U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2011, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
84,960 posts, read 98,795,031 times
Reputation: 31371

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Now now, don't contradict males with silly things like facts. They prefer to believe women are murderers anytime they're inconvenienced by something as trivial as a pregnancy. It interferes with their vacation plans and wild romances.
Pregnancy also ruins their figures, making it hard to wear a bikini again!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2011, 11:29 PM
 
140 posts, read 254,973 times
Reputation: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
Plus, we all know that any woman who has carried a pregnancy to term before is 100% likely to carry her second pregnancy to term. Like, duh. Everyone knows that.

I sure hope you are being sarcastic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2011, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,060,346 times
Reputation: 11268
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow View Post
Where in the article does it say anything about the health of the mother? Where does it say anything about the mother's life being at risk? I don't see it anywhere. Therefore the need for an abortion is negated.

While the outcome would have been the same had she been induced, it's a matter of principle. When a family member becomes terminally ill, we don't euthanize them like a dog, we keep them comfortable and let them die a natural death. Why should it be any different for an unborn baby? It's not a matter of abortion, it's really a matter of euthanasia.

What I see here is shameless liberals in the media exploiting this woman's tragedy to advance their anti-life leftist agenda. Liberals truly are heartless creatures.
Why is the government involved in a relationship between the woman and her doctor.
Aren't you one of the people who believe in less government intervention unless it's an issue that you feel for?

The article had a link and the comments talked about more than the abc news piece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow View Post
What's really odd about this whole situation is that anti-life liberals constantly claim that it's not a person until it's born, than an unborn baby is "just a clump of cells" and can't feel pain to justify abortion, yet as soon as the argument becomes inconvenient, they claim the opposite, that is that an unborn baby is a person and can feel pain and that an abortion ends their pain and suffering. This just goes to show you the lengths that liberals will go to in order to justify baby-killing. First it's not a baby, but then when they feel like it, it is a baby an abortion alleviates its suffering. If this is not the epitome of liberal hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.
Being purposely obtuse or misrepresenting the "other" side... and politicizing saying that it's only liberals who believe in a woman's right to choose is one thing.
The Nebraska law states states that a fetus can feel pain at that point; this incident shows the evils of that law.
The fetus was dying, by the law, they forced the fetus to feel pain as it was being crushed to death by the woman's uterus.
Are you saying that the pain of the fetus, as defined by Nebraska law, was not an issue? Are you saying that the woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy while killing her fetus, causing it pain and the horrors of the family and the present and future health issues of the woman are not to be taken into consideration at all?

This is not a hypothetical issue, it really happened.

Last edited by chielgirl; 03-20-2011 at 12:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2011, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,060,346 times
Reputation: 11268
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajzjmsmom View Post
What I find truly sad is how many posters are so callous on here. Have any of you had to deliver a baby you knew was dying? The articles clearly state this mother and father did not want an abortion, they simply did not want their baby to suffer. They asked that she be induced, inducing a mother is not aborting a baby. The article also said the same thing had happened in an earlier pg, this time at 15 weeks and the doctors induced her that time.
Another reason why men shouldn't be involved in a specifically woman's issue.
They'll never be in this position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2011, 01:08 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,060,346 times
Reputation: 11268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Offsetdude View Post
I sure hope you are being sarcastic.
Yes, he was being sarcastic, the rest of his posts will attest to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2011, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Geneva, IL
12,976 posts, read 11,790,469 times
Reputation: 14677
Personally I think it's debatable that this fetus was able to feel pain, but public emotion got in the way of this woman receiving the medical treatment she needed. The fetus was doomed. The doctor recommended specific medical treatment. The patient agreed with the recommended medical treatment. That should have been the treatment the patient received.

This Nebraska ruling is and was contentious when adopted. The scientific "findings" used to support this bill are debatable, and go against all other research in the field of fetal pain, the general consensus being that based purely on anatomical and physiological development the most likely gestational age for recognition of pain is anywhere from 22 to 28 weeks. The ruling was a thinly veilied attempt to chip away at abortion rights. Looking at all the proposals around the various states, that much is pretty obvious. But Nebraska can't have it both ways. They used scientific data not entirely embraced by the medical community, but they really based this legislation largely on emotion. If people supported adoption of the Nebraska legislation, then how can they not be outraged by this, after all the legislation was based purely on fetal pain?

Last edited by Zimbochick; 03-20-2011 at 07:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2011, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Warren County and loving it!
5,079 posts, read 7,245,272 times
Reputation: 2557
So the doctor says she needed this specific medical treatment. The woman agrees and the court disagrees....

This is just plain wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2011, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Neither here nor there
14,810 posts, read 13,560,227 times
Reputation: 32925
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
I disagree... why should constituents have any say in a woman's relationship with her uterus? I didn't realize that a woman's uterus was of any interest to the public. If her uterus causes constituents unhappiness, we've got big problems in Nebraska.

Many men are having fertility problems due to laptops overheating their testicles, but we certainly don't see government-restricted testicle temperature on the ballot anywhere
I didn't say constituents either should or should not have any say in the matter. Only that they do the way things are set up today. That is the reality of the situation. (I am a realist.) What I was saying is that since, in today's world, abortion is regulated by law, that Nebraska legislators need to take another look at the law they have enacted and revise it to prevent this kind of sad situation from ever occurring again. The current law is shortsighted.

Nebraska (and many other states) are comprised of primarily conservative voters who elect conservatives to represent them in their state legislatures and expect them to enact laws that reflect their views. (Again, that's just the reality of the situation.)

Many posters here think there should be NO legal restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy but the reality of the situation is different--there ARE restrictions and Nebraska passed a bad law that let a very sad situation slip through the cracks to a very sad ending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2011, 08:24 AM
 
Location: somewhere
4,264 posts, read 7,930,262 times
Reputation: 3129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
Personally I think it's debatable that this fetus was able to feel pain, but public emotion got in the way of this woman receiving the medical treatment she needed. The fetus was doomed. The doctor recommended specific medical treatment. The patient agreed with the recommended medical treatment. That should have been the treatment the patient received.

This Nebraska ruling is and was contentious when adopted. The scientific "findings" used to support this bill are debatable, and go against all other research in the field of fetal pain, the general consensus being that based purely on anatomical and physiological development the most likely gestational age for recognition of pain is anywhere from 22 to 28 weeks. The ruling was a thinly veilied attempt to chip away at abortion rights. Looking at all the proposals around the various states, that much is pretty obvious. But Nebraska can't have it both ways. They used scientific data not entirely embraced by the medical community, but they really based this legislation largely on emotion. If people supported adoption of the Nebraska legislation, then how can they not be outraged by this, after all the legislation was based purely on fetal pain?

This is probably why I am having a hard time dealing with all we are hearing in the news about states and abortions as well as the federal gov't attempting to defund Planned Parenthood. They are trying to push their agenda because of their personal beliefs and making it about morals. You cannot govern on emotion, you govern based on facts not what some person feels is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2011, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
84,960 posts, read 98,795,031 times
Reputation: 31371
^^Regardless of the Nebraska law, this case should not have fallen under its jurisdiction. This was a medical situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top