Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135
In Reply To
HammerTime

Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,626
Subj: Re: Late Term Abortion - New York
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 01:41:31 pm EST (Viewed 103 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Late Term Abortion - New York
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 01:15:04 pm EST (Viewed 103 times)

Previous Post



    Quote:
    It is funny to me that you try to take the moral high ground here, but are indifferent towards other suffering, because 'Merica.


There is no "try." I proved it with facts.


    Quote:
    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: anencephaly, limb-body wall complex, rapidly decompensating maternal heart disease etc. Not common but real.


Medical procedures never warrant an abortion. You need to work on your sentences so others don't have to figure your arguments for you. I think you meant medical reasons. In any case, you've indicated that the following medical [reasons] would warrant late term abortion:

Fetal development problems or genetic anomalies:

- anencephaly (where the fetus forms without a complete brain or skull)

- limb-body wall complex (when the organs develop outside of the body cavity)

Maternal health endangerment:

- rapidly decompensating maternal heart disease

I'm not opposed to any of these since, for example, in the case of anencephaly, there are very few exceptions where infants would survive more than a few hours after birth anyway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly).

So now that you've identified which procedures you're okay with, which of the above were prevented by the old abortion law that the new law provides?


    Quote:

    And are you arguing against abortion or late term abortion specifically? Seems you are hostile to both.


I think if you've read my posts in this thread, I was quite specific in referring to late term abortion. Any speculation otherwise is a red herring.


    Quote:
    Remember when you did not seem to care about kids for immigration but only care about them before they are born? Strange to me.


See? Another red herring.

And I never said I didn't care about immigration kids. They must be legal, though, to enter our country.


    Quote:
    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.


I don't ignore anything you say. Rather, I'm just quite good at pinpointing the weaknesses in your arguments and filtering the fluff. You have a habit of writing novels and you need to learn how to write more concisely.


    Quote:

    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.


Then you concede that there's a minority of doctors that aren't responsible and few women that do take it lightly. Which is exactly what I'm against, and you just admitted that you're comfortable with this fact.


    Quote:
    I know you seem to have apparently have no respect for the medical profession or women but at least pretend.


Heh. At least I can make the effort to pretend. You have no qualms admitting that you have no respect for babies in their third trimester. Which would make you complicit to murder.



No you didn't. You think you prove things but you do not.

Your logic tree is this

1. The new law specifies health, that is not defined.

2. A court case from 1973 indicates factors to be considered.

3. Doctors will carry out abortions because a patient is depressed.

Is there any proof that they will do that at all? You provided nothing, other that a hypothetical and then called people evil.

Doctors and the patient should be the judge of what is absolutely necessary in extreme cases at any point during the pregnancy. Period.

You can say what you want to say but you assume conclusions off of nothing. You do it all of the time and then move the goal post into other areas altogether. Like you want me to become a medical doctor and make the calls. I prefer to leave it in professional hands to worry about things.

I do concede that I write to much.

Like I told you below. IF there came a situation where a woman aborted a baby that was viable/would be born healthy and had no threat to her life if she carried it to term AND she did it because of depression or emotional reasons only it would be horrible.

I do not see this law as saying that, nor do I see doctors allowing it.





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