Abortion doctors would lose medical licenses under new Oklahoma bill

originally posted by: windword
Sexual intercourse isn't a contract for procreation. Even nature agrees, having created a constant need for affection and physical love, but only providing fertility for a few days a month. Nature, quite the trickster!

Well, 1/5 of the month being a timeframe in which one can be impregnated isn't exactly small potatoes, especially if someone isn't educated enough to understand what exactly the "fertility window" is and how it works...and your comment is based on the assumption that it is always predictable. I think we both know enough women in the world to know that the cycle of one's menstruation can vary relatively considerably from time to time.

Plus, my point was that having unprotected sex is a choice, as well as doing so within this "few days a month" that we're discussing. Again, I know that there are accidents and birth-control failures, but taking into account efficacy rates of said BCs and the amount of readily available BC methods in our society, there's literally no excuse not to be careful and for the vast, utter majority of women to avoid unwanted pregnancies during their lifetime.

And yes, I'm calling out men, too, because IMO, men are just as responsible in allowing impregnation as women are, and IMO (but for a whole different topic) as responsible for the healthy development of that fetus as the mother is (well, as much as they can aid in that from the outside, anyhow).

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do what works for you.

Do not legislate against me, forcing me to adhere to your beliefs.

But that doesn't work for me...and I'm not advocating legislation against you, per se, but FOR the individual who can't speak up for itself (and against the killing of said individual). I just wish that you could understand that and quit making it about you.

Your logic reminds me of another thread started today about a professor claiming that protecting one's self with deadly force against an attacker is illegal because it negates the attacker's right to a fair trial if the attacker is killed. It's not about the attacker, and it shouldn't be about the attacker. Same goes for abortion, under my concerns with it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do what works for you.

Do not legislate against me, forcing me to adhere to your beliefs.

. . I'm not advocating legislation against you, per se, . .

YES! You are.

. . but FOR the individual who can't speak up for itself (and against the killing of said individual). I just wish that you could understand that and quit making it about you.

That is YOUR belief. You are making it about YOU and YOUR belief.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, 1/5 of the month being a timeframe in which one can be impregnated isn't exactly small potatoes, especially if someone isn't educated enough to understand what exactly the "fertility window" is and how it works...and your comment is based on the assumption that it is always predictable.

No it's not. My comment was based on my perception of the fickle, non pragmatic, quality of nature. A woman' cycle is NOT an exact science, and most of us don't go around taking our temperatures to find out if sex is "safe" or not. Besides, sperm can live up to 5 days. It's a known fact, as well, that arousal can bring on ovulation, and rarely, women ovulate twice a month.

utter majority of women to avoid unwanted pregnancies during their lifetime.

Please cite your source. AND, there's a difference between unwanted and unplanned. 31% of all births, in the USA and the UK, are unplanned, according to studies.

And yes, I'm calling out men, too, because IMO, men are just as responsible in allowing impregnation as women are, and IMO (but for a whole different topic) as responsible for the healthy development of that fetus as the mother is (well, as much as they can aid in that from the outside, anyhow).

Empty words and lip service.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

MY belief is taking care of what's already alive.

That includes focusing on a Healthy Planet and ALL LIVING CHILDREN.

The world population is over 7 Billion. The procreation argument does not hold up.

Instead, intelligent decisions need to be made to reduce population, clean up our waterways, reforest, reduce emissions, colonize other planets, etc.

Bringing another life into this world is a selfish act - - - especially if you aren't going to take care of it. We DO NOT need indiscriminate breeding.

I do not believe in God. I do not need to appease to those senses. America is not a theocracy - - and I'm tired of those who think it is trying to force others with legislation.

This is what I believe. My belief is as valid as yours.

We are all eternal energy beings. Physical is a manifestation we choose to experience. A soul (energy consciousness) may nurture the physical body being grown, but does not occupy it until after it is viable and enters the realm chosen. If the fetus is terminated, the soul (energy consciousness) simply chooses another. Physical death has no effect. The energy soul is eternal.

originally posted by: windword
Please cite your source. AND, there's a difference between unwanted and unplanned. 31% of all births, in the USA and the UK, are unplanned, according to studies.

Source for what? It's based on the probability that if people are responsible who do not want a child, they won't have one. It's all in the rest of the sentence that you didn't quote, plus the sentence right before that. I've already posted a link to the CDC's chart about efficacy of birth control--I'm not doing it again.

Empty words and lip service.

This is why it's impossible to take you seriously in this debate--all you do is ridicule and disregard comments. At least I'm honest enough to explain why I have my opinion--you and others like you (Annee) just vomit at the mouth without concern and then try to negate any idea that counters yours with ad hominem attacks.

It's literally like debating with my 12-year-old who has Asperger's Syndrome, except harder and less fruitful.

originally posted by: Annee
Instead, intelligent decisions need to be made to reduce population, ...

No, intelligent decisions need to be made to avoid pregnancy in the first place, not kill the individuals created by the act. Before or after birth is the same thing to me. You disagree.

Bringing another life into this world is a selfish act - - - especially if you aren't going to take care of it. We DO NOT need indiscriminate breeding.

You--the advocate of killing unborn children just because--are talking about selfishness? Are you serious???

I do not believe in God. I do not need to appease to those senses. America is not a theocracy - - and I'm tired of those who think it is trying to force others with legislation.

Who else in here believes in a god? Or is religious?

Not me...but in the same voice, I'm tired of people who appreciate the killing of human beings as a means to fix a preventable mistake. Don't try and force your legislation on me that protects such barbaric acts (see, that argument goes both ways).

This is what I believe. My belief is as valid as yours.

We are all eternal energy beings. Physical is a manifestation we choose to experience. A soul (energy consciousness) may nurture the physical body being grown, but does not occupy it until after it is viable and enters the realm chosen. If the fetus is terminated, the soul (energy consciousness) simply chooses another. Physical death has no effect. The energy soul is eternal.

Your ability to believe what you want is valid, but not all beliefs have the quality of being valid:

Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.

I believe that the earth is round. Others believe that it is flat. Others believe that we exist inside of a sphere and that the sun is at the center of this hollow sphere.

Not all beliefs are valid.

But let me challenge yours--if all beings are just physical vessels for eternal energy beings, how can population increase as much as it has in the world since, say, 1400 b.c.e.? Do these "eternal energy beings" just randomly manifest themselves? Do they split up in order to inhabit more physical vessels? If so, does the energy decrease and explain the modern lethargy and apathy in this world?

I don't know what the soul/energy is that provides consciousness, but I'm not sure I'm buying into the validity of your belief system, although on the surface, it's a nice way to try and explain to those not paying attention why abortion should be no big deal. (but all of this is probably a topic for another thread)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You see, you just completely dismiss my position.

Your belief does not change mine. No matter what you say, your belief does not change mine.

Do what you want in your personal life.

DO NOT legislate your beliefs to force me to comply.

a reply to: Annee

*sigh*

I didn't dismiss your opinion, I just corrected you to say that not all opinions/beliefs are valid--then I said that I have no idea what happens to this 'energy,' then stated some questions concerning your opinion/belief that don't make sense if your opinion/belief is accurate. I sincerely was looking for an answer to said questions.

It's readily apparent that you do not want to take time and consider things--to actually think about things--unless they conform to your opinion/belief. I used to be okay with all abortion, but then I thought about it and looked at it with constructive criticism, and that made me change my opinion. Not only do I not dismiss your opinion, but I also held it at one time in my life.

Like I've said more than once, I'm not trying to change your opinion, just arguing my opinion with reasons why I believe that way, and asking questions when your belief(s) don't make sense to me. I don't see the problem with that, but whatever.

But as a side note, ALL legislation forces complicity on people--that's the reason behind laws (and their associated punishments). You'd be better just to say, "Don't legislate on this particular issue," because the current SCOTUS ruling(s) on the matter do not equate to legislation.

Best Regards, Annee.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I just corrected you to say that not all opinions/beliefs are valid--then I said that I have no idea what happens to this 'energy,' then stated some questions concerning your opinion/belief that don't make sense if your opinion/belief is accurate. I sincerely was looking for an answer to said questions.

Corrected me? Are you kidding me?

Who the hell do you think you are?

life isn't simple black and white... right or wrong.

the catholic hospitals are run according to a religious doctrine the will force doctors to sit on the butts patiently waiting for the heartbeat to stop when a women miscarries. and I do reckon that many of these doctors feel it's just as immoral to do nothing while a patient's health and life is being put in jeopardy and the patient is suffering extreme pain, sometimes for days.
you might feel that it is immoral for a women to terminate a pregnancy, but she might feel that it would be even more immoral to allow it to continue if it means that the children she already has will got through a great amount of harm if she does--(foster care, loss of very much needed income, ect.)

I already posted an article (that was found in a site that is prolife) stating that many women are pressured by the daddies of those babies to abort, some are even threatened. I don't really see anyone addressing that problem, or the problem that a women's earning's potential is decreased by having the kid, or that the same conservative right that wants to demand an end to ALL abortions (read the republican platform, they don't want any compromises) and yet seem to want to demonize those mothers when they bring those babies into the world and cannot afford them without help. too many dads still manage to to skirt away without paying much of anything in child support. we're told that there's plenty of jobs, in other states, and we should just move, this has caused the idea of the extended family being able to provide assistance if needed to be unfeasible for too many. I mean gee maybe if that mom of a couple kids had her mother close by she would be more inclined not to abort when complications arise that mean she won't be able to care for those kids.

but, na they are all selfish women, unwilling to take responsibility!! they need to learn how to be responsible!! and yet, our gov't has been so irresponsible when it comes to our economy for decades that too many families can't survive without assistance. both women AND MEN seem to be so irresponsible when it comes to sex producing kids through one nite stands.
how about people start getting a gripe and realizing they can't lay all the blame on the women, especially since you have no idea why any one women choses do what she does.

a reply to: dawnstar

See Dawnstar.

Dismissed and wrong because MY belief isn't the "right" one.

Just like I told you.

Recently, a woman was traveling across the Midwest when she developed abdominal pain. She and her husband went to the nearest hospital, where she was diagnosed with a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy. The doctors recommended immediate surgery to remove the fallopian tube containing the misplaced embryo, a procedure that would reduce by half her future chances of conceiving a child. They failed to mention that a simple injection of Methotrexate would solve the problem, leaving her fertility intact. Why the omission? The Catholic hospital where she got diagnosed was subject to the “Ethical and Religious Directives” of the Catholic bishops, which state, “In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.”

www.alternet.org...

and yet, this is somehow morally proper to many of them??

to me, it's medical malpractice as well as immoral treatment of another human being!

proving once again we all don't share the same concept of morality! and, it's not the gov't's right to decide which view is right and which one is wrong.

a reply to: Annee

Apparently someone who understands the definition of the word "valid."

You've got a real defensive chip on your shoulder. That must really suck.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: dawnstar

See Dawnstar.

Dismissed and wrong because MY belief isn't the "right" one.

Just like I told you.

You really can't comprehend what I say very well--you weren't dismissed, and I just brought up the point that "valid" is a word that doesn't fit your opinion and then asked you some questions that you still, as of yet, seemingly refuse to answer. If you never answer people's questions, how are they supposed to understand your opinion?

Then I said I had no idea if your opinion is "right," because I don't have all the answers about "energy."

I hardly dismissed you and said that you're wrong in your belief, but you tend to read whatever you want and then your head tells your fingers that your misinterpretation of my comments is exactly what I said. Just stop. Breathe. Think about what I (and others) actually say before you respond, otherwise all you're going to continue to do is perpetually elicit negativity from other people...well, unless they conform to your opinions, I guess.

Let me guess...just who the hell do I think I am?

I know...how dare I question you, Annee, of all people in the world.

a reply to: dawnstar

The ideology that runs Catholic hospitals doesn't dictate my opinion on abortion, but I do agree that, sadly, it does with many of "them" (pro-life peeps, I assume?).

I agree with you...this would have been a very appropriate time to employ abortion as a "cure" to the problem, as both the mother and the baby have a high chance of major complications and even death.

But the real question is, did the woman sign off on the procedure, or ask to be taken to a non-Catholic hospital? (leaving, don't have time to read the story)

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

I know...how dare I question you, Annee, of all people in the world.

Corrected me.

That has nothing to do with a question.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
don't know, don't really see where it matters. I believe that it's the healthcare provider's duty to make all the alternatives known to the patient, and in this case, they didn't, did they? not only didn't they but they promoted a more invasive solution as the only option it seems.
and well, it's kind of like saying sorry, but we can't do an abortion, but we can remove the uterus and that will solve the problem.

and by the way, taking her to another hospital might not have been an alternative...

In the wake of Halappanavar’s death and Beatriz’s dangerously substandard care, Marge Berer, founder of the international journal, Reproductive Health Matters, questioned the ability of Catholic-controlled facilities to provide emergency obstetric services and asked whether they should be formally stripped of their right to provide maternity care more broadly. Unfortunately, with Catholic corporations gobbling up independent care facilities, a woman may have few other options. If all currently proposed mergers are completed in Washington State, for example, nine counties will have all hospital beds controlled by religious institutions by the end of 2013.

www.alternet.org...

I found this interesting also:

Salvadoran doctors were willing to perform the needed abortion, but their hands were tied by laws based in Catholic theology. Finally, at 26 weeks gestation and under international pressure, a Salvadoran court ruled that Beatriz could end the pregnancy—via caesarean section. As in the case of the ectopic pregnancy, Beatriz was offered an invasive surgical procedure rather than the standard treatment which would minimize recovery time and leave her body intact. As best can be determined from news reports, the only reason the doctors had to cut her open was to satisfy the Catholic pretense that this was an attempt to deliver a viable baby.

(same source)

this kind of crap is far from "pro-life", it causes needless pain and increases the risk of death to patients. there is no way you are going to get a viable life birth from an ectopic pregnancy anyways, the tube is gonna rupture and then there's a good posibility that the patient will bleed to death long before she gets the medical care she needs. but, when you are being held by stupid laws, be it religious or governmental instead of common sense, this is what you can expect.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Source for what?

The source of the citation of yours, that I put in quotes.

It's based on the probability that if people are responsible who do not want a child, they won't have one.

Do you have a citation for this, or do you just make up facts as you go along?

Intended and Unintended Births in the

United States: 1982–2010

Results—About 37% of births in the United States were unintended at the time of conception. The overall proportion unintended has not declined significantly since 1982

As I stated earlier, somewhere near 50% of sexually active women will experience an unplanned pregnancy, at some point in their sexually active lives. What they do is a matter of their own personal choice.

This is why it's impossible to take you seriously in this debate

How can you be taken seriously, when you spend so much energy trashing the morality and values of women that you don't know, advocating taking away their right to choice, and then say, "oh yeah, on a side note, I think men need to step up too"....Duh!

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: SlapMonkey

MY belief is taking care of what's already alive.

That includes focusing on a Healthy Planet and ALL LIVING CHILDREN.

So the 6 month old baby in my niece's belly isn't alive?

The world population is over 7 Billion. The procreation argument does not hold up.

We heard you the first time. There are 36.8 billion acres of land on this planet... plenty of room to grow. Plus how do you plan on colonizing other planets with a lower population?

a reply to: Bone75

There is plenty of land sure, but the resources is the problem.

And yes a fetus 6 months along is alive.