I would be willing to bet serious money a C-section would resolve the issue of "a mother's life being in danger" on an order greater than than 5 9s. We should keep it legal for 1 in 10000? Now that's logical.
Bob forbid a society uphold laws to protect the minority.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Strike two for Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Strike two for Partial Birth Abortion BanFollow
ABORTIONS FOR ALL
crowd:booooooo!
ABORTIONS FOR NONE
crowd:booooooooooo!!
ABORTIONS FOR SOME AND TINY MINIATURE AMERICAN FLAGS FOR OTHERS
crowd:hurrrrrraaaayyyy!!
crowd:booooooo!
ABORTIONS FOR NONE
crowd:booooooooooo!!
ABORTIONS FOR SOME AND TINY MINIATURE AMERICAN FLAGS FOR OTHERS
crowd:hurrrrrraaaayyyy!!
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
I would be willing to bet serious money a C-section would resolve the issue of "a mother's life being in danger" on an order greater than than 5 9s. We should keep it legal for 1 in 10000? Now that's logical.
Well, yes. In cases where the mother's life is in danger and there is no other viable option, the procedure should be available. If that happens once a year or once in a decade, it should still be available.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I have no trouble with that definition, SammyX, provided that it should be left to the doctor's judgement overseen by an independent medical review board.
Totem
Totem
Quote:
I figured it, Sheebasaurusrex. So incidentally, is there some kind of I-am-purposefully-making-myself-unattractive culture among lesbos where they intentionally strive to horseface themselves up for each other or is it just dumb bad luck that they all ended up fugly? Seriously, I was in SF last night and even as a straight man I can say there are some handsome gay dudes, but the women? Uh-uh, not a one. I mean, there has to be some kind of self loathing going on for these women to go and try to find other women whose grills resemble car wrecks.
I don't get it.
I don't get it.
The Lexington Club...lipstick lesbians abound. Maybe, you just got caught in Critcal Mass.
provided that it should be left to the doctor's judgement overseen by an independent medical review board.
Agreed.
Medical malpractice cases should be handled the same way (by an independent medical review board) rather than judge/jury.
Agreed.
Medical malpractice cases should be handled the same way (by an independent medical review board) rather than judge/jury.
Critical Mass? What's that? A Catholic ceremony where everyone deconstructs and dissembles what the priest is doing up at the altar?*
Totem
*Yes, I really do know what CM is: A bunch of smelly two wheeled anarchists trying to keep me from getting home on time...
Totem
*Yes, I really do know what CM is: A bunch of smelly two wheeled anarchists trying to keep me from getting home on time...
Quote:
it should be left to the doctor's judgement overseen by an independent medical review board.
You're on a slippery slope here.
What other medical decisions should we take out of the hands of patients?
You're on a slippery slope here.
Guess I should have clarified before I agreed.
The decision is most certainly the patient's, but the doctor is the one both recommending and performing the procedure. A review board should review whether or not such procedures performed by the doctor were warranted.
You're on a slippery slope here.
Guess I should have clarified before I agreed.
The decision is most certainly the patient's, but the doctor is the one both recommending and performing the procedure. A review board should review whether or not such procedures performed by the doctor were warranted.
I suppose given the time frame the case for the procedure could be reviewed beforehand, but an independent board might be difficult to arrange in such a paradigm.
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Quote:
it should be left to the doctor's judgement overseen by an independent medical review board.
You're on a slippery slope here.
That's right. You tell'em. I think every single person should not only be given the right to self-diagnose but also self- treat any and all ailments, including the ailment of pregnancy. Actually, perhaps we can even make it a requirement. Of course, you know, being that we all have vast medical knowledge and have absolutely no need for that stupid doctor's frilly opinions.
This would be an awesome way to weed out the complete idiots in society. Let morons make their own decisions. I like it.
Bullsh1t, Yan. Since when does the patient know what medical condition of theirs is life threatening? And to prevent an unscrupulous doctor from being a cash-n-carry doc-in-a-box where everybody knows this is where a girl can get an abortion, no questions asked, the independent medical review board checks to see that the procedure is required or necessary.
Totem
Totem
Totem, you're so irrational on this topic it's not worth discussing with you.
Quote:
Totem, you're so irrational on this topic it's not worth discussing with you.
Define irony?
Irrational fembots valuing the right to choose over the right to life in all situations regardless of common sense deriding those with opposing viewpoints as irrational.
It's hardly the statement of a fembot or irrational person for me to point out that it's a dangerous precedent to start handing over the decisions for our medical treatments to medical review boards.
My point was not about this one issue.
Nice try though.
My point was not about this one issue.
Nice try though.
Quote:
My point was not about this one issue.
Sorry, I failed to realize we had branched out to the medical system as a whole.
I apologize.
No, it's a serious question, Yanari. A patient isn't asked whether he wants surgery in the event of a car accident, for example. If it's needed the doctor performs the operation, no questions asked. However, just as in a series of cases out here in California, where Tenet Healthcare was performing unnecessary heart operations on people to increase the profits, an independent medical review board caught the strange numbers of medical procedures being given and a federal lawsuit has been filed against Tenet.
And this is the norm. The doctor is given the lattitude to use his best judgement, but a governing board oversees the end result.
Don't tell me you'd prefer doctors with no controls over them, Yanari?
Totem
And this is the norm. The doctor is given the lattitude to use his best judgement, but a governing board oversees the end result.
Don't tell me you'd prefer doctors with no controls over them, Yanari?
Totem
Or just in cases involving abortions? Interesting way to run a railroad, girl...
Totem
Totem
For the sake of simplicity, let's just focus on patients who are conscious and would normally have the authority to make decisions about their medical treatments.
Ok, let's do that, Y.
Given that set of circumstances, you still want doctors performing medical procedures with no independent oversight? Each and every one of those heart patients up in Chico who was operated on by Dr. Moon was conscious, alert, and oriented X3. The lawsuit against him states that over 500 operations were performed on men and women who did not need any heart treatments. Unneeded. Unnecessary. Unrequired.
The hospital condoned his decisions, so they weren't a brake on his behavior, after all, he was bringing in money. The only way he was stopped was by the independent review board overseeing doctors and their procedures.
Now that you know this, tell me what the difference is. I have already allowed for doctors to do the abortive surgery, but you feel it is too constraining for an oversight board to make certain he is performing legitimate procedures. I maintain it is necessary to prevent unscrupulous doctors from abusing their privileges.
There's no irratioanlity here. Just good old common sense, unlike the foaming-at-the-mouth pro-abortionist baby killers who espouse a hands off, no holds barred, free for all in the operating room.
Totem
Given that set of circumstances, you still want doctors performing medical procedures with no independent oversight? Each and every one of those heart patients up in Chico who was operated on by Dr. Moon was conscious, alert, and oriented X3. The lawsuit against him states that over 500 operations were performed on men and women who did not need any heart treatments. Unneeded. Unnecessary. Unrequired.
The hospital condoned his decisions, so they weren't a brake on his behavior, after all, he was bringing in money. The only way he was stopped was by the independent review board overseeing doctors and their procedures.
Now that you know this, tell me what the difference is. I have already allowed for doctors to do the abortive surgery, but you feel it is too constraining for an oversight board to make certain he is performing legitimate procedures. I maintain it is necessary to prevent unscrupulous doctors from abusing their privileges.
There's no irratioanlity here. Just good old common sense, unlike the foaming-at-the-mouth pro-abortionist baby killers who espouse a hands off, no holds barred, free for all in the operating room.
Totem
There's no irratioanlity here. Just good old common sense, unlike the foaming-at-the-mouth pro-abortionist baby killers who espouse a hands off, no holds barred, free for all in the operating room.
Which one am I, just so I'm clear?
Which one am I, just so I'm clear?
You tell me, Dit. Do you want abortionists to be able to kill babies willy-nilly by performing invasive medical procedures with no oversight or do you want doctors to be given the discretion to save the mother by choosing her life over the baby's with a reasonable amount of institutional control?
I'd be curious how many here would want no controls just in the case of abortions, but want the safety of medical review boards in all the other procedures to make sure doctors are not quacks or unlicensed or just plain bad care givers. That would be a real litmus test of just how rabid a "pro-women's rights" advocate they are-- in other words, choice over any other factors is paramount.
Totem
I'd be curious how many here would want no controls just in the case of abortions, but want the safety of medical review boards in all the other procedures to make sure doctors are not quacks or unlicensed or just plain bad care givers. That would be a real litmus test of just how rabid a "pro-women's rights" advocate they are-- in other words, choice over any other factors is paramount.
Totem
Quote:
foaming-at-the-mouth pro-abortionist baby killers who espouse a hands off, no holds barred, free for all in the operating room.
The mother's life allways, allways, ALLWAYS takes precedent over the fetus.
How can that even be a point of discussion?
How can that even be a point of discussion?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I'd be curious how many here would want no controls just in the case of abortions, but want the safety of medical review boards in all the other procedures to make sure doctors are not quacks or unlicensed or just plain bad care givers. That would be a real litmus test of just how rabid a "pro-women's rights" advocate they are-- in other words, choice over any other factors is paramount.
I believe the oversight should be there. I also believe the specific procedure we're talking about here should be an absolute last resort, with the choice ultimately presented to the patient after the doctor has thoroughly explained the procedure, facts, consequences, and given his/her recommendation.
I want the law to protect the choice.
I believe the oversight should be there. I also believe the specific procedure we're talking about here should be an absolute last resort, with the choice ultimately presented to the patient after the doctor has thoroughly explained the procedure, facts, consequences, and given his/her recommendation.
I want the law to protect the choice.
Recent Visitors: 226
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (226)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Strike two for Partial Birth Abortion Ban
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC