dk

I see no evidence that women have more control over reproduction, or any other aspect of their lives. 30% of women are single mothers head of household, and 50% of the single mother households live at or below the poverty line. The middle class since the 1960s has been squeezed like tube of toothpaste. I'm for the middle class, and find the upper and lower classes unseemly. Today only the rich and poor can afford to get sick. The working poor have been rendered impoverished, and the rich, like always, rationalize their decadance by controlling others below their station. I think you've lost track of who the good and bad guys are.

Loren Pechtel

I'm saying that the people trying to stick politics into science are the fundies.

dk

A scientific approach to politics entails speculation and a political approach to science objectifies prejudice The impasse is paradoxical. As a practical matter civilizations and nations prosper and grow by solving problems, and when they encounter an insolvable problem are reduced to ruins. There have been a number of ruined civilizations that possessed advanced technology. 40, 30, 20, even 15 years ago science thought people were safe from deadly microbes, today we know that was wishful thinking.

In a Christian world view morality enables people to participate in the future. In a purely secularly world view science makes a future possible. Personally I think the two approaches compliment one another, though tension certainly exists. If we frame deadly microbes as a problem then politics and science have a common adversary. When we blame one another for failining we become objective enemies in political terms.

Dr Rick

Presumptive political puritans persuing perilous persuasions picking the preponderance of passionate producers have perished precipitously. Coincidently, chaos has conspicuously and consistitently concurred.

The Model T, the minuet, Mickey Mouse, Motorola and the Mad Max movies are more than mere moral mosaics; must we mimic these multiple massive mistakes?

The nuclear family depends on it.

It is from this horrible background that both hormone replacement therapy and Pee-Wee Herman were sinisterly devised. Had JC Penney held most of its sales on Fridays, this would not have been a problem, but as it stands now, civilization is on the brink.

I might have known someone in Texas who could have told me about someone that they read had an Audi and the next day got breast cancer.

This is what happens when 1-800-CALL-ATT and science collide.

Daleth

:notworthy Ppppppft! Bravo!

And since I'm here, thanks Dr. Rick for the info and for trying ever so hard to explain and re-explain the differences between abortion, BCP, HRT and fertility drugs.

Dal

dk

You should have quit there, there is a puritan mist that imbues our culture. Texas passed a law forcing abortion providers to inform abortion candidates of a possible link between breast cancer and abortion. I think its funny too. It seems we agree after all.

Dr Rick

Here are some historical facts that totally refute everything else:

*1860s: the bicycle seat is patented.

*1940s: the Disney movie, Dumbo is released and becomes
an instant classic.

*1950s: in secret underground laboratories across the USA,
government scientists work furiously to perfect the comb-over;
under intense pressure, they rig the data

*1960s: the Nehru jacket garners increasing acceptance as
flatulence becomes a household word.

*1970s: The Beatles break-up for good and gas prices soar.

*1980s: Prince Charles and Lady Di wed; New Coke is
introduced.

*1980s-2000: Plagarism increases sharply

*1990s: NAMBLA gets a boost as the US, Canada, and Mexico
enter NAFTA

*2003: In a startling breakthrough, the government of Texas
discovers that abortion should be linked to breast cancer.

dk

1) Why do pro-choice orgs and the abortion industry reps fight so hard against the idea of informed concent?
2) Why are abortion mills in such hurry, don't people usually get scheduled for elective surgery a few days/weeks in advance?
3) What information should an abortion candidate be given to make an informed decision?

Dr Rick

For the very same reasons that pro-lifers and the incubator industry reps fight so hard against the idea of perspiration.

Why does grass talk? Doesn't it get cut every few days/weeks?

The same information that any medical "candidate" should be given to make an informed decision: the potential risks, benefits and alternatives to the proposed intervention by someone who is well-informed about the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure. They already must get that information as a matter of law, and it is a violation of medical ethics not to provide it.

If the purpose of the Texas bill is only to provide "informed consent," why doesn't the bill include provisions for much riskier procedures such as organ transplants and chemotherapy? Both have been shown to increase the risk of cancers, but the Texas legislators are silent on those procedures while pressing for misinformation about abortions.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by dk
1) Why do pro-choice orgs and the abortion industry reps fight so hard against the idea of informed concent?

Because "informed consent" is merely an attempt to scare and generally to delay things (= drive up the price). If they truly weren't providing the information needed for informed consent they would have been in trouble from their medical boards long ago.

2) Why are abortion mills in such hurry, don't people usually get scheduled for elective surgery a few days/weeks in advance?

As is the abortion, although days, not weeks. What you miss with the informed consent laws is that the usual procedure is the woman must come in, be given the information, go home, wait, and then come back for the abortion.
Two days off work instead of one. Two days of travel instead of one.

The real issue is increasing the burden on the woman.

3) What information should an abortion candidate be given to make an informed decision?

Ask a doctor that one.