IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

"Including the exception is pointless because it is not needed"

If it is not needed, then what exactly is the harm in having it?

Also Dixie... she said...."There's also an exception if her life is truly threatened." An "exception" is not the same as an "alternative". An exception means that although the majority of the time a rule applies there are certain instances that could potentially arise that negate the rule. It is standard when making policy to not make an absolute, especially when concerning medicine. Because AGAIN... just because we currently believe that it will not be needed, doesn't mean we are necessarily right. There could potentially be something down the road that occurs that no one ever thought would occur. Because of this, we leave it up to the discretion of the attending physician, just as the AMA suggests and just as Aultman indicates.

But if you insist on saying that it could NEVER happen and that the doctors are 100% positive, then that is your right to believe so, no matter how much a fool that makes you.
 
"So, include it, get the law passed, do something for once instead of acting constantly outraged over such an inclusion and not getting anything done at all. This is one of my most major frustrations with the R Party. The idea that doing nothing at all is better than passing this bill with a "pointless" caveat..."

Agreed.
 
Damocles said:
Why would it matter if it is "pointless". If it gets the law passed then include it. It would not subtract from the meaning of the bill in any way to have it in there. And the idea that any doctor could just say, "Well I said so" when ascertaining it would endanger her life otherwise is simply ridiculous.

So, include it, get the law passed, do something for once instead of acting constantly outraged over such an inclusion and not getting anything done at all. This is one of my most major frustrations with the R Party. The idea that doing nothing at all is better than passing this bill with a "pointless" caveat...
Click to expand...

Damo, come on, you are smarter than that! You know full well that no one would be able to challenge a doctors determination regarding his patients mental health. I used the word "pointless" in regard to the issue at hand, a woman's health risk. It certainly WOULD have a point, that being, to allow doctors who wanted to keep performing late-term partial birth abortions, a way to excuse themselves from the law.

I admit, at first blush, it doesn't seem like a big deal, and us laymen who don't understand medicine, we can rationalize where it might be needed under some circumstance to save the life of a mother, it appeals to our emotions because we think, well, anything is possible. However, as the former Surgeon General said, and the countless doctors who backed him up on it, this procedure is NEVER necessary to save the life or protect the health of the mother. As Dr. Aultman said, there are other standard alternative procedures available, should that situation ever occur, and those procedures already have such a provision, and are substantially safer.

This 'health exception' canard had two goals, 1) to kill the bill completely, or 2) to give doctors who want to do partial birth abortions, an out. To their credit, the plan worked, mostly because people are just plain stupid.
 
"It certainly WOULD have a point, that being, to allow doctors who wanted to keep performing late-term partial birth abortions, a way to excuse themselves from the law. "

Right.... because all they would have to do is say, "because I said she was in danger"... I am sure there wouldn't be any requirements to show evidence of such.
 
Also Dixie... she said...."There's also an exception if her life is truly threatened." An "exception" is not the same as an "alternative". An exception means that although the majority of the time a rule applies there are certain instances that could potentially arise that negate the rule.

Right, she said "exception" after she said "alternative" because she was talking about the legal exception made with regard to the "other standard alternatives" which do exist already. Her statement is clear and concise, you are trying desperately to read something into it that just isn't there.

For the record, I didn't think you would be a man of your word and actually apologize, I fully expected you to go down swinging and refuse to accept the facts. You can dance around and pretend she said things she never said, all you like, I know what she said, it's in plain English, and pretty black and white, and you are totally wrong.
 
The bill could have been passed 10 years earlier, but they did not want to give President Clinton the pleasure (and political points) of signing such a bill!
 
Superfreak said:
"It certainly WOULD have a point, that being, to allow doctors who wanted to keep performing late-term partial birth abortions, a way to excuse themselves from the law. "

Right.... because all they would have to do is say, "because I said she was in danger"... I am sure there wouldn't be any requirements to show evidence of such.
Click to expand...

In the first place, WHO is going to bring the case before the court? Certainly not the doctor or the patient, correct? So, what would prevent the doctor from citing doctor/patient confidentiality, should someone happen to bring a case? No, there would be no requirement from the court for the doctor to "prove" his patient was suffering from "mental health" issues, his word would be empirical on that matter. It would be up to the plaintiff to "prove" the doctor was lying, which is really hard to do in such cases. Who are we, as a 'third party' to determine whether a doctor is lying about his own patient?
 
The bill could have been passed 10 years earlier, but they did not want to give President Clinton the pleasure (and political points) of signing such a bill!

The bill WAS passed twice, and Clinton VETOed it TWICE!
 
Dixie said:
Damo, come on, you are smarter than that! You know full well that no one would be able to challenge a doctors determination regarding his patients mental health. I used the word "pointless" in regard to the issue at hand, a woman's health risk. It certainly WOULD have a point, that being, to allow doctors who wanted to keep performing late-term partial birth abortions, a way to excuse themselves from the law.

I admit, at first blush, it doesn't seem like a big deal, and us laymen who don't understand medicine, we can rationalize where it might be needed under some circumstance to save the life of a mother, it appeals to our emotions because we think, well, anything is possible. However, as the former Surgeon General said, and the countless doctors who backed him up on it, this procedure is NEVER necessary to save the life or protect the health of the mother. As Dr. Aultman said, there are other standard alternative procedures available, should that situation ever occur, and those procedures already have such a provision, and are substantially safer.

This 'health exception' canard had two goals, 1) to kill the bill completely, or 2) to give doctors who want to do partial birth abortions, an out. To their credit, the plan worked, mostly because people are just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. In each case the Doctor's determination would be closely scrutinized. Experts would carefully review records and conclusions. The idea that so many people would simply march in step with any recommendation is simply an assumption of the "bad" in others.

In reality, D or R, we all seek to bring something good to the nation. Instead of simply standing in opposition to all things that may come from a D's mouth, I'd prefer to actually get something passed that can do something.

The Rs seem not to care about actually doing anything on this issue, they seem to want the issue and not any solution at all. All or nothing is not a position, it is a way to prolong the argument.
 
Anyway, Dix. Pass the law, get it signed by adding the caveat. Then later, when it is determined that people are working around the caveat, fix it. Add more scrutiny, do what you think is necessary. Do anything at all, except nothing but play outrage at adding this.

At this moment in time, any bill at all is better than the nothing we have.

What is that "Old Wive's" Axiom? "A bird in the hand..."
 
He won't go along with it Damo. The funny thing is he claims that all doctors are against the procedure and that it would NEVER be needed, yet if we put the exception in the law for the womans health that doctors would use it to continue with the procedure that the doctors say is never necessary... just for the fun?
 
The Rs seem not to care about actually doing anything on this issue, they seem to want the issue and not any solution at all. All or nothing is not a position, it is a way to prolong the argument.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
Not true at all. In each case the Doctor's determination would be closely scrutinized.

BY WHOM????

Your argument is just void of reasoning. You assume that somehow, some way, some one, is going to question the doctor's diagnosis, but you can't give me any rational reason for this. Meanwhile, case law is full of numerous examples where just the opposite is true, the doctor and his patient retain the right to determine what is best, and it's not subject to scrutiny of any kind. Look at how long it took them to stop Kevorkian!

Let's look into the future, and imagine the case being brought, IF that would even be a possibility (I have my doubts). The first thing you are going to hear from the mouths of the liberals is... Here we go again, neocons trying to tell doctors what's best for their own patients! And you'd be right in there with them, decrying the evil sons of bitches who were trying to stick their nose in someone else's business!

The 'health exception' in the PBA bill was a SHAM! You can't see that because you are blind and ignorant, and don't want to see it, like Super! It's easier to take the high road and try to claim you are being objective, when the facts and testimony contradicts you completely. There is NEVER a reason to use this procedure to save the life or preserve the health of the mother, it was a red herring from the start, designed to water down the bill and render it ineffective.
 
The Rs seem not to care about actually doing anything on this issue

Nahh.. they don't seem to care... they just passed the frikin bill three times, only to have it vetoed twice by Clinton!
 
Dixie said:
Not true at all. In each case the Doctor's determination would be closely scrutinized.

BY WHOM????

Your argument is just void of reasoning. You assume that somehow, some way, some one, is going to question the doctor's diagnosis, but you can't give me any rational reason for this. Meanwhile, case law is full of numerous examples where just the opposite is true, the doctor and his patient retain the right to determine what is best, and it's not subject to scrutiny of any kind. Look at how long it took them to stop Kevorkian!

Let's look into the future, and imagine the case being brought, IF that would even be a possibility (I have my doubts). The first thing you are going to hear from the mouths of the liberals is... Here we go again, neocons trying to tell doctors what's best for their own patients! And you'd be right in there with them, decrying the evil sons of bitches who were trying to stick their nose in someone else's business!

The 'health exception' in the PBA bill was a SHAM! You can't see that because you are blind and ignorant, and don't want to see it, like Super! It's easier to take the high road and try to claim you are being objective, when the facts and testimony contradicts you completely. There is NEVER a reason to use this procedure to save the life or preserve the health of the mother, it was a red herring from the start, designed to water down the bill and render it ineffective.
Click to expand...
By the same doctors who say it is "unnecessary". You can't have your cake and eat it too Dix. Either it is "pointless" or it negates the law and is not "pointless".

I think it is pointless, and therefore will not change the meaning or intent of the law. And it would be an important first step. Pretense of outrage notwithstanding having this law with the caveat is better than not having a law at all, and it is one of the reasons that the Rs will continue to lose votes. As long as there is even the appearance of preferring the issue to a solution the Rs will simply lose their own base.

When even the evangelists are unsatisfied with the party and they have centralized themselves so much on them, then there is nowhere to turn but to the libertarian base of the party. It will be nice to see the party come back to us.
 
Dixie said:
The Rs seem not to care about actually doing anything on this issue

Nahh.. they don't seem to care... they just passed the frikin bill three times, only to have it vetoed twice by Clinton!
Click to expand...
No, they specifically stripped that caveat because they knew he would veto it. Preferring the issue to the idea of compromise. Bearing false outrage is better than actually doing something. If you can't see that, then you are one of the few indeed. This party is quickly moving away from the very people who support it. First they do nothing about the border before promoting internal amnesty, then they do nothing about late-term abortion when they had the power.

Don't be disingenuous. Passing a law when you know it will be vetoed, then refusing to pass the law when it would be signed is most definitely a sign that they wish to keep the issue rather than work on a solution.
 
Jarod said:
The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient
Click to expand...
A programatic phrase regurgitated by the AMA with regard to every issue, and wholly devoid of uniqueness with regard to this issue. The AMA position is bifurcated, and this is just one of the halves.
 
He won't go along with it Damo. The funny thing is he claims that all doctors are against the procedure and that it would NEVER be needed, yet if we put the exception in the law for the womans health that doctors would use it to continue with the procedure that the doctors say is never necessary... just for the fun?

First of all, I have never claimed that ALL doctors were "against" the procedure. There are a number of abortion doctors making a great deal of money performing late-term abortions on people, who clearly do not want to see their gravy train go away, I am sure there are plenty who support partial birth abortion staying just as it is! I stated that none of the doctors testifying before Congress, said the procedure was necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, and that is a true statement. I didn't just CLAIM this, that is the facts! Even your own evidence shows that I am right and you are wrong, and you aren't man enough to admit that!

You and Damo want to play the.. "Ah, let's give 'em what they want" game, and we all know and understand, you LOSE every time! You think if we cave on this, what the heck? It's better than nothing... well, it's NOT better!

Go look up Partial Birth Abortion... read about the procedure... try to comprehend the testimony from the RN who witnessed the procedure... telling how she watched the baby's hands clinch and then flinch when the scissors were inserted into its tiny skull! Read THAT you immoral morons, then come tell me how the fuck this hideous practice should ever be allowed to continue, under ANY FUCKING CIRCUMSTANCE?


This bill was not about Abortion, if they were outlawing Abortion in total, I would agree, some provision should be made for the health and life of the mother! That wasn't what this was about at all! It was about an inhumane, cruel, barbaric, hideous, heinous, and disgusting procedure that should have never been invented in the first place!

What you are arguing, would be like saying... Yeah, we can pass a law against raping women, but let's add the caveat that, if you are real horny and the woman is real hot and drunk... it's okay then! You are totally pathetic and without morals, and your lack of understanding this issue is astounding to me.
 
Damocles said:
...The Rs seem not to care about actually doing anything on this issue, they seem to want the issue and not any solution at all. All or nothing is not a position, it is a way to prolong the argument.
Click to expand...
As is the D's hollow, goat-like "health of the mother" bleating.
 
No, they specifically stripped that caveat because they knew he would veto it.

No, go read the text of the bill they passed. The overwhelming testimony and evidence was clear to Congress, the procedure is NEVER required for the health or life of the mother.... not "seldom required" ....not "may be in some cases required" ....not "possibly could be required" ...but NEVER FUCKING REQUIRED to save the life or preserve the health... and in FACT... the testimony states just the GOD DAMNED OPPOSITE! That the procedure INCREASES the risk substantially to a woman's health and life! THOSE are the FACTS, and all you two want to do is IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE!

Stick your damn fingers in your ears, pretend this was some right-wing political move, ignore the freaking testimony, refuse to comprehend plain fucking English, refuse to accept the facts presented in the case, you are pathetic morons without the courage to stand for principle and ethics, and you had just as soon see this reprehensible practice continue, as to admit the truth.

This isn't about 'politics', it's about sticking a pair of scissors into the back of a living baby's skull and killing it while it is partially born! Have you people just competely lost your goddamn minds????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top