oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 20, 2019 16:43:50 GMT -5
There don’t have to be laws in place, because no doctor would do it even if a woman wanted it. And the laws stop people like Sam from being able to make the best decisions for their situation. That is all a ban law does.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 20, 2019 16:47:51 GMT -5
Tequila, did you read all of the original post?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 20, 2019 16:49:31 GMT -5
The OP was about the inability to abort an 8 month old baby therefore forcing her to carry her rapists baby. So yes, I do believe people would abort a very viable baby. Sorry. Killing an 8 month old baby is infantcide. It's illegal. Sorry, at 8 months gestation it is a baby. My youngest was born at 8 months. She didn’t need me to keep her alive. She felt pain. She cried real tears. She breastfed. If you think that is nothing more than a fetus, you need to look within yourself. And if you think it is ok to kill a baby that can do that without any medical reasons...I will stop here because I will get this shut down.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 20, 2019 16:50:24 GMT -5
There don’t have to be laws in place, because no doctor would do it even if a woman wanted it. And the laws stop people like Sam from being able to make the best decisions for their situation. That is all a ban law does. Not true. Swamp posted of a doctor who did it. We all know there are unscrupulous doctors who will do whatever for a buck. Yes, there needs to be laws in place.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 20, 2019 16:51:05 GMT -5
Only in trump's mind does this happen:
"The baby is born," Trump said. "The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."
— Donald Trump on Saturday, April 27th, 2019 in a rally in Green Bay, Wis.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 20, 2019 16:52:38 GMT -5
No one said that tequila. What we are saying is that the choice you are describing isn’t one people are making... people deciding on late term abortions, as they are called, are making heart wrenching decisions about horrible circumstances. They are not deciding to get rid of healthy, viable infants.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 20, 2019 16:56:00 GMT -5
There don’t have to be laws in place, because no doctor would do it even if a woman wanted it. And the laws stop people like Sam from being able to make the best decisions for their situation. That is all a ban law does. Not true. Swamp posted of a doctor who did it. We all know there are unscrupulous doctors who will do whatever for a buck. Yes, there needs to be laws in place. He wasn’t convicted of late term abortion but of killing a live infant. As we’ve stated, no one thinks that should be legal. We definitely agree on that. He also was convicted of involuntary man slaughter.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 20, 2019 16:59:40 GMT -5
Not true. Swamp posted of a doctor who did it. We all know there are unscrupulous doctors who will do whatever for a buck. Yes, there needs to be laws in place. He wasn’t convicted of late term abortion but of killing a live infant. As we’ve stated, no one thinks that should be legal. We definitely agree on that. He also was convicted of involuntary man slaughter. Please explain the difference of an 8 month old in-utero versus the same baby a day later who took its first breath? If the baby is viable and mothers life is not in danger, it is murder. So I should have been able to legally kill my daughter who was born at 8 months the day before she was born, even though she and I were both healthy?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 20, 2019 17:01:42 GMT -5
No one said that tequila. What we are saying is that the choice you are describing isn’t one people are making... people deciding on late term abortions, as they are called, are making heart wrenching decisions about horrible circumstances. They are not deciding to get rid of healthy, viable infants. Then if no one is doing it and everyone agrees it is wrong, why the fight to not make it law?
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 20, 2019 17:04:38 GMT -5
No one said that tequila. What we are saying is that the choice you are describing isn’t one people are making... people deciding on late term abortions, as they are called, are making heart wrenching decisions about horrible circumstances. They are not deciding to get rid of healthy, viable infants. Then if no one is doing it and everyone agrees it is wrong, why the fight to not make it law? Because it stops women like Sam and other with non viable fetuses from making the best decisions for their situation. It stops people from making decisions before viability, or with infants that will never be viable, or where a mothers health is at risk.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 20, 2019 17:08:02 GMT -5
Then if no one is doing it and everyone agrees it is wrong, why the fight to not make it law? Because it stops women like Sam and other with non viable fetuses from making the best decisions for their situation. It stops people from making decisions before viability, or with infants that will never be viable, or where a mothers health is at risk. Except I said it should be illegal if neither the mother or babies lives are at risk. Sams baby was terminal so that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 20, 2019 17:11:45 GMT -5
Because it stops women like Sam and other with non viable fetuses from making the best decisions for their situation. It stops people from making decisions before viability, or with infants that will never be viable, or where a mothers health is at risk. Except I said it should be illegal if neither the mother or babies lives are at risk. Sams baby was terminal so that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about Except it does. Late term abortion bans made the decision for her. You might not want it to be that way. But effectively the kind of ban currently being adopted does make it that way. And I find that unconcionsble.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 20, 2019 17:13:25 GMT -5
Except I said it should be illegal if neither the mother or babies lives are at risk. Sams baby was terminal so that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about Except it does. Late term abortion bans made the decision for her. You might not want it to be that way. But effectively the kind of ban currently being adopted does make it that way. And I find that unconcionsble. Late term abortion ban, except in cases where mothers or baby’s lives are at risk. That doesn’t make any decision to prevent an abortion if the mother or baby won’t survive. Seems pretty simple to me
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 20, 2019 17:14:08 GMT -5
There don’t have to be laws in place, because no doctor would do it even if a woman wanted it. And the laws stop people like Sam from being able to make the best decisions for their situation. That is all a ban law does. Not true. Swamp posted of a doctor who did it. We all know there are unscrupulous doctors who will do whatever for a buck. Yes, there needs to be laws in place. Homicide and kidnapping are against the law. There are laws in place. That doesn't stop people from doing it for a buck. So, we should make MORE laws against murder and homicide? That will stop it? Women will ALWAYS get abortions, whether you like it or not.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,924
|
Post by bean29 on May 20, 2019 17:20:17 GMT -5
Because it stops women like Sam and other with non viable fetuses from making the best decisions for their situation. It stops people from making decisions before viability, or with infants that will never be viable, or where a mothers health is at risk. Except I said it should be illegal if neither the mother or babies lives are at risk. Sams baby was terminal so that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about In your mind, but many of the laws proposed do not allow exceptions and the proposed punishment if the “proof” is not provided is so extreme both providers and women expecting babies will be intimidated into decisions that are not in the best interests of the Woman. I always felt my life came first, especially after I had other children dependent on me. If my health was at risk, I feel my first responsibility is to my born children. Why would anyone abort a full term viable baby? I looked it up, pretty sure it is not actually legal. To MissT, not Oped
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on May 20, 2019 17:58:58 GMT -5
There don’t have to be laws in place, because no doctor would do it even if a woman wanted it. And the laws stop people like Sam from being able to make the best decisions for their situation. That is all a ban law does. Not true. Swamp posted of a doctor who did it. We all know there are unscrupulous doctors who will do whatever for a buck. Yes, there needs to be laws in place. There are laws in place. The doctor would get charged with murder if he killed a viable infant.
Doesn't mean there aren't doctors who would do it anyway, for money. The whole problem with having illegal abortions is all the women who died from back alley abortions from people who claimed they were doctors (and some actually were unscrupulous doctors).
Whenever you take anything out of the legal realm, sharks and frauds fill the gap for desperate women. Same thing happened when booze became illegal and unscrupulous people made bathtub hooch that made people blind.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on May 20, 2019 18:03:04 GMT -5
Except it does. Late term abortion bans made the decision for her. You might not want it to be that way. But effectively the kind of ban currently being adopted does make it that way. And I find that unconcionsble. Late term abortion ban, except in cases where mothers or baby’s lives are at risk. That doesn’t make any decision to prevent an abortion if the mother or baby won’t survive. Seems pretty simple to me I would go along with that but there should be one other exception I think - if the baby is deformed to the point it won't survive outside the womb (for instance, has no brain) then I think the woman should have the option of deciding which horrible path is the least worse - going full term with a baby that will die the minute it's born, or terminating it.
There are still risks involved for the mom giving birth, so I think she should decide if she wants to take on those risks, especially if she has other kids to care for. I can't imagine the horror of having to make that decision, but it happens.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 20, 2019 18:37:24 GMT -5
Late term abortion ban, except in cases where mothers or baby’s lives are at risk. That doesn’t make any decision to prevent an abortion if the mother or baby won’t survive. Seems pretty simple to me I would go along with that but there should be one other exception I think - if the baby is deformed to the point it won't survive outside the womb (for instance, has no brain) then I think the woman should have the option of deciding which horrible path is the least worse - going full term with a baby that will die the minute it's born, or terminating it.
There are still risks involved for the mom giving birth, so I think she should decide if she wants to take on those risks, especially if she has other kids to care for. I can't imagine the horror of having to make that decision, but it happens.
I think your third exception still falls under mine. Perhaps something like “incompatable with life”.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 20, 2019 18:53:48 GMT -5
Late term abortion ban, except in cases where mothers or baby’s lives are at risk. That doesn’t make any decision to prevent an abortion if the mother or baby won’t survive. Seems pretty simple to me I would go along with that but there should be one other exception I think - if the baby is deformed to the point it won't survive outside the womb (for instance, has no brain) then I think the woman should have the option of deciding which horrible path is the least worse - going full term with a baby that will die the minute it's born, or terminating it.
There are still risks involved for the mom giving birth, so I think she should decide if she wants to take on those risks, especially if she has other kids to care for. I can't imagine the horror of having to make that decision, but it happens.
That’s the problem with allowing politicians to make medical decisions for women. Unintended consequences - in addition to intended consequences. Here’s a novel idea - how about we trust women - with their doctor - to make the best decision for herself and butt out of situations that are none of our beeswax
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 20, 2019 19:46:55 GMT -5
I would go along with that but there should be one other exception I think - if the baby is deformed to the point it won't survive outside the womb (for instance, has no brain) then I think the woman should have the option of deciding which horrible path is the least worse - going full term with a baby that will die the minute it's born, or terminating it.
There are still risks involved for the mom giving birth, so I think she should decide if she wants to take on those risks, especially if she has other kids to care for. I can't imagine the horror of having to make that decision, but it happens.
I think your third exception still falls under mine. Perhaps something like “incompatable with life”. Except the problem comes from codifying that. Especially politicians doing that who don't realize that a 6 week pregnancy and a 6 week old embryo are not the same thing. Is it incompatible if it's only expected to live an hour after birth? A week? Is no brain incompatible even though it has a beating heart? If the baby would be in pain the entire time? A heart defect that can't be fixed? What about a heat defect that likely isn't fixable but still has a 20% chance of getting fixed? Does the baby have to have a certain level of Encephalocele to be considered incompatible and if so what level? What about if the baby is starting to show failure to thrive - do you make them wait until it dies or at what point on the downward hill do you label it incompatible? I could go on and on. There are way too many ways for the forming of a human to fuck up and our politicians are way too stupid to accurately address that not to mention would likely miss the nuance of Sam's case and others like hers. That is why the decision should be made by the doctors and the mother and the father if she so desires. There are too many things to go wrong and therefore too many things for a blanket law to accurately address.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on May 21, 2019 7:45:59 GMT -5
I think your third exception still falls under mine. Perhaps something like “incompatable with life”. Except the problem comes from codifying that. Especially politicians doing that who don't realize that a 6 week pregnancy and a 6 week old embryo are not the same thing. Is it incompatible if it's only expected to live an hour after birth? A week? Is no brain incompatible even though it has a beating heart? If the baby would be in pain the entire time? A heart defect that can't be fixed? What about a heat defect that likely isn't fixable but still has a 20% chance of getting fixed? Does the baby have to have a certain level of Encephalocele to be considered incompatible and if so what level? What about if the baby is starting to show failure to thrive - do you make them wait until it dies or at what point on the downward hill do you label it incompatible? I could go on and on. There are way too many ways for the forming of a human to fuck up and our politicians are way too stupid to accurately address that not to mention would likely miss the nuance of Sam's case and others like hers. That is why the decision should be made by the doctors and the mother and the father if she so desires. There are too many things to go wrong and therefore too many things for a blanket law to accurately address. I'm also concerned about how they would determine whether or not carrying a baby to term would endanger the life of the mother. Would it be a single doctor? A panel of three doctors? How long would it take for them to decide? If your doctor didn't agree, would you be allowed to seek another opinion? Would a 50-50% chance be considered 'safe enough?' Would it need to be a 80% certainty the mom would die? 90%? If the doctor refused to certify that the life of the mother would be endangered, and then the woman died, would the husband or surviving kids be allowed to sue the doctor for being wrong? If they could, what doctor would be willing to take on that liability? If they couldn't, would doctors refuse to ever give permission because their religion wouldn't permit it? What if the doctor certified the life of the mom was in danger, and they did the abortion, but then it turns out the doctor was wrong and the mom could have successfully carried the baby? Could she sue?
It's a mine field.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on May 25, 2019 23:26:27 GMT -5
Typical Catholic asserting their alleged moral authority when they lost that franchise after becoming the pedophile cult that raped hundreds of thousands of children world wide.
Your daughter needs to accept that people get to make their own decisions and get off her absolutist high horse of hypocrisy.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 26, 2019 5:30:20 GMT -5
How would a rape exception even work at 6 weeks... it’s not like they are just going to believe the woman...
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on May 26, 2019 11:47:29 GMT -5
I call ‘em as I see ‘em. She has allowed her Catholicism to get in the way of her requirements as a pharmacist. She has overreached, yet does so as a member of a very questionable organization. Non Catholics should be allowed to have their prescriptions filled regardless of the archaic rules the men of that church have foisted on the world.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on May 26, 2019 12:10:02 GMT -5
How would a rape exception even work at 6 weeks... it’s not like they are just going to believe the woman... I'm not sure about these particular laws, but in the past I've read that for a woman to be able to use the 'rape' as a justification for getting an abortion, she would have had to report the rape to the police when it first happened. Which is unfortunate, because a large percentage of rapes never get reported to the police in the first place.
It might be a moot point, anyway. A talking head I heard recently said that the morning after pill is available on line, without a prescription, so a rape victim could have it overnighted to her house and use that as an option to make sure she doesn't get pregnant from a rape, even if it isn't sold in her state. I'm not sure if any of these proposed new laws would impact that, but the logistics of monitoring what gets delivered to every woman in the state to make sure none of them are getting the morning after pill sent to them would seem to be completely unrealistic.
Of course, I don't know what the cost of the pill is, but I'm guessing this is another one of those options that wouldn't be available to poor women.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 26, 2019 14:06:12 GMT -5
15 years ago, the morning after pill cost me $30. Add another $25 for overnight delivery and that can be financially impossible for some. It works best within 24 hours, so be the time it is received efficacy is lower now too.
15 years ago, I had to get a prescription for it. It took 3 calls to get past my GYN’s obnoxious receptionist to get my request in. I was 43 at the time, and pretty good at advocating for myself. How many 22 year olds do you know who can advocate for themselves? I know at 22, I would not have been as pushy about getting what I needed.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 26, 2019 14:18:55 GMT -5
I believe it's around $50 a pill now - if you can find it in a pharmacy.
I also know someone who took it after a broken condom...still ended up pregnant.
It's great to have it, but it's not the total failsafe some people seem to think it is. Then there's the others that think it's an abortificient and want to make it illegal.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on May 26, 2019 21:06:29 GMT -5
15 years ago, the morning after pill cost me $30. Add another $25 for overnight delivery and that can be financially impossible for some. It works best within 24 hours, so be the time it is received efficacy is lower now too. 15 years ago, I had to get a prescription for it. It took 3 calls to get past my GYN’s obnoxious receptionist to get my request in. I was 43 at the time, and pretty good at advocating for myself. How many 22 year olds do you know who can advocate for themselves? I know at 22, I would not have been as pushy about getting what I needed. I'm curious about the claim that it's available on line without a prescription. Has anyone been able to get it that way?
My eggs are dried out raisins, so it isn't anything I would have needed for a while now, so I'm very much out of the loop. Not sure what the medical name for it is?
You can buy CBD oil from Amazon, so who knows what else they might sell you.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 26, 2019 21:42:52 GMT -5
15 years ago, the morning after pill cost me $30. Add another $25 for overnight delivery and that can be financially impossible for some. It works best within 24 hours, so be the time it is received efficacy is lower now too. 15 years ago, I had to get a prescription for it. It took 3 calls to get past my GYN’s obnoxious receptionist to get my request in. I was 43 at the time, and pretty good at advocating for myself. How many 22 year olds do you know who can advocate for themselves? I know at 22, I would not have been as pushy about getting what I needed. I'm curious about the claim that it's available on line without a prescription. Has anyone been able to get it that way?
My eggs are dried out raisins, so it isn't anything I would have needed for a while now, so I'm very much out of the loop. Not sure what the medical name for it is?
You can buy CBD oil from Amazon, so who knows what else they might sell you.
You do not need a prescription for it now, but you did back then. I guess it went OTC about 10 years ago? Yep, Amazon carries it too.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 26, 2019 22:57:27 GMT -5
European doctor defies FDA orders to stop sending US women abortion pills by mail Included with Hearn's letter was a 12-page list of 145 notes sent to Gomperts. "It was assault, I'm homeless and trying to get off the street," one woman wrote. "I can't afford to get set back anymore. I can't do this and I don't want to. ... I want it to be over ASAP so please help me." "The father had taken off the condom without informing me," wrote another woman, who said in her thank you note that she lives in the Bible Belt and worried that her family would shun her. "There's no way I could have gotten to the local clinic. Abortions are only available on a few days a week, and they're always at times I work. I also don't drive, so discreetly visiting the clinic wasn't an option." "You all prepared me, answered my questions so quickly, I will always be grateful for you," a third woman said. "Between heart issues and the pregnancy hormones setting off my depression again to the point I wanted to die you guys saved my life." www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/health/abortion-pills-fda-aid-access-defiance/index.html
|
|