Topic: Let Women Die Act
sluggy started this discussion 15 years ago #13,009
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/10/13/house-passes-hr-358-the-let-women-die-act-of-2011
If you have any issue with giving life saving treatment, you should not be practicing. That is your fucking choice. If I chose not to do something at my job, I would be fired. These people are beyond hope and I fear for humanity.
If you have any issue with giving life saving treatment, you should not be practicing. That is your fucking choice. If I chose not to do something at my job, I would be fired. These people are beyond hope and I fear for humanity.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later[^] [v] #234,346
> President Obama has said he would veto the bill if it were to reach his desk.
Proud Republican joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #234,348
> passed a bill in a vote of 251 to 172 that would, among other things, allow doctors and hospitals to "exercise their conscience" by letting pregnant women facing emergency medical conditions die.
Well, as long as the rights of the fetus are being respected, I see no problem with this.
Well, as long as the rights of the fetus are being respected, I see no problem with this.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #234,352
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 44 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,354
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,355
Let's look at this logically (which is hard for many posters here. I understand this, so don't get mad at me. Day in, day out, we are told illogical things by illogical people. It is hard to be logical in the modern world).
This bill will allow hospitals to decide if they wish to perform abortions or not. Doctors who refuse to perform abortions will not be hired by hospitals who perform abortions. Patients seeking abortions will not go to hospitals that do not provide abortions.
Let's keep emotion out and stay logical people!
This bill will allow hospitals to decide if they wish to perform abortions or not. Doctors who refuse to perform abortions will not be hired by hospitals who perform abortions. Patients seeking abortions will not go to hospitals that do not provide abortions.
Let's keep emotion out and stay logical people!
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,357
@previous (E)
> hospitals that do not provide abortions.
doing abortions are part of a hospitals job
> hospitals that do not provide abortions.
doing abortions are part of a hospitals job
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,359
@previous (F)
> doing abortions are part of a hospitals job
No, they are not. Nothing is a part of anyone's job unless they choose for it to be. Please stay logical! You are suggesting, analogously, that a restaurant must serve all styles of food because that is its job. This is immediately and obviously, false - a restaurant sells whatever food it wants, and customers will or will not frequent it accordingly. Similarly, people wanting abortions will not go to hospitals which do not provide them. People who are okay with abortion will likely choose to support pro-abortion hospitals (through their health cover, through their charitable giving &c.) instead of anti-abortion hospitals.
> doing abortions are part of a hospitals job
No, they are not. Nothing is a part of anyone's job unless they choose for it to be. Please stay logical! You are suggesting, analogously, that a restaurant must serve all styles of food because that is its job. This is immediately and obviously, false - a restaurant sells whatever food it wants, and customers will or will not frequent it accordingly. Similarly, people wanting abortions will not go to hospitals which do not provide them. People who are okay with abortion will likely choose to support pro-abortion hospitals (through their health cover, through their charitable giving &c.) instead of anti-abortion hospitals.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,361
@previous (E)> comparing hospitals to restuarants
> implying your being logical
abortions are a minor operation within the childbirth ward.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,363
@previous (F)
See you're being irrational and emotional. It's hard to be logical, but not impossible.
P.S. Please keep your racist humor out of this topic, thank you.
See you're being irrational and emotional. It's hard to be logical, but not impossible.
P.S. Please keep your racist humor out of this topic, thank you.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,365
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,369
@234,359 (E)
You're not being logical at all. If that were the accepted way of things, women might have to travel across several states simply to live to see another day. Because of Americans' fondness for protesting and picketing, those that cherish life and do allow women to be saved will be picketed by monstrous people, and the patients (customers in American hospitals, innit, since you have to pay?) will be assaulted on the way in.
I hope this bill never passes, for the sake of human rights.
You're not being logical at all. If that were the accepted way of things, women might have to travel across several states simply to live to see another day. Because of Americans' fondness for protesting and picketing, those that cherish life and do allow women to be saved will be picketed by monstrous people, and the patients (customers in American hospitals, innit, since you have to pay?) will be assaulted on the way in.
I hope this bill never passes, for the sake of human rights.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,370
@234,355 (E)
That isn't how it works. Its funny you sound so smug with your infantile understanding of the world.
First, the situations where this would be an issue will not be planned. It is only going to threaten a woman who had no intention of getting an abortion. In certain circumstances the life of the mother is threatened. There are circumstances where a fetus must be aborted to save the life of a mother.
Second, doctors are already employed in hospitals that perform abortions who would love a chance to kill a woman in the name of their patriarchal cult.
Third, it's likely not an issue that doctors can be hired or fired on. It's a religious choice and therefore people get stupid and believe it's discriminatory to disallow people to act irrationally when it's because of a delusional belief.
Lastly, this is a life and death issue. It's entirely plausible that a woman won't have the convience of shopping around.
That isn't how it works. Its funny you sound so smug with your infantile understanding of the world.
First, the situations where this would be an issue will not be planned. It is only going to threaten a woman who had no intention of getting an abortion. In certain circumstances the life of the mother is threatened. There are circumstances where a fetus must be aborted to save the life of a mother.
Second, doctors are already employed in hospitals that perform abortions who would love a chance to kill a woman in the name of their patriarchal cult.
Third, it's likely not an issue that doctors can be hired or fired on. It's a religious choice and therefore people get stupid and believe it's discriminatory to disallow people to act irrationally when it's because of a delusional belief.
Lastly, this is a life and death issue. It's entirely plausible that a woman won't have the convience of shopping around.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,374
ValtaK !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,385
> allow the baby to be killed because the mother is dying
or
> allow the mother to die and the baby dies with her
FFS... At least the former saves the life of ONE person. To let a person die of preventable causes is a sin and anyone that does such a thing deserves nothing short of death.
or
> allow the mother to die and the baby dies with her
FFS... At least the former saves the life of ONE person. To let a person die of preventable causes is a sin and anyone that does such a thing deserves nothing short of death.
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,419
boners
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,425
Seems like the choice should be ultimately left up to the mother when possible, otherwise the doctor should be allowed to make a call and try to save the life with the most likely chance of living. If this bill states that a doc should let the mother die at any cost to avoid abortion on his own call, then it's totally bunk, and I'm not sure that doctor should be practicing medicine.
Retarded Republicans strike again.
Retarded Republicans strike again.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,427
Is there any way we could introduce legislations to allow for very late term abortions of republican representatives?
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,433
I hate these fucking idiotic, "Good fetus-lovin' 'Christians' " in congress. I swear, they have no idea how to look at an issue as a whole, rather than in tiny little chunks. They think about the fetus-crusades as one issue, and then EVERYTHING ELSE THIS BILL ENTAILS as something else with no correlation to the bill and which they'll assume is the democrats' faults.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,434
@234,425 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Its up to the doctor if they feel at that time they have a moral objection.
Its up to the doctor if they feel at that time they have a moral objection.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,437
@previous (sluggy)
If a doctor has a moral objection to something to do with the medical field, why be a doctor? That's like me being a lawyer and then refusing to accept divorce suits because I'm morally objected to them, or me being a surgeon and refusing to operate on muslims because I'm morally objected to their religion.
If a doctor has a moral objection to something to do with the medical field, why be a doctor? That's like me being a lawyer and then refusing to accept divorce suits because I'm morally objected to them, or me being a surgeon and refusing to operate on muslims because I'm morally objected to their religion.
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,480
@234,369 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
what is the direct link between aborting a baby and saving a woman's life?
You do know that the vast majority of abortions are made for convenience and only a tiny percentage for therapeutic effects.
what is the direct link between aborting a baby and saving a woman's life?
You do know that the vast majority of abortions are made for convenience and only a tiny percentage for therapeutic effects.
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,482
@234,437 (L)
A doctor's job is to preserve life, it's in their fucking oath. I wouldn't be mad at a doctor not being up for killing babies.
A doctor's job is to preserve life, it's in their fucking oath. I wouldn't be mad at a doctor not being up for killing babies.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,483
@previous (The Truth !!vSp31CfSr)
> A doctor's job is to preserve life, it's in their fucking oath. I wouldn't be mad at a doctor not being up for killing babies.
> preserve life
> Mother's life at risk
So you can either end a life which hasn't even left the womb yet, or have two lives at risk due to your inaction.
> A doctor's job is to preserve life, it's in their fucking oath. I wouldn't be mad at a doctor not being up for killing babies.
> preserve life
> Mother's life at risk
So you can either end a life which hasn't even left the womb yet, or have two lives at risk due to your inaction.
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,487
Just go into Air Conditioning and Heating repair and don't worry about bullshit that doesn't affect you.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #234,578
@234,482 (The Truth !!vSp31CfSr)
If your wife was dying and could only be saved by an abortion, you would be fine with a doctor refusing this treatment? That should be criminal negligence.
If your wife was dying and could only be saved by an abortion, you would be fine with a doctor refusing this treatment? That should be criminal negligence.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,035
@234,369 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
> You're not being logical at all.
Yes, I am. You are being emotional and irrational.
> If that were the accepted way of things, women might have to travel across several states simply to live to see another day.
Just like one must travel several states to find an italian restaurant? No; an entrepreneur will move to supply that demand.
> Because of Americans' fondness for protesting and picketing, those that cherish life
"Cherish life" is an interesting euphemism for "kill fetuses" lol
> and do allow women to be saved will be picketed by monstrous people
lol worst argument ever. This will have no effect upon the level of protesting i.e. these "monstrous" people will be protesting at hospitals that perform abortions now, and they will be protesting if this passes.
> and the patients (customers in American hospitals, innit, since you have to pay?)
It's always customers, dumbass. Just because the government takes your money and then gives it to hospitals, doesn't mean you're not paying money for your healthcare lol.
> will be assaulted on the way in.
PROTIP: Assault is and will continue to be illegal.
> I hope this bill never passes, for the sake of human rights.
I hope this bill passes, for the sake of human rights (without even going into fetus rights, the current system forces people to perform work against their will. This is called slavery).
> You're not being logical at all.
Yes, I am. You are being emotional and irrational.
> If that were the accepted way of things, women might have to travel across several states simply to live to see another day.
Just like one must travel several states to find an italian restaurant? No; an entrepreneur will move to supply that demand.
> Because of Americans' fondness for protesting and picketing, those that cherish life
"Cherish life" is an interesting euphemism for "kill fetuses" lol
> and do allow women to be saved will be picketed by monstrous people
lol worst argument ever. This will have no effect upon the level of protesting i.e. these "monstrous" people will be protesting at hospitals that perform abortions now, and they will be protesting if this passes.
> and the patients (customers in American hospitals, innit, since you have to pay?)
It's always customers, dumbass. Just because the government takes your money and then gives it to hospitals, doesn't mean you're not paying money for your healthcare lol.
> will be assaulted on the way in.
PROTIP: Assault is and will continue to be illegal.
> I hope this bill never passes, for the sake of human rights.
I hope this bill passes, for the sake of human rights (without even going into fetus rights, the current system forces people to perform work against their will. This is called slavery).
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,039
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,044
@234,370 (sluggy)
> First, the situations where this would be an issue will not be planned. It is only going to threaten a woman who had no intention of getting an abortion. In certain circumstances the life of the mother is threatened. There are circumstances where a fetus must be aborted to save the life of a mother.
A person's choice of hospital is planned. The time and circumstance of visiting this hospital is not planned, though.
> Second, doctors are already employed in hospitals that perform abortions who would love a chance to kill a woman in the name of their patriarchal cult.
lolwtf does this even mean?
> Third, it's likely not an issue that doctors can be hired or fired on. It's a religious choice and therefore people get stupid and believe it's discriminatory to disallow people to act irrationally when it's because of a delusional belief.
If it is not currently, then it should be! A doctor unwilling to perform abortions to save a woman's would be like a pacifist soldier, or a PETA butcher. These people would not be employed under a free market system.
> Lastly, this is a life and death issue. It's entirely plausible that a woman won't have the convience of shopping around.
The "shopping around" is prior and antecedent to to any need to use the hospital.
> First, the situations where this would be an issue will not be planned. It is only going to threaten a woman who had no intention of getting an abortion. In certain circumstances the life of the mother is threatened. There are circumstances where a fetus must be aborted to save the life of a mother.
A person's choice of hospital is planned. The time and circumstance of visiting this hospital is not planned, though.
> Second, doctors are already employed in hospitals that perform abortions who would love a chance to kill a woman in the name of their patriarchal cult.
lolwtf does this even mean?
> Third, it's likely not an issue that doctors can be hired or fired on. It's a religious choice and therefore people get stupid and believe it's discriminatory to disallow people to act irrationally when it's because of a delusional belief.
If it is not currently, then it should be! A doctor unwilling to perform abortions to save a woman's would be like a pacifist soldier, or a PETA butcher. These people would not be employed under a free market system.
> Lastly, this is a life and death issue. It's entirely plausible that a woman won't have the convience of shopping around.
The "shopping around" is prior and antecedent to to any need to use the hospital.
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,045
Anonymous E triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,046
@234,385 (ValtaK !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
You are letting african children die. How would you like to be executed?
You are letting african children die. How would you like to be executed?
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,049
@234,425 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Seems like the choice should be ultimately left up to the mother when possible, otherwise the doctor should be allowed to make a call and try to save the life with the most likely chance of living.
You think the doctor is a slave? The choice of whether a doctor will operate or not is a doctor's choice to make, not yours.
> If this bill states that a doc should let the mother die at any cost to avoid abortion on his own call, then it's totally bunk, and I'm not sure that doctor should be practicing medicine.
Bills don't deal with "should's".
> Retarded Republicans strike again.
Cool party politics bro! You're a real winner! Demonize the other! It excuses you own fault! It's not important to be right, so long as someone is wrong!
> Seems like the choice should be ultimately left up to the mother when possible, otherwise the doctor should be allowed to make a call and try to save the life with the most likely chance of living.
You think the doctor is a slave? The choice of whether a doctor will operate or not is a doctor's choice to make, not yours.
> If this bill states that a doc should let the mother die at any cost to avoid abortion on his own call, then it's totally bunk, and I'm not sure that doctor should be practicing medicine.
Bills don't deal with "should's".
> Retarded Republicans strike again.
Cool party politics bro! You're a real winner! Demonize the other! It excuses you own fault! It's not important to be right, so long as someone is wrong!
Anonymous E quintuple-posted this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,050
Anonymous E sextuple-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,051
@234,433 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
> I hate these fucking idiotic, "Good fetus-lovin' 'Christians' " in congress. I swear, they have no idea how to look at an issue as a whole, rather than in tiny little chunks. They think about the fetus-crusades as one issue, and then EVERYTHING ELSE THIS BILL ENTAILS as something else with no correlation to the bill and which they'll assume is the democrats' faults.
> mad
> ad hominem
Funny that you should mention "little chunks" and a consistent philosophy. I believe that I have shown that this bill is the result of a consistent philosophy and that objection is based upon seeing "abortion" as a little chunk, separate from issues such as economic and personal liberty.
> I hate these fucking idiotic, "Good fetus-lovin' 'Christians' " in congress. I swear, they have no idea how to look at an issue as a whole, rather than in tiny little chunks. They think about the fetus-crusades as one issue, and then EVERYTHING ELSE THIS BILL ENTAILS as something else with no correlation to the bill and which they'll assume is the democrats' faults.
> mad
> ad hominem
Funny that you should mention "little chunks" and a consistent philosophy. I believe that I have shown that this bill is the result of a consistent philosophy and that objection is based upon seeing "abortion" as a little chunk, separate from issues such as economic and personal liberty.
Anonymous E septuple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,052
@234,437 (L)
> That's like me being a lawyer and then refusing to accept divorce suits because I'm morally objected to them,
This is a good example. Lawyers are free to accept and reject whatever cases they wish, and rightfully so. Would you force them to accept all cases?
> me being a surgeon and refusing to operate on muslims because I'm morally objected to their religion.
What hospital would hire such a surgeon?
> That's like me being a lawyer and then refusing to accept divorce suits because I'm morally objected to them,
This is a good example. Lawyers are free to accept and reject whatever cases they wish, and rightfully so. Would you force them to accept all cases?
> me being a surgeon and refusing to operate on muslims because I'm morally objected to their religion.
What hospital would hire such a surgeon?
Anonymous E octuple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,053
@234,483 (L)
> So you can either end a life which hasn't even left the womb yet, or have two lives at risk due to your inaction.
You have summed up the moral ambiguity of this issue well. This is a good argument against "one-size-fits-all" legislation, and in favor of a free-market in healthcare.
> So you can either end a life which hasn't even left the womb yet, or have two lives at risk due to your inaction.
You have summed up the moral ambiguity of this issue well. This is a good argument against "one-size-fits-all" legislation, and in favor of a free-market in healthcare.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,062
@235,052 (E)
When you are talking about emergency care, people don't usually have time to shop around. It's more like allowing firefighters to pick and choose which buildings they will put out.
It's not just individual doctors either, the bill would allow hospitals as a whole (Catholic hospitals in particular) to refuse to treat such patients.
When you are talking about emergency care, people don't usually have time to shop around. It's more like allowing firefighters to pick and choose which buildings they will put out.
It's not just individual doctors either, the bill would allow hospitals as a whole (Catholic hospitals in particular) to refuse to treat such patients.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,063
@previous (C)
They shop around before they need emergency care. People don't go to vets for emergency care - they know they have to go to a human hospital, not an animal one. People will go to abortion hospitals if they need to.
Firefighters would be contracted beforehand based upon what buildings they say they will put out. Same for doctors. No one (except for catholic hospitals) will employ doctors unwilling to perform abortions.
Associations are made up of individuals so it makes no sense to have more requirements for associations than individuals.
They shop around before they need emergency care. People don't go to vets for emergency care - they know they have to go to a human hospital, not an animal one. People will go to abortion hospitals if they need to.
Firefighters would be contracted beforehand based upon what buildings they say they will put out. Same for doctors. No one (except for catholic hospitals) will employ doctors unwilling to perform abortions.
Associations are made up of individuals so it makes no sense to have more requirements for associations than individuals.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,066
@previous (E)
> They shop around before they need emergency care.
Because emergencies always happen at predictable times and places with a number of easily accessible options in place for each contingency, right? Patients being rushed to the hospital can diagnose their problems and know what treatment will be required so that they can plan accordingly as well, I suppose.
> People don't go to vets for emergency care
LOL wtf?
> No one (except for catholic hospitals) will employ doctors unwilling to perform abortions.
Did you just make that up, or do you have a source for this?
> They shop around before they need emergency care.
Because emergencies always happen at predictable times and places with a number of easily accessible options in place for each contingency, right? Patients being rushed to the hospital can diagnose their problems and know what treatment will be required so that they can plan accordingly as well, I suppose.
> People don't go to vets for emergency care
LOL wtf?
> No one (except for catholic hospitals) will employ doctors unwilling to perform abortions.
Did you just make that up, or do you have a source for this?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,068
@previous (C)
> Because emergencies always happen at predictable times and places with a number of easily accessible options in place for each contingency, right?
No, they don't. This law doesn't change the predictability of emergencies though, so this is hardly an argument against it.
> Patients being rushed to the hospital can diagnose their problems and know what treatment will be required so that they can plan accordingly as well, I suppose.
Who would risk going to a non-abortion hospital? Only Catholics would.
> Did you just make that up, or do you have a source for this?
source = logic
> Because emergencies always happen at predictable times and places with a number of easily accessible options in place for each contingency, right?
No, they don't. This law doesn't change the predictability of emergencies though, so this is hardly an argument against it.
> Patients being rushed to the hospital can diagnose their problems and know what treatment will be required so that they can plan accordingly as well, I suppose.
Who would risk going to a non-abortion hospital? Only Catholics would.
> Did you just make that up, or do you have a source for this?
source = logic
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 42 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,075
@previous (E)
> This law doesn't change the predictability of emergencies though, so this is hardly an argument against it.
No one is proposing it does.
It does change the availability of emergency services though. Women in need of these emergency procedures are probably not planning to have abortions and have not made arrangements for that. When an emergency happens, they are counting on receiving medical care and not being turned away to die.
> This law doesn't change the predictability of emergencies though, so this is hardly an argument against it.
No one is proposing it does.
It does change the availability of emergency services though. Women in need of these emergency procedures are probably not planning to have abortions and have not made arrangements for that. When an emergency happens, they are counting on receiving medical care and not being turned away to die.
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,083
Okay, I haven't read up on the issue but I think I have an idea what this is about. If a pregnant woman will probably die anyway or be horrifically crippled as the result of complications and the baby can be saved and live a healthy life and there is a choice between saving the woman's life or the child's, then there is some grey area. It's like how killing a pregnant woman's fetus after the third trimester during a botched mugging could get someone charged with homicide. There is a certain point where you have to draw the line and say that the fetus is, for all intents and purposes, a human.
Now, if the woman can live a healthy life and the child would live in a vegetative state, by all means charge the doctor as a criminal. I am a bit troubled by the wording in this bill, but I'd have to see what it is all about before I made any definitive judgements on it. However, I do not think this should just be a knee-jerk "right or wrong" question and deserves more than to be written off as a pure power-play by the far right.
Now, if the woman can live a healthy life and the child would live in a vegetative state, by all means charge the doctor as a criminal. I am a bit troubled by the wording in this bill, but I'd have to see what it is all about before I made any definitive judgements on it. However, I do not think this should just be a knee-jerk "right or wrong" question and deserves more than to be written off as a pure power-play by the far right.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,085
@235,075 (C)
> It does change the availability of emergency services though.
We have to balance positive rights against negative rights. Forcing doctors to perform operations against their will (slavery) would increase the availability of emergency services, but would be wrong.
> Women in need of these emergency procedures are probably not planning to have abortions and have not made arrangements for that.
You don't need to plan to have an abortion. Unless you are opposed to abortion in all circumstances (as some seem to be) you will go to a hospital that provides abortions - why risk otherwise? Why risk going to an anti-abortion hospital and needing an abortion?
> It does change the availability of emergency services though.
We have to balance positive rights against negative rights. Forcing doctors to perform operations against their will (slavery) would increase the availability of emergency services, but would be wrong.
> Women in need of these emergency procedures are probably not planning to have abortions and have not made arrangements for that.
You don't need to plan to have an abortion. Unless you are opposed to abortion in all circumstances (as some seem to be) you will go to a hospital that provides abortions - why risk otherwise? Why risk going to an anti-abortion hospital and needing an abortion?
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #235,091
@previous (E)
> We have to balance positive rights against negative rights.
So the doctor's choice to perform the operation comes before the woman's right to life?
> We have to balance positive rights against negative rights.
So the doctor's choice to perform the operation comes before the woman's right to life?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #235,101
@previous (C)
The right to life is a negative right - meaning you can't kill people. It does not mean that everyone becomes your slave and must serve you.
The right to life is a negative right - meaning you can't kill people. It does not mean that everyone becomes your slave and must serve you.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #235,104
@previous (E)
> The right to life is a negative right
Sure
> meaning you can't kill people.
Not killing people is a prohibition, not a right. This is a prohibition that would result from acknowledging another person's right to life and accepting an obligation to protect that right.
> It does not mean that everyone becomes your slave and must serve you.
Slavery is not at issue. Doctors presumably choose their profession, are compensated for their work, and have freedoms like everyone else.
It sounds like you are arguing that an individual's choice about what they do trumps any obligation they may have to protect another's life.
> The right to life is a negative right
Sure
> meaning you can't kill people.
Not killing people is a prohibition, not a right. This is a prohibition that would result from acknowledging another person's right to life and accepting an obligation to protect that right.
> It does not mean that everyone becomes your slave and must serve you.
Slavery is not at issue. Doctors presumably choose their profession, are compensated for their work, and have freedoms like everyone else.
It sounds like you are arguing that an individual's choice about what they do trumps any obligation they may have to protect another's life.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #235,107
@235,046 (E)
I'd like to be executed by constant procreative sex with beautiful women until my heart gives out so that there can be a chance for children to not be born into being starving Africans.
I'd like to be executed by constant procreative sex with beautiful women until my heart gives out so that there can be a chance for children to not be born into being starving Africans.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #235,109
@235,104 (C)
> Not killing people is a prohibition, not a right. This is a prohibition that would result from acknowledging another person's right to life and accepting an obligation to protect that right.
This right is protected by abstaining from killing.
> Slavery is not at issue. Doctors presumably choose their profession, are compensated for their work, and have freedoms like everyone else.
Except they don't have freedoms like everyone else. They are bound by a myriad of regulations, that no other profession are encumbered by - such as not being to practice their trade unless they consent (what is in their mind, at least) murder.
> It sounds like you are arguing that an individual's choice about what they do trumps any obligation they may have to protect another's life.
Yes, I am arguing this. There is no obligation to protect another's life. To do so is good, honorable and noble but can not be an obligation.
> Not killing people is a prohibition, not a right. This is a prohibition that would result from acknowledging another person's right to life and accepting an obligation to protect that right.
This right is protected by abstaining from killing.
> Slavery is not at issue. Doctors presumably choose their profession, are compensated for their work, and have freedoms like everyone else.
Except they don't have freedoms like everyone else. They are bound by a myriad of regulations, that no other profession are encumbered by - such as not being to practice their trade unless they consent (what is in their mind, at least) murder.
> It sounds like you are arguing that an individual's choice about what they do trumps any obligation they may have to protect another's life.
Yes, I am arguing this. There is no obligation to protect another's life. To do so is good, honorable and noble but can not be an obligation.
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #235,111
@235,107 (H)
> I'd like to be executed by constant procreative sex with beautiful black women until my heart gives out
FTFY
> I'd like to be executed by constant procreative sex with beautiful black women until my heart gives out
FTFY
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #235,120
@previous (E)
I don't care what their race or ethnicity is. All that matters is that they're beautiful.
I don't care what their race or ethnicity is. All that matters is that they're beautiful.