SD House Passes Abortion Ban

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Meuge
BaliBabyDoc, why do you persist in addressing him - he already said that you were a disgrace to the medical profession... what makes you think he'll listen to you now?

I must have missed that thread. I usually post to "correct the record", I rarely read his responses.

MolOnc eh. I used to be MolPharm.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: BlueFlamme

Originally posted by: loki8481
if this goes before the supreme court, it will be rejected purely on the basis that it does not include a provision for abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. I'm pretty sure that's why late-term abortion bans got shot down as well.

It said right there at the bottom that:

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

So if they are in danger of dying they qualify. The generic "health of the mother" is typically used interchangably with "inconvience of the mother"

Prove it! Third trimester pregancy and childbirth sux. If you doubt it . . . try it. Aside from the specific medical conditions that require expedient cessation of pregancy (eclampsia, Marfan syndrome) there are always health consequences to pregnancy. Accordingly, women should have a lot of liberty in choosing how they will balance these issues.

That's why I said before - men have no right to decide the laws relating to pregnancy - their contribution, in a biological sense, is limited to a few thousand calories.

 

[compuwiz1]

Abortion is kind of like terminating a project you are no longer interested in persuing. I'd rather see a woman have the right to do that, vs. abandon a born infant in a garbage dumpster.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Meuge
BaliBabyDoc, why do you persist in addressing him - he already said that you were a disgrace to the medical profession... what makes you think he'll listen to you now?

I must have missed that thread. I usually post to "correct the record", I rarely read his responses.

MolOnc eh. I used to be MolPharm.

Cool... what made you choose pedes? My dad is a pediatrician, but I am not sure I have the patience for it.

 

[BlueFlamme]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: BlueFlamme
So if they are in danger of dying they qualify. The generic "health of the mother" is typically used interchangably with "inconvience of the mother"

Prove it! Third trimester pregancy and childbirth sux. If you doubt it . . . try it. Aside from the specific medical conditions that require expedient cessation of pregancy (eclampsia, Marfan syndrome) there are always health consequences to pregnancy. Accordingly, women should have a lot of liberty in choosing how they will balance these issues.

Well since no broad abortion bills have been upheld, there cannot be any proof. My statement is that if a bill outlawed all abortions with the "health of the mother" loophole, a large number of women would get abortions under that vague umbrella. It is a lot harder to prove that their life is in danger as opposed to that their general health is at risk.

 

[Pens1566]

I think you meant its easier to prove that their life is in danger.

 

[BlueFlamme]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
I think you meant its easier to prove that their life is in danger.

Are you trying to divide by zero or something? If their life is in danger, wouldn't you say their health is at risk?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This country is headed for civil war.

Bout time, it's been getting beyond rediculous here.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: BlueFlamme

Originally posted by: Pens1566
I think you meant its easier to prove that their life is in danger.

Are you trying to divide by zero or something? If their life is in danger, wouldn't you say their health is at risk?

Semantics. I was just wondering if you meant it the other way. To me, it would easier to prove that they're life is in danger (crashing, bleeding out), than it would general health is at risk(future ability to have children, etc.).

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Meuge
BaliBabyDoc, why do you persist in addressing him - he already said that you were a disgrace to the medical profession... what makes you think he'll listen to you now?

I must have missed that thread. I usually post to "correct the record", I rarely read his responses.

MolOnc eh. I used to be MolPharm.

Cool... what made you choose pedes? My dad is a pediatrician, but I am not sure I have the patience for it.

Actually I'm a fellow in pediatric neuropsychopharmacology . . . I do drug trials in kids with autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and Fragile X.

Due to our dysfunctional healthcare system most peds won't see a kid long enough to become impatient. As a student, I worked with a MD that saw 60 kids from 8AM to 6PM. It was ridiculous. Fortunately, kids are generally healthy. You pretty much have to try to kill them. Mother Nature is one crafty woman.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link

02/10/2006
SD House Approves Abortion Ban
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

This country is headed for civil war.

I'm not all that worried about a civil war. The left believes only a well regulated militia should have the right to bear arms and when they attack with insults and knives......the war will be quick and I'll be on the winning side.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Meuge
BaliBabyDoc, why do you persist in addressing him - he already said that you were a disgrace to the medical profession... what makes you think he'll listen to you now?

I must have missed that thread. I usually post to "correct the record", I rarely read his responses.

MolOnc eh. I used to be MolPharm.

Cool... what made you choose pedes? My dad is a pediatrician, but I am not sure I have the patience for it.

Actually I'm a fellow in pediatric neuropsychopharmacology . . . I do drug trials in kids with autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and Fragile X.

Due to our dysfunctional healthcare system most peds won't see a kid long enough to become impatient. As a student, I worked with a MD that saw 60 kids from 8AM to 6PM. It was ridiculous. Fortunately, kids are generally healthy. You pretty much have to try to kill them. Mother Nature is one crafty woman.

In the summer after my 1st year I worked with a surgeon that was one of the attendings at a breast health clinic at a huge public hospital. The clinic was open twice a week, and between 9am and 3pm, they'd see 40-50 women... with usually only 1 attending and 2 residents. When I came in the 3rd week, one of the residents was sick, so another attending gave me a chart and shoved me into the room with a patient. After walking in twice during the examinations, and seeing me perform it, as well as the interview the attending never came into the room again, instead demanding the same kind of a report that residents were giving him. Given that my experience with cancer and other diseases of the breast was limited to 3 lectures and 2 weeks of experience, I don't remember being more terrified in my life.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I really wish some of our politicians would have been aborted instead of allowing to bring their religious wrath upon us

Starting with Bush!!!

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Corn
[I'm not all that worried about a civil war. The left believes only a well regulated militia should have the right to bear arms and when they attack with insults and knives......the war will be quick and I'll be on the winning side.

And just like the last civil war, the blue states with more people, resources and equipment will kick your bare foot, buck tooth, inbred a$$es

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I do find it curious that you persist in citing medical statistics that have no basis in reality.

Lasik (laser eye surgery) accounts for over 2 million procedures each year . . . and that still isn't the most common surgical procedure.

If I had to guess . . . circumcision is probably more common than abortion as well . . . although a lot of states no longer cover the unkindest cut.

So you don't know the answer, don't have any sources, but are so quick to put me down? How nice of you. Unfortunately for you, I do have sources and didn't pull these statements out of my ass. The sources are slightly dated and the statistics may no longer be 100% accurate, but they're better than anecdotes.

Abortion is the most commonly performed surgical procedure in the United States. Approximately 28 percent of all pregnancies-about 1.6 million-are terminated annually.

Source: Blank, Robert and Merrick, Janna C., Human Reproduction, Emerging Technologies, and Conflicting Rights. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1995.

In the United States, about one of every three pregnancies never comes to term because the woman has an abortion. This translates into 1.5 million induced abortions a year. Include the rest of the world and the number rises to something on the order of 50 or 60 million.

Source: Flanders, Carl N., Abortion. Facts on File, Inc. 1991.

Actually more than 20% of pregnancies end in abortion but most of those are spontaneous. Probably a multiple of that number never implant. Granted, those numbers are a bit of "fuzzy" math b/c only Mother Nature knows exactly how many women got pregnant in a given year. And she can be a cold-hearted wench at times.

More than 20% of those not ended in spontaneous abortion are ended by induced abortion, which is the issue at hand. This is diversion #1.

Given as an abortion ratio (abortions per 1000 live births) you get close to a number ~20%. The abortion rate is a totally different number which is abortions per 1000 females 15-44. If you express that as a percentage you get a number less than 1.5%.

Great - you can twist statistics to include people who don't get pregnant. What does new statistic tell us? Nothing. It's a pitiful attempt to downplay the impact of the issue by creating another diversion: #2.

The portion performed after 13 weeks hasn't changed in a decade (88%). Neither has the portion performed after 20 weeks . . . possibly utilizing an intact D&X.

What does this have to do with anything? This is diversion #3.

Curiously, the same people clamoring to end abortion rights support foreign wars and cuts in domestic social services. There morals kind of sux.

This is diversion #4.

Reduce unwanted pregnancies and "elective" abortion becomes a RARE event.

This is diversion #5. Why is it so hard to stick to the issue? I guess since you called me out with only anecdotes, your position is relatively weak so you want to draw as much attention away from it as possible. See, my position isn't predicated on abortion being the most common surgery in the US today, only that it is a very common procedure carrying significant moral weight and, as such, is worthy of our attention.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
BaliBabyDoc, why do you persist in addressing him - he already said that you were a disgrace to the medical profession... what makes you think he'll listen to you now?

I didn't think you'd show your face in another such thread, after you refuted your own points in the last one before cutting and running. :roll: I guess now you'll post complete and utter lies now to defame me in lieu of any real arguments of your own. Typical of the elitist idiot. If I'm lying now, please call me out, produce a quote and a link to where I insulted BBD. Otherwise, DIAF.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
BaliBabyDoc, why do you persist in addressing him - he already said that you were a disgrace to the medical profession... what makes you think he'll listen to you now?

I didn't think you'd show your face in another such thread, after you refuted your own points in the last one before cutting and running. :roll: I guess now you'll post complete and utter lies now to defame me in lieu of any real arguments of your own. Typical of the elitist idiot. If I'm lying now, please call me out, produce a quote and a link to where I insulted BBD. Otherwise, DIAF.

/yawn

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
/yawn

That's what I thought. Now, kindly piss off.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link

02/10/2006
SD House Approves Abortion Ban
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

This country is headed for civil war.

Over abortion? Not likely.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link

02/10/2006
SD House Approves Abortion Ban
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

This country is headed for civil war.

Over abortion? Not likely.

No, of course not, but everything happens in baby steps, a fact alot of people fail to realise. If something doesnt happen overnight, than it will never happen.

I don't see a civil war in the states future though, maybe an internal religious struggle, but not all out civil war.

 

[Tab]

I wonder why the issuse is so strong in South Dakota... Even in Fargo, North Dakota - most people don't like abortion, but believe it should remain legal.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BlueFlamme

Originally posted by: loki8481
if this goes before the supreme court, it will be rejected purely on the basis that it does not include a provision for abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. I'm pretty sure that's why late-term abortion bans got shot down as well.

It said right there at the bottom that:

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

So if they are in danger of dying they qualify. The generic "health of the mother" is typically used interchangably with "inconvience of the mother"

my bad for some reason I read that and could have sworn the word "not" was in there... as in, "the bill does not contain"...

 

[robains]

I guess I don't even understand why this is an issue??

Last I checked, my body belongs to me -- or can someone legally suggest that it doesn't? What has my body got to do with someone's moral issues?

 

[Darkhawk28]

More radical right-wingers passing laws so that can look themselves in the mirror and say "Look everyone, we're GODLY people."

They know it won't end abortion, just push it underground, out of sight and out of mind. It'll solve nothing, but as long as they can say they did something, that's all that matters.

Now once the child is born, they don't give two chits.

 

[Hacp]

Let the red states ban abortion. That just means more buisiness in the blue states. More economic activity= red states stay poor while blue states thrive.

All this economic activity to be had. Taxi money. Medical bills. Food expenses. Hotel expenses. All of that goes to blue states. Yay.