Legal authorization and consent form for abortions

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The mom signs in writing that she is informed etc and understand it will cause the death of her child.

Death.

The Doc signs that he explained it.

As used in this Form, “abortion” means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of a female known by the attending physician to be pregnant with the intention that the termination of the pregnancy by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the fetus.



"Intention" means pre-meditated murder.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Notice various states are making laws that require informed consent. Planned parenthood talking points are not fit for INFORMED surgical consent.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The abortion chambers are run by inferior quacks.

The procedure is dangerous and many women get infections, perforated uterus and worse.

I have been told by the physician or physician’s assistant about the following risks and hazards that may occur in connection with any surgical, medical, and/or diagnostic procedure: (A) Potential for infection. (B) Blood clots in veins and lungs. (C) Hemorrhage. (D) Allergic reactions. (E) Even death. _____ I have been told by the physician or physician’s assistant about the followings risks and hazards that may occur with a surgical abortion: (A) Hemorrhage (heavy bleeding). (B) A hole in the uterus (uterine perforation) or other damage to the uterus. (C) Sterility. (D) Injury to the bowel and/or bladder. (E) A possible hysterectomy as a result of complication or injury during the procedure. (F) Failure to remove all products of conception that may result in an additional procedure. _____ I have been told by the physician or physician’s assistant about the followings risks and hazards that may occur with a medical/non-surgical abortion: (A) Hemorrhage (heavy bleeding). (B) Failure to remove all products of conception that may result in an additional procedure. (C) Sterility. (D) Possible continuation of pregnancy. _____ I have been told by the physician or physician’s assistant about the following risks and hazards that may occur with this particular procedure: (A) Cramping of the uterus or pelvic pain. (B) Infection of the female organs: uterus, tubes, and ovaries. (C) Cervical laceration, incompetent cervix. (D) Emergency treatment for any of the above named complications. (E) Other as written:

Bad news.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The same pro-deathers who defend the lies of the abortion industry are wrong.
So slandering me and lying to my face about my education credentials etc is their sign of defeat.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Word games. It is premeditated murder.
Pay attention.
It'[s odd how people justify an act of murder simply by an act of legislation. They might as well point out that it's legalized murder. Legalizing something doesn't change the definition, it simply legalizes it. Doing drugs used to be illegal. Now drug use is legalized. They're trying to legalize infanticide which means it is legalized infanticide. Calling it by another name or legalizing it doesn't change that it's still murder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

shnarkle

Well-known member
Quote box removed
Got it. Thanks. So it's legally killing a human being.
Quote box removed
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Abolition ended slavery, not human lives.
Quote box removed
You're referring to pain, and suffering, not harm. One can be harmed without inflicting pain and suffering. People can be put to sleep just like animals, but that doesn't mean they haven't been harmed. They've lost their lives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Quote box removed

I guess I'm grasping at straws here. So your basically just providing justification for killing human beings then, correct?
Quote box removed
Why? a person is defined as "a human being regarded as an individual." Is the fetus a human being? Can it not be distinguished from its mother?
Quote box removed
I know. Again, I can only grasp at straws because you're not supplying any information. What was your point?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Quote box removed
My comment was in response to this: "the neural correlates to personhood are absent at that time of development." That was in relation to "harm". I thus concluded that you were making some sort of connection to begin able to feel pain or suffer which requires neural pathways.
Quote box removed
It's the defining criteria. what better criteria is there? After all, if you miss your target, you end up taking the pregnancy to full term, right?
Quote box removed.
One's cognitive capacity is reduced to zero during any number of situations such as sleep, while under general anesthesia, etc.
Quote box removed
They can be absent during later stages of development as well, even well into adulthood. That's not much of a reason to kill someone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Quote box removed

And I pointed out that even when fully developed, they can be lay completely dormant while one is asleep. There is no effective difference, and yet they're a person just like the 1st. Trimester baby is a person. Your arbitrary criteria doesn't make much sense because it can be just as easily applied to fully developed people.
Quote box removed
FWIW thanks for sharing.
Quote box removed.
I've come to the conclusion that evolution has a way of insuring that the fittest survive to reproduce. Abortion is just a fail safe to make sure only the absolute fittest are able to pass on their genes.
Quote box removed
You must have some reason for using this as a criteria, no? What effective difference does it make? As I pointed out already, people who are asleep, put to sleep, etc. are effectively no different.
Quote box removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Quote box deleted
Their neural structures are ineffective. They are not aware of anything whatsoever.
Quote box removed
What effective difference is there? Both are oblivious? For some reason you seem to think that as soon as some neural structure appears this automatically precludes the possibility of performing an abortion? Why? Why not make the same claim for fingers and toes, or nostrils, or hair?
Quote box removed
It is natural selection in that only those who already have this tendency to kill their offspring will entertain this idea.
Quote box removed
There is no effective difference. That's my point. Your point seems to be that with the advent of this arbitrary state of development, we should stop preforming abortions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Neither do neural structures in the first trimester.
Meaning as someone with neural structures, right?
Quote box removed
They have no legitimate authority to prevent me from beating my personal property either so why start complaining now? Because my slaves have neural structures? So what? That's why they're slaves.
Quote box removed
To a certain extent I agree, but the problem is that the State does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens, or at least they used to take that position. if they no longer have that interest, then they really don't have any business telling anyone what to do with their lives for any reason. For example, the rapist should not be prosecuted, or even arrested because he's got neural structures which should offer him protection from prosecution.
Quote box removed
Is too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top