When its too late for an abortion

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Tats for tots?

It may not be legal. Permanent tattoos for babies are not recommended - risk of infection, reaction to tattoo inks, etc. & a baby's skin is very thin - so it may be a technical problem as well as an ethical one. A baby's immune system may not be up to fighting off an infection. In some jurisdictions, a tattoo for a baby might count as child abuse. & if that's the case, no legitimate tattoo artist is going to want to touch the baby.

Here, you can't get one under 16 years of age. (16-18 requires parental consent) However, as Calamity said, parents can have their child circumcised. They call also have it's ears pierced. I was made to get mine pierced against my will at age 12.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Every citizen gets a vote

No one has insisted that adoption is wrong, it's only a choice, and there is but one person with the right to make the choice we are talking about.

I believe it is wrong, but it is not my choice to make for others. Other women can do as they wish regarding adoption.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Every citizen gets a vote

So, you see, there are people radicalized enough to believe that even something as admirable as adoption is wrong. Amazing, is it not?

It is not "radicalized". Good grief. Who says adoption is admirable?

 

[Scrabaholic]

But tell me; would you obey the law if abortions were illegal?

If abortion was illegal here and I wanted one, I'd find a way to get it.

 

[Lursa]

There we would disagree. IMO, ninth month healthy baby is a human being. I do understand lots of reasons for abortions, but within some limits.

No one aborts a 9 month old healthy fetus. No one. There is no data to support such a ridiculous thing.

I also dont believe you could force a Dr to do so. And Minnie has posted many times that such a late term abortion requires special skills that few Drs have.

 

[Lursa]

And maybe it wouldn't be the right choice. maybe adoption would be the right choice. But pro choice should be a respected opinion.

It is.

 

[Lursa]

Originally Posted by Lursa




Now you answer my question directly.

That's right...if you cannot have an abortion, you cannot break the law making it illegal to have an abortion.

Why are we covering this again? Just because I didnt specify the aspect of breaking the law for you AGAIN? :roll:

Nope, that has nothing to do with my response.


It's meaningless for you to say you will comply with a law when you can never break that law.

 

[Lursa]

So, we're changing the subject?

Would you obey the law if abortion were illegal?

I do not know if I would ever choose abortion but if I did, then I would go to Canada and have one and would not be breaking any law.

 

[year2late]

There we would disagree. IMO, ninth month healthy baby is a human being. I do understand lots of reasons for abortions, but within some limits.

Here is a picture of a 9 month old baby. How could you abort a born child?



Of course a nine month old baby is a human being.

 

[Scrabaholic]

What if the baby were ninth month and perfectly healthy?

Find me one verifiable case where a woman aborted that late without compelling reason.

 

[Individual]

There we would disagree. IMO, ninth month healthy baby is a human being. I do understand lots of reasons for abortions, but within some limits.

Yes, we would disagree. The reasons for having an abortion need not, and probably should not, be allowed by law to be made public by anyone other than the Woman if she desires to.
The Womans right to privacy is paramount. The only limit I feel should be imposed is that it is done as humanely as possible.

 

[southwest88]

Yes, we would disagree. The reasons for having an abortion need not, and probably should not, be allowed by law to be made public by anyone other than the Woman if she desires to.
The Womans right to privacy is paramount. The only limit I feel should be imposed is that it is done as humanely as possible.

Yep, absolutely. See Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule | HHS.gov

"Enforcement and Penalties for Noncompliance

"Compliance. The Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (Privacy Rule) establishes a set of national standards for the use and disclosure of an individual’s health information – called protected health information – by covered entities, as well as standards for providing individuals with privacy rights to understand and control how their health information is used. The Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for administering and enforcing these standards and may conduct complaint investigations and compliance reviews.

"Consistent with the principles for achieving compliance provided in the Privacy Rule, OCR will seek the cooperation of covered entities and may provide technical assistance to help them comply voluntarily with the Privacy Rule. Covered entities that fail to comply voluntarily with the standards may be subject to civil money penalties. In addition, certain violations of the Privacy Rule may be subject to criminal prosecution. These penalty provisions are explained below.

"Civil Money Penalties. OCR may impose a penalty on a covered entity for a failure to comply with a requirement of the Privacy Rule. Penalties will vary significantly depending on factors such as the date of the violation, whether the covered entity knew or should have known of the failure to comply, or whether the covered entity’s failure to comply was due to willful neglect. Penalties may not exceed a calendar year cap for multiple violations of the same requirement.

"For violations occurring on or after 2/18/2009

Penalty Amount ----- $100 to $50,000 or more per violation

Calendar Year Cap -- $1,500,000"

(My emphasis - more information @ the URL)

So - ignorance is not bliss, & can be fairly expensive.