Say Anything Blog

My goodness--they’re trying to argue that tearing the uterine wall and leaving things in the abdomen (= BIG tear) falls under “assumption of risk”.  They must be hoping for a VERY sympathetic judge and jury to try and pull that one.

That is, you MIGHT get “assumption of risk” from perforating the uterine wall--though good ob/gyns generally don’t do that to begin with.  However, when you compound it with failing to FIX the damage, or even let the patient know that the damage was done, you very quickly get into the realm of malpractice.

I have a friend who had an abortion and she almost bled to death. Was Planned Parenthood there for any after care? NO WAY! They take the money and ching cha ching, you are out of there ASAP! NEXT!

Abortion is one of this nation’s most controversial topics.

Jeez, that is puting it lightly.  Abortion is this nation’s atrocity. As horrible as slavery was, it doesn’t even come in a close second.  Thanks in large part to the scientific arguments from materialists half the country can’t decide whether an unborn child is a life.  If ever there was a valid argument against the separation of science and state surely the violent killing of innocent children in the millions qualifies.

HG, abortion is the new age of the Halocaust killing defenseless innocent beings.  There should be no controversy there.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Well said!

Why should people who oppose abortion - who find it a detestable and loathsome practice - before (be forced, surely?) to fund America’s largest provider of abortions?

Why should people who oppose war - who find it a detestable and loathsome practice - be forced to fund America’s wars?

Because they are tax-payers and the government must act on the will of all the people, not some of them!

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Actually, MOFAL, that’s a “democratic” view of government, but thankfully we are a republic, not a democracy.  Our Constitution provides for waging war; it does not provide for funding private providers of medical services.

No sane person likes war, but sometimes waging it is less fearsome than the alternative of not fighting.

Why should people who oppose war - who find it a detestable and loathsome practice - be forced to fund America’s wars?

Because they are tax-payers and the government must act on the will of all the people, not some of them!

That’s really bizarre if not impossible.  How can the government act on the will of ALL people when most of the people have opposing views?  i.e. if the government favors one sector it only does it at the expense of another.  As far as abortion is concerned, I wager that it is not favored by a significant percentage of the people so we have an example of the government going against the will of the majority.

Equating (a standared lefty trick) abortion with wsr is equally ridiculous.  In war there are allies and enemies.  With abortion who is the enemy, unborn infants!!??  I guess the allies are people like you who will rationalize infanticide at all costs.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Providing for the defense is Quite different than providing abortions. Correct me IF I am wrong? BUT the last I heard Planned Parenthood does NOT give out abortions for Free??? The last I knew they refused anyone without MONEY. They may accept funds from the US taxpayers. BUT they are in it for the MONEY! They can pretend all they want to care about Women, BUT that is the last thing on their minds after they collect the Money and perform the abortion. They don’t have any after care or any type of support.

Well said, unless you are a liberal, socialist killer.

abortion is the new age of the Halocaust killing defenseless innocent beings.

Communism is evil

Regarding docdave:

As far as abortion is concerned, I wager that it is not favored by a significant percentage of the people so we have an example of the government going against the will of the majority.

Really? The legality of abortion isn’t favored by “a significant percentage” (I note you don’t say a “majority”, but I’m willing to give you even that in trying to prove your point)?  I’ll take your wager—find me a poll that shows that more than 50% of respondents think abortion should be illegal (admittedly, this is tough because people often (correctly) differentiate between the reasons behind abortion, i.e. “in all cases,” “early term vs. late term,” “as a result of rape/incest,” etc.).  But anyway, please provide the polls that show that a significant percentage of Americans don’t “favor” abortion under at least some circumstances being legal.

As for the funding of Planned Parenthood—this is done through the annual Congressional appropriations process.  You’re right, Bike Bubba, this is a republic—our representatives vote on these bills every year (well, they’re supposed to, but they often get pushed back for months at a time under continuing resolutions).  So, if enough of you can convince your representatives in Congress to vote against this funding, go for it!  You had 12 years of a Republican controlled House to do so—why didn’t it happen?  Could it be because at least 50% (or “a significant percentage") of voters wouldn’t agree with cutting off such funding?

The legality of abortion isn’t favored by “a significant percentage” (I note you don’t say a “majority”, but I’m willing to give you even that in trying to prove your point)?  I’ll take your wager—find me a poll that shows that more than 50% of respondents think abortion should be illegal

First of all, abortion was not something that was voted for by the elective but was mandated by the courts.  Secondly, one doesn’t have to rely on polls to know that the majority does not favor abortion.  One only has to look at the past history where state representatives CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE had legislated against abortion.  Almost all states had probited measures agains abortion before Roe v Wade.  If that is not a majority I don’t know what is.  Pay up…

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Nah, I don’t think so.  You’re going to base your whole argument on what states legislated against 35 years ago?  Roe was decided in January, 1973, docdave; I was born 11 months later.  I think taking a look at polls (choose your source) is probably a bit more valuable in determining what a significant percentage or majority percentage of the American people think about abortion in the year 2008 as state law 35 years ago.

Well, isn’t letting the people decide at the ballot box the answer to our assertions?

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

I actually wouldn’t have a problem with that on this issue, because I’m confident of where the majority stands, but does that really work?  Can we have a referendum on every single issue?  How often should we have it?  If the public votes for something one time, should that decision govern forever despite changing attitudes?

Seriously, though, you might want to look at where the American public is on this issue—your side wouldn’t win the vote.

Roe v Wade should be overturned if for nothing else but the lack of technology of their decision in 1973. Today the technology can not be disputed! Only ignored.