Elective surgery is banned unless... it is for abortion

[McBell]

In my view, it's an intrusion on life by modern technologies. Something unnatural -so I have no interest in supporting it in any way. But that's just my opinion on the matter.

What do you think about life support?

 

[Cooky]

What do you think about life support?

I think it's positive.

 

[McBell]

I think it's positive.

So it is ok even though it is playing god?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My wife and I had our first daughter at 17, while we were in high school. So what. Now I clear over $200,000 a year.. Because I tried... Society is set up to enable people to move forward, including daycare and student loans. There's also adoption.

...Nothing wrong with holding this opinion, is there?

That's you. My experience has been of ups and downs. Like inadequate medical leave policies causing me to lose one job. That was pleasant. I'm very fortunate to have the help I've had or I wouldn't be where I am. Without that help I'd still be doing case management in Indiana for poverty wages.
Society isn't really geared for people to get ahead. If it were, more people would. The over trends in America, however, do not support your belief.

 

[Augustus]

That's natural for other primates like monkeys or chimps. But it's not natural for human beings. For humans it's a dysfunctional trait, because mentally healthy humans don't do that.

In our "natural" habitat, societies often can't afford to dedicate precious time and resources to those who cannot contribute to the upkeep of the community and will not likely live a long life anyway. It was very much mentally healthy to sacrifice one life for the good of the rest. The sanctity of all human life is a religious concept, not a "natural" one

Modern society is of course very different, but modern society is not "natural".

 

[Cooky]

So it is ok even though it is playing god?

I don't know what "playing god" means.

...I think there's nothing wrong with wanting to be like God. Since God is love.

...I don't think having an abortion is love. I think it's something else.

 

[Cooky]

In our "natural" habitat, societies often can't afford to dedicate precious time and resources to those who cannot contribute to the upkeep of the community and will not likely live a long life anyway. It was very much mentally healthy to sacrifice one life for the good of the rest. The sanctity of all human life is a religious concept, not a "natural" one

Modern society is of course very different, but modern society is not "natural".

What about love? Are "precious time and resources" more important than love..?

When I die, after two generations time, I will have been completely forgotten in time. Only a summary of who I was will be left without anyone actually knowing me. All my time and resources left sitting there, like endless grains of sand blowing in an open desert. But if I've loved in this lifetime, then at least I have done something truly effective that I can be satisfied with when I take my final breath.

 

[Cooky]

The over trends in America, however, do not support your belief.

By "over trends" I assume you mean statistics? Statistics being more important than love and positivity?

That's your choice if you favor statistics over your own conscience and the love therein. To me, the conscience is of much greater value than statistics.

 

[Cooky]

My choice is to deny the right to abortion. Regardless of what ideology that goes against... That would be my choice, if I were given the choice to vote on it.

 

[McBell]

I don't know what "playing god" means.

...I think there's nothing wrong with wanting to be like God. Since God is love.

...I don't think having an abortion is love. I think it's something else.

Fair enough

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My choice is to deny the right to abortion. Regardless of what ideology that goes against... That would be my choice, if I were given the choice to vote on it.

I have no intention to let anyone decide what I get to do with my own body, regardless of whether or not they feel they deserve a vote on it.

 

[epronovost]

Did you read this linked article? Some of the other procedures, such as having skin lesions removed, could cause a person’s death if not done.

All the surgeries mentionned in the article aren't time sensitive. They are often necessary and can leave a patient in pain (though often can be managed properly), but they aren't urgent in any way shape or form else they wouldn't be "elective surgeries". You can wait for months before getting those procedures and for many people with lower grade insurrance plans you are forced to wait for months by design. As for the cancerous lesion on the skin many are actually benign and don't need to be removed urgently like solar keratosis. Abortions are always time sensitive and the sooner they are done the easier and the quicker they are. In other words, it's a good policy to maintain abortion services while other elective surgeries can be pushed back in times of crisis.

 

[SomeRandom]

My choice is to deny the right to abortion. Regardless of what ideology that goes against... That would be my choice, if I were given the choice to vote on it.

Honest question, can you biologically become pregnant?

 

[exchemist]

Did you read this linked article? Some of the other procedures, such as having skin lesions removed, could cause a person’s death if not done.

I believe this is a mistaken conclusion. If you read the text of the order, it makes clear that case by case clinical judgement about the health of the patient takes priority. Nobody is going to be condemned to death from melanoma as a result of this. I'm quite sure.

But it certainly looks as if they've made an error in the drafting of the dermatology bit. They seem to include surgery and deep cryotherapy for malignant lesions on the list of procedures to be suspended, but then make an exception for benign ones. Wrong way round, surely?

 

[Revoltingest]

Simple, there is no such thing as an actual "ruined" life. That's a subjective opinion.

I've seen it happen, but I don't see it being linked to abortion.
I'd have to see some objective evidence that babies having
been unwanted actually causes measureable & significant
woe. Otherwise, that's not a good argument for abortion rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's natural for other primates like monkeys or chimps. But it's not natural for human beings. For humans it's a dysfunctional trait, because mentally healthy humans don't do that.

We should note that it's natural for chimps to
war, to murder, to steal, & to eat their fellows.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

According to the article removal of skin lesions is elective surgery.

Therefore?

FIRST:

According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Memorandum:

DPH recommends that providers at each hospital or ambulatory surgical center use their clinical judgment on a case by case basis regarding any invasive procedures that must be done to preserve the patient's life and health. This does not apply to the cancelation or delay of life sustaining care.

DPH defines nonessential, elective invasive procedures as procedures that are scheduled in advance because the procedure does not involve a medical emergency; provided, however, that terminating a pregnancy is not considered a nonessential, elective invasive procedure for the purpose of this guidance. However, the ultimate decision is based on clinical judgement by the caring physician.

Examples of nonessential, elective invasive procedures may include [emphasis added - JS] but are not limited to:

• Any procedures involving skin incision ...​

Note "may include" rather than "includes." It also recommends the use of "clinical judgment on a case by case basis."

[See the link to the March 17 "Guidance Regarding Elective Procedure Order" found in COVID-19 Guidance and Directives,]

SECOND:

Even if it were the case that the guidance banned one or more life-saving procedures (which is clearly not the case), that would in no way justify making a seriously flawed instruction qualitatively worse.

And yet you seem invested on pushing this red herring, which begs the question: Why are so interested in weaponizing COVID-19 against women's reproductive rights.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By "over trends" I assume you mean statistics? Statistics being more important than love and positivity?

That's your choice if you favor statistics over your own conscience and the love therein. To me, the conscience is of much greater value than statistics.

My conscience favors statistics bedside that is how we find if simething is working or not. America in regards to upward mobility is not,and a few people does not make it a success. In America, poverty is multigenerational.

 

[Shaul]

It is more non-elective.

Perhaps you were not aware how delaying these other “elective” procedures can impact people. Delaying a skin lesion removal, by even days, can lead to irreversible skin cancer which could have been cured. Likewise those that don’t get a needed hip replacement can cause death within 12 months. In other words, delaying these other elective procedures will cause people to die.

Do you still feel these other procedures are “more elective” than abortions?

 

[Shaul]

Therefore?

FIRST:

According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Memorandum:

DPH recommends that providers at each hospital or ambulatory surgical center use their clinical judgment on a case by case basis regarding any invasive procedures that must be done to preserve the patient's life and health. This does not apply to the cancelation or delay of life sustaining care.

DPH defines nonessential, elective invasive procedures as procedures that are scheduled in advance because the procedure does not involve a medical emergency; provided, however, that terminating a pregnancy is not considered a nonessential, elective invasive procedure for the purpose of this guidance. However, the ultimate decision is based on clinical judgement by the caring physician.

Examples of nonessential, elective invasive procedures may include [emphasis added - JS] but are not limited to:

• Any procedures involving skin incision ...​

Note "may include" rather than "includes." It also recommends the use of "clinical judgment on a case by case basis."

[See the link to the March 17 "Guidance Regarding Elective Procedure Order" found in COVID-19 Guidance and Directives,]

SECOND:

Even if it were the case that the guidance banned one or more life-saving procedures (which is clearly not the case), that would in no way justify making a seriously flawed instruction qualitatively worse.

And yet you seem invested on pushing this red herring, which begs the question: Why are so interested in weaponizing COVID-19 against women's reproductive rights.

You ascribe to me motives you ineluctably can not know. I am more concerned with the aspect of how nameless, faceless bureaucrats are making life and death decisions over people’s healthcare. Ultimately it is your “women’s reproductive rights” that is the red herring.