Roe vs Wade Anniversary - general discussion

Discussion in 'Cleveland, OH' started by Krash, Jan 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    I would most likely need a probability percentage of the chances of the mother dying or not. I'd be more willing to permit an abortion if the mother was at definite risk than I would be for any other reason

    Forgive the excessive quoting, but this part intrigued me. So...now we're willing to admit there is a situation where a CHOICE has to be made. The question then becomes "WHO gets to make that choice" Is the government, more specifically the right-wing conservative portion of our government going to tell a woman: "sorry, you have to go through with this...even thought one or BOTH of you may not survive!" Because, in medicine sometimes there just IS NOT TIME to do a probability percentage...and we do "what we think is best".

    The other comment I found interesting was: "willing to permit an abortion". I'm not trying to question your beliefs (or change your views)...but it's interesting that we've now moved from 100% against abortion, to recognition that there are circumstances where it MAY be necessary. I find that kind of willingness to be flexible encouraging (given your previous hard-line stance on the matter)

    As for that "news" your friend told you, 1st I'd like to see where this information came from...2nd the wording chosen had a very sinsiter tone to it. I doubt this is some part of a "secret rite of passage" for doctors in California...but could possibly be that the difference between:

    ((cue the "Rocky and Bullwinkle" announcer))
    Join us next time for...
    ANYONE who wishes to become a medical doctor in the state of California MUST perform an abortion in order to get licensed
    or
    The State of California will require all medical doctors licensed in the state to be capable of performing an abortion

    I don't get my news on gun control from the NRA...and this sounds like a bad attempt at "spinning" the news in a negative way.
  2. Jedi_BMack Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 4
    Krash, just a small little point of order. Eric has been flexible on that issue earlier in the thread. It's way back in there somewhere.

    Now, this however, is rather interesting though...

    A real good excerpt from the legislation:
    Subject to all other provisions of this article, all residency programs in obstetrics and gynecology shall comply with the program requirements for residency education in obstetrics and gynecology of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which requires that in addition to education and training in in-patient care, the program in obstetrics-gynecology be geared toward the development of competence in the provision of ambulatory primary health care for women, including, but not limited to, training in the performance of abortion services.
    They actually did it. Now mind you, requiring training for this procedure is not the same as actually requiring the execution of the procedure.

    So, right church, wrong pew...

    -b-
  3. PadawanPadme Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Going back to the question Krash had about a woman in danger and they would have to abort the baby. I would like to know how far along she was.

    My mother was 6 months along when she started hemorrhaging. They tried to stop it without success. This was in 1960 so you know medicine was not as good as it is now. They delivered the baby by c-section 3 months early. She weighed 1 lbs 12 oz. This story is a good one they both survived, because of the efforts of the doctors. There was not the option of abortion, so they save the baby and the mother.

    But today would they try as hard with the option of abortion?

    My sister was in the hospital for 3 months, my mother is fine.

    Do any of you belive a woman has the right to abort a baby, only on the basis it has a defect? For argument sake lets say it's not life threating for either (baby or mother).
    Does this mother heve the right to abort the baby? For more argument sake it's not a costly defect, now does she have the right? Would you say, when it's bad enough that's when she should have an abortion?

    I guess I just don't understand, why taking a life is ok! Only because a woman has the right to chose what she does to her body.

    I can't understand why this is not murder or is abortion the new word for murder?

    You can't have it both ways!
  4. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    or is abortion the new word for murder

    First off, if I had all the answers...someone would be paying me alot for the book rights. :)

    As a result of that, all I can offer is that while abortion is not something anyone should go into lightly, there are circumstances where (I think) the rights of a woman outweigh the political/religous intervention of the more extreme ends of our government. What amazes/confuses me is the moral high ground some of the pro-life advocates take, yet completely ignore the wishes of the most influential person involved (the pregnant woman).

    CR Note: It's been brought to my attention that we had a small "disturbance" on this board(mainly by someone OUTSIDE the group); and that Bobafemme has taken action against the offending individual.

    EDIT: In my original post, it was implied that there were multiple offensive posters...not the case: 1 offensive post, and someone from the group who "encouraged" the other person to leave.

    I just want to thank everyone for doing their best to keep this discussion as polite as possible. This can become a very emotional subject, and EVERYONE has done a great job keeping things "on target"
  5. JediCandii Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 23, 2002
    star 4
    Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point was supposed to be that if girls are shallow enough to kill their unborn child because they don't want to get stretch marks, then who knows what else our generation will do.
  6. PadawanPadme Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Point well taken.

    I guess, what I would like to know, is do you realy think an abortion is just a political or religous subject. I don't think so, I think it is a moral and conscience subject. People have no scruples, any more.
  7. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    My point was supposed to be that if girls are shallow enough to kill their unborn child because they don't want to get stretch marks, then who knows what else our generation will do

    The problem is, people are shallow...and self-centered; but that doesn't mean that we should have 100% control over their lives. Especially, in regards to decision concerning our own bodies. While you (and others) may view abortion as murder...it's a personal decision I don't have time to discuss this with "the committee." There is a difference of opinions on this subject, and the current law is that it's a personal choice.

    do you realy think an abortion is just a political or religous subject?
    I'm actually in agreement with you on this (to some extent). It's a personal question/choice to be made in a very difficult situation. MY problem comes in when political and religous groups try to dictate THEIR values onto the rest of us. As I said before, my religous beliefs are probably VERY different from those of people like "W" and the other conservative groups...does that make them better then me as a person (the answer is NO)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.