Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,883
In Reply To
HammerTime

Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 3,830
Subj: Re: Late Term Abortion - New York...edited
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 12:43:09 pm EST (Viewed 138 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Late Term Abortion - New York
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 12:18:26 pm EST (Viewed 133 times)

Previous Post



    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!):






Let's go through things though. I do not need to go through a list of medical procedures that would warrant an abortion. I am not a medical doctor. I will never perform one or fully need to go through it. The link I provided had a doctor from the governing board of such things and she lists a few. Check it out. If you are too lazy the doctor brought up: late diagnosed anencephaly, limb-body wall complex, rapidly decompensating maternal heart disease etc. Not common but real.

Like I said, they are rare but the risk is not zero.

And there are bad doctors out there. There are doctors that will not vaccinate kids and so on and so forth. They are a major minority. And if they deal outside of the standard of care, depending on the state, they can have their license revoked anyway.


And are you arguing against abortion or late term abortion specifically? Seems you are hostile to both. Remember when you did not seem to care about kids for immigration but only care about them before they are born? Strange to me.

Anyway, like I have said numerous times and you ignore, I am for it when there is a medical need. And think when there is such a need the doctor should be the one to figure it out. This would be based on a decision, in reality, by an OBGYN and whomever would do the procedure and much thought and reflection.


Keep in mind. you called the people evil. For a law that is pretty much the old law and adds health to it. Then expanded health to mean depression or whatever. You then state that doctors would do that and have done bad things. I am not sure quoting the exceptions to the rule is a great way of doing it. The vast majority of doctors are responsible. And most women do not take this thing lightly.

I know you apparently do not care what doctors and women think, but that is on you. Your scenario will not come up.


Even your quote above supports what I am indicating. Doctors do not derive the standard of care from a court case. It would be prudent to take all factors in when making any medical decision. I do not see doctors supporting women that want an abortion just because of that fact.

If they wanted to do that, they could find somebody to do it through not legal means anyway. It still happens in places.


Added- I also am curious how a court case in 1973 is only now controversial when it requires a doctor to take all factors into consideration before helping make any decision.

Is there any actual evidence on your end or just speculation about what may happen? Because you had to do inferring to get there. The article says that health is not defend and then goes a supreme court case that defers to medical judgement.

In effect your only argument is against the rarity of horrible doctor. Those exist, but they are not common. And this is where you drew the line. Not doctors who do not vaccinate and potentially kill kids, cancer quacks that peddle non-treatments and so on. The vast majority of doctors are not going to do this on a whim.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 65.0 on Windows 7
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