Planned Parenthood would rather not treat women...

JaJae · 07-23-2008, 07:49 AM

than warn them of possible risks of abortion.

South Dakota passed a law to requires an abortion doctor to read a script within 2 hours of giving the abortion. The script includes these points:

* The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
* The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
* That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
* A description of all known medical risks of the procedure including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide

This obviously has a conservative bent to it. In response the regional director of Planned Parenthood had this to say...

"The law is one more terrible, terrible barrier," said Sarah Stoesz, president of the regional Planned Parenthood office. She described the rules as "unprecedented interference in the doctor-patient relationship and unprecedented interference in a woman's life."

In response to this new law Planned Parenthood has shut down in South Dakota. In other words, they would rather not treat women than read them a script. What's more important to them: treating women or fighting the ideological war? I guess we're about to find out. It's interesting though to see them shut down rather than just violate the law like they always have done. It seems they are making a political move by shutting down their services in hopes of having people come to their aid in overturning this law.

So far this story has only been put out by the blogs, no media has jumped on it yet. I'll keep my eye out for any confirmation of facts or anything that disputes what I've been reading.

WickedLou9 · 07-23-2008, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

than warn them of possible risks of abortion.

South Dakota passed a law to requires an abortion doctor to read a script within 2 hours of giving the abortion. The script includes these points:

This obviously has a conservative bent to it. In response the regional director of Planned Parenthood had this to say...

In response to this new law Planned Parenthood has shut down in South Dakota. In other words, they would rather not treat women than read them a script. What's more important to them: treating women or fighting the ideological war? I guess we're about to find out. It's interesting though to see them shut down rather than just violate the law like they always have done. It seems they are making a political move by shutting down their services in hopes of having people come to their aid in overturning this law.

So far this story has only been put out by the blogs, no media has jumped on it yet. I'll keep my eye out for any confirmation of facts or anything that disputes what I've been reading.

I don't understand how they can force doctors to read a script of statements that they may not agree with. This seems arbitrary to me. Why not create a script for other risky medical procedures that doctors have to read to thier patients? Why are they singling out abortion? What about a script that they have to read for fat patients? That sounds like a good idea too. They should have to tell fat people that they are killing themselves.

I'm glad I don't live in a stupid bumble fuck state that does shit like this.

JaJae · 07-23-2008, 05:25 PM

I don't really mind the state requiring informed consent on a medical procedure that results in the loss of human life. To me it is the same thing as requiring the physician to inform the patient of all the risks involved in taking someone off a respirator. There are many procedures that require informed consent, I can't think of a better procedure than one that routinely results in the loss of human life.

Also, the law is targeting a class of doctors who routinely break and circumvent local, state and federal laws. In order for the law to be effective, it had to be strict.

kombayn · 07-23-2008, 07:05 PM

Who really cares if they have to read a script to the woman who's getting an abortion. It's a state law that was passed. Planned Parenthood shouldn't be acting as-if they're the all-knowing Abortion Gods. Bunch of feminists that don't get laid trying to dictate their own rules is ridiculous. Idiots, by doing this, you're giving them impression to the North Dakota State government that these things work in preventing abortions.

IminWonderland · 07-24-2008, 04:48 AM

The second point doesn't seem surgery related. It seems philosophical.

I think that if the government wants the philosophy of that statement for patients to understand, they should do it, and not make the doctors.

Its not the doctors job to have a rhetoric of the right statement to read. They should be prepping the patient for the procedure. Which would include physical, and emotional risks.

WickedLou9 · 07-24-2008, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

The second point doesn't seem surgery related. It seems philosophical.

I think that if the government wants the philosophy of that statement for patients to understand, they should do it, and not make the doctors.

Its not the doctors job to have a rhetoric of the right statement to read. They should be prepping the patient for the procedure. Which would include physical, and emotional risks.

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd statements are nonsense. The 1st is opinion, the 2nd and 3rd are meaningless and meant to confuse and scare girls who are probably already confused and scared as it is

JaJae · 07-24-2008, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd statements are nonsense. The 1st is opinion, the 2nd and 3rd are meaningless and meant to confuse and scare girls who are probably already confused and scared as it is

I don't necessarily agree with all the phrasing, but the first statement is factual. A fetus is a living human being with its own DNA. It is separate in that it is its own life and not in the context that it is living within and off the mother. I guess the way separate is interpreted would shade the issue.

However, I agree some of the phrasing is wacky and partisan, but the statements themselves aren't really entirely that bad and something similar should be said.. especially the risks to the woman's long term mental health. Before women have an abortion they should be aware of the rights of the fetus, their rights after the abortion and the possible risks to their mental and physical health. Many of the people getting these abortions have a lower standard of education, or can be very young (sometimes below the legal age to receive an abortion without parental consent) and don't understand the possible risks and side effects.

7960 · 07-24-2008, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't really mind the state requiring informed consent on a medical procedure that results in the loss of human life.

and that's where the argument was, is, and will remain.......

JaJae · 07-24-2008, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

and that's where the argument was, is, and will remain.......

The fetus is a homo sapien. It is living. And, abortion terminates it. Those are all scientific facts. I'm pro-choice, but I can't see how someone would argue those facts other than to invent a false position to bring to a debate. The reasoning as to why it would be an acceptable procedure is where the arguments are... the same as taking someone in a coma (vegetative state) off life support.

WickedLou9 · 07-24-2008, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't necessarily agree with all the phrasing, but the first statement is factual. A fetus is a living human being with its own DNA. It is separate in that it is its own life and not in the context that it is living within and off the mother. I guess the way separate is interpreted would shade the issue.

However, I agree some of the phrasing is wacky and partisan, but the statements themselves aren't really entirely that bad and something similar should be said.. especially the risks to the woman's long term mental health. Before women have an abortion they should be aware of the rights of the fetus, their rights after the abortion and the possible risks to their mental and physical health. Many of the people getting these abortions have a lower standard of education, or can be very young (sometimes below the legal age to receive an abortion without parental consent) and don't understand the possible risks and side effects.

The doctor should already be telling them about the risks to her health, mental and otherwise. But the other stuff is opinion and has no place being a law. The 1st statement is not a fact actually and it's part of the reason abortion is so contentious. Some people believe that it's a human life and some don't. Some people think it's a human life at conception and some say it's not till there is a heart beat, and some say not until it can survive outside the womb. There is no "Answer" per se as this is a matter of opinion. So to say that you are terminating the life of a human being is a statement of opinion based on someones personal belief that a baby becomes a human being at the point of conception.
The 2nd two statements both say the same thing and they are nonsense. You have certain rights that apply to you when you are pregnant. When you are not pregnant you don't have those rights because.. well you aren't pregnant. To say you are giving up your rights is meant to scare them. They won't understand and will think that they are being punished. It's like saying that you are giving up your rights as a pedestrian when you get into your car. Technically it's correct but it's not really something that needs to be stated.

WickedLou9 · 07-24-2008, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The fetus is a homo sapien. It is living. And, abortion terminates it. Those are all scientific facts. I'm pro-choice, but I can't see how someone would argue those facts other than to invent a false position to bring to a debate. The reasoning as to why it would be an acceptable procedure is where the arguments are... the same as taking someone in a coma (vegetative state) off life support.

Scientific fact? So when does a fetus become a human being?
Is this a human being?

How about this?

There is no scientific answer to that question. The first one is a human zygote, the second is a blastula. Are those people? That is not a scientific question.

nbiggershaft · 07-24-2008, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The fetus is a homo sapien. It is living. And, abortion terminates it. Those are all scientific facts. I'm pro-choice, but I can't see how someone would argue those facts other than to invent a false position to bring to a debate. The reasoning as to why it would be an acceptable procedure is where the arguments are... the same as taking someone in a coma (vegetative state) off life support.

Regardless, what's the point of telling the girl who is getting the abortion that? The government's job should not be to shame girls by telling them they are killing a unique person, they should know much better than some jerkoff writing a script.

7960 · 07-24-2008, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It is living.

Again, this is the core of the debate. Define "living".

WickedLou9 · 07-24-2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Again, this is the core of the debate. Define "living".

really. If there was no debate, if it was scientific fact that life begins at conception, abortion would be illegal, the child would be given a SSN and a name and such at conception, mothers who drink or smoke or do other things that might harm thier baby would be charged with crimes. Clearly these things are not happening today.

JaJae · 07-24-2008, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Again, this is the core of the debate. Define "living".

Having life.

JaJae · 07-24-2008, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Scientific fact? So when does a fetus become a human being?
Is this a human being?

How about this?

There is no scientific answer to that question. The first one is a human zygote, the second is a blastula. Are those people? That is not a scientific question.

Human embryos are part of the homo sapian species and they are technically alive at conception.

JaJae · 07-24-2008, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Regardless, what's the point of telling the girl who is getting the abortion that? The government's job should not be to shame girls by telling them they are killing a unique person, they should know much better than some jerkoff writing a script.

I agree, the script sucks and it's biased and I don't agree with the wording. However, I don't have a problem with forcing doctors to warn the patient of the risks of their surgery or making it a requirement to explain to them their rights over the fetus as well as the rights of the fetus prior to and after the surgery. Do I think the script is overbearing? Absolutely. But I also understand the need for it given the way organizations like Planned Parenthood behave.

WickedLou9 · 07-24-2008, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Human embryos are part of the homo sapian species and they are technically alive at conception.

According to who? Thier DNA is human DNA, but at conception I don't think very many people would say that it was a person if they were to look at a zygote under the microscope. They are alive in the same sense that your skin cells are alive. Techninically your skin cells are human cells, they are alive, they have human DNA but if I cut myself I would not say that I just killed someone. If I have a precancerous growth removed from my scalp the doctor doesn't have to read me some spiel on killing a living entitiy, even though I am certainly killing some living human cells.

JaJae · 07-24-2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

According to who?

Biologists.