The sanctity of life.

[mikbone]

This concept has made the USA a superpower.

We won the space race (the only men on the moon have been Americans).  Because our spacecraft were designed to bring our astronauts home. 

Russian spacecraft were designed for the honor of the state.  

Japan had Kamikazes.  Suicide bombers.  Americans can’t even imagine this kind of activity.

We spend $$ on armor and tech to keep our soldiers safe and well informed.

We designed smart bombs that allow us to take out military objectives with the minimum amount of collateral damage.

We have drones that allow us to inflict damage on our enemies without any possibility of physical danger to the operator.

Our systems are built with double and triple redundancies.  For life support.

China seems to have quantity without quality.  Russia is being embarrassed by Ukraine.

Israel who also believes in the sanctity of life in 1967 destroyed Jordan, Egypt, and Syria in a six-day war.

The only thing that scares me are these new hypersonic weapons that appear to be very difficult to defend.

And the fact that our country uses the term pro-choice to justify aborting human babies in utero. 

Edited August 21, 2024 by mikbone

[Traveler]

On 8/20/2024 at 11:05 PM, mikbone said:

This concept has made the USA a superpower.

We won the space race (the only men on the moon have been Americans).  Because our spacecraft were designed to bring our astronauts home. 

Russian spacecraft were designed for the honor of the state.  

Japan had Kamikazes.  Suicide bombers.  Americans can’t even imagine this kind of activity.

We spend $$ on armor and tech to keep our soldiers safe and well informed.

We designed smart bombs that allow us to take out military objectives with the minimum amount of collateral damage.

We have drones that allow us to inflict damage on our enemies without any possibility of physical danger to the operator.

Our systems are built with double and triple redundancies.  For life support.

China seems to have quantity without quality.  Russia is being embarrassed by Ukraine.

Israel who also believes in the sanctity of life in 1967 destroyed Jordan, Egypt, and Syria in a six-day war.

The only thing that scares me are these new hypersonic weapons that appear to be very difficult to defend.

And the fact that our country uses the term pro-choice to justify aborting human babies in utero. 

I am impressed with this topic of the sanctity of life – though I do not hold to all the ideas you referenced quite the way you expressed them – I do believe this is a topic worthy of discussion.

As vast as our universe is – this earth is a very obvious exception as to what life can thrive and spread throughout our universe.  Perhaps the deadliest threat to life as we know it is the ambient cosmic radiation (mostly gamma radiation) that is everywhere in our universe.   As our voyager probes have reached the outer Kuiper Belt of our solar system, we have learned that the solar winds from our sun create a barrier to protect and shield us from most of the deadly gamma rays.  Without this protection the DNA would be destroyed many times over with every second, putting an end to the evolution of life on earth.

Because of the abundance of gamma radiation everywhere outside of solar systems, the DNA seeds of life could not have had origins elsewhere – the gamma radiation would destroy any unprotected DNA.

Likewise, life within a solar system would be destroyed by the solar winds without strong magnetic shields similar to our earth.  And yet with all our advancements and technology we have not yet reverse engineered life.  Currently the only hope for our human species is through heterosexual reproduction and the respect of any existing life and especially human life.  Once a life has ended, we have no means possible to restore it.  Our only hope is from religious notions of a divine induced resurrection.

Our first moral of any universal worth must be to protect innocent healthy life, especially life capable and willing to procreate healthy life – and if humans are to survive - human life.  We human, as far as I have determined, are the only species known to exist that have the intelligence to learn to respect and maintain innocent life.  I do not believe that there is any intelligent or moral reason to ever deliberately (or even desire to end) any innocent non-threatening life and especially an innocent human life.  And one more thought – we have the technology to allow even those wishing to engage in heterosexual sexual activity for strictly selfish purposes to do so without hardly any need for abortions.

 

 

The Traveler

[Sal]

On 8/21/2024 at 1:05 AM, mikbone said:

This concept has made the USA a superpower.

We won the space race (the only men on the moon have been Americans).  Because our spacecraft were designed to bring our astronauts home. 

Russian spacecraft were designed for the honor of the state.  

Japan had Kamikazes.  Suicide bombers.  Americans can’t even imagine this kind of activity.

We spend $$ on armor and tech to keep our soldiers safe and well informed.

We designed smart bombs that allow us to take out military objectives with the minimum amount of collateral damage.

We have drones that allow us to inflict damage on our enemies without any possibility of physical danger to the operator.

Our systems are built with double and triple redundancies.  For life support.

China seems to have quantity without quality.  Russia is being embarrassed by Ukraine.

Israel who also believes in the sanctity of life in 1967 destroyed Jordan, Egypt, and Syria in a six-day war.

The only thing that scares me are these new hypersonic weapons that appear to be very difficult to defend.

And the fact that our country uses the term pro-choice to justify aborting human babies in utero. 

Yes I agree Gods precious possession but yet there are those who won’t think twice of aborting a precious baby from God !

[JohnsonJones]

I think the pro-choice vs. Pro-Life debate is FAR more complicated than simply whether one is protecting the sanctity of life or not.

In some cases, abortion IS protecting life.  IT is something that many do NOT wish to acknowledge....

(and, despite what I'm about to say, I personally would hope to NEVER be in a position where I would participate in an abortion or approve of one).

Many states have effectively BANNED abortion for any situation.  Sure, some of their laws say that there is an exception for incest or rape, but the way it turns out in actuality means that it's not going to happen, EVEN IN cases of incest or rape.

However, FAR more importantly is where the health and life of the mother is at stake.

A popular story that arose shortly after Roe vs. Wade was repealed was a prospective Mother who had a Miscarriage.  It should have been a simple procedure to medically take care of this.  Instead, she, the doctor, and a few others where charged with crimes.  It's NOT just in Conservative states either (very liberal areas you may be surprised about also have these cases).

US Women are being jailed for having miscarriages

She was Jailed for losing a pregnancy

A Black woman was criminally charged after a miscarriage

This also leads to doctors being scared to actually medically assist or HELP save lives, including lives of woman who have had miscarriages and NEED the aftereffects to be taken care of.

Doctors weigh in about ruinous litigation preventing miscarriage care

Atlanta Doctors reluctant to treat miscarriages fearing criminal penalty

They had miscarriages and new abortion laws obstructed treatment

When the fetus is not viable, but threatens the life of the mother, is it protecting the sanctity of life to force the mother to continue to carry it, OR WORSE, to carry a dead fetus which will actually eventually ALSO lead to her death?

I would say, protecting and respecting the sanctity of life is to SAVE life.  If one life is already going to be gone or dead already, PROTECTING OR RESPECTING the Sanctity of Life is to save the life of the mother or individual who is still alive but won't be if you don't take medical action.

The problems I'm seeing today with the current Abortion laws which outlaw abortion in some US states is that they are more concerned with one facet of the picture, without consideration of other facets.

It is similar to Roe vs. Wade.   The argument in Roe vs. Wade boiled down to the point that government had no business in your personal medical care.  Your personal medical care was between you and YOUR DOCTOR...government was NOT able to dictate your medical care.  A government should NOT be able to interfere with medical care in that way.

It was Casey vs. PP that made it so that it was a "WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE" with or without an actual doctor's decision. 

Many Conservatives got confused and basically used the decision of Casey vs. PP for Roe vs. Wade instead.  They could NOT see that Roe vs. Wade actually had MANY benefits (the least of which was probably not allowing the government to be able to intrude in your medical decisions, or, despite the fears the ACA would enact it, create death panels...all of which are now legal for the government to do as Roe vs. Wade was done away with) to them as they got confused between the two cases.

In the same way, they now go overboard with how much prosecution, feat, and litigation they will level against Doctors simply trying to do their jobs. 

That's not so say that the right to choose is the correct ANSWER.  The idea is correct that FAR too many took abortion FAR too lightly and treated it too casually.  It is what got us into this situation where you have groups on the far end of the spectrum trying to fight it out rather than someone stepping in and saying....wait  a second...

However, the way many states are going about it today not only prevent the casual individuals who do not take abortion as the serious thing it is (and it is a serious medical procedure as well as a serious moral situation), but also prevent situation where it IS a life saving procedure to save the life of an individual that actually has a medical necessity.

So, with HOW it has been framed in the United States over the past few years I think is NOT necessarily a respect for the Sanctity of Life (if so, than why do they wish for someone to have to have a baby, but then don't give the children food and want to do away with programs such as WIC and school lunches for children) so much as it is letting the religious zealotry of the Catholics (which used to be considered the Great and Abominable by some...believe it or not) to institute their ideals upon the rest of the American Public (Catholic, because they were the ones that original were simply just against Birth Control and Abortion without any concern for what happened AFTER the birth of the child, whereas most other religions ALSO were concerned with the feeding and clothing of the children and poor in ADDITION to concerns over the birth of children when I was growing up...which yes...was a long time ago for some of you). 

The Church has ALWAYS had a stance that Abortion was a very SERIOUS thing and should only really be a consideration in extreme circustances...and even then...only after prayer about it.  However, IT was allowed to occur in medically relevant situations.  HOWEVER, the church ALSO had programs put in place to try to ensure that this child that was born ALSO had the care it needed (either through child placement with a family that would love and care for it, or with help via the Church Welfare to help train and teach, as well as cloth and feed, the mother and family).  I think the church's way is the best way, not this path that we have forged forth reliant on what I see as Catholic dogma.

[Traveler]

I want the highlight and add to @JohnsonJones‘s post.  Part of my military training had to do with dealing with the wounded.  In essence in a critical situation, I was trained to determine which of those most likely to survive should be treated first.  The more unlikely to not survive were to be left for later or in some cases left to die.  This is a very hard thing to deal with.  For whatever reason there is a popular attitude that we leave no one behind.  The reality is that in combat it may be necessary to leave some behind in order to save the most and most likely.

I am most grateful that I never have had to make such a decision, though I personally know of some that did have to deal with such.  None of those that I know are able to reconcile their choices. 

I have known a few individuals that have decided to abort a unwanted pregnancy.  But in all cases, they have wandered off into paths far from me and I have lost track of them.  I know of a few that have given their unwanted (or unplanned) pregnancies up for adoption.  In every case they have been able to recover and take a place in marriage and family so that no one would know of their past.

It is also my observation that women are more lovingly and emotionally attached to their children than are men.  Of course, I understand that there can be rare exceptions.  My point is that I believe it much easer of a man to accept abortion of their genetic offspring than a woman.  I seriously wonder about that woman willing to abort a life more genetically connected to them than any other life in the universe – especially with the understanding that I have, that human life is perhaps the rarest of all possibilities of this universe.

Though I agree with @JohnsonJones – I believe that when we come to understand the importance of mortal life possibilities in this universe – that we would be more willing to go to much greater extremes to protect and care for human life.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

On 8/26/2024 at 5:45 AM, JohnsonJones said:

In some cases, abortion IS protecting life.  IT is something that many do NOT wish to acknowledge

...

I don't know where you get your info.  But every conservative I know understands that a mother's life may be in danger.

On 8/26/2024 at 5:45 AM, JohnsonJones said:

US Women are being jailed for having miscarriages

She was Jailed for losing a pregnancy

A Black woman was criminally charged after a miscarriage

I don't have time to go through all of the links.  But here are my findings for the first three.

1. The mother took methamphetamines while pregnant.  The defense stated that it cannot be proved that the meth was what caused the baby to die.  The jury found otherwise.
2. She also took meth while pregnant.  And the case was dismissed as further information came out that didn't rule out the meth-cause.  But it put it into the reasonable doubt category.  She was found not guilty.
3. She wasn't charged for an abortion.  She was charged with the abuse of a corpse because she flushed her miscarriage down the toilet.  The grand jury refused to indict.  So, why is this even on this list? 

Further, she (#3) was 21 weeks pregnant.  That baby could have lived if they induced (which was the advice she was given).  But she chose a different path.

[mikbone]

On 8/26/2024 at 3:45 AM, JohnsonJones said:

In some cases, abortion IS protecting life.

Name the cases.  And let me know how often that these cases occur.  I’m a MD and I can’t think of any.   Ectopic (eg tubal) pregnancies & culling extra fetus after infertility treatments that cause multiple eggs to mature in a single menstrual cycle are not classified as abortions.

Doctors do not treat ectopic pregnancies termination as an abortion.  And most of them end in miscarriage anyway.

The multiple pregnancies that are caused by infertility treatments are not considered as abortions either.  We classify them as selective reduction.

It’s a classic straw man argument.

Abortion CPT codes:

Injections before 20 weeks: 59850–59852 

Suppositories before 20 weeks: 59855–59857 

Medication abortion: S0199, which includes all associated services and supplies except the drugs 

Mifepristone: S0190, which is the oral dose of the abortion pill 

Induced abortion by dilation and curettage: 59840 (6.76 RVU)

Incomplete abortion completed surgically: 58912 (9.35 RVU)

Ectopic pregnancy treatment CPT code:

59150 (24 RVU): Laparoscopic treatment of an ectopic pregnancy without a salpingectomy and/or oophorectomy 

 

RVU (Relative Value Unit) - 2024 conversion factor is $32.74

 

So, for each D&C performed planned parenthood makes 6.76 x 32.74 = $221

Treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is worth $785

How do you think that the doctors will code the procedure?

Edited November 4, 2024 by mikbone

[CommanderSouth]

6 hours ago, mikbone said:

Name the cases.  And let me know how often that these cases occur.  I’m a MD and I can’t think of any.   Ectopic (eg tubal) pregnancies & culling extra fetus after infertility treatments that cause multiple eggs to mature in a single menstrual cycle are not classified as abortions.

Doctors do not treat ectopic pregnancies termination as an abortion.  And most of them end in miscarriage anyway.

The multiple pregnancies that are caused by infertility treatments are not considered as abortions either.  We classify them as selective reduction.

It’s a classic straw man argument.

Ummm... He kind of did.
 

On 8/26/2024 at 6:45 AM, JohnsonJones said:

This also leads to doctors being scared to actually medically assist or HELP save lives, including lives of woman who have had miscarriages and NEED the aftereffects to be taken care of.

Doctors weigh in about ruinous litigation preventing miscarriage care

Atlanta Doctors reluctant to treat miscarriages fearing criminal penalty

They had miscarriages and new abortion laws obstructed treatment

I'm not a doctor, but are these articles incorrect?

[mikbone]

56 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

Ummm... He kind of did.

No read the articles.

If you know you are pregnant then intentionally cause harm to the fetus via intentional drug overdose or asking someone to punch you in the abdomen to kill the fetus.  You are talking about something other than a medical abortion

Also if you have a miscarriage and then flush the baby down the toilet to hide it from your family you could get charged with abuse of a corpse.

These are not abortions.  

Once again.  Classic straw man argument.

 

I cant believe that any MD would refuse to remove non-viable product of conception (miscarriage with whole or partial remains of the dead fetus  or placenta that remain within the uterus). Thats malpractice.  

That is the main reason to do a dilation and curettage.  I see it all the time at my Catholic hospital.

just because a stupid idiot of a malpractice physician refuses to perform a necessary procedure dosent mean that a licensed and board certified OB/Gyn surgeon would do the same.

Straw man argument.  Don’t be fooled.

 

Edited November 4, 2024 by mikbone

[JohnsonJones]

19 hours ago, mikbone said:

Doctors do not treat ectopic pregnancies termination as an abortion.  And most of them end in miscarriage anyway.

The multiple pregnancies that are caused by infertility treatments are not considered as abortions either.  We classify them as selective reduction.

It’s a classic straw man argument.

 

You read the articles.  It's not a classic straw man.  It's reality of what is happening. 

Treating a miscarriage has been charged as doing an abortion.  This is why sometimes doing an abortion saves lives.  It's not the actual abortion, but procedures which can be associated with an abortion or miscarriage (such as a D&C).  It's why doctors in some states are so afraid of doing these procedures. 

If you stand a chance of being charged with murder, even if it you feel you will eventually come out innocent, would you treat a woman who is currently undergoing a miscarriage? 

It doesn't matter what You think, it matters on the one who is bringing the charges against you (they do not have to be a doctor or have any medical training), and on what the government thinks (no medical training needed).

Problems above were not caused by doctors not being able to treat the women, but due to doctors being afraid of being prosecuted for treating them. 

While being prosecuted you will not be able to provide for your family while you are under investigation (as long as you are granted bail, which is not a guarantee for someone being accused of murder), and you will bear court costs (whether insurance will cover it or not is another question, as it's still an unexplored territory of sorts).  If you are really unfortunate you will be fired from your job (not just suspended until the investigation is over), and or worse, blacklisted as no one wants to deal with an individual that could bring that type of legal repercussions on them as well. 

Is that the type of thing you are willing to risk just to help a woman who is undergoing a current miscarriage but hasn't had it fully occur yet?

Edited November 5, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

I cant believe that any MD would refuse to remove non-viable product of conception (miscarriage with whole or partial remains of the dead fetus  or placenta that remain within the uterus). Thats malpractice.  

That is the main reason to do a dilation and curettage.  I see it all the time at my Catholic hospital.

just because a stupid idiot of a malpractice physician refuses to perform a necessary procedure dosent mean that a licensed and board certified OB/Gyn surgeon would do the same.

This is what is happening in Texas.  Here, in conservative Texas, abortion doctors disguised as OG-GYNs refuse to do anything with a miscarriage as a protest against state laws.  They would rather a mother die than to justify the law by doing what is medically necessary.  All this just to give pro-life legislation a bad name.  And the media is happy to go along with it.

Nevermind how ludicrous it is for doctors to take that stance.

[CommanderSouth]

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

No read the articles.

I wasn't quoting the first set of articles, I was quoting the second, which had nothing to do with the points you make.  In fact, the ones I posted seemed to contradict what you were saying and I was asking for clarification.

 

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

I cant believe that any MD would refuse to remove non-viable product of conception (miscarriage with whole or partial remains of the dead fetus  or placenta that remain within the uterus). Thats malpractice.  

That is the main reason to do a dilation and curettage.  I see it all the time at my Catholic hospital.

just because a stupid idiot of a malpractice physician refuses to perform a necessary procedure dosent mean that a licensed and board certified OB/Gyn surgeon would do the same.

It is taking a lot for me to not snap back at this.  But I will make one snide remark.  I'm so very glad YOU speak for ALL doctors.  It is very presumptuous and dismissive to speak this way.  I'm glad you are able and willing to do what needs to be done, but there are some that are concerned about their livelihood.  The attitude you seem to put forth is 90 percent of my problem with many who are pro-life.  I consider myself pro life as well, and I CERTAINLY don't think abortion should be used as birth control, but I feel there IS much more nuance to the situation than many of either side acknowledge.

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I'm glad you are able and willing to do what needs to be done, but there are some that are concerned about their livelihood.  The attitude you seem to put forth is 90 percent of my problem with many who are pro-life.  I consider myself pro life as well, and I CERTAINLY don't think abortion should be used as birth control, but I feel there IS much more nuance to the situation than many of either side acknowledge.

Why are doctors refusing to remove the remains of a miscarriage? 

There is NOTHING in state laws that would hold a doctor responsible for an abortion if the baby is already dead.  Yet, that is the excuse that they have made multiple times in TEXAS.  Other doctors and legislators (some who are both) responded that nothing in the laws would reasonably be read that way.  Everything is based on the procedure being an abortion.  That required the decision to end the life of the unborn.  If the baby is already dead, then there is no legal way that a d&c could be considered an abortion.

[CommanderSouth]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why are doctors refusing to remove the remains of a miscarriage? 

There is NOTHING in state laws that would hold a doctor responsible for an abortion if the baby is already dead.  Yet, that is the excuse that they have made multiple times in TEXAS.  Other doctors and legislators (some who are both) responded that nothing in the laws would reasonably be read that way.  Everything is based on the procedure being an abortion.  That required the decision to end the life of the unborn.  If the baby is already dead, then there is no legal way that a d&c could be considered an abortion.

Again, I am not a doctor and I don't speak for them, but the articles I have read (including the ones linked above) seem to indicate that some doctors in some states doctors are afraid because what the law says and how the law is actually applied can be two VERY different things.  If you don't see that from the IVF issues that have been reported, then I think it will be hard for us to agree.

The letter and spirit of the law can be used wholly differently.

I'm not saying that SOME doctors aren't "silent quitting" in protest of however it is best described, but it does NOT seem to be the case across the board.

[CommanderSouth]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Everything is based on the procedure being an abortion.

As a second point, and more direct, I guess.  You are correct, but the reason SOME doctors hesitate is that they fear the law will be used to say something was an abortion even if it wasn't.

[mikbone]

30 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

It is taking a lot for me to not snap back at this.  But I will make one snide remark.  I'm so very glad YOU speak for ALL doctors.  It is very presumptuous and dismissive to speak this way.

I don’t speak for all doctors.  I’m not a member of the AMA.  

There are physicians in my community that have multiple divorces and nice houseboats, toys etc.  They tend to make poor decisions in my opinion.  They refuse to see some patients due to their insurance coverage.  And perform surgery on some patients that do not need surgery.

If a person shows up to this kind of office with a retained partial miscarriage and do not have insurance.  Or if they are overweight, homeless, have the look of polysubstance abuse, etc. They will likely be turned away at the office door and may be given an excuse like we do not perform abortions here.

Many doctors can be compared to auto mechanics with loose morals.  

 

[mikbone]

8 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

As a second point, and more direct, I guess.  You are correct, but the reason SOME doctors hesitate is that they fear the law will be used to say something was an abortion even if it wasn't.

I doubt it.

From my understanding of the linked articles.  

The doctors are using the legal argument as an excuse not to treat a patient because they don’t want to treat the patient at all.

If the patient had good insurance, were presentable, and agreeable they would have been treated…

No doctor is dumb enough to think they will be prosecuted for cleaning out necrotic tissue from a uterus. 

Surgeons document every procedure with clear explanations of pathology, incisions made, cultures taken, material removed, blood loss etc.  This is for legal requirements and to allow the documentation to justify the billing of the procedure.

[laronius]

39 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

 I consider myself pro life as well, and I CERTAINLY don't think abortion should be used as birth control, but I feel there IS much more nuance to the situation than many of either side acknowledge.

I can agree with this. It has largely become an all or nothing, very polarized issue. Like the Church's stance on abortion, there may be some instances where abortion may be an acceptable option but they should be very rare and definitely not out of convenience. But many on the right draw a hard line on zero tolerance and I think that turns people off. As a result more and more people will side with the other extreme of abortion with no limits even if they would prefer limits.

[CommanderSouth]

8 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I doubt it.

From my understanding of the linked articles.  

The doctors are using the legal argument as an excuse not to treat a patient because they don’t want to treat the patient at all.

If the patient had good insurance, were presentable, and agreeable they would have been treated…

No doctor is dumb enough to think they will be prosecuted for cleaning out necrotic tissue from a uterus. 

Surgeons document every procedure with clear explanations of pathology, incisions made, cultures taken, material removed, blood loss etc.  This is for legal requirements and to allow the documentation to justify the billing of the procedure.

And since it was doctors and not laymen making the law we should be TOTALLY fine.  Given that the wording is TOTALLY unambigious and could NEVER be used incorrectly, we should be fine.  Given that every case is reasonable, we should be fine.  When you have people claiming that Jews and/or Democrats are making hurricanes, it's not hard to believe SOME doctors, even ones that AREN'T dumb are worried about the legalities of things.

As with a lot of cases, it isn't that they would be found guilty, it's that they would have to fight in the first place.

But again, I only speak to some folks in some cases, and I think it's presumptuous to dismiss the argument out of hand, or just say someone is making excuses.

Edited November 5, 2024 by CommanderSouth
Clarity

[CommanderSouth]

12 minutes ago, mikbone said:

No doctor is dumb enough to think they will be prosecuted for cleaning out necrotic tissue from a uterus. 

It isn't about the doctor being wrong or dumb, it's about the accuser being dumb and/or unconcerned with the depth of the situation.

I swear, I'm about to have to bust out with an "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"  

[CommanderSouth]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It doesn't matter what You think, it matters on the one who is bringing the charges against you (they do not have to be a doctor or have any medical training), and on what the government thinks (no medical training needed).

This.  This is the trick.  You may well be in the right, that doesn't stop you from getting put out of house and home before you can be vindicated in court.  It isn't about being "dumb" and thinking you will lose or aren't right, it's about thinking someone un/misinformed will still sue you.

Bleem proved emulators were legal.  They were right, but they still got driven out of business...

Edited November 5, 2024 by CommanderSouth
Clarity

[Carborendum]

40 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I'm not saying that SOME doctors aren't "silent quitting" in protest of however it is best described, but it does NOT seem to be the case across the board.

What it comes down to is which articles are you reading and accepting as truth?  I read the laws and I know what they say.  I may not be a doctor.  But I know enough to state that if the baby is already dead, then the doctor can't be legally accused of aborting a baby.  End of story.  And if some DA gets over-zealous, then the doctors need to file a class-action lawsuit for malicious prosecution.  End.

[CommanderSouth]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What it comes down to is which articles are you reading and accepting as truth?  I read the laws and I know what they say.  I may not be a doctor.  But I know enough to state that if the baby is already dead, then the doctor can't be legally accused of aborting a baby.  End of story.  And if some DA gets over-zealous, then the doctors need to file a class-action lawsuit for malicious prosecution.  End.

While which sources I believe does have something to do with it. The issue is as I said above, it isn't about what YOU know, or what YOU think.  ANYONE can be accused of ANYTHING, right or wrong.  We have absolutely seen again and again this play out.  Someone might be right, but they can be drug through the legal system until they can't fight anymore.  

So I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree.  Also, you're still arguing with me while I'm ceding your point?  Nice...

All or nothing thinking is a fallacy.

Edited November 5, 2024 by CommanderSouth
Clarity

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, CommanderSouth said:

ANYONE can be accused of ANYTHING, right or wrong.

I certainly agree with this point.  But think about it.  Does that principle have anything to do with whether the legislation is just or not?

1 minute ago, CommanderSouth said:

  So I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree.  Also, you're still arguing with me while I'm ceding your point?  Nice...

I am not saying this as a challenge.  I really don't understand.  How are you disagreeing while ceding my point?  Did I miss it?

I see that you agree that some doctors are "silent quitting" but it is not across the board.  Again, this is just a question of which is the rule and which is the exception?  We'll probably disagree.

[CommanderSouth]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I certainly agree with this point.  But think about it.  Does that principle have anything to do with whether the legislation is just or not?

I am not saying this as a challenge.  I really don't understand.  How are you disagreeing while ceding my point?  Did I miss it?

I see that you agree that some doctors are "silent quitting" but it is not across the board.  Again, this is just a question of which is the rule and which is the exception?  We'll probably disagree.

I'm agreeing with you, that it does sound like some folks are being sneaky and silent quitting/being obstructive.  To me that's ceding that everyone isn't denying care out of fear.  I'm just not willing to go much farther than that.
But I am saying that rejecting the idea of doctors being leary even when right isn't surprising GIVEN that unjust suits happen.  The suits happen, that can be scary, believing at least a portion of articles saying that is enough for me to believe it happens and is an unfortunate byproduct of ending Roe V Wade.  That's my whole angle

Edited November 5, 2024 by CommanderSouth