I bet they'll also outlaw tubal ligations and hysterectomies, but...

[Mary Ann]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216672502

Novara (1,292 posts)


I bet they'll also outlaw tubal ligations and hysterectomies, but...

... not vasectomies.

Does anyone still think we don't need the ERA?

DUpipo are getting more unhinged by the minute.

Someone tried to inject a tiny but of sanity into a DU post:

Star Member Ilsa (59,307 posts)

1. They can't outlaw hysterectomies.

There are too many medical reasons for them, including women bleeding to death (a friend bled constantly until her doctor explained that she wouldn't last the weekend if she didn't have a hysterectomy the next day).

Star Member Hortensis (51,603 posts)

4. Yes. But if we lost the right to privacy, government approval could

become required for surgeries without compelling medical need, and maybe some of those too. Extreme possibility it may seem, but many people support far more extreme.

Think of all the MANDATED, involuntary hysterectomies for a nightmare list of reasons.

Isn't this what we were warning about when Obamacare became a thing?

Star Member BumRushDaShow (95,724 posts)
6. "They can't outlaw hysterectomies."

My mother had a hysterectomy in 1972 and was required to get my father's "permission" (as a medical sign off) for the procedure. I.e., some states and medical providers interpreted a "hysterectomy" as a form of "sterilization" (no matter what the REAL reason was), and was thus "forbidden without consent" by some other party based on their fantastical made-up belief of a "state mandate" that didn't exist. I.e., they were "afraid of being sued".

There were actual court cases back then that were predicated on stare decisis, including and referencing the decision for Roe v Wade as being in effect, in order to protect women from this nonsense -

Well, if it happened in 1972, then it must still be relevant today, right???

Novara (1,294 posts)

7. That's were we're headed

Women won't be allowed to decide for themselves what they can do with their bodies. Precedent will be set with this: a woman has no right to her own reproductive system. The government controls women's wombs and ovaries.

Star Member pnwmom (106,066 posts)

10. They could ban optional hysterectomies. nt

Actually, a real problem is that they are doing way too many unnecessary hysterectomies. Maybe "optional hysterectomies" should as rare as "optional amputations." Just sayin'.

These outrage addicts are loving this. You can't tell me otherwise.

[SVPete]

Novara (1,292 posts)

I bet they'll also outlaw tubal ligations and hysterectomies, but...

... not vasectomies.

I don't know who this "they" are - obviously a fictional figment of DUmmie Novara's -fueled paranoia - but tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies do not kill a living human being, which an abortion does. So no one of even slight consequence has proposed such measures, and I haven't even heard of any crazy outliers proposing it.

Observant Catholics won't do tubal ligations or vasectomies, viewing those as medically unnecessary mutilation of healthy tissue. But they do not view their church's teachings in those regards as binding on non-Catholics. OTOH, Catholics will do medically necessary hysterectomies and terminate ectopic pregnancies.

[Mary Ann]

My mother had a therapeutic abortion for an ectopic pregnancy at a Catholic hospital in 1952. All of this overblown nonsense that women won't be able to have abortions in life-threatening conditions!!!!!!! is just more crack for the outrage-addicted.

[CollectivismMustDie]

I don't know who this "they" are - obviously a fictional figment of DUmmie Novara's -fueled paranoia - but tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies do not kill a living human being, which an abortion does. So no one of even slight consequence has proposed such measures, and I haven't even heard of any crazy outliers proposing it.

Observant Catholics won't do tubal ligations or vasectomies, viewing those as medically unnecessary mutilation of healthy tissue. But they do not view their church's teachings in those regards as binding on non-Catholics. OTOH, Catholics will do medically necessary hysterectomies and terminate ectopic pregnancies.

"They" are hiding in the bushes, just waiting for a politically opportune time to be imagined as jumping out.

 

[Aristotelian]

My mother had a therapeutic abortion for an ectopic pregnancy at a Catholic hospital in 1952. All of this overblown nonsense that women won't be able to have abortions in life-threatening conditions!!!!!!! is just more crack for the outrage-addicted.

Removal of an ectopic pregnancy is as clear an application of the principle of double-effect as I know. There is no desire or intent to kill the baby, the baby has essentially zero chance of survival anyway. So every Catholic doctor (indeed, every pro-life doctor) accepts the sad necessity of abortion in such cases.

[Aristotelian]

I don't know who this "they" are - obviously a fictional figment of DUmmie Novara's -fueled paranoia - but tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies do not kill a living human being, which an abortion does. So no one of even slight consequence has proposed such measures, and I haven't even heard of any crazy outliers proposing it.

Observant Catholics won't do tubal ligations or vasectomies, viewing those as medically unnecessary mutilation of healthy tissue. But they do not view their church's teachings in those regards as binding on non-Catholics. OTOH, Catholics will do medically necessary hysterectomies and terminate ectopic pregnancies.

It's the usual use of a straw man (sorry, straw-person). They can't argue against the reality, so they concoct their own parallel reality which they can then attack in 'devastating' manner.

But then, as numerous bouncys show, they utterly fail to understand how conservatives think (or indeed moderates, or indeed anybody other than extremist moonbats).

[SVPete]

DU-grade Progs are masters of, "If you are really ______, you believe imagined silliness," and then refuting or ginning up hysteria over their imagined silliness. It's dishonest, but who would accuse DU-grade Progs of being honest?