That Mississippi Ballot initiative was stupid. Even their pro-life governor thought it was ill conceived. There is a national "Personhood Amendment" initiative trying to make the rounds and I guess Mississippi was one of the first to take it up.
It seems that some SCOTUS person, whether it was a justice I don't know, said when deciding for an abortion rights argument that, "if a fetus were considered a person that the outcome would be different." This led to the stupid idea of states individually voting to declare a person a person before they were born.
Stupid, because even if it passed statewide, no state law will ever trump a federal law. Also stupid because "person" is more of a legal designation; persons do things. Just tacking this designation to an unborn child is a very lame the lamest attempt to outlaw abortion with semantics.
In Mississippi the medical community came out against it in force and bought beaucoups ads for fear of being held liable for the death of a "person" when treating cancer, or aborting a tubal pregnancy. Everyone I knew was against it.
Frankly, I think a large number of pro-life people are secretly pro-choice anyway, and given a private ballot, abortion would never be outlawed with any type of wording. I say this because people, especially in Mississippi, weren't smart enough to know this was a stupid bill. 55/45 with doctors scaring you. May translate to 50/50 with no fear mongering. But polls suggest it is like 60/40 for life. I think some of those 60 are liars. Who knows how many.
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
Let's not get caught up in the slicing and dicing of word meanings. Let us simply respect individual human freedom.
Tell that to the so-called "Right to Life" constituency.
The meaning of terms makes a difference when it's a woman's motivation for having a termination of pregnancy that is used as the basis to actually oppose the availability of safe and legal abortion procedures, to convince the public, at large, to oppose safe and legal abortion by demoning the women who have so-called "elective" abortions because they "didn't want the baby," especially when the such a false dichotomy (acceptable motivation = "non-elective"vs condemned motivation = "elective) is presented as some sort of a priori truth.
The Mississippi referendum was designed to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. Some may trust that the Supreme Court won't overturn Roe because Roberts said it wouldn't be, others who've been watching the tactics for 40 years know better. Fortunately the MS referedum got turned down, probably because people feared men could be prosecuted for negligent homicide.
Actually, in post #113 Rabello did say different than that:
Nope, sorry. According to the medical definition, abortions that are done when there is a threat to the woman's life is also elective. She chooses to have a termination after she consults with her doctor.
That is not a "redefinition" of the word. That agrees with the quote from the doctor.
Reteach's definiton that states that if done for medical reasons, abortions are not considered elective is different from Rabello's that states that even if done for medical reasons, abortions are considered elective. Reteach's definition is the correct one.
No, it is not. When an abortion, or any other operation, is said to be 'elective' means that it is not at that time an emergency. They can elect, or choose, to have it now, have it later, or not at all.
It seems that some are getting hung up on the pedestrian use of the word instead of trying to understand the medical use of the word. As is often the case, the two uses are different.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Rabello, if you want to redefine words, that is your choice. You are redefining the word elective.
I've seen no such "redefining" from rabello. Could you point to the part where it was done?
Williams Obstetrics: "The interruption of pregnancy before viability at the request of the woman, but not for medical reasons, is usually termed elective or voluntary abortion."
Rabello said nothing different than that.
Actually, in post #113 Rabello did say different than that:
Nope, sorry. According to the medical definition, abortions that are done when there is a threat to the woman's life is also elective. She chooses to have a termination after she consults with her doctor.
Reteach's definiton that states that if done for medical reasons, abortions are not considered elective is different from Rabello's that states that even if done for medical reasons, abortions are considered elective. Reteach's definition is the correct one.
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Rabello, if you want to redefine words, that is your choice. You are redefining the word elective.
I've seen no such "redefining" from rabello. Could you point to the part where it was done?
Williams Obstetrics: "The interruption of pregnancy before viability at the request of the woman, but not for medical reasons, is usually termed elective or voluntary abortion."
Rabello said nothing different than that.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Rabello, if you want to redefine words, that is your choice. You are redefining the word elective.
Williams Obstetrics: "The interruption of pregnancy before viability at the request of the woman, but not for medical reasons, is usually termed elective or voluntary abortion."
So, if you want to redefine the meaning of words, I see no point in continuing the discussion, as I am not likely to know how you are defining a word at any given time.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
