ADVERTISEMENT

Washington Post: Kamala Harris wants to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they object.

Your issue is with medical definitions and reality, not me. If you possessed a modicum of humility you would have already educated yourself as to what these terms actually mean versus how they make you feel.

I know what an abortion is. You're trying to bring in irrelevant info to the discussion.
 
Her pro-abortion argument is weak.

Her anger and emptiness are just cherries on top.
She's 100% right. YOU don't get to tell HER what she does with her body based on your religion. Why wouldn't she be pissed? Her rights to her own body are being stripped away. Try to imagine that.
 
Precisely.

What if the hospital doesn't want to perform abortions?
Then that woman dies, likely the fetus along with her, and the widowed husband gets to sue them for millions of dollars. And those doctors should lose their medical licenses and go work for the church, because they obviously want to put the wishes of their priest ahead of a woman's life, all in blind faith of an invisible sky man.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: BrianNole777
They are probably not in positions where they are being asked to preform an abortion. Does the article say 79% of OBGYNs would refuse to preform an abortion?

It doesn't.

It's reasonable to assume many ObGyn's wouldn't want to perform abortions.

Should they be forced to as Harris implied?

That's the discussion here.
 
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.
Post Covid, anyone who believes what you just said...
 
She's 100% right. YOU don't get to tell HER what she does with her body based on your religion. Why wouldn't she be pissed? Her rights to her own body are being stripped away. Try to imagine that.

I've never told her what to do.

The reason her argument is weak is because a fetus is a separate life from the Mother.

That's just the science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IIowaFarmBoy
It doesn't.

It's reasonable to assume many ObGyn's wouldn't want to perform abortions.

Should they be forced to as Harris implied?

That's the discussion here.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume anything. Most doctors don't seem to be supporting an abortion ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericram
Then that woman dies, likely the fetus along with her, and the widowed husband gets to sue them for millions of dollars. And those doctors should lose their medical licenses and go work for the church, because they obviously want to put the wishes of their priest ahead of a woman's life, all in blind faith of an invisible sky man.

It sounds like there will indeed be many lawsuits if the Harris administration sues hospitals to force them to perform abortions.

BTW, there are atheist health care workers against abortion, too.
 
Termination means killing. That's literally what an abortion is. It's killing a human life.


No, it's not. Abortion is ending the pregnancy. They don't necessarily require terminating the fetus. Hell, to answer the question I asked Rifler, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

The fetus dying on it's own and the removal of the tissue is an abortion. Ending a pregnancy of a non-viable fetus (one that is still "living") that will not survive outside of the womb is an abortion. A c-section of a premature fetus that is still living and will continue to live is an abortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerome Silberman
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.
If an emergency patient requires an abortion for the mother to live, and there is a conscience clause, individual staff can refuse to participate, should hospitals that are capable be required to perform that procedure? Should they be allowed to let her die.

Let’s go another step. Local hospital refuses to provide emergency life saving abortions and arranges a transfer to tertiary hospital. I, as a paramedic, get dispatched to perform that transfer. Should the paramedic be able to refuse that trip because they believe it would be participating in an abortion, to which I’m morally opposed?
 
No, it's not. Abortion is ending the pregnancy. They don't necessarily require terminating the fetus. Hell, to answer the question I asked Rifler, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

The fetus dying on it's own and the removal of the tissue is an abortion. Ending a pregnancy of a non-viable fetus (one that is still "living") that will not survive outside of the womb is an abortion. A c-section of a premature fetus that is still living and will continue to live is an abortion.


OK well, this discussion is about Harris saying she believes doctors and nurses should be required to perform abortions even if they don't want to for conscience reasons.

Abortion in that case would including killing the fetus directly.

That's what the controversy is about.
 
If an emergency patient requires an abortion for the mother to live, and there is a conscience clause, individual staff can refuse to participate, should hospitals that are capable be required to perform that procedure? Should they be allowed to let her die.

Let’s go another step. Local hospital refuses to provide emergency life saving abortions and arranges a transfer to tertiary hospital. I, as a paramedic, get dispatched to perform that transfer. Should the paramedic be able to refuse that trip because they believe it would be participating in an abortion, to which I’m morally opposed?

Harris said in the interview that hospitals and doctors should be forced to perform abortions. She didn't mention those should be limited to save the life of the Mother.

What percentage of abortions performed are for saving the life of the Mother?

This link claims less than half of 1%.

I'm curious because they are always brought up as examples when 96% of abortions are for convenience reasons.

 
If it's truly a separate life the fetus could survive outside the womb.

Not according to the science.

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT