Apr 252012
 

Remember how upset pro-abortion types are at the idea that pro-life medical clinics perform ultrasounds without doctors? It didn’t matter to them if they were certified ultrasound technicians.

Well just to prove that their concern was only a tactic.

As states across the country are passing laws to restrict access to abortion, California lawmakers are considering a significant expansion of who would be able to perform the procedure in the state. Under a bill that passed its first committee hearing Tuesday, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants would be able to perform what is known as an “aspiration” abortion, which is the most common abortion procedure and takes place in the first trimester of a pregnancy. [Source]

Of course they were also not upset about abortion telemedicine – abortion via teleconference performed by non-doctors.

  121 Responses to “California To Allow Non Doctor Abortionists?”

  1. > it is a fact that human babies need human milk to survive?

    Yes but there have been some changes in the last few centuries or so, guess you missed them or something.

    >If artificial wombs become available, will it then be illegal to kill human fetuses?

    Once again, if the fetus is inside a woman it’s her choice as to what happens to it, once it has escaped and is living outside (in whatever) then it is a human being and you can’t abort it.

    Why does that confuse you so much?

  2. Okay, so it is about location and property rights. Not development.

  3. >Okay, so it is about location and property rights. Not development.

    No, it’s about who owns a woman’s body, it’s not you or the state despite your superstitions.

  4. Okay, sorry to keep you waiting so long, salvage; company last night, appointment this morning.

    >>So, we’re back to the old reason of location.

    >Um never left it.

    Give me one good reason that a human person — not a human adult, not a human toddler, but a *human person* — cannot live in a human womb.

    And for convenience, here’s the definition of person that Sabine offered and you accepted:

    >Definition of PERSON
    1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

    >> I didn’t say that living in the womb makes something not a person, either.

    >No it doesn’t make anything anything…

    All right, then it doesn’t make a fetus a non-person.

    >…the fact is the only things that live in wombs are fetuses…

    Oh, you said it again, so I will, too. Bacteria live in wombs.

    >for instance you do know that Christianity became the official religion of the Empire after a bloody war right?

    Help me out here. I’m not sure why you brought this up. Are you using “bloody war” as an example of evil? After all, there is such a thing as a just war. Even if that’s what you mean, I still don’t see your point. Giving an example of the use of evil means to obtain a good end does not contradict my statement. It simply says that sometimes evil means are used to obtain a good end.

    Let’s say a pregnant women gets drunk and falls down the stairs and miscarries. Should she be charged with a crime?

    Let’s say a mother gets drunk and falls down the stairs killing her new born child that she was holding. Should she be charged with a crime?

    >Again, I’m no judge; don’t claim to be, don’t want to be. But I will say this: You’ve offered two scenarios that differ only in the location of the baby. Both babies are persons. The two could be judged as one, at least for our purposes. If you wanted to get into drinking alcohol and killing someone as a result, that would another whole issue. But I assume you presented these to add to the discussion, not change the subject.

    By the way, I said both babies are persons. You’ll probably want to say the first one is not. So, I’ll go ahead and remind you to tell me why they are not.

    >>When does the fetus become a person?

    >When it no longer lives in a womb…

    During a normal birth, the baby’s head is living outside the womb before the feet are. So, the baby is a half-person at that moment? What is the precise moment in which that fetus becomes a person?

    When a woman miscarries, for a short while the baby is still in the womb. But it has died. It “no longer lives in a womb.” Is it now a person? Just trying to clarify.

  5. >>Breasts, like wombs are also part of the woman’s body.

    >Oh indeed they are and like every other bit of the woman’s body the woman has the final say as to what is done with them. No not only means no it means her choice, her decision in every way and every day.

    Since you’re so fond of presenting scenarios, here’s one for you. A woman and her newborn baby are lost in the dessert with only water and solid food. The woman is doing well, has food and water enough to wait for rescue, but there is nothing to sustain the baby except milk from his mother’s breast. Does the woman have the right to refuse to feed her baby?

  6. Also, one of my children was born 33 weeks and 2 days after conception. Her cousin was born 40 weeks and 1 day after his conception. So my daugher attained personhood 6 weeks and 6 days before her cousin? Other children are born and survive much earlier than that. Why does one child have rights and the other does not? Because one is in the womb, and the other outside? Does that really make sense to you? The baby is not developmentally different in either situation.

    You keep going in a variety of directions here and don’t follow them all the way through. If it’s all about personal choice, then are you and anarchist? Are all choices equal? You have the right to do with your body as you choose no matter if it affects someone else?

  7. >Give me one good reason that a human person — not a human adult, not a human toddler, but a *human person* — cannot live in a human womb.

    You go and try it, let me know how that works out for you.

    And for convenience, here’s the definition of person that Sabine offered and you accepted:

    >All right, then it doesn’t make a fetus a non-person.

    No, being a fetus makes a fetus a non-person. Only people can be persons.

    >Oh, you said it again, so I will, too. Bacteria live in wombs.

    And bacteria aren’t people either.

    >Help me out here. I’m not sure why you brought this up. Are you using “bloody war” as an example of evil?

    Because I think it’s amusing that Catholicism thinks it has any right to moral high grounds or the right to dictate right and wrong when its history makes it quite clear it has no such claim.

    >After all, there is such a thing as a just war.

    There sure is, Constantine’s war was to gather power to rule the Empire. That’s just is it? Do you know how he won his first major battle? Do you know who he had whacked on the way up? Do you know who he killed to keep power? Do you know how he and later Emperors spread Christianity?

    It’s some amazing history and it should make you wonder about Jesus and his ideas about peace cuz without war Christianity never would have left Italy or the Middle East.

    Isn’t it weird that your god can’t travel outside of its believer’s heads?

    >Even if that’s what you mean, I still don’t see your point.

    I know, what I don’t know is if it’s on purpose.

    >Again, I’m no judge; don’t claim to be, don’t want to be.

    Yet you seem able to judge what a woman should do with her body.

    > But I assume you presented these to add to the discussion, not change the subject.

    It’s a simple hypothetical that once again illustrates the stark differences between a baby and a fetus.

    > What is the precise moment in which that fetus becomes a person?

    When it stops being in the womb.
    >When a woman miscarries, for a short while the baby is still in the womb. But it has died. It “no longer lives in a womb.” Is it now a person? Just trying to clarify.

    No, it’s a dead fetus.

    > Does the woman have the right to refuse to feed her baby?

    That’s an interesting scenario! Hmm, I suppose theoretically she does, I can’t imagine she’d be charged with anything however but I don’t imagine that a mother would put herself before her baby.

  8. > So my daugher attained personhood 6 weeks and 6 days before her cousin?

    Correct.

    > Because one is in the womb, and the other outside?

    By Jove I think you’re getting it!

    >Does that really make sense to you?

    Obviously.

    >The baby is not developmentally different in either situation.

    Yet one is in the womb, at the mercy of its mother’s grace and the other is out and now a human being with all the rights that brings.

    >If it’s all about personal choice, then are you and anarchist?

    No.

    >Are all choices equal?

    Some are, some aren’t.
    >You have the right to do with your body as you choose no matter if it affects someone else?

    Of course not.

  9. >You go and try it, let me know how that works out for you.

    No, telling me to go do something is irrelevant. Telling me to get in mom’s womb is not a reason why a person cannot live in a womb.

    Let’s clear something up. What defines a person? What makes a person a person?

    >>All right, then it doesn’t make a fetus a non-person.

    >No, being a fetus makes a fetus a non-person. Only people can be persons.

    Then you agree that whether or not something is living in the womb has nothing to do with whether or not it is a person.

    And what about being a fetus or being a person prohibits a fetus from being a person? I see nothing in that definition that says anything even remotely like “a fetus is not a person.”

    >And bacteria aren’t people either.

    We can go down this road again if you really want. Just say so.

    >Yet you seem able to judge what a woman should do with her body.

    In the case we’re discussing, she’s asserting not only her right over her own body, but also “her right” over another person’s body. I know, I know, you don’t agree. Just pointing it out.

    >It’s a simple hypothetical that once again illustrates the stark differences between a baby and a fetus.

    Fine, so you showed the difference. And I could show some differences between a baby and an adult. But that would be beside the point, as is your illustration. It doesn’t show me why a fetus cannot be a person.

    >When it stops being in the womb.

    And what is it about this not being in the womb that makes a person.

    >That’s an interesting scenario! Hmm, I suppose theoretically she does, I can’t imagine she’d be charged with anything…

    Frankly, I never thought I’d see you put in writing that one person has the right to deny another innocent human person the basic means of survival. Salvage, you make me sick. If this weren’t such an important issue, I would have been out of here long ago.

    If I’m standing next to a pool in which my son is drowning, no one else is around, and I’m perfectly able to save him, I have the right to stand there and watch him die simple because I don’t want to get my body wet? And everyone would be fine and dandy with that and bring no charges? That’s disgusting.

  10. By the way, I’m going to leave your comments about Christianity and just wars alone for now. Come back to it later if you want. For now, let’s focus on the subject of this thread.

  11. >No, telling me to go do something is irrelevant. Telling me to get in mom’s womb is not a reason why a person cannot live in a womb.

    No, the reason why a person cannot live in a womb is that they are not a fetus.

    >Let’s clear something up. What defines a person? What makes a person a person?

    Oh lots of things, but the most important one is being a person which a fetus is not anymore than a fetus is an egg and a sperm. Different things are different!

    > Then you agree that whether or not something is living in the womb has nothing to do with whether or not it is a person.

    No, I agree that only fetuses live in wombs.

    >And what about being a fetus or being a person prohibits a fetus from being a person?

    And what about being an apple or being an orange prohibits an apple from being an orange?

    >In the case we’re discussing, she’s asserting not only her right over her own body, but also “her right” over another person’s body.

    It’s not another person, how can a person live inside someone? They can’t, only a fetus can.

    >And I could show some differences between a baby and an adult.

    Sure but both of those are people, a fetus is not.

    > And what is it about this not being in the womb that makes a person.

    It means they are no longer a fetus.

    >Frankly, I never thought I’d see you put in writing that one person has the right to deny another innocent human person the basic means of survival.

    Oh. So when is your flight to Africa to bring water and food to the famine stricken areas?

    > Salvage, you make me sick.

    Ah the self-righteous fury of the theist! Love it. Yes I am a monster for answer a hypothetical question!

    >If I’m standing next to a pool in which my son is drowning, no one else is around, and I’m perfectly able to save him, I have the right to stand there and watch him die simple because I don’t want to get my body wet?

    Well that falls under the “good Samaritan” laws. Tricky business because the Western legal system is geared towards telling people what they cannot do not what they ought to do.

    However in that scenario some sort of negligent parenting law would kick in I suspect.

    On the other hand let’s say you went swimming while pregnant slipped on the edge because you were running on the deck despite the sign posted saying not to and miscarried. What should you be charged with? Manslaughter?

    >And everyone would be fine and dandy with that and bring no charges? That’s disgusting.

    You present one scenario, I answer it and you apply that answer to a separate one and then get all angry about it. Adorable! It really shows how carefully you think about things.

    >By the way, I’m going to leave your comments about Christianity and just wars alone for now.

    You and your whole religion.

    > Come back to it later if you want. For now, let’s focus on the subject of this thread.

    Or you can just ponder why Jesus used war and genocide as a tool to spread his love. Hey why don’t you ask your priest? I’ve asked a few and all they ever do is mutter that I just don’t understand and that they’d need to look up the history cuz I’m lying or something.

    Perhaps they will give you a proper answer.

  12. Actually, only a human fetus can survive in a human womb. My womb is an excellent place for human fetuses, but not so much for fetuses of other mammals.

    >>If artificial wombs become available, will it then be illegal to kill human fetuses?

    >Once again, if the fetus is inside a woman it’s her choice as to what >happens to it, once it has escaped and is living outside (in whatever) >then it is a human being and you can’t abort it.

    So you agree that embryo’s outside a woman’s body cannot be destroyed?

    “No, it’s about who owns a woman’s body,”

    Someone owns the woman’s body? Don’t you really mean that the woman owns the body growing inside her?

  13. >Actually, only a human fetus can survive in a human womb. My womb is an excellent place for human fetuses, but not so much for fetuses of other mammals.

    Well that and the bacteria and quite right but your womb would be lousy place for a person.

    >>So you agree that embryo’s outside a woman’s body cannot be destroyed?

    No. I don’t give a fig about embryos that are not my own.

    >Someone owns the woman’s body? Don’t you really mean that the woman owns the body growing inside her?

    I mean the woman owns her body from the bottom of bottom cell of her feet to the very tip of her tallest hair. Every square inch is hers’ and hers’ alone. The contents are immaterial and none of my bee’s wax.

  14. >…the reason why a person cannot live in a womb is that they are not a fetus.

    You misunderstand which one is the inclusive term.
    A horse is not a Thoroughbred. But a Thoroughbred is a horse.
    A human person is not a human fetus. But a human fetus is a human person.
    >Oh lots of things, but the most important one…
    What are some of the other “lots of things”?
    >…the most important one is being a person which a fetus is not anymore than a fetus is an egg and a sperm.

    I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that you would define “person” as “being a person?”

    >No, I agree that only fetuses live in wombs.

    Okay, I don’t know if you’re being stubborn or stupid or both, but do I really have to point out a third time that bacteria live in wombs? Like you said before, bacteria are not people. Neither are they fetuses. Yet bacteria do live in wombs.

    >And what about being an apple or being an orange prohibits an apple from being an orange?

    An apple is a firm round fruit of a tree of the rose family with thin red, green, or yellow skin, and crisp white or yellow flesh. An orange is a round or oval citrus fruit with thick orange skin and juicy segmented flesh.

    One of the most obvious reasons an apple is not an orange is that the apple has thin skin, while the orange has a thicker, tough rind. Another reason is that an orange has segmented flesh while an apple does not.

    I’ve answered your question. Now please answer mine. What is it about being a fetus or being a person that prohibits a fetus from being a person?

    >… how can a person live inside someone?

    A human person can live inside another human person when he is in the first stage of physical development. This first stage is termed “fetus” in English.

    >They can’t, only a fetus can.

    Here you go again.
    >>And what is it about this not being in the womb that makes a person.
    >It means they are no longer a fetus.
    So simply not being a fetus anymore makes them a person? What about when the fetus of a gorilla is no longer in the womb? Is it a person?

    Not being in the womb makes them no longer a fetus? What about the miscarried fetus? I thought it was still a fetus, even outside the womb.
    >>Frankly, I never thought I’d see you put in writing that one person has the right to deny another innocent human person the basic means of survival.
    >Oh. So when is your flight to Africa to bring water and food to the famine stricken areas?
    I could tell you, but it would just start another argument. Let’s handle one at a time.

    >On the other hand let’s say you went swimming while pregnant slipped on the edge because you were running on the deck despite the sign posted saying not to and miscarried. What should you be charged with? Manslaughter?

    I’m not sure what I’d be charged with. In the least, strict liability would come into play. But, as I pointed out before, it takes a closer examination than the facts you present allow.

    By the way, I’m going to leave scenarios alone, too. The question is: what is it about the definition of fetus or the definition of person that prohibits a fetus from being a person? This cannot be answered by a scenario; they just make the posts longer and more complicated. If it’s really true that you’re just trying to find out why you’re wrong, {04.30.12 at 12:58 pm}, then you shouldn’t mind getting straight to the point without all these what-if situations.

  15. >A human person is not a human fetus. But a human fetus is a human person.

    No human person is a person and human fetus is a fetus.

    >I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand.

    I’m getting that and I’m afraid I lack the skills to explain it any clearer than a fetus and a person are two different things.

    > but do I really have to point out a third time that bacteria live in wombs?

    You keep on saying that like it’s some sort of point, it’s not.

    > What is it about being a fetus or being a person that prohibits a fetus from being a person?

    Again I have explained this and used the apples and oranges as a hint, see while they have much in common they are two different things. Like a fetus and person are two different things, like a sperm and an egg are two different things.

    >I could tell you, but it would just start another argument. Let’s handle one at a time.

    >The question is: what is it about the definition of fetus or the definition of person that prohibits a fetus from being a person

    Yeah, bored now.

  16. >I’m getting that and I’m afraid I lack the skills to explain it any clearer than a fetus and a person are two different things.

    Don’t feel bad, no one should have the skills to prove that a falsehood is a truth.

    >You keep on saying that like it’s some sort of point, it’s not.

    I keep saying it because you keep saying that only fetuses can live in wombs and therefore they are not people. I’m just pointing out the incoherency of your argument.

    >Yeah, bored now.

    So, really you’re not interested in finding out why you’re wrong.

    Well, since you’re getting bored, here are some parting comments for you to ponder:

    Whether someone is a person cannot be determined by functionality. A dog eats via the mouth and a man with a feeding tube does not. Yet the man is a person while the dog is not. Whether someone is a person cannot be determined by location, for location has no effect on personhood. Whether someone is a person cannot be determined by development of the body. A 40-week baby outside the womb is at the same stage of development as a 40-week baby inside the womb. And yet one is a person while the other is not? No. A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. Where this individual substance is and how developed his ability to reason is do not come into play at all.

    According to you, though, it does not matter if the fetus is a person or not. The mother still has the right to deny her child life. Salvage, when someone is corrupt enough to believe this, all I can say is may God have mercy on your soul. Jesus said “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” What then of the person who advocates the killing of children?

    I am entering a monastery soon. Don’t think for one second that I will forget you. God asks for perseverance in prayer. I never give up.

  17. >So, really you’re not interested in finding out why you’re wrong.

    No, you just keep repeating the same nonsense about how a fetus is person when they simply are not.

    >A 40-week baby outside the womb is at the same stage of development as a 40-week baby inside the womb.

    Yes, but one is inside a woman and thus hers and hers alone the other is outside the woman and thus no longer part of her body and her absolute say is no longer operable.

    I guess the difference is I respect women more than a fetus you feel the opposite for some reason you can’t articulate beyond “It’s a baby!” when it clearly is a fetus.

    >And yet one is a person while the other is not? No.

    Yes.

    >The mother still has the right to deny her child life.

    In your hypothetical desert situation sure she does because there is no law to force her to trade her life for anyone else’s. In reality I doubt any mother would do so.

    > Salvage, when someone is corrupt enough to believe this,

    Ha! ha! Yes! I am corrupt because I think woman have the final say to what they do with their body! Am I more or less corrupt than the Vatican’s bank?

    >All I can say is may God have mercy on your soul.

    Well it won’t, your god is going to throw me along with all the people who don’t think as you do into a lake of fire forever and ever right? Because your god is a loving god!

    Who gets a little psycho if that love isn’t reciprocated.

    >Jesus said “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

    Ah yes, if you teach children that Jesus is just a myth you should be drowned! What a loving god! Hey do you know how many times that passage was cited and used to kill people? From pagans to witches they drowned an awful lot of innocent people in the name of Jesus. How proud you must be to be part of such a thing,

    >What then of the person who advocates the killing of children?

    Well your god, it killed all the Egyptian first borns, lots of babies there, Sodom and Gomorrah must have had some kids, killed them, oh and the Flood, killed well… all the babies really.

    And let’s take infant mortality from the last 1700 years, until science and medicine came along child birth was a risky business for women and the child. That would be your god’s work as well right? I mean it designed the whole process?

    >I am entering a monastery soon.

    That’s sad but I guess it makes for an easy life.

    >. God asks for perseverance in prayer. I never give up.

    Yeah, it’s a demanding creature isn’t it? Still don’t understand what prayer is for but I get the impression it’s more for you than your god, after all what would a god do with it?

  18. Oh, I thought we were done with the conversation. I am anyhow for the obvious reason that you stubbornly present things as “facts” after I have proven them wrong. You could do that with anything, so my talking does no good. How do you help a person like that?

    Or are you a person? Hey, were you ever a fetus, or did your mom just cut off a finger? That would be a person, too, right, since it’s no longer a part of her body?

    If you’re really interested in learning what’s right and what’s wrong, here’s a suggestion. Tune into EWTN Radio Monday thru Friday, 3pm to 5pm ET for Open Line. Get your questions ready, call in, and fire away. They usually have some very good answers plus some book recommendations. If you really care, that is.

    By the way, tonight’s host is Fr. Mitch Pacwa. You could add him to your list of priests. Unless you’re too scared he might have an answer for you…

    Well, until we meet at the final judgment, have fun.

  19. >I am anyhow for the obvious reason that you stubbornly present things as “facts” after I have proven them wrong.

    You’ve proven that a fetus is a person and that women don’t have full rights to their own bodies? Really?

    I guess as a theist your threshold for proof is a tad lower than mine.

    > Hey, were you ever a fetus, or did your mom just cut off a finger? That would be a person, too, right, since it’s no longer a part of her body?

    Is this more of you proving stuff? It seems more like you’re tying to say different things aren’t different.

    I was a fetus, then I left the womb and became a person separate from my mother.

    Nothing to do with fingers.

    This is very simple stuff, not sure why you can’t grasp it.

    > By the way, tonight’s host is Fr. Mitch Pacwa. You could add him to your list of priests. Unless you’re too scared he might have an answer for you…

    Oh good gravy no, arguing with theists on the Net is a great way to fill the time waiting for client to get back to me, files to FTP and the like but it’s not something I’m going to make an appointment to do.

    And yes, your priests are very scary but not because they have any truths to impart. It’s their flocks that they terrify with nonsense about a god’s opinion on their behavior and the terrible things it will do if it disaproves.

    >Well, until we meet at the final judgment, have fun.

    Yes, that’s a perfect example “final judgment” where your god destroys the world that it made for being flawed.

    Which makes total sense!

    But when your god throws me into Hell for not believing its ridiculous stories because it gave me a brain cursed with critical thinking at least you’ll get the final “Told ya so!”.

  20. Happy Mothers’ Day to all you mothers loving and nurturing a baby within you. Thanks for choosing life and may God reward you!

  21. Observe salvage’s perversity: He blames God for his own faults, rather than blaming himself. He accuses God of injustice rather than admit his own wickedness. This is the fate of the blasphemer: to hate God and perish because he is too proud to admit that he is a sinner.

    And furthermore, if there were no God, by what standard could savage condemn us for saying that fetuses are people and that those who kill them must be put to death? If we had the power, who could oppose us. To an atheist, there cannot be an absolute standards, only opinions and brute force. So tell us, savage, if we did say that we should kill all the abortionists, why would that be wrong? What would you do about it? Why would you do anything about it?

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>