Bah. I don’t believe the anecdote for a minute.
For child and mother, seems the more accurate reading.
So you haven’t heard people say that we should force OB/Gyns to perform abortions? Its been years since I got into the muck on abortions, but IIRC Der Trihs and he was not alone.
If its for a medically necessary abortion then then I agree with you but when one side of the argument is shooting doctors and the other side is not, they are not immune from the politics, they don’t have the luxury of ignoring it. Its not like they took the black and went to the wall.
I think you are thinking of the threads about whether pharmacists should be able to refuse to dispense birth control.
It came up in some of the pharmacist threads but it came up in the context of accessibility to abortions too. IIRC one of the arguments was that we should legally require OB Gyns to perform abortions so they had “cover” to do what they wanted to do in the first place but couldn’t do because they were so afraid of being assassinated or something. Another was that providing an abortion is the forseeable result of studying obstetrics and they should be required to provide elective abortions just as much as they are required to perform medically necessary abortions.
I for one don’t think you should be required to perform elective abortions even if you perform medically necessary abortions and I don’t think you should be required to dispense an abortifacient for abortive purposes even if you dispense them for medically necessary purposes. But lets not derail this thread. Start another one if you want to.
Not on this board.
Shodan and you brought it up, not me.
/sigh. I will try to find the thread. It would be helpful if Der Trihs would chime in here and let us know if he recalls making such an argument.
Well, no, I believe the point was initially regarding the ruling mentioned in the thread title. How an extended buffer zone would have prevented Bricker’s friend from stopping that woman and adopting a child.
Yet a claim is later made that contact is not sought with the clinic’s clientele by members of the group he belongs to. We are talking about a span of two decades, perhaps tactics have changed, or memory has shifted. But he did question the legitimacy of an anecdote shared by someone else, so I’m curious about the disparity.
Um… vast?
This was why I asked if Bricker had a half-million similar anecdotes, because that’s how many you’d need per year to indicate the level of commitment American pro-lifers profess. That would be “vast”, and even then only just sufficient to match the scale of the alleged problem.
I sit corrected, then.
Well, the original also includes a part about not cutting for the (kidney) stone, meaning “don’t try and infringe on the barber-surgeons’ trade”. Think we’re all glad docs outgrew *that *one.
If you are skeptical of the anecdote, you may challenge it.
Do not, in Great Debates, do so in a way that suggests that the poster is lying.
[ /Moderating ]
I always wonder why, if there are so many pro-lifers and infertile couples willing to adopt, there are so many children in foster care?
Oh, wait. Maybe because those couples only want newborn babies. And letting older children languish in the foster care system while you wait for a woman to endure nine months of pregnancy and risk suffering for the rest of her life after giving you her newborn baby is totally inexcusable. And fucked-up.
Why is it totally inexcusable for pro-lifers to leave older children suffering in foster care and not adopting them, but not for pro-choicers? Don’t they have an equal responsibility?
Or are you flipping around the idea that abortion protesters don’t care about already-born children, and applying it to pro-choicers? IOW “you had your chance to abort and you didn’t take it, so the children in foster care are SOL”.
Regards,
Shodan
Because anti-abortion people are the ones who present adoption as some kind of magical la-la land where everything goes perfect. No adoptive parent ever abused or killed the child, no mother who gave up her baby ever suffered one second’s worth of regret.
The ones I’ve talked to only favor adoption to straight, married couples because “every child needs a mother and a father.” Kind of makes you wonder how they can support single motherhood. Maybe every single pregnant woman should be forced to give birth and give the baby to a married couple. That’ll learn the bitch not to go whoring around.
So anyone who does not present adoption as perfect is entitled to ignore older children who are in foster care? What is the basis for this line of reasoning?
Regards,
Shodan
I suppose the idea is that, in the theoretical case of a fetus that would’ve been aborted, it’s the pro-lifers who would act to try to ensure it is not, and pro-choicers that would act to allow it. The existence of that older child is predicated on the wishes of the pro-lifers, not the pro-choicers.
I don’t think I’d say it absolves a pro-choicer of all responsibility - or any, really - but I would say that if someone has a hand in creating that situation then they would have an additional amount of responsibility from then on.
You’ve talked to me. I’m anti-abortion, and I have no objections in the world to same-sex couples adopting.
This omission makes me suspect that your anecdotes suffer from comprehension bias. Am I the only anti-abortion person you’ve ever heard of that feels this way?
Or, you know, she was using “talked” in a literal sense. Unless you’ve met Annie-Xmas, of course.