Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

10 Mar 2012, 10:23 am

It is funnier once you consider that the same legislations that are pushing these laws to withdraw information from women are also the ones using arguments such as "A woman needs to have all information available before making a decision" to make laws that impose penetrative intervention to examine a fetus before letting a woman decide to take an abortion.
http://skepchick.org/2012/03/women-dese ... they-dont/


_________________
.


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

10 Mar 2012, 12:23 pm

Ah yes, the whole "Make her see the fetus before the abortion" thing. As if the woman was too dumb to realize there was a baby growing in her...


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

10 Mar 2012, 1:35 pm

The new hippocratic oath: Thou shalt do no harm, unless the Republicans think it's, you know, politically expedient.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

10 Mar 2012, 1:45 pm

simon_says wrote:
The new hippocratic oath: Thou shalt do no harm, unless the Republicans think it's, you know, politically expedient.


They could call it the hypocritical oath.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

10 Mar 2012, 2:23 pm

I swear, the Republicans are beyond parody.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

10 Mar 2012, 2:49 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Freedom taken away is freedom taken away, regardless of the status of sexual organs in the pants of the one doing it.


Agreed. I just thought it was curious that, for once, it wasn't a man who introduced such legislation.

AstroGeek wrote:
I swear, the Republicans are beyond parody.


Sure seems like the Republican party is making political satirists obsolete.



Billybones
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 140

10 Mar 2012, 3:18 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
I swear, the Republicans are beyond parody.


Problem is . . . they keep winning elections.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

10 Mar 2012, 3:25 pm

Well, they ran on a pack of lies about health care. It was a campaign based on hysteria. And once elected in states across the country this is the kind of agenda they've pushed. Far, far crazy right stuff that has little to do with what they ran on.

At the national level the congressional Republicans have backed off of repealing PPACA (Obamacare) and their Presidential candidate will be the godfather of PPACA. It was never really about that.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

10 Mar 2012, 3:39 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
simon_says wrote:
The new hippocratic oath: Thou shalt do no harm, unless the Republicans think it's, you know, politically expedient.


They could call it the hypocritical oath.

I think that's already been invented by the doctors working for insurance companies.



LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

17 Mar 2012, 12:04 am

While I am pro-choice, I will say that I hope this law does not go through for other reasons. It basically opens up the door ethically on whether doctors can and cannot make medical decisions (basically this law would give them the right to make decisions for pregnant women by lying to them in this case) for the patient without letting them have any say whatsoever. However, it could do more than just that. If this passes and 20 years from now doctors can lie to pretty much anyone about anything related to their care in any state, it could cause some serious problems. For example: If you went in to, say, get tested for AIDS and the doctor told you they came back either positive or negative (depends on what they actually were) when in reality the results were the opposite of what they had said (and I'm talking about a deliberate lie here, not negligence), it could really make a huge difference in whether you live or die. Similarly, if a pregnant woman is lied to on purpose by her doctor about prenatal test results, it could make a difference in (if she chooses to continue the pregnancy) whether she is prepared to raise that child and meet its future needs. The Hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm" exists for a reason. For the sake of medical ethics, I hope this doesn't become law.


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

17 Mar 2012, 12:14 am

Doctors do that already. This just would give them a pass to do it even more.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2012, 3:51 am

LiberalJustice wrote:
While I am pro-choice, I will say that I hope this law does not go through for other reasons. It basically opens up the door ethically on whether doctors can and cannot make medical decisions (basically this law would give them the right to make decisions for pregnant women by lying to them in this case) for the patient without letting them have any say whatsoever. However, it could do more than just that. If this passes and 20 years from now doctors can lie to pretty much anyone about anything related to their care in any state, it could cause some serious problems. For example: If you went in to, say, get tested for AIDS and the doctor told you they came back either positive or negative (depends on what they actually were) when in reality the results were the opposite of what they had said (and I'm talking about a deliberate lie here, not negligence), it could really make a huge difference in whether you live or die. Similarly, if a pregnant woman is lied to on purpose by her doctor about prenatal test results, it could make a difference in (if she chooses to continue the pregnancy) whether she is prepared to raise that child and meet its future needs. The Hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm" exists for a reason. For the sake of medical ethics, I hope this doesn't become law.


Solution: get two or more independent opinions.

ruveyn



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

17 Mar 2012, 4:35 am

I'm ethically against abortion but I think this idea is ridiculous and disgusting nonetheless. What's next, are they gonna chop off the hands of women who have had abortions?



dizzywater
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 278
Location: sitting by the computer

17 Mar 2012, 4:51 am

Will the women be allowed other information instead?

Like the religious beliefs and backround of the doctor they are to see?

Then she can chose whether she is to be treated respectfully as a fully intelligent human able to weigh up all the arguments herself, or if she wants to be treated as livestock.