You guys probably know I have a medical background, so I've had to think about this abortion topic a bit. I've delivered nearly 100 babies. Once, during OB training, my boss called me to come watch/participate in an abortion. Afterward, I told him that he need never call me again, and he didn't. Gives you an idea about my gut feelings, but let's not stop there.
I firmly believe that abortion as a means of simple "whoops" birth control - careless, repeated, flippant - is horrible. It's such a complex issue that to make it unimportant is lazy and sinful, if there is such a thing. I've cared for more than one woman who has had almost twenty abortions.
But, there are absolutely circumstances where it seems like the right, even kind, thing to do. Saying it should never ever happen is just being thoughtless about the multilayered topic.
To be clear: after conception, the embryo/fetus/baby is not the woman's body. The fetus (let's use one word) has a distinct set of genes that are not the mother's. For instance, it can have a different blood type. So reducing the topic to "controlling a woman's body" misses this fact. (Pregnancy prevention has to do with the woman's body, of course.)
So abortion is really talking about the consequence to another -potentially- living thing. But let's not get too black&white about it. Truly, up to a certain point, it can be something as non-human as a morula, which is not something I would consider a baby or fetus or whatever. So I'm gonna jump completely out of the topic of "but when is it a baby?"
But here's where I do jump back in, and the point of this ramble: politicians have no business legislating health care, and that includes abortion. They don't know enough, and the knowledge base of health care changes constantly, when it's done right. In my home town, one of the elected officials was a C student but a good basketball player and I completely believe that he can't read a lot of the polysyllabic words in this screed. And yet he's pontificating at meetings about what "should" be done on this topic and others, and frequently by invoking Christianity. Makes me livid.
TL;DR: medical care decisions shouldn't be legislated by people who don't know the topic; they need to stay in their lane and let medical boards decide who is/isn't giving bad medical care.
Your comments reminded me of something Sagan said years ago
Mu. All situations where the state decides what should be medically done are wrong. Physicians should be trained in good health care, communicate options to and work with the patients or their proxies, and be censured/defrocked by a medical board if they're giving bad care (which includes assault if they perform care that the patient doesn't want). "Bad care" isn't decided in the giant compromise of the legislature.
maybe that's the morula of the story sorry i couldn't help myself...
All situations where the state decides what should be medically done are wrong. Physicians should be trained in good health care, communicate options to and work with the patients or their proxies, and be censured/defrocked by a medical board if they're giving bad care (which includes assault if they perform care that the patient doesn't want). "Bad care" isn't decided in the giant compromise of the legislature.
maybe that's the morula of the story
sorry i couldn't help myself...
All situations where the state decides what should be medically done are wrong. Physicians should be trained in good health care, communicate options to and work with the patients or their proxies, and be censured/defrocked by a medical board if they're giving bad care (which includes assault if they perform care that the patient doesn't want). "Bad care" isn't decided in the giant compromise of the legislature.
Scenario 1. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman agrees; the litigation is performed.
Scenario 2. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman disagrees. The state intervenes and forces the woman to be sterilized.
Scenario 3. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman disagrees. The state does not intervene. The doctor continues to perform abortions.
At which point you Steely_D jump in here and give us stylized facts of the health risk for women who frequently receive abortions.
All situations where the state decides what should be medically done are wrong. Physicians should be trained in good health care, communicate options to and work with the patients or their proxies, and be censured/defrocked by a medical board if they're giving bad care (which includes assault if they perform care that the patient doesn't want). "Bad care" isn't decided in the giant compromise of the legislature.
No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Jan 28, 2023 - 7:02pm
Steely_D wrote:
No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
And you get this information where? And what business is it of yours how many "abortions" a woman has? Do you consider Plan B or morning after pill an abortion?
You're kinda jumping in late, so read a few posts prior to this instead of asking me to do it for you.
And, you could give your opinion on the topic instead of just throwing more question bombs.
No need to insult me. Something I still wonder about - there are women out there IRL that have had that many (more than a dozen) abortions, and I think that's wrong. How about you?
'You' is definitely not me. All the same.....
Scenario 1. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman agrees; the litigation is performed.
Scenario 2. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman disagrees. The state intervenes and forces the woman to be sterilized.
Scenario 3. The woman and doctor decide. The doctor argues in favour of sterilization for the sake of the woman's health; the woman disagrees. The state does not intervene. The doctor continues to perform abortions.
At which point you Steely_D jump in here and give us stylized facts of the health risk for women who frequently receive abortions.
