Community >> View Post
Post By

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

Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 3,830
Subj: My quick reply
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 10:41:25 pm EST (Viewed 105 times)
Reply Subj: Re: My thoughts separated from the other posts... (edited)
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 at 04:36:47 pm EST (Viewed 126 times)

Previous Post

    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...

    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.

Okay.  Then let me recap, too.

1.  If there is no major difference in the new law legalizing abortions after 24 weeks, then why did the new law replace "woman's life in jeopardy" with "health" which is an elastic term that can include a multitude of mental health problems, including depression?

2.  I kindly asked you to provide some examples of "health" conditions, and the only one you could cite for me was "rapidly decompensating maternal heart disease."  But that's a disease that could have fit under the old law of "woman's life in jeopardy."  So why did they change it to "health," which obviously must be inclusive of non-life threatening health circumstances?

3. You act like the addition of "health" is no big deal and no change in the law.  It's this type of lie that the media spreads, and you're complicit in this lie.

4.  Then why aren't you opposed to the new law?  I explained it to you.  I'd have no reason to be worried if "health" wasn't such an elastic term.  You expect me to have faith in people's good nature and reserve judgment only after the activity of concern happens.  Instead, I look at what the rules allow and get worried when I see something dangerous permitted.  Most people would think that's smart and reasonable.  How come you don't?

5. There is no leap of logic in understanding the difference in changes of law.  And politics should definately play a role in life matters and the protection of it.

I recommend all involved to watch this video, and just reasonably ask yourself.  Am I okay with this?

Also, read this:

To show you where other states are trending, Virginia recently tried to legislate an abortion bill permitting late term abortions if continued pregnancy would “impair the mental or physical health of the woman.”

So all this talk from bd that the country would never fall into the slippery slope of permitting late term abortions for depressed women is either ignorance or a lie. We have states in the process of trying to push this.

Why do you assume that the 1973 ruling just suddenly means something bad now when it has been on the books to define this sort of thing for 46 years?

The NY law is supposed to be modeled on Roe and the other case. Thus, the language would reflect those decisions. Why go through all of the assuming about other things when that answer seems obvious?

Why strip aspects from it and apply it selectively only now. Given the SCOTUS ruling, and assume your reading is correct, it would have extended that women could get abortions for depression since 1973.

It has never been read that way. Nor should the NY law be read outside of that context.

Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 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