No, a doctor does. At least according to
current laws.
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 456
Thanks: 73
Thanked:124
online
Posted: 05-11-08 11:52am
cmyked
wrote:
When I say life-threatening,
I mean "you will die", not, "you will
have to get a job". All of the
complications Aya mentioned are quite
life-threatening... and also not
common. By not common, I mean that less
than half of pregnant women experience
these complications.
Not that I have a problem with a woman
aborting because she can't afford it;
that's a perfect fine reason. I just don't
consider inconveniences to be
life-threatening. Having to drop out of
school, get a job, or change your schedule
is all lifeSTYLE-threatening, but not
threatening to your very existence on this
planet.
A normal pregnancy and childbirth is more
torture than the Geneva Convention allows
a country to inflict on captured enemy
soldiers.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3966 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 05-11-08 12:13pm
cmyked
wrote:
No, a doctor does. At least
according to current
laws.
If you adere to your narrow definition of
"life threatening" then I can see where
you get this idea.
I will decide what is "life threatening"
for me, even in the face of a physician,
who is not omnipotent about my life.
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 456
Thanks: 73
Thanked:124
online
Posted: 05-11-08 13:21pm
Even if something has a 1% chance of
killing you, it is "life-threatening".
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-11-08 14:45pm
aochriss
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
When I say life-threatening,
I mean "you will die", not, "you will
have to get a job". All of the
complications Aya mentioned are quite
life-threatening... and also not
common. By not common, I mean that less
than half of pregnant women experience
these complications.
Not that I have a problem with a woman
aborting because she can't afford it;
that's a perfect fine reason. I just don't
consider inconveniences to be
life-threatening. Having to drop out of
school, get a job, or change your schedule
is all lifeSTYLE-threatening, but not
threatening to your very existence on this
planet.
A normal pregnancy and childbirth is more
torture than the Geneva Convention allows
a country to inflict on captured enemy
soldiers.
Many women would disagree with your
opinion.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-11-08 14:45pm
Birch
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
No, a doctor does. At least
according to current
laws.
If you adere to your narrow definition of
"life threatening" then I can see where
you get this idea.
I will decide what is "life threatening"
for me, even in the face of a physician,
who is not omnipotent about my
life.
I consider anything other than impending
death or permanent disability to be "life
STYLE - threatening".
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-11-08 14:46pm
aochriss
wrote:
Even if something has a 1%
chance of killing you, it is
"life-threatening".
Don't eat anything. You may choke. Don't
breath. You may inhale something and choke
to death or catch a deadly disease.
Don't be silly.
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 456
Thanks: 73
Thanked:124
online
Posted: 05-11-08 15:17pm
cmyked
wrote:
aochriss
wrote:
Even if something has a 1%
chance of killing you, it is
"life-threatening".
Don't eat anything. You may choke. Don't
breath. You may inhale something and choke
to death or catch a deadly disease.
Don't be
silly.
The point (which sometimes sails right
over many people's heads) is not the 1%
figure, it is the question of, at what %
is something life-threatening enough to
be deemed truly life threatening?
And who is going to determine that
figure?
Is something with a 35% likelihood of
killing you "life-threatening"? Would you
willingly engage in an activity if it had
a 35% chance of killing you? What about
50% or 72% or 12%?
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1264 Location: ,
Thanks: 46
Thanked:2
Posted: 05-11-08 17:12pm
Given all the serious side effects, from
piles and high blood pressure and diabetes
and possible death, I don't understand why
every penis isn't tattooed with health
warnings.
Seriously, if there was any drug that had
the same risk of side effects and death as
sperm has, then it would never get FDA
approval.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 381 Location: ,
Thanks: 73
Thanked:43
Posted: 05-11-08 18:33pm
Yes, the problem is other people deciding
for the woman how much of a threat is big
enough for her to defend herself. Many
prolifers don't consider impending
blindness to be a severe enough reason, so
diabetic women could be robbed of their
sight-permanently handicapped. Pelvic
floor damage is also permanent and
debilitating, but they don't care about
that either.
Nobody except for the pregnant woman
should ever have the right to decide how
much damage she should take or how close
to death she should have to be in order to
end a pregnancy.
We don't have to ask permission from
strangers to defend ourselves when we're
being attacked, get a blood transfusion,
eat meat or treat flu symptoms. It's
ridiculous to me that womens' reproductive
and medical rights are constantly under
attack.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-11-08 19:45pm
aochriss
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
aochriss
wrote:
Even if something has a 1%
chance of killing you, it is
"life-threatening".
Don't eat anything. You may choke. Don't
breath. You may inhale something and choke
to death or catch a deadly disease.
Don't be
silly.
The point (which sometimes sails right
over many people's heads) is not the 1%
figure, it is the question of, at what %
is something life-threatening enough to
be deemed truly life threatening?
And who is going to determine that
figure?
Is something with a 35% likelihood of
killing you "life-threatening"? Would you
willingly engage in an activity if it had
a 35% chance of killing you? What about
50% or 72% or
12%?
Wouldn't you trust a doctor who has
devoted his or her life to saving lives to
be the one who would know?
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 456
Thanks: 73
Thanked:124
online
Posted: 05-12-08 00:56am
cmyked
wrote:
aochriss
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
aochriss
wrote:
Even if something has a 1%
chance of killing you, it is
"life-threatening".
Don't eat anything. You may choke. Don't
breath. You may inhale something and choke
to death or catch a deadly disease.
Don't be
silly.
The point (which sometimes sails right
over many people's heads) is not the 1%
figure, it is the question of, at what %
is something life-threatening enough to
be deemed truly life threatening?
And who is going to determine that
figure?
Is something with a 35% likelihood of
killing you "life-threatening"? Would you
willingly engage in an activity if it had
a 35% chance of killing you? What about
50% or 72% or
12%?
Wouldn't you trust a doctor who has
devoted his or her life to saving lives to
be the one who would
know?
Who would know WHAT?
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 456
Thanks: 73
Thanked:124
online
Posted: 05-12-08 01:07am
This discussion began somewhere around
this post:
cmyked
wrote:
When I say life-threatening,
I mean "you will die", not, "you will
have to get a job". All of the
complications Aya mentioned are quite
life-threatening... and also not
common. By not common, I mean that less
than half of pregnant women experience
these complications.
Not that I have a problem with a woman
aborting because she can't afford it;
that's a perfect fine reason. I just don't
consider inconveniences to be
life-threatening. Having to drop out of
school, get a job, or change your schedule
is all lifeSTYLE-threatening, but not
threatening to your very existence on this
planet.
This debate is about the legality of
abortion. When you belittle someone's
definition of "life-threatening", you put
all women in danger. How? Because you
are, whether you know it or not, lobbying
for abortion to be legal ONLY if the woman
is definitely going to die.
Your are interchanging "life-threatening"
with "life-ending".
The point is, do you want the government
to decide for every woman in this country
how much of a risk of death she must take
while forcing her through every unwanted
pregnancy?
Let's say the government decides on 51%.
Anyone with over a 51% chance of dying
will be allowed to abort, anyone with 50%
or below chance of dying will be forced
through the unwanted pregnancy and
childbirth. This means half of the women
who receive these odds WILL DIE.
Even if something has a 1%
chance of killing you, it is
"life-threatening".
Don't eat anything. You may choke. Don't
breath. You may inhale something and choke
to death or catch a deadly disease.
Don't be
silly.
The point (which sometimes sails right
over many people's heads) is not the 1%
figure, it is the question of, at what %
is something life-threatening enough to
be deemed truly life threatening?
And who is going to determine that
figure?
Is something with a 35% likelihood of
killing you "life-threatening"? Would you
willingly engage in an activity if it had
a 35% chance of killing you? What about
50% or 72% or
12%?
Wouldn't you trust a doctor who has
devoted his or her life to saving lives to
be the one who would
know?
Who would know
WHAT?
I echo this question: Who would know
WHAT? How to dehumanize the woman and
decide for her what risks she takes?
How about we force prolifers to bungee
jump using a random selection of cords
that may or may not have a tear in them?
Hey, most of them won't snap but you could
be the unlucky one and you have no choice
but to do it anyway. Sounds fair to me.
Let's play russian roulette with them for
a change.
And yet again, the issue of basic female
health care is completely IGNORED. Ban
everything that could lead to long life
and healthiness for women unless it has to
do with keeping them breeding!
Gods it sickens me how much prolifers
dehumanize us.
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 456
Thanks: 73
Thanked:124
online
Posted: 05-12-08 06:11am
Ditto.
|
anniek
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Sep 2007 Posts: 425 Location: , Iowa Usa
Thanks: 15
Thanked:2
Posted: 05-12-08 08:36am
I am a prolifer and there is no way I
would want PP closed down. They are there
for people who can't afford bc or a check
up. But I do not think they should so
readily do abortions either. I believe
like a few others had said if PP was just
a clinic to help young women to be safe
and educated when it comes to sex.
Unfortunately their are alot out there. I
don't beleive that abortion is an
appropriate fix. Yes if the women is in
extreme danger of her life and a Dr
recomends abortion I understand that. But
just because it does not fit your life
style? Come on change your life style at
least for a little bit so someone else out
there waiting for a baby can have it. I've
seen both sides of things. I've seen the
couple who had tried to have a baby for
years finally got pregnant and lost it.
Now waiting to get a little one. They are
not looking just for a baby but would
rather have one. Friends of theirs adopted
a little girl age 5. Then my sister in law
having 2 abortions in 2 years just because
she decided it was not in her life style
after telling everyone she was pregnant.
She did not want some one else raising her
baby. I have to say don't have sex or be
extremely careful if you do. Be on BC and
use another backup. You talk of all the
abortions that we would be over ran with
children. Then make sure places like PP
educate women insted of making abortion
the quick way out. Places like PP need to
be there just not for a quick fix. Like I
said yes keep the women safe and educate
them because for some reason no one else
is. No I don't beleive abortions should be
banned all together I think there should
be more restrictions and laws for medical
reasons only.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-12-08 10:14am
"Don't have sex" is not an option; I have
no idea why people keep offering it as a
solution. Be extremely safe? Now that's a
no-brainer. PP DOES educate women about
birth control; what on earth do you think
90% of their services are for?
You want women educated about birth
control? What about men, too? Men need to
stop saying "condoms ruin the moment" and
"if you love me, you'll go without". And
conservatives need to keep their fingers
out of our schools so that they can
properly teach birth control during health
class!
Bush's "abstinence aid" plan is the most
detrimental thing to happen to birth
control education in decades. He gave aid
to schools that teach only abstinence.
Schools like that teach that condoms never
work and birth control aborts babies. I
know people who actually believe this!
Even my college has had its freshman
orientation sexual education program
ruined by conservatives. Just five years
ago, the program consisted of the parents
being separated from the students and put
into two separate rooms. The students got
a frank and humorous education on condoms
and birth control. The parents got a
course on how to let go of their kids.
Nowadays? Now, there's no sexual education
at all, the parents aren't separated from
the students. I have no idea what they
teach now.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-12-08 10:16am
Darkmoon, you are clearly refusing to
participate in the debate in a mature
manner. I will stop arguing with you.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3966 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 05-12-08 11:15am
anniek
wrote:
I am a prolifer and there is
no way I would want PP closed down. They
are there for people who can't afford bc
or a check up. But I do not think they
should so readily do abortions either. I
believe like a few others had said if PP
was just a clinic to help young women to
be safe and educated when it comes to sex.
Unfortunately their are alot out there. I
don't beleive that abortion is an
appropriate fix. Yes if the women is in
extreme danger of her life and a Dr
recomends abortion I understand that. But
just because it does not fit your life
style? Come on change your life style at
least for a little bit so someone else out
there waiting for a baby can have it. I've
seen both sides of things. I've seen the
couple who had tried to have a baby for
years finally got pregnant and lost it.
Now waiting to get a little one. They are
not looking just for a baby but would
rather have one. Friends of theirs adopted
a little girl age 5. Then my sister in law
having 2 abortions in 2 years just because
she decided it was not in her life style
after telling everyone she was pregnant.
She did not want some one else raising her
baby. I have to say don't have sex or be
extremely careful if you do. Be on BC and
use another backup. You talk of all the
abortions that we would be over ran with
children. Then make sure places like PP
educate women insted of making abortion
the quick way out. Places like PP need to
be there just not for a quick fix. Like I
said yes keep the women safe and educate
them because for some reason no one else
is. No I don't beleive abortions should be
banned all together I think there should
be more restrictions and laws for medical
reasons only.
Thank you for your input. I am glad to
hear you say that PP should continue to be
a source for birth control and of course
education.
On the other hand, could you explain why
you feel that women should be obligated to
gestate for women who cannot?
