[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[Fahran]

Here’s something. Can foetuses speak? Can they feel things? Can they decide?
You are the same set of people who say people shouldn’t be allowed to transition under 18. Frankly, these are under 18? The power of attorney is the mother’s. Therefore, it’s the woman’s choice what to do. And I do not care whether “it is morally right” for a woman to “kill” an unalive “person”. It’s legally their child/body.

Fetuses are alive and we don’t allow parents to kill their born children. The question is whether or not fetuses are persons and/or when they become persons. The issue with HRT and surgical procedures to transition is a little different because, in many cases, it’s about informed consent and whether or not a procedure is medical or elective. Different sets of issues, really.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Here’s something. Can foetuses speak? Can they feel things? Can they decide?
You are the same set of people who say people shouldn’t be allowed to transition under 18. Frankly, these are under 18? The power of attorney is the mother’s. Therefore, it’s the woman’s choice what to do. And I do not care whether “it is morally right” for a woman to “kill” an unalive “person”. It’s legally their child/body.

Fetuses are alive and we don’t allow parents to kill their born children. The issue with HRT and surgical procedures to transition is a little different because, in many cases, it’s about informed consent and whether or not a procedure is medical or elective.

Precisely my point. They are not born, therefore part of the woman’s body. HRT? It’s reversible, easily. But children can’t decide that. So why should they decide more important things, whilst -several months old?

[American Legionaries]

Fetuses are alive and we don’t allow parents to kill their born children. The issue with HRT and surgical procedures to transition is a little different because, in many cases, it’s about informed consent and whether or not a procedure is medical or elective.

Precisely my point. They are not born, therefore part of the woman’s body. HRT? It’s reversible, easily. But children can’t decide that. So why should they decide more important things, whilst -several months old?

They're not deciding anything, though.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Precisely my point. They are not born, therefore part of the woman’s body. HRT? It’s reversible, easily. But children can’t decide that. So why should they decide more important things, whilst -several months old?

They're not deciding anything, though.

That’s what I just said. They don’t decide. Their mother does.

[American Legionaries]

They're not deciding anything, though.

That’s what I just said. They don’t decide. Their mother does.

Or the state.

[Fahran]

Fetuses are alive and we don’t allow parents to kill their born children. The issue with HRT and surgical procedures to transition is a little different because, in many cases, it’s about informed consent and whether or not a procedure is medical or elective.

Precisely my point. They are not born, therefore part of the woman’s body. HRT? It’s reversible, easily. But children can’t decide that. So why should they decide more important things, whilst -several months old?

I’m not certain that logically follows given fetuses can be viable at 22 Weeks and have made serious progress towards developing functional neurological systems. That suggests that, before or at that point, they deserve a degree of consideration as living persons.

Hormone replacement therapy is not always reversible if it’s used for an extended period. Infertility is an observed side effect of extended HRT and it’s recommended patients make decisions about associated risks before beginning treatment. There have also been other serious and irreversible side effects observed. That said, HRT administered by a healthcare professional can be an effective and safe option for treating gender dysphoria. But please stop lying about it. There are absolutely potentially irreversible impacts. It’s why full transition at younger ages might be a worthwhile consideration for patients who meet a certain threshold.

Mayo Clinic as a source…

Feminizing hormone therapy might limit your fertility. If possible, it's best to make decisions about fertility before starting treatment. The risk of permanent infertility increases with long-term use of hormones. That is particularly true for those who start hormone therapy before puberty begins. Even after stopping hormone therapy, your testicles might not recover enough to ensure conception without infertility treatment.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Precisely my point. They are not born, therefore part of the woman’s body. HRT? It’s reversible, easily. But children can’t decide that. So why should they decide more important things, whilst -several months old?

I’m not certain that logically follows given fetuses can be viable at 22 Weeks and have made serious progress towards developing functional neurological systems. That suggests that, before or at that point, they deserve a degree of consideration as living persons.

Hormone replacement therapy is not always reversible if it’s used for an extended period. Infertility is an observed side effect of extended HRT and it’s recommended patients make decisions about associated risks before beginning treatment. There have also been other serious and irreversible side effects observed. That said, HRT administered by a healthcare professional can be an effective and safe option for treating gender dysphoria. But please stop lying about it. There are absolutely potentially irreversible impacts. It’s why full transition at younger ages might be a worthwhile consideration for patients who meet a certain threshold.

Mayo Clinic as a source…

Feminizing hormone therapy might limit your fertility. If possible, it's best to make decisions about fertility before starting treatment. The risk of permanent infertility increases with long-term use of hormones. That is particularly true for those who start hormone therapy before puberty begins. Even after stopping hormone therapy, your testicles might not recover enough to ensure conception without infertility treatment.

Remember, that the foetus still cannot think. It is still a vegetable. It is about as alive as a braindead patient. Therefore, a suitable person with power of attorney decides to disconnect them from life support. The woman can choose to disconnect the baby from its own little biological incubator.

[Fahran]

Remember, that the foetus still cannot think. It is still a vegetable. It is about as alive as a braindead patient. Therefore, a suitable person with power of attorney decides to disconnect them from life support. The woman can choose to disconnect the baby from its own little biological incubator.

That’s a new argument. How are we defining brain-deadness here?

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Remember, that the foetus still cannot think. It is still a vegetable. It is about as alive as a braindead patient. Therefore, a suitable person with power of attorney decides to disconnect them from life support. The woman can choose to disconnect the baby from its own little biological incubator.

That’s a new argument. How are we defining brain-deadness here?

Someone whose brain has lost complex function. Similar to a foetus that has not developed complex function to start with.

[American Legionaries]

That’s a new argument. How are we defining brain-deadness here?

Someone whose brain has lost complex function. Similar to a foetus that has not developed complex function to start with.

It would be unethical to kill an adult in the same condition, so your premise is flawed from the start.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Someone whose brain has lost complex function. Similar to a foetus that has not developed complex function to start with.

It would be unethical to kill an adult in the same condition, so your premise is flawed from the start.

I’m not sure I care about your definition of “unethical”. It’s legal. Besides, I already pointed out, they are functionally not alive. Vital functions does not mean alive. It means vital functions.

[American Legionaries]

It would be unethical to kill an adult in the same condition, so your premise is flawed from the start.

I’m not sure I care about your definition of “unethical”. It’s legal. Besides, I already pointed out, they are functionally not alive. Vital functions does not mean alive. It means vital functions.

It doesn't matter rather you care. Removing life sustaining care in such a situation is generally not legal. And a foetus is verifiably alive.

[The Black Forrest]

Someone whose brain has lost complex function. Similar to a foetus that has not developed complex function to start with.

It would be unethical to kill an adult in the same condition, so your premise is flawed from the start.

If the guardian (family or court appointed) was against it; sure.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

I’m not sure I care about your definition of “unethical”. It’s legal. Besides, I already pointed out, they are functionally not alive. Vital functions does not mean alive. It means vital functions.

It doesn't matter rather you care. Removing life sustaining care in such a situation is generally not legal. And a foetus is verifiably alive.

It is legal. And the foetus may have basic development, but a braindead patient has basic vital signs. Neither can feel pain, or is alive, or is capable of thought. A foetus is not alive. It is seen as part of a pregnant woman’s body by general medical consensus

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

In fact, I’d argue that the foetus is less alive. It doesn’t have any paperwork that says it’s alive. Legally? It’s not alive.

[American Legionaries]

It would be unethical to kill an adult in the same condition, so your premise is flawed from the start.

If the guardian (family or court appointed) was against it; sure.

It would be unethical regardless of their views. No doctor would be permitted to disconnect an adult in similar circumstances from life support.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

If the guardian (family or court appointed) was against it; sure.

It would be unethical regardless of their views. No doctor would be permitted to disconnect an adult in similar circumstances from life support.

Yes they would. With the consent of the guardian/person with power of attorney. And also “unethical regardless of their views”. You just said an oxymoron. Your views are not everyone else’s.

[American Legionaries]

It would be unethical regardless of their views. No doctor would be permitted to disconnect an adult in similar circumstances from life support.

Yes they would. With the consent of the guardian/person with power of attorney. And also “unethical regardless of their views”. You just said an oxymoron. Your views are not everyone else’s.

You've said all this before.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Yes they would. With the consent of the guardian/person with power of attorney. And also “unethical regardless of their views”. You just said an oxymoron. Your views are not everyone else’s.

You've said all this before.

And you aren’t listening. You have just gone round in circles, as I’ve literally told you that half your “facts” are false, and your “ethics” aren’t universal.

[American Legionaries]

You've said all this before.

And you aren’t listening. You have just gone round in circles, as I’ve literally told you that half your “facts” are false, and your “ethics” aren’t universal.

Dismissing your words isn't the same as ignoring them.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

And you aren’t listening. You have just gone round in circles, as I’ve literally told you that half your “facts” are false, and your “ethics” aren’t universal.

Dismissing your words isn't the same as ignoring them.

You still haven’t countered. But ma ethics is not a counter-argument

[American Legionaries]

Dismissing your words isn't the same as ignoring them.

You still haven’t countered. But ma ethics is not a counter-argument

It's not my ethics, but rather the ethics of the medical community. No doctor would end QOL effective life support, not ever, no matter what the person's next of kin said.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

You still haven’t countered. But ma ethics is not a counter-argument

It's not my ethics, but rather the ethics of the medical community. No doctor would end QOL effective life support, not ever, no matter what the person's next of kin said.

They are legally obliged to. Unless they want to lose their jobs, they will. And once again, your ethics are not the ethics of everyone.

[American Legionaries]

It's not my ethics, but rather the ethics of the medical community. No doctor would end QOL effective life support, not ever, no matter what the person's next of kin said.

They are legally obliged to. Unless they want to lose their jobs, they will. And once again, your ethics are not the ethics of everyone.

Prove that a doctor is legally obliged to kill a recovering patient instead of provide him life support during his recovery.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

They are legally obliged to. Unless they want to lose their jobs, they will. And once again, your ethics are not the ethics of everyone.

Prove that a doctor is legally obliged to kill a recovering patient instead of provide him life support during his recovery.

I said they are legally required to withdraw life support from a patient who is functionally incapable of decision-making/braindead. Not recovering.