Abortion doctors would lose medical licenses under new Oklahoma bill

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bone75

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

Yes, the resources.

The Yanomami are now suffering from Mercury poison. The oceans are polluted.

And just a wild guess, but with 7 billion people I think there's enough to start colonizing other planets.

a reply to: Annee

and I still think that every planet has life now, with a good possibility of intelligent life. just because it doesn't fit our definition of life doesn't mean it doesn't exist. it just means we aren't as smart as we think we are. remember odo from the star track series? the seeds of life might be so versitile that they can flourish in any climate, on any planet, and maybe even in space itself.
so, well, what if these planets we go and colonize has life that really doesn't want us there? after the mess that we've made one this planet, what moral right do we have going around taking other other's planets?

I guess what I am saying is I have a moral problem with the idea of colonizing other planets... which well would kind of, at least for me, negate any argument that we have to increase the population so we have enough people to move beyond the earth.

a reply to: dawnstar

I guess what I am saying is I have a moral problem with the idea of colonizing other planets... which well would kind of, at least for me, negate any argument that we have to increase the population so we have enough people to move beyond the earth.

In which case we are doomed. Earth is not forever.

a reply to: Phage

I bet it has a longer shelf life than humans do!!!

a reply to: dawnstar
Yeah. If we stay here in the cage.

originally posted by: dawnstar

so, well, what if these planets we go and colonize has life that really doesn't want us there? after the mess that we've made one this planet, what moral right do we have going around taking other other's planets?

They could do the same to us: "Independence Day".

If we want to continue as a species we have to have the ability to explore other possibilities.

Mother Nature just isn't all that smart.

a reply to: windword

YOU are the one taking my opinion and my comments as "trashing the morality and values of women that [I] don't know"--do you even realize that you can disagree with people and not be trashing them?

That's a serious question.

As for the rest of what you quoted, the answers that you seek were in my very same comment from which you pulled the quote. Again...read more carefully before responding, please.

originally posted by: dawnstar
don't know, don't really see where it matters.

It matters because it is up to the patient to approve such a procedure.

I agree that all alternatives should be made known, and I don't know if they were or were not--doctors make known procedures all of the time that they can't perform in house. My point in asking if she approved the procedure is that, at that moment, it became her choice to undergo the operation presented to her.

Second opinions are always a good idea.

originally posted by: Annee
I know...how dare I question you, Annee, of all people in the world.

Corrected me.

That has nothing to do with a question.

Are you too precious of a little snowflake to be called out when you're wrong?

Who are you to tell people if you can or can't be corrected by them? If you're wrong, you're wrong, plain and simple. I'm not infallible, and neither are you, Annee.

And I'm the arrogant one in this conversation?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: windword

As for the rest of what you quoted, the answers that you seek were in my very same comment from which you pulled the quote. Again...read more carefully before responding, please.

HAHA! YOu mean this link: www.cdc.gov...

No it wasn't. Your citation was a laughable, 1/2 page instruction manual of how to use certain birth control! My response was to this:

originally posted by: windword
Really glad that you were able to find a fool proof methods of birth control and have never experienced a "surprise" pregnancy. But, most women struggle with birth control methods, trying to find the right "fit". About 50% of sexually active women, using birth control, will experience a "surprise" pregnancy during their reproductive years.

originally posted by:Slapmonkey
Link to that nonsense, please, because I have done extensive research into the effectiveness of birth control, both men's and women's, and nothing has such a poor statistical efficacy rate as what you present to be fact, here.

See, I got you your link for you. Maybe you should read the replies more carefully before you go off half cocked, insulting people's intelligence because they don't agree with you. Also, your research has a very low bar and comes up lacking.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Are you too precious of a little snowflake to be called out when you're wrong?

Who are you to tell people if you can or can't be corrected by them? If you're wrong, you're wrong, plain and simple. I'm not infallible, and neither are you, Annee.

And I'm the arrogant one in this conversation?

Wrong? Please refresh me.

Hey! Why not lump yourself in with the childish idiots who've adopted and over used the term Snowflake. It's so becoming.

originally posted by: windword
About 50% of sexually active women, using birth control, will experience a "surprise" pregnancy during their reproductive years.

You mean like, if you have something like Chron's disease and throw up your birth control pill.

Or there's my daughter who had female problems, only had a period about twice a year, and was told by more then one doctor she was unable to conceive. She kept the baby, BTW.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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...

doesn't sound like they disclosed ALL of the options to her. And, from reading other stories about the catholic hospitals, I doubt if they would.

Seek emergency medical help if you experience any signs or symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy, including:

Severe abdominal or pelvic pain accompanied by vaginal bleeding
Extreme lightheadedness or fainting
Shoulder pain

www.mayoclinic.org...

I'm sorry but emergency medical care doesn't mean sending them down the highway to find a hospital willing to provide the treatment needed.

ya know, in some areas, the only hospitals in a hundred mile radius are catholic..

On Tuesday, the Catholic bishops maintained their stance on abortion. They also said they expect more efforts to push for reforms with regard to the country's abortion law, The Belfast Telegraph details.

"The moral issue here is not whether what is proposed is abortion 'on demand' or some form of so-called 'limited' abortion ... From a moral point of view, there is no such things as 'limited' abortion," the bishops told voters on Tuesday.

"The medical prognosis for the life of a child in the womb, or the extent of that child's disabilities, is no more morally relevant than it is when considering an adult who faces the diagnosis of a life-limiting condition," the bishops added.

The Catholic Church in America echo the same thought expressed by the Irish bishops. Last week, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Rhode Island, urged Catholic voters not to vote for Hillary Clinton and other political candidates who support abortion.

christiandaily.com...

that should further explain the catholic hospital's view when it comes to pregnancy complications and their treatment.

it seems that the catholic church is trying to step into the political ring, even in the US, where separation of church and state exists. they seem to be telling their followers who they shouldn't vote for which probably boils down to anyone but cruz!

“I didn’t feel safe at all…I was feeling really scared because it became clear to me, that if any complication was raised, these people would let me die,” Lupe, a resident of Ireland who is originally from Spain, told Amnesty, recounting her ordeal when she was forced to carry a dead fetus in her womb for two months as Irish doctors waited to make sure that it was not alive. She eventually traveled to Spain for an abortion.

“This is the saddest thing in my whole life … After two months with a dead embryo in my womb --you can have an infection or something and only three months before this, this was the hospital where Savita had died,” Lupe told Amnesty, referring to the death of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian woman who was denied abortion in 2012 in a hospital in Galway.

www.ibtimes.com...

just waiting around for the doctors to prove the fetus was dead....

www.amnesty.org...

www.independent.ie...
nope, sorry, we can't treat the cancer, the fetus has rights too ya know!!!

a reply to: windword

You need to learn to use the information on websites and combine it with constructive thinking.

If the vast majority of the most popular birth controls are massively effective, and a woman's 'fertility window' is only 20% of their reproductive life, mathematically speaking, there is no way that 50% of women experience unwanted (or even unplanned) pregnancies. In certain age groups, it's close to that, but your claim is absolutely incorrect and asinine.

I'm sorry if your 'intelligence' was insulted, but judging by what you claim and your ability to constructively think about statistics and math, I'm not quite certain that was the part of you that may have been insulted.

LOL...half cocked.

Anyhoo, I read your reply very carefully--just because you're wrong with your claimed (and bolded) "statistic" doesn't mean that I'm going off half-anything or insulting anything, other than an extraordinary claim that has yet to be followed up with extraordinary evidence to support it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You need to learn to use the information on websites and combine it with constructive thinking.

You need to take your own advice.

there is no way that 50% of women experience unwanted (or even unplanned) pregnancies. In certain age groups, it's close to that, but your claim is absolutely incorrect and asinine.

I said "around", as in "approximately", and if you admit, as you have above, that it's close to that among a certain age group, then my claim is NOT asinine but "close" to being a correct estimate, as all women will go through that age group.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

it depends on how they are coming up with that number. if they are looking at how many women in the recent past have had accidental pregnancies during their lifetime, then you have to consider, people of my age didn't have as many option, and access to them wasn't as easy. then you have to consider, around the age of thirty of so, many women will be told to get off of the hormonal birth control because of health risks, and that leaves you with either some very ineffective methods, or much more expensive ones.
and well, you seem to be denying a fact that was put out there by the cdc I believe, so what's the point?? if you can't believe them then you might as well go back to smoking your cigs, eating your butter, and not listen to any of the crap they peddle about our health.

a reply to: windword

That's not what was implied in your comment about '50% of women...' And even if it was so, the statistics don't involve ALL women of all age groups, just those who are sexually active...and for a small amount of time during the studies.

Either way, it's time to walk away from this thread.

Best regards.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

it depends on how they are coming up with that number. if they are looking at how many women in the recent past have had accidental pregnancies during their lifetime, then you have to consider, people of my age didn't have as many option, and access to them wasn't as easy. then you have to consider, around the age of thirty of so, many women will be told to get off of the hormonal birth control because of health risks, and that leaves you with either some very ineffective methods, or much more expensive ones.
and well, you seem to be denying a fact that was put out there by the cdc I believe, so what's the point?? if you can't believe them then you might as well go back to smoking your cigs, eating your butter, and not listen to any of the crap they peddle about our health.

I do eat butter--it has good fats in it, and is much better for the human body than chemical-laden margarine. I quit smoking (cold-turkey) in 2008. I research nearly everything "they peddle about our health" before believing it--and they're wrong more often than they should be.

But I digress...

Here is a chart that I have used in the past that either uses the same CDC numbers (taken from the 2011 numbers from the World Health Organization) or was taken directly from the WHO itself:


And here is the chart from the CDC from the link I provided earlier (click the thumbnail and hopefully it'll be legible):


I'm having trouble finding the "very ineffective methods" about which you speak (and my wife is one of those who can't do the hormonal BC, so I understand the [lack of a] struggle with that situation): Of the 12 non-hormonal methods (included tubal ligation), only three are less than 91% effective when used properly (spermicide only, sponge with spermicide [after vaginal childbirth only], and a cervical cap [after vaginal childbirth only]). And really, those are not oft-used forms of birth control that I know of, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

My argument (and I noted it specifically in my comment) is that there is zero mathematical possibility that 50% of all women will experience and unintended pregnancy during their lifetime if they are being responsible and properly using birth control. That is my specific argument. Somehow it got confused with Winword's claim about 'all women' without any modifiers attached. Mine has modifiers that narrow it down from "all women," because that is the argument that I'm making.

My own comments:

(My point is based) on the probability that if people are responsible who do not want a child, they won't have one ... I've already posted a link to the CDC's chart about efficacy of birth control...

As for (Annee's) comment about "forcing birth," all I can say is that people need to be more responsible with their reproductive bits if they don't want to get pregnant. Being overly cautious (while still having sex) is a great approach--the problem is that, in the age groups with the highest numbers of unwanted pregnancies, they have the most immature brains in the child-bearing spectrum. We can't fix stupid in society, but we can give plenty of ways to avoid stupid mistakes that can changes one's life forever...

So, personally responsibility...that's my point. There's no excuse in modern times (since I'm citing numbers from 2011) for women who do not want to get pregnant to find themselves in the terrible position of having to choose either keeping an unexpected/unwanted child, getting an abortion, or adopting out their baby.

But we've gone on an off-topic tangent long enough, I think--we haven't mentioned the Oklahoma bill in many, many pages of discussion.

I wish you the best, but I'm ending my discussion in this thread.

Take care.