Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

Gaugingcatenate said:

Exactly.

Just like the other forms of murder, there is no way to stop it. So we charge and try the perps. Thats the way the system works. I am not going to keep dancing with you on this, you cant dance and your arguments are old, tired and worn out. Your folks literally got away with murder for a long long time.

Times up.

Click to expand...

So if there was a way to prevent the perps from being perps, is that not worthwhile? I guess the nurse in me says prevent before you need to treat.

Accessibility and availability of safer long term contraception that is affordable (or free) would be a start.

year2late said:

I want to drastically decrease abortions. Making them illegal will not drastically decrease them.


The first best thing that could decrease the rates is making the most reliable contraception - the long term forms - affordable for those women who are too rich for Medicaid and too poor for insurance. Currently the most reliable form of birth control can cost nearly twice as much out of pocket as an early abortion. If that does not give one great pause, it should. These women frequently are struggling to care for a born child. Being pregnant could further destabilize the life of the born children.


While prevention of unwanted pregnancy is the best, turning an unwanted pregnancy into a wanted one is a tougher get. It means showing a woman that she can provide for the safety and security and health of her children for 18 years. As a country, we cannot even agree that proper healthcare should be assured let alone a safe and secure place to live. That is what a woman thinks about when contemplating abortion. When a person is part of the working poor, they do not have that kind of security.

Click to expand...

What?

You expecting me to cry? Reach into my pocket and pony up even more towards our exorbitant taxes that the girls can have great nights out on the town? Give me a break.

PUT YOUR OWN DAMN MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. If you are so concerned in that manner, do something for godsakes. Whether a female has access to expensive birth contol or not has no bearing on those who would commit murder.

Dont do the crime if you dont wanna do the time.

Listen, potential murder charges should weigh on minds way before anyone starts thinking abortion. That sobering thought should come way way before conception.

jaeger19 said:

Nope.. because my patient was not in "immediate" peril. As the pregnancy continued with her medical problems, it was eventually going to put her into imminent peril.. which would have serious risk to her life. We were pretty certain that the baby was already compromised and would not ever develop to be able to survive outside the womb without life support (if it made it even to where we could take the baby out and the mom survived to that point).

The mother made the decision that what was best was not to potentially die, and that what was best for her baby was an abortion rather than suffer.

So please explain why you would have her arrested for murder.

Perhaps you also need to explain in detail what "immediate" peril is? Please define it so that a physician can decide whether an abortion is murder or not?

Is it 1 hour from death? 10 minutes? 1 week?

And what is peril? A 10% chance of death. 50%.. 75%?

And who determines this? What happens when one provider thinks its 75% chance of death, and the other thinks the patient is 69% chance of death..and the criteria is above 76% chance of death?


How does your position work in the real world?

Please explain.

Click to expand...

How did you determine that eventuality of that "imminent peril"? And was it 1%, 3%, 12%, 24%, 53% 67%, 79%...chance? How did you make those assessments in your real world?

"Pretty certain the baby was already compromised"? How certain ( see above percentages or choose your own, with supporting evidence )?

Instead of trying to save both, you most assuredly killed one. A good deed done? Get over yourself man. Never heard of the Hippocratic Oath, eh?

" I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art".

Yano?

year2late said:

So if there was a way to prevent the perps from being perps, is that not worthwhile? I guess the nurse in me says prevent before you need to treat.

Accessibility and availability of safer long term contraception that is affordable (or free) would be a start.

Click to expand...

Do it.

Who is stopping you? NOBODY but yourself.

Gaugingcatenate said:

What?

You expecting me to cry? Reach into my pocket and pony up even more towards our exorbitant taxes that the girls can have great nights out on the town? Give me a break.

PUT YOUR OWN DAMN MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. If you are so concerned in that manner, do something for godsakes. Whether a female has access to expensive birth contol or not has no bearing on those who would commit murder.

Dont do the crime if you dont wanna do the time.

Listen, potential murder charges should weigh on minds way before anyone starts thinking abortion. That sobering thought should come way way before conception.

Click to expand...

And like I have shown earlier women still risk not only abortions that are poorly preformed (see maternal death rates with abortion in counties like El Salvador)and risk lengthy prison sentences. Of note, women who miscarry in those countries are also falsely accused (and convicted) of having abortions. Women are forced to have babies after rape, they are forced to endure accusations of abortion, even though....as we all know, a large proportion of pregnancies are miscarried. Any woman that miscarries that expresses normal apprehension and fear about pregnancy is ripe for being snitched on if she miscarries. Doctors and nurses are changed from patient advocates to informants if they feel the woman had an abortion or caused herself to miscarry.


Yeah, making long term abortion safer, more accessible, and affordable is a much better alternative.


Telling people not to have sex "or else" is never going to be a winning proposition.

year2late said:

And like I have shown earlier women still risk not only abortions that are poorly preformed (see maternal death rates with abortion in counties like El Salvador)and risk lengthy prison sentences. Of note, women who miscarry in those countries are also falsely accused (and convicted) of having abortions. Women are forced to have babies after rape, they are forced to endure accusations of abortion, even though....as we all know, a large proportion of pregnancies are miscarried. Any woman that miscarries that expresses normal apprehension and fear about pregnancy is ripe for being snitched on if she miscarries. Doctors and nurses are changed from patient advocates to informants if they feel the woman had an abortion or caused herself to miscarry.


Yeah, making long term abortion safer, more accessible, and affordable is a much better alternative.


Telling people not to have sex "or else" is never going to be a winning proposition.

Click to expand...

Talking to brick walls is just not my thing.

Please take your droning on and on nonsense somewhere else, please. You are particularly unpersuasive on the issue... plus you have no willingness to back up your convictions when you might have an actual point.

That is just time wasting.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Talking to brick walls is just not my thing.

Please take your droning on and on nonsense somewhere else, please. You are particularly unpersuasive on the issue... plus you have no willingness to back up your convictions when you might have an actual point.

That is just time wasting.

Click to expand...

And slut shaming and fingerwagging, even when backed up by potential murder charges is a not just a waste of time, but counter productive. Especially in the US. Folks will just obtain abortion pills from their local pusher...or similar source. Counties that had no access to Planned Parenthood before...will now have access to abortion pills because a void was created and entrepreneurs (pushers) will take financial advantage. If you do not see that happening, you are beyond naïve. I actually want abortion rates to drop.

year2late said:

And slut shaming and fingerwagging, even when backed up by potential murder charges is a not just a waste of time, but counter productive. Especially in the US. Folks will just obtain abortion pills from their local pusher...or similar source. Counties that had no access to Planned Parenthood before...will now have access to abortion pills because a void was created and entrepreneurs (pushers) will take financial advantage. If you do not see that happening, you are beyond naïve. I actually want abortion rates to drop.

Click to expand...

Well, we will try it our way and see if you are right.

Might cut down drastically on the near million murders committed each year by this method. Have already explained what to do with death pill pushers ad nauseum.

In the meantime, establish a fund, do what you feel right with the expensive contraception model, nobody is stopping you... both can occur similtaneously. Yano?

On your mark, get set...GO.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Well, we will try it our way and see if you are right.

Might cut down drastically on the near million murders committed each year by this method. Have already explained what to do with death pill pushers ad nauseum.

In the meantime, establish a fund, do what you feel right with the expensive contraception model, nobody is stopping you... both can occur similtaneously. Yano?

On your mark, get set...GO.

Click to expand...

Hold on Sparky....you seem to forget RvW is still the law of the land.

Seems you suffer from premature adjudication.:lamo

Gaugingcatenate said:

Well, we will try it our way and see if you are right.

Might cut down drastically on the near million murders committed each year by this method. ...

Click to expand...

Actually the numbers of elective abortions have been cut down drastically and elective abortions before viability are legal in the U.S.

The latest stats currently available are from 2014.

From the CDC:

In 2014, 652,639 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2014 was 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Compared with 2013, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2014 decreased 2%, and the ratio decreased 7%.
Additionally, from 2005 to 2014, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 21%, 22%, and 22%, respectively.

In 2014, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2005—2014)

Click to expand...

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

year2late said:

Hold on Sparky....you seem to forget RvW is still the law of the land.

Seems you suffer from premature adjudication.:lamo

Click to expand...

Elections have consequences. We won.

Ring any bells? We will see who has the last laugh. I ll bet you predicted correctly who d win the 2016 presidential election, too, eh? :lamo

minnie616 said:

Actually the numbers of elective abortions have been cut down drastically and elective abortions before viability are legal in the U.S.

The latest stats currently available are from 2014.

From the CDC:



https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

Click to expand...

Cool.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Elections have consequences. We won.

Ring any bells? We will see who has the last laugh. I ll bet you predicted correctly who d win the 2016 presidential election, too, eh? :lamo

Click to expand...

Dude, it has not been overturned yet. Your absolute certainty sounds more like you believe he will make a faith based decision rather than one that is Constitutionally appropriate.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Wrong. Ignorantly impossible. Does your arm have different DNA does it? Or your kidneys? :lamo

Click to expand...

It is a fact that a fetus is part of a woman's body until it isn't. If you want to call it a baby, that's your choice. But you have to come to terms with the fact that it's the woman's baby; it's not yours, and it's not society's. You're simply having an emotional reaction to people who don't share your opinion.

A baby in the womb is a potential person. Whether or not that potential is realized is up to the owner of the womb, and not to unrelated parties like yourself who have nothing but a self-serving emotional investment in the outcome.

year2late said:

Dude, it has not been overturned yet. Your absolute certainty sounds more like you believe he will make a faith based decision rather than one that is Constitutionally appropriate.

Click to expand...

Laughable...uh, sparkless. :lamo

The decision has nothing to do with faith. Even atheists understand the concept of murder. Science understands the difference between the development of the egg and sperm separate from the development of the two combined. Its a human, its alive. The new life, to establish its nascent independence, has a completely different DNA.

That the decision is the same for both, Constitutionally and faith based, is a happy coincidence. Funny... that this coincidence occurs frequently with many of our laws.

Sadling said:

It is a fact that a fetus is part of a woman's body until it isn't. If you want to call it a baby, that's your choice. But you have to come to terms with the fact that it's the woman's baby; it's not yours, and it's not society's. You're simply having an emotional reaction to people who don't share your opinion.

A baby in the womb is a potential person. Whether or not that potential is realized is up to the owner of the womb, and not to unrelated parties like yourself who have nothing but a self-serving emotional investment in the outcome.

Click to expand...

First of all, this womans shared baby is not a part of the woman...that is such a damnable, kindergarden logic styled oversimplification of what is actually happening with the development of a new life. I mean, come on...which parts of your own body have their own DNA? Or start developing their own separate lungs, brain, nervous systems...a separate heart...if the "mother" has a functioning one.

Its shared as the baby has a father. It is theirs together, not JUST the mothers.

Third, you are right, the baby is their, the two, sole possession. Yet, just like with born babies, mothers do not have the societal right do do anything they please with anothers life, even if they own it. There ARE consequences for taking anothers life in our society.

Not sorry, yours is just a very crude argument that appeals to a client group that is stupendously wrong on the entire concept.

Gaugingcatenate said:

The research is not to be trusted if it is just from only one side.

A side which is completely biased. Besides, you forget that each successful abortion, where the mothers life if is immediate peril, is a murder. Whatever the reason, trivial or not, each and every murder that occurs in the US should be investigated and prosecuted.

Click to expand...

Legal abortion CANNOT be murder, as murder is an illegal act.

Definition of murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought was convicted of murder
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous the traffic was murder carrying the luggage was murder on my back
b : something outrageous or blameworthy getting away with murder
3 : a flock of crows
There's a reason the proper term for a flock of them is a murder of crows, and it's not because we like having them around. —Jeffrey Kluger

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder


Note: I am having carpal tunnel surgery today, so most likely won't be posting much for a while, as typing one handed drives me insane. Please don't think I am ignoring any replies. I will "like" a reply (since it's not my mouse hand!) to indicate I have read it and I may respond if my response is short.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Laughable...uh, sparkless. :lamo

The decision has nothing to do with faith. Even atheists understand the concept of murder. Science understands the difference between the development of the egg and sperm separate from the development of the two combined. Its a human, its alive. The new life, to establish its nascent independence, has a completely different DNA.

That the decision is the same for both, Constitutionally and faith based, is a happy coincidence. Funny... that this coincidence occurs frequently with many of our laws.

Click to expand...

And yet, it has not been decided...so currently it is not legally murder.

And yet, making it illegal will not drastically slow the rate down (initially yes, but then the underground for abortion pills will open up and we are back to where we started)

Gaugingcatenate said:

First of all, this womans shared baby is not a part of the woman... .

Click to expand...

Dude, it shares her physiology. Without her physiology, the fetus dies. It is part of her body.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Talking to brick walls is just not my thing.

Please take your droning on and on nonsense somewhere else, please. You are particularly unpersuasive on the issue... plus you have no willingness to back up your convictions when you might have an actual point.

That is just time wasting.

Click to expand...

Year2late is spot on.

Scrabaholic said:

Legal abortion CANNOT be murder, as murder is an illegal act.

Definition of murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought was convicted of murder
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous the traffic was murder carrying the luggage was murder on my back
b : something outrageous or blameworthy getting away with murder
3 : a flock of crows
There's a reason the proper term for a flock of them is a murder of crows, and it's not because we like having them around. —Jeffrey Kluger

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder


Note: I am having carpal tunnel surgery today, so most likely won't be posting much for a while, as typing one handed drives me insane. Please don't think I am ignoring any replies. I will "like" a reply (since it's not my mouse hand!) to indicate I have read it and I may respond if my response is short.

Click to expand...

Good luck and much success with your surgery. My sister had it last year and it made a world of difference for her.

year2late said:

Dude, it has not been overturned yet. Your absolute certainty sounds more like you believe he will make a faith based decision rather than one that is Constitutionally appropriate.

Click to expand...

It probably won't be overturned.

Kavanaugh did say, however, that if he became a judge on the circuit court, he would uphold Supreme Court precedent with respect to Roe. "If confirmed to the DC Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the court. It has been decided by the Supreme Court."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/kavanaugh-on-the-issues/index.html

Click to expand...

minnie616 said:

Good luck and much success with your surgery. My sister had it last year and it made a world of difference for her.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much, Minnie. Not looking forward to coping afterward but definitely looking forward to it being better in the long run.

Scrabaholic said:

Legal abortion CANNOT be murder, as murder is an illegal act.

Definition of murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought was convicted of murder
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous the traffic was murder carrying the luggage was murder on my back
b : something outrageous or blameworthy getting away with murder
3 : a flock of crows
There's a reason the proper term for a flock of them is a murder of crows, and it's not because we like having them around. —Jeffrey Kluger

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder


Note: I am having carpal tunnel surgery today, so most likely won't be posting much for a while, as typing one handed drives me insane. Please don't think I am ignoring any replies. I will "like" a reply (since it's not my mouse hand!) to indicate I have read it and I may respond if my response is short.

Click to expand...

Well said and good luck with the surgery.

See you back soon!

Gaugingcatenate said:

How did you determine that eventuality of that "imminent peril"? And was it 1%, 3%, 12%, 24%, 53% 67%, 79%...chance? How did you make those assessments in your real world?

?

Click to expand...

She had probably about 3-4 weeks before the pregnancy was going to threaten her life. I do not define that as imminent peril. Do you?

As far as the likelihood of causing death? around 99%. We make those assessments based on our experience and our knowledge of the patient, and a ton of other factors.

Which is why it should left up physicians and the patients in that situation to determine what is best. Not some arbitrary number created by a government official in an office and applied to each and every situation.

Instead of trying to save both, you most assuredly killed one. A good deed done?

Click to expand...

Yes.. we most assuredly killed one to save the other. And we most assuredly prevented needless suffering on both the baby's and woman's side.

A good deed? We don't look at it that way. Its about doing the best job within the limitations of what we can do.

Get over yourself man

Click to expand...

Kind of ironic.. I understand that I and other medical providers can only do what we can.. and that this isn;t an easy decision for us and for the woman and husband involved? WAY WAY WAY more difficult a decision. Life or death.

So I understand that it needs to be left up to the family.. in consultation with a medical provider.

YOU.. on the other hand? You have the hubris to sit in judgement.. and say "I know whats best for this family, woman and their child". YOU think you can determine.. without having any INKLING of the issues involved.. that this woman. in saving her life is committing MURDER. And you would lock her up and others like her.

And so far.. you haven't explained in detail what "immediate peril is". NOR.. what is peril?... is it 10% chance of death.. 50%? 75%?


So.. stop diverting. Please explain exactly what imminent peril is.. the time frame, and the percentage of likelihood of death and how you would determine whether its murder or not.