Good for Charlie Crist

[Immanuel]

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!

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?

The above part of this discussion ends here asshole. I am not required to justify myself to you.

This is and always has been an emotional and a moral issue as well as a medical issue. I have as much right to be a part of this discussion as any arrogant son of a bitch or anyone else in the world. I have as much right to speak my mind as you or anyone else does, and guess what, whether I do so on an emotional or moral level, does not make my point of view any less relevant.

There is more to the issue of abortion than a simple procedure that snuffs out the life of a human being.

Your haphazard dismissal of the moral and emotional part of the issue is noted. Makes you appear to be a cold hearted son of a bitch.

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.

You did not have to "say it". You arguments against my point of view (that it is a clump of cells AND a human being) have set your argument in stone. You couched your words, but your argument has always been "it is literally a clump of cells", which I have never denied. Your continued attacks of my point of view, have indicated that you believe it to be "nothing more than a clump of cells".

So whether or not you have the courage to speak what you really believe, your arguments have been against my statements that it is also a human being. At the beginning of this discussion, I agreed with your point that it is literally a clump of cells, at which point you should have moved on. I then furthered the argument that it was also a human being. Since we agree on part one of that, your further argument has only been against the second part of my statement that it is also a human being or you would not be continuing this argument.

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.

You seem to have forgotten that I have already, several times, stated that it is a clump of cells and a human being. I have never once argued against the fact that it is a clump of cells. Not once. However, my argument has been, which you have been arguing against that it is a human being. If you were not arguing that it was not a human being we would not now be having this part of the discussion.

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.

Here is an eye opener for you, There is a difference between preventing death and causing death. I'm sure in your book that is a minor distinction, and maybe ethically to you it means nothing, but to others the difference between causing death and preventing it are pretty significant.

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?

I have not avoided this question, liar. If you don't like my answers that is your tough shit.

And another thing, I am not required to answer any of your idiotic questions. You brought this issue up, and I responded to it the first time because I have no problem discussing it with you. My answer was that doctors do not practice the ethical stances of; benevolence, non-maleficence or justice when they practice abortion. I did grant that it provided autonomy to the patient. I suppose your response is "well one of four is enough".

Doctors do not force abortions on patients at least not yet. Requiring a woman to have an ultrasound IF she wants to have an abortion is not forcing her to have an ultrasound or an abortion. She makes the choice. If she wants an abortion, part of that procedure requires that an ultrasound be preformed first. Simple procedure. Similarly, if I choose to ride a motorcycle (legally) in the state of Florida, I have to go through the procedure of getting licensed to ride a motorcycle which involves extra fees and possibly extra expenses such as safety courses. I am not forced to ride a motorcycle; however, if I want to ride one, I have to obey the laws to become legally eligible to ride a motorcycle in the state of Florida.

There is precedence both in the medical field and in other fields.

If I want to get a license to practice medicine, I have to go to medical school first. If I want a license to drive, I have to get a permit and have some certain time behind the wheel then demonstrate my abilities behind the wheel before I am allowed to drive. Have to pay for that too.

If I go to the doctor to have a mole removed. The doctor has to perform certain tests before he can remove that mole. I can not go into her office and say, "Take this darned mole off the end of my nose right now!" and expect the doctor to do so without subjecting me to other tests first. If I have cancer, the doctor HAS to perform certain tests before he cuts me open and takes out the cancer. If he does not preform those tests he is guilty of malpractice.

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.

What they might be able to make in another field is irrelevant and only helps my case not yours. They go into this field to "sell abortions". They choose to do so because that is where they think they can make money. It is how they make their money. People choose different fields because they see open niches. A salesman goes into the field of selling vacuum cleaners because he sees that there is a need for vacuum cleaners in a given area and he knows vacuum cleaners and he knows, by GOD, he can SELL vacuum cleaners. He might make more money by deciding to sell pharmaceuticals, but he knows vacuum cleaners and the area he is in needs vacuum cleaners, pharmaceutical sales men are a dime a dozen so rather than try to make a killing in the pharmaceutical business, which would require him to learn about drugs, requiring extra effort on his part, he decides to enter vacuum cleaner sales and make a living. He probably could have made a better living selling drugs, by putting forth a little effort, but it is easier to sell vacuum cleaners; therefore, he chooses vacuum cleaners, because he can SELL those.

In the same way, abortionists choose abortion because they see a niche open. Sure many of them could go into the field of cardiovascular medicine, but cardiovascular surgeons are a dime a dozen not to mention require extra training. Abortionists choose abortion because they think they can "sell abortions" in the geographical area they are in. Guess what, they can and they do!

By the way, they chose to specialize in this field, BECAUSE, they knew they could sell abortions. They were not forced into the field. They CHOSE it.

Or do you want a policy that forces doctors to never receive any compensation for abortions now along with forcing patients to do things?

Strawman. Yes, this I am going to avoid it.

Immie

 

[jillian]

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.

you know, you people don't stop.

you want a doctor to carry out your political agenda now?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Thank you for the first part of the post.

The last two paragraphs is the only thing I take issue with.

This will not by any means prevent a single abortion that any woman desires.

For one reason, it is the abortionist is the one that is giving the abortion. The abortionist is not going to shame the patient out of getting one. The abortionist will more than likely encourage her to go along with the procedure despite any misgivings after seeing the ultrasound. There is no attempt to shame the woman out of an abortion. These ultrasounds are performed by the abortionist, not some pro-life pediatrician who is independent of the abortion clinic.

This is an attempt to provide full information (to all women) prior to the final decision.

Most women are educated enough to have already looked into the issue and made their decisions before coming to the clinic. Those women will not be affected by this law at all. Most women, not all. Some are young and just plain scared to death. They don't really want to have an abortion, but they are afraid of someone or something. They come to the clinic for help as a last refuge. They have heard the "it is just a clump of cells" argument (like snot from the nose) out of the pro-choice community for years. Maybe many of these women would be devastated if they later found out that at her stage of development, ten weeks, the baby has a brain, arms, legs, fingers and toes among other organs.

They go to the clinic, in and out in a matter of hours and the problem is, well, over... until a high school classmate shows her a picture of a 10 week old fetus, not even knowing that three weeks ago, she had had an abortion of a 10 week pregnancy.

Cost is an issue to consider. It cannot be ignored by the pro-life side of this debate. I am of the belief that in the long run, the cost of an abortion before this law became effective and after so would not change all that much, if at all. There would be a temporary spike in the cost, but since there really is no added costs (except for no more than a hour's time for both the technician and the patient, oh, don't forget the gel they use and the ink for the pictures they provide... wait, abortion clinics would not provide pictures) to the procedure, market forces would seek to bring the cost back down to where they are now. Clinics already need ultrasounds equipment, so they are not going to have to go out and buy new equipment.

Women that can't afford the possibly slightly higher costs of an abortion with an ultrasound, probably can't afford an abortion without either (yet, the argument that they also cannot afford the child is valid as well) will find a means to get the abortion with the ultrasound if they so desire.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I already mentioned my struggle with this so... bug off!! j/k

I do struggle with this part of the discussion. It is hard for me to reconcile this part of the discussion. But, I can.

I said in a prior post... that the one responsibility of the government is to protect and defend life. In my humble opinion (and that is all that this is) that is the top priority of the government. Under all circumstances that should be the focus of the government. Protecting my life. Protecting yours. Protecting the life of a mother involved in an unwanted pregnancy and in protecting the life of the fetus that is within her womb. Sometimes those circumstances conflict and one life or the other is lost, as in a case where a mother cannot continue with a pregnancy due to a particular medical condition. I can understand that. Some times choices that suck have to be made. The vast majority of abortions (per AGI a wing of Planned Parenthood, want a source? you can google Guttmacher abortion as well as I can. Last time I found what i was looking for under guttmacher abortion slides but I don't care to look again right now) are not for such cases. Last time I checked it was I think less than 1% (maybe 2%) of abortions that were performed for this reason and certainly less than 5%.

If it were simply an issue with governmental interference, I would have conceded this issue three days ago and, in fact, jumped ship and joined the pro-choice side seven years ago. But, for me, it is not simply an issue of governmental interference. It is life and death.

I understand that pro-choice people view this issue differently than I do and in some respects I can agree with them, but I can not get over the idea that like it or not this is a human life and whether or not it has "legal rights", it does in fact, have a right to live.

I know for a fact, that the vast majority of individuals, both pro-life and pro-choice, would like nothing more than for abortion, both the procedure and the issue, to simply disappear. It will never completely disappear, but if we worked together it could easily be minimized. Unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to work with the other side and politicians are more than happy to see us fighting over this issue, so we cannot expect any help from them.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

That's bunk and you know it. A woman does not need an ultrasound to be "fully informed" of the risks and/or alternatives. When it comes to medicine, that is the only standard for informing the patient. Not some, "well, I am here to inform you that this is what we will be removing from you today just in case you weren't aware". This has nothing to do with information and everything to do with coercion. It's bunked up and no matter how much you guys try and make it seem otherwise, you can't get around the fact that, contrary to your usual objections, this is the state interjecting itself into Dr./Patient relationships. Somehow that's not longer important when the issue is abortion.

To address your non-sequitur: we don't require cancer patients to look at a biopsy or a peripheral smear before they start chemo or undergo surgery. We don't require patients to look at their necrotic appendix before undergoing an appendectomy. In fact, I can't think of a single medical instance were we require that a patient see an image of something before a procedure can be carried out.

Again, nothing prevents a woman from requesting an ultrasound before their procedure. However requiring an ultrasound is wasteful and cruel.

 

[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.

you know, you people don't stop.

you want a doctor to carry out your political agenda now?

No dear. I want a doctor to have the right to follow his conscience and the right to require his patient to be fully informed of ALL ramifications of an abortion before he agrees to perform one. I want him to have every right to convince her not to have the procedure before he agrees to do it.

I want him to have the right not to do it if he doesn't want to do it.

Does the doctor having such a right bother you?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Charlie Christ represents everything most people hate about politicians. He is a dishonest corrupt opportunist. All career politicians should be voted out of office. They only represent themselves in the end. Crist turned his back on so many who supported him for years to save his own a*s. I have no use or respect for despicable cretins like Charlie Crist. Lets hope most Floridians feel the same way. It's time to wave bye bye to Charlie Crist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

you know, you people don't stop.

you want a doctor to carry out your political agenda now?

Why not, you have no problem insisting that they do yours.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's bunk and you know it. A woman does not need an ultrasound to be "fully informed" of the risks and/or alternatives. When it comes to medicine, that is the only standard for informing the patient. Not some, "well, I am here to inform you that this is what we will be removing from you today just in case you weren't aware". This has nothing to do with information and everything to do with coercion. It's bunked up and no matter how much you guys try and make it seem otherwise, you can't get around the fact that, contrary to your usual objections, this is the state interjecting itself into Dr./Patient relationships. Somehow that's not longer important when the issue is abortion.

To address your non-sequitur: we don't require cancer patients to look at a biopsy or a peripheral smear before they start chemo or undergo surgery. We don't require patients to look at their necrotic appendix before undergoing an appendectomy. In fact, I can't think of a single medical instance were we require that a patient see an image of something before a procedure can be carried out.

Again, nothing prevents a woman from requesting an ultrasound before their procedure. However requiring an ultrasound is wasteful and cruel.

But requiring someone to view an ultrasound does prevent the abortion provider from lying to the patient. If a doctors routinely lied to you about a procedure and its implications wouldn't you want some sort of safeguard in place to ensure they tell the truth? That is why I support government interference in this very narrow instance, it protects the patient and keeps them fully informed.

Planned Parenthood routinely lies to patients. Since they are in the business of providing abortions for money, despite your claims otherwise, why not regulate them to make sure they tell their customers the truth? You have no problem insisting the government regulate things when it supports your agenda, why insist that abortions not be regulated?

At least I am consistent, I always hate regulation, I am just pragmatic enough to recognize it is necessary to regulate businesses and industry at times, like when they lie to their customers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIXHrusvMDw]YouTube - Investigation of medical lies and manipulation at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin[/ame]

 

[geauxtohell]

But requiring someone to view an ultrasound does prevent the abortion provider from lying to the patient. If a doctors routinely lied to you about a procedure and its implications wouldn't you want some sort of safeguard in place to ensure they tell the truth? That is why I support government interference in this very narrow instance, it protects the patient and keeps them fully informed.

How are abortion doctors lying to a patient? If you are going to try and go down the semantics of "Fetus v. life v. clump of cells v. baby" you can scroll back and see that I am wholly uninterested in that debate. As for the procedure itself, I don't think any woman who seeks an abortion is ignorant of the fact that they are going to to remove (insert your phrase of choice here) from her uterus.

This has nothing to do with informing the patient and has everything to do with trying to shame them into your preferred course of action. It's a governmental over-reach into Dr./Patient relationship and decisions and un-necessary. A woman doesn't have to see an ultrasound of her fetus to know it's in there and the act of abortion is going to remove it and terminate any chance it has at life.

Planned Parenthood routinely lies to patients. Since they are in the business of providing abortions for money, despite your claims otherwise,

When have I claimed Planned Parenthood offered a free service?

why not regulate them to make sure they tell their customers the truth? You have no problem insisting the government regulate things when it supports your agenda, why insist that abortions not be regulated?

How are they not telling the truth? Again, if this boils down to the semantics of what is being aborted, then spare me. You and I both know that's been debated since the inception of time and it's not going to be settled here.

At least I am consistent, I always hate regulation, I am just pragmatic enough to recognize it is necessary to regulate businesses and industry at times, like when they lie to their customers.

You obviously don't always hate regulation or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But requiring someone to view an ultrasound does prevent the abortion provider from lying to the patient. If a doctors routinely lied to you about a procedure and its implications wouldn't you want some sort of safeguard in place to ensure they tell the truth? That is why I support government interference in this very narrow instance, it protects the patient and keeps them fully informed.

How are abortion doctors lying to a patient? If you are going to try and go down the semantics of "Fetus v. life v. clump of cells v. baby" you can scroll back and see that I am wholly uninterested in that debate. As for the procedure itself, I don't think any woman who seeks an abortion is ignorant of the fact that they are going to to remove (insert your phrase of choice here) from her uterus.

This has nothing to do with informing the patient and has everything to do with trying to shame them into your preferred course of action. It's a governmental over-reach into Dr./Patient relationship and decisions and un-necessary. A woman doesn't have to see an ultrasound of her fetus to know it's in there and the act of abortion is going to remove it and terminate any chance it has at life.

Planned Parenthood routinely lies to patients. Since they are in the business of providing abortions for money, despite your claims otherwise,

When have I claimed Planned Parenthood offered a free service?

why not regulate them to make sure they tell their customers the truth? You have no problem insisting the government regulate things when it supports your agenda, why insist that abortions not be regulated?

How are they not telling the truth? Again, if this boils down to the semantics of what is being aborted, then spare me. You and I both know that's been debated since the inception of time and it's not going to be settled here.

At least I am consistent, I always hate regulation, I am just pragmatic enough to recognize it is necessary to regulate businesses and industry at times, like when they lie to their customers.

You obviously don't always hate regulation or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I notice you act like I did not even attempt to prove my assertions. Is this a new debate style?

 

[The T]

Democrats flirt with backing Charlie Crist


Independent Mr. Crist? Suuuuuuuurrre you are....

 

[geauxtohell]

I notice you act like I did not even attempt to prove my assertions. Is this a new debate style?

Are you talking about your video? Frankly, I thought it was silly. Again, I don't give two damns about getting in the "baby" vs. "fetus" debate. I think they gave the woman bad information about the heartbeat, which starts at around four weeks. Other than that, I didn't really see anything that indicated the woman was given bad information.

The staff were operating under the assumption that this woman intended to get an abortion and was not an undercover reporter. It is correct that there are less complications with abortion the earlier you do it.

All this is aside the point: "education" and informed decisions do not require an ultrasound.

So again, how are Doctors lying to a patient? If this is going to turn into histrionics over "THEY DON'T CALL IT A BABY!!!!" then that's just an absurd.

Once again, the issue here isn't the ultrasound. Any woman can have one of those.

The issue is forcing a women to get an ultrasound.

 

[Foxfyre]

I notice you act like I did not even attempt to prove my assertions. Is this a new debate style?

Are you talking about your video? Frankly, I thought it was silly. Again, I don't give two damns about getting in the "baby" vs. "fetus" debate. I think they gave the woman bad information about the heartbeat, which starts at around four weeks. Other than that, I didn't really see anything that indicated the woman was given bad information.

The staff were operating under the assumption that this woman intended to get an abortion and was not an undercover reporter. It is correct that there are less complications with abortion the earlier you do it.

All this is aside the point: "education" and informed decisions do not require an ultrasound.

So again, how are Doctors lying to a patient? If this is going to turn into histrionics over "THEY DON'T CALL IT A BABY!!!!" then that's just an absurd.

Once again, the issue here isn't the ultrasound. Any woman can have one of those.

The issue is forcing a women to get an ultrasound.

So if you are in a position of doing an abortion, and the mother asks you whether her baby will feel it? Will it hurt? Will it suffer in any way?

What will you tell her?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I notice you act like I did not even attempt to prove my assertions. Is this a new debate style?

Are you talking about your video? Frankly, I thought it was silly. Again, I don't give two damns about getting in the "baby" vs. "fetus" debate. I think they gave the woman bad information about the heartbeat, which starts at around four weeks. Other than that, I didn't really see anything that indicated the woman was given bad information.

The staff were operating under the assumption that this woman intended to get an abortion and was not an undercover reporter. It is correct that there are less complications with abortion the earlier you do it.

All this is aside the point: "education" and informed decisions do not require an ultrasound.

So again, how are Doctors lying to a patient? If this is going to turn into histrionics over "THEY DON'T CALL IT A BABY!!!!" then that's just an absurd.

Once again, the issue here isn't the ultrasound. Any woman can have one of those.

The issue is forcing a women to get an ultrasound.

When a doctor tells a patient that the fetus is completely undeveloped when he knows that their are organs, arms and legs, wouldn't you call that lying. Talking to a patient who wants an abortion or a reporter should not make a difference, they both should hear exactly the same thing when they ask questions, and it should be the truth.

Does the video I posted have an agenda? Of course, but that does not change the underlying fact that abortion providers have a problem telling the truth.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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?

The above part of this discussion ends here asshole. I am not required to justify myself to you.

Aha so I was right! You did get your information from other people who don't know anything but posted something to the internet!

This is and always has been an emotional and a moral issue as well as a medical issue.

Good thing for the rest of the world that medical decisions are based off scientific reasoning and indications instead of the emotional outbursts of random people on the internet who are unqualified to talk about medicine!

your argument has always been "it is literally a clump of cells", which I have never denied.

False.

Your continued attacks of my point of view, have indicated that you believe it to be "nothing more than a clump of cells".

Never once did I use the term "nothing more than a clump of cells". Not once. You made that up entirely on your own. But please prove me wrong by just pointing to the post I stated those 7 words. And see this is how your emotional viewpoint completely skews your outlook. You make up meaning and add words like "only" or "nothing but" before concepts, completely changing them, and claiming the other person is wrong, while ignoring actual facts that you now claim to have never denied. What were you arguing against for the last few pages?

At the beginning of this discussion, I agreed with your point that it is literally a clump of cells, at which point you should have moved on.

You seem to have forgotten that I have already, several times, stated that it is a clump of cells and a human being. I have never once argued against the fact that it is a clump of cells. Not once.

False. If you disagree, quote yourself to prove me wrong.
STH: An embryo is literally a clump of cells.
Immie: You have presented no "factual" evidence. ... It is a human being. It will never be anything else. Period!

My answer was that doctors do not practice the ethical stances of; benevolence, non-maleficence or justice when they practice abortion. I did grant that it provided autonomy to the patient. I suppose your response is "well one of four is enough".

False. My answer was that you didn't understand how the four worked together, and that isolating any one of them misses the point. Once again you show you don't understand medical ethics, and yet you keep believing your emotional skewed viewpoint holds any value in the real world.

Requiring a woman to have an ultrasound IF she wants to have an abortion is not forcing her to have an ultrasound or an abortion. She makes the choice. If she wants an abortion, part of that procedure requires that an ultrasound be preformed first. Simple procedure.

No one has any issue with that. In fact, it generally is required before the procedure so the medical staff can more accurately date the fetus and prevent complications. What is NOT required is forcing the woman to look at it. As GTH stated, no other medical procedure requires such a thing. All your other ridiculous examples of riding a motorcycle or requiring a confirmatory biopsy before a surgery don't apply. Furthermore, the requirement of confirmation/screening of pathology before a surgery is a necessary medical indication that directly influences the outcome of the procedure. This is not the case in requiring a woman to view an ultrasound. There is ZERO precedence in the medical field.

What they might be able to make in another field is irrelevant and only helps my case not yours. They go into this field to "sell abortions". They choose to do so because that is where they think they can make money.

You cannot make the claim that people choose a niche profession so they can make money, and also claim it irrelevant that they could make MORE money elsewhere. Clearly if a person has easy access to two different routes and select the one that makes less money, then there is a reason other than money behind their decision. I would think this would be a simple concept.

There is a need for most types of doctors in this country, obstetricians and family medicine doctors absolutely being among them. Once again you demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge about the medical profession.

Or do you want a policy that forces doctors to never receive any compensation for abortions now along with forcing patients to do things?

Strawman. Yes, this I am going to avoid it.

By the use of "strawman" I take it that you disagree, which means that you believe doctors should be compensated for abortions. Which they are. And at a less rate than if they went into any other specialty. So what's your issue?

 

[Dr Grump]

you know, you people don't stop.

you want a doctor to carry out your political agenda now?

Why not, you have no problem insisting that they do yours.

It's called choice. You don't like abortions, don't have one....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Trust me on this one, if I ever need an abortion it will make the news everywhere.

 

[geauxtohell]

I notice you act like I did not even attempt to prove my assertions. Is this a new debate style?

Are you talking about your video? Frankly, I thought it was silly. Again, I don't give two damns about getting in the "baby" vs. "fetus" debate. I think they gave the woman bad information about the heartbeat, which starts at around four weeks. Other than that, I didn't really see anything that indicated the woman was given bad information.

The staff were operating under the assumption that this woman intended to get an abortion and was not an undercover reporter. It is correct that there are less complications with abortion the earlier you do it.

All this is aside the point: "education" and informed decisions do not require an ultrasound.

So again, how are Doctors lying to a patient? If this is going to turn into histrionics over "THEY DON'T CALL IT A BABY!!!!" then that's just an absurd.

Once again, the issue here isn't the ultrasound. Any woman can have one of those.

The issue is forcing a women to get an ultrasound.

So if you are in a position of doing an abortion, and the mother asks you whether her baby will feel it? Will it hurt? Will it suffer in any way?

What will you tell her?

That the best medical evidence suggests that a fetus can't perceive pain until around the third trimester.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/brownbag/brownbag0506/fetalpain.pdf


This is the disconnect I see a lot on this issue. As a potential future physician (god forbid), my obligation is to tell the truth, be it good, bad, ugly, convenient, or inconvenient. It hardly begins and ends with abortion. It's not a lot of fun to break the news to a family that their mother has a rare autosomal dominant completing debilitating condition and all of her children have a 50% chance of getting it too. People seem to think Doctors are into propaganda or hiding the truth from patients. That is simply not the case. Doctors aren't perfect, but they aren't trained to be politicians or propagandists. They are trained to give medical fact.

However, as for you directing the issue to me. I don't ever want to participate in an abortion. It would be a procedure I would opt out of as a medical student or a resident.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

But requiring someone to view an ultrasound does prevent the abortion provider from lying to the patient. If a doctors routinely lied to you about a procedure and its implications wouldn't you want some sort of safeguard in place to ensure they tell the truth? That is why I support government interference in this very narrow instance, it protects the patient and keeps them fully informed.

Planned Parenthood routinely lies to patients. Since they are in the business of providing abortions for money, despite your claims otherwise, why not regulate them to make sure they tell their customers the truth? You have no problem insisting the government regulate things when it supports your agenda, why insist that abortions not be regulated?

I have yet to see these lies you keep referencing.

The video you shows appears to be a botched conglomeration of different quotes. It talks about how PP wants to sell abortions earlier to make more money, and then in the next actual clip shows a doctor saying it would be more expensive for the patient if they wait. You do realize "more expensive" means "more money", right? You see how the doctor in that video was trying to help the patient avoid paying him more money unnecessarily, and reduce the risk at the same time, don't you? Or are you so silly as to believe removing a 6 week embryo holds the same risk as removing a 20 week fetus? Everything the doctor said here is 100% correct. Putting in an out of context line before it to make it appear as if he's pushing a hard sell instead of helping the patient is just low.

As another example, take the part about the time when the fetus's heart beats. Notice how the practitioner is talking in gestational age, and the quote they use to expose the "lie" references weeks after fertilization. They appear to have overlooked the fact that gestational age and weeks after fertilization differ from each other by a couple of weeks, and you were stupid enough to just buy their garbage. They basically just said "it's not 12 inches, it's one foot!", with minor wiggle room, and you believe PP to be lying.

Similarly, with regard to the use of fetus vs baby, the medical definition of "baby" per the American Medical Association's endorsed dictionary is "An infant; a newborn child". The medical definition of fetus is "1. The unborn young of a viviparous animal after it has taken form in the uterus. 2. In humans, the product of conception from the end of the eighth week to the moment of birth." They were exactly correct and stating precise medical definitions. I'm sorry, but your lay-person view on the topic does not give you the expertise or qualifications to set the cutoffs and definitions as you please.

So again I ask: where are these lies? One misleading video from one PP center is supposed to represent the field when no lies are actually exposed?

So if you are in a position of doing an abortion, and the mother asks you whether her baby will feel it? Will it hurt? Will it suffer in any way?

What will you tell her?

Doctors are required to state the truth, to the best of their knowledge per scientific research. Do you believe it to be any different in this particular topic?

When a doctor tells a patient that the fetus is completely undeveloped when he knows that their are organs, arms and legs, wouldn't you call that lying.

Sure. But you haven't shown that to be the case in the least.

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.

The strawberry ice cream was a hypothetical fact in the hypothetical setup. Here, I'll truncate the sentence to dumb down the grammar for you: "The strawberry ice cream is a completely independent hypothetical fact." You must be real desperate to get so caught up in twisting the meaning of a sentence on one word.