<Rule 3> The women I am talking about ARE NOT THE ONES GOING TO COUNSELING. They are the ones who are so dispassionate that they take abortion for granted. It is amazing you don't keep track of the whole discussion and grab for straws, basically because you do not understand my comments. So you can take the APA and stuff it, as I said nothing the APA disproves of except for their partisan views. Don't you realize what they are doing? INCREASING THEIR PATIENT LOAD, without considering the humanist morality of the issue. As to holier than thou, none of my arguments are based on holiness
I don't think that. Those WHO come for counseling don't fit the description, so you are whining about a no issue. - - - Updated - - - I can't tell them anything if they do not come for counseling. I never violate the code of ethics, that is only your whine. No it isn't a fair representation because had you been following the thread you would know, only those who have an abortion and whose conscience is so shrouded in "I don't give a damn about a baby killed in the womb fit my description of needing demeaning; not those who understand and have psychological issues after killing their child. Your criticisms are themselves demeaning. <Rule 3>
Listen closely. No one should be demeaned. No one. That is not the way to deal with people who commit horrible acts (which abortion would never qualify for anyway). They should be imprisoned. But we don't intentionally demean people even in prison. Please stay away from mental health patients. You do more damage than good.
Abortion to prevent the "mother's" death is CHOOSING which life to kill, and choosing one based on age would be age discrimination. If the "baby" and the "mother" are equal, you cannot choose one without discriminating. Also, according to your definition of "convenience", it would merely be "convenient" for the woman to save her own life.
It doesn't matter if you didn't say that about specific women( the ones you claim to be counseling). These horrible words, """""If they get pregnant through their own negligence and have an abortion, they ARE ANIMALS. """ ...apply to all women who ""get pregnant through their own negligence and have an abortion"""....and aren't women who get pregnant through their own negligence and have an abortion the ones you claim you're counseling? No PROFESSIONAL psychologist, no decent person, would EVER say women ARE ANIMALS.
So... if a woman sees a psychologist with depression because her child was killed by a drunk driver and she wishes she had made different decisions the day of the accident, your diagnosis is depression. If she had an abortion in the past, you would like to label that "post abortion syndrome" (but there is no such diagnosis code). If you read the details of those studies, that is the way they are setup. They get the number of women who have had an abortion in their past and whatever bad thing happens to them, they blame it on abortion.
This brings up an interesting, rarely discussed aspect of abortion. With the Peonage Act of 1867, Congress abolished "the holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage",[115] specifically banning "the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise."[116] This extended the protections against slavery enacted by the thirteenth amendment. You cannot be forced by law or duress to sacrifice a kidney, even though the life of another human being is at stake. You cannot be forced to donate blood against your will, even to save the life of another...even if the blood type is rare and no other source is available. You cannot be forced to labor against your will to save the life of an elderly relative, even if he would die if you refused. This is a principle that transcends left and right, or the morality of abortion. Even if I were to accept, for the sake of argument, that a foetus was a fully legal human person, you cannot force another human being to labor on behalf of the foetus for 9 months.
That is where you are wrong. When a person has a disorder and comes to us for counseling we help her with empathy. That has noting to do with the animals who through negligence to get pregnant, have an abortion for convenience, with no remorse. <Rule 3>
Not at all. She is suffering but it doesn't become depression until it overcomes her life, just like those suffering from PTSD OR PAS over an abortion. No,only if like I said above, when the woman finds it unbearable and need to get counseling. Only those who suffer genuine symptoms, and we know if it is about abortion from what they tell us at intake. <Rule 3>
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt Wrong. Nobody told you women lack rights. We however argue in favor of the child as one might argue for the slave.
I guess you missed it Bobbie.....he admitted he can't post the DSM codes because they don't exist. Lol
Actually you are wrong. When the world recognizes that the baby in the womb should not be murdered it is incumbent on the woman to bring it to term.
The problem is the pro abortion people who don't accept that both the mother and the baby in the womb both have right to life. An abortion can only be justified if there is a bonafide medical issue likely to kill the mother which would end up with death of both. Saving one life is better than letting both die.
Actually I do, not as a job, but for public service. Patients are referred to me on a regular basis because of my skill as a counselor. So sorry Charlie, you are wrong again. - - - Updated - - - And no one believes it either. Good work! Exactly!
I did post the DSM Codes. That blows a whole in your credibility once again. But I repeat: PTSD IS 309.89; generalized Anxiety Disorder 300.02; Dream Anxiety Disorder 307.47; all of which with others as well are reported by women with post abortion syndrome (PAS). Though PAS itself may not itself have a code, but it is being added as the DSM is further revised. The symptoms of PAS are any one of a variety of symptoms. It is amazing how people like you act as if you know, but you don't.
I will never give credence because others believe something. Even the majority can be wrong. Look at the record of our own political picture. Bernie lost to the lesser of the two democrats. That was wrong! - - - Updated - - - They did and they do. I would not have worked actively to not be paid. - - - Updated - - - Again, the majority may rule on legal issues, but NOT on moral issues.
I have been trying for years to get that simple point across to pro-lifers .. it falls onto deaf ears and ignorance.
Utterly wrong, another person who hasn't a clue about their own countries laws concerning deadly force in self-defence, you wrongly assume that deadly force is only justified in life or death situations when the reality is that it is also justified for serious injury and loss of liberty and pregnancy is already deemed as a serious injury in some cases .. please do your self a favour and actually research the things you incorrectly say. Another point, I fully accept that both the female (there is no mother until birth takes place or she already has born children) and the fetus (again there is no baby until birth) have an equal right to life .. however that right to life does not in any way allow one person to use another persons body without consent REGARDLESS of the circumstances that led them to need to use the other persons body, and even if it could be said that her consent to sexual intercourse is somehow implied or informed consent to pregnancy, she, like every other person, has the right to withdraw that consent at anytime for any reason. BTW Still waiting for you to show where PAS is officially recognised.
