LogFAQs > #966075598

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	woman have lost control of their own body, roe v wade is overturned
adjl 06/24/22 3:39:03 PM #108:	BeerOnTap posted... Women are still injured today, particularly during D&E procedures. I would go into the specifics a little more but mods dont allow it. I got modded for it, they deemed it trolling. They can take an immersion blender to the uterus for all I care (which they don't, given that most abortions - especially when access is properly protected instead of being gated behind so much red tape that women have to wait weeks or months for approval to book appointments - happen early enough that they're barely more than an extra-heavy period), that's still no business of the government. Present the mother with the necessary information about the risks and benefits, then let her make an informed choice about what she wants to happen to her body. The law only needs to step in if the procedure is significantly more dangerous than is acceptable. There are no risk-free medical procedures. You go in and mess around with what the body is doing, you are inevitably going to end up breaking something from time to time. Rather than looking for "risk-free" look for something that carries fewer risks than the alternatives and/or yields a commensurate benefit. Medical abortions fit that bill: They are safer and have fewer significant side effects than carrying a pregnancy to term or performing a non-medical abortion. BeerOnTap posted... Anti-lifers desperately want to avoid and silence any discussion about whats involved in abortion procedures because they know its gruesome. Anti-choicers routinely dismiss the risks and suffering associated with carrying a pregnancy to term, either because they know it's gruesome or because they don't think the suffering of women matters (or, perhaps more commonly, they think women deserve to suffer for daring to have sex). When you cite maternal mortality rates for abortions, do you cite maternal mortality rates for deliveries alongside them for a proper comparison? Or are you deliberately hiding the other side of the position you're making because you know it would only make you look bad? FrozenBananas posted... Anti-lifers btw lol Really, that's just giving up the pretense of "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Neither inherently describes the positions well, they're just names conceived to paint the opposing side as "anti-life" and "anti-choice." In some ways, I appreciate the candour, even if his opinion is trash. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966075598] in woman have... [t:80069277]...</cite> <quote>BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>Women are still injured today, particularly during D&E procedures. I would go into the specifics a little more but mods dont allow it. I got modded for it, they deemed it trolling.</quote> They can take an immersion blender to the uterus for all I care (which they don't, given that most abortions - especially when access is properly protected instead of being gated behind so much red tape that women have to wait weeks or months for approval to book appointments - happen early enough that they're barely more than an extra-heavy period), that's still no business of the government. Present the mother with the necessary information about the risks and benefits, then let her make an informed choice about what she wants to happen to her body. The law only needs to step in if the procedure is significantly more dangerous than is acceptable. There are no risk-free medical procedures. You go in and mess around with what the body is doing, you are inevitably going to end up breaking something from time to time. Rather than looking for "risk-free" look for something that carries fewer risks than the alternatives and/or yields a commensurate benefit. Medical abortions fit that bill: They are safer and have fewer significant side effects than carrying a pregnancy to term or performing a non-medical abortion. BeerOnTap posted... </cite> <quote>Anti-lifers desperately want to avoid and silence any discussion about whats involved in abortion procedures because they know its gruesome.</quote> Anti-choicers routinely dismiss the risks and suffering associated with carrying a pregnancy to term, either because they know it's gruesome or because they don't think the suffering of women matters (or, perhaps more commonly, they think women deserve to suffer for daring to have sex). When you cite maternal mortality rates for abortions, do you cite maternal mortality rates for deliveries alongside them for a proper comparison? Or are you deliberately hiding the other side of the position you're making because you know it would only make you look bad? FrozenBananas posted... </cite> <quote>Anti-lifers btw lol</quote> Really, that's just giving up the pretense of "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Neither inherently describes the positions well, they're just names conceived to paint the opposing side as "anti-life" and "anti-choice." In some ways, I appreciate the candour, even if his opinion is trash. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1