FoxHastings said: ↑ CLEARLY YOU CAN'T address: "" you think YOU will change the definition of murder and think it will change depending on how a fetus was conceived ???!!! HILARIOUS THAT MEANS : YOU THINK that if a fetus due to rape lives and is born it can be killed and it won't be murder ?!!! YOU SAID REPEATEDLY YOU'D MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR RAPE SO YOU THINK that if a fetus due to rape lives and is born it can be killed and it won't be murder ?!!! afterall , you think a fetus due to consensual sex is a person with rights that can't be killed.......sorry you can't follow the logic...it is difficult since you haven't any. LOL, duck and dodge....why couldn't you answer when THIS was what we were discussing? I bet you are so happy you changed the subject so you could avoid answering CLEARLY ( to EVERYONE) YOU CAN'T address: "" you think YOU will change the definition of murder and think it will change depending on how a fetus was conceived ???!!! HILARIOUS THAT MEANS : YOU THINK that if a fetus due to rape lives and is born it can be killed and it won't be murder ?!!! YOU SAID REPEATEDLY YOU'D MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR RAPE SO YOU THINK that if a fetus due to rape lives and is born it can be killed and it won't be murder ?!!! afterall , you think a fetus due to consensual sex is a person with rights that can't be killed.......sorry you can't follow the logic...it is difficult since you haven't any.
I heard that Donald Trump takes responsibility for these abortion bans. It may be true. I am fine with all abortions and that includes to save a woman's life if that may be the case. Why are there those in government wanting to ban abortions anyway? Why must abortions be a crime?
The example I gave was absolutely NOT elective. And, it shows how the laws being written are dangerous to women and are destructive of a doctor's ability to perform the needed care.
This is something you would need to show. Doctors will refuse sexual assignment surgery in healthy kids, advising delays and offering an array of alternatives. Besides, your comments have nothing to do with the OP topic.
Yes, necessary healthcare was not possible, because of state law. You can see that in the example I gave.
Physical health? Unless you mean risk of death, then that's not a good enough reason to kill babies. Mental health? Yeah, that's not a good enough reason to kill babies. The state law doesn't say that it was not possible.
Did I mention surgery? You seem to be unaware that Lupron is given to kids. Lupron is the same drug given to sex offenders to chemically castrate them. My comments have to do with your argument. You said that "they need to allow our system of medical science to make decisions." And I'm arguing why that system should be treated with a great deal of skepticism and therefore it should NOT be left to just "make decisions."
Yes and I am asking if you are including purely elective abortion as "care" that is being denied to women. Or is it only "care" when it is protecting the woman's life?
Yeah, in these sense that he is responsible for adding three conservative Justices to the Supreme Court, which is the only way that Roe v Wade was able to be overturned. It is based on the principle that human life must be preserved, which itself is based on the right to life.
The doctors in the case could not risk the views implied by the law. Remember that the issue becomes what a PROSECUTOR could decide based on the law. There is no reason to believe that some future prosecutor will interpret the law as intended by the authors - especially given the vagueness. Also, I do not agree with your first paragraph. First of all, serious medical decisions are rarely that clear cut. There are always percentages involved. Next, there is great disparity of opinion on what level of permanent, painful, irreparable harm a woman should be required to endure by some legislature. Next, the state of the fetus is also a factor here. There are cases where live birth may be possible, but will be followed by a very short and painful period of life. Plus, there are cases where fetus may be carried to term, but it has no brain or very little brain. Your absolutist idea that all the criteria are black or white is just ignorance of medicine.
By "THIS" I assume that you mean abortion in cases of rape. But "THIS" is not what we were discussing. We were discussing the definition of healthcare. Your confusion continues!
Lupron, which acts by limiting testosterone, is trivially reversible. All you have to do to reverse it is to stop the treatment. You haven't shown anything other than what you don't know. I commented on surgery, as THAT one is not so reversible.
When did I say that they are "clear cut?" Really, there is a "great disparity?" I would say that it should be NONE! A woman should never be "required" to endure permanent, painful, irreparable harm! I have already said that I am open to abortion in these cases. When did I say that all the criteria are black or white?
You can't write a law that selectively disqualifies abortions for which there is no valid reason. But, what I presented to you so far has been cases where healthcare is being denied for reasons that are absolutely HORRENDOUS.
Try again to state your position: are you including purely elective abortion as "care" that is being denied to women. Or is it only "care" when it is protecting the woman's life?
YOU may be OK with abortion in some of these cases. The catch is that legislatures have not (and I believe CAN not) write laws that are so fine grained that a doctor can practice OB/GYN safely. So, like in the example I gave, they have to make decisions that protect their license to practice - NOT the decisions that keep their patients alive.
You mean they CANNOT practice OB/GYN safely? Then it should be happening everyday, at least hundreds of times.
DODGE! Are you including purely elective abortion as "care" that is being denied to women. Or is it only "care" when it is protecting the woman's life?
