Abortions.

[Stoked]

It is, but at the same time it isn't. The only reason I say it isn't is a financial concern.

If they do not have a credentialed admitting doctor at the external facility, there's really not a whole lot the ED(where the patient would need to be admitted through) can use as fact. So they have to do a whole lot of their own tests, which take more time. And then the resident/attending in the ED would need to make the call to send them up to a specialty unit to get the proper care they need. During this time, if it really is an emergency situation, the patient could die.

Why can't they just accept what the external hospital/care facility says without a doctor with attending privileges? There has to be a documented reason for admission from a credentialed physician with admitting rights in the medical record before the admission takes place. A physician may also have to have good reason to admit. Without any of that documented, insurance(obamacare, medicaid, or any other private insurance) can reject any and all charges sent to them.

Interesting. Keep in mind it defines local as within a certain amount of miles. So that clinic could have a doctor at a hospital just outside the range of that definition. I can see that being an issue in many scenarios. For example large metro areas like Houston or Los Angeles.

 

[♪alt13]

You've made your statement on the subject very clear, and I can appreciate that.

The first step to forcing others to believe the same as you is criticize others belief's. Remember that by going down that road, you reveal your inner nature. I will never be pregnant. No question about that, as I'm a guy.

Since it appears you didn't actually read my stance on it in full, I'll give it to you again:



Incase I'm wrong, and you just didn't understand what I was saying I'll re-illustrate it for you in a more simplistic manner:

Abortion before the 6.5 month mark? Sure. Go ahead, it's none of my business, and I really don't think at this point that child is a child anyway.
Abortion after 6.5 month mark? You've had time to think about it.. your decision is skewed by child birth anxiety. Have the child.
Kill babies after birth? Not a real person or not, someone's gone through the trouble of a birth for this child. Put it up for adoption if you don't want it.
Complications(I don't even really know what this would be, maybe severe birth defects) that would prohibit adoption? Fine. You've exhausted your options. Let that be on your head, not mine. Just find a doctor that will do it humanely.

As far as do I know what happens, yeah. It's a secondary part of the reason I don't like the idea of abortion after 6 months.
Here is a not mind safe, arguably not work safe gif of what happens in those situations. Linked to outside, so as not to put it here.

But before that, in the early stages, there are humane ways of abortion.
By far the options everyone should be shooting for

Oh... one more thing bro. Your and You're happen to be two different things.

You would not personally Kill infants and you have a policy objection to killing infants, but you have no moral objection to it. (correct me if I am misunderstanding you)

^If this is your belief I should criticize your beliefs. If I believed it was morally ok to do something as horrible as kill a baby(again we are talking after birth) that you knew was morally reprehensible you surely would challenge me.

 

[Harambe]

You would not personally Kill infants and you have a policy objection to killing infants, but you have no moral objection to it. (correct me if I am misunderstanding you)

^If this is your belief I should criticize your beliefs. If I believed it was morally ok to do something as horrible as kill a baby(again we are talking after birth) that you knew was morally reprehensible you surely would challenge me.

Your objection is based on something you, nor I, can prove: Whether or not an infant is a person.

I don't believe they are, you do. That's fine. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

In my case I've covered my butt and said there's no way I'm going to do it, and identified that it's my desire not to have others do it. But I'm still the bad guy because I won't take up arms to fight against it? Really?

 

[♪alt13]

Your objection is based on something you, nor I, can prove: Whether or not an infant is a person.

I don't believe they are, you do. That's fine. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

In my case I've covered my butt and said there's no way I'm going to do it, and identified that it's my desire not to have others do it. But I'm still the bad guy because I won't take up arms to fight against it? Really?

I don't think you're a bad guy. I honestly just think your position is flawed.

If I were in a coma that I would likely recover from, is it ok to kill me? Neither me or the infant is by your standard self aware but we both, in all likelihood, will be.

PS I am not talking about abortion here. Abortion introduces a third person(mother) that completely changes the parameters.

 

[Harambe]

I don't think you're a bad guy. I honestly just think your position is flawed.

If I were in a coma that I would likely recover from, is it ok to kill me? Neither me or the infant is by your standard self aware but we both, in all likelihood, will be.

PS I am not talking about abortion here. Abortion introduces a third person(mother) that completely changes the parameters.

Flawed because I don't fall in line with your opinion of something neither of us can prove?

Unconscious and not self aware are two dramatically different things. Too, is a person that's already placed their conscious mark on the world when compared to an infant, who has not.

That's not to say the infant doesn't have value.. but a pet has value too. And in many cases, just as much value as a grown person.

 

[VINYLONE]

I understand it is an individuals decision and that is the arguement but what about the Man in the relationship that has no input what so ever.

Wait what? Since when? Every man that has helped conceive a child has input on the feasibility of having the child. Input and assurance from the man could very well be the catalyst that settles and changes the mind of the pregnant woman which makes her decide to keep the child. You absolutely have input. Whether that input is heeded is another matter.

 

[Gameface]

Wait what? Since when? Every man that has helped conceive a child has input on the feasibility of having the child. Input and assurance from the man could very well be the catalyst that settles and changes the mind of the pregnant woman which makes her decide to keep the child. You absolutely have input. Whether that input is heeded is another matter.

Once pregnant a woman can shed herself of the associated obligations and responsibilities if she so chooses. A man cannot.

 

[LogGrad98]

Wait what? Since when? Every man that has helped conceive a child has input on the feasibility of having the child. Input and assurance from the man could very well be the catalyst that settles and changes the mind of the pregnant woman which makes her decide to keep the child. You absolutely have input. Whether that input is heeded is another matter.

Once pregnant a woman can shed herself of the associated obligations and responsibilities if she so chooses. A man cannot.

To elaborate. The woman has sole control over the birth or abortion of the child. The man has no right to demand an abortion, if he feels he cannot care for the child or does not want to provide support, and he cannot demand that the child is born, if he wishes to have custody or help raise the child. The man has no rights in this regard at all, and his involvement is solely at the discretion of the mother. He can be forced to provide child support for a child he did not want, and he can have his parental rights taken away with no recourse if she chooses to abort.

 

[VINYLONE]

To elaborate. The woman has sole control over the birth or abortion of the child. The man has no right to demand an abortion, if he feels he cannot care for the child or does not want to provide support, and he cannot demand that the child is born, if he wishes to have custody or help raise the child. The man has no rights in this regard at all, and his involvement is solely at the discretion of the mother. He can be forced to provide child support for a child he did not want, and he can have his parental rights taken away with no recourse if she chooses to abort.

This is absolutely correct but to say that a man has NO input is inaccurate.

 

[LogGrad98]

This is absolutely correct but to say that a man has NO input is inaccurate.

From a purely semantic standpoint this is correct. The man can cry, beg, cajole, ask, plead, threaten, bribe, or make any other number of attempts to influence the decision. In this way he has input. But in practicality the man has no say in the matter, and in the end he is forced to accept the decision of the mother regardless of his "input".

Obviously the issue is that this is entirely one-sided and does not take into consideration the fact that it took 2 to create the baby, yet only 1 is allowed to make any decisions regarding that child. A decision that will nonetheless affect both of the parties involved in conception. That in fact the male is stripped of all rights, and/or forced to take on responsibilities he may not have chosen for himself if he had truly had legitimate input into the decision.

 

[VINYLONE]

@ Log: Can't argue with that....

 

[♪alt13]

Flawed because I don't fall in line with your opinion of something neither of us can prove?

Unconscious and not self aware are two dramatically different things. Too, is a person that's already placed their conscious mark on the world when compared to an infant, who has not.

That's not to say the infant doesn't have value.. but a pet has value too. And in many cases, just as much value as a grown person.

I didn't challenge you on whether or not infants were self aware. I think you should reexamine your assertion that not being self aware(alone) removes the moral barrier to killing an infant. The fact that you have back pedaled that statement tells me that you know it is wrong.(It's morally ok but we shouldn't do it) If it isn't wrong, why not solve the problem of unwanted children by killing babies? Why not save our society the money it will take to educate them?

Your baseline for worth(self awareness) is absolutist and arbitrary. I could set the line at another measure say 75 IQ points and then claim you were attacking my beliefs when you told me it wasn't morally ok to kill the mentally handicapped. It would be no different then the sophistry you're trying to pull.

 

[Harambe]

I didn't challenge you on whether or not infants were self aware. I think you should reexamine your assertion that not being self aware(alone) removes the moral barrier to killing an infant. The fact that you have back pedaled that statement tells me that you know it is wrong.(It's morally ok but we shouldn't do it) If it isn't wrong, why not solve the problem of unwanted children by killing babies? Why not save our society the money it will take to educate them?

Your baseline for worth(self awareness) is absolutist and arbitrary. I could set the line at another measure say 75 IQ points and then claim you were attacking my beliefs when you told me it wasn't morally ok to kill the mentally handicapped. It would be no different then the sophistry you're trying to pull.

But I haven't back pedaled. Not at all. I gave you my reason for my opinion. The fact that you disagree with it is where our opinions on the subject clash. The more I read your posts, the more I realize the portrait you're painting of me is less than a person... you must have rolled at least a 6 in trollacity, and took the points from intellect and charisma.

I'll go along with arbitrary, but I think you need to look up both absolutism and arbitrary, because they're pretty opposite:

absolutist:
1. the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government.
2. any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

Based on the first definition, how is holding the mother(who, as stated above, has near complete control) responsible to her own moral standings on the subject(to which she's been influenced by her upbringing) a reflection of complete and unrestricted power of the Government?

Based on the second definition, How is my stance of "I don't think you should do it, but I will leave the door open of allowing others to make the decision based upon their own conscience" absolute, and not relative, dependent, or changeable?

Arbitrary:

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

So, by most definitions there, yeah. Arbitrary would probably fit.

When did I say anything about worth? I believe you're the first person in this thread talking about worth. But since you're so interested in worth, as an open minded individual I decided I'd look that up too. Here's an article that gave me a good laugh. You see, you pull worth into the picture it just reinforces giving the baby up for adoption instead of putting it down. In America it's $35,000 for a white baby, $10,000 for latino baby, and $4,000 for a black baby.

As far as setting another measure at 75 IQ points, you got me sold. Heck, raise it to 78.. then I'm sure you'd qualify.

 

[babe]

But I haven't back pedaled. Not at all. I gave you my reason for my opinion. The fact that you disagree with it is where our opinions on the subject clash. The more I read your posts, the more I realize the portrait you're painting of me is less than a person... you must have rolled at least a 6 in trollacity, and took the points from intellect and charisma.

I'll go along with arbitrary, but I think you need to look up both absolutism and arbitrary, because they're pretty opposite:

absolutist:
1. the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government.
2. any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

Based on the first definition, how is holding the mother(who, as stated above, has near complete control) responsible to her own moral standings on the subject(to which she's been influenced by her upbringing) a reflection of complete and unrestricted power of the Government?

Based on the second definition, How is my stance of "I don't think you should do it, but I will leave the door open of allowing others to make the decision based upon their own conscience" absolute, and not relative, dependent, or changeable?

Arbitrary:

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

So, by most definitions there, yeah. Arbitrary would probably fit.

When did I say anything about worth? I believe you're the first person in this thread talking about worth. But since you're so interested in worth, as an open minded individual I decided I'd look that up too. Here's an article that gave me a good laugh. You see, you pull worth into the picture it just reinforces giving the baby up for adoption instead of putting it down. In America it's $35,000 for a white baby, $10,000 for latino baby, and $4,000 for a black baby.

As far as setting another measure at 75 IQ points, you got me sold. Heck, raise it to 78.. then I'm sure you'd qualify.

yah, El. The reason we use different words in a sentence is usually because they mean different things, as in this case with "absolute" and "arbitrary". Sometimes we are trying to expand a list of subjects or properties of the subject, or sometimes we are trying to include closely related words. . . sorta fishing for one that describes what we mean, or expand the sense of meaning if our meaning isn't perfectly described by one word. . ..

IQ scores are another sort of "arbitrary" and absolutist measure of "intelligence" in my book. I know some people's thinking about the meaning of intelligence is not highly developed. I think they might just think IQ is actually the same thing, exactly. I don't.

When we humans think we have the moral authority to determine the worth and value of life, at any stage of development, I think we've crossed the line.

And I don't want people who degrade the value of life making decisions about health care for others after they are born, either.

 

[moevillini]

From a purely semantic standpoint this is correct. The man can cry, beg, cajole, ask, plead, threaten, bribe, or make any other number of attempts to influence the decision. In this way he has input. But in practicality the man has no say in the matter, and in the end he is forced to accept the decision of the mother regardless of his "input".

Obviously the issue is that this is entirely one-sided and does not take into consideration the fact that it took 2 to create the baby, yet only 1 is allowed to make any decisions regarding that child. A decision that will nonetheless affect both of the parties involved in conception. That in fact the male is stripped of all rights, and/or forced to take on responsibilities he may not have chosen for himself if he had truly had legitimate input into the decision.

typically men have the right not to get the woman pregnant in the first place - - it's difficult for me to imagine how that "right" might be taken away from them

 

[Harambe]

yah, El. The reason we use different words in a sentence is usually because they mean different things, as in this case with "absolute" and "arbitrary". Sometimes we are trying to expand a list of subjects or properties of the subject, or sometimes we are trying to include closely related words. . . sorta fishing for one that describes what we mean, or expand the sense of meaning if our meaning isn't perfectly described by one word. . ..

IQ scores are another sort of "arbitrary" and absolutist measure of "intelligence" in my book. I know some people's thinking about the meaning of intelligence is not highly developed. I think they might just think IQ is actually the same thing, exactly. I don't.

When we humans think we have the moral authority to determine the worth and value of life, at any stage of development, I think we've crossed the line.

And I don't want people who degrade the value of life making decisions about health care for others after they are born, either.

You have a point, but it still doesn't add up. You of all people should be on board.. less laws and regulation means less government. Making a person responsible for themselves instead of having rules, laws, and regulations within reason seems to be your thing. That's all I'm advocating in this situation.

 

[One Brow]

Obviously the issue is that this is entirely one-sided and does not take into consideration the fact that it took 2 to create the baby, yet only 1 is allowed to make any decisions regarding that child. A decision that will nonetheless affect both of the parties involved in conception. That in fact the male is stripped of all rights, and/or forced to take on responsibilities he may not have chosen for himself if he had truly had legitimate input into the decision.

When the man starts carrying the baby in his body, he can have the right to end the pregnancy.

More seriously, giving the men any sort of final say in the termination of a pregnancy does amount to giving them control of the the body of the woman. Outside of that, the expectation that they will care for a child is part of the whole notion of taking responsibility for your actions. YOu seem to support holding people responsible for their actions generally. Is there an exception here?

 

[One Brow]

typically men have the right not to get the woman pregnant in the first place - - it's difficult for me to imagine how that "right" might be taken away from them

Men can be raped by women. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get people to believe this.

 

[♪alt13]

But I haven't back pedaled. Not at all. I gave you my reason for my opinion. The fact that you disagree with it is where our opinions on the subject clash. The more I read your posts, the more I realize the portrait you're painting of me is less than a person... you must have rolled at least a 6 in trollacity, and took the points from intellect and charisma.

I'll go along with arbitrary, but I think you need to look up both absolutism and arbitrary, because they're pretty opposite:

absolutist:
1. the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government.
2. any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

Based on the first definition, how is holding the mother(who, as stated above, has near complete control) responsible to her own moral standings on the subject(to which she's been influenced by her upbringing) a reflection of complete and unrestricted power of the Government?

Based on the second definition, How is my stance of "I don't think you should do it, but I will leave the door open of allowing others to make the decision based upon their own conscience" absolute, and not relative, dependent, or changeable?

Arbitrary:

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

So, by most definitions there, yeah. Arbitrary would probably fit.

When did I say anything about worth? I believe you're the first person in this thread talking about worth. But since you're so interested in worth, as an open minded individual I decided I'd look that up too. Here's an article that gave me a good laugh. You see, you pull worth into the picture it just reinforces giving the baby up for adoption instead of putting it down. In America it's $35,000 for a white baby, $10,000 for latino baby, and $4,000 for a black baby.

As far as setting another measure at 75 IQ points, you got me sold. Heck, raise it to 78.. then I'm sure you'd qualify.

I was going to respond to this but I think babe did a fine job.

ps I hate IQ snobs. When one treats someone as subhuman they become subhuman.

 

[♪alt13]

When the man starts carrying the baby in his body, he can have the right to end the pregnancy.

More seriously, giving the men any sort of final say in the termination of a pregnancy does amount to giving them control of the the body of the woman. Outside of that, the expectation that they will care for a child is part of the whole notion of taking responsibility for your actions. YOu seem to support holding people responsible for their actions generally. Is there an exception here?

I agree with that a woman has the right to remove the baby from her body. She has a right to control what does and doesn't grow inside her. However I don't think she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. I know it sounds like I am splitting hairs here but I think it is an important distinction.

The Doctor can and should remove the child without terminating it's life. If it dies as a result of being removed fine, but the procedure itself should not kill the child.