• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

octuplets

But the state has an obligation to provide neccessary medical procedures to woman and an abortion is considered a medically neccessary procedure if the woman does not want to carry that embry/fetus in her body.
A procedure that causes a woman to get pregnant is not medically neccessary, unless that woman can not become pregnant without that medical procedure. That's where people have disagreements over who should be allowed access to that procedure and who should pay for it.
 
Now it turns out that, according to a neighbour

"She is single. She used a sperm donor, someone she knew, who donated sperm a long time ago. He donated the sperm for the first six kids and she used his frozen sperm for these ones. I don't think the sperm donor knows about these eight kids. He was not involved."
Click to expand...

As regards the father/grandfather, the same neighbour allegedly says:

"The parents lost their house supporting their daughter. They actually bought this house for her, but then they lost their house supporting her and her kids and they had to move in with her. And now her father has to go back to Iraq to earn more money to support her. Her father either works as a truck driver or an interpreter [in Iraq]."
Click to expand...
 
BPSCG said:
So, if a woman has the right to have the state pay to for a "medical procedure" to have a life removed from her body, why should she not similarly have the right to have the state pay for a "medical procedure" to have a life inserted into her body?

I am not asking if she does have that right; I know of no law or judicial ruling that says that she does or does not. I am asking what the rationale should be to deny her that right.
Click to expand...
aerosolben said:
That second bit makes things clearer.

I don't think a woman has a right to have the state pay for an abortion,
Click to expand...
That's incorrect; in many cases, she does indeed have that right.

she simply has the right to not be prevented by the state from having the procedure done. So the second bit does not follow.
Click to expand...
Since some women do have the right to have the state pay for an an abortion, the "second bit" does indeed follow.

So please address the "second bit." Should a woman who has the right to have the state pay to end a pregnancy also have the right to have the state pay to begin a pregnancy?

At this point, all we need to continue is a "yes" or "no." We can discuss the whys and wherefores after that.
 
Roma Hart said:
But the state has an obligation to provide neccessary medical procedures to woman and an abortion is considered a medically neccessary procedure if the woman does not want to carry that embry/fetus in her body.
Click to expand...
:eek:

The woman's simple desire to not be pregnant any more makes abortion a medical necessity?

I desire not to be bald on the back of my head any more. Does that make hair transplant surgery a medical necessity?
 
BPSCG said:
:eek:

The woman's simple desire to not be pregnant any more makes abortion a medical necessity?

I desire not to be bald on the back of my head any more. Does that make hair transplant surgery a medical necessity?
Click to expand...
Is there a fetus growing out of the bald spot on the back of your head? If there is then I think the removal of it could be considered medically neccessary.
I has been said that if men got pregnant then quick and simple abortion remedies would be available at drive-through windows and 7 Elevens.
 
BPSCG said:
Since some women do have the right to have the state pay for an an abortion, the "second bit" does indeed follow.
Click to expand...
They have a "right", or just the ability to do so currently, with no guarantee about the future? Is there some legal body that has recognized this such that removal of existing state support would be unconstitutional?

At this point, all we need to continue is a "yes" or "no." We can discuss the whys and wherefores after that.
Click to expand...
Well, the why is what's important - you seem to believe the right to fertility treatments follows naturally from the right to have an abortion. I don't see that.
 
Allowing someone to not continue doing something is not equivalent to helping someone else do that thing.

The right to an abortion is based on the physical fact that forcing a woman to proceed with a pregnancy against her will is physical imposition on her body. That is the reason they have a choice--and as soon as that physical imposition is removed, they lose the choice. If a baby is born prematurely, the mother cannot then insist it be terminated because she doesn't want to be a mother. Even if that baby is at the exact same age and stage of development as another baby that can legally be aborted. The choice is only allowed because of the physical circumstances of pregnancy itself. That's why the father can't choose to have a pregnancy terminated, even though the child is just as much his as it is the mother's.

Starting a pregnancy, however, is the citizen's own business. What government interest is there in creating a new life? On government funds? Failing to pay for fertility treatments doesn't hurt the woman in the same way that requiring her to continue an unwanted pregancy is. There is no physical imposition on her body.

The government does not have a duty to pursue all the unnecessary medical whims of its citizenry. They'll help me pay for getting a diseased appendix removed, if I need that, but they won't pay for a nose job if I want one.
 
TragicMonkey, I remember hearing about U.S. hospital practice that if a fetus is aborted and survives it is bundled up in a blanket and left in a storage closet to die alone. There was a nurse interviewed who got into trouble for picking up one of those "survivors" and cuddling it in her arms until it died. There was a vote to change that practice and CNN reported that Obama voted against it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Starting a pregnancy, however, is the citizen's own business. What government interest is there in creating a new life? On government funds? Failing to pay for fertility treatments doesn't hurt the woman in the same way that requiring her to continue an unwanted pregancy is. There is no physical imposition on her body.

The government does not have a duty to pursue all the unnecessary medical whims of its citizenry. They'll help me pay for getting a diseased appendix removed, if I need that, but they won't pay for a nose job if I want one.
Click to expand...
So you favor regulations that would prohibit paying for fertility treatments with government funds, e.g., Medicaid?

Because the way this story is starting to play out - mom is unmarried, has six kids already, lives in a small house with her parents, family declared bankruptcy at one point - it seems very likely that taxpayer funds paid for her fertility treatments.

Let's go one reasonable step further: Even if taxpayer funds didn't pay for her fertility treatments, it seems very likely that she will be on all kinds of public assistance for the foreseeable future - food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing - public assistance that the taxpayers pay for. We here will be paying to raise her children.

So when a woman goes to a doctor and says she wants fertility treatments, should the doctor insist she complete a financial statement, subject to verification, proving that she will not become a drain on the taxpayers by having children?
 
Roma Hart said:
TragicMonkey, I remember hearing about U.S. hospital practice that if a fetus is aborted and survives it is bundled up in a blanket and left in a storage closet to die alone. There was a nurse interviewed who got into trouble for picking up one of those "survivors" and cuddling it in her arms until it died. There was a vote to change that practice and CNN reported that Obama voted against it.
Click to expand...

Please don't believe everything you hear.

Thank you.

:bunpan
 
Alareth said:
According to this report, she is unmarried and is described by her mother as being "obsessed with having children".
Click to expand...
AKA "mentally ill".

So is it ethical for a doctor to implant a mentally ill woman with a fertilized egg, let alone 8 of them?
 
Roma Hart said:
TragicMonkey, I remember hearing about U.S. hospital practice that if a fetus is aborted and survives it is bundled up in a blanket and left in a storage closet to die alone. There was a nurse interviewed who got into trouble for picking up one of those "survivors" and cuddling it in her arms until it died. There was a vote to change that practice and CNN reported that Obama voted against it.
Click to expand...

Inane.
 
No stretch at all, I told you what I heard on CNN, I provided you with a web site that reiterates it: fetuses that survive are left to die alone in a storage closet, Obama voted against a bill that would change that. What's different?
The web site provides an explanation from Obama.
 
Let's go one reasonable step further: Even if taxpayer funds didn't pay for her fertility treatments, it seems very likely that she will be on all kinds of public assistance for the foreseeable future - food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing - public assistance that the taxpayers pay for. We here will be paying to raise her children.
Click to expand...


Considering her parents are already a million dollars in debt, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.
 
Roma Hart said:
No stretch at all, I told you what I heard on CNN, I provided you with a web site that reiterates it: fetuses that survive are left to die alone in a storage closet, Obama voted against a bill that would change that. What's different?
The web site provides an explanation from Obama.
Click to expand...

Where does it confirm:
U.S. hospital practice that if a fetus is aborted and survives it is bundled up in a blanket and left in a storage closet to die alone. There was a nurse interviewed who got into trouble for picking up one of those "survivors" and cuddling it in her arms until it died.
Click to expand...

???? :boggled:
 
Roma and BP, can't you guys just start another abortion thread and be done with it?

I kinda hope she just lied to get the treatment, because the idea a doctor realised how "off" she is and went ahead anyway is just all kinds of wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom