So when they say they want abortion safe, legal, and rare...

[Contumacious]

Yes, we know, the left believes that women have the right to unsafe abortions performed by barely-trained people.

All you care about is quantity, not quality.

And you came to the conclusion that nurse practitioners and physician assistants are "barely trained" how?


.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Note how the concern is about making it easier to have abortions, not about how this might not be safe for the women?

One wonders how one can be so concerned for the as yet unliving while not giving a damn about the already alive.

Why if one were cynical one might suspect that all this anti-choice bruhaha about the sanctity of life is just so much ncontrol freaking BS.

These people do not care about live so much as they care about controlling other's lives.

All throughout this thread I've made my concern for the lives and health of women quite clear.

So you can stop lying now.

Dave, at no point have I believed otherwise about you. What I don't understand is why you object to having the best possible contraception available to all women which will have the twofold benefit of massively reducing abortions and reducing the risk to their lives because of unwanted pregnancies. That is a win-win. Surely the meager additional cost cannot outweigh the benefits when you look at it logically and rationally.

Your consistent position in this thread has been about the health and safety of women, right? So if you manage to ban all legal abortions you won't stop them from happening. You will merely make them illegal and unsafe instead. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish in this thread?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because daveman will politicize women and unborn for nefarious purposes.

He will quarrel even if the law limited abortion to only life, health, incest, and rape cases.

 

[kaz]

I choose to oppose the practice.

And you have the right to not get one. Just like yYou don't have the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I choose to oppose the practice.

And you have the right to not get one. Just like yYou don't have the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

That is not absolute barrier, Kaz, as you well know.

But, in general concept, I agree.

 

[Borillar]

Uh huh. And Maoists, Marxists, Leninists, progressives, liberals, and left-leaning moderates are all the same.

Right?

No. Maoists, Marxists, and Leninists vote Communist party. Progressives, liberals, and left leaning moderates vote Democratic party. That would be like me lumping Fascists, Nazis, and the KKK with the Republicans.

Isn't that what liberals do anyway?

Though liberal policies and ideas follow fascism , nazism and the principles of the KKK, conservative ideas are mostly akin to liberty and freedom.

Oh yeah, Liberals, who fought for equal rights for women and minorities clearly follow the principles of the KKK. Minimum wage, social security, medicare, and the 40 hour work week are clearly Nazi ideas.

Conservative ideas are mostly akin to liberty and freedom? Really? Then why do you want to take away a women's freedom to choose? For people who are supposedly for freedom and liberty, conservatives sure seem more than willing to take it away from others.

 

[Borillar]

Yes, we know, the left believes that women have the right to unsafe abortions performed by barely-trained people.

All you care about is quantity, not quality.

We care about availability.

I mean, yeah, you can make abortion as complicated as brain surgery and no one can afford it...

there's just not any good medical reason to do so.

A nurse is perfectly capable of performing an abortion. She's gone to school for 6 years to get her degree and she's a trained professional.

So you don't want abortion rare. Got it.

And you don't want any abortions for any reason. Got it.

 

[daveman]

Note how the concern is about making it easier to have abortions, not about how this might not be safe for the women?

One wonders how one can be so concerned for the as yet unliving while not giving a damn about the already alive.

Why if one were cynical one might suspect that all this anti-choice bruhaha about the sanctity of life is just so much ncontrol freaking BS.

These people do not care about live so much as they care about controlling other's lives.

All throughout this thread I've made my concern for the lives and health of women quite clear.

So you can stop lying now.

It's more dangerous to have to drive an extra couple hundred miles to get to an abortion provider than it is to have one's uterus vacuumed by a trained professional physician's assistant instead of a doctor.

It's even less dangerous to not get pregnant if you don't want children.

Of course, it seems like some people think only contraception paid for by other people works.

 

[daveman]

Nonsense.

No one is opposed to reasonable restrictions after viability.

President Obama is.

President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat of a bill the House of Representatives will vote on tomorrow that would ban abortions from after 20-weeks* all the way to birth.

The White House this afternoon issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating President Obama’s advisors would recommend that he veto the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act if it were presented for his signature. The SAP containing a veto threat is standard for occasions when the president will almost certainly veto legislation pending in Congress.​

If there is no exception for life and health then it is an unreasonable restriction.

Immaterial. Jones claimed that "No one is opposed to reasonable restrictions after viability".

I proved him wrong, using the President of the United States.

 

[daveman]

Yes, we know, the left believes that women have the right to unsafe abortions performed by barely-trained people.

All you care about is quantity, not quality.

And you came to the conclusion that nurse practitioners and physician assistants are "barely trained" how?


.

Read the OP. Healthcare professionals have concerns.

 

[daveman]

Note how the concern is about making it easier to have abortions, not about how this might not be safe for the women?

One wonders how one can be so concerned for the as yet unliving while not giving a damn about the already alive.

Why if one were cynical one might suspect that all this anti-choice bruhaha about the sanctity of life is just so much ncontrol freaking BS.

These people do not care about live so much as they care about controlling other's lives.

All throughout this thread I've made my concern for the lives and health of women quite clear.

So you can stop lying now.

Dave, at no point have I believed otherwise about you. What I don't understand is why you object to having the best possible contraception available to all women which will have the twofold benefit of massively reducing abortions and reducing the risk to their lives because of unwanted pregnancies. That is a win-win. Surely the meager additional cost cannot outweigh the benefits when you look at h t logically and rationally.

What I oppose is the sense of entitlement to free birth control.

It's cheap. If you can't afford it and don't want children -- don't have sex.

Personal responsibility. That kind of thing.

Your consistent position in this thread has been about the health and safety of women, right? So if you manage to ban all legal abortions you won't stop them from happening. You will merely make them illegal and unsafe instead. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish in this thread?

I have never called for an outright ban of abortion. I accept abortion where the mother's life is at stake.

I would prefer the matter be given to each state to decide the legality, in accordance with the Constitution.

Think of all the money blue states would get from abortion tourism.

 

[daveman]

Because daveman will politicize women and unborn for nefarious purposes.

He will quarrel even if the law limited abortion to only life, health, incest, and rape cases.

Oh, do shut up, you little twit.

 

[mamooth]

Vacuum aspirations performed by non-doctors, such as physician's assistants, are well established as a safe medical practice.

I await seeing the pro-lifers act consistently by raging about how midwife-attended births should never be allowed. After all, those Certified Midwives aren't doctors, so the practice must be completely unsafe, right? Especially since any childbirth is way, way riskier than early-term abortion.

Yes, it's yet another brazen double standard from the pro-lifers. And no one is surprised. Abortion is the sole medical procedure that they want solely in the hands of doctors, the sole outpatient surgery that they want impossible standards applied to. They hold those double standards solely to make abortions harder to get, and then they lie about their motivation for those double standards.

 

[daveman]

We care about availability.

I mean, yeah, you can make abortion as complicated as brain surgery and no one can afford it...

there's just not any good medical reason to do so.

A nurse is perfectly capable of performing an abortion. She's gone to school for 6 years to get her degree and she's a trained professional.

So you don't want abortion rare. Got it.

And you don't want any abortions for any reason. Got it.

"I accept abortion where the mother's life is at stake."

Gee -- who wrote that?

 

[daveman]

Vacuum aspirations performed by non-doctors, such as physician's assistants, are well established as a safe medical practice.

I await seeing the pro-lifers act consistently by raging about how midwife-attended births should never be allowed. After all, those certified midwives aren't doctors, so the practice must be completely unsafe, right? Especially since any childbirth is way, way riskier than early-term abortion.

Yes, it's yet another brazen double standard from the pro-lifers. And no one is surprised. Abortion is the sole medical procedure that they want solely in the hands of doctors, the sole outpatient surgery that they want impossible standards applied to. They hold those double standards solely to make abortions harder to get, and then they lie about their motivation for those double standards.

Perhaps you shouldn't project your character flaws on others.

 

[mamooth]

Dave, I notice you don't want to say whether you want midwife-attended births banned. Could you tell us? You know, show everyone that you actually don't hold the double standard you appear to hold.

You might also declare whether you demand the same safety regulations of dentistry that you demand for abortion. After all, oral surgery is also more dangerous than an early-term abortion. To be consistent, a person should demand exactly the same safety regulations for all outpatient procedures. Are you consistent?

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman is simply playing politics.

Ask him if he suggests midwife NPAs for birthing.

 

[Contumacious]

Read the OP. Healthcare professionals have concerns.

Yes, of course they do...the same concerns they have had for years......ECONOMIC.

.Why family physicians are a threat to themselves

Paul D. Simmons, MD | Physician | August 8, 2013

In recent months, AAFP President Reid Blackwelder has been editorializing and debating what they see as the encroachment of nurse practitioners (NPs) and other “mid-level providers” (physicians are, presumably, “upper-level&#8221 on the practice territory of family physicians (FPs). Dr. Blackwelder has repeatedly said that NP and physician roles are “not interchangeable.” The AAFP’s position on this issue seems to be resistance to the increasingly common decisions by state legislatures to free NPs of physician oversight. Dr. Blackwelder and the AAFP are misallocating their energies and resources – NPs are not a threat to family physicians. We are a threat to ourselves."

.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Lets say some superficial ***** aborts my unborn child without my consent, ultimately she is worried that a pregnancy will ruin her figure, and this is the reason for the abortion.
Would I have the right to legally obtain a fire arm? ( against my current beliefs )
And use that legally obtained fire arm to abort that superficial ***** from this Universe?

 

[Contumacious]

Lets say some superficial ***** aborts my unborn child without my consent, ultimately she is worried that a pregnancy will ruin her figure, and this is the reason for the abortion.
Would I have the right to legally obtain a fire arm? ( against my current beliefs )
And use that legally obtained fire arm to abort that superficial ***** from this Universe?

Why don't you marry someone like her? Then we will have one less religious nut in the universe.

.