OB-GYN group criticizes Texas abortio...

OB-GYN group criticizes Texas abortion bills

There are 493 comments on the KFVS12 story from Jul 5, 2013, titled OB-GYN group criticizes Texas abortion bills. In it, KFVS12 reports that:

The abortion bills under consideration in Texas are being denounced as a form of legislative overreach on the medical rights of women.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KFVS12.

zef

Marina Del Rey, CA

#387 Sep 12, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Stop wasting your time being redundantly obtuse, and go gestate something.
Freak.
You call normal physiological processes diseases, and you call abnormal conditions physiological processes. And you call me a freak.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#388 Sep 12, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is again, the double effect principal.
The principle of double effect is frequently cited in cases of pregnancy and abortion. A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may still remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman's life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the effect of not performing the procedure would result in the greater evil of the death of both the mother and the fetus
Are you naive or just plain stupid, or do you have serious reading comprehension problems or are you simply dancing? My question was...again...please provide my with written evidence that catholic hospitals will perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.

Did you read this or is it above your reading skills:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, "Thou shalt not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.

Can you explain this?:

The hospital has two directives relating to abortion, as reported by the Republic. The first says that physicians cannot perform direct abortions under any circumstances, including for such reasons as to save the life of the mother.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_sto...

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/bisho...

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#389 Sep 12, 2013
OFC wrote:
<quoted text>I never claimed that private entities are above the law. I said that private entities are free to decide what services they provide. Are you saying that a private entity can not decide to open a hospital that specializes in burn care, diabetes, pediatrics etc. FYI not EVERY hospital can provide EVERY medical procedure.
You are a liar and an idiot genius and a worthless waste of space. KMA
This is what you said:
OFC wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care what their intent is I do not donate to them. I do however support their right as a PRIVATE entity to provide only the services they wish to. Just as I support your right to say what you wish regardless of whether I agree with it or not- or how stupid I think some of your remarks are.
Provide only the services they wish, regardless of the law? Hospitals are SUPPOSE to be in the business of life saving...or has that changed in your "private entity world? So they get to pick and choose whose life they will save as part of the "private entity" service?

Now you take a 90 degree turn and claim hospitals have specialties? WOW you really are stupid! So if a hospital specializes in burn care they are ill equipped to do anything else? LOL!!! You need to get out more...maybe visit a few hospitals and let me know which hospital simply services burn victims and turns all else away!!

Every hospital can provide an abortion in an emergency, it is not that difficult. If they can't then they should be restricted from taking any pregnancy case and eliminate maternity entirely.

I am a liar? Care to explain that tirade? Don't stick out your lip too far and stomp your little foot.

Kiss you ass ??? Mark the spot you are noting but.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#390 Sep 12, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
You call normal physiological processes diseases, and you call abnormal conditions physiological processes. And you call me a freak.
It is not 'abnormal' for people to acquire disease. It happens regularly, because disease is normal. It has been around for as long as there have been humans. It's just not as common as it used to be, because humans have discovered remedies for unwanted conditions. One of which, is pregnancy.

Disease is also a physiological process. It happens within the physiology of the body. Sorry you don't LIKE science, and prefer your fear-based superstitions and personal bugaboos...but facts is facts, whether you LIKE them, or not.

One of which is, that women are people, with rights. We are not livestock, with state-owned reproductive organs. Sorry about your luck, Chuckles.
zef

Marina Del Rey, CA

#391 Sep 13, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>It is not 'abnormal' for people to acquire disease. It happens regularly, because disease is normal. It has been around for as long as there have been humans. It's just not as common as it used to be, because humans have discovered remedies for unwanted conditions. One of which, is pregnancy.
Disease is also a physiological process. It happens within the physiology of the body. Sorry you don't LIKE science, and prefer your fear-based superstitions and personal bugaboos...but facts is facts, whether you LIKE them, or not.
One of which is, that women are people, with rights. We are not livestock, with state-owned reproductive organs. Sorry about your luck, Chuckles.
Human physiological processes are mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of humans, their organs, and the cells of which they are composed.
Diseases are abnormal conditions that humans can be afflicted with, and it is abnormal for a human to be afflicted with disease.
Pregnancy is a normal condition of the human reproductive system. Human reproduction is a normal physiological process of humans. And it is normal for a female human to become pregnant.
A human being is not a static thing but a changing entity. A human life is a spectrum of development, manifesting different abilities and achievements over time, all of which are the evolutionary products of the same individual that came into existence at conception.
All women have the right to life regardless of their age.
Ocean56

AOL

#392 Sep 13, 2013
zef wrote:
Pregnancy is a normal condition of the human reproductive system. Human reproduction is a normal physiological process of humans. And it is normal for a female human to become pregnant.
Pregnancy is often UNWANTED medical condition, specifically for any woman who never wanted to BE pregnant in the first place. Since it is the woman's life that will be affected by carrying a pregnancy to term, ONLY the woman has the right to decide whether or not to continue it.

For me, pregnancy SUCKED, due to a number of issues that came up during those nine months that made pregnancy a thoroughly miserable experience for me. That's one of the many reasons I am a very happy "done after one" (DAO) mom, and have NO intention to ever become pregnant again. These days, I so love NOT being pregnant, and intend to remain pregnancy-FREE for as long as I'm alive.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
OFC

West Chicago, IL

#393 Sep 13, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you said:
<quoted text>
Provide only the services they wish, regardless of the law? Hospitals are SUPPOSE to be in the business of life saving...or has that changed in your "private entity world? So they get to pick and choose whose life they will save as part of the "private entity" service?
Now you take a 90 degree turn and claim hospitals have specialties? WOW you really are stupid! So if a hospital specializes in burn care they are ill equipped to do anything else? LOL!!! You need to get out more...maybe visit a few hospitals and let me know which hospital simply services burn victims and turns all else away!!
Every hospital can provide an abortion in an emergency, it is not that difficult. If they can't then they should be restricted from taking any pregnancy case and eliminate maternity entirely.
I am a liar? Care to explain that tirade? Don't stick out your lip too far and stomp your little foot.
Kiss you ass ??? Mark the spot you are noting but.
Question- You are in a serious car accident and need a level one trauma center- under your theory the paramedics should take you to the nearest medical center even it is a Lasik Eye clinic- they are staffed by MD's. Me I prefer the paramedics take me to the nearest level one trauma center- most major cities have them.
zef

Marina Del Rey, CA

#394 Sep 13, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pregnancy is often UNWANTED medical condition, specifically for any woman who never wanted to BE pregnant in the first place. Since it is the woman's life that will be affected by carrying a pregnancy to term, ONLY the woman has the right to decide whether or not to continue it.
For me, pregnancy SUCKED, due to a number of issues that came up during those nine months that made pregnancy a thoroughly miserable experience for me. That's one of the many reasons I am a very happy "done after one" (DAO) mom, and have NO intention to ever become pregnant again. These days, I so love NOT being pregnant, and intend to remain pregnancy-FREE for as long as I'm alive.
Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
Pregnancy is not a medical condition. Contrary to popular belief, pregnancy is a normal physiological process of a woman's reproductive system.
Motherhood is a state of being. Motherhood is not an option.

motherhood
noun
1. the state of being a mother; maternity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mother...
imom

Aurora, IL

#396 Sep 13, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you naive or just plain stupid, or do you have serious reading comprehension problems or are you simply dancing? My question was...again...please provide my with written evidence that catholic hospitals will perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.
Did you read this or is it above your reading skills:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, "Thou shalt not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.
Can you explain this?:
The hospital has two directives relating to abortion, as reported by the Republic. The first says that physicians cannot perform direct abortions under any circumstances, including for such reasons as to save the life of the mother.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_sto...
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/bisho...
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v /index.jsp?vgnextoid=a73858886 5e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCR D&cpsextcurrchannel=1 Here is a hospital that treats no adults and performs no abortions- go ahead get them closed. Make them stop treating their patients to take care of your skank crotch!

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#397 Sep 13, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Human physiological processes are mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of humans, their organs, and the cells of which they are composed.
Diseases are abnormal conditions that humans can be afflicted with, and it is abnormal for a human to be afflicted with disease.
Pregnancy is a normal condition of the human reproductive system. Human reproduction is a normal physiological process of humans. And it is normal for a female human to become pregnant.
A human being is not a static thing but a changing entity. A human life is a spectrum of development, manifesting different abilities and achievements over time, all of which are the evolutionary products of the same individual that came into existence at conception.
All women have the right to life regardless of their age.
It is normal for women to abort - spontaneous abortion occurs to one of every three conceptions. And all women have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, whether or not you approve.

Next...
zef

Marina Del Rey, CA

#398 Sep 13, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>It is normal for women to abort - spontaneous abortion occurs to one of every three conceptions. And all women have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, whether or not you approve.
Next...
Anything that happens is normal because it happens? I don't think so.
It is normal for a woman to give birth, because that is the purpose of her reproductive system. It is abnormal for a woman to abort, because that is not the purpose of her reproductive system.
Women are allowed to kill their babies with abortion because the sycophants that rule this nation pander to the narcissistic women they worship. No woman has the right to kill anyone.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#399 Sep 13, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything that happens is normal because it happens? I don't think so.
It is normal for a woman to give birth, because that is the purpose of her reproductive system. It is abnormal for a woman to abort, because that is not the purpose of her reproductive system.
Women are allowed to kill their babies with abortion because the sycophants that rule this nation pander to the narcissistic women they worship. No woman has the right to kill anyone.
Hint for the clueless: I don't give a rotund rodent's rear what you think.

Abortion is self-defense.

Next...
zef

Marina Del Rey, CA

#400 Sep 13, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Hint for the clueless: I don't give a rotund rodent's rear what you think.
Abortion is self-defense.
Next...
Gender selective abortion protects who from what?
zef

Marina Del Rey, CA

#401 Sep 13, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Hint for the clueless: I don't give a rotund rodent's rear what you think.
Abortion is self-defense.
Next...
Gender selective abortion protects who from what?

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#402 Sep 13, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Gender selective abortion protects who from what?
How the hell should I know? I suggest you don't have a gender-selective abortion. The concept seems to be your pet peeve or something...

Nnnnnnext..........
zef

Marina Del Rey, CA

#403 Sep 13, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>How the hell should I know? I suggest you don't have a gender-selective abortion. The concept seems to be your pet peeve or something...
Nnnnnnext..........
No, my pet peeve is that women are allowed to wear pants, which as everyone knows is rude and uncivilized.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#404 Sep 13, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my pet peeve is that women are allowed to wear pants, which as everyone knows is rude and uncivilized.
Well, here's the thing: Women make our own decisions, about pants AND pregnancies, without permission from weirdos like you.

I realize it grinds your gears, but that somehow fails to raise my blood pressure in any measurable way.

However, I can tell it's really getting yours amped, all the way from here.

Lovely day, isn't it?
:)

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#405 Sep 13, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything that happens is normal because it happens? I don't think so.
Anything that happens 33% of the time, is pretty normal.

You don't think, period.

Your entire premise is based on the idea that women are little more than walking incubators, endowed with the ability to gestate, and therefore somehow obligated to do so.

It's ridiculous, and insulting. No wonder you can't get a date.
zef

Marina Del Rey, CA

#406 Sep 13, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Well, here's the thing: Women make our own decisions, about pants AND pregnancies, without permission from weirdos like you.
I realize it grinds your gears, but that somehow fails to raise my blood pressure in any measurable way.
However, I can tell it's really getting yours amped, all the way from here.
Lovely day, isn't it?
:)
Everybody makes their own decisions about everything, because decision making is a mental process.
The question is whether or not you should be terrorizing women for wearing something rude and offensive like pants, so that they will more likely to make the decision to wear something respectable like a sundress.
Your terrorism cannot force anyone to make any decision, because decision making is a mental process. Your terrorism can only influence the inherent decision making process of a woman.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#407 Sep 13, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you naive or just plain stupid, or do you have serious reading comprehension problems or are you simply dancing? My question was...again...please provide my with written evidence that catholic hospitals will perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.
Did you read this or is it above your reading skills:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, "Thou shalt not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.
Can you explain this?:
The hospital has two directives relating to abortion, as reported by the Republic. The first says that physicians cannot perform direct abortions under any circumstances, including for such reasons as to save the life of the mother.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_sto...
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/bisho...
I can exlpain it but I think you still won't understand and prefer to maintain your own conclusions.

A 'direct' abortion is never allowed where the intent is to kill the child. It is allowed that the mother can be treated in any way neccessary to save her life even if the fetus dies due to the treatment. You would see it as the same thing but there is a clear difference and that is 'intent'.

Any time a mother's condition can be managed until the baby can be born and two lives are saved would be the goal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Baker says he will fight for sanctuary cities 4 min RustyS 44
News The Trump victory, the threat to California's g... 3 hr Philosophic 4
News FDA eyeballs Lasik complaints (Apr '08) 6 hr skjblnd 21
News Congressional panel recommends charges against ... 9 hr Cheekz6294 6
News Hartselle to ban nightclubs, bars: (Oct '10) 10 hr ThomasA 3
News Asheville area has high levels of radon gas (Dec '10) 11 hr Dsm98 14
News How Trump can reset the Supreme Court's agenda 12 hr WetSquirtz5944 54
More from around the web