Scott Walker thinks doctors should lie to women to prevent abortions

[Vandalshandle]

The women have a constitutional right to an abortion

No, they don't. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Federal government has no say to make it legal or illegal. Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, pure legislation from the bench

For a law making body to allow no disclosure of non-viable and disabled fetuses in order to influence her to NOT get an abortion would be a state sanctioned circumvention of her right to make that decision with truthful and full disclosure by a medical professional. i have absolutely no doubt that it would never pass the Supreme Court if it had passed. It would be like the state allowing a poll worker to tell a hispanic citizen that he can not vote until he has been here 15 years.

None of that puts forcing doctors to disclose information in the Constitution, your preposterous claim.

Just do you know, Homey:

1) I'm pro choice
2) I think a doctor who doesn't disclose information they know to pregnant women are despicable and should never practice medicine again.

None of that means I want to make up shit and say it's in the Constitution

Kaz, your evil twin must be stopped, before he posts more!!

 

[Mertex]

What the rabid Right does not realize, and refuses to believe, even when we come right out and tell them, is that, by disrespecting and marginalizing women, and supporting candidates that do the same, they are throwing half of the electorate into the trash heap. It is like that never realized that women got the vote in 1920! So, shine on Scott Walker! Your check is in the mail!

OMG, You called Mrs. Palins daughter a whore. and how you all treated Mrs. Palin was some the most vile and nasty I have ever seen in my 60 years
So do not even sit here on some high horese and feed us all the crap

Steph, I don't spread lies about you. I am mostly amused with you. This is the fourth time that you have repeated the lie that I called Palin's kid a whore, and I'm getting pretty damned tired of it. If you want to start playing hard ball with me, just do it one more time.

Ask her to quote your post.......bet she won't because she knows it is not true....she likes to lie like that.

 

[Mertex]

Kaz: "It's amazing how Obama caused a recovery with the same policies that W used to get us into the recession"

Amazing.....must be magic. Bush's policies cause the country to collapse, but you claim that Obama using the same policies was able to restore the economy? Sounds more like delusional wish-ful thinking in order to redeem George W. Bush as the worst president we've ever had.



Nearly 60 percent of the historians and political scientists in a 2006 Siena College survey rated Bush's presidency a failure and two-thirds said he did not have a realistic chance of improving his standing.

A 2010 Siena ranking of presidential scholars rated Bush as one of the nation's five worst presidents. A similar 2009 C-SPAN ranking put Bush in the bottom eight.

It is certainly possible that years of reflection and a reinterpretation of his presidency could end up putting Bush in a more positive light, but there's no avoiding the reality that his decision to go to war in Iraq and policies of fiscal recklessness led to huge problems for the country.
Was George W. Bush the worst president ever

 

[kaz]

The women have a constitutional right to an abortion

No, they don't. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Federal government has no say to make it legal or illegal. Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, pure legislation from the bench

For a law making body to allow no disclosure of non-viable and disabled fetuses in order to influence her to NOT get an abortion would be a state sanctioned circumvention of her right to make that decision with truthful and full disclosure by a medical professional. i have absolutely no doubt that it would never pass the Supreme Court if it had passed. It would be like the state allowing a poll worker to tell a hispanic citizen that he can not vote until he has been here 15 years.

None of that puts forcing doctors to disclose information in the Constitution, your preposterous claim.

Just do you know, Homey:

1) I'm pro choice
2) I think a doctor who doesn't disclose information they know to pregnant women are despicable and should never practice medicine again.

None of that means I want to make up shit and say it's in the Constitution

Kaz, your evil twin must be stopped, before he posts more!!

So you actually think to say that the Federal government has no say is the same as saying abortion is unconstitutional? You are not a bright guy

 

[kaz]

Kaz: "It's amazing how Obama caused a recovery with the same policies that W used to get us into the recession"

Amazing.....must be magic. Bush's policies cause the country to collapse, but you claim that Obama using the same policies was able to restore the economy? Sounds more like delusional wish-ful thinking in order to redeem George W. Bush as the worst president we've ever had.



Nearly 60 percent of the historians and political scientists in a 2006 Siena College survey rated Bush's presidency a failure and two-thirds said he did not have a realistic chance of improving his standing.

A 2010 Siena ranking of presidential scholars rated Bush as one of the nation's five worst presidents. A similar 2009 C-SPAN ranking put Bush in the bottom eight.

It is certainly possible that years of reflection and a reinterpretation of his presidency could end up putting Bush in a more positive light, but there's no avoiding the reality that his decision to go to war in Iraq and policies of fiscal recklessness led to huge problems for the country.
Was George W. Bush the worst president ever

So you can't say what policies Obama had that were different from W either, huh?

 

[Clementine]

Your ideas indicate some kind of sickness: is it of the soul and spirit or a simple mental illness? Your comments also indicate a great deal of stupidity and the inability to think logically.

I say this because you are making all kinds of exaggerated, hyperbolic claims that are counter to any kind of rational, logical thinking. Who tells you to think in such terms? Or do you come up with this nonsense on your own?

Logical fallacies in your post: straw man, appeal to motive, appeal to spite, appeal to fear, appeal to consequences, abusive fallacy, inductive fallacy, and psychologist's fallacy (an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event).

You are in no way objective about this. Hysterical, perhaps, but not objective.

No, it's liberals like you that are sick.

The wording of the bill, which passed in many other states, said nothing about doctors lying to their patients, but you guys imagine the wildest things and throw accusations out there without being able to back them up.

 

[Clementine]

Over a million black babies are aborted every year in this country. We know the left is adamant about keeping the black population low and I know you guy will stay on tops of things to ensure that blacks never become the majority.

I know that logic is a foreign concept to dimwits like you....and since you think that lefties are devious and manipulative, does the above make ANY sense?

Since blacks tend to vote the progressive ticket, would it not make MORE sense to have millions more black babies born?

You're entitled to be an idiot....but at the very least keep your stupidity statements in some "consistency."

And yet, over a million black babies are aborted each year and the left constantly looks for more ways to encourage and fund abortions.

 

[nat4900]

kaz said:
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Federal government has no say to make it legal or illegal. Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, pure legislation from the bench

Actually, the Roe v. Wade decision is a CLARIFICATION of a human right not to be denied to women.

 

[Clementine]

I think that's the same poster who told me once that Bush was able to successfully run a war for 8 years...and it was a huge success!

Speaking of abortions, that reminds me...I never followed up on the story of how G. W. Bush got to meet his baby brother "fetus" that Barbara had stored in a jar. Do you have any details on that bizarre story? I won't be purchasing his book to find out.

That also reminds me of the weird fetus story with Rick Santorum and his wife. Republican's sure seem to be weird with their fetuses.

Your memory is off. So is your logic.

 

[kaz]

kaz said:
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Federal government has no say to make it legal or illegal. Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, pure legislation from the bench

Actually, the Roe v. Wade decision is a CLARIFICATION of a human right not to be denied to women.

No, "clarification" doesn't mean to make something up

 

[nat4900]

kaz said:
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Federal government has no say to make it legal or illegal. Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, pure legislation from the bench

Actually, the Roe v. Wade decision is a CLARIFICATION of a human right not to be denied to women.

No, "clarification" doesn't mean to make something up

Fine. KAZ...try to have it both ways.....(such as, "I respect the SC's decision on Citizen United, but I hate them when it cam to Roe V. Wade......am I being hypocritical? Sure, after all I'm a right winger.)

 

[kaz]

kaz said:
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Federal government has no say to make it legal or illegal. Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, pure legislation from the bench

Actually, the Roe v. Wade decision is a CLARIFICATION of a human right not to be denied to women.

No, "clarification" doesn't mean to make something up

Fine. KAZ...try to have it both ways.....(such as, "I respect the SC's decision on Citizen United, but I hate them when it cam to Roe V. Wade......am I being hypocritical? Sure, after all I'm a right winger.)

Strawman, I haven't posted any position on Citizens United. If you want to know my view, ask me, don't make it up. You know, like the Supreme Court made up that abortion was addressed in the Constitution

And neither of us is a right winger, so I don't know what you're talking about there. If you want to argue with W though, I suggest you find one. They are all over the board. Even you can do it

 

[bendog]

Women have a constitutional right to abortions (not unlimited) and the law allowing a doc to lie would not offend the constitution, though it would offend common sense, medical ethics, and human decency.

Now can we get back to really stupid things Scott Walker does?

 

[nat4900]

kaz said:
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Federal government has no say to make it legal or illegal. Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, pure legislation from the bench

Actually, the Roe v. Wade decision is a CLARIFICATION of a human right not to be denied to women.

No, "clarification" doesn't mean to make something up

NO, it is indeed clarification since it took many other SC decisions to rectify and CLARIFY that cute little phrase in our Constitution that "all men are created equal."

 

[Vandalshandle]

Anything that the Supreme Court determines to be constitutional, is, by definition, constitutional.

You can take that to the bank...and to law school.

 

[kaz]

kaz said:
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Federal government has no say to make it legal or illegal. Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, pure legislation from the bench

Actually, the Roe v. Wade decision is a CLARIFICATION of a human right not to be denied to women.

No, "clarification" doesn't mean to make something up

NO, it is indeed clarification since it took many other SC decisions to rectify and CLARIFY that cute little phrase in our Constitution that "all men are created equal."

What does that have to do with abortion?

 

[kaz]

Anything that the Supreme Court determines to be constitutional, is, by definition, constitutional.

You can take that to the bank...and to law school.

Our rights come from government? That's sick.

And actually, "by definition" Constitutional rights were assigned by the People, not the SCOTUS. Do you know what the first three words of the Constitution are?

 

[kaz]

Women have a constitutional right to abortions (not unlimited)

And the Constitution says that ... where? ...

 

[nat4900]

I'm getting dizzy with all the spinning......Kaz, have it your way...Eliminate the Supreme Court and have all existing and new laws be voted on referenda.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can take that to the bank...and to law school.

Funny how people only approve of what the SC finds constitutional when it rules in their favor. As pro choice as you are, you should be appalled with Obamacare. It doesn't give patients much of a choice in what doctors they see. It mandates that religiously affiliated organizations must provide abortion coverage against their religious conscience. You're about choice, but don't mind begrudging others of theirs.

If you drone on about what's constitutional, you should be content with the whole constitution, not just parts of it.

What Roe v. Wade doesn't do is consider basic human biology and embryology. It confines abortion to a woman's choice and doesn't consider the fact that the embryo is a life, it tries to blur the lines of a scientific fact, or what point of human development is considered life. What the SCOTUS can't do is dictate scientific fact.

I dabble into the sciences that involve human biology every now and then, and the fact (there's that word again) that a fetus is a human being is irrefutable, like such:

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."

T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

Just three years after Roe was decided, there were texts making it clear that the embryo inside a woman is a human being, the beginning of a new life:

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

This one is from 1974:

"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops."

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

This from 1975:

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

Even then, there was a consensus. Life began at conception. What Roe v. Wade did was essentially ignore science and give way to wanton slaughter of unborn children.

In 1981, a group of medical experts submitted testimony to a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers) stating these facts:

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania


"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes


"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic


"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School

The Senate report came to this conclusion:

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

-Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7

The testimony given to the subcommittee came without any rebuttal from the pro-abortion advocates, which clearly revealed the destruction of their premise.

Even then, the defenders of abortion acknowledged the irrefutability of the fact that life begins at conception:

" Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus from conception onward on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus, after all, is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development."

-David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 20

So, why shouldn't doctors lie about it, as Scott Walker contends? If it is for the sake of an unborn human being, why not? Lying may be wrong, and it is wrong, but so is murder.