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

If NO Doctors think it is EVER necessary for the health of the pregnant woman... Then we will never have a problem with Doctors abusing the exemption will we?

Dixie you cant have it both ways... You cant say ALL Doctors say the procedure is NEVER necessary for the health of the pregnant woman, yet we cant have the exceptions because Doctors will say it was necessary when it was not!
 
The idea that so many people would simply march in step with any recommendation is simply an assumption of the "bad" in others.

And let me explain something else to you, Damo... There is not some committee that would approve the doctor's recommendations, it doesn't exist! "So many people" would not even be aware of what a patient and doctor decided in the confidence and privacy of the doctor's office! It would be a major uphill battle to take a doctor to court and try to prove that he misdiagnosed 'mental health issues' in his own patient! First of all, there is no one who is going to be out there calling it to question or making the legal case, because they are not a party to the action, and have no legal basis to challenge the doctor. Secondly, even if they did, the doctor retains professional status over any other opinions here, it is HIS patient, HE made the diagnosis based on HIS examination, and even another doctor, can't refute his findings, because that doctor had no relationship with the patient. Thirdly, even in the bizarre event that such a case should occur and make it to trial, and even in the unprecedented case the court allowed an outside opinion from another physician, the doctor in question made a medical decision regarding his patient that he is allowed to make as a doctor, and since the bill had that provision, he would escape any possible finding of guilt in the end because of it.
 
Dixie... it is not "mental health issues" it is PHYSICAL health... danger to the LIFE of the mother... as in she is about to die.
 
Dixie said:
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????
Click to expand...
No, several times Clinton said that without that caveat he would veto it, they passed it, he did what he said.

Later, we had an R congress, and an R Senate, with an R President, they didn't pass it. Therefore there is no law on the books, these abortions continue wholesale and all because it was the issue and not the law that they cared about.

Dixie, if you don't look internally for some of the problems then the R party will become obsolete.

Pass the law, get it signed then fix the problems with it later by actually pointing out the problems rather than proactively assigning problems and therefore passing nothing. That is the very definition of spinning one's wheels. If no law is passed, then no curtailment will happen. At least get what you can done, then fix it later.

Of course, even when the President was sure to sign it and they had control over both houses they failed to do so. Instead worrying about whether gays were getting married. All of the "woe is me" without any of the "this is what we have done".
 
If NO Doctors think it is EVER necessary for the health of the pregnant woman... Then we will never have a problem with Doctors abusing the exemption will we?

It's not a question of what they "think" it's a matter of fact. The procedure is not necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother in any case, ever. Should the mother's life or health be at risk, there are other standard procedures which do allow for this, and would be performed, if that were the case. Not only would this procedure never be performed on a mother in distress, if it were performed, it would pose MORE of a risk to her health than any other alternative procedure. There simply is not a case where it would be needed to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.

Here's an example... IF we were talking about banning plastic surgery instead of partial birth... and someone argued that plastic surgery should only be allowed to save the life or health of the patient... is that valid? No! Because this procedure is never required, and not associated with saving someones life or health! Although, if such a provision was included in the ban, coupled with the fact that "mental health" is defined by law as "health", then plastic surgeons could still perform the procedure, they merely need to establish it is for "health" reasons.

Now, I realize that's not a great example, because we are talking about sticking scissors into the back of a living baby's skull, not cosmetic augmentation, but the point is the same. You are insisting on making some caveat that is never required, never would be required, but would certainly be used as validation, should that be the only alternative to be able to perform the procedure. It's like saying, it's against the law to run red lights unless you are in a hurry. How many people would be running red lights? Would they ALL be in a hurry? Who is the final arbiter? Can someone prove they weren't in a hurry? Isn't it valid to conclude that you are never in too much of a hurry to obey the red lights? Isn't it also valid to conclude that many people would justify running the red lights by claiming they were in a hurry, when the fact is, they really weren't in that much of a hurry and could have stopped for the light? It's just plain moral stupidity... it's like handing someone a gun and saying; Now, don't shoot anyone with this, but if you get angry and feel like you have a reason, point it at them and pull the trigger! I think it would be better to leave it at... Don't shoot anyone with this! Period!
 
No, several times Clinton said that without that caveat he would veto it, they passed it, he did what he said.

Bill Clinton vetoed the bill because the pro-abortion lobby elected him! Fool!
 
Superfreak said:
Dixie... it is not "mental health issues" it is PHYSICAL health... danger to the LIFE of the mother... as in she is about to die.
Click to expand...
This procedure takes days to implement. It can not react to an imminent threat.
 
"Because this procedure is never required, and not associated with saving someones life or health!"

Plastic surgery is NEVER required or associated with saving someones life or health?

1) maybe you can say that on saving a life

2) you can absolutely NOT say that with regards to health. Unless you think all plastic surgery is nose and boob jobs.

You seem to love throwing out the word NEVER.
 
In looking at the May 19, 1997 letter from AMA to Sen. Rick Santorum, can anyone tell me exactly what the AMA supported?
 
Dixie... since all these other safer alternatives exist for abortions at this stage... then tell me... why would a doctor perform one? Why would the doctor deliberately put the woman in greater risk? The answer is they wouldn't. Unless something happened that previously has not been seen that requires it. That is why you leave the caveat, because no matter how smart you think you are, there is always a possibility that something new could occur. Only a fucking idiot would think in absolute terms on something that is anything but absolute. Which is WHY the AMA says there should be an exception for when the mothers life is truly in danger.

They know that the likelihood is 1 in a billion or such.... but they leave room for the one.
 
Superfreak said:
Dixie... it is not "mental health issues" it is PHYSICAL health... danger to the LIFE of the mother... as in she is about to die.
Click to expand...


As I said, as Dr. Aultman said, and as C. Everett Koop said... the procedure is not a medical necessity, and never would, could, or should be used to save the life or health of the mother. There are other much safer abortion procedures that could, would, and should be used in such cases. What part of that are you not comprehending? The procedure is far more dangerous to the woman's health and life, than any number of other options, which are perfectly legal and have the 'health/life' provision. It's like saying, heart patients can't run a 20km marathon unless they are in intensive care and about to die... THEN, it's okay! It's stupid! It's pointless! It's not valid! It defies any reason and logic!
 
it is not "mental health issues" it is PHYSICAL health

And case law has already established that "mental health" is the same exact thing as "health" there is no distinction from a legal standpoint.
 
WHY the AMA says there should be an exception for when the mothers life is truly in danger.

The AMA doesn't say that. You interpreted that, but it's not what they said. In fact, they released a statement in 1997 that said just the opposite, and agreed with C. Everettt Koop and Dr. Aultman, that the procedure is never needed to save the life or health of the mother.
 
Superfreak said:
"Because this procedure is never required, and not associated with saving someones life or health!"

Plastic surgery is NEVER required or associated with saving someones life or health?

1) maybe you can say that on saving a life

2) you can absolutely NOT say that with regards to health. Unless you think all plastic surgery is nose and boob jobs.

You seem to love throwing out the word NEVER.
Click to expand...

It was a poor example, I admitted that, and I probably should have said "cosmetic" surgery instead. Nevertheless, you clearly found justification to perform the surgery for "health" reasons. So, we agree, such caveats simply water down such legislation, and would render it ineffective. People find loopholes in the law everyday! If you add the "health exception" to partial birth, it merely gives those people a way to circumvent the law.

The doctors, down to the fricking moron doctor who invented the procedure, all agree that it is never required to save the life of the mother. "Health" can be defined legally as "mental health" and is considered as such by the courts, so a provision for the woman's "health" is simply a way to get around the law.

What would you say about a law that banned smoking, except for "health" reasons? Pretty stupid, huh? Do you think it would work? Or would people claim their 'mental health' was in jeopardy from trying to quit, therefore, they had legitimate reason to continue doing it? It's the same thing here, you are arguing for a caveat that simply flies in the face of reasoning, is not justified, is not needed, and would effectively render such legislation meaningless.
 
Dixie said:
It was a poor example, I admitted that, and I probably should have said "cosmetic" surgery instead. Nevertheless, you clearly found justification to perform the surgery for "health" reasons. So, we agree, such caveats simply water down such legislation, and would render it ineffective. People find loopholes in the law everyday! If you add the "health exception" to partial birth, it merely gives those people a way to circumvent the law.

The doctors, down to the fricking moron doctor who invented the procedure, all agree that it is never required to save the life of the mother. "Health" can be defined legally as "mental health" and is considered as such by the courts, so a provision for the woman's "health" is simply a way to get around the law.

What would you say about a law that banned smoking, except for "health" reasons? Pretty stupid, huh? Do you think it would work? Or would people claim their 'mental health' was in jeopardy from trying to quit, therefore, they had legitimate reason to continue doing it? It's the same thing here, you are arguing for a caveat that simply flies in the face of reasoning, is not justified, is not needed, and would effectively render such legislation meaningless.
Click to expand...
And once again, it is a step, not the goal... It is important to actually do SOMETHING rather than nothing because you can't have what you want now. That is the position of a three year old.

Pass the law, curtail what you can, then fix it later. Instead we have a bunch that won't even pass it when it is gauranteed to be signed by the current President, then they lost control, largely through inaction on important issues, such as the border.
 
If you are unwilling to do anything then you have given them the power to do as they will regardless of the fact that you took a "powerful" stance.
 
Maybe this is past the point of relevancy but as far as the initial point of this thread I think the point of dischord is the difference between what Alex and Dixie see as meaning support and condone.

Alex means that support and condone mean to find it favorable or beneficial.
Dixie means that support and condone mean to find tolerable.

Very different in degree.

If we use Alex's definition I doubt we would say Dixie find farting in public to be something he supports and condone but if he means he can tolerate it then it fits.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Maybe this is past the point of relevancy but as far as the initial point of this thread I think the point of dischord is the difference between what Alex and Dixie see as meaning support and condone.

Alex means that support and condone mean to find it favorable or beneficial.
Dixie means that support and condone mean to find tolerable.

Very different in degree.

If we use Alex's definition I doubt we would say Dixie find farting in public to be something he supports and condone but if he means he can tolerate it then it fits.
Click to expand...

Supporting and condoning something is more than tolerating.
 
And once again, it is a step, not the goal... It is important to actually do SOMETHING rather than nothing because you can't have what you want now. That is the position of a three year old.

Damo, I am trying to get a reprehensible and hideous practice to stop. My objective is to eliminate the procedure completely, that is what "ban" means. To suggest I allow the practice to continue under the guise of re-defined semantics, is not relevant to my objective in any way. I see no purpose in this, and frankly, see no argument from your perspective.

If you want to ban smoking in public, you ban smoking in public, period! You don't pass some watered-down compromise that allows smoking in public for reasons that aren't relevant, and don't really exist, and that people can subjectively interpret to skirt the ban. That is just stupid and ignorant on a number of levels. It completely defeats the purpose of banning it!

We didn't pass a law that said, you can't murder someone in cold blood... unless you find some justification to do it. That would just be stupid to do, wouldn't it? What would be the point? Sure, you would eliminate all cold blooded murders where people would not have any perceived justification for their action... but what have you really accomplished there? Why would you ignorantly make such a stupid compromise? Just to "get along" with the cold blooded murderer's? I don't get it!

Go read about partial birth, go find where it has EVER been performed to save the life of the mother! It is a procedure that takes DAYS to perform, and is NEVER done out of medical necessity! NEVER! NEVER EVER! This isn't "Dixies Opinion" this is the FACT! You just don't want to accept it, and I'm sure you have your foolish reasons, but you can't make me understand why you would ever support such a thing. IT has nothing to do with politics for me, it has to do with stopping doctors from partially birthing an infant, and ramming a pair of scissors into its skull and killing it, where it does feel pain, and it is not necessary for ANY reason! This is an inhumane act that flies in the face of modern medicine and what it is supposed to stand for! There is no argument here with regard to health and life of the mother, NONE! It doesn't exist! I've shown you the testimony from experts in the field, and you've simply ignored them and held to some stupid idiotic belief that this is about right-wing-religious-fanatic-conservative views, when that is simply NOT the case! You've apparently gulped the liberal kool aid on this one, and just refuse to accept reason and logic.

Again, if we were discussing a ban on ALL abortions, I would agree with the argument, there does need to be some provision in the law to protect a woman's health and life, in those cases. This is not about that! There are any number of other ways to terminate a pregnancy, and ALL of them are less risky to a woman's health and life, than partial birth abortion! There is no reason to perform a partial birth abortion, except convenience. It is done at the expense of a partially born human being, and that is just unacceptable in a civilized society, I am sorry. No, I can't support some weak-ass watered down law that would be meaningless and ineffective in BANNING this hideous practice, I can't do that! I can't look at myself in the mirror and justify ANY rational reason to accept the 'red herring' position, and I won't budge on that! If you can find it in your conscience to do so, more power to ya!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top