What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

No Stars In My Eyes, LPN · May 21, 2022

Oh, Hilary in the news again.

Well here's some more gravel to chew on : The archbishop of San Francisco has refused for Pelosi to receive communion in her hometown because of her views on abortion.

GASP!

toomuchbaloney · May 21, 2022

6 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Religion doesn't dictate policy. Unless you take issue with the individual politicians personal religion. Which is irrelevant because currently we are free to whichever religion we chose.

I feel there needs to be restrictions and parameters that prevent the termination of a viable fetuse/baby. Even if unlikely.So in this sense, yes, politicians, lawmakers should have a voice in a woman's menstrual cycle as you so crudely and purposely described. Especially when another life/potential life is involved other than the womans. We are not discussing gun laws but.....Should they have a voice not in gun laws?politicians? Even those that want restrictions on gun ownership? Or how about the ones that want to eliminate guns all together? How about their voice? Many gun owners do not use their guns to cause harm unless in defense, so should we just trust in the judgment of the individual and place no gun restrictions? Because more gun owners do not seek to cause harm?

So what is the motive to " disproportionately effect young disadvantaged women" ? For fun? Sounds simular to the disinformation experts "changing the public narrative and emotional manipulation of their target audience".

Do you think that a woman and her Dr should be the only deciding entities in relation to reproductive matters including termination of a viable fetus? If a women decides she doesn't want to continue the pregnancy post viability we should get involved in her reproductive heath?

What if the Dr decided that they are not in favor of abortions at any stage, do we listen to them? Allow them to impose this on women? Keep politicians out of that too?

Roe should remain, current restrictive abortion laws like Texas are for lack of a better word, stupid.

Is it really that "made up"? When we see parents, mothers and fathers that do kill their newborns and children? Is is so far fetched that one might chose to terminate a viable fetus/baby before birth if it was legal and had no restrictions? When we know many cases of infanticide? (But you know, most parents do not murder their children so we shouldn't make a law against it).

Might I also suggest as another reason why we can't get past this is because of the avoidance of specifics and the habit of misrepresenting others intentions like " trying to disadvantage poor vulnerable women"?

Again you use the argument that women are going to want to terminate 3rd trimester pregnancies for whimsical or foolish reasons when you have provided no evidence to support such fears.

I honestly don't know how to respond to your rambling and confused comment. I didn't say that the justices were intending to disadvantage young vulnerable women. I said that they knew that ignoring the Roe precedent will disproportionately affect them.

Did someone mention misrepresenting things? This discussion is getting weird.

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 21, 2022

I don't think any lawmakers anywhere are considering changing existing abortion laws to allow people to abort unwanted babies beyond a certain gestation. There's talk of "protection abortion rights" but from what I'm hearing it's not about changing the laws.

I will say it certainly is wrong to allow an abortion of a viable pregnancy in the third trimester if the fetus is healthy and so is the mother. If a woman changes her mind that late, too bad so sad, you can't kill the baby. This is pretty much the law everywhere.

I will also say that if it's found that a fetus will not survive when born, but the pregnancy isn't a danger to the mother, there still should be the option of a compassionate hastening of the end of the pregnancy (through induction, c-section, or other means) rather than forcing the mother to deliver naturally to let the baby die a "natural death" perhaps months later. Then again, I believe in assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness of adults who are dying and want to hasten the inevitable.

subee, MSN, CRNA · May 21, 2022

8 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Again you use the argument that women are going to want to terminate 3rd trimester pregnancies for whimsical or foolish reasons when you have provided no evidence to support such fears.

I honestly don't know how to respond to your rambling and confused comment. I didn't say that the justices were intending to disadvantage young vulnerable women. I said that they knew that ignoring the Roe precedent will disproportionately affect them.

Did someone mention misrepresenting things? This discussion is getting weird.

Yes, it is a now a rant. If a Dr. disapproves of doing an abortion then they don't have to participate. So who cares ? No one is forced to participate...ver. Secondly, I would like to see evidence of an OR team that participated in the murder of an healthy infant.

subee, MSN, CRNA · May 21, 2022

10 hours ago, No Stars In My Eyes said:

Oh, Hilary in the news again.

Well here's some more gravel to chew on : The archbishop of San Francisco has refused for Pelosi to receive communion in her hometown because of her views on abortion.

GASP!

And we all know the history of how well the Catholic church has taken care of vulnerable children ...from protecting pedophile priests and abuse in orphanages and schools for native American children. I am not being anti-Catholic here but merely pointing out historical facts that make this archbishop seem hypocritical. Can we just take better care of our LIVE children first?

Beerman, BSN · May 21, 2022

5 hours ago, Tweety said:

I don't think any lawmakers anywhere are considering changing existing abortion laws to allow people to abort unwanted babies beyond a certain gestation. There's talk of "protection abortion rights" but from what I'm hearing it's not about changing the laws.

I will say it certainly is wrong to allow an abortion of a viable pregnancy in the third trimester if the fetus is healthy and so is the mother. If a woman changes her mind that late, too bad so sad, you can't kill the baby. This is pretty much the law everywhere.

I will also say that if it's found that a fetus will not survive when born, but the pregnancy isn't a danger to the mother, there still should be the option of a compassionate hastening of the end of the pregnancy (through induction, c-section, or other means) rather than forcing the mother to deliver naturally to let the baby die a "natural death" perhaps months later. Then again, I believe in assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness of adults who are dying and want to hasten the inevitable.

While I agree that when the dust settles most places will have some sort of restrictions. If anything, there might be a few places where the laws are too strict. Right now, Democrats are too busy villifying conservatives on this issue in hopes of salvaging the midterms in some manner. They aren't talking about what needs to happen next.

But, that doesn't mean there aren't those who will advocate for no restrictions.

Look at the group in here. On the liberal side, you're the only one who agrees that there will be some who try to get a later term abortion and that you believe there should be gestational age limits.

Almost everyone else is of the belief restrictions aren't needed because there will be zero demand for late-term abortions. Even more telling, and this is true of most elected Democrats as well, but those same folks haven't even said that they believe a late-term abortion is wrong.

Beerman, BSN · May 21, 2022

On 5/20/2022 at 7:24 AM, subee said:

I think you are referring to me. As usual, you are distorting because I have never posted that late term abortions should be available on demand. They should be available only under the extreme circumstances. I don't think you will find doctors or nurses even willing to participate in late abortion on demand. Nor do I believe that patients would even present themselves for the procedure. After 35 years of delivering anesthesia in multiple hospitals, I have never encountered one. except for the fetal trisomy malady that I mentioned before. It was extremely sobering to have to be present for such a procedure. I imagine that everyone else in the room was as traumatized as I was to share such an emotionally painful procedure this young woman had to endure. I couldn't even look at the fetus since I had experienced a fetal demise at 9 months myself. The silence was what I remember the most. This patient was early in the 3rd trimester...about 26 weeks along. I also participated in a lady partsl delivery of a live, full-term infant who had no bony chest wall and thus, no way of breathing. It lived only for a few minutes but again, a terrible thing to have to watch. The mother was high on crack (they usually get high just before presenting to the hospital so they won't have to be aware for the delivery) and I hope she has no memory of that event. If she wanted one, she should have been able to get a late term abortion but a crack addiction isn't conducive to good decision=making. So no, nobody is going to show up to actually provide this service on demand.

I've refrained from asking, but you keep mentioning your experience.

Why would a anesthesia provider be aware of procedures that were denied by the abortion provider? In a hospital, no less. Not really the number one place women/men/they go to get an abortion. Additionally, people's attitudes have certainly changed over the years.

I'm not convinced that your experience is an accurate picture of today's abortion climate.

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 21, 2022

32 minutes ago, Beerman said:

While I agree that when the dust settles most places will have some sort of restrictions. If anything, there might be a few places where the laws are too strict. Right now, Democrats are too busy villifying conservatives on this issue in hopes of salvaging the midterms in some manner. They aren't talking about what needs to happen next.

But, that doesn't mean there aren't those who will advocate for no restrictions.

Look at the group in here. On the liberal side, you're the only one who agrees that there will be some who try to get a later term abortion and that you believe there should be gestational age limits.

Almost everyone else is of the belief restrictions aren't needed because there will be zero demand for late-term abortions. Even more telling, and this is true of most elected Democrats as well, but those same folks haven't even said that they believe a late-term abortion is wrong.

There's no doubt with this one issue Democrats will capitalize on it as a mid-term issue. Because it is. Also not sure what you mean by not concentrating on what will happen next. Like I've said they are talking about keeping abortion rights active, safe and legal. What happens next is what they are doing, assuring the public that abortion will remain intact in their states, in Republican lead states Democrats are voicing their concerns, and senators attempted to make a national law allowing abortion. They will take this message on the campaign trail.

States like Washington have taken some steps like earlier this year prohibiting prosecuting someone getting an abortion or someone helping them in response to laws being passed in Texas. No move to move the gestation age up since the leak came up.

Yes, there are some people that want abortion for any reason any time. Most of those people aren't in power to make laws.

Likewise there are people that want cases of rape and incest to be forced into full term pregnancy. But even Oklahoma that banned abortions has provisions for this. And getting all too bent out of shape about this aspect doesn't make much sense.

Justlookingfornow · May 21, 2022

8 hours ago, Tweety said:

I don't think any lawmakers anywhere are considering changing existing abortion laws to allow people to abort unwanted babies beyond a certain gestation. There's talk of "protection abortion rights" but from what I'm hearing it's not about changing the laws.

I will say it certainly is wrong to allow an abortion of a viable pregnancy in the third trimester if the fetus is healthy and so is the mother. If a woman changes her mind that late, too bad so sad, you can't kill the baby. This is pretty much the law everywhere.

I will also say that if it's found that a fetus will not survive when born, but the pregnancy isn't a danger to the mother, there still should be the option of a compassionate hastening of the end of the pregnancy (through induction, c-section, or other means) rather than forcing the mother to deliver naturally to let the baby die a "natural death" perhaps months later. Then again, I believe in assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness of adults who are dying and want to hasten the inevitable.

Please let me clarify. When I referred to "natural death" I meant in a hasten pregnancy where the baby dies naturally. Not wait until spontaneous deliver and then passes. I find no reason for a mother to have to endure a pregnancy of a baby who will die. It may not be a choice everyone would've bit in this case, it indeed should be between her,the father and her Dr.

Justlookingfornow · May 21, 2022

5 hours ago, subee said:

And we all know the history of how well the Catholic church has taken care of vulnerable children ...from protecting pedophile priests and abuse in orphanages and schools for native American children. I am not being anti-Catholic here but merely pointing out historical facts that make this archbishop seem hypocritical. Can we just take better care of our LIVE children first?

He's being hypocritical of wanting to preserve life of children because of some obviously evil people who claimed to be believers in the Catholic faith did some atrocious things?

So he should just be okay with abortion? Perhaps he should just take a passive stance on pedophilia? You know because some people did something?

I hear what you are saying about the Catholic church. They have many historic issues but to say they now should be supportive of abortion well that's hypocritical itself. Many people of many religions committed atrocities, do who the entire faith responsible?

Justlookingfornow · May 21, 2022

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

While I agree that when the dust settles most places will have some sort of restrictions. If anything, there might be a few places where the laws are too strict. Right now, Democrats are too busy villifying conservatives on this issue in hopes of salvaging the midterms in some manner. They aren't talking about what needs to happen next.

But, that doesn't mean there aren't those who will advocate for no restrictions.

Look at the group in here. On the liberal side, you're the only one who agrees that there will be some who try to get a later term abortion and that you believe there should be gestational age limits.

Almost everyone else is of the belief restrictions aren't needed because there will be zero demand for late-term abortions. Even more telling, and this is true of most elected Democrats as well, but those same folks haven't even said that they believe a late-term abortion is wrong.

Exactly. It's what they do not say that is concerning. At least on here we were able to get most to say abortion for convenience in later in pregnancy is wrong. Even homicide.

If it's so far out there that anyone would seek out or perform an abortion as stated above, then why not just say it and agree to a restriction?

Because they don't want to offend the crazy activist who seem to have a louder voice and quite possibly a louder voice in the Democrat party.

Justlookingfornow · May 21, 2022

2 hours ago, Tweety said:

There's no doubt with this one issue Democrats will capitalize on it as a mid-term issue. Because it is. Also not sure what you mean by not concentrating on what will happen next. Like I've said they are talking about keeping abortion rights active, safe and legal. What happens next is what they are doing, assuring the public that abortion will remain intact in their states, in Republican lead states Democrats are voicing their concerns, and senators attempted to make a national law allowing abortion. They will take this message on the campaign trail.

States like Washington have taken some steps like earlier this year prohibiting prosecuting someone getting an abortion or someone helping them in response to laws being passed in Texas. No move to move the gestation age up since the leak came up.

Yes, there are some people that want abortion for any reason any time. Most of those people aren't in power to make laws.

Likewise there are people that want cases of rape and incest to be forced into full term pregnancy. But even Oklahoma that banned abortions has provisions for this. And getting all too bent out of shape about this aspect doesn't make much sense.

I could be wrong but I do not think most support making an incest pregnancy or one that occurs from rape to be taken full term. In the first trimester.

Rape and incest abortions have a very low number on why abortions happen. However, some Republicans actually say there could be acceptions for this. And some may say no. However they at least say something. That's my primary issue.