Friday, September 17, 2010

Is the right to abortion self-evident?

I would submit that nothing is self-evident right off the bat. I'm assuming that all our respective political philosophies required a great deal of thought in shaping what they are today, the Final Version but I do get the sense liberals these days have it all figured out. Here's a kind of philosophical question: despite the millions of abortions in this country and the millions across the globe what if the right to abortion doesn't even exist? that all this time we were practicing a nonright? that this right never even existed in the first place? What are the consequences of this? Have to say this, millions and millions of people doing the same thing does not mean they have the right to do this or that the more common something becomes the more moral it becomes. Back-alley abortions, this may sound harsh but I really don't talk about it because I really don't care. If a pregnant woman wants to throw herself down the stairs just don't hit the cat at the bottom. It's not in my equation because the simple Nub of the Matter is is it right or wrong? do you have a right to do it and is it the taking of a human life? Is SEX necessary? I don't mean it feels good and all that, we all know the otherworldy pleasures involved and I'm not anti-sex by any stretch, quite the contrary but is it necessary? ties in with soapie's proposal of Sex as a Contract, you know what it is and you accept the risks going in. I would submit this: if you do not in some sense oppose the practice then you are not really a conservative. A libertarian maybe but not a true con and I'll give my reasons. I just wanted to let the Liberal on the Bike continue on his merry way lecturing the kids not wearing their helmuts and move This here. Before long The Impasse will have been reached and maybe by then I'll just be moderating. Should be fun:)

109 comments:

  1. A woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes, period.

    You cannot force someone to either have or not have a medical procedure against their will.

    This is an argument that will never be solved because people will never agree on the basics of it.

    And thus this argument will be used to forever keep women in some kind of subjugate position, and open the door for legislation that for all practical purposes is sexual slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Satyavati hits the nail directly on the head here. Good job.

    What is being suggested herein and elsewhere is that essentially a woman cannot or should not be permitted to engage in a medical procedure because it kills a baby right? Right.

    By adopting this position, would you not just as well arrive at a point where an individual (any individual) could not be permitted to undergo a controversial medical treatment in which there is the potentiality of their own death?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "This is an argument that will never be solved because people will never agree on the basics of it."
    ..pretty much sums it up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes, period.

    Yes, you can have YOUR nose pierced if you want to look ugly, but the baby's body never gets any mention when the pro-aborts speak.

    Soapie, I do think you are losing it, nobody would say that a person shouldn't do anything that could cause death, just about everything we do every frickin' day could cause death, we'd never get out of bed! But an abortion ALWAYS ends in the death of at least one person.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Patrick M was right. The abortion issue continues to be beaten to death. I think we could get beyond it if some weren't so committed to a government edict completely banning the practice from existence (which of course would never happen it would only create an underground market just like prohibition did).

    ReplyDelete
  6. OK let's see what we got.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Saty:

    "A woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes, period."

    Why?

    "This is an argument that will never be solved because people will never agree on the basics of it."

    Why?

    "And thus this argument will be used to forever keep women in some kind of subjugate position."

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  8. soapie:

    "Satyavati hits the nail directly on the head here"

    Why?

    "Patrick M was right"

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. Because it's my body and as an adult I have control over it and what gets done and not done to it from a medical standpoint.

    2. Because there will never be consensus on what constitutes a 'baby' versus a 'zygote'.

    3. Because if you can force women to bear children, you can force women into sterilization, and you take away their self-determination regarding their reproductive status, and that's tantamount to slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, you can have YOUR nose pierced if you want to look ugly,

    Thanks so much for your unsolicited opinion. I was really hesitant about asking for it so I'm glad you offered on your own, though it breaks my heart that you find it ugly.

    Of course, it's not for decorative purposes. I'm sure you're not conversant with the cultural background and therefore with the purposes of something like a nose piercing in a woman, so with this in mind I can mitigate the sorrow enough to be able to carry on.

    Maybe in the future you'll be kind enough to offer your unsolicited opinion on other matters of a personal nature that have a serious cultural import and meaning apart not evident to those without knowledge of the tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "pro-aborts"

    Pro-CHOICE is not pro-ABORTION.

    Choice means CHOICE.

    It means you can CHOOSE what you want to do.

    It means you can CHOOSE to carry to term and have a baby, or you can CHOOSE to end the pregnancy.

    It does not favour abortion over carrying to term.

    It gives the control to the woman whose uterus is in question; not to a legislature, to a church group, to people she doesn't know and doesn't care about or to anyone else but her own self.

    It gives her CHOICE. HER OWN CHOICE.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Because it's my body"

    Why?

    "Because there will never be consensus on what constitutes 'baby' versus 'zygote'"

    Why?

    "Because if you can force women to bear children you can force women into sterilization"

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Pro-CHOICE is not pro-ABORTION"

    Say something then that you don't like about abortion. Soap too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Because it's my body"

    Why?

    Because it doesn't belong to anyone else. What kind of question is this?

    "Because there will never be consensus on what constitutes 'baby' versus 'zygote'"

    Why?

    Because not everyone in this country wears the same kind of religious/moral glasses in which to perceive it. And if you ask me why on this one, I'm not answering it, because the answer is patently obvious.

    "Because if you can force women to bear children you can force women into sterilization"

    Why?

    Because once you legally take away someone's right to self-determination in terms of their medical care, you can legally mandate what they can and can not have done to them. If a woman can be forced to reproduce, legally, she can equally be forced to undergo sterilization. The turning moment comes when you enforce law to take away her self-determination.

    And stop asking me all these bullshit why questions.

    And something I don't like about abortion? Is this some kind of litmus test about whether pro choice really doesn't mean pro abortion? Why should I have to prove it anyway? The word CHOICE means CHOICE.

    What don't I like about abortion? What makes you think I like anything about it?

    It's not about my likes or dislikes. It's about taking away the right to have a medical procedure done safely and competently. It's about taking away a woman's right to determining what happens to her body.

    It's not about like or dislike. If you want to have that baby, go on, jolly good. If you don't, then you have some options to consider. THE CHOICE is YOURS.

    It's about choice and control, and keeping that for oneself rather than having it taken away.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If Pro-Choice equals Pro-Abortion then presumably Republicans who can't seem to let go of all things national defense and foreign interventionalism are then Pro-War/Pro-Death/Pro-Killing innocent civilians no?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Say something then that you don't like about abortion. Soap too."

    I don't like paying for someone to have one.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you are so pro CHOICE then Saty, then would you say that Michelle Obama's rants that kids not eat butter is wrong, since we should have the choice to eat whatever and be as fat and unhealthy as we want to be?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think you're comparing apples and oranges, Beth, thinking you're going to set up some kind of weird dialectical trap or make yourself feel better about something.

    Michelle Obama (and anyone else for that matter) have every right to educate and encourage people to do things (eat right, be vaccinated, use birth control, etc) to their hearts' content.

    When it becomes wrong is when they attempt to make legislation that takes away that choice from people.

    For example, if vaccinations were made mandatory, if butter was made illegal... this is wrong, because it takes away from the individual the right to make that choice for themselves as competent adults.

    But merely presenting people with information is merely that.

    It's when the law takes away these choices that it becomes wrong.

    This is about a woman's right to self-determination. Stop trying to make it about other things.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pro aborts always prefer not to make it about other things, because then it gets uncomfortable for them, they may have to admit some inconsistencies. Like for example, if I bring up teaching abstinence, do you have a problem with it? You'd better not, because above you say that it is ok to present information.

    Just wondering, Saty, is it ok to hand out pictures of sonograms outside abortion clinics then? Just presenting information again, right?

    Oh, and Michelle Obama isn't just trying to eduate, she is trying to "prod".

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/michelle-obama-tells-restaurants-less-butter-more-apples/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Obviously abstinence education is education, and should be taught as part of education on birth control.

    Handing out sonograms in the street to just any person walking by smacks of something that's not quite 'education'. If a person should come into a pro-life clinic then certainly any kind of information you'd like to give them would be appropriate and within the bounds (for the most part) of 'patient education'. However, to stand out in the street and give sonograms out to people who aren't coming to you looking for medical information leans more towards propaganda and coercion.

    I have educated hundreds and hundreds of patients over the years on everything from medications to procedures to rehabilitation techniques. I have put my signature on literally thousands of informed consents. I know what is and is not education, and where the lines get drawn.

    Your opinion that Michelle Obama is 'prodding' would be on a par with standing in a street giving medical information to people who aren't asking you for it.

    Like I said, if someone walks into a pro-life clinic and asks for information, go on and give them everything you've got. But to attempt to turn people away from an abortion clinic by waving sonograms at them, when they haven't asked you for any education, isn't really in the lines of what I'd call 'patient education'. You don't see people standing outside of pro-life clinics trying to 'educate' people into having abortions, do you?

    And one last time, Beth, I'm not 'pro abortion'. I'm pro giving a woman the right to decide what happens to her own uterus, and not giving the government that control. I thought you were all about a smaller government getting out of people's business. What happened to that attitude? Is it selective?

    ReplyDelete
  21. No One is ever Forced to Raise a Child.

    No one's ever forced to have an abortion.

    It's a medical procedure they have to consent to.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Z,
    In Response to the Phrase "the more moral it becomes.", this is what People Seem to Think, yet all that Commonness Does is it Helps More and More People to Make Wrong Decisions and Destroy their own Lives without Realizing that they are Doing so.

    I do Care about Back Alley Abortions, yet the Assumption that Legal Abortions do not also have Negative Affects is Incorrect.

    Satyavati,
    As an RN, you should Already Know that the Fetus and the Woman's Body are Two Separate Things. Claiming Ownership over the Fetus is not at all Unlike Claiming Possession of a Slave and the Arguments about whether or not the Slaves were "Persons" is not at all Unlike the same Argument in Relation to the Fetus. You Studied Medicine, so you already Know what it is that I am saying.

    The Option of Adoption is always Opened. No One is ever Forced to Raise a Child.

    If you want to Avoid "Sexual Slavery", then Demand Respect. Don't have Sex with anyone who does not Respect you, or better yet, Insist on the Commitment of Marriage before you do. When Women Give in to Men, we Lose their Respect, but we do have the Power to Say No. Don’t you See, Satyavati? Saying No to a Man is the Very Way that we Escape their Insistence on Ruling Over Us and Insist on their Respect.

    Beth,
    I Agree with you Again, just as I Usually do. You are really doing Great! Keep it Coming.

    Soap,
    "I think we could get beyond it if some weren't so committed to a government edict completely banning the practice from existence."

    Exactly, Extremism doesn't Work and this is the Answer to Z-man's Question as to Why "This is an argument that will never be solved."

    Satyavati,
    "Because there will never be consensus on what constitutes a 'baby' versus a 'zygote'."

    In a lot of Medical Brochures and Literature, the Baby is Called a Fetus at 8 Weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "WEEK 8 - (2 MONTHS) - At a little more than an inch long, the developing life is now called a 'Fetus'; Latin for 'Young One' or 'Offspring'. EVERYTHING IS ALREADY PRESENT THAT WILL BE FOUND IN A FULLY DEVELOPED ADULT. The heart has been beating for more than a month (5 weeks). The stomach produces digestive juices and the kidneys have begun to function. Forty muscle sets begin to operate in conjunction with the nervous system. The Fetus/Baby’s Body RESPONDS TO TOUCH, although the mother will not be able to feel movement until the fourth month."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Satyavati,
    I haven't Read all of that Above Comments. I Sort of Stopped at Comment 9 and I will be Back Later to Finish, yet I did Notice the Comment you made just above my Comments and you are right about the Idea of Force, for it is Rare that anyone is Ever Really Forced to Raise a Child, or to Abort One, yet Both of these Things are Often Pressured and don't Think that being Pressured to Abort is any Less of a Negative, cause it is not. Post Abortion Syndrome is a very Negative Thing and Pressure to Abort will Increase the Likelihood that such Symptoms will Occur.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lista,

    Let me just make perfectly clear that regardless of what you say, what statistics, numbers, or whatever, you will never get me to agree that abortion should be illegal.

    The mere concept of taking away someone's right to determine for themselves what medical procedure they will or will not have done goes against everything I believe in as both a woman and as a nurse.

    So you can annotate, write bibliographies and go on endlessly about 'post abortion syndrome' for as long as you like. With me you're not going to get anywhere.

    But enjoy yourself if you want to carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  26. As an RN, you should Already Know that the Fetus and the Woman's Body are Two Separate Things.

    What I do know is that prior to approximately 26 weeks a fetus is unable to survive on its own.

    To my mind this would make it part of the mother's body, as it cannot maintain any form of life seperated from it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There are a lot of People Listening, Satyavati, so I'm not Actually Talking to just you.

    Also, Persuasion is not Necessarily just done on a Political Level. I Doubt if Abortion is ever going to be Entirely Illegal, yet I've just become Upset about all the Misinformation that is out there.

    Checking Out for Now.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Saty is indeed a lost cause when it comes to abortion. Soapie may be, too. Some people can only focus on one of the two persons affected in an abortion (I should add three persons, because the father of the child who might want the child to live also is disregarded here.)

    So, I agree to save my time and effort with people who wish to remain blind to all persons involved.

    But let's let Michelle Obama tell us what to eat, because she is so much smarter than the rest of us, whatever did we do in life without Michelle Obama?!?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ok, I'm Back.

    Beth,
    Again you Make a Very Good Point with your Last Comment and yes, the Father should also have Rights in this Matter, but he Doesn't.

    Probably the Most Interesting Father of the Baby Story that I have is the One in which the Father Laid in Front of the Door at an Abortion Clinic to Prevent his Girl Friend from Going in, but those who Worked there just Came and Got her and Took her in the Back Door.

    Moving Back Towards the Top (10th Comment Down)...

    Satyavati,
    If you have a Noise Piecing, it is not Possible to see it in your Picture.

    Trust me, there is such a Thing as Pro-Abortion, that is those who Actually Push Abortion. Abortion Clinics are Often this way and they Give Biased Information. For Example, Calling the Baby a Zygote, rather than a Fetus and Stating that it is "Just a Cluster of Cells". This is Misleading Information that does not Reflect the Facts.

    Another Source of Pressure to Abort can come from Boyfriends, Parents and Friends. This Kind of Pressure is Common. Pressure from Strangers, though, is not really Pressure.

    Z-man Wants to Know Why? And what I would like to Suggest is that Some Times the Reasons have to do with Money, for Abortion Clinics are Making Lots of Money.

    Satyavati says,
    "Because it's my Body."

    Wrong! Science does not Support this and the Baby/Zygote Issue is a Scientific One, not a Religious One.

    I Don't See any Connection between Abortion and Sterilization. These are Two Entirely Different Issues and Abortion is the Only Medical Procedure that Involves the Killing of another Human Being, so it is not in the Same Category as other Medical Procedures.

    Also, Depriving of (Abortion) is not the Same as Forcing Something on Someone.

    You do Have the Right to Determine what Happens to your Body, Saty, Don't have Sex and you won't get Pregnant.

    "But merely presenting people with information is merely that."

    In California we Badly Need Laws Requiring Informed Consent and Forcing those in the Medical Profession to Present ALL of the Facts about the Risks, both Medical and Emotional.

    I have no Idea what the Laws are in North Carolina, but in California, they Stink.

    "However, to stand out in the street and give sonograms out to people who aren't coming to you looking for medical information leans more towards propaganda and coercion."

    Actually, it is Called Freedom of Speech and that's what Politics is all about.

    Does your Informed Consent in Relation to Abortion Include Honesty about Fetal Development, as well as Post Abortion Syndrome?

    ReplyDelete
  30. There is no such thing as "my" informed consent.

    Informed consent, and what constitutes it, is legally proscribed.

    It's not a personal thing on my part nor on the part of any professional.

    ReplyDelete
  31. And FYI: California DOES have laws requiring informed consent.

    Whether they were written to your personal requirements and preferences is moot.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Time very limited this morning so I'll hopefully be back around 7 tonite.

    Of the very few times I've heard anyone advocate forced sterilizations it was from a pro-choicer (e.g. Bob Grant).

    Saty it's a bodily process that takes place within your body but it's not your body. The two bodies are connected by what's known as an umbilical cord that's WHY.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If you're not against abortion then what are you? I'm speaking generally here. It's simple Logic. Now if you're indifferent to the abortion decision then you're not against it. You should be able to explain your position here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Kristie and I would never abort were she to end up pregnant. That's the position that the both of us take on it.

    I'm not hellbent on making that same decision for someone else. If there be a God then let he pass judgement upon those that opt to have one if he so desires.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If you're not against abortion then what are you?

    It's about choice and control, and keeping that for oneself rather than having it taken away.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Satyavati,
    The Question I was Asking was in Relation to what is "Legally Proscribed" in North Carolina in Relation to Informed Consent. When I said "Your" Informed Consent, what I Meant to say was "Your State's Informed Consent Laws". That was not Meant to be a Personal Question, nor was it Meant to be Taken Personally. It was Simply a Question about your State's Laws, for I Repeat, the Laws on this in California are Severely Lacking.

    My Own Personal Opinion is that Informed Consent Laws, in relation to Abortion, Need to Include Fetal Development and Potential Emotional Consequences and Risks, not just the Physical Consequences and Risks.

    We are no Longer Taking about whether or not Abortion should be Legal. Since it is Legal, I'm just Trying to Make it Less Harmful. Is that really so Wrong?

    I Guess what Z-man is Trying to Say is if you are not Against Abortion, then you are for Abortion, or Pro-Abortion.

    Also, What about the "Choice" of the Baby?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Saty: "This is about woman's right to self-determination"

    So is infanticide.

    "...and not giving the government that control"

    a curious selective exemption from your overall socialist philosophy of putting the gov't in charge of EVERYTHING.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "What I do know is that prior to approximately 26 weeks a fetus is unable to survive on its own."

    Rene King, born at about 20 weeks.

    "To my mind this would make it part of the mother's body."

    That be a weird body part though, something out of an H.P. Lovecraft movie.

    ReplyDelete
  39. So soap did you see the movie where the nuns rob the bank? I mean the guys dressed as nuns.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And this is why I said this

    This is an argument that will never be solved because people will never agree on the basics of it.

    at the beginning of this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Good Points Z.

    In Fairness, I Probably should Let you Know when I am Quoting Myself. It's Easier sometimes to do it that Way, than to Remember the Information off the Top of my Head, yet I do Know that I was Looking at Brochures when I was Writing this Stuff.

    "One really common 'Characteristic' that is often considered is the 'age of viability', which means how early can a baby survive outside of the Womb. There are a lot of Abortion Clinics that only allow Abortions up to 24 Weeks (6 Months), because this is considered the 'age of viability', just as is also mentioned in the above post in relation to the 6 Months time period, yet some will do them right up until the date of birth.

    "Some babies have been known to survive after a gestation period of less than 22 Weeks. Here is a Link relating to one of these earlier survivors. It’s a good thing that the doctors involved did not initially know the actual 'gestation age' or 'they might not have intervened’. The linked article explains how the 'doctors were shocked when the Taylors’ fertility specialist pinpointed the exact date of fertilization.' Basically what this illustrates is that doctors don’t actually in reality know where the exact edge of viability really is. Here’s the link."


    Preemie Survives at 22 Weeks

    "I never did understand this 'age of viability' argument, though, because what makes a baby that has the ability to survive in a man made incubator any more a person than one that has the ability to survive in the incubator designed by God; the Womb? Also, as man’s technology improves, the 'age of viability' will go down, yet why should the age at which a baby has certain rights be determined by the state of man’s technology at any given moment in history?"

    Interestingly, Satyavati said 26 Weeks and I said 24, but in Reality Babies sometimes Survive at 22 Weeks or Less. Apparently, Z has an Example of a Baby that Survived at 20 Weeks. Wow!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. News flash, a baby cannot survive outside the womb without someone feeding it either, should we be allowed to kill them because they cannot survive on their own?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I've seen the previews on the tube Z. I suppose it's not all that different than Point Break where they dressed as presidents. It can be a mad corrupt world. Religions aren't exempt.

    ReplyDelete
  44. To Saty:

    To be neither against something nor for something is known as having a nonposition. It can be honorable for the time being but you obviously have a position. What is it and

    WHY???

    ReplyDelete
  45. If I haven't made this clear by now then it's never going to be clear.

    Would you rather I capitalize every other word and provide annotations and bibliographies to every word I've written on the subject?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Is the right to abortion self-evident?

    The reality is that the practice of abortion is not condoned nor condemned by God in the bible. And in fact when I state that rights only extend to the living, this argument is in effect supported in Exodus (in that God gave legal personhood status to the woman in verses therein where the unborn he did not). But more importantly and to my point, is that while you may advocate and err on the side of life, do not make the mistake of of arguing that fetal developement is in effect life. For life begins when one breathes the breathe of life through their nostrils (Genesis) and if you deem yourself a Christian then by God you ought to know this.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The Bible Says "Thou Shalt not Kill."

    Here are some Favorite Scriptures that are Used to Support Pro-Life.

    "13) For Thou hast possessed my reins. Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. 14) I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvellous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15) My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. 17) How precious also are Thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them!" (Psalms 139:13-17, KJV)

    "41) And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 42) And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43) And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44) For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:41-44, KJV)

    There are Others. That's just the First Two that Came to Mind.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Saty are you talking about holding a permanent nonposition on the issue? So is Pro-Choice a position or a nonposition? Can a nonposition be a position? Pro-Life agree or disagree is a position. What is Pro-Choice?

    ReplyDelete
  49. ...trouble with pro-choice as a descriptive label is it doesn't tell me much. It can run the gamut from personally opposed but to gungho. How far into the pregnancy? (so far soapie hasn't answered that question) and for this reason abortion is inherently a legislative issue that doesn't belong in the judicial arena. Certainly in let's say a post-Roe world to allow abortion would require an act of the Legislature. Maybe even liberal church groups would bear influence, all the groups you previously mentioned that shouldn't be involved in the issue at all at least according to you. So a legislature that would allow abortion is in effect getting involved in the issue imposing a pro-choice view. That view being imposed is that the fetus has zero moral status (soapie's view) and as such is the imposition of somebody's POV. There's no escaping it, the dialectical trap is built right in.

    ReplyDelete
  50. WTF, Z? We have had 800 conversations on this matter and I have made my thoughts on it abundantly clear 800 times and still you're trying to accuse me of some kind of 'non' position.

    What is it you want? I have told you everything I believe on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Satyavati appears to believe in the age of viability argument and according to her, or perhaps the hospital or clinic that she works for, that is 26 Weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Here's an Interesting Link. Apparently, the Age of Viability is now Considered 21 to 22 Weeks.

    Age of Viability

    ReplyDelete
  53. Personal views vs. political views on the matter Saty. That preternatural compartmentalization of which you are famous. Two columns, dialectical opposites and how you do square the two? Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are dialectical opposites as well and where do we normally resolve this kind of dialectical tension? You guessed it,

    The Legislature.

    ReplyDelete
  54. A woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes, period.

    Clear enough?

    ReplyDelete
  55. No it's not. That being the case why isn't prostitution legal yet in most of the States? Curiously many feminists are also against decriminalizing prostitution. For instance I remember when NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman, a RINO went up against a libertarian guy who advocated making prostitution legal and she said no way in hell. Again though it's not her body in the case of abortion. Now if you had said it's a process that takes place within the woman's body that'd be hard to argue against. What are your personal views on the act of abortion and how do you resolve the dialectical tension this sets up between your personal views and your political views which you just stated?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Why do you assume they're different?

    ReplyDelete
  57. And the reason prostitution isn't legal is because the government doesn't get a cut of it.

    Case in point, it's legal in Nevada, because they do get a cut of it.

    Otherwise, it's just another black market commodity that the government will keep illegal until they can tax it, just like everything else.

    Why is stripping legal, and why is porn legal? Because the strip club gets taxed.. the movie company gets taxed. It's a simple money matter.

    Trust me that it has nothing to do with a woman's right to do with her body as she wants to, because prostitution, as we know, is the oldest of all entrepreneurships.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Interesting Z,
    I never thought of that particular contradiction before.

    Satyavati,
    You still haven't answered my question about Informed Consent. Aside from a few key words, I have very carefully avoided capitalizing letters so that you would no longer be able to use that as an excuse. In North Carolina, are the doctors required to inform their patients about Fetal Development and Post Abortion Syndrome before preforming an Abortion? In California, they are not.

    And what about Parental Notification Laws? California doesn't require any of this and Abortion is also legal right up until the date of Birth. As long as the Birth has not yet occurred, Abortion is legal in California.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The doctrine of "informed consent" within the context of physician-patient relationships goes far back into English COMMON LAW. As early as 1767, doctors were charged with the tort of "battery" (i.e., an unauthorized physical contact with a patient) if they had not gained the consent of their patients prior to performing a surgery or procedure (e.g., Slater v. Baker and Stapleton).

    Within the United States, the seminal case is generally accepted to be that of Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 NY 125 (1914). In that case, involving allegations of unauthorized surgery during an exploratory EXAMINATION, Justice Cardozo's oft-quoted opinion was that "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an ASSAULT, for which he is liable in damages." The court further described the offense as a "trespass" (upon the patient's body and self).

    However, requiring that the patient first consented was only half the task. The other half involved the patient's receipt of sufficient information upon which to make a sound decision. Thus, the concept of "informed consent" was developed on the premise of two distinct components: a person's inherent right to determine what happens to his or her body and a doctor's inherent duty to provide a person with enough information so as to ensure that the patient's ultimate decision is based on an appreciable knowledge of his/her condition, the available options for treatment, known risks, prognoses, etc. Importantly, this means that the patient does not have a duty to inquire about risks or options; the duty rests with the treating doctor.
    From Common Law to Statute

    Virtually all states recognize, either by express STATUTE or common law, the right to receive information about one's medical condition, the treatment choices, risks associated with the treatments, possible outcomes, and prognoses. Generally, the law requires that medical information be in plain language terms that can readily be understood and in sufficient amounts such that a patient is able to make an "informed" decision about his or her health care. If the patient has received this information (and is otherwise competent to receive the information), any consent to treatment that is given will be presumed to be an "informed consent." A doctor who fails to obtain INFORMED CONSENT for non-emergency treatment may be charged with a civil and/or criminal offense. In 1972, the American Medical Association (AMA) incorporated the concept of informed consent in its Patient's BILL OF RIGHTS movement, and almost all state versions of patient rights include provisions related to informed consent.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Application of the Doctrine

    Typically, an "informed consent" issue arises when a patient suffers an injurious or harmful outcome from a treatment, surgery, or procedure. The harmful or injurious outcome does not appear to be the result of any NEGLIGENCE. The patient alleges that he or she was never informed of the possibility of occurrence of the resulting injury or harm.

    From that point, the causative factor of the harm or injury must be analyzed. If the negative result (injury or harm) was a foreseeable complication or fore-seeable risk, but the possibility of its occurrence had not been communicated to the patient in advance, there may be an actionable case of "lack of informed consent."

    In order to prevail on a charge that a doctor performed a treatment or procedure without "informed consent," the patient must usually show that, had the patient known of the particular risk, outcome, or alternative treatment allegedly not disclosed, the patient would not have opted for the chosen treatment or procedure and thus, would have avoided the risk. In other words, the patient must show a harmful consequence to the alleged failure to disclose.

    There are unique applications of the doctrine of informed consent, such as in cases involving medical subjects for research, patients of minority age, mentally incompetent patients, etc. The basic premises still apply, however, either directly or indirectly through a surrogate decision maker.
    Defenses

    Certain injuries or harms may occur inevitably, and even be foreseeable, despite the best of care and the presentation of comprehensive information to the patient regarding options, risks, foreseeable outcomes, and prognoses. In fact, one of the most viable defense to a charge of "lack of informed consent" is that the resulting harm or injury was a "known risk" and that the patient assumed the risk of its occurrence when the patient consented to the surgery, treatment, or procedure. (This would be true if the patient had been warned of the potential occurrence of the specific harm or injury and chose the surgery, treatment, or procedure anyway.)

    Other viable defenses include the unforeseeability of the harm or injury or that its occurrence was so remote that the doctor had no duty to otherwise advise the patient of the possibility of that particular harm or injury. There is no duty to obtain consent in an emergency where attempts to obtain consent would delay vital emergency treatment. Additionally, doctors may withhold information from a patient if, in the doctor's professional judgment, disclosure would be upsetting to the patient or would substantially interfere with effective treatment. This is referred to as "therapeutic privilege."

    Finally, a physician may defend that the patient chose not to hear all the information. Some patients do not wish to participate in medical decisionmaking and simply defer to the physician's best judgment. Under such circumstances, doctors generally have patients sign waivers giving up their rights to full disclosures. If the patient had prior knowledge of the risks (having undergone the surgery or procedure previously), or if the risks are common knowledge (such as pain following suturing a wound), there is generally no duty to repeat or expressly inform of these risks.

    ReplyDelete
  61. MICHIGAN: Michigan recognizes implied consent as developed by case law. It generally applies the professional standard. Michigan also treats, as an ASSAULT AND BATTERY, any physical contact with a patient that exceeds the scope of the granted consent. Patient consent may be expressed or implied. Werth v. Taylor, 190 Mich App 141 (1991).

    MISSOURI: Missouri recognizes implied consent as developed by case law. It generally follows the professional standard, i.e., that of a reasonably prudent provider (of medical care or treatment) in the medical community.Baltzell v. VanBuskirk, 752 S.W.2d 902 (Mo. App. 1988).

    NEBRASKA: Nebraska Revised Statutes, Section 44-2816 adopts the objective professional community standard.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 507-C:2 adopts the objective professional community standard.

    NEW YORK: NY Public Health Laws, Section 2805-d, applies the professional community standard and specifically provides that "[l]ack of informed consent means the failure... to disclose to the patient such alternatives... and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits involved as a reasonable medical... practitioner under similar circumstances."

    NORTH CAROLINA: North Carolina General Statute 90-21.13(a)(3) applies an objective professional community standard to a physician's duty to inform.

    OHIO: The Ohio Revised Code, Section 2317.54 adopts a reasonably prudent patient or materiality standard, expressly requiring the disclosure of "reasonably known risks."

    OREGON: Oregon Rev. Stat. 677.097 adopts the reasonably prudent patient or materiality standard and requires a disclosure "in substantial detail."

    PENNSYLVANIA: Pa. Stat. Ann. Title 40-1301.103 adopts the "materiality" standard.

    TENNESSEE: Tennessee has adopted an objective professional community standard. Tenn. Code. Ann. 29-26-118.

    TEXAS: Texas Code Ann. Article 4590i-6.02 adopts the "materiality" standard. Texas law has created the Texas Medical Disclosure Panel, comprised of three attorneys and six physicians, to establish "the degree of disclosure required and the form in which the disclosure will be made."

    UTAH: Utah Code Ann. 78-14-5(f) follows an objective reasonably prudent patient standard, i.e., "reasonably prudent person in the patient's position."

    VERMONT: Vermont Stat. Ann. Title 12-1909 adopts the objective professional community standard, requiring that the information disclosed be provided in a manner that allows a reasonably prudent patient to "make a knowledgeable evaluation."

    WASHINGTON: Washington has adopted the reasonably prudent patient or "materiality" standard under Wash Rev. Code Ann. 7.70.050.

    WEST VIRGINIA: West Virginia has abrogated the professional community standard and adopted a materiality standard. W. Va. Stat 55-7B-3

    ReplyDelete
  62. Please be aware that this is the law. It wasn't written either for you or for your agenda and your approval and/or agreement with it are both entirely moot.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Select State Law Provisions Regarding Disclosure Requirements

    ALASKA: Alaska has adopted a reasonable patient (materiality) standard (Alaska Stat. Ann. 09.55.556(a) but articulates four specific defenses that may be raised on the part of the physician.

    ARKANSAS: Arkansas Stat. Ann. 16-114-206(b) provides that "the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving... that the medical care provider did not supply that type of information regarding the treatment, procedure, or surgery as would customarily have been given to a patient... by other medical care providers with similar training and experience."

    CALIFORNIA: California generally applies the professional community standard, as developed by CASE LAW. Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal 3d 229 (1972).

    DELAWARE: Delaware applies the professional community standard. Del. Code Ann. Title 18-6852.

    FLORIDA: Florida Statute Section 766.103 expressly adopts the professional community standard, providing that actions are barred if "the action of the [physician] in obtaining the consent of the patient... was in accordance with an accepted standard of medical practice among members of the medical profession with similar training and experience in the same or similar medical community."

    GEORGIA: Georgia Code Ann. 31-9-6.1 follows a professional community standard but requires that the harm caused from the alleged failures to disclose be associated with "the material risks generally recognized and accepted by the reasonably prudent physician."

    HAWAII: Hawaii Rev. Stat. 671-3(a) establishes a board of medical examiners to develop standards ensuring that a "patient's consent to treatment is an informed consent." It further provides that the standards may be ADMISSIBLE in court as EVIDENCE of the standard of care required of health care providers.

    IDAHO: Idaho Code Section 39-4301 et seq., specifically 39-4304, expressly adopts the objective professional community standard.

    ILLINOIS: The state of Illinois has adopted the objective professional community standard (Ill. Ann. Stat. Ch. 110, 2-622) and requires that the alleged breach of duty be reviewed and substantiated by a physician reviewing the case (medical expert) prior to filing a complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  64. INDIANA: Indiana Code Ann. 16-9.5.1 adopts a reasonably prudent patient or "materiality" standard, requiring a disclosure of "material risks."

    IOWA: Iowa Code Ann. 147.137 follows an objective professional community standard and further requires that the information disclosed include a detailed list of potential outcomes.

    KENTUCKY: Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 304.40-320 adopts the objective professional community standard.

    LOUISIANA: Louisiana Rev. Stat. Title 40, Section 1299.40, and 1299.50 (Louisiana Medical Consent Law) raise a presumption of informed consent if information is provided in writing and sets forth certain factors (consistent with general requirements of informed consent).

    MAINE: Maine Rev. Stats. Ann., Title 24-2905 adopts the professional community standard.

    MASSACHUSETTS: Massachusetts recognizes IMPLIED CONSENT as developed by case law. It generally follows the "materiality" standard, i.e., a doctor must disclose that information which the doctor should reasonably recognize as material to the patient's decision. Halley v. Birbiglia, 458 N.E.2d 710 (1983).

    ReplyDelete
  65. Whoa whoa whoa, I come back from my day trip and there's all this. What'd you guys call out sick or something?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oh so now you're a lawyer too? All that's good Saty but I don't think Lista's disputing all of that. She would simply like to see informed consent as it relates to abortion to include information on fetal development, Post Abortion Syndrome and maybe a couple other matters.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Those are the laws of informed consent.

    There aren't any special laws about 'informed consent for cancer'.. 'informed consent for liver biopsy'... 'informed consent for abortion.'

    There are informed consent laws period, and they weren't written with anyone's personal agenda in mind.

    And those are the laws right there. Study the case law if you like. Those are the laws.

    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure as hell versatile.

    ReplyDelete
  68. So when is the exam and where is it being held? Study up Lista.

    Re your personal vs. your political views on abortion you said this: "why do you assume they're different?" Based on previous discussions about your views on killing any type of living creature and the bad karma it sets up. That sets up a dialectical tension right there.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Not sure as hell versatile you just know how to google exceptionally well.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'm not sure why you're insisting on this so doggedly.

    I believe a woman has the right to determine what happens to her body and what medical treatments are or are not inflicted on it.

    Period.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ah, I'm more versatile than you think.

    My husband says I'm the only woman he knows who can competently use every power tool he's got (including the chainsaw), spin you wool and then knit you a sweater out of it, sew and embroider a quilt for your bed, make bread, jam and bakery-worthy (vegetarian)New York cheesecake, reset the plugs on a distributor cap correctly (obviously this necessitates a really old car), play four different instruments at least competently if not damn good, breed, grow, market and can heirloom tomatoes, give accurate technical instructions on how to build a flight of steps, read in three languages, type 75wpm and suture a wound if necessary.

    That was just the off-the-top-of-his-head list.

    And I can google with the best of them.

    Yeah, I'm versatile.

    ReplyDelete
  72. You still haven't answered the question. BTW humility is obviously not your strong suit.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I gave you all the answer you're going to get.

    I'm about the right of every single woman to make whatever choice she feels right for her, in her life, at the time she's confronted with it.

    And if I had no humility, you'd have known all that stuff a really, really long time ago.

    :P

    ReplyDelete
  74. Basically it's a nonposition but you have the right to hold that. It's a kind of nonposition because you have no view on the act itself which even those like Joe Biden who say they're personally opposed at least have a view on the act. It's like when a liberal or libertarian may say they hate porn but pornsters have the free speech right to make it. It's a more detailed statement and shows they've thought about it. It's like when soapie said he and his longtime partner discussed abortion and say they would have the kid. You'd expect this in a relationship. Let's say I fall in love with a woman and much later on in our relationship the matter of abortion comes up not as a reality but as something you want to know her views on and she kept repeating your line over and over and over again. Well hunky-dory but does that mean she'll abort our kid or not? Whatever:)

    ReplyDelete
  75. It's kinda like this: people love to argue these things on a theoretical basis, 'oh I would do this', 'oh I would never do this', and unless and until you've been in that situation it's all just so much talk, isn't it?

    How can you KNOW how you'd react, until you've been there and seen it, felt it, been weighted down under the enormity of the decision you have to make?

    How many people have gone on record against 'pulling the plug' on people.. until it's their own parent or child or best friend or spouse, and they have to look at the situation through the eyes of reality instead of some pretty theoretical construct?

    How many people have taken some pontifical stance on some moral issue, and been fanatic and vehement about it, when they have no idea what someone facing that issue in real life goes through to make the decision that they have to make?

    You cannot predict how you will react to these things because until the moment you're faced with that decision, with the exact set of circumstances that surround it, you have no f'n idea what that decision really is or means or entails.

    The rest is just talk.

    Until it's staring you in the eye.. until some doctor is in your face asking you whether to turn the ventilator off.. you just can't say what you would or wouldn't do.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Moral agnosticism? I think not.

    I've seen people who were ADAMANTLY against taking Mama off the vent change their minds when they got an up close look at the way she was suffering. Decisions they will tell you they can't believe they're making, that they have always been against, until they are forced to look at the situation personally, as it relates to themselves, and not through some faraway impersonal haze of rhetoric and self-righteousness.

    Until you're faced with the decision, you can have no idea what it entails.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I hope that you never have to make these decisions and realize that it's not as cut, dried and nicely packaged as you seem to believe it is.

    I mean that.

    We took my father off the vent on October 20, 2006 with the assumption that he would be dead within 30 minutes.

    It took him 15 hours. I was there the entire time.

    He waited until three minutes after midnight, October 21, 2006, which was his 45th wedding anniversary.

    Jakari's mother, after he suffered a massive brain haemorrhage, had to make the decision whether to take him off the ventilator or not.

    You have absolutely no idea what these decisions entail until you have to go through them personally.

    It's impossible to predict.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "It's like when soapie said he and his longtime partner discussed abortion and say they would have the kid."

    WTF? That makes me sound gay. And while I'll concede I do have a lavender colored shirt, I'm a big fan of the chics. Call her my girlfriend from this point forward. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  79. You do realize of course that abortion and the situations you describe are not exactly the same. Many people who would never be party to an abortion would know when someone's time is up. Ooops, my library time is up as well.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The point I'm making is until you're standing in that woman's shoes you can have no possible idea what circumstances she finds herself in, nor what things she has to weigh and consider to make her decision.

    You can not possibly, unless you have some hidden power of mindreading, have any clue of what her decision will entail.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I might make the abstract argument that if we're dealing with a human life all of that doesn't really matter. I think I'm getting it now though:

    "Doctors may withhold information from a patient if, in the doctor's professional judgement disclosure would be upsetting to the patient or would substantially interfere with effective treatment. This is referred to as 'therapeutic privilege.' "

    Which ties in perfectly with Lista's point that they don't talk about fetal development or Post Abortion Syndrome with the woman, too upsetting, therapeutic privilege, the bottom line. I've always said it should be the pro-choicers themselves who should be pushing these type informed consent laws. The fact that they don't is just one more nail in the coffin as to why most of them are pro-abortion. I could blog for a whole day and list the reasons why in most cases pro-choice is pro-abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ask yourself this though: does it take any special guts to say your pro-choice? One commenter once took issue with this saying clinic workers are under siege every single day so let me amend this. You're at a Manhattan cocktail party and the subject of abortion comes up. All you have to do is keep repeating your line Saty and leave it at that. IMO it's a safe position, more like a copout. Sometimes it can be sincere of course but honestly it's the easiest thing to say in mixed company. Pro-life on the other hand...

    ReplyDelete
  83. Wow!! 26 Comments since I Last Wrote!! I was going to try and read at least Half of them, but only got through 8. Oh well.

    Satyavati,
    The problem that I was addressing was the denial by much of the Medical Profession that the Risk of Post Abortion Syndrome is Real and that the patient should be Informed about it before being given an Abortion. Knowledge of Fetal Development is a part of this issue because when patients do not Understand this Correctly and then Later become aware of "What they Actually Consented to Killing", this causes Guilt and Post Abortion Symptoms.

    In Light of Post Abortion Syndrome, "Therapeutic Privilege", in relation to "Fetal Development" information "upsetting the patient", only puts off the distress, which can be even more harmful later.

    Unfortunately, when an issue becomes Overly Political, even Scientists and Researchers become Biased and things that would normally be resolved more easily, such as in relation to Non-Political Surgeries, become so Political that the Facts become Distorted.

    Remember, though, we are no longer discussing Banning all Abortions, for Informed Consent is a separate issue.

    The issue of Parental Notification and Consent comes to mind as well. These two issues are related because just as you noted, the need for a "Surrogate Decision Maker", when the patient is "of minority age". Without Parental Notification, such "Informed Consent" can not be secured.

    Also, if a Minor can not really give Consent, then how can a Minor sign a Waiver to release the Doctor from the Obligation to Inform?

    As to your comment, Satyavati, that "It wasn't written either for you or for your agenda and your approval and/or agreement with it are both entirely moot.", since the Government, as well as it's Laws, are "Of the People, For the People and By the People", what you have said in this Statement is not Correct.

    Also, all your Legal Jargon hasn't Answered my Question about Informed Consent in relation to Fetal Development and Post Abortion Syndrome. In spite your massive amounts of legal Jargon, these two Issues were not mentioned therein.

    Thanks Z,
    You have restated my concerns about Informed Consent, in relation to Fetal Development and Post Abortion Syndrome very well. I look forward to coming back and reading her response.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Sorry about the Duplicate, Z. I got a Message that the Comment was too Large to Print and then I Realized that it had Printed anyway and I No Longer see a Trash Can. Do Feel Free to Delete one of the above Messages since they are Duplicates. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Never Mind, Z, I Figured it Out.

    Getting back to the Above.

    Satyavati,
    "There aren't any special laws about 'informed consent for cancer'.. 'informed consent for liver biopsy'... 'informed consent for abortion.'"

    The only procedure mentioned above that causes extra emotional distress, leading to an actual set of emotional symptoms, due to lack of a specific type of information is Abortion, so this particular procedure requires additional information beyond just that of the Physical Risks.

    "They weren't written with anyone's personal agenda in mind."

    Yes, and actually they were written before Abortion was so common place in our Society, as well as before as much was known about Fetal Development.

    Z,
    I don't know if Satyavati Googled this or got it out of a Manual at Work. It has to do with Medical Procedures and therefore, Nursing.

    Satyavati,
    The point that Z was making about Karma is that if you kill a baby, born or not, this will bring Bad Karma. I guess he wants you to see the tension this produces between Personal Beliefs and Beliefs about Legal Rights.

    My Husband just informed me that I've got to get off the Computer Now.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "My Husband just informed me that I've got to get off the Computer Now."

    Wow. As a Libertarian, I don't think it could be overstated how well that'd go over in my house.

    ReplyDelete
  87. In fact, come to think of it...I don't even think you have to be a Libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Oh for Pete's Sake, Soap,
    You are making a False Assumption. My Husband and I had made Arrangements Yesterday to go somewhere Today at a certain time and I wasn't Watching my Time. All my Husband did was draw my Attention to that Fact.

    Back to the Subject...

    Satyavati is very good at avoiding questions. She did not answer Z's question about Karma, nor my Question about Informed Consent, as it specifically relates to Fetal Development and Post Abortion Syndrome. She has avoided both of these Questions.

    One of your comments moved me, though, Satyavati. When you said that we do not always know what we will do until we are in a certain situation, you are Absolutely Right. This is the reason why we are to Forgive and not Judge. It is also the reason why those who have Post Abortion Remorse need to also Forgive themselves and somehow get to the point in which they realize that Life Goes On and it's Ok.

    Believe it or not, Satyavati, I do know what you are saying.

    Actually Z,
    Abortion IS like Satyavati describes, especially if there is no Counseling or Meaningful Support System.

    I don't know if you remember something that BB-Idaho mentioned once about two teenage girls that Committed Suicide, rather than carrying their babies to term. Well, this is a good Example of what Satyavati is talking about in relation to how the stress can be significant and can lead to decisions different than one might expect, yet my opinion is different from hers in that I do not feel that Abortion on Demand is the answer.

    The answer is to provide counseling and emotional support and perhaps even occasionally, the allowance of an Abortion, due to Extreme Insinuating Circumstances.

    You made Very Good Points, though, Z, in your last two Comments.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Your wording did not leave that impression.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Sorry, but when I'm in a Hurry to Leave, being Careful about Wording is Difficult to do. As I Recall, we had this same Exact Misunderstanding before, so Perhaps I do Need to be Careful with my Exist Language when you're around. Perhaps Next Time, I'll just say, "Oophs! Gotta' Run." and Avoid any Further Explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  91. She did not answer Z's question about Karma,

    I told you everything you're going to get. I believe that a woman has a right to make the choice about what happens to her uterus. Your karma is your own.

    nor my Question about Informed Consent, as it specifically relates to Fetal Development and Post Abortion Syndrome.

    There are no specific laws about these things. I gave you the law. I'm not the Supreme Court. Ask them.

    She has avoided both of these Questions.

    Uh.. no. You don't want to hear my answers and keep asking the same questions over and over again thinking you're going to get something different.

    My grandma had this same kind of 'selective deafness' thing.

    Recently I wrote some things about the differences between pro choice people and pro life people.

    The most outstanding difference is that pro life people aren't content until they've bludgeoned everyone into conversion to their point of view. Pro choice people don't particularly care what other people believe, as long as they're free to make their own decisions.

    You never see people holding signs and screaming at girls going into pro-life clinics trying to convince them to have abortions.

    Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  92. "I believe that a woman has a right to make the choice about what happens to her uterus."

    What made you think I am against hysterectomies?

    "My grandma had this same kind of 'selective deafness' "

    Your answers lack nuance.

    "Pro-choice people don't particularly care what other people believe"

    Obviously since they want everyone to subsidize abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Lista all this discussion proves is that there is no common ground between the lifers and the choicers. One would think that informed consent would be that bridge but that amounts to an agenda in their opinion. Let's say a sonogram sways most women against abortion, well if you're only about choice why should this bother you?

    ReplyDelete
  94. You Know Z,
    Maybe Sayavati just thought that your Question about Karma was too Personal and she doesn't want to Answer a Personal Question, only a Political one and Perhaps that's Ok.

    She is not Arguing anything either. She doesn't want to Tell us her Opinion about Informed Consent. She only wants to tell us what the Law is.

    Saytavani,
    "Pro choice people don't particularly care what other people believe, as long as they're free to make their own decisions."

    Political Blogging is about sharing our opinions with each other. That's what these Blogs are about. If you don't care what other people believe, than why do you Blog?

    "You never see people holding signs and screaming at girls going into pro-life clinics trying to convince them to have abortions. Do you?"

    No, the Pressure to Abort generally comes from Family, Friends and Boyfriends.

    Z-man,
    Don't Lose Heart. The Lack of Common Ground is only Lacking when People's Opinions are Extreme, such as Absolutely No Abortions, Period or Absolutely No Restrictions, Period.

    What this Discussion Proves is where Total Lack of Compromise will get you.

    There is one other Possibility too and that is that it is Hard to Find Common Ground with someone who is Injured. In this case, what is needed is Healing, not Arguments. It is hard to tell which of these things is True and I'm not going to venture to guess, but this is where Understanding and Love comes in and not Judgments or even Arguments. That's why I'm Wondering if it is Time to move on to another Subject, for it sort of sounds as if Satyavati has had enough of this one.

    ReplyDelete
  95. If you don't care what other people believe, than why do you Blog?

    Why did VanGogh paint?

    Why does Anvil continue to play?

    Why did Harry Fite spend 37 years in the back woods of NY building Opus 40?

    I don't blog for anyone else but me.

    I write for me, just like I play for me, I paint for me, I create for me.

    I do these things because I have to do them, because they have to come out.

    I don't do it so people will read it or buy it or stroke my ego by agreeing with me and telling me how fabulous I am.

    I do it for me; I couldn't give a shit if people like what I write, or paint, or craft, or play. It's not about other people. It's about me and my own creativity. Period.

    Perhaps that's difficult to comprehend; I understnd...ego is a huge motivator for most people.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Let's say a sonogram sways most women against abortion, well if you're only about choice why should this bother you?

    It doesn't bother me. The part that bothers me is when someone is getting in the girl's face, screaming at her that she's a murderer and THEN shoving a sonogram in her face trying to guilt or freak her out.

    That's up there on a par with standing outside of Neiman Marcus throwing red paint on people walking out in furs.

    It's assaultive and intrusive, not helpful.

    Look. I don't care what decision women make about their pregnancies. If they don't want an abortion, more power to them. Go girl, have you a pink and blue orgy at Babies R Us. Want an abortion? Go ahead. It's your decision. I'm here to support you either way.

    I do take offense at the abuse people hurl at these girls while they stand outside the abortion clinic.

    That's neither 'therapeutic' nor 'healing' nor 'understanding'. It's abusive and assaultive.

    Nobody stands outside pro-life clinics screaming at girls that they're horrible evil people for not having abortions.... they aren't shoving their agenda between anyone's legs out in the street. You only see that shit from the pro-life crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  97. As to your comment, Satyavati, that "It wasn't written either for you or for your agenda and your approval and/or agreement with it are both entirely moot.", since the Government, as well as it's Laws, are "Of the People, For the People and By the People", what you have said in this Statement is not Correct.

    Last time I checked, the law doesn't particularly care what you think about it. Whether you agree or disagree that you require a passport to get into the US after visiting another country is irrelevant. The law doesn't care what you think about it. You require a passport. The law wasn't written for you personally according to your particular personal opinion regarding international travel.

    Of course, using your logic we could claim that since the Government is supposed to be all about the people, your opinion that international travel shouldn't require a passport renders the law somehow invalid or wrong because it doesn't coincide with your personal viewpoint on it.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Huh. You make it sound as if Karma has more to do with Determinism, than Free Choice and Responsibility and with contributing to decisions, rather than being the result of good or bad decisions.

    I've never heard Karma described that way before. Perhaps you've taught me something.

    I have not been Communicating with you "For Ages", so I've missed all the explanations that you have given to Z and whoever else.

    Once again, I'm sorry that I've angered you. If you would prefer that I just assume that you're Self Centered, then that is the other Possibility.

    "I understand...ego is a huge motivator for most people."

    The other motive that is Other Centered, rather than Self Centered, is Love. Sometimes people care what others think, because they "Care".

    "The part that bothers me is when someone is getting in the girl's face, screaming at her that she's a murderer and THEN shoving a sonogram in her face trying to guilt or freak her out."

    As far as Informed Consent goes, a Doctor that was required to give this Information to a Patient would not do it in the manner you have described.

    Pushiness in never helpful, regardless of what issue it relates to.

    "Last time I checked, the law doesn't particularly care what you think about it."

    No, but the Constitution does and I'm not just Expressing "My own personal Opinion". No, it is an Opinion shared by others besides myself.

    ReplyDelete
  99. The Constitution is silent on the matter or subject of abortion. Thus, it as well as a whole host of other issues/subjects are reserved to whom?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hi Soap,
    The Answer is the States and I'm Perfectly Ok with that. The Woe vs Wade Case Took away this right from the States. Do you think it should be Over Turned, so that the States can again decide for themselves about allowing or not allowing Abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Yes I do believe the states ought to make that determination.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "why would this bother you?"

    As a clarification I didn't mean YOU but you in a general sense referring to many choicers.

    ReplyDelete
  103. At the outset I asked the simple question "is the right to abortion self-evident?" I wanted to know from people like Saty and soap did they really have to think long and hard about this issue before reaching a pro-choice stance or whether they came to this "conclusion" right away and came up with the reasons later. I was philosophically curious and while this has been a good discussion the original meaning of the blog went off the tracks. Didn't want this to be all about the many facets of the abortion debate just how did you arrive at your conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Actually Z,
    Soap is not as Pro-Choice as he Initially Appears to be and by that I mean that though he believes in Choice, because the Libertarian Philosophy Emphasizes such, he sides with Pro-Lifers on a lot of the Issues.

    He does not believe in Government Funding of Abortions and He Believes in the Over-Turning of Woe vs. Wade, thus returning these Decisions to the States. He has also Stated that if his Girl Friend gets Pregnant, then they do not Plan on Aborting the Baby.

    About the Only Issue that he is Really Adamant about is the Issue of Abortion and Rape. He Believes in Allowing for this Exception, but then again, so do a Large Number of Pro-Lifers.

    We don't really get anywhere Politically until we Talk about "the many facets of the abortion debate", or put another way, the Specifics. Generalities do not Lead to any Meaningful Conclusions that can be Applied in Real Life.

    ReplyDelete
  105. The only thing I'd add to that is that I do not expect any other individual(s) to take the same decision as I do. As they respect my decisions so to do I respect theirs. That is not to infer that I sanction nor condone the decision that they may make. If they wish to chart a different course for themselves then it is with themselves and their decisions that they shall live with.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I didn't mean to ignore the Common Ground between us and soapie. I've often said I could support a pro-choicer who is against Roe vs. Wade but that is a rare bird indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  107. I got too much interesting stuff on your blog. I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! Keep up the good work. click here

    ReplyDelete