Community >> View Post
·
Post By
HammerTime

Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 3,830
In Reply To
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,883
Subj: Re: Late Term Abortion - New York
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 11:18:26 am CST (Viewed 133 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Late Term Abortion - New York
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 09:39:37 am CST (Viewed 136 times)




    Quote:
    So, you stretching definitions to a breaking point is now what morality is?

    There are medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy. They are not evil.

Tell me each one (and the only ones) you're comfortable with, and let's see if we agree that they're valid medical reasons.  Specify and stop hiding behind ambiguity.  I dare you.


    Quote:
    If somebody terminated a pregnancy because of anxiety or mild depression than it would be wrong. However, I am skeptical that any doctor would do such a thing to a fetus that has no evidence of issues and an otherwise healthy mom.

I'm not.  Do you remember Dr. Kevorkian?  There are doctors out there like this. (https://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000162)

Jack Kevorkian, MD, former pathologist, stated in a June 4, 2007 interview with Larry King on CNN's Larry King Live:

"King: Wasn't it hard, though, even though I know you were taking people out of pain, wasn't it hard for a doctor who takes that oath to administer life to help people die?

Kevorkian: Well, it's not to help them die. See, everyone's got this backwards. It's to relieve them of their intolerable and unending suffering. The patient's wish - see, that's not my wish. And that's what... Hippocrates says. He says you are the servant of the patient. The servant. But doctors today consider themselves, you know, the overlord of the patient. They've got that twisted backwards.

So I've got to do what the patient requires. So I always felt that their wish comes first, no matter what."

June 4, 2007 - Jack Kevorkian, MD 



    Quote:
    The mom could get treatment at that point though, since depression for a mom can have issues for the fetus or baby later on. So, I disagree with your over reading of one word. It is deferring to medical experts. Who are the experts on health and life. Are there situations where this could be wrong? Sure, but I do not see you going nuts about various anti-abortion laws that can have a medical cost for woman and fetus. I would prefer to defer to the doctors. As you will note in the link I provided from professional bodies. There are valid reasons for this. And some states would prevent that outright. What would you say about their morality? Your framing needs work. I am not sure you understand morality to make it worthwhile to discuss things on that front. Or empathy. You seem to be offended by the concept. That is why I am bringing up the reasons it is medically relevant (see post below). And also pointing out that your framing is what is the issue. Not the reality. You set up a situation, that would be immoral, but is not the goal of the law or what doctors would normally do in practice.


From now own, don't you ever lecture me about morality.  The difference between us is simple.  You think I'm mean because I support legal immigration (not illegal immigration), equal opportunity (not equal outcome), capitalism (not socialism), and common sense religious freedoms to practice religious teachings.  You, on the other hand, for all your trumpeting of compassion, at the end of the day, support the practice of legalized killings.  Yeah, we're different.  I have empathy where it counts.  You have it where it's superficial.  Here's what you're okay with, that I'm not (Sleep with it!):









Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software