Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
I’m not advocating for procedures that aren’t necessary. If a woman needs a c-section to successfully complete a live delivery she should get one. If a woman needed a c-section to terminate a full term pregnancy she should get one as well. Failed IDX procedures are salvaged by way of c-section, just as failed live vaginal deliveries are.
These late term abortion clinics are outpatient facilities that do not specialize in, or are equipped to perform major surgery, if for some reason it is required, they have to send you to a facility is. The same women that are at risk for complications in vaginal live births are also at risk for complication in vaginal terminations, and this is grounds for denial of services by these clinics because they are not sufficiently capable of managing the risk.
Ethical issues at full term?
I don’t recommend that women should wait full term to terminate a pregnancy, but if they choose to do so it should be their right. A fetus need not be alive to abort at full term; it could be terminated just like any other abortion procedure prior to delivery, so technically terms like child and murder aren’t even applicable in this case.
The distinction is pointless, it’s the same surgical procedure in either case, with the same associated risk, and a women and her physician should have the right to use it if suits their needs.
Since at full term the process of termination and live birth are identical, whether vaginally or surgically, how is this imposing addition risk on the mother?
Women who require a c-section to deliver a dead fetus full term should have that option. Women who are able to deliver a stillborn fetus vaginally could do so with less risk. Those decisions we leave to the women and their physicians.
Because you think it’s more ethical to slaughter and eat a kangaroo than to get fucked by one.
The high risk associated with hysterotomy abortions was due to the fact that they were performed in under qualified facilities. We went over this already.
This method has the greatest risk of complications out of all the abortion procedures.[2] Health officials in the United States warned practitioners against performing hysterotomy abortion in an outpatient setting after it led to the deaths of two women in New York during 1971.[3][4] The rate of mortality of abortion by hysterotomy and hysterectomy reported in the United States between 1972 to 1981 was 60 per 100,000, or 0.06%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy_abortion
The current mortality rate of a c-section delivery in the US is about 13 per 100,000. Since you're quoting 40 year old statistics, here's some from 1985:
Maternal Mortality
As anesthesia and operative techniques have improved, cesarean section has become an increasingly safe and common procedure; however, the obstetrician must always bear in mind that the abdominal delivery of an infant is still a major operative procedure and can be associated with significant mortality and morbidity.
Maternal mortality after cesarean section has been estimated to be between 5.81 and 6.1 per 100,000 procedures.88,89 Between 20% and 50% of these deaths are attributable to the cesarean delivery, with the remainder being the result of complications that led to the cesarean section.
https://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v2/v2c074.html#com
Bells
Staff member
The one that I quoted was from 1985. And you are relinking what I had linked to you already and simply proving my point.
And really, bestiality now... You are just the gift that keeps on giving. First you would urge your daughter to abort if she fell pregnant, then you advocated forced sterilisation, then if that was not bad enough, you incited another member to violence. Not content to stop there with the perversion, you then posted in another thread about providing paedophiles with young male prostitutes who look like children so as to protect them in the armed forces. Now you are openly advocating infanticide, slicing women up and risking their lives and endangering their reproductive chances and praising the virtues of bestiality.
You clearly suffer from a severe psychiatric condition and require help. Please seek it. Because you are clearly a danger to society. If you are going to keep trolling or if that is all you are interested in, you could always head over to 4chan. I understand they are always on the look out for angry males who are sick and perverted.. Much like yourself.
And really, bestiality now... You are just the gift that keeps on giving. First you would urge your daughter to abort if she fell pregnant, then you advocated forced sterilisation, then if that was not bad enough, you incited another member to violence. Not content to stop there with the perversion, you then posted in another thread about providing paedophiles with young male prostitutes who look like children so as to protect them in the armed forces. Now you are openly advocating infanticide, slicing women up and risking their lives and endangering their reproductive chances and praising the virtues of bestiality.
You clearly suffer from a severe psychiatric condition and require help. Please seek it. Because you are clearly a danger to society. If you are going to keep trolling or if that is all you are interested in, you could always head over to 4chan. I understand they are always on the look out for angry males who are sick and perverted.. Much like yourself.
Capracus said:
And bless your heart. Maybe, hopefully, someday you will be able to say that about women, too.
Oh, come now. That doesn't square up with your need to cut and stuff. That is to say, you can tell yourself you think you're making some sort of point, but there are still reasons this is how you choose to make it. Petulant tantrums are as petulant tantrums will, but your personal priority is showing.
No, really. Pretty much everyone can see you're in this to argue with people, not about the issue.
Cut cut cut cut cut cut, cut-stuff ....
i disagree.
it implies a question that deserves to be accurately responded to, which is, if you break it down " Where did i state [specific claim] "
@beer
more likely sociopathic and completely lacking in empathy while admittedly narcissistic is more like it, IMHO...
Perhaps they're here (like certain others) simply for the self gratification they get from manipulating others?
except, of course, for your daughter
Tiassa
doubtful. i think this comment was more about manipulation
the intentional attempt to enlist sympathy from others for at least one position so that they [the sociopath] can provide another trolling/baiting comment akin to pedophilia, bestiality or some other reprehensible subject. what do you think?
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
I wouldn't say you're wrong; part of my assessment is subordinate to the larger forumlation:
"You may have persuaded me to devalue human life in utero, but unlike you and Poplawski, I have too much respect for first responders to plot their demise."
This seems more, to me, a petulant outburst, something we all did as children and not everybody outgrows. Indeed, I have an obscure, inexplicable joke about political conservatives on this count, most recently illustrated by their attempt to seize on the Civil Rights movement in advocacy of supremacism―e.g., Kim Davis―in such a manner as to remind that they just don't comprehend the difference.
Something similar seems to be in effect, here. Our neighbor is trying to illustrate a notion he both disdains and fails to comprehend. So he lashes out, exaggerates, tries to depict a miserable human condition resulting from acknowledgment of fundamental reality, such as the humanity and human rights of women.
What stands out, again, to me, is what he chooses to fill the stage; this selection is his own priority.
The appeal to sympathy is inherent; the general hope is that the argument makes enough sense to allies that they will feel comfortable repeating it. Indeed, this is why soundbite culture is so affecting in American society; these days, cable news is a laboratory for political operatives―test this, try that, see what catches on, and run with it. We saw a morbid attempt at that earlier this year when Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) tried to make vaginal insertion under force of law into trying to help women get in on a "cool thing"↗. What's a Republican Party to do? Start organizing events to talk about the cool thing as part of womanhood. Yes, they really tried this.
We might consider two aspects of the problem. First is that they don't really have a pathway right now to get what they want, so there is a perpetual exercise taking place in which they hurl as much spaghetti at as many walls as possible in hopes of finding something that sticks. The second is that they are preaching to the choir, because in ignoring the fundamental truth that women are human beings and have human rights, full stop, what they are searching for is a message that appeals to them, in order that they can unite, believing themselves akin to the Civil Rights luminaries of history, insofar as the only reason the Negroes got what they got was because they were heroically uppity and pesky, and it is in this context that conservatives so often fail to distinguish the basic difference. None can carry that banner when laying siege to human rights.
And this is why they hate dryfoot; it illustrates the reality of woman as human being and having human rights. Choir-pleasing aesthetics are insufficient tools for dismantling human rights, so they need this idea off the table. Apparently, it's not fair if they have to put some actual effort into demonstrating the functional validity and reliability of their beliefs.
And if they resent that summary, they need to give us something better to work with; I mean, we're more than four decades out from Roe and the only thing that has changed is a small matter of terminology, from Life at Conception to Fertilization-Assigned Personhood; it is even less substantial an alteration than the infamous Creationism rebranding and re-emergence as Intelligent Design.
I suppose I should concede at this point that the Poplawski line was, actually, more metaphorically intended; there really is no way to respond to our neighbor directly without charging the proverbial guns like a proverbial Rus peasant―it's not actually about winning any argument, for our neighbor, but, rather, inflicting as much damage as his imagination might purport he is accomplishing. Whatever his actual feelings about abortion itself, this tirade is much, much more personal. Or, you know, so it would seem, at least according to what he is writing.
There's a wonderful website about abortion that might shed more light on it's brutality (if you can stomach it). I still don't understand how people can be so, well, permissive about this stuff. It horrifies me.
WARNING: The following site is terribly disturbing.
http://granthamcollection.com/
WARNING: The following site is terribly disturbing.
http://granthamcollection.com/
Yep. You guys seemed off topic and on a personality binge. Thought I would bring it back on topic.
Please show us your credentials, so we can determine whether you are qualified to detect psychiatric issues in people.
Bells
Staff member
By posting a graphic video of a fake abortion? Okay then...
I didn't watch the video; however, the archive of devices I thought very revealing. The video is unnecessary, the implements of the procedure are telling enough
So you don't have any official qualifications for diagnosing psychiatric issues over the internet. Why am I not surprised?
This is the part where I'd report your post for making unqualified and offensive assertions, but we both know that your fellow left-winger cronies wouldn't enforce the rules. Indeed, quite a few liberals here make unqualified assertions about their opponent's mental state, so you're in good company.
So you're not diagnosing someone with mental issues when you claim they have mental issues?
Do you proof-read your nonsense before you post it?Like most responsible friends and relatives would do, I would urge my daughter to do something both she and I felt was appropriate.
I recommended compulsory reversible sterilization as a way to efficiently managing the disease of excessive population and its associated ills, just as we do with vaccination programs.
Yes, I was instrumental in conditioning Bowser’s disdain for abortion and any penchant for violence he may harbor. It’s inconceivable that he might be driven to violence over what he considers our appreciation of a woman’s right to slaughter innocent human life.
The goal of supplying influential government officials with willing adult prostitutes was to stop them from acting as pedophiles, and to ensure their allegiance to a vital military cause. We make accommodations for the objectionable behavior of many regimes and cultures in the name of international relations. Are you suggesting that we insist on our way or the highway when engaging in such vital relations? Should we have insisted on imprisoning Joseph Stalin and his party members before forming an alliance with the Soviets in WWII?
No, I said that a philosopher who advocates infanticide makes some compelling arguments; I still haven’t committed to them myself.
Slicing up women is the name of the game when it comes to managing the various issues of pregnancy, you know this first hand. Remember, I’m the guy who doesn’t want women to get pregnant, so any risk that women encounter during pregnancy is of their own choosing, not mine.
Advocating the virtues of bestiality? If I said that dog shit smells better than cat shit, am I advocating the use of dog shit as an air freshener? How idiotic are you not to recognize the hypocrisy of an animal exploitation culture criticizing a zoophilic sub culture over lesser degrees of abuse?
Why is it offensive to label behaviour? and why would you find it so disturbing?
besides the fact that no one is making an actual medical diagnosis... they're just labeling patterns of behaviour... you know, there are professions which regularly label and diagnose psychiatric issues in people (even over the internet) with very limited exposure to said individual while not being licensed medical professionals, right?
this doesn't mean that they're prescribing any medications nor does it mean they're giving medical advice or treatment, only that the individual is demonstrating traits that are common for [insert psychiatric condition here]
These professions can be found in law enforcement, legal aid, judicial offices, forensics or research laboratories as well as in medical treatment facilities (like a psyche nurse)... and while some might actually act under the license of another professional and be licensed themselves with training and education (like psyche nurse) that doesn't mean all diagnosis requires a psychiatric degree, as it really depends upon what is being done with the information. so while you can be certified to a level within a specialty (like profiling in the FBI/Law Enforcement) there is no necessity for a medical or psychiatric license in order to actually perform the tasks of diagnosis unless you will be performing treatment, medical advice or prescribing medication.
thanks for the heads up...
i don't see the investigation of reasoning to be OT when a topic is so charged with emotion... but that is just IMHO
sometimes it is the best indicators of what a good argument is, or what should be done versus what shouldn't (see Tiassa's posts above)
EDIT:
Yes, i see what you mean
it is rather fascinating to watch