Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Supreme Court, and abortion.


Larry

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, twa said:

No Excuses....Where in the bill is this fictitious medical procedure mandated?

 

Larry....Why would there be legal risk if the danger from ectopic pregnancy is clear???

 

It provides safe harbor if the fictional procedure is used.  You can debate over the semantics of mandate, it's still a terrible bill and creates a chilling effect against surgical procedure in ectopic pregnancy.

 

It also leaves room for prosecution based on the argument that ectopic pregnancy was a danger to the mother's health or a mere theoretical danger, but has not yet manifested as a present danger to the mother's life (because even if ectopic pregnancy is never viable, it may naturally terminate without intervention).  At minimum, it has a chilling effect. Worst case scenario, it's going to trigger some idiotic prosecution.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, twa said:

No Excuses....Where in the bill is this fictitious medical procedure mandated?

 

Do your own homework. I know you can perform a google search, find the PDF of the bill, hit CTRL+F and find it out for yourself. Find the portion of the bill that very clearly states that in order for doctors to avoid prosecution, one of the procedures they must perform in applicable cases is re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. Literally no other procedure is mentioned but this very specific, completely imaginary one.

 

Off to your task now, be a good little boy.

 

Edited by No Excuses
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

It provides safe harbor if the fictional procedure is used.  You can debate over the semantics of mandate, it's still a terrible bill and creates a chilling effect against surgical procedure in ectopic pregnancy.

 

It also leaves room for prosecution based on the argument that ectopic pregnancy was a danger to the mother's health or a mere theoretical danger, but has not yet manifested as a present danger to the mother's life (because even if ectopic pregnancy is never viable, it may naturally terminate without intervention).  At minimum, it has a chilling effect. Worst case scenario, it's going to trigger some idiotic prosecution.

 

There is a chilling effect only if the danger is less than we know it is.

 

Any law is subject to idiotic prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, twa said:

 

There is a chilling effect only if the danger is less than we know it is.

 

Any law is subject to idiotic prosecution.

 

Yet, not all laws use a fictional medical procedure as safe harbor and not all of those idiotic prosecution would be for a murder charge.

 

Do you disagree that until later on in ectopic pregnancy, the threat to the mother's life is uncertain due to the possibility of naturally aborted pregnancy?

 

If you were on the Ohio State legislature and no further amendments were made, would you vote for or against this bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Yet, not all laws use a fictional medical procedure as safe harbor and not all of those idiotic prosecution would be for a murder charge.

 

Do you disagree that until later on in ectopic pregnancy, the threat to the mother's life is uncertain due to the possibility of naturally aborted pregnancy?

 

If you were on the Ohio State legislature and no further amendments were made, would you vote for or against this bill?

 

if I thought the threat was uncertain I would not do surgery....would you?

 

I've already said the language of the bill needs cleaned up.....so probably not.

 

IF this fictional medical procedure became reality later and relatively safe would you supports it's use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, twa said:

 

if I thought the threat was uncertain I would not do surgery....would you?

 

I've already said the language of the bill needs cleaned up.....so probably not.

 

IF this fictional medical procedure became reality later and relatively safe would you supports it's use?

 

Under the current circumstances, where no ectopic pregnancy is viable, I would not wait for natural abortion and simply go medication or surgery.  Not to say that reasonable people can't differ, but I wouldn't want to wait in that scenario.  The only thing that could give me pause is the high false positives mentioned in the article you linked, but unless a brief wait gives much higher chances of an accurate diagnosis, I certainly wouldn't want to wait until potentially life threatening down the road becomes actually life threatening.

 

If the transplantation procedure becomes reality and very reliable, I would assume the dividing line on the bill will be along traditional line on abortion.  People like me will applaud and support anyone wishing to get the transplantation procedure, but would not make it a legal requirement for some additional legal right or protection.  I'm sure pro-life advocates would see no issue with requiring or heavily promoting transplantation. 

 

Until then though, I think even many pro-lifers would agree that discussing a fictional medical procedure in a bill doesn't make much sense (which I get the sense that you at least partially acknowledge, even if you think the reactions are a bit overblown)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

Under the current circumstances, where no ectopic pregnancy is viable, I would not wait for natural abortion and simply go medication or surgery.  Not to say that reasonable people can't differ, but I wouldn't want to wait in that scenario.  The only thing that could give me pause is the high false positives mentioned in the article you linked, but unless a brief wait gives much higher chances of an accurate diagnosis, I certainly wouldn't want to wait until potentially life threatening down the road becomes actually life threatening.

 

I

 

Does the bill address meds or just surgery?

 

Imaging ect has advanced greatly since that study, much less uncertainty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Does the bill address meds or just surgery?

 

 

Looks like surgery only.

 

Quote

Sec. 2904.35. A physician who does all of the following is
 not subject to criminal prosecution, damages in any civil
 action, or professional disciplinary action, for a violation of
 this chapter:


 (A) Using reasonable medical judgment, believes it is
 highly probable that the pregnant woman will die from a certain
 fatal condition before her unborn child is viable;


 (B) Performs a surgery, before the unborn child is viable,
 for the sole purpose of treating the pregnant woman's fatal
condition;


 (C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the
 unborn child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps
 include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic
 pregnancy into the woman's uterus

 

Although, from what I'm reading, it looks like medication is not appropriate in all circumstances, so it's not as if you can just go the meds route if surgery is not an option.  Also, some studies put the effectiveness of the meds at 80%~ range.

Edited by bearrock
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Looks like surgery only.

 

 

Although, from what I'm reading, it looks like medication is not appropriate in all circumstances, so it's not as if you can just go the meds route if surgery is not an option.  Also, some studies put the effectiveness of the meds at 80%~ range.

 

Just pointing out, the part you quoted says that to avoid prosecution, 

 

1)  It must be "highly probable" that the woman will die.  No other medical prognosis counts.

2)  The doctor performs surgery.

3)  And he re-implants an ectopic pregnancy.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I find it endlessly fascinating that men continue to debate medical procedures that properly reside between her conscious and her doctor.

 

Debating this bill's validity is just flat out heinous IMO, but then again they need classrooms full for the next nut job to spray one with an AR15. Just a handful of dead kids won't do much for sales. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I find it endlessly fascinating that men continue to debate medical procedures that properly reside between her conscious and her doctor.

 

Is there some law about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry said:

I find it cute that women think they're qualified to discuss politics. 

 

  Hide contents

Long as we're making blanket declarations that people are forbidden from discussing politics based solely on their gender, and all. 

 

 

She wasn't calling into question anyone's qualification or allowance to discuss politics. It's a political discussion because of this nonsense bill, but the implications of it being passed and its heinous nature have absolutely nothing to do with political discord. 

Edited by Berggy9598
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Is there some law about that?

 

No law but there quite a bit of information available as to the odds of survival of an ectopic embryo, (even if implanted back in the womb) and the odds of it killing its carrier. The only Dr that would find this procedure acceptable relocated to South America after WW2, but good luck getting ahold of him if he's alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Berggy9598 said:

 

No law but there quite a bit of information available as to the odds of survival of an ectopic embryo, (even if implanted back in the womb) and the odds of it killing its carrier. The only Dr that would find this procedure acceptable relocated to South America after WW2, but good luck getting ahold of him if he's alive. 

 

so you are saying the Drs have no legal worry ending one with or w/o this law  😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, twa said:

 

so you are saying the Drs have no legal worry ending one with or w/o this law  😃

 

I would suspect not otherwise why would those psychopaths need to write this bill? I also imagine most Doctors understand why this is so absurd, but it'll only take one to say what the heck worth a shot and gamble on a woman's life for the sake of saving an embryo that has little to no chance of survival in the first place. Even smaller fortunately are this bill's chance of actually passing, unless there's a Falwell led coup in Ohio. 

Edited by Berggy9598
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

I saw this happen to a friend about 30 years ago. Some of the worst pain I've ever seen, she was doubling over at work crying...I was with her throughout everything (we were roommates). 

Some people really need to educate themselves before they do stupid stuff like trying to legislate medical procedures. 

 

This one of the reasons I lean towards the idea of flat protecting the right to abortion so it's just between the mother and doctor because there's no way elected officials can know as much or more then doctors to help regulate it at the same time appealing to their base. 

 

This isn't like climate change where people disagree on who's fault it is while the planet is getting warmer.  This is kicking the scientist out the room because none of them will help them regulate something that isn't even possible just to make their base happy. 

 

You can't make the base happy and do what's best for the mother, you'd think our country would've accepted this by now, but here we are again.  We all just need to accept there's no way to make everyone happy on this issue of abortion and just do what's best for the mother and move on from this topic from a legislative standpoint.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that persons mostly males, with little to none scientific/medical knowledge or interest in same,  continually insert themselves into the private medical business of females. It's also true that they don't police males' medical business except to approve anything that promotes males' ability to have sex. 

 

This policing of females' reproductive business automatically places all females into second class citizen status, thus perpetuating patriarchy as my meme in the previous page states. This is not right.

 

My thanks to the men here who get it. And everyone who gets it.

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think people shouldn't insert themselves into something which you think should be between a woman and her doctor. (FWIW, I agree with you. Just not because I think there's some rule of nature that nobody's opinions count unless I approve of them.)

 

But society inserts itself into lots of decisions. Society thinks they can tell my doctor that he can't help me commit suicide. They can tell my doctor that he can't give me marijuana. They think that my gambling isn't just between me and my bookie and that prostitution isn't just between a john and a hooker. 
 

Every single law restricts people's choices. That's what they do. 
 

And all of them are written by society as a whole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...