynists or even patriarchal as based on my personal and professional interactions I've found them to be great advocates for women.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

You did say that, and I agree with you. If people dont support abortions, then don't have an abortion. That's absolutely fair enough.

Fair enough for acknowledging that. In such an instance though, that would mean aborting a feotus that has a heartbeat. It's not an easy choice, but in any rational universe the rights of a human, outweigh the rights of a feotus with a heartbeat every day. So we are in agreement.

Like I said earlier this is why concepts and definitions are important. Without a definition of life what is rational to you is irrational to someone else.

Without definitions we are just left with two sides screaming emotionally at each other.

We agree on some things and disagree on other things, like killing judges lol

 

[catcherintherye]

The whole of the western world is patriarchal. I'm not going to paint male OB-GYNs as misogynists or even patriarchal as based on my personal and professional interactions I've found them to be great advocates for women.

Yes it is. Which is why women need protecting in law.

 

[catcherintherye]

Like I said earlier this is why concepts and definitions are important. Without a definition of life what is rational to you is irrational to someone else.

Without definitions we are just left with two sides screaming emotionally at each other.

We agree on some things and disagree on other things, like killing judges lol

That's fair. And I understand the where does life start argument, and honestly, if its important to people just dont have an abortion. I think your perspective is fine. As long as others who think otherwise have their freedom.

And I'm not in favour of randomly killing judges. I'm in favour of putting people, who have put women and girls lives in grave danger in trial to face their atrocities.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

That's fair. And I understand the where does life start argument, and honestly, if its important to people just dont have an abortion. I think your perspective is fine. As long as others who think otherwise have their freedom.

And I'm not in favour of randomly killing judges. I'm in favour of putting people, who have put women and girls lives in grave danger in trial to face their atrocities.

Agreed.

Out of interest are there any states that have banned it completely, even if life of the mother is in danger? I haven't kept up with each states response

 

[tsubaki]

Well surely the woman, who's body it is, decides what is best for her?

If she doesnt want to carry a child for 9 months, what business is it of a doctor?

The examples you have given are fair, but they are not really medical issues are they? They are different none medical reasons. Theres no medical advantage to keeping a feotus from a medical instance, where it's not wanted. Its dangerous.

And I'm not absolutist at all. If people are against abortion, they shouldnt have an abortion. But what if a woman has been raped, or her life is in danger, but a doctor doesnt ethically agree with abortion. Should he have the right to subject her to secondary abuse by denying her that right? What gives him that right?

If a doctor ethically disagrees with a procedure completely, then they shouldn't practice that procedure or be placed in a position where they would have to recommend it if the circumstances required it.

Also I am not sure where this insistence on medical issues has come from - "bodily autonomy" doesn't require such reasons, and the "what if" scenarios are only there to highlight the absurdity in saying that the patient must always get what they say they want at the time (which is as absolutist as it gets).

Again, the only safe way to do this is IMHO to treat it as any other medical procedure, not something for Parliament or Congress to approve or disprove by going through a list of increasingly implausible scenarios ticking or unticking boxes, and then fundraising for years on the back of ticking more or less boxes.

 

[catcherintherye]

If a doctor ethically disagrees with a procedure completely, then they shouldn't practice that procedure or be placed in a position where they would have to recommend it if the circumstances required it.

Also I am not sure where this insistence on medical issues has come from - "bodily autonomy" doesn't require such reasons, and the "what if" scenarios are only there to highlight the absurdity in saying that the patient must always get what they say they want at the time (which is as absolutist as it gets).

Again, the only safe way to do this is IMHO to treat it as any other medical procedure, not something for Parliament or Congress to approve or disprove by going through a list of increasingly implausible scenarios ticking or unticking boxes, and then fundraising for years on the back of ticking more or less boxes.

But on a medical procedure model, there is no sensible reason to keep an unwanted feotus.

The medical issues has come from you wanting to frame it as a medical procedure.

The fact, as a man, you frame women having control over their own fertility as "absolitist" is insulting. Men get what they want all of the the time when it comes to reproductive health. A man never has to carry an unwanted feotus, and nor would they. So dont talk about absolutism.

I'm also not sure what these implausible scenarios are. In this very thread, today, there is evidence of a 12 year old rape victim being forced to give birth. This is the reality. Its absolutely disgusting.

But hey, bodily autonomy (which you insultingly put in quote marks) clearly isnt a priority for you where women and girls are concerned.

But I'll ask again. Should a woman have the right to an abortion, if she is the victim of rape, doesnt feel comfortable disclosing it to a male doctor, and he doesnt see the medical need for termination. How are you squaring that conundrum?

 

[tsubaki]

But on a medical procedure model, there is no sensible reason to keep an unwanted feotus.

The medical issues has come from you wanting to frame it as a medical procedure.

The fact, as a man, you frame women having control over their own fertility as "absolitist" is insulting. Men get what they want all of the the time when it comes to reproductive health. A man never has to carry an unwanted feotus, and nor would they. So dont talk about absolutism.

I'm also not sure what these implausible scenarios are. In this very thread, today, there is evidence of a 12 year old rape victim being forced to give birth. This is the reality. Its absolutely disgusting.

But hey, bodily autonomy (which you insultingly put in quote marks) clearly isnt a priority for you where women and girls are concerned.

But I'll ask again. Should a woman have the right to an abortion, if she is the victim of rape, doesnt feel comfortable disclosing it to a male doctor, and he doesnt see the medical need for termination. How are you squaring that conundrum?

Again, the decision for that has to be between a woman and the medical professionals that would carry out the procedure if required in the light of the circumstances.

Also FWIW men do not "get what they want all of the time when it comes to reproductive health".