bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....Instead, they have to be rushed off to non-catholic hospitals. Final result is that so-called "pro life" is putting real lives in danger! Well Christ man, do you think Americans should have drive-thru abortion clinics on every corner? Want fries with that dead baby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Where are the other experts who share McHugh's opinions? Any experts who reviewed the same cases and did not have objections would not have made the news! Okay, that's just lazy. Rather than find some experts who disagree with McHugh or admit there are none, you pull this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Well Christ man, do you think Americans should have drive-thru abortion clinics on every corner? Abortion clinics on every corner! Get real! The problem is declining access to abortion, even where it is legally available. There should at least be reasonable access, instead of the steady erosion of services that require many women to travel long distances for this procedure. Remember the last time we discussed this -- the lack of reasonable access was cited as a key reason why the U.S. has a higher percentage of late term abortions than Canada and European countries. An excellent article about the gradual erosion of abortion rights in your country is found at Prochoice.org But access to abortion has been severely eroded. The most recent survey found that 88% of all U.S. counties have no identifiable abortion provider. In non-metropolitan areas, the figure rises to 97%. As a result, many women must travel long distances to reach the nearest abortion provider. The article identifies five major categories of growing obstacles causing a decline in available access: Shortage of Abortion Providers Restrictive Legislation: such as parental notification laws, mandatory waiting periods and biased counseling laws Clinic Violence and Disruption Decreased funding for abortion services Declining Number of Hospitals Providing Abortion Services Want fries with that dead baby? Spare us the hyperbole! You've admitted yourself a number of times that you have no interest in the ethical or moral dilemmas involved in this issue. For you, it's just a political issue, and only matters for scoring political points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Okay, that's just lazy. Rather than find some experts who disagree with McHugh or admit there are none, you pull this. It's up to the guy who claims that some of Dr. Tiller's abortions were performed for "frivolous" reasons to make his case. And since the anti-abortion lobby was unable to get a conviction in a state with restrictive rules on third trimester abortions, McHugh's arguments did not carry much weight in court. Also, with improved methods and technology, doctors can discover health risks to the mother, and improperly formed fetuses much earlier than previously, so the need for late term abortions is almost removed completely. There is only a small percentage of abortions which are performed in the third trimester in the first place. Do you have anything to back up your claims that all heath risks can be discovered at earlier stages of pregnancy -- but why should that matter anyway, if you really believe that life begins at "conception?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Abortion clinics on every corner! Get real! The problem is declining access to abortion, even where it is legally available. There should at least be reasonable access, instead of the steady erosion of services that require many women to travel long distances for this procedure. Remember the last time we discussed this -- the lack of reasonable access was cited as a key reason why the U.S. has a higher percentage of late term abortions than Canada and European countries. Nobody is stopping you from opening an abortion clinic.....but you can't force physicians to support your "cause". Spare us the hyperbole! You've admitted yourself a number of times that you have no interest in the ethical or moral dilemmas involved in this issue. For you, it's just a political issue, and only matters for scoring political points. That's right...if you can slaughter late term babies, I can blow up terrorists and their families. Such a deal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 It's up to the guy who claims that some of Dr. Tiller's abortions were performed for "frivolous" reasons to make his case. And since the anti-abortion lobby was unable to get a conviction in a state with restrictive rules on third trimester abortions, McHugh's arguments did not carry much weight in court.There is only a small percentage of abortions which are performed in the third trimester in the first place. Do you have anything to back up your claims that all heath risks can be discovered at earlier stages of pregnancy -- but why should that matter anyway, if you really believe that life begins at "conception?" Unable to get a conviction for what, exactly? For minor misdemeanor charges, not for illegal late term abortions, as the newly elected AT dropped the case in support of Tiller. Since you can not provide ANY experts who disagree with Dr. McHugh, reasonable people will agree that some serious hanky panky was going on in Dr. Tiller's clinic. What you or I believe in is not at issue here, the facts of the case are. Since you are unable to grasp that there have been advances in medical technology , here's some hints for you: Defects Sometimes Treated by Open Fetal Surgery Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (if indicated at all, it is now more likely to be treated by endoscopic fetal surgery) Congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation Congenital heart disease Myelomeningocele (a severe form of spina bifida) Pulmonary sequestration Sacrococcygeal teratoma Spina bifida Not only can they detect such abnomalities, they can correct them while still in the womb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Since 2 other doctors signed off on each abortion, there are obviosuly many other experts that disagreed. Don't let that stand in the way of your tring to slander the name of a murdered man though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 There's nothing "difficult" about the issue, other than controlling that holy urge/itch to tell others what to do and how they should be living their lives in, whether asked or (most commonly) not. If only some kind of treatement was invented for that really serious condition, the world would make an unprecedented step forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 There's nothing "difficult" about the issue, other than controlling that holy urge/itch to tell others what to do and how they should be living their lives in, whether asked or (most commonly) not. If only some kind of treatement was invented for that really serious condition, the world would make an unprecedented step forward. That would be anarchy.....no thanks....we already tried that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Nobody is stopping you from opening an abortion clinic.....but you can't force physicians to support your "cause". As a physician/doctor/nurse , you take the hypocratic oath. You may not morally support the cause, but as a doctor, you should perform your duties, even if it goes against your beliefs. If you let your beliefs get in the way of perfoming your duties as a doctor, then you should look for other work. That's right...if you can slaughter late term babies, I can blow up terrorists and their families. Such a deal! If it is still in the womb it is a feotus. Once it is out of the womb, the we can call it a baby!! And another question: a doctor who performs abortions (any abortions) is a terrorist? Sharkman Defects Sometimes Treated by Open Fetal SurgeryCongenital diaphragmatic hernia (if indicated at all, it is now more likely to be treated by endoscopic fetal surgery) Congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation Congenital heart disease Myelomeningocele (a severe form of spina bifida) Pulmonary sequestration Sacrococcygeal teratoma Spina bifida Not only can they detect such abnomalities, they can correct them while still in the womb. Actually that is pretty neat that our technology and medicine has come this far to actually operate on feotuses. And I am sure if a to-be-mother finds out her yet-to-be-borne has medical issues, they would want to try to fix it before the abortion option is considered. This is a good option to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) As a physician/doctor/nurse , you take the hypocratic oath. You may not morally support the cause, but as a doctor, you should perform your duties, even if it goes against your beliefs. If you let your beliefs get in the way of perfoming your duties as a doctor, then you should look for other work. The hypocratic oath does not include slaughtering perfectly healthy, third term fetuses. Nor does it abbrogate constitutional rights. If it is still in the womb it is a feotus. Once it is out of the womb, the we can call it a baby!! And another question: a doctor who performs abortions (any abortions) is a terrorist? Check your logic and geography. Kansas is in the USA...not Canada.....land of the instant baby. Edited June 12, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 That would be anarchy.....no thanks....we already tried that. Oh really? So everybody would be minding everybody else's business? Should it be limited only to the matters of reproduction (why?) or perhaps extended to other domains of our life as well? Need free advice on what you eat / how you look / what you put in yourself / what you do / what you should / shouldn't be reading or listening to / ... etc .. yada. Here, we'll give you one anyways, whether you ask it or not, no, we insist! Indeed, from that viewpoint, people taking care of their own bodies in the way they see fit would be an impossible and disgusting "anarchy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 ....Indeed, from that viewpoint, people taking care of their own bodies in the way they see fit would be an impossible and disgusting "anarchy". They can do whatever they please, but not force others to help them do it. The tide is turning on third-tri and partial birth abortions, unless you want to do it yourself with impunity. Hell, we have people who murder moms just to get there live "fetus".....magically becomes a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 There's nothing "difficult" about the issue, other than controlling that holy urge/itch to tell others what to do and how they should be living their lives in, whether asked or (most commonly) not. If only some kind of treatement was invented for that really serious condition, the world would make an unprecedented step forward. Yeah, all of those intrusive laws that set an age limit for sex or decide when life begins or ends, intrusive laws that decide who can drink beer or wine and road laws that say a 15 yr old can't drive and I can't go beyond a certain speed. Our society is made up of laws created by those with an itch to tell others what to do and how they should be living their lives. You better get used to it, it's not going away any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 They can do whatever they please, but not force others to help them do it. I'm sorry, but who exactly is being "forced" here? Doctors performing abortions aginst their will, under duress and fearing for their everything? Is that how it is in your fantasy world, very interesting! Yet the dilemma remains unanswered: either, we'll learn to mind our own business (and by extension, let everybody else mind theirs), or we should make it a free season and let everybody take care about everything in everybody else's life. I.e. make you slim down, fatten up, work out, beautify you if you're under par, or uglify you if you happen to look better than us. Why not? Why artificially limit bodily interference to one very specific domain (of your choice)? So which one it would be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 ....So which one it would be? That has already been decided. Why do you thing the dopers whine so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Must be the experience. It's ... trancendental! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Unable to get a conviction for what, exactly? For minor misdemeanor charges, not for illegal late term abortions, as the newly elected AT dropped the case in support of Tiller. Exactly! Dr. Tiller was not charged with any crimes, so his murder was no act of vigilante justice, as some anti-abortionists want to frame the story. He could have remained safe, and stuck to his day job as an obstetrician/gynecologist, but instead he was performing a service that is getting more and more difficult to obtain for women who have complications late in pregnancy......and the anti-abortion crusaders who constantly called him a "murderer," especially those with public platforms like Bill O'Reilly, should be considered accomplices to murder! Since you can not provide ANY experts who disagree with Dr. McHugh, reasonable people will agree that some serious hanky panky was going on in Dr. Tiller's clinic. I should have asked for the source of this story about Paul McHugh, that you and Shady were taking quotes from, because I should have known that there would be important details that you guys were leaving out, and I found this at Operation Rescue: A Pschiatrist who has examined over thirty medical records subpoenaed from abortionist George R. Tiller, says...... well, we've already heard what he said -- but if he examined about 30 records, that means he only was given access to a small fraction of the records if we are to believe the claims that Dr. Tiller performed thousands of abortions. It says further down: He was asked to review the abortion records by former Attorney General Phill Kline to determine if the mental health diagnoses were psychiatrically justified. That's Phill Kline (Republican), former Kansas Attorney General. Did this public official who had a deliberate strategy of trying to bring criminal charges against Dr. Tiller show those records to any other experts? And I should note that McHugh's credentials as a psychiatrist does not necessarily make him a credible spokesman on bioethics -- for that, he would also need to prove his mettle as a philosopher who understands all of the contentious issues involving defining personhood, and the problem of competing interests between a woman and a growing embryo or fetus. On other issues that Paul McHugh has expressed more opinions on, such as Dissociative Personality Disorders, transexuals and sex-change operations, who stopped Johns Hopkins from performing sexual reassignment surgeries -- he reveals himself to be straightjacketed by Catholic Dogma, and even promotes Reparative therapies -- something that very few in his profession believe are useful and are more likely to cause greater harm. http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh.html http://crystalgaze2.blogspot.com/2009/02/d...aul-mchugh.html http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/...nssexualism.htm What you or I believe in is not at issue here, the facts of the case are. Since you are unable to grasp that there have been advances in medical technology , here's some hints for you:Defects Sometimes Treated by Open Fetal Surgery Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (if indicated at all, it is now more likely to be treated by endoscopic fetal surgery) Congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation Congenital heart disease Myelomeningocele (a severe form of spina bifida) Pulmonary sequestration Sacrococcygeal teratoma Spina bifida Not only can they detect such abnomalities, they can correct them while still in the womb. No cure yet for terminal birth defects, like Anencephaly, but anti-abortion fanatics are still insisting that pregnant women have to bring them to full term anyway! Many of those defects you listed may have medical breakthroughs, but they are still debilitating disorders that shorten life, require lifelong expensive medical treatment, and it should be up to the pregnant woman to decide after consulting her own trusted advisers, on whether to carry a fetus with birth defects to term. And, I would include Down's Syndrome on the list of defects that a woman should have an option to terminate pregnancy. Not just because of the demands of a lifelong commitment to a disabled child, but also because that genetic disorder dooms the child to a drastically shortened life of poor health. Some may wish to bring the child into this world, some may not -- the final decision should be that of the prospective mother to make -- not the state, not her husband, and not a bunch of men running around with bibles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 There's nothing "difficult" about the issue, other than controlling that holy urge/itch to tell others what to do and how they should be living their lives in, whether asked or (most commonly) not. But the reason why this issue that should have been settled 35 years ago, keeps rearing its ugly head, is largely because the pro-choice side has bought into the rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement. Starting with the Clintons, Bill Clinton tried to straddle the fence on this issue in the 90's with his "safe, legal and rare" theme. They implicitly bought the argument that abortion is killing a fetus or embryo, but argued for a pragmatic position calling for cooperation to reduce the number of abortions performed -- this is BTW, the same theme that President Obama strikes when he talks on the subject of abortion. A clear position should have been adopted that you can't "kill" something that hasn't even started higher brain function, and even after 28 or 32 weeks, there are still valid reasons for making abortion available. Sorry to say, but the Feminist Movement and the multitudes of women who have had abortions quietly, and are reluctant to defend their choice, have made it possible for the anti-abortion movements to turn the issue from women's rights (as it was in the 70's) to right to life (as it is now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Nobody is stopping you from opening an abortion clinic.....but you can't force physicians to support your "cause". Thanks for taking us back to the issue that inspired me to start this thread. The primary reason doctors don't want to get involved in abortions goes beyond whatever religious or philosophical reasons they may have, and straight to the campaign of domestic terrorism that uses confrontation, assaults, vandalism, death threats and the occasional murder to intimidate doctors and clinic workers (nurses and even security guards at clinics have been murdered) to instill a sense of fear to make the safe operation of an abortion clinic next to impossible. This is the strategy of terrorism afterall. All this time, you rightwing fanatics have tried to steer our attention outward at Muslim terrorist threats, when the gravest terrorist threats come from your friends in the white supremacist, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-semetic movements. Who would have thunk it!......except for the fact that the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil prior to 9/11 was carried out by a couple of guys spawned in the right wing militia movement. That's right...if you can slaughter late term babies, I can blow up terrorists and their families. Such a deal! And you demonstrate that the right wing has no actual respect for the law, and is willing to impose their will by any means necessary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Thanks for taking us back to the issue that inspired me to start this thread. The primary reason doctors don't want to get involved in abortions goes beyond whatever religious or philosophical reasons they may have, and straight to the campaign of domestic terrorism that uses confrontation, assaults, vandalism, death threats and the occasional murder to intimidate doctors and clinic workers (nurses and even security guards at clinics have been murdered) to instill a sense of fear to make the safe operation of an abortion clinic next to impossible. This is the strategy of terrorism afterall. All this time, you rightwing fanatics have tried to steer our attention outward at Muslim terrorist threats, when the gravest terrorist threats come from your friends in the white supremacist, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-semetic movements. Who would have thunk it!......except for the fact that the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil prior to 9/11 was carried out by a couple of guys spawned in the right wing militia movement. And you demonstrate that the right wing has no actual respect for the law, and is willing to impose their will by any means necessary! Abortionist and their supporters of almost full term abortion are extremists ---they are NOT liberal or left wing - they are as right wing as you can get - Nazis practicing eugenics is pretty rightist in my mind - I wish these crazed idealogs on both sides of the fence would hurry up and detroy each other and leave us and the potential children out of it...they are all disgraceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 But the reason why this issue that should have been settled 35 years ago, keeps rearing its ugly head, is largely because the pro-choice side has bought into the rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement. Indeed, some (many) of us seem to be unsure whether a sane grown up person should be allowed a full and unrestricted control of their own body. Yet we're much less confused about going into strange remote lands and intstructing them, oftentime by force, on the process to create their government. Go figure us out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Indeed, some (many) of us seem to be unsure whether a sane grown up person should be allowed a full and unrestricted control of their own body. Yet we're much less confused about going into strange remote lands and intstructing them, oftentime by force, on the process to create their government. Go figure us out! Too late for that....government decided long ago that nobody has unrestricted control over their own bodies. Even suicide attempts will bring state intervention. This is very consistent with using force in "remote lands". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Maybe in the land of the free, I don't know? In this country, I'm not aware of any legislation restricting suicide attempt by a sane adult individual. But of course this is way off topic. And of course, controlling others bodies and foreign lands thousands miles away are very consistent, and in fact belong to the same ideology. The same one btw that so likes to put certain "liberty" on its banner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Maybe in the land of the free, I don't know? In this country, I'm not aware of any legislation restricting suicide attempt by a sane adult individual. But of course this is way off topic. And of course, controlling others bodies and foreign lands thousands miles away are very consistent, and in fact belong to the same ideology. The same one btw that so likes to put certain "liberty" on its banner. That's right...liberty for us...not them, silly! Just ask Robert Dziekanski....oh wait...he's dead. Edited June 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.