The article implies that if Harris wins, her administration will force doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if it went against their conscience.
What do you think?
Washington Post: Kamala Harris wants to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they object.
- Thread starter BrianNole777
- Start date
The article implies that if Harris wins, her administration will force doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if it went against their conscience.
What do you think?
Sometimes abortions are medically necessary BEFORE the woman's health is impacted.
And that's why they need to be available BEFORE complications occur.
Termination means killing. That's literally what an abortion is. It's killing a human life.
Abortion - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
No, it does not. Termination is the act of bringing something to an end. It has nothing to do with viability or life.
You're lying, which is also a sin big dog.
I think they need to find another medical field.
Because providing an abortion is a medical necessity.
And if you want to be an ObGyn, you need to learn to do them.
What if the hospital doesn't perform abortions because of matters of conscience like Georgetown Hospital in Washington D.C.?
Do you think all hospitals should be forced to perform abortions? What does Harris think?
Termination means bringing something to an end, in an abortion, that means killing the fetus.
This isn't even debatable. That's why abortion is so controversial.
I think it's a massive and dishonest leap to assume that means all the doctors are going to have to preform abortions just cuz.
On the surface it looks like a doctor working where abortions are performed would not have legal protection to opt out due to their religious beliefs. Which they shouldn't due to the emergent nature of their roles.
Correct.
And being able to intervene BEFORE they cause serious complications needs to be an option for care.
No ObGyn should be able to deny that care based on kooky religious beliefs.
The situation can be different for "elective" abortions. But most people go to clinics that will provide those.
I'm referring hospitals that must provide care when medical intervention is warranted.
No ER doctor should be able to deny care to a "gay" or "trans" person, because they believe those people are "sinners" and should be denied care.
Then patients should be able to sue them over any complications that get worse.
Again: are you up to speed on complications that require abortions with "normal" fetuses?
Oof.
What about hospitals that don't currently perform abortions?
Do you and Harris believe they should be forced to?
You're right that it's not debatable, but incredibly wrong about the rest.
You're so far off base here it's astounding.
ALL hospitals with an ObGyn department should have the ability to provide for abortion services, when warranted.
I think you are REALLY stretching definitions here. Cells that are not viable are removed from a woman's body. You seem to believe you should have more rights than women. That's garbage, dude.Termination means killing. That's literally what an abortion is. It's killing a human life.
Abortion - Wikipedia
That's not how it currently works.
79% of ObGyn's don't currently perform abortions. There are probably many that don't want to and would quit if forced to by your side.
There could be a major shortage of ObGyn's. There's already a doctor shortage in America.
Termination in this case means ending a pregnancy. Birth is also a termination of a pregnancy.
So is surgery to remove a stillborn fetus, all termination(ending of the pregnancy).
Brian is being incredibly dishonest here.
I've watched her. She's a fanatical atheist and a very unhappy person.
Do you agree birth also is termination of a pregnancy? If so, your claim that termination means death is false.
Nah, I don't.
I find it disturbing if the Harris administration would force all doctors and nurses to perform abortions.
I did vote for Harris because I can't support Trump.
In the case of abortion, (the topic we're discussing here) termination means death.
What if the hospital doesn't want to provide abortions because it's against their mission statement?
That was my question to you. It seems like Harris wants to force them to.
Women are being required to carry dead fetuses to term in states where abortion is banned due to doctors' fear of abortion laws.
It proves that the definition of abortion is not clearly defined.
Brian and his buddies (and the entire GOP) are all being intentionally dishonest with the terminology and realities here.
Forcing a woman to "wait" until a complication becomes life-threatening is a non-starter, particularly for women who already have other kids to take care of and to not want to take on unnecessary risks.
A fetus can be completely "normal" and "healthy", yet be doomed to becoming a miscarriage.
It is due to a handful of potential issues:
Placental Insufficiency: Placenta is too small and results in pregnancy complications and can kill an otherwise normal fetus as it grows. Sometimes, these CAN be carried to term, but risks are high. In more several PI cases, the "normal" fetus is pretty much doomed, and early intervention is the BEST option to prevent complications. That should be the choice of the WOMAN, NOT the GOVERNMENT. If she has 1 or 2 other kids to take care of, she may prefer to abort and not risk the potential for serious complications, because they can happen quickly, and they can kill her quickly if she does not live where an intervention is an option.
PI occurs in about 10% of all pregnancies, and it NOT ALWAYS fatal to the fetus, but can be. It can also result in severe developmental disorders later in pregnancy. When PI is not too severe, women may want to carry to term; others may not want to take the risks of leaving existing children 'orphans'.
Placental Abnormalities: These are developmental problems with the placenta, not the fetus. And they will eventually result in miscarriage. Any woman SHOULD have the option to terminate immediately if these abnormalities are likely to result in complications. She should be able to do so BEFORE those complications occur.
Various types of PAs occur in ~1% of pregnancies.
Any hospital that delivers babies needs to have staff who can perform abortions in these particular types of cases. Because they are routinely medically necessary to PREVENT serious complications that can result in death, or in an inability to conceive again. Those are risks that should be entirely the purvey of the patient; NOT the state.
Stay on topic, please.
This thread is about an article that claims Harris would force hospitals, doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they don't want to.
How do you feel about that?
I ask you to tell me how she has ever said she will force anyone to perform abortions against their will.
The same way I do about anyone else that refuses to do the job they're being paid to preform.
This is so stupid, and it plays right into the right's hands. Anyone who thinks Harris is going to force an OB/GYN who doesn't want to give an abortion to do so it a moron. It's the same people that think Harris is going to take your guns and wants illegal immigrants to vote. It's nothing but scare tactics. What she's saying is that a doctor in an emergency situation cannot refuse to abort to save the woman's life. If a woman who is healthy wants an abortion, she's going to go to a doctor that does them, not her everyday doctor.
Similar threads
