The only doctor I have ever heard speak on this said that there is no point when that is necessary and that this procedure does little to lessen the impact on the mother's body.
Sad time for America... Repugs pull it together!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I have heard many say it is rare but sometimes happens that to save the life of the mother or her furure reproductive ability it is necessary to perform the procedure. Maybe that is why the procedure is so rare in the first place!
And it isn't just this procedure I have been talking of. You kept promoting it as "compromise" when I was speaking of an entirely different compromise far more sweeping and in the end far more beneficial to society.
Once again deliberately missing my point.
Both parties are equally distant focusing on "allow" or "do not allow" when thinking in terms of any procedure regarding abortion. To say that I should be "more disgusted" with one or the other is simply pretense.
I am disgusted with both and their stubborn positions seeking no real compromise.
No, you ar wrong... If one party were saying, "this procedure should be allowed no matter what"... and the other were saying "this procedure should never be allowed". You would be correct.
However, that is not the case. The Repugs are saying, "this proceudre should be banned outright no matter what." While the democrats are saying, lets be reasonable here and allow the woman carrying this baby to make her own decision in the most extreem of cases!
That is not an "allow or not allow" situation. What it is is one party with a "not allow" position and the other party with a reasonable response. Now it would be nice if medicine were at a point where the question were moot, but clearly it is not!
However, that is not the case. The Repugs are saying, "this proceudre should be banned outright no matter what." While the democrats are saying, lets be reasonable here and allow the woman carrying this baby to make her own decision in the most extreem of cases!
That is not an "allow or not allow" situation. What it is is one party with a "not allow" position and the other party with a reasonable response. Now it would be nice if medicine were at a point where the question were moot, but clearly it is not!
I am not wrong.
My position is different from that of both parties. I profer an actual compromise that in the long run will benefit society. While one side buys lawyers to ensure that it will continue unabated, the other attempts to simply deny any choice whatsoever and neither seeks any real compromise.
The pretense that the only choice would be to limit it "except" is a "do" or "do not" mentality. Both parties are equally distant from what I believe to be right. To say that I should be more disgusted with one or the other is pretense.
My original statement stands true. In regard to abortion you said I should be more disgusted with one party over the other. I am disgusted with both and neither cares to listen to any option other than "do" or "do not".
Your position is not medically possable in todays world. Clearly is would be the choice... and we should work toward it, but its not yet possable and unitl it is we need some guidelines to deal with the situation!
My "solution" is to begin so that in the future it will be possible. Pretending I have suggested that it would be successful right now is just a strawman.
In order to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible it must be begun. And in the end "late term abortion" would be non-existent because long before they go there they would be able to choose to incubate ex-utero.
It disgusts me that people attempt to use this excuse to ignore any compromise. This is why I am equally disgusted with both parties.
I am with you about what should be done, medicne should advance to the point where the question is moot...
Until then where do you stand on the issue? Should be procedure be banned OUTRIGHT or should a woman be able to make her own choice when her health or life is in danger?
I stand on my position. That we should begin now with my suggestion so that future will get here that much sooner.
In other words, instead of abortion we should work to save the life of the young patient, the fetus, in every case. There would be many that would not survive in the beginning, and that would be unfortunate, but they would have been killed directly otherwise. In the long run it will create true choice in reproduction instead of the two choices of "do" or "do not" that the Parties pretend must be our only choices.
In other words, instead of abortion we should work to save the life of the young patient, the fetus, in every case. There would be many that would not survive in the beginning, and that would be unfortunate, but they would have been killed directly otherwise. In the long run it will create true choice in reproduction instead of the two choices of "do" or "do not" that the Parties pretend must be our only choices.
Okay so, even though many would die, you are for keeping the procedure of removing a fetus pre-term, as long as efforts are made to keep it alive...?
Now, let me ask you a serious question.
IF a woman is 7 months pregnant and she is facing a choice of 23% chance of death, or they can bring the fetus out in pieces and she would have a 98%chance of survival, do you belive she should be allowed to make that choice herself?
Now, let me ask you a serious question.
IF a woman is 7 months pregnant and she is facing a choice of 23% chance of death, or they can bring the fetus out in pieces and she would have a 98%chance of survival, do you belive she should be allowed to make that choice herself?
I haven't made any decision yet. I've been talking about abortions in general...
The mother has the right to protect her life over that of another... As well as her health. Just as I should have the right to use lethal force to protect mine as well.
But once again, the doctors I hear on this subject tell me it is unnecessary to save a life as the procedure is not any less hard on the body than that of birth...
So, it would actually need to be necessary for it to gain my support.
On only one tiny portion? Rubbish. The Rs are closer when attempting to ban abortions after the 20th week than Ds are pretending that all must be okay when they hire those attorneys.
Don't be disingenuous. I know which party more closely follows my actual beliefs.
If I pretend that the only choices are "do" and "do not" other than in one instance (to save the life of the mother) are the Democrats even close to in my camp.
Thats why its an "IF" question Damo. The facts are something for a Jury to decide... the law is up to legislators...
So you are with the Democrats on this one...
IF the facts are that the mother is at risk of loosing her life or having serious health complications you think the decision to have this procedure should be up to her? Right?
Once again, in one case they get close to being in my camp. That doesn't mean I am "with the Democrats".