Woman testify in a Texas lawsuit against the 6 week abortion ban (fence, carry)
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.
You have no opinion as to who should make extreme personal medical decisions, those who have the medical decision and whoes lives and health are affected by them or some state legislator who has no knowledge of the circumstances and dosen't give a fig about the people involved? none?
What would be the advantage of having Gregg Abott or Terry Wilson make the decision for your wife or daughter, you, and the physician whether their lives at risk or whether they should continue a pregnancy for 3 or 4 more months and give birth to a dead baby or one who will suffocate to death within a few hours?
What would be the advantage of having Valoree Swanson or Candy Nobel make the decision as to whether you can legally get a vasectomy or not?
I just cant even phantom any advantage as to these strangers with no medical knowledge or interest in your personal well being to be making personal reproductive decisions for individuals. These are procedures that are safe, well understood, fairly common to some degree legal or have been legal.
Sorry, but I don't know any conservatives, although there may be a handful of people on the fringes, that want to restrict abortion even in these extreme cases. Of course, there are just as many fringe Pro-Abortion people who have no issue with allowing abortion anytime up to and including birth. It's not about the fringes though.
I would be more concerned about the doctors and administrators who have taken this to a very political level without concern for their patients. Where they would rather make women suffer, and no longer trust their diagnosis from decades of experience, only to make a political point.
Because as soon as they sue to "clarify" this, another suit will be brought to clarify another anomaly and another. One thing is for certain, overturning RvW didn't cut down on the number of legal challenges there are...lawyers must be loving this.
They are not taking it to a political level. The legislators took it to a political level. These concerns over the vague language were brought before them when the bills were being discussed and the legislators ignored the concerns.
Being fearful of going to prison or paying hefty fines or losing your livelihood and thus refraining from doing those things to protect yourself is not being political. Its not that the physicians don't trust their own diagnosis its that they don't trust whether the authorities and courts trust their diagnosis. There are many medical procedures that are prohibitied by law that doctors may otherwise do for their patients but they dont because they would go to jail. Do you think they should do them anyway. Are they being political because they abide by these laws?
If every "anomaly" needs to be clarified then so be it. Do you not think it is important to clarify the law. They could take out the prison sentence for preforming abortions when their medical diagnosis would be to terminate the pregnancy do to non-viable fetus or in their expert medical opinion the mothers life is at risk.
This is not an abortion clinic situation. This is women and families who wanted this child but are facing these terrible situations. How many of these doctors do you think would choose to abort a perfectly healthy wanted baby in a perfectly normal pregnancy with no risk to mother or child?
No you took the 5th after supporting the non viable fetus over the parents. You had an opinion on that I found it odd you have no opinion on whose decision it should be, but I get it.
You feel it should be your decision for others based on your emotional response toward the unborn. Thats ok, many people think laws affecting others should be based on their own personal feelings.
Is crushing the baby's skull and scraping it out of the uterus at 20 weeks better than having a live birth and making the infant comfortable in the mother's arms?
Which sounds more cruel?
The latter sounds far more cruel. If it wasn't, people who are mourning very much wanted babies wouldn't choose it.
No. I think everyone is sympathetic to this woman's heartbreaking trauma.
Have you read through this thread?
Quote:
Where some may disagree, is that it depends on what your definition of "sympathetic" is? Just like the word "compassionate", Conservatives and Liberals tend to have different definitions. A Liberal would likely say every illegal alien should be given amnesty, and a Conservative would likely say that letting illegal aliens make the dangerous trek through Mexico, where many are raped, drugged, murdered, etc., under the guise of *maybe* being given amnesty is quite cruel and uncompassionate...
Can I get some crackers to go with that red herring? Try sticking to the topic.
No you took the 5th after supporting the non viable fetus over the parents. You had an opinion on that I found it odd you have no opinion on whose decision it should be, but I get it.
You feel it should be your decision for others based on your emotional response toward the unborn. Thats ok, many people think laws affecting others should be based on their own personal feelings.
Here are all my posts in this thread.
Where did I give my opinion on what this mother should do?
Where did I say it should be my decision to decide for others?
Hint: I didn't.
What I did do, in fact, was to provide the alternate viewpoint - one where it might be best for the baby.
What I did say, in fact, was that there were advantages and disadvantages to both sides and every individual situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
It's a tragic situation.
But essentially the argument is whether to murder the baby in utero (in the case in the video) or let it die a natural death in the mother's arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
Are you saying it's more humane to murder a baby in utero? For who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
I said it was a tragic situation.
Is crushing the baby's skull and scraping it out of the uterus at 20 weeks better than having a live birth and making the infant comfortable in the mother's arms?
Which sounds more cruel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
vs ... being dismembered.
Btw, the father thought the baby might live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
A second trimester abortion is typically a 2 day procedure.
If you're asking my personal opinion, I'd rather die in the arms of someone who loved me and not be dismembered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
I've answered this already.
Maybe more humane for the parents. Maybe not for the baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
Someone asked my personal opinion. I gave it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
My personal opinion is that - I don't have one. There are advantages and disadvantages to both sides and individual situations.
Yes, I have, and you just proved my point. Conservatives and Liberals tend to have different definitions for certain words, "sympathetic" being one of them. My "red herring" contained another.
However, everyone is sympathetic to her situation. Where some disagree is that her tragedy and the baby's unfortunate circumstances should not necessarily justify an abortion. In this case, given that the child was not going to live long, whether the child passed away naturally, or was killed in the womb, it didn't change the end result.
All I have to say is 'May God heal that woman's broken heart'.
Where did I give my opinion on what this mother should do?
Where did I say it should be my decision to decide for others?
Hint: I didn't.
What I did do, in fact, was to provide the alternate viewpoint - one where it might be best for the baby.
What I did say, in fact, was that there were advantages and disadvantages to both sides and every individual situation.
Where did I say you gave your opinion on what this mother should do?
Where did I say you said it should be your decision. I said its my opinion or my understanding based on your reluctance to give your opinion.
Your providing the alternative view point comes across as supporting what you feel would be more humane for the baby.
Yes, you made a statement about advantages and disadvantages and then said you have no opinion or would not state what those advantages and disadvantages were. Thus my having to draw my own conclusions regarding your statements.
If your offended by that perhaps speak clearly and elaborate so others know what your stance is or what point you are making so they dont have to quess.
Where did I say you gave your opinion on what this mother should do?
Where did I say you said it should be your decision. I said its my opinion or my understanding based on your reluctance to give your opinion.
Your providing the alternative view point comes across as supporting what you feel would be more humane for the baby.
Yes, you made a statement about advantages and disadvantages and then said you have no opinion or would not state what those advantages and disadvantages were. Thus my having to draw my own conclusions regarding your statements.
If your offended by that perhaps speak clearly and elaborate so others know what your stance is or what point you are making so they dont have to quess.
Where did you say it? Here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
You feel it should be your decision for others based on your emotional response toward the unborn. Thats ok, many people think laws affecting others should be based on their own personal feelings.
I'm not offended. And I've been pretty clear throughout this thread.
It's others who have an emotional response to what I've said.
Well the law suit is to make legislators clarify the vague language of the law. If you watch the video it will explain it all.
It should go without saying that abortion laws should be very specific, so we all know what the law makes legal or illegal.
A doctor should not be guessing whether or not an abortion is legal or not. For the law to be so vague that neither the doctor or the mother, or their lawyer even know what is and isn't legal, is unacceptable.
Forcing a woman to carry a badly deformed baby that will not survive out of the womb or one that will be stillborn, is not right.
Just allow the couple, in most instances, to decide on an abortion in the first trimester, and move on. A great many pregnancies naturally terminate in the first trimester anyway.
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.
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.
