Oklahoma lawmakers have passed a bill that makes performing an abortion a felony.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

first it's not the doctor's that are refusing to do abortions, it's a council of bishops, removing the freedom to act according to their conscious!!

If the doctors wanted to do abortions, do you really think they'd be working in a Catholic hospital? Really? An unborn human being is not a disease, nor some extraneous organ of the mother. That human being has as much right to live as does the mother.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

If the doctors wanted to do abortions, do you really think they'd be working in a Catholic hospital?

Nobody wants to do abortions! We aren't talking about elective abortions here, we're talking about hospitals that reject pregnant women coming to them for life saving aid and either being turned away or allowed to die in their care.

a reply to: windword

Define life saving aid?

EMTALA is pretty clear what a hospital is required to do and what it does not have to do. Secondly you have hospitals who receive no federal monies and in those cases what they can and cannot do changes as well.

Ugh!!! So many simple-minded arguments. Seems fairly constant on ATS now'a days.

Ok, just a couple of things i've noticed.

1. "It's just a clump of cells"- By a show of hands, who here isn't a clump/collection of cells? Having Sentience does not mean you're not still a collection of cells...

2. "You're putting the rights of a fetus above the rights of a mother"- No. They both have the same rights. Here in the USA, we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice which one of those is first? Life.

3. "Insert extreme example here"- If you can't use a reasonable example that isn't skewed far to the extreme, you loose. It's just that simple.

4. "blah blah Rape blah blah"- What wrong did the Unborn do? Killing someone for the actions of another is a horrible thing. Should I be able to kill someone because something one of their parents did to me? No.

5. "How many of these children will you take in?"- Well, hold on there. Lets be real: Most abortions aren't a medical necessity. Most abortions ARE a matter of convenience. Are we somehow no longer accountable for our own actions? In the vast majority of cases, a choice has already been made by engaging in sexual intercourse, knowing FULL WELL that NO form of contraceptive is 100% effective, and that IS the purpose of sex: to procreate. So, that rhetoric equates to: This person doesn't need to be accountable for their actions. You need to be accountable for their actions. Fully expecting a "Sex isn't just for making babies" reply, and to that my response is: You're incorrect. Sex is meant for procreation. People using it for other reasons makes no difference. For example, I could use a Waterhose (Garden Hose) to choke a smurf, but that isn't what it's meant for.

And a few things I haven't noticed, but wish to comment on:
1. Body Autonomy- This is a phrase coined for Medical Procedures, not Normal Bodily Functions. To prove me wrong on this, you'd have to give an example that doesn't include a Medical Procedure, which I have yet to see. The most commonly used examples are Blood, or Organ Donations; both Medical Procedures. Pregnancy is most certainly not a Medical Procedure.

2. My Body, My Choice- It's not your body most directly effected by the procedure in question. Now, I did notice someone here say something similar to: "Infants, and Fetuses can't give consent. That is done by the parent." but that's not entirely accurate either. Normally, it's done by the PARENTS. So no, the consent of all parties involved is most certainly not taken into consideration. The Father of the child was most certainly involved, yet many times has no voice in the issue.

3. "The Constitution says 'Natural Born Citizens' only get rights"- So...then people born by a C-Section don't have rights? That is not a natural birth.

Now, this isn't to say i'm against ALL abortions. When having the child, or continuing the pregnancy would constitute a REAL, TANGIBLE, DIRECT threat to the mother's life, I think it should be left on the table atleast. In other cases? No.

a reply to: jjsr420

"Now, this isn't to say i'm against ALL abortions. When having the child, or continuing the pregnancy would constitute a REAL, TANGIBLE, DIRECT threat to the mother's life, I think it should be left on the table atleast. In other cases? No."

By what authority do you have the right to decide what I should do with my body? If I were still young, if abortion were still illegal, I would still get an abortion if I wanted one, as has always been. My own mother had three abortions in the 40's and 50's.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

yes, but the catholic chains have made it their business to go around and merge with, aquire more and more hospitals. and if the only hospital there is in a hundred mile radius is catholic, then really the doctors have no choice, nor do the women in the area really if they run into problems that need emergency care that can't wait around for a couple of hours till she gets to another hospital!

and, for most of the cases I presented, the fetus didn't have a chance of survival anyways. the mother was in a process of miscarrying, the fetus was too young to survive outside the womb. so just what was it they were doing while the women laid in pain and infection grew in her body, outside of praying to their god that he would pull a miracle out of his hat and majically refill the water and seal the sac so the baby could continue to develop, that he would shove the little feet of the one baby back up out of the birth canal?

I don't know what the answer it, but women shouldn't have to rely on the faith of the christians and their god while facing possible death... if we really want to go that far, why don't we just do away with the hospitals and doctors and we can all live on the faith of the invisable, all powerful god in the universe?

a reply to: Xcathdra

no they are not clear, they contradict themselves... or they are inefficient like the story of the excommunicated sister shows...

2. "You're putting the rights of a fetus above the rights of a mother"- No. They both have the same rights. Here in the USA, we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice which one of those is first? Life.

3. "Insert extreme example here"- If you can't use a reasonable example that isn't skewed far to the extreme, you loose. It's just that simple.

a reply to: jjsr420

it is the extreme examples where abortion is the most necessary, where it is undeniable that it has a medical purpose, a reason why abortion cannot, should not be totally banned! and what else can you call it when you ignore the danger that the pregnancy is posing to the mother's health, her life, and refuse to do the one thing that will keep her safe for the sake of a fetus that will be lost anyways? aren't you basically saying hell with her right to life, her happiness, let her die, let her suffer the rest of her life if it comes to that, the fetus is more important, even if it only lives 5 seconds outside the womb?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xcathdra

no they are not clear, they contradict themselves... or they are inefficient like the story of the excommunicated sister shows...

Seems pretty straight forward to me. What part is contradictory?

a reply to: Xcathdra

However, critics condemned the decision and suggested that it reflected larger trends. Jacob M. Appel, a leading American bioethicist, questioned "if women are safe in Catholic hospitals" following Olmsted's announcement. Appel wrote that, "Like many Catholic hospitals, St. Joseph's has long had two conflicting policies regarding maternal-fetal conflict on its books. One directive states that abortion is never permitted, even to save the life of the mother, while the other notes that 'operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted...even if they will result in the death of the unborn child....Until this recent incident, pregnant women could safely assume that Catholic hospitals would follow both the law and widespread standards of medical ethics in allowing the second directive to trump the first. Suddenly, that time-honored understanding appears to be in jeopardy."[14] Appel warned patients against obtaining obstetrics care at Catholic institutions.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

so, in the case of a tubal pregnancy, where there is no chance that the fetus will survive in these cases but if left untreated, the tube will rupture and the mother will possibly bleed to death, where as MTX could be administered and the fetus aborted rather easily, they will instead opt for invasive surgery to remove a part, or the whole fullopian tube instead. every surgery comes with it's own risks so yes they are risking the life and health of the mother with this decision,

The majority of Catholic moralists reject MTX and salpingostomy on the basis that these two amount to no less than a direct abortion. In both cases, the embryo is directly attacked, so the death of the embryo is not the unintended evil effect, but rather the very means used to bring about the intended good effect. Yet, for an act to be morally licit, not only must the intended effect be good, but also the act itself must be good. For this reason, most moralists agree that MTX and salpingostomy do not withstand the application of the principle of double effect.

The majority of Catholic moralists, while rejecting MTX or a salpingostomy, regard a salpingectomy as different in kind and thus licit according to the principle of double effect. What is the difference?

A partial salpingectomy is performed by cutting out the compromised area of the tube (the tissue to which the embryo is attached). The tube is then closed in the hope that it will function properly again. A full salpingectomy is performed when implantation and growth has damaged the tube too greatly or if the tube has ruptured. These moralists maintain that, unlike the first two treatments, when a salpingectomy is performed, the embryo is not directly attacked. Instead, they see the tissue of the tube where the embryo is attached as compromised or infected. The infected tube is the object of the treatment and the death of the child is indirect. Since the child’s death is not intended, but an unavoidable secondary effect of a necessary procedure, the principle of double effect applies.

www.cuf.org...

a reply to: windword

There is a difference in being rejected for care, and being told that an abortion will not be performed.

a reply to: dawnstar

A case of a woman dying from a lack of abortion wold be rare, if that's even the case at all. One case you posted, the woman didn't die, and the other has conflicting reports as to what happened.

Also, when someone goes into early labor, the typical response is to take action to stop said labor If the baby is alive, it's early labor, not miscarriage. I know more than a little about that, from things my eldest went through. You want to believe that this is all about the life of the mother, and forget that the life of a child is at risk as well. If we, as a society, do not protect those most in need of protection, what have we become?

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
why is it republicans are always yammering on about smaller government, then they pass laws like this ?

republicans don't care about roe v wade being the law of the land, they don't want women to have power over their own bodies, so they are working to make sure republicans control what a woman can do with her body...same with birth control....they don't want women to have it, that would give women control.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

lol...
in a case of a tubal pregnancy, there is absolutely no chance of the baby surviving unless they want to try to transfer it to the uterus and hope for the best, which doesn't work too often. and yet, they will still opt to remove the tube or part of it instead of administering a drug that will basically cause a miscarriage.

I think all hospitals should by law, be separated from any religious control...this thing about "admitting privileges" is one big steaming pile of crap....if an doctor has a valid medical license to practice medicine in that state, then no hospital has a right to keep that doctor away because of their religious belief....why is this kind of medieval Christian voodoo still allowed in this country

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

first it's not the doctor's that are refusing to do abortions, it's a council of bishops, removing the freedom to act according to their conscious!!

If the doctors wanted to do abortions, do you really think they'd be working in a Catholic hospital? Really? An unborn human being is not a disease, nor some extraneous organ of the mother. That human being has as much right to live as does the mother.

no...wrong...the fetus does not have more of a right to live than the mother...what's wrong with you?....how about women passing laws having men's testicles tie off until he is married and wants to have a baby with his wife....let's try that for a few hundred years.....

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

lol...
in a case of a tubal pregnancy, there is absolutely no chance of the baby surviving unless they want to try to transfer it to the uterus and hope for the best, which doesn't work too often. and yet, they will still opt to remove the tube or part of it instead of administering a drug that will basically cause a miscarriage.

Neither of the cases you mentioned were tubal pregnancies, and I have never heard of such a case where treatment as refused.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

first it's not the doctor's that are refusing to do abortions, it's a council of bishops, removing the freedom to act according to their conscious!!

If the doctors wanted to do abortions, do you really think they'd be working in a Catholic hospital? Really? An unborn human being is not a disease, nor some extraneous organ of the mother. That human being has as much right to live as does the mother.

no...wrong...the fetus does not have more of a right to live than the mother...what's wrong with you?....how about women passing laws having men's testicles tie off until he is married and wants to have a baby with his wife....let's try that for a few hundred years.....

Perhaps you should read what was stated; then you could avoid misquoting something for which you actually included the correct quote.

Let's try this again. The phrase "as much right to live" does not equal the phrase "more of a right to live". When you get that down, let me know.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm done arguing about it, since neither of us are gonna budge on the topic and it's mildly off topic to begin with.
it's only relevant in that the law that the gov't vetoed in oklahoma would have similar restraints so, we'd probably have doctors being punished to ending pregnancies that have a 99% chance of killing the mother there also.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Define life saving aid?

Sometimes, life giving aid entails an abortion.

Before this age of medicine, giving birth was the number one killer of women.

When you’re pregnant, what can go wrong is often the last thing you want to think about. Unfortunately, the unimaginable sometimes happens: you’re in the middle of your pregnancy when all of a sudden your amniotic fluid starts to leak. You’re in extreme pain. You start to bleed. You start to get a fever. You rush to the nearest hospital. You’d expect that any hospital emergency room would provide you the proper care. Right? Unfortunately, that’s not the case if you end up at a Catholic hospital.

Fighting for Emergency Care for Pregnant Women at Catholic Hospitals