Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,869
In Reply To
MysteryMan

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,171
Subj: Re: My thoughts separated from the other posts...(edited)
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 03:36:58 pm EST (Viewed 99 times)
Reply Subj: Re: My thoughts separated from the other posts...
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 03:09:43 pm EST (Viewed 137 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
    I wanted to sum up things and since I am tired of name calling and fluff in general I am just going to put it here as clearly as possible to varying things I remember.

    1. I do not see a major difference between the law and what the law is now. On the loosest of interpretations you may be right but that does not mean that it would ever happen.

    2. I think you were too quick to jump to the most extreme situation, accuse them of that being the goal and calling them evil.

    3. The only parts of the law that are different is the removal of criminal penalties and the addition of health in addition to life. Why isn't the doctor the best judge of that? Dr's do this sort of thing.

    4. I would be opposed to any law that would make it ok for a woman to have an abortion of a healthy fetus and no threat to her in any way for reasons of depression or anxiety or similar.

    I do not see the law that way. I do not see doctors reading the law that way. Doctor's take their job seriously. Based only on personal experience and being around numerous physicians through my life, they take it seriously to protect all lives.

    They would only do this if there was an extreme medical need.

    5. I think you make a leap of logic that is unfounded, as the final point has not happened. In my view politics should stay out of medical matters except for probably why it costs so much (and various approval duties to make sure things work).


    I am honestly tired of the name calling, accusations and what have you. Just in general. I am guilty and I can only control me, but I wanted to separate my thoughts from everything else.

    This is long, and I apologize for that. But I recommend all involved with the thread check out this link...

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html

    It is hardly the end all be all. Nor does it cover the topic directly on the law front, but there is reason for it to be done, despite gross pictures. I do not see a major difference in the laws honestly. Unless one wants to take a point to an extreme. That is your right, but I strongly disagree with it and disagree that doctors will abort babies for that reason. And do not think that the legislature intended that.

    It seems much ado about nothing for an unlikely situation.


Just one question for you on this.You say you don't see much difference in the law...except in a few possible extreme potential cases.Then could you not also say that this whole effort to change the law...the time and money spent, was wasted. Especially when all it does is add a loophole...no matter how small or how unlikely the loophole is. Odds are it will happen in a few rare extreme cases at the least yes? So all this time and effort spent...and all it does is increase the chance for such an extreme act to happen and a death to occur. It can be only one of 3 ways I see1)This law opened a can of worms2)It changes almost nothing (except a few rare cases of possible miss-use)...I think your stated stance3)Its saving mothers lives
If you think its 1) or 2) how can you not be against this change 100% ?


Consider this before I address your point:

If you assume what HT reasoned above about the SCOTUS decision included depression as a sole reason for abortion than why has it not been a problem until now? 

Wouldn't a 46 year old ruling(s) that have governed all abortion laws since that point in time have applied to both NY laws in the first place? It defers to medical judgement and states have increased scrutiny in places but have obeyed it. 

Why just now is it this can of worms or a slippery slope? 

To your point. I disagree with the choices, since I disagree with the premise. It is not a can of worms unless the SCOTUS decision has changed or only now in 2019 is being read differently. 

And based on medical judgement the goal would be to preserve life when possible. I do not see how acknowledging that some nut may do something at some point discounts the possibility of an overall good for a rare problem and situation.








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