Good for Charlie Crist

[Quantum Windbag]

So you also agree that is is a clump of cells, and similarly provide some modifier to it in a poor effort to reduce that fact?

You are nothing more than a clump of cells, can I just wash you down the drain and not be punished for it?

 

[hortysir]

So you also agree that is is a clump of cells, and similarly provide some modifier to it in a poor effort to reduce that fact?

When you compare a living embryo to a turd, yes.
While that may hold true in your family tree, there is no comparing the two.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If the fetus is not a life, why is there a problem with showing it in a sonogram. There would be nothing to see right?

There is no problem. A woman can ask to see it if she pleases. The problem is forcing a patient to do something they don't want to do for a medical procedure.

Except that no one will perform an abortion before 8 weeks. At 8 weeks the fetus is a fully formed baby only really tiny. It is a life.

False false false false. Try not to make up biology, please. At 8 weeks, the human embryo just lost its gill slits, which made it look like a fish. At young ages it looks like an alien, just over a cm wide, exactly like most other mammal embryo. It is not a fully formed baby but tiny. Here's a picture I won't post on the board directly, if you're interested.

They can't abort an embryo. It is too embedded in the uterine lining. They have to wait until the baby forms and separates from the uterus via the umbilical cord.

Also completely made up. Early term abortions are performed at home by taking a medication that tricks the body into sloughing the uterine lining.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You are nothing more than a clump of cells, can I just wash you down the drain and not be punished for it?

Well, I am a bit more than a clump at this point. My cells are differentiated. Even if you deem that to not be sufficient to define me as something other than a clump, then sure I am still a clump of cells. No one in this thread has made the claim that such qualification allows us to do with the cells as we please. No one. But to claim an embryo is not a clump of cells is completely incorrect by the definition of both nouns in the phrase. It's like refuting "a cat is just an animal" on the basis of emotional attachment to one's pet. It IS just an animal, just as an embryo is a clump of cells. These are facts, regardless of your personal emotion.

I look forward to your continued emotional outbursts and straw man arguments.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm still waiting to hear the experiences that have granted you the insight into the inner workings of an abortion clinic. Clearly by your logic you must be an abortionist yourself. Perhaps we should start with a simpler question: have you ever stepped inside a clinic, or personally spoke with a doctor who has performed an abortion?

You also ignored my claim that the rejected policy has nothing to do with patient education. Instead of addressing the actual issues, I get this:

Hey, you are the jerk that attempted to evict me from the conversation. I was more than willing to discuss this in a friendly manner until you started your arrogant bull shit.

No factual or supporting evidence.

You have presented no "factual" evidence. You present your beliefs. So far you have not proven to me that you know the difference between your rectum and a knothole in a fence.

No factual or supporting evidence here either.


Conjecture, opinion, straw man argument putting words in a doctor's mouth without citation. This also makes it appear that you do agree an embryo is a clump of cells. This is still fact, as I have argued from the start and provided numbers to support the claim, and this is also something you have contested based solely on opinion and extraneous emotional responses.


Recurrent exhibition that you do not understand the topic we are discussing. Medical ethics refers to the ethical obligations of the doctor, not the patient. Based on the ethical principle of autonomy, the patient has the free will to make their own decisions, and doctors do not have the right to force the patient to do otherwise, with the exception of psychiatric commitment.

Given the choice between a woman attempting to perform an abortion by herself, which comes with a significant mortality rate, and performing it in a controlled medical environment with little risk, the beneficent act is to help the woman not kill herself. No one is pro-abortion. The purpose of abortion clinics is to reduce otherwise unavoidable harm. This is yet another reason your "selling abortions" claim is just pure garbage. If a doctor was in it for the money, they wouldn't be in that field.

You can continue getting all huffy about the woman's decision, but we're talking public law and policy here regarding a doctor's role in the process, so your personal "morals" about the patients hold no weight.

And by the way, this is a free country and I will comment on the evils of abortion when ever I damn well please.

You mean it's only a free country for you. Because clearly for other people who you feel should be forced to do things they don't want to do, it's not a free country. Your well timed hypocrisy is hilarious. Once again you provide no rational argument as to why any competent patient should be forced to do ANYTHING they don't want to do, let alone any other field of medicine which allows for such things, and at the same time claim your stake in personal internet freedoms. What a small silly mind.

You are leaving out one crucial word in your definition of a "clump of cells".
CREATED
They are a clump of "created" cells that are growing, evolving, and developing in to a life of it's own.

So you also agree that is is a clump of cells, and similarly provide some modifier to it in a poor effort to reduce that fact?

Clearly by your logic you must be an abortionist yourself.

Do you know what a question is? I asked you IF you were an abortionist. Never once did I say those were the only two options.

You also ignored my claim that the rejected policy has nothing to do with patient education. Instead of addressing the actual issues,

This has been discussed ad nauseum (including by me) throughout this thread, if you don't want to read it, don't bitch at me.

You don't think your comment: "So why are you speaking on the subject?" was an attempt to exclude my points of view from the discussion? You are extremely arrogant to say the least.

I do not have to have been in side a clinic to have seen the workings of the "Pro-choice" movement. You have been spouting your "freedom to kill" for decades. They have been screaming "it is nothing more than a clump of cells" for decades.

This is still fact, as I have argued from the start and provided numbers to support the claim, and this is also something you have contested based solely on opinion and extraneous emotional responses.

What facts have you presented that this is not a human? You have only presented your opinion that it is a clump of cells, and your opinion doesn't mean jack shit. As I have repeatedly stated it is a clump of cells AND it is human. Simply because it is a clump of cells as an embryo does not mean it is not human.

Recurrent exhibition that you do not understand the topic we are discussing. Medical ethics refers to the ethical obligations of the doctor, not the patient

Absolutely correct, and as I was saying, it is the doctor that is doing the killing, thus showing the lack of ethics of this part of the Medical Profession.

The purpose of abortion clinics is to reduce otherwise unavoidable harm. This is yet another reason your "selling abortions" claim is just pure garbage. If a doctor was in it for the money, they wouldn't be in that field.

Bullshit... they are selling abortions. It is the business that they are in. That is their business and they sure as hell, do not give their services away.

Immie

 

[hortysir]

You are nothing more than a clump of cells, can I just wash you down the drain and not be punished for it?

Well, I am a bit more than a clump at this point. My cells are differentiated. Even if you deem that to not be sufficient to define me as something other than a clump, then sure I am still a clump of cells. No one in this thread has made the claim that such qualification allows us to do with the cells as we please. No one. But to claim an embryo is not a clump of cells is completely incorrect by the definition of both nouns in the phrase. It's like refuting "a cat is just an animal" on the basis of emotional attachment to one's pet. It IS just an animal, just as an embryo is a clump of cells. These are facts, regardless of your personal emotion.

I look forward to your continued emotional outbursts and straw man arguments.

Straw?
You were the one that first made the turd comparison.

"Just" a clump of Human cells. Just like your cat is an animal, the clump is a Human embryo.

Nothing emotional about my more specific definition.
I feel omitting the Human part of the equation is an emotional response.
Which one of us is right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[Well, I am a bit more than a clump at this point. My cells are differentiated. Even if you deem that to not be sufficient to define me as something other than a clump, then sure I am still a clump of cells. No one in this thread has made the claim that such qualification allows us to do with the cells as we please. No one. But to claim an embryo is not a clump of cells is completely incorrect by the definition of both nouns in the phrase. It's like refuting "a cat is just an animal" on the basis of emotional attachment to one's pet. It IS just an animal, just as an embryo is a clump of cells. These are facts, regardless of your personal emotion.

I look forward to your continued emotional outbursts and straw man arguments.

I am pretty sure that differentiation occurs around 4 weeks after fertilization, so you are correct that I do not think that is a sufficient definition to differentiate you from any other clump of cells. I must admit I am confused as to why you insist that an embryo is nothing more than a clump of cells though, thus denying simple scientific facts. That clump of cells will one day be a living, breathing, human being, unless it is killed. Just like the embryo inside a female cat will one day be a living, breathing, cat.

This is undeniable, as those cells cannot one day turn into a dog, or a redwood. Every clump of cells is differentiated from every other clump of by its DNA. Every clump of cells is, at heart, whatever its DNA says it will be, they all have potential.

Notice the lack of emotion here? That is because I am not attempting to defend my position. You really have no idea what my position is, you are just assuming I am some right wing nut case who opposes abortion because of religious convictions, and thus am emotionally invested in my position. You are wrong about that.

Science tells me that your position is wrong, not my emotions.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Do you know what a question is? I asked you IF you were an abortionist. Never once did I say those were the only two options.

Putting a question mark on the end of a sentence to help you back pedal does not make a question. You stated "you don't have a clue what goes on in an abortion clinic, unless maybe you are and abortionist who is simply attempting to defend your lies". This is a loaded either/or statement, allowing for two possibilities. Nice try though.

You don't think your comment: "So why are you speaking on the subject?" was an attempt to exclude my points of view from the discussion?

"Do you know what a question is? I asked you WHY you were speaking on the subject."

So your hypocrisy continues I see. Still haven't gotten an answer though. What experiences have given you insight into the operations of an abortion clinic? I've asked in three posts and gotten no answer, yet you are quick to claim I must either know nothing or be a lying abortionist myself. Interesting when asked the same exact question you get all hurt and victimized! boo hoo!

I do not have to have been in side a clinic to have seen the workings of the "Pro-choice" movement.

So now that we've established you've never been to a clinic or spoken to a clinician, and yet you claim to have knowledge of the inner workings of them, how they don't educate women there, and how doctors interact with their patients. Interesting. And where have you gained this insight, if not actually observing it? Let me guess: THE INTERNET!? No wait wait, I know! From OTHER people who haven't actually stepped foot inside a clinic, but tell you all about it anyway. Am I getting warmer?

What facts have you presented that this is not a human? You have only presented your opinion that it is a clump of cells, and your opinion doesn't mean jack shit. As I have repeatedly stated it is a clump of cells AND it is human. Simply because it is a clump of cells as an embryo does not mean it is not human.

Quote where I've said fetuses are not human. See this is where rabid uneducated conservatives make things up in their own claims AND make up the claims of anyone who disagrees. Again I ask: do you disagree with the word "clump", or the word "cells", pertaining to a fetus? I have no problem proving you wrong with dictionary definitions if needed. That's called factual citation and support, which you do not possess.

Absolutely correct, and as I was saying, it is the doctor that is doing the killing, thus showing the lack of ethics of this part of the Medical Profession.

Which returns to the concept of beneficence weighed against nonmaleficence. Similarly, it is the doctor who cuts open a patient's chest and heart and removes blockages to critical vessels. Why would a doctor do such a horrible destructive act?! Well, it it balanced against the beneficence of what is being prevented down the line: DEATH.

Again, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the concepts of medical ethics. Once again I ask if you can point to any other medical situation where doctors force ANYTHING on a competent patient. You've avoided this question for pages now, showing both a lack of knowledge of medical ethical principles and lack of knowledge regarding the practical use and precedence of those ethics. And then you wonder why I question your qualifications to continue talking about these topics?

Bullshit... they are selling abortions. It is the business that they are in. That is their business and they sure as hell, do not give their services away.

Certainly no one is doing it for free, but you're just moronic if you think people go into that field for the money. A physician, along with any other health care worker makes less money per hour than if they held the same title and position at another medical field. They are working, and getting compensated for their specialized skill set just as every other person does in this country so they can, you know, live. Or do you want a policy that forces doctors to never receive any compensation for abortions now along with forcing patients to do things?

 

[geauxtohell]

If the fetus is not a life, why is there a problem with showing it in a sonogram. There would be nothing to see right?

Except that no one will perform an abortion before 8 weeks. At 8 weeks the fetus is a fully formed baby only really tiny. It is a life.

They can't abort an embryo. It is too embedded in the uterine lining. They have to wait until the baby forms and separates from the uterus via the umbilical cord.

Again, I think it's banal to go into the semantics over if it's a "fetus", a "baby", a "life" or whatever. I have no interest in debating that. To me personally, it's not relevant to the larger issue and really is just a pathway for people to call woman who get abortions murderers or for people to dismiss an abortion as a procedure that is basically removing a clump of cells from the body. If you want to spend a ton of bandwidth debating that, I am not your man.

At issue here, like so many other things with abortion, is choice. Is there an issue with showing a mother a sonogram of her soon to be aborted fetus?

This issue is not that simple.

If the sonogram is at the request of the mother, then of course not. That falls under the purvey of Dr.-Patient relationship and care and there is absolutely nothing that would prevent this as it stands.

If the sonogram is a legally mandated procedure that the mother and Dr. are forced to participate in against their will, then of course there is an issue.

It's a malicious act at the hands of the state that attempts to interject itself into a patient's decisions over their own health. At best it's a wasteful and un-necessary medical procedure.

It's absurd to act like this law was an attempt to simply educate woman on abortion. In truth, it's an attempt to shame them out of their decision.

I understand the anti-abortion crowd is ideologically wed to any and all means to try and get rid of abortion. However, let's not put lipstick on this pig as far as this bill is concerned. A spade is still a spade.

 

[geauxtohell]

If the fetus is not a life, why is there a problem with showing it in a sonogram. There would be nothing to see right?

Except that no one will perform an abortion before 8 weeks. At 8 weeks the fetus is a fully formed baby only really tiny. It is a life.

They can't abort an embryo. It is too embedded in the uterine lining. They have to wait until the baby forms and separates from the uterus via the umbilical cord.

Not true anymore:

Early Surgical Abortion Procedures, Menstrual Extraction.

Historically, surgical abortion procedures were performed at 6 weeks gestation or further. With new medical equipment and surgical instruments, along with advanced technical training, the surgical procedure can now be performed as early as 3 to 4 weeks into a pregnancy. This means the surgical procedure can be performed before the first menstrual period is missed. Patients will have an ultrasound exam performed prior to the procedure and usually the surgery is performed under sonographic guidance. This confirms that the pregnancy is completely removed during surgery. Another name for early abortion procedure is “Menstrual Extraction”. In countries around the world, lay women have performed this procedure on each other. It has been safely practiced for over 50 years internationally. This early abortion was introduced in the United States in the mid 1970’s and the surgical technique has advanced in its effectiveness and safety throughout the 80’s and 90’s.

Immie

Not to mention RU-486.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Straw?
You were the one that first made the turd comparison.

Oh I see. Because I brought up a topic in a completely unrelated manner, you felt it fair game to take one aspect of the argument, completely botch it over, and then insinuate I made the claim. Yes, that's a straw man argument. If you disagree, perhaps you can quote where I state clumps of cells should just be washed down the drain. Except... you can't quote anything of the sort.... because you made it up.

I am pretty sure that differentiation occurs around 4 weeks after fertilization, so you are correct that I do not think that is a sufficient definition to differentiate you from any other clump of cells. I must admit I am confused as to why you insist that an embryo is nothing more than a clump of cells though, thus denying simple scientific facts. That clump of cells will one day be a living, breathing, human being, unless it is killed. Just like the embryo inside a female cat will one day be a living, breathing, cat.

Wait a minute my unemotional scientific friend. An embryo being a clump of cells has nothing to do with the potential of it "one day be[ing] a living, breathing, human being". These two ideas are independent. I could similarly say "a clump of cells will one day differentiate, grow, and like strawberry ice cream". The strawberry ice cream is a completely independent hypothetical fact from the clump of cells. An embryo is a clump of cells. I will ask you the same I asked Immie: which do you disagree with? That an embryo is comprised of cells, or that it is a clump?

by the way, 4 weeks post fertilization is 6 weeks gestational age.

Every clump of cells is, at heart, whatever its DNA says it will be, they all have potential.

Yes. So does an acorn. But an acorn is not a tree. It is an acorn. It has the potential to become a tree because of its genes, but it is not one. Do you disagree?

f the sonogram is a legally mandated procedure that the mother and Dr. are forced to participate in against their will, then of course there is an issue.

It's a malicious act at the hands of the state that attempts to interject itself into a patient's decisions over their own health. At best it's a wasteful and un-necessary medical procedure.

It's absurd to act like this law was an attempt to simply educate woman on abortion. In truth, it's an attempt to shame them out of their decision.

This is exactly correct. This derailed conversation debating whether or not a fetus is a clump of cells moves away from the real topic. We still have yet to see why anyone supporting that policy believes it is "educational", and how they can justify the first forced medical act on a competent patient.

 

[geauxtohell]

This is exactly correct. This derailed conversation debating whether or not a fetus is a clump of cells moves away from the real topic. We still have yet to see why anyone supporting that policy believes it is "educational", and how they can justify the first forced medical act on a competent patient.

The proponents of this can't get around the real issue here: which is not the sonogram/ultrasound.

There is absolutely nothing preventing any mother, regardless of her intentions to carry or abort her child, from getting a sonogram.

The issue is forcing mothers who plan on aborting in the 1st Trimester to get a sonogram even if they don't want it.

Why isn't every mother in the 1st trimester forced to get an ultrasound and see the picture?

In other words, it's okay for the government to force itself into the Dr. Patient relationship that they've been so concerned about over universal healthcare as long as it's abortion.

And while the correlation co-efficient between anti-abortion activists and those who oppose universal healthcare isn't exactly +1, it's pretty damn close.

How's that for irony?

 

[jillian]

you know, i hadn't even thought of that... a forced medical procedure?

aren't the same people who want this the same people who said that it violates their constitutional rights to have to maintain health insurance? and aren't these the same people who screech shrilly at the top of their little lungs about how governemtn is socialistic and taking over their lives and that they're living in a nanny state so need 'small government'.

i guess that's only when government does something *they* don't like.

 

[geauxtohell]

you know, i hadn't even thought of that... a forced medical procedure?

aren't the same people who want this the same people who said that it violates their constitutional rights to have to maintain health insurance? and aren't these the same people who screech shrilly at the top of their little lungs about how governemtn is socialistic and taking over their lives and that they're living in a nanny state so need 'small government'.

i guess that's only when government does something *they* don't like.

Oh, we made the same point almost at the same time.....

 

[jillian]

you know, i hadn't even thought of that... a forced medical procedure?

aren't the same people who want this the same people who said that it violates their constitutional rights to have to maintain health insurance? and aren't these the same people who screech shrilly at the top of their little lungs about how governemtn is socialistic and taking over their lives and that they're living in a nanny state so need 'small government'.

i guess that's only when government does something *they* don't like.

Oh, we made the same point almost at the same time.....

and so we did.

*snap*

 

[hortysir]

Straw?
You were the one that first made the turd comparison.

Oh I see. Because I brought up a topic in a completely unrelated manner, you felt it fair game to take one aspect of the argument, completely botch it over, and then insinuate I made the claim. Yes, that's a straw man argument. If you disagree, perhaps you can quote where I state clumps of cells should just be washed down the drain. Except... you can't quote anything of the sort.... because you made it up.

Draw, on the straw part, then.
But, FTR, it wasn't me that made the "washed down the drain" remark.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wait a minute my unemotional scientific friend. An embryo being a clump of cells has nothing to do with the potential of it "one day be[ing] a living, breathing, human being". These two ideas are independent. I could similarly say "a clump of cells will one day differentiate, grow, and like strawberry ice cream". The strawberry ice cream is a completely independent hypothetical fact from the clump of cells. An embryo is a clump of cells. I will ask you the same I asked Immie: which do you disagree with? That an embryo is comprised of cells, or that it is a clump?

I must admit to some confusion here. How can you claim that the fact that a human embryo has the potential to grow into a living human being hypothetical? Where is the uncertainty involved in this? If it survives it will always, repeat, always grow into a human being. It will never grow into a cow, a cat, or even an undifferentiated clump of cells.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is exactly correct. This derailed conversation debating whether or not a fetus is a clump of cells moves away from the real topic. We still have yet to see why anyone supporting that policy believes it is "educational", and how they can justify the first forced medical act on a competent patient.

The proponents of this can't get around the real issue here: which is not the sonogram/ultrasound.

There is absolutely nothing preventing any mother, regardless of her intentions to carry or abort her child, from getting a sonogram.

The issue is forcing mothers who plan on aborting in the 1st Trimester to get a sonogram even if they don't want it.

Why isn't every mother in the 1st trimester forced to get an ultrasound and see the picture?

In other words, it's okay for the government to force itself into the Dr. Patient relationship that they've been so concerned about over universal healthcare as long as it's abortion.

And while the correlation co-efficient between anti-abortion activists and those who oppose universal healthcare isn't exactly +1, it's pretty damn close.

How's that for irony?

If you go back to my first post in this thread, I pointed out that it is nothing more than a requirement that the woman be fully informed. No one has even bothered to really address this point, though one person did try to claim that women are informed without it. The funny thing is, it doesn't matter if you are a doctor, for every other medical procedure the doctor has to sit down and discuss all the alternatives to that procedure, but abortion nuts insist that this is not necessary for abortions.

I wonder why.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you know, i hadn't even thought of that... a forced medical procedure?

aren't the same people who want this the same people who said that it violates their constitutional rights to have to maintain health insurance? and aren't these the same people who screech shrilly at the top of their little lungs about how governemtn is socialistic and taking over their lives and that they're living in a nanny state so need 'small government'.

i guess that's only when government does something *they* don't like.

My constitutional rights are violated if I am required to purchase health insurance, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

That said, I also have reservations about about forcing a procedure, even a non invasive procedure like an ultrasound, on anyone. On the other hand, it seems to be the only way to force abortion providers not to lie to their patients, which actually makes it barely tolerable. Informed consent exists everywhere else in medicine, but not with abortions. Why do abortionist need to lie to their patients?

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree QW. When there is no medical indication, forcing ANY medical procedure on a person indeed does violate such person's unalienable and constitutional rights.

However, I would have no objection if a doctor, hospital, clinic whatever required it before they would perform an abortion. If the patient didn't like that, they could go elsewhere for the procedure.

If the right to an abortion is a human freedom, so should be the right not to perform one without due process be a freedom.