141–150 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like 1 out of 1000 doctors, just go to another doctor. And even if that wasn't the case, what is the government supposed to do about that?
The same thing you'd do with a doctor with a penchant for harming their patients. Strip their license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's great Italy it has the protections it does, but as long as there are practitioners or institutions that might not respect obtaining this healthcare (out of religion, belief system, whatever, the reason is irrelevant), there should be robust systems to avoid those challenges for those seeking said healthcare. Pills available by mail on demand, automated vending machines, etc. As mentioned in the 1983 film "WarGam…
Do you realize that abortion pills are potentially dangerous..? That's why you have doctors prescribing drugs
False. They've been repeatedly shown in studies to be safe for home use. Having an abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term. Please update your priors.
Citations:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32912726/
https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/medicatio...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-is-far-...
This is obviously a contentious issue, but it's important to understand why. Catholics are "pro birth" in general, but it really doesn't have much in scripture to support it; there is of course the "Quiverfull" movement which aims for each birth to be "an arrow in the quiver of God's army" So for all of that, it's clearly a religious viewpoint and that raises serious 1A questions. A question I've never seen addressed…
It might have re-emerged as abortion became more in vogue in the early 20th century, but the politics of it have existed since ancient rome.
https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/infanticide-in-ancient...
The rest of your argument is a strawman, you're imagining someone who disagrees with you and giving them weird arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you realize that abortion pills are potentially dangerous..? That's why you have doctors prescribing drugs
> Do you realize that abortion pills are potentially dangerous..? That's why you have doctors prescribing drugs False. They've been repeatedly shown in studies to be safe for home use. Having an abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term. Please update your priors. Citations: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32912726/ https://www.ansi…
Please look up "potentially dangerous".
In addition, for many women getting an abortion can be extremely traumatic. That's why many clinics that offer abortion pills also have a psychologist on staff. Sometimes they'll have he/she talk to the patient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I produced a citation, you're just handwaving. Dismissing evidence simply because you find the conclusion inconvenient is telling.
The whole point of this paper you're citing is that the scientific definition isn't relevant to the ethical debate. You're taking this paper and saying "Aha! See but the scientific definition (which the paper points out is irrelevant) agrees with me!"
I don't think we have the same reading of the paper. Scientific facts inform ethical decisions, they are antecedent to them. We can't decide whether something is good or bad if we don't understand what it is.
But to the point, the comment I was responding to wanted to assert that pro-life arguments rested on some "unscientific" premise that a "lump of cells" is a "child," which is actually scientific consensus; my citation of that paper was to refute that claim.
Whether or not it is ethical to end a human child's life under certain circumstances is a moral question, but the fact that it is in fact a human child is scientifically settled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you realize that abortion pills are potentially dangerous..? That's why you have doctors prescribing drugs False. They've been repeatedly shown in studies to be safe for home use. Having an abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term. Please update your priors. Citations: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32912726/ https://www.ansi…
I don't know where you're from but in Italy MANY medicines that are potentially dangerous but safe for home use are prescribed by a doctor that knows about your medical history. Please look up "potentially dangerous". In addition, for many women getting an abortion can be extremely traumatic. That's why many clinics that offer abortion pills also have a psychologist on staff. Sometimes they'll have he/she talk to the…
[flagged]
Because if you believe this fetus to be a human life then it follows believing that if it is terminated, it is akin to murder/infanticide. I don't know why people are being so (deliberatively?) reductive ITT.
The woman is clearly a human life too, and every western country has a right to self defense. A fetus is an imminent danger to women, their health, and their property. They have a right to remove it from their own body to stop that.
Or am I allowed to unconsentually put myself inside anyone for months, eating the food from their blood like a tapeworm, causing chronic pain, permanently changing their hormones, potentially risking death, just to come ripping my way out of their body and then demanding 18 years of pay and attention?
Am I entitled to an unconsenting healthy person's blood or organs or marrow if I'm going to die without it and we know they're "probably" going to be fine?
This is obviously a contentious issue, but it's important to understand why. Catholics are "pro birth" in general, but it really doesn't have much in scripture to support it; there is of course the "Quiverfull" movement which aims for each birth to be "an arrow in the quiver of God's army" So for all of that, it's clearly a religious viewpoint and that raises serious 1A questions. A question I've never seen addressed…
Exodus 20:13: "Thou shalt not kill."
Abortion is legal in this country, and any woman can go to the hospital (as in the ER), or at a consultorio familiare to initiate the process. Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter. As to why these two websites were rendered inaccessible it beats me, as there are many other local alternatives one may peruse, and they're all accessible. Hell, even the Italian Government Website h…
"Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter" You sure about that? Unfortunately there's a thing called "obiezione di coscienza" (TL;DR: doctors opposing abortion because they're catholics). Feel free to translate this article: https://www.editorialedomani.it/fatti/aborto-obiezione-cosci...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of this paper you're citing is that the scientific definition isn't relevant to the ethical debate. You're taking this paper and saying "Aha! See but the scientific definition (which the paper points out is irrelevant) agrees with me!"
> The whole point of this paper you're citing is that the scientific definition isn't relevant to the ethical debate. I don't think we have the same reading of the paper. Scientific facts inform ethical decisions, they are antecedent to them. We can't decide whether something is good or bad if we don't understand what it is. But to the point, the comment I was responding to wanted to assert that pro-life arguments re…
Strong agreement here.
> Scientific facts inform ethical decisions, they are antecedent to them.
Sometimes, as your paper is saying is the case, they're orthogonal to them.
> but the fact that it is in fact a human child is scientifically settled.
From your article, emphasis mine:
"While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization"
The problem you have is that this paper doesn't discuss children at all, merely that a fetus is of the human species. It's basically tautological so of course it's essentially unanimous. A human fetus is a human fetus and not, say, a chicken fetus.