Blocking Care for Women

[IAMX 3,055]

no it's more like the atheists deriding anyone who believes in a higher power

What about agnostics?

And you realize that many aren't deriding people who believe in a higher power based upon the higher power itself, but what they do to others based upon these beliefs, right? This is prevalent in people who are even religious, Christians, Muslims, etc., not only toward people in their own religion, but toward those in others. If people would live and let live this wouldn't be a problem. Not surprisingly, in a melting pot in this area, there is far more tolerance than throughout the nation. Which is why we're one step up on the social evolution ladder.

slice it however you want i've made my point.

What IS your point? Are you wanting to discuss or just make nonsensical points for the hell of it?

it's only nonsensical to you as you missed it

Oooookay then. I'll take it as there is no point.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

no it's more like the atheists deriding anyone who believes in a higher power

What about agnostics?

And you realize that many aren't deriding people who believe in a higher power based upon the higher power itself, but what they do to others based upon these beliefs, right? This is prevalent in people who are even religious, Christians, Muslims, etc., not only toward people in their own religion, but toward those in others. If people would live and let live this wouldn't be a problem. Not surprisingly, in a melting pot in this area, there is far more tolerance than throughout the nation. Which is why we're one step up on the social evolution ladder.

slice it however you want i've made my point.

What IS your point? Are you wanting to discuss or just make nonsensical points for the hell of it?

it's only nonsensical to you as you missed it

Oooookay then. I'll take it as there is no point.

surely you're not that dense, are you?

[Scott & Lai 12]

Freakin insane.

There goes the Hippocratic Oath out the window.

Just FYI, the Hippocratic Oath, in its Classical form, forbade doctors aiding women with abortions.

[HAL 9000 96]

Freakin insane.

There goes the Hippocratic Oath out the window.

Just FYI, the Hippocratic Oath, in its Classical form, forbade doctors aiding women with abortions.

Thanks for the tidbit. I guess that's why its a Classical form.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Freakin insane.

There goes the Hippocratic Oath out the window.

Just FYI, the Hippocratic Oath, in its Classical form, forbade doctors aiding women with abortions.

Thanks for the tidbit. I guess that's why its a Classical form.

Some would say the Hippocratic Oath was already thrown out the window when it was re-written to allow doctors to kill the unborn for matters of convenience...

[HAL 9000 96]

Freakin insane.

There goes the Hippocratic Oath out the window.

Just FYI, the Hippocratic Oath, in its Classical form, forbade doctors aiding women with abortions.

Thanks for the tidbit. I guess that's why its a Classical form.

Some would say the Hippocratic Oath was already thrown out the window when it was re-written to allow doctors to kill the unborn for matters of convenience...

Well if that's how those folks would like to define it. I think the better the understanding of the biology of a developing embryo to fetus to viable fetus (baby) the better the understanding of the term "unborn" shall be. In the meantime the blanket concept of "choice" and the more religiously-tuned concept of "free-will" should be used to allow individuals to control their own bodies. And face the divine consequences if they really are there to be had if that were the case- thusly satisfying both the "pro-choice" and the "anti-choice" sides of the argument.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't see them forcing abortions upon people who don't want one. Or telling religious people to accept gay marriage.

So you'll have to show me where that would apply to the non-religious.

Not to go totally O/T but I've yet to see a single logical argument for denying homosexual marriage rights. There's been a number of threads on this - and in the main the arguments against it either go down the the "slippery slope" argument about man-animal relations, incest marriage and polygamy - or the one-step-forward, two-steps back semantic approach: "I don't have a problem with it so long as it isn't called marriage".

[aidan80 9]

Freakin insane.

There goes the Hippocratic Oath out the window.

Just FYI, the Hippocratic Oath, in its Classical form, forbade doctors aiding women with abortions.

Thanks for the tidbit. I guess that's why its a Classical form.

Some would say the Hippocratic Oath was already thrown out the window when it was re-written to allow doctors to kill the unborn for matters of convenience...

Agreed!..

I firmly believe that no one should have the so called "right" to terminate life weather inside or outside the womb just because they think it's their right to do so.. or because it's in their body they should be allowed to remove it, thats insanity! Murder is murder born or unborn no one should have the right to deny another their right to be alive.

[rebeccajo 14]

I personally am, have been and always will be pro-choice for one reason and one reason only.

And that is because I see efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade as efforts to invade the private lives of Americans - for one group of people to try and dictate their morality onto others.

While I do believe that many pro-life advocates care deeply about the unborn and what they decry as murder of them, I think the core centrists of that group are more concerned with pushing their views of sex and sexuality onto the populace. I wouldn't feel that way if another agenda of many pro-life individuals wasn't pushing abstinence as the only choice for the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy.

Edited September 20, 2008 by rebeccajo

[anya-D 8]

To oppose this legislation, you can go to the NARAL website and sign a letter to oppose it. We have a week or so left I think. Edited September 20, 2008 by anya-D

[Brad and Vika 129]

As usual I am late to the party, and as usual I am amazed at the twists and turns some threads take How did this thread, for example, get from a health care providers ability to refuse to provide abortions/contracteption to a discussion about gay marriage. That's Entertainment!

[msu17 0]

I personally am, have been and always will be pro-choice for one reason and one reason only.

And that is because I see efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade as efforts to invade the private lives of Americans - for one group of people to try and dictate their morality onto others.

While I do believe that many pro-life advocates care deeply about the unborn and what they decry as murder of them, I think the core centrists of that group are more concerned with pushing their views of sex and sexuality onto the populace. I wouldn't feel that way if another agenda of many pro-life individuals wasn't pushing abstinence as the only choice for the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy.

I completely agree with you. And the face Pro lifers mainly are focused on allowing a baby to be born, not on allowing them any sort of quality of life. When I see pro lifers getting behind helping mothers get adequate healthcare, women keeping their jobs after maternity leave, helping young mothers return to school and get safe child care etc. then I could maybe get behind them. Just telling a woman she has to have a baby and then ignoring all of the problems in her life that lead her to want the abortion is extremely short sited and "better than thou".