Forum Klix.ba

Hakiz wrote: ↑29/06/2022 11:34
Ako neko ima zakonsko pravo na nešto, a ti si pružalac te usluge moraš je pružiti, bez obzira na lični stav. Nepružanje usluga bez zakonom odobrenih razloga dovodi ljude i firme do gubljenja licenci i prava na obavljanje te djelatnosti. Imao sam razlog da to provjerim pa sam dobio odgovore od pravnika za to pitanje, ne govorim napamet.

U suprotnom bi ti ušla u moju prodavnicu a ja odbio da te uslužim, imam prigovor savjesti na prodaju ženama ili ljudima te boje očiju itd. To se ne smije dozvoliti, zato zakon kaže da ako nisi opasnost po druge mušterije ili mene kao pružaoca usluga zbog bolesti, toksikološkog stanja, nehigijene i sličnog, ne smijem odbiti da ti pružim uslugu. Mogu mi zatvoriti radnju.

Korupcija ili to što vlasti ne sankcionišu one koji ne pružaju usluge pod raznim izgovorima, pa i prigovorom savjesti je druga priča.

Tako da, ako je abortus na ženin zahtjev, bez pitanja, zakonom fozvoljen, doktor koji ga zbog prigovora savjesti odbije bi trebao izgubiti licencu.

Kao što rekoh, kada pokušaš posasti doktor razmisli o prigovoru savjesti. Ako se savjest razvije bakon što si postao doktor, mijenjaj profesiju ili barem oblast unutar profesije. Valjda je poenta savjesti u tome da zbog nje podneseš neke neugodnosti. Promjena profesije, gubljenje licence, zatvor, gubitak života, to sve neko ko ima savjest treba prihvatiti kao njenu moguću cijenu.

Niemand wrote: ↑29/06/2022 11:21

konoplja wrote: ↑29/06/2022 00:19
Rogovi i slicno bi spadali pod ovaj dio psiholog, zeleno svjetlo, iskrivljena slika.

Bolji primjer i vezan za feminizam je doktor koji odbije pripisati hormone djetetu ili operaciju izvrsiti.

Onako kao sidenote: plasticna kirurgija se generalno dijeli na estetsku i rekonstrukcijsku. Esteticari kaljaju reputaciju plasticara ovim potonjim.

Ma ono sto mene zanima, ako doktore treba natjerati da rade abortuse i kada oni ne zele, a npr abortusi u usa najcesce nisu uopste iz zdravstvenih razloga, pretpostavljam da je slicno i u ostalim zemljama:

An elective abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy before the 20th week of gestation at the woman’s request for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease. Most abortions in the United States are performed for this reason.

https://www.britannica.com/science/elective-abortion

dakle ne tjeras ti tu doktora da nekome spasava zivot i slicno, sta se onda jos moze natjerati doktore i kad doktor uopste moze reci ne?

Te plasticne operacije takodjer vecinom nisu stvar zdravstvenih razloga.

Kontam ja da natjeras doktora da nekome spasava zivot, ali ne razumijem na osnovu cega ces ih natjerati ako nisu zdravstveni razlozi u pitanju.

Uzeti u obzir da ja jos od pandemije ne shvatam ko tu pije a ko placa kad pricamo o medicini opcenito i stvarno mi nije jasno kad doktor moze reci ne.

Academics and midwives on June 27 submitted a petition to the health ministry demanding the removal of a legal clause that requires pregnant women to obtain the consent of their spouses to have abortions.

The petition, containing about 82,000 signatures, was organized by a group called Action for Safe Abortion Japan.

It argues that the clause in the Maternal Health Law robs women of their right to make decisions about their own bodies.

The law states that women can have an abortion only when it is physically or financially difficult to continue with the pregnancy or to give birth, or if the pregnancy was the result of rape and in certain other cases.

If pregnant women meet these conditions, their doctors must obtain consent from both the woman and her spouse, including common-law marriage partners, to perform an abortion.

Japan is among only around 10 countries or regions that require a spouse’s consent for a woman to have an abortion.

The United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has recommended that Japan remove the clause from the law, but the government has not held advanced discussions on revising the legislation.

In addition, a health ministry official said at a Diet session in May that as a general rule, pregnant women will be required to obtain consent from their spouses to take an abortion pill in compliance with the Maternal Health Law.

The ministry is currently assessing whether to approve what would be Japan’s first oral abortion medication.

The ministry official’s statement caused a backlash on social media, with people questioning why women are not allowed to decide on their own even about taking medication.

“Women have a right to a safe abortion,” said Kumi Tsukahara, a member of Action for Safe Abortion Japan and a part-time lecturer of gender studies at Kanazawa University. “In Japan, the general rule is that women cannot have an abortion without their spouses’ consent. It is wrong that women cannot make a decision about something that involves their own bodies.”

She said a health ministry official responded to the petition by saying, “The public, too, has various opinions (about the issue).”

Other organizations also voiced concerns about the spousal consent requirement for taking the abortion pill.

Kaori Nakajima, a midwife and representative director of nonprofit organization Piccolare, noted that not all pregnant women have a good relationship with their unborn babies’ fathers.

“I want the government to take into account cases in which pregnant women and their spouses have different views, or their spouses are not willing to sign the consent form for the abortion.”

https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/14655669

Hakiz wrote: ↑29/06/2022 09:54

konoplja wrote: ↑29/06/2022 00:19

Rogovi i slicno bi spadali pod ovaj dio psiholog, zeleno svjetlo, iskrivljena slika.

A promjena spola?

Seawolf wrote: ↑29/06/2022 01:11

konoplja wrote: ↑29/06/2022 00:19 Rogovi i slicno bi spadali pod ovaj dio psiholog, zeleno svjetlo, iskrivljena slika.

Bolji primjer i vezan za feminizam je doktor koji odbije pripisati hormone djetetu ili operaciju izvrsiti.

Onako kao sidenote: plasticna kirurgija se generalno dijeli na estetsku i rekonstrukcijsku. Esteticari kaljaju reputaciju plasticara ovim potonjim.

Kudikamo lakše savjest prigovori zbog pobačaja koji se ne može naplatiti, nego zbog transformacije spolnih organa i hormonalne terapije za koje se veliki novci mogu uzeti.

konoplja wrote: ↑29/06/2022 12:01

Hakiz wrote: ↑29/06/2022 11:34
Ako neko ima zakonsko pravo na nešto, a ti si pružalac te usluge moraš je pružiti, bez obzira na lični stav. Nepružanje usluga bez zakonom odobrenih razloga dovodi ljude i firme do gubljenja licenci i prava na obavljanje te djelatnosti. Imao sam razlog da to provjerim pa sam dobio odgovore od pravnika za to pitanje, ne govorim napamet.

U suprotnom bi ti ušla u moju prodavnicu a ja odbio da te uslužim, imam prigovor savjesti na prodaju ženama ili ljudima te boje očiju itd. To se ne smije dozvoliti, zato zakon kaže da ako nisi opasnost po druge mušterije ili mene kao pružaoca usluga zbog bolesti, toksikološkog stanja, nehigijene i sličnog, ne smijem odbiti da ti pružim uslugu. Mogu mi zatvoriti radnju.

Korupcija ili to što vlasti ne sankcionišu one koji ne pružaju usluge pod raznim izgovorima, pa i prigovorom savjesti je druga priča.

Tako da, ako je abortus na ženin zahtjev, bez pitanja, zakonom fozvoljen, doktor koji ga zbog prigovora savjesti odbije bi trebao izgubiti licencu.

Kao što rekoh, kada pokušaš posasti doktor razmisli o prigovoru savjesti. Ako se savjest razvije bakon što si postao doktor, mijenjaj profesiju ili barem oblast unutar profesije. Valjda je poenta savjesti u tome da zbog nje podneseš neke neugodnosti. Promjena profesije, gubljenje licence, zatvor, gubitak života, to sve neko ko ima savjest treba prihvatiti kao njenu moguću cijenu.

Ne jer doktor ima pravo da odbije gotovo svugdje u Europi. Zakonski.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscient ... o_abortion

But if a doctor refuse to perform an abortion they have to refer the patient to another doctor who can perform it.

Abortion in Japan is only allowed under a term limit of 22 weeks if a continued pregnancy or birth will lead to the endangerment to the health of the pregnant woman or economic hardship. Chapter XXIX of the Penal Code of Japan makes abortion de jure illegal in the country. Exceptions to the prohibition of abortion are regulated by the Maternal Health Protection Law that allows approved doctors to practice abortion on a woman with the consent of her spouse needed if she is married, if the pregnancy was the result of rape or if the continuation of the pregnancy endangers the maternal health because of physical or economic reasons. Anyone trying to practice abortion without the consent of the woman will be prosecuted, including the doctors.

...

After World War II, Japan found itself in a population crisis. In 1946, 10 million people were declared at risk of starvation, and between the years 1945 and 1950, the population increased by 11 million. In 1948, in the wake of the Miyuki Ishikawa case, Japan legalized abortion under special circumstances. The Eugenic Protection Law of 1948 made Japan one of the first countries to legalize induced abortion. In 1949, a revision passed which provided abortion in the case of extreme physical or economic distress to the mother. A further stipulation was added in 1952 requiring that the mother meet an economic threshold of poor living conditions to obtain an abortion. The whole law was revised as the Maternal Body Protection Law in 1996.

...

Overall, in 2019, the total number of abortions officially reported was 156,430, representing a 56 percent decrease from the number reported for 2000. The overall abortion rate changed from 22.3 to 15.3 abortions per 1,000 live births over the same period. Going further back, there were 598,084 abortions in 1980 and 1,063,256 in 1960. In 2019, 49 abortions were reported for women aged 13 and under, and a further 3,904 for women aged 14–17. Some 39,805 abortions were performed on women aged 20-24.

According to researchers, in more than 99 percent of cases, the reason reported for performing an abortion was to protect the woman's health; this percentage remained constant during 1975–1995. The same researchers also suggest that while official figures may be lower than the true rate of abortion due to under-reporting by doctors in order to lower tax bills and protect patient identities, trends may be "reasonably accurate".

...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Japan

...

Perhaps with a lot of investigation we could have found somewhere safe and legal closer to home, but Japan was an immediate option. It was easy to arrange and far more discreet an option than asking around as my pregnancy progressed.

My sister called my brother who was at Dartmouth at the time and had heard of a travel agency that managed [planning trips to Japan for abortions] in Seattle. [Editor’s note: Abortion in the early months of pregnancy wasn’t legalized in Washington State until 1970; “One Seattle travel agency specialized in arranging trips to Japan, where, for $1,000, a woman could obtain a safe, legal abortion, in a four-day stay that included one day for sightseeing.”]

...

https://www.thecut.com/2017/02/at-16-my ... rtion.html

In 1968, 17-year-old Alyson Williams-Cheung embarked on a three-day trip to Japan. She wandered Ginza, an upscale shopping district in Tokyo, wearing the stylish mini dresses of the era and window shopping for kimonos and tea sets. She also got an abortion. “I don’t even remember feeling any stress,” said Williams-Cheung, now a retired nurse and mother. “I think it was more: This is what you have to do. In the middle of a hurricane, this is what you have to do.” Williams-Cheung was one of thousands who, prior to the passing of Roe v. Wade, traveled to places like Japan, Sweden, and Great Britain where abortion was legal and safe.

...

Although travel agencies around the country offered abortion deals, which often included sightseeing, they were only available for those with financial resources and social networks to support the cost and time away from responsibilities. SHA’s document on “rush” Japanese abortion trips leaving from San Francisco includes tips for negotiating with doctors, such as telling them “you are a student or a poor working girl and don’t have much money.”

...

https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/trav ... d-roe-wade

Bloo wrote: ↑29/06/2022 10:20

Gimli sin Gloinov wrote: ↑29/06/2022 10:16 is abortion vegan?

Nije, ako ces kasnije samljeti fetus i ubaciti ga u vakcine.

MarlboroGold wrote: ↑29/06/2022 00:21

Bloo wrote: ↑29/06/2022 00:11
Moze. Do kada, dok ne nade drugu zenu koja ce mu roditi dijet3?

Zamisli neki sci fi scenarij, gdje je propisana vazektomija.od 13 godine i tek kad se ozenis i oboje se slozite da zelite i mozete imati djecu, vrate ti tvoje tubice.

Kako se dogovore ili kako sud naloži kad se svi faktori uzmu u obzir. Određena cifra, pa moRe na rate ili odmah u kešu bez obzira nađe li u međuvremenu drugu partnericu. Duševna bol je duševna bol.

Šipak vazektomija tog tipa kad postoje sredstva za kontracepciju, a ako ti nisu dostupna onda treba dobro razmisliti je li vrijedno, jer nema kajanja kasnije. Šta drugo da čojk kaže na to?

Prije će zaživjeti ovo moje

KraljicaIzJajca wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:29

Prisiljavanje zene, od strane muskarca, na abortus, ili na porod, je neprihvatljivo.

Bloo wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:36 sumirao čovjek

Hakiz wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:42

KraljicaIzJajca wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:29

Prisiljavanje zene, od strane muskarca, na abortus, ili na porod, je neprihvatljivo.

Od strane žene je prihvatljivo?

MarlboroGold wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:53 Nemojte je quotati svega vam da ne moram čitati šta piše.

KraljicaIzJajca wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:54

Hakiz wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:42

Od strane žene je prihvatljivo?

Da, jer to je njeno tijelo. Muskarac nije vlasnik njenog tijela.

Zato pazljivo birajte sa kim zelite djete.

Bloo wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:55

MarlboroGold wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:53 Nemojte je quotati svega vam da ne moram čitati šta piše.

Bloo wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:36 sumirao čovjek

no_sikiriki wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:58

Bloo wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:36 sumirao čovjek

Znači osim incela, svi smo istraumirani...

Hakiz wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:56

KraljicaIzJajca wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:54

Da, jer to je njeno tijelo. Muskarac nije vlasnik njenog tijela.

Zato pazljivo birajte sa kim zelite djete.

Prisiljavanje žene od strane žene je prihvatljivo?

Govorila si da je prisiljavanje od strane muškarca neprihvatljivo, a od strane žene?

MarlboroGold wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:57

Bloo wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:55

ma smara ženska i na drugim forumima... nije to konkretno u vezi ove priče

KraljicaIzJajca wrote: ↑29/06/2022 19:05

Hakiz wrote: ↑29/06/2022 18:56

Prisiljavanje žene od strane žene je prihvatljivo?

Govorila si da je prisiljavanje od strane muškarca neprihvatljivo, a od strane žene?

Nisam te razumjela, a u tom slucaju, odgovor je isti, nema priziljavanja zene ni od strane druge zene.

Hakiz wrote: ↑29/06/2022 19:07

KraljicaIzJajca wrote: ↑29/06/2022 19:05

Nisam te razumjela, a u tom slucaju, odgovor je isti, nema priziljavanja zene ni od strane druge zene.

Ali si naglasila muškarce. Slučajno.

MarlboroGold wrote: ↑29/06/2022 11:54

vjeshalica wrote: ↑29/06/2022 10:18

Ahhh radije bi obestecenje jer je jednostavnije imati navodne dusevne bolove, nego podizati sam dEte. Jedostavnije, a obije strane pomalo zadovoljne.

Naravno. Za abortus kao sredstvo kontracepcije na osnovu samovoljne odluke žene koja je u odnosu sa partnerom, u slučaju da je njegovo pravo na potomstvo povrijeđeno i da može snositi teške posljedice po pitanju psihe i ostalog, takva vrsta naknade je neki minimum i što bi vodilo ka pravoj ravnopravnosti i jednakopravnosti u ovom segmentu. To bi, naravno, trebalo i dokazati na sudu.

Bez ovakvih mehanizama muškarac će uvijek biti donji koliko god da je to nekim osobama smiješno i koliko god da ovo uzdižu na nekakav distopijski scenario poput Handmaid's Tale, a abortusa iz naprijed navedenog razloga je sve više i više.