I was addressing your post and you have not proven there is anything wrong with : WHAT TF do you NOT get about the FACT that doctors must offer to show patients test results, or anything pertaining to their medical conditions. And NO patients is obligated to look at them. It is very SIMPLE...try harder... Check post 48 where YOU post : "" I just suggested that the doctor should have to show her."" You didn't say NON doctor, did you?
If she wants to see it, she is perfectly capable of asking to see it. It should not be mandated. Government has no business practicing medicine. Leave it to the medical professionals to do that. I have had many ultrasounds. Not once have I been offered to see it. Though I have asked when I wanted to. I even got a video of part of my cardiac u/s.
She is also perfectly capable of voluntarily asking not to see it. That's not quite what I said. I said if they do do it. I'm proposing mandating them to show the woman, if they do the imaging. Unless she voluntarily independently, on her own accord, says, in response, that she doesn't want to see it. It has nothing to do with telling them whether to do a medical procedure or not. Really? Tell that to FoxHastings, who seemed to imply that they always show the patient.
OH, DO show where I said they "always SHOW the patient" I'll be waiting for your proof of this...and waiting ..and waiting ...
"allowed" is a semantic word. The reality hinges on the exact meaning of the word "allowed". Under these laws, it would be very difficult to virtually impossible to prosecute if a later term abortion was done for non-emergency reasons, and all parties directly involved would know that.
The point is that they aren't being done. You've got no more than a sales job for making more laws against women.
There's no proof that they're not being done. No one is keeping track of it. Very likely they do go on, if not frequently then rarely or occasionally.
But radical extremist pro-abortion-choicers just want to be able to kill their babies and not have anyone ask any questions. no hurdles, no roadblocks and most of all, no records (whether it really was for health reasons)
Are you claiming that without this new law of yours women wouldn't be able to see the material in question? This is more of your crazy sales job nonsense. You back more laws. THEN you sell them by saying the mean nothing!!! Which is it? And, why would you propose enacting more laws that are meaningless?
So, you want to write a law against something that isn't even detected to be happening? Before you start writing laws, how about determining whether there is ANY reason to justify that?
That's ad hom. How about cooling your jets? And, please note that Canada has fewer abortions per capita than we do, and they have NO laws against abortion. You do NOT have all the answers until you know how Canada manages to do that without ANY laws against women.
I have addressed this in other threads. Most of that difference disappears when we adjust for demographic factors like age and race.
We also saw how the abortion rate in the US increased to modern levels years before Roe v. Wade. Edit: I just realized that's not really an argument helping here. Although it does at least suggest the higher rates of abortion in the US may not be due to it being more restricted. Anyway, there are not really that many restrictions on it in the US anymore.
Why are you ignoring post 54? Is it because there was an untruth in it? You're on late term abortion suddenly???? Why are you avoiding post 54? Tired of misrepresenting what others say because you have no argument ?
I quoted you in post 50. However, I am unable to quote you again in this post, because if I try to, for some reason your quote displays completely wrong, a formatting issue. I believe it has to do with an error in the programming design of this forum, combined perhaps with the unusual fonts you decided to use. Also my computer is acting very slow, so I do not have the patience right now to try to correct the issue. You'll have to go back to my post 50 and see where I quoted you. Then you can see how and why I interpreted what you stated to mean that they do "always show the patient". FoxHastings, you have a big problem making ambiguous statements that obviously seem to imply or allude to something, but then you deny that is what you said or meant. This is a repeating pattern with you. I'm not entirely sure if the issue is me interpreting things wrong, or you doing this intentionally.
LOL your usual cop out !!! Here is what you posted: kazenatsu said: ↑ Really? Tell that to FoxHastings, who seemed to imply that they always show the patient.""""""" EASY TO FIND ..just scroll up to post # 53. Then scroll allllll the way down to post # 54 and see the challenge to that : OH, DO show where I said they "always SHOW the patient" I'll be waiting for your proof of this...and waiting ..and waiting …""""""""""" It isn't complicated, just show where I said "that they always show the patient"" as YOU claim ….and then it won't appear as if you are deliberately "misinterpreting" what I said...
I did. I quoted you in my post #50, from your post #49. Why do you ignore that and pretend it doesn't exist??
Post 49 Foxhastings:WHAT TF do you NOT get about the FACT that doctors must offer to show patients test results, or anything pertaining to their medical conditions. And NO patients is obligated to look at them. It is very SIMPLE...try harder..."""" I did not state anywhere in that post that ""that they always show the patient"" as YOU claim. I stated quite clearly : "" doctors must offer to show patients test results"" I NEVER stated that ""doctors ALWAYS SHOW THEIR PATIENTS"" Those are two DIFFERENT things....
Why did you say that "doctors must offer to show patients test results, or anything pertaining to their medical conditions" in response to my post about ultrasounds if you were not referring to ultrasounds? And please, FoxHastings, learn a better way to multi-quote other people because the way you do it is very confusing, and many people (including myself sometimes) are not going to go to the trouble of trying to understand your posts when you are using such a confusing format.
FoxHastings said: ↑ WHAT TF do you NOT get about the FACT that doctors must offer to show patients test results, or anything pertaining to their medical conditions. I stated quite clearly : "" doctors must offer to show patients test results"" I NEVER stated that ""doctors ALWAYS SHOW THEIR PATIENTS"" Those are two DIFFERENT things.... "offer" and "always " are two different words LOL, so the "format" is what's confusing you !!??? LOL ! No, that's not it....it's you misquoting and misinterpreting other's words for your own convenience when you have no point.....that has nothing to do with format.. BTW, you shouldn't speak for me nor all those "many people"....it makes for purposeful "misinterpretations"" … BTW, there doesn't seem to be "many people" in the abortion forum lately ….
So it seems like what you were meaning was doctors always offer to show the image of the ultrasound, then?
I'll answer YOUR question when you agree to the following ( no weaseling out of your "misrepresentation" of my post ) : FoxHastings said: ↑ I stated quite clearly : "" doctors must offer to show patients test results"" I NEVER stated that ""doctors ALWAYS SHOW THEIR PATIENTS"" Those are two DIFFERENT things.... "offer" and "always " are two different words """"
Funny....not much action in the abortion forum when people start worrying about their own lives , their own decisions, their own choices and actual born people whose lives are in danger.