CA Sues Hospital for Refusing Abortion

[Yakuda]

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No, you ignorant liar, there are restrictions in those nine states: Namely, a physician must agree.

Besides that, it has always been possible for states to outlaw third trimester abortion; the Supreme Court decision did not change that. But I agree that a physician and patient should be able to terminate a preganancy in the third trimester if there is a medically valid reason for it, as determined by the patient and the medically licensed physician.  It is absurd that a healthcare provider should refuse lifesaving medical treatment to a patient because they’re worried that it will result in a prison sentence. Politician should not make medical decisions. 

Nothing prohibits killing a baby in those nine states. Be around it what you evil mongrels want. 

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Nothing prohibits killing a baby in those nine states. Be around it what you evil mongrels want. 

How do you know this. Have you read the text of the law in those nine states? It’s not that difficult to do a little legal research by reading the ACTUAL laws, instead of the oversimplified summaries posted on an anti-abortion website. 

According to the Office of the Attorney General of Washington, DC:

”Abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in DC and is provided when patients and physicians, together, determine it is medically appropriate.”

Edited October 4, 2024 by Rebound

[Yakuda]

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

How do you know this. Have you read the text of the law in those nine states? It’s not that difficult to do a little legal research by reading the ACTUAL laws, instead of the oversimplified summaries posted on an anti-abortion website. 

According to the Office of the Attorney General of Washington, DC:

”Abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in DC and is provided when patients and physicians, together, determine it is medically appropriate.”

Since the vast majority of abortions happen for reasons that have nothing to with whether they are medically appropriate your point is asinine. 

[Rebound]

35 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Since the vast majority of abortions happen for reasons that have nothing to with whether they are medically appropriate your point is asinine. 

93% of abortions occur in the first fifteen weeks and you’re taking about the 1% which don’t. So first you’re talking about the 1% and then you’re talking about the 93% so what are you talking about?

What I’m taking about is that a hospital nearly killed its patient because she needed an abortion to save her life. That’s what I’m talking about.  If a doctor and his patient determine that the best course of action for the mother’s heath is an abortion, the Gubmint should stay out of the way. You’re claiming that third trimester abortion as birth control is happening, but I don’t think it is and I agree with Roe v Wade that it should not. You’re literally inventing a new issue out of thin air in order to support a policy of murdering women. 

Edited October 4, 2024 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

Happens next to never without medical cause. You're tilting at windmills. 

I'm willing to bet that way more people are struck by lightning each year than the abortion of healthy fetuses in healthy women in the third trimester. 

Groovy. Then as @CdnFox has suggested, a law should be put in place that makes it illegal to abort a baby without real medical cause.

MEDICAL CAUSE...Not phycological bullshit.

Edited October 4, 2024 by Nationalist

[Black Dog]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Awww muffin REEEEEEEEE  it's cute when you try to deflect your own anger and resentment like that  REEEEEEEEE

LOL - i never said anything about 'Humanity" .  I said that's when someone becomes a human being rather than a bunch of cells and human rights attach. 

Human beings are real things. You've probably met one at some point REEEEEEEEE

And human rights are real things, fairly well described in law and precedent. 

Neither are philosophical arguments REEEEEEEEE  

Hell kid that wasn't even grade one level.  Cope harder. 

Exactly.  I see you're trying to bring it back to this "consciousness' thing which i've pointed out numerous times has nothing to do with being alive. 

When a human's brain turns on and begins to regulate bodily functions, that is a reasonable point to say the person 'becomes alive' as a human being.  The end or complete cessation of the brain is already considered death. SO why wouldn't the same definition work for life ?

If you take a 16 week old fetus out of its mother it will die as surely as a person with no brain activity taken off an artificial respirator. How can something the depends on another organism for life be considered itself "alive" in a meaningful way? you do know where babies come from, right spazz?

Quote

 

Nobody said it did - what i said was our brains define us as human and when they turn on and start to work is when we can be thought of as a human. REEEEEEEEE I did not say the regulation of body functions is what makes us human.  REEEEEEEEE

 

I guess you have a real problem following logic. If "our brains define us as human" and the point where brain activity "turns on" to regulates bodily function is when we can be thought of as human, then logically it's that automatic regulation of bodily functions that makes us human. Which is as completely arbitrary as saying "quickening" or "birth" or "fetal viability."

 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Groovy. Then as @CdnFox has suggested, a law should be put in place that makes it illegal to abort a baby without real medical cause.

MEDICAL CAUSE...Not phycological bullshit.

Why do you want big government interfering in individual medical decisions? What will you ask for next, vax mandates?

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

If you take a 16 week old fetus out of its mother it will die as surely as a person with no brain activity taken off an artificial respirator. How can something the depends on another organism for life be considered itself "alive" in a meaningful way? you do know where babies come from, right spazz?

I guess you have a real problem following logic. If "our brains define us as human" and the point where brain activity "turns on" to regulates bodily function is when we can be thought of as human, then logically it's that automatic regulation of bodily functions that makes us human. Which is as completely arbitrary as saying "quickening" or "birth" or "fetal viability."

 

Why do you want big government interfering in individual medical decisions? What will you ask for next, vax mandates?

Why would you not be all for such a law? I mean...you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than a late term abortion without any real medical reason...right?

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Groovy. Then as @CdnFox has suggested, a law should be put in place that makes it illegal to abort a baby without real medical cause.

MEDICAL CAUSE...Not phycological bullshit.

I know you're old, but in modern times, mental health is health. And it's not your health, it's someone else's. So, again, let that decision be up to the people doing the work -- the pregnant person and the doctors. 

Let's keep your legislators out of bedrooms and exam rooms, Mr. Conservative.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

I know you're old, but in modern times, mental health is health. And it's not your health, it's someone else's. So, again, let that decision be up to the people doing the work -- the pregnant person and the doctors. 

Let's keep your legislators out of bedrooms and exam rooms, Mr. Conservative.

Of course...any dumb excuse will do then eh?

Figures...

Edited October 4, 2024 by Nationalist

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Groovy. Then as @CdnFox has suggested, a law should be put in place that makes it illegal to abort a baby without real medical cause.

MEDICAL CAUSE...Not phycological bullshit.

You calling "psychological" bullshit proves your IGNORANCE about "medical cause."

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Why would you not be all for such a law? I mean...you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than a late term abortion without any real medical reason...right?

I explained this: these kinds of laws are a barrier to accessing medical care that endanger people's lives.

How would you even enforce these anyway? Cops hanging out at hospitals and clinics? it's classic government overreach and the only reason is to chip away at other aspects of abortion. 

Edited October 4, 2024 by Black Dog

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I explained this: these kinds of laws are a barrier to accessing medical care that endanger people's lives.

How would you even enforce these anyway? Cops hanging out at hospitals and clinics? it's classic government overreach and the only reason is to chip away at other aspects of abortion. 

Lol...ya...riiight.

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Why would you not be all for such a law? I mean...you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than a late term abortion without any real medical reason...right?

The government should not stand in-between a woman, her doctor, and their collective healthcare decisions. 

[Black Dog]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...ya...riiight.

Not an argument.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

 

What I’m taking about is that a hospital nearly killed its patient because she needed an abortion to save her life.

All hospitals allow for abortion if the mother's life is in danger. So if she didn't get one in this case it's not a problem with abortion laws. It's a problem with the hospital screwing up or her life wasn't in as much danger as is being suggested.

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The government should not stand in-between a woman, her doctor, and their collective healthcare decisions. 

Sure they should. There has to be an advocate for the baby in the mix. Unless you can reasonably demonstrate that at whatever point the abortion is taking place the child is not a human being or a person with rights attached then it becomes an issue of child welfare. The state steps in if a parent is abusing a child, obviously the state should step in if a parent is killing a child.

So at the end of the day we're back to square one, The debate over whether someone is a person or human being with rights attached and at what point in the development that occurs.

No other argument is relevant until that gets resolved. A woman does not have the right to kill a child nor does a doctor. So your claim is meaningless. The exception that we make is in a case where the woman or the child is going to die and now we're just choosing which one.

So, if you want late term abortions to be legal you need to show that it's not a child you're killing. Because every reasonable argument seems to suggest it is at that point. 

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

The government should not stand in-between a woman, her doctor, and their collective healthcare decisions. 

Ahhh...so in reality, you want unlimited abortion.

I sort o' thought so.

48 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Not an argument.

None needed.

[Black Dog]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All hospitals allow for abortion if the mother's life is in danger. So if she didn't get one in this case it's not a problem with abortion laws. It's a problem with the hospital screwing up or her life wasn't in as much danger as is being suggested.

There's been plenty of examples of hospitals (usually those in backwards Red states) "screwing up" and not performing abortions because the staff are afraid of being prosecuted, so yeah that's a a problem with the abortion laws (or rather,  it's the laws working as intended).

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

None needed.

I accept your surrender.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

There's been plenty of examples of hospitals (usually those in backwards Red states) "screwing up" and not performing abortions because the staff are afraid of being prosecuted, so yeah that's a a problem with the abortion laws (or rather,  it's the laws working as intended).

I accept your surrender.

I didn't surrender anything.

But I will accept your ineptitude.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Black Dog said:

There's been plenty of examples of hospitals (usually those in backwards Red states) "screwing up" and not performing abortions because the staff are afraid of being prosecuted, so yeah that's a a problem with the abortion laws (or rather,  it's the laws working as intended).

 

All right, give us three. Three examples that we can look up the details for to see that you're right.

I mean it should be easy, you have apparently seen all of these red state hospitals where the staff are afraid to perform an abortion that should have been allowed.

I get the funny feeling that you're not going to be able to provide any.

[Rebound]

23 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Groovy. Then as @CdnFox has suggested, a law should be put in place that makes it illegal to abort a baby without real medical cause.

MEDICAL CAUSE...Not phycological bullshit.

Who decides what a “medical cause” is?

You get Stage Four cancer and the doctor tells you that you’ve got six months — he didn’t “give you” six months to live.  You may die in two months or live three years.  They just work with the data they have.  
 

Sometimes it is clear that the mother is at imminent risk for her life, and other times it is only a probability.  Sometimes they send people home from the hospital and they die the next day.  The human body is not a machine.  Some women want to take the risk and others do not and it’s not the government’s job to decide.  

[Rebound]

16 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ahhh...so in reality, you want unlimited abortion.

I sort o' thought so.

None needed.

No, because doctors will not give a late term abortion unless the mother’s health is at risk. But the government should not tell the doctor how to assess that risk. 

Edited October 5, 2024 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Who decides what a “medical cause” is?

You get Stage Four cancer and the doctor tells you that you’ve got six months — he didn’t “give you” six months to live.  You may die in two months or live three years.  They just work with the data they have.  
 

Sometimes it is clear that the mother is at imminent risk for her life, and other times it is only a probability.  Sometimes they send people home from the hospital and they die the next day.  The human body is not a machine.  Some women want to take the risk and others do not and it’s not the government’s job to decide.  

MEDICAL:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/medical

Now you know. We already know what "medical" means. Physical health.

It's not that I can't fathom your concers...it's just that we all know, if given the opportunity to abort viable babies and indeed babies outside the womb and still living from botched abortions...some people will do exactly that and THAT...to me...is sickening.

You Libbies have a very loose relationship with the concept of "compromise"...among other concepts. The art of diplomacy. Raw politics. You seem to think that if you scream loud enough and often enough, people will give you what you want, just to shut you the fck up. And it has worked of late, all too often. But you've run into a wall of folks who have just decided to put you babies in bed, close the door and let you scream yourselves to sleep.

 

Edited October 5, 2024 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Who decides what a “medical cause” is?

The law can easily stipulate that it's when the life of the mother is physically at risk if the pregnancy continues.  It's not hard

You can't leave it up to the doctors beause as we've seen they'll do stupid things like say she'll be "emotionally hurt", which is not an excuse to end the life of a person. 

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Sometimes it is clear that the mother is at imminent risk for her life, and other times it is only a probability.

Then stick with the pregnancy till its more imminent. 

[Rebound]

23 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Of course...any dumb excuse will do then eh?

Figures...

So a law that says you MUST have a vaccine is bad, but a law that says you have to die from, say, a uterine rupture is good.  Cause you want the government to stay out of your body but not a woman’s.