[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Neutraligon]

Abortion when done through surgery faces the same complications that any surgery faces, there is nothing really special about it.

it has special complications due to the fact that it involves the reproductive system but sure. would you argue that, say, a surgeon should offer another random surgery, like an appendectomy, without even consulting the patient and their doctor on why it's necessary, given the potential side effects?

...No I would not recommend random performing of surgery, especially if that surgery is against the will of the woman, but then a patient saying they no longer wish to be pregnant is not a random performing of surgery. More then that doctors do tell women having an abortion the possible risks and complication both when having an in clinic abortion and when using an abortion pill. They also tell these women what to look out for in case of the rare serious complication that can arise...just like any other medical procedure or medicine. The reason why a woman is having an abortion, aside from the pregnancy itself being dangerous to the mother, does not have any effect on the risks of abortion itself.

[Cekovia]

it has special complications due to the fact that it involves the reproductive system but sure. would you argue that, say, a surgeon should offer another random surgery, like an appendectomy, without even consulting the patient and their doctor on why it's necessary, given the potential side effects?

...No I would not recommend random performing of surgery, especially if that surgery is against the will of the woman, but then a patient saying they no longer wish to be pregnant is not a random performing of surgery.

holy shit how are you this bad at parsing English text? this is a level of reading comprehension i would expect from a 3rd grader, not an adult.

More then that doctors do tell women having an abortion the possible risks and complication both when having an in clinic abortion and when using an abortion pill. They also tell these women what to look out for in case of the rare serious complication that can arise...just like any other medical procedure or medicine. The reason why a woman is having an abortion, aside from the pregnancy itself being dangerous to the mother, does not have any effect on the risks of abortion itself.

it does not necessarily have an effect on the risks of abortion, but it does have an effect on whether that abortion would be medically ethical to perform.

[Cekovia]

can you guys please read the textof the hippocratic oath before engaging further please

[Necroghastia]

Abortion when done through surgery faces the same complications that any surgery faces, there is nothing really special about it.

it has special complications due to the fact that it involves the reproductive system but sure.

This means literally nothing. Probably less than nothing. You could say this about any surgery involving any organ system, just fill in the appropriate blank.

would you argue that, say, a surgeon should offer another random surgery, like an appendectomy, without even consulting the patient and their doctor on why it's necessary, given the potential side effects?

How is that equivalent at all to an abortion? I feel like it'd be pretty obvious to the patient why an abortion would be necessary, and it likely would also be obvious if a patient was seeking an appendectomy.

You're talking nonsense.

[Necroghastia]

can you guys please read the textof the hippocratic oath before engaging further please

why is the hippocratic oath relevant

[The New California Republic]

can you guys please read the textof the hippocratic oath before engaging further please

why is the hippocratic oath relevant

I'm assuming because the original Classical version (not the modern version it absolutely must be noted, so its relevance to practicing modern medicine is very dubious) says the following:

[...] I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion [...]

Since the modern versions that the overwhelming majority of Doctors use do not have this line, holding it up as if it is some kind of ultimate inviolable guarantor that Doctors should not/will not carry out abortions is ridiculous.

[Kowani]

West Virginia senate panel amends abortion bill to protect doctors…who try to reverse abortions???

The West Virginia Senate Health Committee on Thursday amended the bill pertaining to medication abortion to provide protections to doctors who assist women in the mandated, but scientifically untested, procedure of stopping an abortion.

House Bill 2982, or the Second Chance at Life Act, requires a patient undergoing a medication-induced, or “chemical,” abortion to be informed that it may be possible to counteract the effects of the procedure after taking the first of the two drugs in the recommended regimen. The state Department of Health and Human Resources will have to post information about stopping a medication-induced abortion.

The committee adopted amendments from Sen. Tom Takubo, (R), a physician. The first protects physicians who prescribe a procedure that is not approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration. The second removed language added by the House on the floor, requiring women be told the father is responsible for 50% of child-rearing costs from the time of conception. The legislation in its original form referred to the medically unproven process of using progesterone to “reverse” the abortion.

HB 2982 does not reference the “reversal” process specifically, but Takubo’s amendment would protect physicians who attempt the process with a patient.

A medication-induced abortion involves two pills: first, mifepristone, which blocks the hormone progesterone and prevents further growth of the embryo, and then misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract and expel the embryo. The reversal theory involves using a high dose of progesterone to support pregnancy after taking mifepristone. The only study attempted at gauging the efficacy of the so-called reversal procedure of using progesterone was suspended by the review board. After enrolling 12 of 40 patients for the study, three had hemorrhaging that placed them in the hospital. One had received progesterone and the other two only the placebo. The study was stopped after the third hemorrhage as it was deemed unethical to continue. The board determined it was unethical to continue the study.

HB 2982 now goes to the Judiciary Committee.

[Neutraligon]

...No I would not recommend random performing of surgery, especially if that surgery is against the will of the woman, but then a patient saying they no longer wish to be pregnant is not a random performing of surgery.

holy shit how are you this bad at parsing English text? this is a level of reading comprehension i would expect from a 3rd grader, not an adult.

More then that doctors do tell women having an abortion the possible risks and complication both when having an in clinic abortion and when using an abortion pill. They also tell these women what to look out for in case of the rare serious complication that can arise...just like any other medical procedure or medicine. The reason why a woman is having an abortion, aside from the pregnancy itself being dangerous to the mother, does not have any effect on the risks of abortion itself.

it does not necessarily have an effect on the risks of abortion, but it does have an effect on whether that abortion would be medically ethical to perform.

Ignoring the flaming for the first part. For the second, I disagree, the reason a woman ants an abortion does not effect the medical ethics.

[Necroghastia]

why is the hippocratic oath relevant

I'm assuming because the original Classical version (not the modern version it absolutely must be noted, so its relevance to practicing modern medicine is very dubious) says the following:

[...] I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion [...]

Since the modern versions that the overwhelming majority of Doctors use do not have this line, holding it up as if it is some kind of ultimate inviolable guarantor that Doctors should not/will not carry out abortions is ridiculous.

Exactly my point. Virtually no doctor today uses the ancient Greek version, and if Cek goes to the "logical" conclusion and argues that that version should be the version, well, I suppose we should also require all doctors to practice Hellenism, no?

[Cekovia]

why is the hippocratic oath relevant

I'm assuming because the original Classical version (not the modern version it absolutely must be noted, so its relevance to practicing modern medicine is very dubious) says the following:

[...] I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion [...]

Since the modern versions that the overwhelming majority of Doctors use do not have this line, holding it up as if it is some kind of ultimate inviolable guarantor that Doctors should not/will not carry out abortions is ridiculous.

that's an absurd assumption ; i would have thought that to the 'logicians' of NSG , this simple deduction would be easier, but since apparently that was presumptuous of me, here is a common modern version which is directly contrary to the callous disregard for human life which you all want doctors to display. i've bolded parts for particular emphasis.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

although this particular edition lacks the classic first do no harm clause, that is one which i have explicitly invoked here and is commonly followed by many doctors even though it's slightly more antiquated.

[Cekovia]

it has special complications due to the fact that it involves the reproductive system but sure.

This means literally nothing. Probably less than nothing. You could say this about any surgery involving any organ system, just fill in the appropriate blank.

How is that equivalent at all to an abortion? I feel like it'd be pretty obvious to the patient why an abortion would be necessary, and it likely would also be obvious if a patient was seeking an appendectomy.

You're talking nonsense.

i could well decide i want to avoid the potential of worrying about appendicitis in the future because i am a hypochondriac; this isn't a valid reason for removing a functional organ (which i realize might be news to some people so that might not be the best example, but it is now thought that the appendix does serve a purpose). someone with bodily integrity identity disorder might decide they want their arm cut off, but it wouldn't be ethical or appropriate for a surgeon to perform that procedure. and a pregnant woman might decide she has changed her mind about wanting a baby even though her pregnancy is progressing normally and she initially decided to have one. this isn't a valid reason for taking a human life.

a surgeon needs to know the rationale to decide whether it will be appropriate and ethical to perform a medical procedure. this should not be controversial.

[Necroghastia]

I'm assuming because the original Classical version (not the modern version it absolutely must be noted, so its relevance to practicing modern medicine is very dubious) says the following:

[...] I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion [...]

Since the modern versions that the overwhelming majority of Doctors use do not have this line, holding it up as if it is some kind of ultimate inviolable guarantor that Doctors should not/will not carry out abortions is ridiculous.

that's an absurd assumption ; i would have thought that to the 'logicians' of NSG , this simple deduction would be easier, but since apparently that was presumptuous of me, here is a common modern version which is directly contrary to the callous disregard for human life which you all want doctors to display. i've bolded parts for particular emphasis.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

yeah all those bolded parts are integral to a pro-choice mindset and antithetical to yours
perhaps try to do some critical thinking yourself before you go galloping away on your high horse

[The New California Republic]

I'm assuming because the original Classical version (not the modern version it absolutely must be noted, so its relevance to practicing modern medicine is very dubious) says the following:

[...] I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion [...]

Since the modern versions that the overwhelming majority of Doctors use do not have this line, holding it up as if it is some kind of ultimate inviolable guarantor that Doctors should not/will not carry out abortions is ridiculous.

that's an absurd assumption ; i would have thought that to the 'logicians' of NSG , this simple deduction would be easier, but since apparently that was presumptuous of me, here is a common modern version which is directly contrary to the callous disregard for human life which you all want doctors to display. i've bolded parts for particular emphasis.

Oh please just lay off with that shit Cekoviu. All you said in the first post was "can you guys please read the textof the hippocratic oath before engaging further please", nowhere in that does it infer what in particular you are getting at, so don't try to act in this snarky manner as if it was blatantly obvious what you were driving at.

although this particular edition lacks the classic first do no harm clause, that is one which i have explicitly invoked here and is commonly followed by many doctors even though it's slightly more antiquated.

Where exactly is the prohibition of providing abortions in that oath? The bolded does not prohibit them.

[Cekovia]

i could well decide i want to avoid the potential of worrying about appendicitis in the future because i am a hypochondriac; this isn't a valid reason for removing a functional organ (which i realize might be news to some people so that might not be the best example, but it is now thought that the appendix does serve a purpose). someone with bodily integrity identity disorder might decide they want their arm cut off, but it wouldn't be ethical or appropriate for a surgeon to perform that procedure. and a pregnant woman might decide she has changed her mind about wanting a baby even though her pregnancy is progressing normally and she initially decided to have one. this isn't a valid reason for taking a human life.

a surgeon needs to know the rationale to decide whether it will be appropriate and ethical to perform a medical procedure. this should not be controversial.

Meaninglessly chopping off an arm is meaningless, as it says.
"Changing your mind" isn't specific enough here, but let's say it was a completely arbitrary decision. It's not smart, but the woman has a right to do so. She has made her decision of what to do with her civil liberties. Why are we assuming what the unborn baby wants and prioritizing its rights above the mother's?

the right of one human being to LIVE outweighs another's to be comfortable . they are NOT in ANY way equivalent.
if im a neo-Nazi and i see a disabled jew on the bus, i become uncomfortable. i do not then have the right to murder him, do i???

[Cekovia]

that's an absurd assumption ; i would have thought that to the 'logicians' of NSG , this simple deduction would be easier, but since apparently that was presumptuous of me, here is a common modern version which is directly contrary to the callous disregard for human life which you all want doctors to display. i've bolded parts for particular emphasis.

Oh please just lay off with that shit Cekoviu. All you said in the first post was "can you guys please read the textof the hippocratic oath before engaging further please", nowhere in that does it infer what in particular you are getting at, so don't try to act in this snarky manner as if it was blatantly obvious what you were driving at.

had you read up the quote chain instead of immediately making assumptions about my argument, you would see exactly the ethical basis from which i am discussing medicine - of course, it's my mistake for expecting you to engage in any sort of high-level thinking or read backwards from the very first post you saw, i've seen you "debate" here far too many times to expect that.

although this particular edition lacks the classic first do no harm clause, that is one which i have explicitly invoked here and is commonly followed by many doctors even though it's slightly more antiquated.

Where exactly is the prohibition of providing abortions in that oath? The bolded does not prohibit them.

use some of those famous NSG deduction skills , maybe ? i think it's pretty fucking obvious how those statements can be extrapolated to mean don't ruthlessly kill unborn babies without even having a reason provided to do so

[The New California Republic]

Oh please just lay off with that shit Cekoviu. All you said in the first post was "can you guys please read the textof the hippocratic oath before engaging further please", nowhere in that does it infer what in particular you are getting at, so don't try to act in this snarky manner as if it was blatantly obvious what you were driving at.

had you read up the quote chain instead of immediately making assumptions about my argument, you would see exactly the ethical basis from which i am discussing medicine - of course, it's my mistake for expecting you to engage in any sort of high-level thinking or read backwards from the very first post you saw, i've seen you "debate" here far too many times to expect that.

I did read it, but given that you never mentioned which version you were talking about, nor the exact context in which you were applying any relevant sections, it was up to interpretation in regards to what you meant.

And clearly my request for you to quit that pointless and petty snark did nothing. Alas. But alright, back on the foe list you go if you aren't going to debate without resorting to this kind of shit.

[Cekovia]

the right of one human being to LIVE outweighs another's to be comfortable . they are NOT in ANY way equivalent.
if im a neo-Nazi and i see a disabled jew on the bus, i become uncomfortable. i do not then have the right to murder him, do i???

Wtf is that analogy?
Discussing this scenario further, we need more specifics. If the mother is barely pregnant, abortion is very justified, as all we have is a fertilized egg. The case for Pro-Life gets stronger the later into the pregnancy, as the baby becomes, well, a baby. Now, if one human being's right to live is the greatest right of all, then we could talk about how important the abortion is to the mother's life. I know we already established it was "arbitrary" for this scenario, and you may support life-saving abortions, but I figured I should add that just in case.

i do support life-saving abortions as if we have to literally weigh life against life, the more sentient life is worth more.

Edit: What did the abortion have to with just (and JUST) "being comfortable"?

that's what it'd have to be for in this specific scenario

But alright, back on the foe list you go if you aren't going to debate without resorting to this kind of shit.

PLEASE. i would like nothing more than for you to leave me alone

[Punished UMN]

i could well decide i want to avoid the potential of worrying about appendicitis in the future because i am a hypochondriac; this isn't a valid reason for removing a functional organ (which i realize might be news to some people so that might not be the best example, but it is now thought that the appendix does serve a purpose). someone with bodily integrity identity disorder might decide they want their arm cut off, but it wouldn't be ethical or appropriate for a surgeon to perform that procedure. and a pregnant woman might decide she has changed her mind about wanting a baby even though her pregnancy is progressing normally and she initially decided to have one. this isn't a valid reason for taking a human life.

a surgeon needs to know the rationale to decide whether it will be appropriate and ethical to perform a medical procedure. this should not be controversial.

Meaninglessly chopping off an arm is meaningless, as it says.
"Changing your mind" isn't specific enough here, but let's say it was a completely arbitrary decision. It's not smart, but the woman has a right to do so. She has made her decision of what to do with her civil liberties. Why are we assuming what the unborn baby wants and prioritizing its rights above the mother's?

Even if there is a "civil right" to an abortion, there is not a civil right to make a doctor perform one unconditionally.

[Godular]

Meaninglessly chopping off an arm is meaningless, as it says.
"Changing your mind" isn't specific enough here, but let's say it was a completely arbitrary decision. It's not smart, but the woman has a right to do so. She has made her decision of what to do with her civil liberties. Why are we assuming what the unborn baby wants and prioritizing its rights above the mother's?

Even if there is a "civil right" to an abortion, there is not a civil right to make a doctor perform one unconditionally.

It isn't 'unconditionally'. Doctors are not being forced to conduct abortions.

[Cekovia]

Even if there is a "civil right" to an abortion, there is not a civil right to make a doctor perform one unconditionally.

It isn't 'unconditionally'. Doctors are not being forced to conduct abortions.

people in this thread are arguing that they should be. hence the conversation we r having

[Godular]

It isn't 'unconditionally'. Doctors are not being forced to conduct abortions.

people in this thread are arguing that they should be. hence the conversation we r having

That seems to be a misrepresentation, though mayhap it happened before I popped back into this thread. I was under the impression folks were saying that doctors should be able to refuse to carry out an abortion if they did not agree with the reason. I then pointed out that the reason is not particularly relevant, and the doctors that DO carry out abortions do so willingly, with or without knowing what those reasons are.

[Genivaria]

Meaninglessly chopping off an arm is meaningless, as it says.
"Changing your mind" isn't specific enough here, but let's say it was a completely arbitrary decision. It's not smart, but the woman has a right to do so. She has made her decision of what to do with her civil liberties. Why are we assuming what the unborn baby wants and prioritizing its rights above the mother's?

the right of one human being to LIVE outweighs another's to be comfortable . they are NOT in ANY way equivalent.
if im a neo-Nazi and i see a disabled jew on the bus, i become uncomfortable. i do not then have the right to murder him, do i???

Ah I see we're going straight to nazi comparisons, classy.
And being forced to risk your life and health cannot simply be dismissed as 'discomfort', so trying to equate that to 'seeing a jew on a bus' is simply very, very stupid.

[Punished UMN]

people in this thread are arguing that they should be. hence the conversation we r having

That seems to be a misrepresentation, though mayhap it happened before I popped back into this thread. I was under the impression folks were saying that doctors should be able to refuse to carry out an abortion if they did not agree with the reason. I then pointed out that the reason is not particularly relevant, and the doctors that DO carry out abortions do so willingly, with or without knowing what those reasons are.

Making it illegal for doctors to ask the reason for a procedure would seem to have that goal.

[Godular]

That seems to be a misrepresentation, though mayhap it happened before I popped back into this thread. I was under the impression folks were saying that doctors should be able to refuse to carry out an abortion if they did not agree with the reason. I then pointed out that the reason is not particularly relevant, and the doctors that DO carry out abortions do so willingly, with or without knowing what those reasons are.

Making it illegal for doctors to ask the reason for a procedure would seem to have that goal.

Ask a reason? Totally fine.

Make providing the procedure contingent upon receipt of a 'satisfactory' answer? Fuck that noise.

[Punished UMN]

Making it illegal for doctors to ask the reason for a procedure would seem to have that goal.

Ask a reason? Totally fine.

Make providing the procedure contingent upon receipt of a 'satisfactory' answer? Fuck that noise.

For elective procedures, that should be the doctor's right.