Yeah, well...find a doctor that will actually DO it. They don't just sterilize ANYONE on a whim.
Did you read the SECTION 1. ORS 436.205 that the article even pointed out??
(c) All less drastic alternative contraceptive methods,
including supervision, education and training, have proved
unworkable or inapplicable, or are medically contraindicated;
(d) The proposed method of sterilization conforms with standard
medical practice, is the least intrusive method available and
appropriate, and can be carried out without unreasonable risk to
the life and health of the individual;
______ ^
Those 2 paragraphs right there tell you this isn't going to be a sterilization free-for-all. There's nothing 'sick' about it, it's not taken any less seriously.
And also:
(3) Whenever any physician has reason to believe an individual
{ - 15 - } { + 18 + } years of age or older is unable to give
informed consent, no sterilization shall be performed until it is
determined by a circuit court that the individual involved is
able to and has given informed consent. Whenever the court
determines, under the provisions of this chapter, that a person
lacks the ability to give informed consent, the court shall
permit sterilization only if the person is 18 years of age or
older and only upon showing that such operation, treatment or
procedure is in the best interest of the individual.
_________
Consider your source!! CNS news? Come on. That's a biased source if I ever saw one.
Just because the procedure CAN be offered doesn't mean it WILL be appropriate for everyone, and certainly won't be done willy-nilly. Doctors take this so seriously, try being even a 30 year old woman with kids, it's STILL hard to get a Dr to do a sterilization.
The language in the law to include all women of reproductive age is probably there mainly just to include them in case their life is in jeopardy, not so much to sterilize teenagers. You're taking this the wrong way and buying this bullshit hook, line and sinker.
If you are a libertarian I would have thought you would support extending the freedom of choosing sterilization to more women? I thought extension of individual freedoms and liberty was what libertarians were all about.
The point here is this: If you understand the 10th Amendment of our Constitution, it says that all powers that have not been expressly given to the Federal Government belong to the States. The Federal Government does NOT need to have it's hand in our medical affairs. That power is for the STATES alone to govern. Now, if the State of Oregon wants to make, I dunno, OregonCare... then that's totally fine, let them do whatever they want. That's THEIR decision as a PEOPLE. But the Federal Government has NO, let me repeat, NO AUTHORITY in this department. They were not given the power to mandate us like this through the Constitution, they were given a very strict set of powers, and they are FAR, FAR beyond where they are supposed to be.
I want us to be free, but depending on the Federal Government is the exact OPPOSITE of being free.
I'm just guessing, but you're probably a Democrat, aren't you? Just a wild guess here. :/
Governments flout the Constitution in America all the time, and I DON'T believe that SOLELY because anything a government does is unconstitutional it MUST be wrong or disturbing. The Constitution is NOT a moral guide about what we should or should not be disturbed by, it is a document designed to - in the context of the 1700s when it was signed - to keep political power in the hands of the people and prevent the government becoming corrupt (an aim in which, I would argue, it failed).
Just because a matter is unconstitutional, that does not automatically make it disturbing. This is in the same way that just because a citizen acts against the law, that does not automatically make their actions wrong. Using the Constitution to decide the morality of, for example, a piece of legislation, is akin to using the bible as a method of justifying how we should live our lives in the 21st Century.
You may disagree with the way that the regulation came to exist, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the content of the regulation.
I'm not an eligible voter, but if I was I would *probably* vote Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election (although if I was not in a swing state I would probably vote for an independent or third party candidate). I'm not a committed supporter of any party in any country though, only causes with I believe in. So no, I'm not a Democrat (I'm also not a traditionalist; I don't believe in the sovereignty of Constitutions, but that's for another debate).
You're a Democrat (-esque), so you automatically lose, IMHO.
1) It was NOT the Constitution that failed, it was the People.
2) The content of the law IS disturbing. A federal mandate, sterilizing girls at menarche, RFID chips... you don't think this is disturbing??
3) I'm not using the Constitution as a moral compass, but a legislative one. The Constitution is a NEAR PERFECT piece of paper that does not GIVE people rights, but only POINTS OUT the "un-a-lien-able" rights that we have as a human race.
The fact that you sound like you think the Constitution is "outdated" means you have no fricking clue about what it is you're dealing with. You sound just like O'blammer:
Do you think this is as disturbing as I think it is???
← View full post
Yeah, well...find a doctor that will actually DO it. They don't just sterilize ANYONE on a whim.
Did you read the SECTION 1. ORS 436.205 that the article even pointed out??
(c) All less drastic alternative contraceptive methods,
including supervision, education and training, have proved
unworkable or inapplicable, or are medically contraindicated;
(d) The proposed method of sterilization conforms with standard
medical practice, is the least intrusive method available and
appropriate, and can be carried out without unreasonable risk to
the life and health of the individual;
______ ^
Those 2 paragraphs right there tell you this isn't going to be a sterilization free-for-all. There's nothing 'sick' about it, it's not taken any less seriously.
And also:
(3) Whenever any physician has reason to believe an individual
{ - 15 - } { + 18 + } years of age or older is unable to give
informed consent, no sterilization shall be performed until it is
determined by a circuit court that the individual involved is
able to and has given informed consent. Whenever the court
determines, under the provisions of this chapter, that a person
lacks the ability to give informed consent, the court shall
permit sterilization only if the person is 18 years of age or
older and only upon showing that such operation, treatment or
procedure is in the best interest of the individual.
_________
Consider your source!! CNS news? Come on. That's a biased source if I ever saw one.
Just because the procedure CAN be offered doesn't mean it WILL be appropriate for everyone, and certainly won't be done willy-nilly. Doctors take this so seriously, try being even a 30 year old woman with kids, it's STILL hard to get a Dr to do a sterilization.
The language in the law to include all women of reproductive age is probably there mainly just to include them in case their life is in jeopardy, not so much to sterilize teenagers. You're taking this the wrong way and buying this bullshit hook, line and sinker.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
Thank you.
OP: Go join the Tea Party. They like scaremongering too :P
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Ew... I'm Libertarian.
The entire concept of a federal mandate is appalling, and UNconstitutional.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If you are a libertarian I would have thought you would support extending the freedom of choosing sterilization to more women? I thought extension of individual freedoms and liberty was what libertarians were all about.
Or does that only go for things you agree with?
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
The point here is this: If you understand the 10th Amendment of our Constitution, it says that all powers that have not been expressly given to the Federal Government belong to the States. The Federal Government does NOT need to have it's hand in our medical affairs. That power is for the STATES alone to govern. Now, if the State of Oregon wants to make, I dunno, OregonCare... then that's totally fine, let them do whatever they want. That's THEIR decision as a PEOPLE. But the Federal Government has NO, let me repeat, NO AUTHORITY in this department. They were not given the power to mandate us like this through the Constitution, they were given a very strict set of powers, and they are FAR, FAR beyond where they are supposed to be.
I want us to be free, but depending on the Federal Government is the exact OPPOSITE of being free.
I'm just guessing, but you're probably a Democrat, aren't you? Just a wild guess here. :/
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Governments flout the Constitution in America all the time, and I DON'T believe that SOLELY because anything a government does is unconstitutional it MUST be wrong or disturbing. The Constitution is NOT a moral guide about what we should or should not be disturbed by, it is a document designed to - in the context of the 1700s when it was signed - to keep political power in the hands of the people and prevent the government becoming corrupt (an aim in which, I would argue, it failed).
Just because a matter is unconstitutional, that does not automatically make it disturbing. This is in the same way that just because a citizen acts against the law, that does not automatically make their actions wrong. Using the Constitution to decide the morality of, for example, a piece of legislation, is akin to using the bible as a method of justifying how we should live our lives in the 21st Century.
You may disagree with the way that the regulation came to exist, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the content of the regulation.
I'm not an eligible voter, but if I was I would *probably* vote Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election (although if I was not in a swing state I would probably vote for an independent or third party candidate). I'm not a committed supporter of any party in any country though, only causes with I believe in. So no, I'm not a Democrat (I'm also not a traditionalist; I don't believe in the sovereignty of Constitutions, but that's for another debate).
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
I KNEW IT!!!
You're a Democrat (-esque), so you automatically lose, IMHO.
1) It was NOT the Constitution that failed, it was the People.
2) The content of the law IS disturbing. A federal mandate, sterilizing girls at menarche, RFID chips... you don't think this is disturbing??
3) I'm not using the Constitution as a moral compass, but a legislative one. The Constitution is a NEAR PERFECT piece of paper that does not GIVE people rights, but only POINTS OUT the "un-a-lien-able" rights that we have as a human race.
The fact that you sound like you think the Constitution is "outdated" means you have no fricking clue about what it is you're dealing with. You sound just like O'blammer:
An idiot. ^_~