FoxHastings said: ↑ OMG, after being told so many times you still don't know? Involve yourself in a discussion of abortion and NOT know what viable means??!! And unable to google a definition !! Here, I'll read your mind since you seem to think you can read mine (especially when you have no answer and need a way out ) You don't know what viable means....and have to ask instead of simply looking it up....that is very, verrrry odd...
I believe that is to mean that it will not survive. But I do not know if that is clearly defined, or is something up for interpretation when it comes to how long it will “survive”
"Per the norm to not define medical terms in the law, the terms "health", "at risk", and "viable" were not defined in the RHA. It was determined that it is up to the discretion of a woman's medical provider and that woman to determine if her health is at risk, and it is up to medical providers to determine if a fetus is viable based on specific medical criteria." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_Act
Why do you find that funny? Just because the RHA doesn't define "viable" doesn't mean "viable" doesn't have a definition... WTF...???
We all know Republicans are against "free handouts", by calling the dems a bunch of communists to be for such things. I'm mocking the people who don't agree with my body my choice when it comes to babies, since them lot are the same who don't wear masks and use that line. That doesn't make them anti-welfare. They ARE anti-welfare. Pretty much yeah. You can go nitpick about that 1% who don't fall in that category. Or you can call the 3%'s for all I care.
Republican politicians or Republican supporters? Except that wearing a mask isn't terminating a life. SLIGHTLY different! You still haven't cited a poll or anything to support your assertion. You still haven't cited a poll or anything to support your assertion.
Just a snippet from Reuters: """There are roughly 80 welfare programs. Here are some that Republicans, who voted last month to add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. national debt over 10 years to pay for tax cuts, may target as they seek to cut federal spending. MEDICAID Federal and state governments jointly fund Medicaid. The health insurance program for low-income, disabled, elderly and other individuals is administered by the states. About 68 million people - about one in five Americans - are insured by Medicaid. The program cost about $553 billion in 2016. It is open-ended, meaning its cost can fluctuate if more individuals qualify for Medicaid coverage. Ryan has said capping Medicaid spending is a long-time goal. As a candidate, Trump promised not to cut spending for Medicaid, the Medicare health insurance program for the elderly or the Social Security retirement program. But a White House budget blueprint released in May proposed slashing more than $600 billion from Medicaid’s budget over a decade. Advertisement The Trump administration is examining ways to limit Medicaid eligibility. Seema Verma, head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in November the administration would encourage states to add work requirements to the program. CHIP The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) offers health insurance for 8.9 million children in lower-income families. It is run jointly by the federal and state governments. Congress allowed CHIP funding to expire at the end of September 2017. States warned that they could be forced to shut down their programs or freeze enrollment. Under a deal to keep the government open through Jan. 19, Congress approved $3 billion for in CHIP funding through March, when it will need another congressional reauthorization. TANF The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) provides federal block grants to states for programs to help needy families. TANF grants in 2017 aided 1.1 million families. The program has an annual budget of about $16.5 billion, which Trump proposed trimming by 10 percent in his May blueprint. Advertisement EITC The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit for low- and moderate-income taxpayers, particularly those with children. Roughly 28 million taxpayers claimed it in 2015. Republican tax legislation approved in December left the EITC largely unchanged. CHILD TAX CREDIT The Child Tax Credit is a partially refundable tax credit for taxpayers with children, which is phased out at higher income levels. The Republican tax legislation increased the credit to $2,000 from $1,000, setting the refundable portion at $1,400 for those with earned income of $2,500 or more. The bill made the credit available to higher-income families. The credit now phases out as income surpasses $400,000 for married couples filing joint tax returns. Children must have a Social Security number for their parents to claim the credit. SNAP The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is better known as food stamps. It helped nearly 44 million Americans in 2016, with an annual budget of about $71 billion. Trump’s budget proposed cutting more than $192 billion from SNAP over a decade. The Agriculture Department said recently it will give states greater control over SNAP, potentially opening the door to drug testing or stricter ...etc. """"
Haha. You know me MUCH better than that! I'm getting to it but been busy. Only YOU go quiet after running out of arguments! How many times have we had back and forth debates only for you to all of a sudden go quiet!
Well you personally believe that abortion is a woman's right because she has the right to her own body, correct?
Why not? I thought your side says it is "A decision between a woman and her doctor". Can't she find another doctor? Besides, almost no doctor, even pro-life doctors, are going to refuse to perform an abortion in the very rare event that both fetus and mother will probably die if it is not done. Or do you want to FORCE doctors to perform abortions, when their conscience objects to it?
Well doctors should be forced to perform an abortion when their conscience objects to it in cases where no abortion means death to the mother. I'm just not convinced that there has been a doctor in the history of the universe who has had such an objection.
Can you support the claim that in Ireland, doctors are allowed to simply refuse to save their patient's life?
Should they?? I don't think even that is a given. Would you force a doctor to choose between baby's life and mother's life? And besides, like I already said, even most pro-life doctors would be willing to do an abortion if both mother and baby were certain to die otherwise.
Yes, but I'm not convinced that there has been a doctor in the history of the universe who has had such an objection.
I'm not sure what you're talking about now. Could you clarify? Catholic doctors will usually refuse to perform an abortion if the baby can be saved, even if it means death of the mother. The act of intervention which will kill is seen as wrong, unless it has a very very clear and overriding overall benefit. However, let me point out it's still very very rare for a woman to ever absolutely need an abortion because of risk to her life. Usually it's much more of a smaller risk to her.
As in I'm not convinced that there has been a doctor in the history of the universe who has chosen allowed a woman to die in favour of the baby. Sorry, the majority of Catholic doctors? Not intervening will also kill.
If it came down to it, and a doctor could only save one or the other, there are many Catholic doctors who would only save the baby. It's not necessarily that they value the baby's life greater than the mother (they might value both equally, or maybe even the woman's a little bit more), but the reason is that they are morally against the act of human intervention - that is an individual deciding who lives and who dies. Because it does involve having to kill. Well that's hard to say, but traditionally that was the case. I would say, at the very least, many of them. That's kind of a dichotomy between deontological and consequentialist ethics. Yeah, sure, we might all agree that abortion should be done if the fetus would only have a 1% chance of making it, and the woman has a 99% chance of dying if an abortion is not performed, but what about in other situations where an abortion would still be statistically expected to provide an overall slight chance of increase in benefit, but it still requires your personal participation to actively kill a human being for this more optimal probability to be brought about? They are against the act of killing. Even in situations where statistically it would involve an increase in the probability of survival of someone else. Does that help explain it? They are not merely looking at expected outcome, they are looking at what type of actions are right or wrong. (Taking away the life of one person to give a greater benefit to someone else is wrong)
Are you talking about Catholic doctors who work inside a Catholic health institution, or Catholic doctors who work inside a non-religious hospital/clinic? I suppose there is also the possibility that the fetus has a 99% chance of making it, and the woman has a 1% chance of dying.
