Funny how they say "no governments interference". So none of that pesky thing of doctors actually having licences to practice? Having those removed if they don't follow rudimentary medical practice rules?
They had no problem taking doctor's licenses away for not following the ever shifting Science and promoting alternative therapeutics instead of than jabbing as many people as possible.
They have to gatekeep and pretend like they're God so us plebs don't realize just how shit most of them are and how often they fuck up (or act maliciously).
I keep seeing this brought up as if it's a point, but I don't think "it's not safe for the mother" was ever much of a point of debate.
I guess their point is if it is safe, it should be allowed. But even putting aside the fact that it's very much not safe for the baby, that's a ridiculous standard and I don't buy that they would actually subscribe to it for a second.
doctors need to be able to treat patients without government interference
Oh so now they're suddenly taking a libertarian stance, but only on this one single issue? These people can fuck right off.
I think the safe argument they always make is in comparison to the phantom "back alley" abortions that they say will happen by the millions without abortion clinics.
I challenge any doctor or retard who thinks they know science to tell me what part of the reproductive process is abortion, and why, if it is a safe and essential procedure that only one in four American women get one? Also the 8th and 14th amendments are completely nullified by allowing abortion practices to be legal. There is no legal argument that abortion is not cruel and unusual punishment, just as there is no legal argument that abortion doesn’t violate the equal protection clause and the concept of human ownership. The paper they claim is “science” never once argues that the fetus is not a living human, they instead argue “pain and viability” which is the most shallow argument alive. There is no such thing as a viable human by their standards, every human has required other humans to exist period. This is not limited to a fetus that requires others for sustenance. In fact viability would argue rationally that any child could be murdered for convenience under the law. Pain is another misnomer, “pain” is entirely irrelevant to living. These are the “top” of our medical community claiming the two determinants of life are the ability to survive independent of another person and the ability to say ow. I’m not joking…..
Wouldn't surprise me if there was number fudging happening somewhere/somehow that meant someone even just mentioning they are considering one will count.
I'd need to actually examine their brief. It could be false in a number of ways.
I see at least five possibilities here:
Polling methodology error - their data sample was women who were seeking an abortion, increasing the odds that they had already had one.
Obfuscation by omission - including spontaneous abortions (more commonly known as miscarriages).
Conflation of unrelated actions - including the use of abortifacient drugs such as Plan B, which does not guarantee that there was a pregnancy to terminate.
Inappropriate use of averaging - my example above; if one hundred women report twenty-five abortions in total but five women had five each, that would be a population aggregate of one in four, but intentionally ignores the possibility that outliers are not outliers but instead the norm.
Islam is right about America. It is utterly and irredeemably corrupt and should be destroyed.
I remain convinced that every boomer alive today was partially lobotomized by lead put into the atmosphere by cars before the government regulated fuel.
failure to consider the interests of the pregnany person
What about the interests of the murdered person?
I think there's a pretty reasonable compromise: abortions are allowed but under the caveat that both mother and doctor can only perform the operation if the health of the child isn't compromised.
Actually reversing the term limit, you can only get an abortion once the child is viable so med tech can focus on keeping fetal humans alive from an earlier age, instead of trying to figure out what they can do with the parts.
Funny how they say "no governments interference". So none of that pesky thing of doctors actually having licences to practice? Having those removed if they don't follow rudimentary medical practice rules?
Fucking idiots.
They had no problem taking doctor's licenses away for not following the ever shifting Science and promoting alternative therapeutics instead of than jabbing as many people as possible.
No, you see, those are (d)ifferent than abortion.
They have to gatekeep and pretend like they're God so us plebs don't realize just how shit most of them are and how often they fuck up (or act maliciously).
Yes, and war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc.
The audacity these people have astounds me. The words that come out of their mouths are such ideological nonsense.
By recent standards this is actually one of the most honest forms of maiming and killing they do.
I keep seeing this brought up as if it's a point, but I don't think "it's not safe for the mother" was ever much of a point of debate.
I guess their point is if it is safe, it should be allowed. But even putting aside the fact that it's very much not safe for the baby, that's a ridiculous standard and I don't buy that they would actually subscribe to it for a second.
Oh so now they're suddenly taking a libertarian stance, but only on this one single issue? These people can fuck right off.
I think the safe argument they always make is in comparison to the phantom "back alley" abortions that they say will happen by the millions without abortion clinics.
These are the same people who said ivermectin, one of the safest drugs in existence, wasn’t safe.
Every institution is compromised.
I challenge any doctor or retard who thinks they know science to tell me what part of the reproductive process is abortion, and why, if it is a safe and essential procedure that only one in four American women get one? Also the 8th and 14th amendments are completely nullified by allowing abortion practices to be legal. There is no legal argument that abortion is not cruel and unusual punishment, just as there is no legal argument that abortion doesn’t violate the equal protection clause and the concept of human ownership. The paper they claim is “science” never once argues that the fetus is not a living human, they instead argue “pain and viability” which is the most shallow argument alive. There is no such thing as a viable human by their standards, every human has required other humans to exist period. This is not limited to a fetus that requires others for sustenance. In fact viability would argue rationally that any child could be murdered for convenience under the law. Pain is another misnomer, “pain” is entirely irrelevant to living. These are the “top” of our medical community claiming the two determinants of life are the ability to survive independent of another person and the ability to say ow. I’m not joking…..
I'm guessing one in a hundred get twenty-five instead. I simply do not believe that statistic.
I'm sure the number is inflated with miscarriages or other problems.
Wouldn't surprise me if there was number fudging happening somewhere/somehow that meant someone even just mentioning they are considering one will count.
the national obstetrician association claimed 1 in 4 American women have an abortion by the age of 45 in their brief to the Supreme Court.
I'd need to actually examine their brief. It could be false in a number of ways.
I see at least five possibilities here:
Never assume that these people aren't willing to just tell bald-faced lies.
You mean social science?
I’m not saying their claim is factual, just that they claimed it.
Lobotomy was a key part of Mental Heath care for years.
Didn't make it moral or correct.
Perhaps not, but look where we are without it.
I remain convinced that every boomer alive today was partially lobotomized by lead put into the atmosphere by cars before the government regulated fuel.
I actually agree. To that end, we should do away with or greatly diminish the powers of regulatory bodies like the FDA.
Also, these disingenuous asshats know overturning Roe just kicks this back to the States; this is less government interference.
Meanwhile...
Brave and strong when they have establishment backing, complete cowards otherwise.
As with every "organization" or "association", the AMA exists entirely to amplify and spread The Narrative. Nothing else. I have zero trust in them.
tldr "Not my money! My precious, precious, professional money!"
What about the interests of the murdered person?
I think there's a pretty reasonable compromise: abortions are allowed but under the caveat that both mother and doctor can only perform the operation if the health of the child isn't compromised.
Actually reversing the term limit, you can only get an abortion once the child is viable so med tech can focus on keeping fetal humans alive from an earlier age, instead of trying to figure out what they can do with the parts.