Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Paul2 · 04-20-2007, 10:36 AM

I'm against this law being upheld, because it is not place for congress to be regulating which medical procedures should be used or not. What's next in this slippery slope? The medical community must be allowed to form their own policies about what procedures to use, unless our congress wants to get their own medical degrees.

On the flip side, I'm still against abortions in general, with exceptions for mothers health (really.) and if the fetus has a major defect. Personal reasons mostly.

Little Billy · 04-20-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Not quite.

Correct. It's about the right not caring about the lives of women. Hell, they're just incubators, right?

spacejunkie · 04-20-2007, 11:38 AM

Is partial birth abortion ever really medically necessary? It seems like the procedure would be more dangerous then just about any medical condition. The first time I heard of this procedure I didn't believe it was true. When I found out it was I almost puked. And all I ever saw was drawings. I can't even imagine the mentality that decides to go ahead with such a "choice."

I have no problems with abortions as long as they are done within the first trimester. Anything later is fucking vicious.

Loren Pechtel · 04-20-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacejunkie

Is partial birth abortion ever really medically necessary? It seems like the procedure would be more dangerous then just about any medical condition. The first time I heard of this procedure I didn't believe it was true. When I found out it was I almost puked. And all I ever saw was drawings. I can't even imagine the mentality that decides to go ahead with such a "choice."

I have no problems with abortions as long as they are done within the first trimester. Anything later is fucking vicious.

*IF* it were always more dangerous it's use would be considered unacceptable by the medical boards and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

CelticChic · 04-20-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacejunkie

Is partial birth abortion ever really medically necessary? It seems like the procedure would be more dangerous then just about any medical condition. The first time I heard of this procedure I didn't believe it was true. When I found out it was I almost puked. And all I ever saw was drawings. I can't even imagine the mentality that decides to go ahead with such a "choice."

I have no problems with abortions as long as they are done within the first trimester. Anything later is fucking vicious.

Isn't that for a woman and her doctor to decide? Or should laws be passed to regulate when it's ok to give antibiotics or transplants also?

spacejunkie · 04-20-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

*IF* it were always more dangerous it's use would be considered unacceptable by the medical boards and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Maybe it's a no brainer for the medical boards. Can you show me where they condone the procedure.

spacejunkie · 04-20-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CelticChic

Isn't that for a woman and her doctor to decide? Or should laws be passed to regulate when it's ok to give antibiotics or transplants also?

Non sequitur.

Antibiotics and transplants enhance life.

Abortions seek to enhance the mental state of a woman by destroying the life within her.

Bomb#20 · 04-20-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

I am not in favor of the federal government banning it, as I do not think they possess the power to do so in the U.S. Constitution.
However, despite the less than convincing argument in Roe v. Wade, abortion is not a "right" actually protected in the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, I do think the states can legitimately regulate abortion.

So we're supposed to take the 10th Amendment seriously, but not the 9th?* Are the other rights "retained by the people" Lewis Carroll rights to jam every other day? (I.e., jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today. Today isn't any other day, you know.)

(* As opposed to the SCOTUS's actual practice, which is to take the 9th seriously, but not the 10th.)

blastula · 04-20-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bomb#20

(* As opposed to the SCOTUS's actual practice, which is to take the 9th seriously, but not the 10th.)

There's also the 14th.

CelticChic · 04-20-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacejunkie

Non sequitur.

Antibiotics and transplants enhance life.

Abortions seek to enhance the mental state of a woman by destroying the life within her.

By your own definition here (which I think are bogus) it's not a non-sequitor unless mental health does not also "enhance life".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2007, 10:36 AM	#91
Paul2 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,088	I'm against this law being upheld, because it is not place for congress to be regulating which medical procedures should be used or not. What's next in this slippery slope? The medical community must be allowed to form their own policies about what procedures to use, unless our congress wants to get their own medical degrees. On the flip side, I'm still against abortions in general, with exceptions for mothers health (really.) and if the fetus has a major defect. Personal reasons mostly.

04-20-2007, 11:38 AM	#93
spacejunkie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Planet Earth......... for now Posts: 1,089	Is partial birth abortion ever really medically necessary? It seems like the procedure would be more dangerous then just about any medical condition. The first time I heard of this procedure I didn't believe it was true. When I found out it was I almost puked. And all I ever saw was drawings. I can't even imagine the mentality that decides to go ahead with such a "choice." I have no problems with abortions as long as they are done within the first trimester. Anything later is fucking vicious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.