Not in New York, Massachusetts, and California with the new laws they recently passed. A real doctor doesn't even have to look at them for them to get their uterus sucked out.
Total and complete BUNK. Now all you have to do is show that no pregnant women in those states got to doctors.. which , of course, like all your other ridiculous posts, you CAN'T PROVE.
Peter Tyson on the Hippocratic Oath on Nova: Yet paradoxically, even as the modern oath's use has burgeoned, its content has tacked away from the classical oath's basic tenets. According to a 1993* survey of 150 U.S. and Canadian medical schools, for example, only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia, 11 percent hold convenant with a deity, 8 percent foreswear abortion, and a mere 3 percent forbid sexual contact with patients—all maxims held sacred in the classical version. The original calls for free tuition for medical students and for doctors never to "use the knife" (that is, conduct surgical procedures)—both obviously out of step with modern-day practice. Perhaps most telling, while the classical oath calls for "the opposite" of pleasure and fame for those who transgress the oath, fewer than half of oaths taken today insist the taker be held accountable for keeping the pledge. Indeed, a growing number of physicians have come to feel that the Hippocratic Oath is inadequate to address the realities of a medical world that has witnessed huge scientific, economic, political, and social changes, a world of legalized abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and pestilences unheard of in Hippocrates' time. Some doctors have begun asking pointed questions regarding the oath's relevance: In an environment of increasing medical specialization, should physicians of such different stripes swear to a single oath? With governments and health-care organizations demanding patient information as never before, how can a doctor maintain a patient's privacy? Are physicians morally obligated to treat patients with such lethal new diseases as AIDS or the Ebola virus? Other physicians are taking broader aim. Some claim that the principles enshrined in the oath never constituted a shared core of moral values, that the oath's pagan origins and moral cast make it antithetical to beliefs held by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Others note that the classical Oath makes no mention of such contemporary issues as the ethics of experimentation, team care, or a doctor's societal or legal responsibilities. (Most modern oaths, in fact, are penalty-free, with no threat to potential transgressors of loss of practice or even of face.)
Peter Tyson on the Hippocratic Oath on Nova: Yet paradoxically, even as the modern oath's use has burgeoned, its content has tacked away from the classical oath's basic tenets. According to a 1993* survey of 150 U.S. and Canadian medical schools, for example, only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia, 11 percent hold convenant with a deity, 8 percent foreswear abortion, and a mere 3 percent forbid sexual contact with patients—all maxims held sacred in the classical version. The original calls for free tuition for medical students and for doctors never to "use the knife" (that is, conduct surgical procedures)—both obviously out of step with modern-day practice. Perhaps most telling, while the classical oath calls for "the opposite" of pleasure and fame for those who transgress the oath, fewer than half of oaths taken today insist the taker be held accountable for keeping the pledge. Indeed, a growing number of physicians have come to feel that the Hippocratic Oath is inadequate to address the realities of a medical world that has witnessed huge scientific, economic, political, and social changes, a world of legalized abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and pestilences unheard of in Hippocrates' time. Some doctors have begun asking pointed questions regarding the oath's relevance: In an environment of increasing medical specialization, should physicians of such different stripes swear to a single oath? With governments and health-care organizations demanding patient information as never before, how can a doctor maintain a patient's privacy? Are physicians morally obligated to treat patients with such lethal new diseases as AIDS or the Ebola virus? Other physicians are taking broader aim. Some claim that the principles enshrined in the oath never constituted a shared core of moral values, that the oath's pagan origins and moral cast make it antithetical to beliefs held by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Others note that the classical Oath makes no mention of such contemporary issues as the ethics of experimentation, team care, or a doctor's societal or legal responsibilities. (Most modern oaths, in fact, are penalty-free, with no threat to potential transgressors of loss of practice or even of face.)
NO, HE meant( you made it appear those were MY words) """Indeed, a growing number of physicians have come to feel that the Hippocratic Oath is inadequate to address the realities of a medical world that has witnessed huge scientific, economic, political, and social changes,""" because THAT is what HE said.
So what? It isn't good enough NOW. See, way back then things were quite different than they are now....did you know they didn't even have cell phones then??? Seems you're floundering around after being shown what the Hippocratic Oath is really all about..
Here , amidst your floundering your "forget" this post """""Total and complete BUNK. Now all you have to do is show that no pregnant women in those states got to doctors.. which , of course, like all your other ridiculous posts, you CAN'T PROVE.
So it was good enough for secular philosophy loving Greeks, and it was good enough for Christian America, but suddenly now it's not good enough for Jews, Muslims, and Atheists? I think what this is really about is Abortion; and to a lesser extent euthanasia, both issues of LIFE.
Why didn't you read it? Your posts would've looked more like you had read it IF you actually read it. Peter Tyson on the Hippocratic Oath on Nova: Yet paradoxically, even as the modern oath's use has burgeoned, its content has tacked away from the classical oath's basic tenets. According to a 1993* survey of 150 U.S. and Canadian medical schools, for example, only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia, 11 percent hold convenant with a deity, 8 percent foreswear abortion, and a mere 3 percent forbid sexual contact with patients—all maxims held sacred in the classical version. The original calls for free tuition for medical students and for doctors never to "use the knife" (that is, conduct surgical procedures)—both obviously out of step with modern-day practice. Perhaps most telling, while the classical oath calls for "the opposite" of pleasure and fame for those who transgress the oath, fewer than half of oaths taken today insist the taker be held accountable for keeping the pledge. Indeed, a growing number of physicians have come to feel that the Hippocratic Oath is inadequate to address the realities of a medical world that has witnessed huge scientific, economic, political, and social changes, a world of legalized abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and pestilences unheard of in Hippocrates' time. Some doctors have begun asking pointed questions regarding the oath's relevance: In an environment of increasing medical specialization, should physicians of such different stripes swear to a single oath? With governments and health-care organizations demanding patient information as never before, how can a doctor maintain a patient's privacy? Are physicians morally obligated to treat patients with such lethal new diseases as AIDS or the Ebola virus? Other physicians are taking broader aim. Some claim that the principles enshrined in the oath never constituted a shared core of moral values, that the oath's pagan origins and moral cast make it antithetical to beliefs held by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Others note that the classical Oath makes no mention of such contemporary issues as the ethics of experimentation, team care, or a doctor's societal or legal responsibilities. (Most modern oaths, in fact, are penalty-free, with no threat to potential transgressors of loss of practice or even of face.)""' NO, IT WAS NOT """SUDDENLY ""AND NO WHERE DID I OR THE WRITER SAY IT HAPPENED ""SUDDENLY"". THAT IS YOUR WEIRD TWIST....or lack of having READ the statement.
Another argument fallacy that is pointed out in the other thread that I posted. Welfare of children is just a distraction from the pro-life debate.
No, it's a fallacy. It suggests that if there is going to be suffering in the future for the child then better to kill it. This argument suggests that all human suffering, poverty, homelessness, hunger, foster care welfare ect. must first be resolved before we can have a debate about abortion. It also suggests that pro-lifers don't care about the issues & welfare when in fact, many do help homeless, volunteer in food kitchens and help the poor. Many do become foster parents and do adopt children.
That is a fallacy of unknown consequences. That is why it is best left up to mom in the first-trimester, I think.
That's the argument - the argument is that there are numerous folks (not all) that claim to care for "innocent life" that actively work against, or are against policy that has at its aim to help innocent life. This is hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is a function of dumb arguments put forth by some pro life advocates. It is one thing to make a dumb argument - it is quite another to want to force religious or personal beliefs on others through physical violence on the basis of a dumb argument. Are you not against law on this basis ?
I've made the same point repeatedly on this forum. Recently a Pro-Life supporter responded saying the Pro-Life had a very narrow definition, encompassing the rights of the fetus to be born & nothing more. From his perspective there was nothing hypocritical about it. But I agree with you. I think it's as hypocritical as it gets.
How many times have we heard the claim screamed out or plastered on a billboard "we must respect and cherish all innocent life" - as if we don't eat cows and plants. I realize that by life they mean "human life" but - so much for being technically correct and in a movement that is full of obfuscation and mischaracterization of language - it would help. So "respect and cherish human life" Great - Got it. How about practicing what one preaches.
A bit of interesting research from 2010 Republicans have voted against interventions that would save the lives of babies Yesterday afternoon, Republicans were given a perfect opportunity to display their commitment to life when the House took up the Newborn Act. Authored by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), the legislation aims to prevent infant mortality, principally by encouraging the establishment of state-based pilot programs. Sadly, despite being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the United States still ranks 30th in the world in infant mortality. Most striking, according to the Centers for Disease Control, infant mortality among African Americans is "more than twice the national average." In Cohen's district of Memphis, for instance, the rate is five times the national average. But oddly enough, 64 House Republicans, including Bachmann and other outspoken opponents of abortion, such as Reps. Eric Cantor (VA), Cynthia Lummis (WY) and Virginia Foxx (NC), voted against the legislation. To put it another way, some of the biggest anti-abortion grandstanders voted against legislation aimed at helping to preserve and protect actual human life. http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201009230007
Just more proof that these Republicans aren't "Pro-Life", but ARE Pro-Fetus. Once born, these people care little to nothing about them or the quality of their lives. I find that attitude highly hypocritical, cold-hearted & dishonest.
Pro-lifers believe the mother has special responsibilities to the fetus that others don't. She doesn't have to give anything to the fetus, just don't kill.
