OOC: You mean... Wayne actually voting for a proposal? No way.
Advertisement
by Atheris » Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:20 pm
by Greater Cesnica » Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:23 pm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Wallenburg » Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:07 pm
Retired WerePenguins wrote:Wallenburg wrote:Noting that GAR #128 requires all abortion physicians to meet the same qualifications as surgeons and receive a degree of training equitable to that of surgeons, despite the vast majority of abortions not requiring any surgery,
You only noticed this recently?
On the other hand, I have heard arguments that gynecologists in general lack the surgical expertise to handle complications.HOW DOES ABORTION TAKE PLACE?
In 2017, medical abortions accounted for 39% of all abortions (AGI).
In 2018, 60% of reported abortions were accomplished by curettage (which includes dilatation and evacuation). Most curettage abortions are suction procedures (CDC).
Medical abortions made up approximately 40% of all abortions reported in 2018 (CDC).
Ninety-six per cent of the more than 140,000 second-trimester abortions that occur annually in the USA are accomplished by dilation and evacuation (D&E) (NAF).ABORTION FATALITY
In 2017, two women were reported to have died as a result of complications from induced abortion. Between 1973-2015, a reported 447 women died due to complications from legal abortion (CDC).
Now given this, the fact that only two fatalities happened in a year might suggest that the requirement might be overkill. Of course that doesn't consider uterine perforation which could lead to the inability to have any children in the future.
But, sure, we need Sweeney Todd to perform abortions.
by Wallenburg » Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:29 pm
by Wyomington » Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:36 pm
by South St Maarten » Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:39 pm
by The Novakian Empire » Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:45 pm
About Me White canadian male. Call me caleb. Pro: Palestine,Syrian Gov,Federal Quebec,Our lord and savior Cthulu,And bear grylls. Neutral: Meh Con: Israeli Government,erdogan,The PQ,Trump,ISIL,and Misandrists. | | [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [Normal] Head of Government: Prime Minister Thomas Schmidt Head of State: Emperor Erik Novakai Population: 48 Million Armed Forces: 1.2 Million Active, 4.8 Million Reserves | Nothing's really happening in novakia at the moment. | | Sigs 'n shit. "The Internet is dark and full of boners." -Daniel O' Brien WARNING:This nation represents my RL views. |
by New Decius » Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:51 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:35 pm
New Decius wrote:The following is a transcript of the statement made by His Excellency, Erwin-Ottokar von Schneider, Her Imperial Majesties Ambassador to the World Assembly.
As I see it, GAR #128 has already covered everything necessary for the purpose of ensuring access to abortions in WA Member States, mandating the legalization under most probable circumstances. It seems your main issue here is that it includes a clause allowing the attending physician to refuse to undertake the operation if it conflicts with their personal moral beliefs. Now if that is the issue at hand then we could add a sub-clause mandating that in this scenario, the physician in question be lawfully required to refer the patient to another medical professional equally qualified to carry out the operation. I believe women deserve every right to control their bodies and abortion is one of those rights, thats not the issue here, it absolutely should be legal and accessible. However if a surgeon determines it would violate their personal beliefs, be they religious, philosophical, moral, to conduct said operation, they must be allowed to decline the patient’s request for THEM to perform. Not decline outright, just decline on their PERSONAL behalf, and refer them to an equally qualified surgeon. Therefore I would suggest that rather than repeal GA#128, you instead seek a subclause mandating that should a surgeon decline to perform the operation that they be required to refer the patient to an equally capable and qualified medical professional whom will conduct the operation.
by Wallenburg » Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:25 am
by Honeydewistania » Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:26 am
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by The Atlae Isles » Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:51 am
by Janmute » Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:10 am
by Feyrisshire » Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:32 am
Froggy News | "People's Struggle Against Fake News and Disinformation" Campaign reach extreme heights: High Princess Ryeisse Schyi Yuri orders Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok users to be sent to labor camp and issues a bounty for the head of Elon Musk (Archive) | Update on pet food ban in Feyrisshire | Ban of "Bocchi the Rock" triggers debate on "socialist art" | Toilet paper banned in Feyrisshire
by Big Boyz » Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:21 pm
by The Python » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:27 pm
by Refuge Isle » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:37 pm
The Python wrote:Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:44 pm
The Python wrote:In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. "On Abortion" protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections, and since it's very controversial there will be a lot of doctors who have an objection (most other medical operations aren't that controversial). Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.
by The Python » Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:45 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The Python wrote:In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. "On Abortion" protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections, and since it's very controversial there will be a lot of doctors who have an objection (most other medical operations aren't that controversial). Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.
Access to Abortion does not allow member nations to force doctors who have philosophical or religious objections to abortion to perform abortions. Nor does it do so itself. It merely makes it such that inhabitants of member nations have access to abortion. Even if a nation has no abortion clinics because it has no doctors willing to perform them (an absurd scenario), it still does not require doctors to perform abortions. It instead requires that nation to have the abortion done elsewhere at that nation's expense.
by Godular » Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:56 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:04 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:21 pm
by Marxist Germany » Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:35 pm
by Laka Strolistandiler » Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:02 am
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Otaku Stratus » Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:48 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement