Seriously? In the case of the 10yo the girl, she chose abortion, the parents wanted it, the doctors wanted it. Yet, the legislature, gov, or others want LAW saying they have NO SAY - even recognizing the risk of childbirth in a girl that young.
Like I've told you before, if you want the doctor's opinion to have any relevance, then you have make sure the female (or in this case the family) can't just shop around for the most unscrupulous doctor they can find. We need some way of making sure this is an average doctor giving their opinion. Not a one out of a hundred doctor who specifically advertises that he does late-term elective abortions. If a second person is giving their opinion, and the woman is the one choosing who that second person will be, then it's really only the woman giving her opinion. No different than a President appointing someone specifically to their cabinet who they know will agree with them, even if it's a very unpopular decision. That person in the cabinet cannot be regarded as a neutral unbiased second opinion.
Oh, SURE. Now you want women to be prevented from choosing their own doctor!!! There is just NO END to your crazy.
No, I'm just saying, if the woman does choose her own doctor, then it's not really a "decision made between the woman and a doctor". Then it is essentially just the woman's decision. Why be so disingenuous and bring the doctor into the equation? It is always possible to find a doctor who is willing to do something unethical, all the more so since in this case it would not even be illegal.
The time to act in these discretionary cases was before sex. The decision was to have unprotected sex when the woman did not want to get pregnant. They made the decision, they face the consequences of bringing a third party (the baby) into the equation, and that party gets a say in the matter.
Ridiculous. Choosing a doctor doesn't mean the doctor no longer diagnoses problems and identifies solutions. OMG, the doctor might propose something that isn't illegal!! (???)
If that is the case then why would they not go to a backyard abortionist? Kermit Gosnell was the best example of what can occur if the medical profession is unregulated. If it remains legal then it is possible to regulate
In the case of Kermit Gosnell, the regulators were intentionally looking the other way. There were multiple warning signs but they didn't want to "rock the boat", since this was abortion after all; they didn't want to give the clinic any trouble or interfere with women getting their abortions. It is true that the majority of elective late abortions in the U.S. are from black women.
No, he was a case of the people who SHOULD have overnighted the service were paid to look the other way. Now multiply that by hundreds of backyard butchers operated by organised crime. That is what happened here in Victoria and it took legalising abortion to break the stranglehold hold.
It clearly isn't always that simple. We're talking about the ability of women to make an informed choice about abortion and that informed element is relevant to sex as well. Plenty of women, especially young women (and men for that matter) choose to have sex without being fully informed of all the consequences. Sex education is often poor and intentionally restricted for "moral" or religious reasons and plenty of men will use that to encourage or pressure women and girls to have sex (e.g. "You can't get pregnant the first time."). You're also assuming a woman considering abortion must have chosen to have unprotected sex, when failure of birth control (often due to ignorance of correct use) is a common reason for unwanted pregnancy. And you have the moral question of whether, even if someone gets in to a bad situation due to their own mistakes (if only in part), should they be automatically denied any opportunity to resolve the situation. The foetus should be and is a consideration too. That's why this is such a significant issue that is already given unique consideration compared to any other form of medical treatment. The fundamental fact is that they're incapable of expressing their opinion and by default, it would be their parents who would speak for them. I would suggest that the system and general principles do account for that and, in individual cases, there are people with the explicit responsibility to speak on behalf of the foetus. This specific discussion is about the question of a simple hard limit on elective abortion after some arbitrary number of weeks from conception. I'm not convinced that involves any specific consideration for the rights or needs of any of the individuals involved in any given case.
Good contraception availability is not an arguement any longer. Its available everywhere, the supreme court pretty much mandated it. Its even in many high schools for free. Its free on many colleges. Health plans cover it. A lot of clinics in low income areas provide it free. Its low cost and in every drug store and walmart and other stores. And contraception failure is rare and does not come anywhere close to accounting for all the abortions. Education is not an excuse either. Sex ed is taught all over, its on the internet, its in the news, its everywhere. Its even in sit coms. Its almost too pervasive. I can't even sit with my grandkids and watch tv without having to skip some commercials or parts of tv shows. We blocked the Disney channel for that reason. For the >95% of abortions for convenience (not rape, incest, life of the mother, severe defect) the reason the woman is pregnant is because she did not use proper contraception. Make the right decision, don't get pregnant. Make the wrong decision, get pregnant and you have to deal with a new life.
See my post #113. I don't accept the claim that sex ed and contraceptives are lacking. Wow, so you would just trample over peoples rights. You (in your second to last paragraph) say the baby has to have "considertion" (which most would say is a right to protection) and then throw out that consideration and let the mother who sometimes has a conflict of interest which overrides the baby's rights/consideration. Are you going to apply that everywhere? Simply say that someone has the explicit responsibility to consider the welfare of another and then ignore the fact that that "guardian" sometimes abuses or mishandles their power? Assume the person designated in the living well who says unplug grandma is not doing it because they get the estate?
When there are still people unaware that there is a difference between “perfect” use of contraceptives and “typical” use of contraceptives then sex Ed in America is definitely still lacking I am always blown away by this
@Bowerbird just spoilt it slightly, but I was going to ask you know many forms of contraception you can describe (not just name), what their typical effectiveness rate are and the key considerations for their use. In my experience talking to young people (due to previously volunteering in scouting and a youth centre), a lot of them remain ignorant, even when the information and resources is theoretically available to them, and I'm in the UK, where there isn't quite as much resistance to comprehensive sex education as in the US. Heck, many adults I know have demonstrated ignorance on the subject too. You say "sex education" is all over TV but I really don't think it is. There is lots of talk about sex and sexuality (I'd even share some of your concern some of that is inappropriate in context) but little or no actual practical information about things like how to use different contraceptives and their relative advantages and disadvantages. You also point out that you blocked channels specifically to avoid your grandchildren seeing it, which would kind of defeat the point. Your grandchildren may well be too young but the same applies to children of an age who should be learning. Far too many parents try to protect their children from any information about sex beyond "Don't do it until you're married!", which means they are ignorant if they do end up having sex anyway but are also still ignorant even after they do get married, and so can still end up with unwanted pregnancy then. There is no point saying the information is available if the people who need it are actively discouraged or prevented from accessing it. I think you missed my point. I was saying implementing a hard limit on abortion based on an arbitrary gestation period doesn't include consideration for anyone's rights. That is why I am arguing against it.
If the woman uses an IUD type its failure rate is 1%, and if the man uses a condom with spermicide, the total failure rate is near zero. But murder is not the solution to irresponsible behaviour in any case.
As I responded to Bowerbird, the IUD (or any LARC) has a failure rate of 1%. If the woman uses a larc, the man uses a condom with spermicide, the failure rate is exceptionally low, almost zero. As I wrote in post #113, contraceptives are readily available, sex ed is readily available. And in any case, ignorance, laziness, a lack of caution, are not excuses to murder someone (the baby). The Disney channel targeted audience is "preschoolers, young children, pre-teens and young adolescents". Pre-schoolers and young children should not be exposed to sexual content, none of the targeted audience should be preached to about LGBT particularly trangender issues. Yet Disney does preach those issues and so does some other childrens channels such as Nickelodean (primary target audience 7-11 year olds). The point is sex education and sexual issues are so prevalent that preschoolers and young chidren - too young for that material - are deliberately exposed to them. Are you saying that 7 year olds "need" that information? <> We home school. We started to teach our 11 year old about reporduction, she was fine with the biology of the male and female but when it came to "how a baby is made" she was definitely not ready for it. We put that off for another time. And we live on a farm, she has seen chickens hatch and goats be born, horses, deer. She has cleaned a deer, my vet daughter has disected animals with her as part of her home schooling biology classes. She is not squemish yet was not ready for the "birds and the bees" talk. Its our job to handle it, not the schools or the tv or Disney or some LGBT fanatic. I stand corrected.
So, that's your solution for 5th grade girls such as the 10yo in the news? Who do YOU plan to have teach 10yo girls that they need to be fitted for an IUD?
And how accessible and affordable are IUDs? I mean it is not as if a woman can insert them herself OR buy them over the counter https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud/how-can-i-get-an-iud Now that is from Planned parenthood - you know the people most right wingers want to defund and close down? Same people who have been assisting women get affordable LARCs for years. the reason why it can be so expensive is this
Bit at a time mate - I teach people a bit at a time All too often I come across what I call a “magic wand” approach where the person dismisses real world issues such as affordability and accessibility to throw out some “solution” they have spent maybe 2 minutes researching
If they need an abortion then they need an abortion. Late term abortions ( third trimester terminations) are only done for two reasons - foetal abnormality and to save the life of the mother although the latter is rare rare rare because these are WANTED a pregnancies gone horribly terribly wrong Why do YOU think a woman would have a late term abortion?
if you followed the news the molester was the mom’s live in boyfriend, and the mom apparently new about it. That’s not casual sec, that’s deliberate child abuse and contraception training won’t matter.
