 jklugman says: Editorial by Cassing Hammond, an ob-gyn at the Northwestern University School of Medicine. Some of my patients, after finally becoming pregnant, learn that they need an organ transplant or that they are suffering from heart disease so severe that continuing the pregnancy would not only jeopardize their current health but might worsen the underlying heart condition. Others have had brain tumors, ruptured brain aneurysms, strokes and many different types of cancer. These patients terminate their pregnancies to avoid risk to their health and to begin lifesaving therapy for themselves, often in hopes of one day becoming healthy enough to have a baby under safer circumstances.Via Bush vs. Choice If all abortions were as result of such as these, it wouldn't even be an issue. And ...? True that brevity can be the soul of wit, but it can also be meaningless. If all abortions were as result of such as these, it wouldn't even be an issue.So these cases should be ignored because they aren't numerous? Let me try that again... though I'm basically echoing anonymology. If all abortions were as result of such as these, it wouldn't even be an issue.By "And...?", I meant something like: "What does that have to do with anything?" To expand on that (you asked for it), I thought people who were opposed to abortion were opposed because they cared about the rights of fetuses, even, it appears, at the cost of the mother's health or even life. Your comment suggests that this issue is of negligible importance because, well, lots of other people get abortions who don't do it out of medical necessity. Is that your point? The point is that issues such as these, and rape, are always at the forefront of the proabort argument, when they represent a tiny percentage of the circumstances that are factors in the choice of abortion. And, Anon, no, that isn't my position. Serious health issues involving the mother should always be considered. Right, I see where you're coming from. I suppose one resolution then is to limit abortions to those women who would be adversely affected, physically and/ or psychologically, by keeping the baby. This is not a position I agree with myself and it doesn't seem to work in other countries from what I can gather. For example, that's what we have in Northern Ireland at the moment but it's not a system that works at all, and countless women of all ages travel to England every year for an abortion. I wonder what a compromise (for want of a better word) would be. A society without abortion is not tenable, but a society with abortion for all is equally questionable. limit abortions to those women who would be adversely affected, physically and/ or psychologically, by keeping the baby  there's you slippery slope...For one thing, who's to say any woman who chooses an abortion might not be doing it to avert adverse conditions on her psychology, well being. I mean if she can't afford to have the baby, raise the baby, take time off work to bring it to term, etc, then are you not seriously affecting her state of mind, social and economic state, etc?? Where is the line drawn? Who decides when a woman might be affected so? And why not the woman? Would you put that power in the hands of someone who might be biased in one direction or th o... I know, CW. That's why it's such a quandary! Indeed. I don't like the idea of anyone abusing the right to have an abortion more than anyone else. But it's not my place to tell someone they can't because I don't like their reason. If you start putting rules in place like the one you sort of suggested, it becomes very difficult to determine who is truly in need of the procedure. All of the sudden, there are numerous court battles underway, people suing the government, etc. You'll have people who can afford to travel to get an abortion doing so (and then it becomes a service the wealthy can get, and the poor cannot, precisely, imo, the opposite of who usually actually need it) What gets solved? *sigh* Yes, yes and yes. Like any current social issue, it's all manner of complicated. GD: The point is that issues such as these, and rape, are always at the forefront of the proabort argument, when they represent a tiny percentage of the circumstances that are factors in the choice of abortion.If I say, "And...?" again, will you know what I mean? *places bet* Possibly, but I prefer clear questions over having to make inferences *wins bet* GD: Okay then. You say: The point is that issues such as these, and rape, are always at the forefront of the proabort argument, when they represent a tiny percentage of the circumstances that are factors in the choice of abortion.What's your point in saying this? That abortion should be illegal because so many people get them for the "wrong" reasons? There's the rub. I have never understood why, if all life is so sacred to anti-right-to-choosers, a fetus from a rape victim is exempt. Let me be clear. I am pro-choice. But if "LIFE" is "LIFE", how do people reconcile those things? Also the question of frozen embryos being "flushed" when no longer needed. If a person is seriously about "LIFE" as they claim, what of these contradictions? I'm sooo confused. I'm not confused at all. It amounts to narrow-minded individuals who cannot stomach the fact that there are people who disagree with their narrow little view of the world and about how the other's lives should be lived, no matter the right to liberty of those whose opinions they find so disagreeable. Incapable of reason in their blind-faith, they insist that the law comply with their wishes regardless of the fact that it flies in the face of the true intent of this great country. I have absolutely no sympathy for them in the least. The only time I would take up their cause is when such procedures are mandated. And now we will hear the chorus of cries about the children lost. Stop the damn w... |
View the Top Clips from November 13, 2006
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||||
