rat mothers

You are arguing that patients should not make the decision whether or not to have an abortion. According to you they have no expertise, and thus are unqualified to make decisions regarding their own pregancy. I didn't realize you were so anti-choice.I have to disagree. I think patients should definitely have a say in whether or not the fetus they are carrying is aborted.

I'll hold you to the same standard you held RiverRat, and respond to you with your own quote: Stop playing games and being so childish, and admit that you don't think patients should be involved in decisions regarding their own reproductive health, since they lack medical expertise. That was clearly what you stated.(Or perhaps just realize that what is truly childish is taking a statement out of context or a miscommunicated statement, refusing to believe the poster of that statement when they try to clarify, and indeed devoting an entire thread to berating that poster...)

Blindness - sort of like refusing to read/accept RR's clarifications and explanations...My point was that you were not arguing his position. You were arguing an out-of-context quote from another thread, and refusing to let it ago when he tried to explain. In fact, your response to his attempts to clarify his statement was to call him childish, and essentially call him a liar by stating that his clarification was false, a ploy.How is that "demonstrating the flaws in his position"?Perhaps if more posters on this forum tried to engage in discussion rather than dredge up pointless arguements, they would see the kind of common ground you mention, and maybe come to a better understanding and acceptance of each other's position.You'll have a better chance to convince RR of your position with an honest and open discussion, rather than running him down over some quote, and calling him dishonest in the process.

Honestly, RiverRat seems to be the only one here trying to have a real debate, and you seem to be the one playing language games - you repeatedly argue that abortion is a "medical decision" that should only be made by those with "medical expertise", that is, unless you are a pregnant woman, in which case you can also make that decision for completely non-medical reasons: What part of your (hypothetical) decision to have an abortion is medical? Where did you consult a medical doctor with medical expertise in your decision?It is simply not a logical argument that: because abortions are medically necessary for some patients, you should be permitted to have an abortion for reasons of finance, personal ideas of social responsibility, and convenience. Honestly, this argument seems quite silly, since all anti-abortion laws/bills have an "unless medically necessary" exception. Your medically-necessary argument makes zero sense in trying to counter a system which would allow medically-necessary abortions.As you yourself have demonstrated, the decision to have an abortion is not just a medical one; and in many cases (probably most cases) has nothing to do with a medical condition.Therefore, "non-medically trained legislators" should consider laws regulating abortion, since it is a complicated issue, one with implications for morality and personal freedom - you know, the same sort of issues that "non-medically trained legislators" pass laws on all the time, such as anti-rape, anti-domestic-violence, and pro-choice laws.If legislators didn't think about these issues, they wouldn't be doing their job, and you would likely complain quite vocally about it.____And an aside: I notice you brought up the bogus feminist propaganda schtick regarding women's health again: I had previously demonstrated to you that this was quite false: A quick limited PubMed search shows that there are over 265,000 articles on heart disease that have a component involving female-specific health - this represents roughly 41% of the total number of heart disease studies. If you limit the results to the past five years, the number rises to 47%.Continuing to use these old yarns lessens the strength of your argument. Next thing, you'll be telling me there is no funding for breast cancer research...

Yep. His name is "The Man". Give me a break.If the law gives authority to a medical doctor's decision, I don't see where the rich white greasy republican comes in, unless he is your doctor. There are many procedure/treatments that are only legal within the prescription of a medical doctor, and I don't see any greasy white figures lurking in the shadows controlling them...Do you have insight into how medically-necessary clauses in laws/bills are actually written? If so, please share that insight and sources - I'd be interested...Otherwise, stop pointing fingers at a mythical greasy(?) republican. (Again, it weakens your argument.) - So, are you taking back your argument that medical expertise is required in the judgement? Now you seem to be leaving the decision solely up to the patient - again, your medical argument has been thrown out the window.- And again, you are arguing for the allowance of non-medically-necessary abortions, so your appeals to medical conditions seem quite dishonest. So it is okay to restrict abortions then, when it comes to the last two months. It is okay to invade someone's precious privacy and potentially require them to jump through some bureacratic hoops to acquire an abortion.It is okay for you to place your outdated morality on others with the arbitrary cut-off of two months pre-birth.How is this any different from what you are so vehemently arguing against? Not so new: The PubMed records start in 1963. Since 1963, 41% of heart disease articles include a female-specific component. I thought I provided some pretty good evidence. Here's some more:I looked at all health articles in the Pubmed database since 1925:
25% had a male-specific component
31% had a female-specific componentDoes this, praytell, sound at all like the "dear male-centered health system that doesn't even bother to find out women's specific heart disease related needs" that you describe? You are describing treatment of cancer, not "female health problems" - and removal is no longer the "only" option - again you have outdated information. Removal is also a standard treatment for prostate cancer (and most other cancers), so your argument that this is a female-specific problem is very problematic.In fact, breast cancer research is disproportionally over-funded relative to other cancers (relative to the number effected), including those that effect both sexes (such as lung cancer, which kills far more women than breast cancer each year). In this case, the fever to fund a female-specific health problem has overshadowed research that could help a much larger base of people (and women).Since you yourself point out that male-specific disparities exist in the health care system, it is very poor of you to characterize the medical establishment as "male-centered", when it fact it caters more to female-specific health problems than male-specific health problems.I actually agree with you as far as the endpoints of your arguments (pro-choice, pro-sex-specific-health-research), but the arguments you are making are illogical and at times absurd, and you assuming things that are shown to be false with thirty seconds of research.It is because I agree with the endpoints of your arguments that I am confronting you, since RiverRat seemed to be making a heck of a lot more sense than you were...

So then why the hell are you making the argument!?!?! This is exactly why I'm pointing out the inconsistent nature of your pro-choice arguments... I've noticed you stated that, but it was also buried under a bunch of off-tangent points.The thing you need to realize is that to others there is AN INTEREST vested enough to investigate your medical records: they see abortion (and euthanasia, and assisted-suicide) as murder. Now you may not agree that it is murder, but no amount of arguing for privacy of medical records is going to dissuade those who believe that it is murder. It may be a medical procedure, but it is one with strong moral and spiritual implications. Recognize that abortion is primarily a moral issue to the majority of people in this country - it is, as a moral issue, not a medical one, that abortion is thrust into the legislature.

You don't, but most do. And many would see the fact that you don't see it as a moral decision as indication that you are not to be trusted when it comes to such decisions/issues.Let me throw out a hypothetical scenario:What if the law allowed parents to commit infanticide under the supervision of a doctor, to "put their children to sleep", as long as their child was less than three years old?Would you want a law enacted to protect those children, or would you leave it up to the morality of each parent?

Perhaps you could rephrase - right now I am definitely missing something because your statement above seems like language-game doublespeak; as in, "there is no place for morality in law except when there is a place for morality". What if studies showed the opposite - that other children were unaffected, or positively affected, by medically-guided infanticide on other children? Should a law be enacted to prevent that infanticide? Why is it illegal? Why is it a crime against humanity? Why are you so absolutely sure that this is so heinous that you might just devote your doctoral work to it?Specifically. Is there "law outside of morality"? Really, is there such a thing? Can you come up with a law that is truly separate of morality? Actually - you are the one that seems crazy, or at least completely arbitrary in your distinctions...

All laws are based upon morality. Your response makes absolutely no sense in the context of everything else you said. In fact, the very next thing you wrote in your post, when I asked you why eugenics should be outlawed: 1. The same exact thing applies to infanticide, which in your previous breath you said should be legal. (I'm making the bold assumption that you would agree that killing two-year-olds "infringes on their rights.")

​

2. Your argument that "it's not the "right" thing to do" is entirely a moral argument.3. Your anti-eugenics and pro-infanticide arguments clash, since infanticide would likely be practiced in part in a way that would be considered eugenics. I see quite the opposite. The simple fact that you talk about "rights" in your example demonstrates that the class of regulations are based in morality.To summarize your statements: Eugenics is immoral, therefore it should be internationally banned. Abortion and infanticide are moral, therefore should be permitted. I still don't understand how you reconcile abortion and infanticide practiced in the name of eugenics...Apparently you only see moral arguments as relevant when you are the one making them - until you resolve your personal hyprocrisy, I suggest you stop attacking others for applying their own morality to public law.

You know brenna, you are likely the most close-minded and prejudiced person on this forum, with a seemingly endless supply of absurd, hateful, reactionary remarks and stereotypes.Whenever someone opposes one of your viewpoints, or even before they do, you immediately play the hyper-victim card, as in: I'm quite sure you're the only person that used either of those words in this thread (feel free to point out if someone actually called you either of those things...)It would seem you have a lot to learn - I suggest more closely examining opposing views and their proponents rather than believing whatever inflammatory propaganda you've read, or assumptions you've made, about them.As of now, "understanding" and "inclusivity" don't appear to be words in your vocabulary.

Here's a good example of the kind of reactionary response I mention above: RiverRat makes the suggestion that you should spend time getting to know someone before you have sex with him, that is, sufficient time to be comfortable that he won't become violent towards you. (Obviously this wouldn't be a guarantee).Your response make no sense given his suggestion, and you top it off by calling RiverRat a moron.To me, RiverRat's advice is quite sound, and you are the one left looking like a moron.

First, you attack people for being religious. Now, you attack people for being non-religious.That doesn't really leave anyone for you to deal with......and I hope you weren't including me in your statement, since I as stated above, I am pro-choice. I am opposing your illogical arguments and inflammatory responses (some of it qualifying as hate-speech) because they do more to hurt the pro-choice movement than help it. You're sort of acting like a Kent Hovind for the pro-choice side. Really.