First, thanks for your answers, BBL.
Me: First, let's understand that abortion is killing... every abortion kills a living being, a being which if allowed to live would be human.
BBL: Not all fetuses are viable, but your point mostly stands.
Me: The reason I brought that up, is because this is a life decision and those are emotionally powerful for people affected by the decision. We can discuss a topic here without bearing much cost, but people whose lives are changed by such a decision, on both sides, deserve respect as people.
Me: Why is it OK to let facilities perform surgeries without a single certified surgeon on the premises?
BBL: All abortions are not the same. The morning after pill is different from a late-term abortion. So let's appreciate the nuance there. I'll defer to experts on the matter who state a surgeon is not required in 99% of all abortions. A scalpel is almost never used and anesthesia is almost never used. It's local anesthetic only.
Me: I'm not talking about pills and self-applied actions, but what happens in clinics. One thing which never gets discussed in the media is the relatively high rate of medical mistakes in such clinics, specifically because abortion clinics do not require actual doctors on site. Blood loss, seizures, and other traumas DO occur but patients are forced to sign away rights when they agree to the procedure at the clinic. In states like New York, laws protect clinics from liability for most accidental harm caused to patients as a result of the abortion.
Me: Seriously, we all expect pharmaceutical companies to be candid about possible complications from a medicine, but it's fine for abortion providers to conceal the possible complications of an abortion?
BBL:I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was talking more about access to contraception than an abortion. But if we're thinking critically, I think we can come up with a few examples of where it would be a very bad idea to require a parent to be in place (especially if there is misconduct involved).
Me: For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to abortion itself. While some people may consider contraception unethical, I do not, and in any case contraception is a very different matter in terms of enforcement and social conscience than abortion. I find it dishonest to protect clinics from liability for their actions, especially in the possible physical and emotional consequences of having an abortion. In my last two cancer surgeries, my oncologist was candid about the risks, even when remote, and I appreciated the discussions because I knew I was getting full disclosure and treated with respect for an important decision. A decision to have an abortion deserves the same candor and disclosure, even when difficult.
Me: Finally, I can agree that having an abortion is ultimately the choice of the pregnant woman. But to deny the father any rights in the matter is obscenely unjust. I'm not smart enough to say what the solution there is, but to demand that men simply have no say is way out of line.
BBL:I think this is a little squishy. I have a pretty big issue with trusting a government to say what a woman can or can't do with her body. I have even MORE of an issue with allowing a 3rd party private citizen -who will not be expected to carry the child to term- to have a say over what a woman can or can't do with her body. Can you imagine a scenario where you would allow a 3rd party to force you to do something so intimate with your body and it would work out?
Me: As I said, I'm not throwing out an answer here, but denying the father any say is abhorrent and unjust. Also, when you say you have trouble "trusting a government" on this issue, keep in mind that we are discussing government laws which deny the fathers any rights in relation to their potential children. Simply saying 'it's her body' ignores that the fetus is a potential human being in his/her own right, and denying the father any legal rights amounts to the old robber-baron rule of 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. A father is not merely a "third party private citizen", and should never be so insulted. Part of the problem, from where I sit, is men not taking responsibility for the children they bring into this world, so we should not punish the ones who are trying to be responsible.
BBL: How would you even enforce that? Honest question.
Me: Enforcement should always be protection of rights, to save lives, and to protect the public welfare. Rights considered should be the mother, the child, and the father. Not in equal measure, but any decision which ignores rights from one party is immoral. Discussion is needed, but not yelling, insults or one-dimensional caricatures which don't even describe the real condition, much less offer a functional solution.
Me: First, let's understand that abortion is killing... every abortion kills a living being, a being which if allowed to live would be human.
BBL: Not all fetuses are viable, but your point mostly stands.
Me: The reason I brought that up, is because this is a life decision and those are emotionally powerful for people affected by the decision. We can discuss a topic here without bearing much cost, but people whose lives are changed by such a decision, on both sides, deserve respect as people.
Me: Why is it OK to let facilities perform surgeries without a single certified surgeon on the premises?
BBL: All abortions are not the same. The morning after pill is different from a late-term abortion. So let's appreciate the nuance there. I'll defer to experts on the matter who state a surgeon is not required in 99% of all abortions. A scalpel is almost never used and anesthesia is almost never used. It's local anesthetic only.
Me: I'm not talking about pills and self-applied actions, but what happens in clinics. One thing which never gets discussed in the media is the relatively high rate of medical mistakes in such clinics, specifically because abortion clinics do not require actual doctors on site. Blood loss, seizures, and other traumas DO occur but patients are forced to sign away rights when they agree to the procedure at the clinic. In states like New York, laws protect clinics from liability for most accidental harm caused to patients as a result of the abortion.
Me: Seriously, we all expect pharmaceutical companies to be candid about possible complications from a medicine, but it's fine for abortion providers to conceal the possible complications of an abortion?
BBL:I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was talking more about access to contraception than an abortion. But if we're thinking critically, I think we can come up with a few examples of where it would be a very bad idea to require a parent to be in place (especially if there is misconduct involved).
Me: For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to abortion itself. While some people may consider contraception unethical, I do not, and in any case contraception is a very different matter in terms of enforcement and social conscience than abortion. I find it dishonest to protect clinics from liability for their actions, especially in the possible physical and emotional consequences of having an abortion. In my last two cancer surgeries, my oncologist was candid about the risks, even when remote, and I appreciated the discussions because I knew I was getting full disclosure and treated with respect for an important decision. A decision to have an abortion deserves the same candor and disclosure, even when difficult.
Me: Finally, I can agree that having an abortion is ultimately the choice of the pregnant woman. But to deny the father any rights in the matter is obscenely unjust. I'm not smart enough to say what the solution there is, but to demand that men simply have no say is way out of line.
BBL:I think this is a little squishy. I have a pretty big issue with trusting a government to say what a woman can or can't do with her body. I have even MORE of an issue with allowing a 3rd party private citizen -who will not be expected to carry the child to term- to have a say over what a woman can or can't do with her body. Can you imagine a scenario where you would allow a 3rd party to force you to do something so intimate with your body and it would work out?
Me: As I said, I'm not throwing out an answer here, but denying the father any say is abhorrent and unjust. Also, when you say you have trouble "trusting a government" on this issue, keep in mind that we are discussing government laws which deny the fathers any rights in relation to their potential children. Simply saying 'it's her body' ignores that the fetus is a potential human being in his/her own right, and denying the father any legal rights amounts to the old robber-baron rule of 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. A father is not merely a "third party private citizen", and should never be so insulted. Part of the problem, from where I sit, is men not taking responsibility for the children they bring into this world, so we should not punish the ones who are trying to be responsible.
BBL: How would you even enforce that? Honest question.
Me: Enforcement should always be protection of rights, to save lives, and to protect the public welfare. Rights considered should be the mother, the child, and the father. Not in equal measure, but any decision which ignores rights from one party is immoral. Discussion is needed, but not yelling, insults or one-dimensional caricatures which don't even describe the real condition, much less offer a functional solution.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
