• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Georgia woman dies due to state abortion laws. Her death was preventable

Napoleon said:
Take your own advice.
Click to expand...
Notice what the person above is NOT doing. He can't explain why section (A) is in the law at all, when it would apply, and so cannot explain why the legislature inserted the exception that includes a necessary condition, "spontaneous" that simply doesn't apply in the case of a deliberate abortion. He cannot explain when section (A) would EVER apply if his reading is correct, because it cannot ever apply. So why is the provision in the law? Who knows, but this allegedly unnecessary exception and the 'spontaneous' required condition are not vague and do not create uncertainty!!!

Apparently everyone who reads the law is obligated to do one of two things: 1) write subsection (A) out of the law entirely, because it's superfluous, or 2) rewrite subsection (A) to omit the "spontaneous" condition. This is supposed to be obvious to doctors whose only downside of being wrong is FELONY, JAIL, LOSS OF CAREER! It's a mystery why they delayed given these trivial downsides of ignoring sections of the law and/or writing out necessary conditions to meet exceptions.

It's really frustrating because the doctors, medical orgs and many others have been telling legislatures that these laws are vague, will cause delays, will harm women, and when those predictions come true, we get gaslighting, victim blaming.

"Doctors should read the law!!!"
OK, tell us how they do that and get clarity?
"Well, they ignore entire sections of the law and necessary conditions in the law!!!"
Maybe that's a problem with the law when the way to get clarity is to ignore exceptions and the conditions required to meet them?
"It's the liberals' fault!!!" "It's the now dead woman's fault!!!" "It's the doctors' fault for delaying when they're only subject to felony and jail if the DA decides the doctor is wrong!!"
 
Napoleon said:
You are and if you want to believe it’s none of your business then you shouldn’t be talking about it.
Click to expand...
Right, when we say, "Hey, here's an idea - let WOMEN and THEIR DOCTORS decide what medical procedures are appropriate!" it is we who are imposing our views on others, by letting THEM make decisions without the state telling them what to do.....
 
JasperL said:
Right, when we say, "Hey, here's an idea - let WOMEN and THEIR DOCTORS decide what medical procedures are appropriate!" it is we who are imposing our views on others, by letting THEM make decisions without the state telling them what to do.....
Click to expand...
If you believe it’s between women and their doctors then you shouldn’t be talking about it either.
 
Napoleon said:
If you believe it’s between women and their doctors then you shouldn’t be talking about it either.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the question should be, what business or concern is it of anyone besides the woman and her doctor?
 
Napoleon said:
You shouldn’t have any questions if you believe it’s between women and doctors.
Click to expand...
Belief is irrelevant. That base question is, how is one's abortion decision anyone else's business or concern other than the woman and doctor?
 
Napoleon said:
You are and if you want to believe it’s none of your business then you shouldn’t be talking about it.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

I am not the on the side of those who are trying to return women to chattel status.

I am not required to follow your religious beliefs, including those on abortion, and you have no right to try and force that on me.
 
ColdHardTruth said:
No, I'm not.

I am not the on the side of those who are trying to return women to chattel status.

I am not required to follow your religious beliefs, including those on abortion, and you have no right to try and force that on me.
Click to expand...
Boo hoo hoo.
 
Napoleon said:
If you believe it’s between women and their doctors then you shouldn’t be talking about it either.
Click to expand...
First of all, you dodged my point at #151, as you and @cpwill must, because you cannot make your case. The law is vague, didn't cover this case, unless you write out parts of the law entirely or omit required conditions the legislature included apparently for fun and games. I love how you guys blame doctors and "hyperbolic" liberals and hospitals, but cannot admit the laws themselves are the problem.

Second, we're talking about it because laws such as those in GA impose severe restrictions on the decisions doctors and women can make. I'm happy to let women make their own decisions. Right wingers in the GA legislature insist THEY should decide for ALL women. That's why we are talking about it. And in this case because those severe restrictions and the penalties for being wrong on what are medical judgment calls include felony charges, jail, loss of career, etc. When those downsides have the intended chilling effect on doctors providing what used to be routine care to pregnant women, we call them out for doing as predicted, and as intended.
 
cpwill said:
Gonna bet this is just like every other case we have seen thus far, and in fact this procedure was completely legal, and instead hyperbolic leftists made the hospital worried it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Bok Tuklo said:
You are awful cavalier when it comes to other people's risk.

But that is the point, I suppose. Other than the cruelty. Use vague language in the law, threaten harsh repercussions, and make it so that ordinary people who just want to live their lives keep their heads down. If some woman bleeds out in a parking lot, that is just a bonus.
Click to expand...

And then, blame the left for the natural consequence of the law right wing theocrats passed.
 
Napoleon said:
Take your own advice.
Click to expand...
We do. We take our freedom from religion very seriously. So did the writers of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", any religion not your religion or my religion or the Pope's religion or Mohammad's religion or Buddha's religion, nobody's religion can be favored.

Oh, yeah don't try to tell us the anti-abortion movement is not a religious movement because you are an atheist. It doesn't matter what you believe; the movement is a religious movement attempting to get tenets of evangelical Protestantism and Catholicism, enacted into laws that all women must follow.
 
Napoleon said:
Abortion mills are the problem. They shouldn’t be handing out abortion pills and telling people to self medicate without capacity for the required follow up procedures. That is malpractice.
Click to expand...
They do have capacity to have follow-up procedures. If the abortion is incomplete and there are retained products of conception ....even in a state that does not allow abortion should be able to provide emergency treatment. It is nasty rhetoric that makes doctors and hospitals fear that they will be faced with serious fines or prison. If there is no longer a fetus that is alive...it is no longer an abortion.

Retained products of conception whether through miscarriage or abortion needs to be managed urgently. Waiting until the woman is in the throes of death to say "now we are legally safe to perform the D and C" is too late.

An analogy for the people who object and would stall to the needed healthcare based on their belief that abortion is a crime......a thief shoots a store owner during a robbery....the victim shoots back. The thief is injured. Does the hospital have to wait until the thief is near death to treat?
 
JasperL said:
Notice what the person above is NOT doing. He can't explain why section (A) is in the law at all, when it would apply, and so cannot explain why the legislature inserted the exception that includes a necessary condition, "spontaneous" that simply doesn't apply in the case of a deliberate abortion. He cannot explain when section (A) would EVER apply if his reading is correct, because it cannot ever apply. So why is the provision in the law? Who knows, but this allegedly unnecessary exception and the 'spontaneous' required condition are not vague and do not create uncertainty!!!

Apparently everyone who reads the law is obligated to do one of two things: 1) write subsection (A) out of the law entirely, because it's superfluous, or 2) rewrite subsection (A) to omit the "spontaneous" condition. This is supposed to be obvious to doctors whose only downside of being wrong is FELONY, JAIL, LOSS OF CAREER! It's a mystery why they delayed given these trivial downsides of ignoring sections of the law and/or writing out necessary conditions to meet exceptions.

It's really frustrating because the doctors, medical orgs and many others have been telling legislatures that these laws are vague, will cause delays, will harm women, and when those predictions come true, we get gaslighting, victim blaming.

"Doctors should read the law!!!"
OK, tell us how they do that and get clarity?
"Well, they ignore entire sections of the law and necessary conditions in the law!!!"
Maybe that's a problem with the law when the way to get clarity is to ignore exceptions and the conditions required to meet them?
"It's the liberals' fault!!!" "It's the now dead woman's fault!!!" "It's the doctors' fault for delaying when they're only subject to felony and jail if the DA decides the doctor is wrong!!"
Click to expand...
Oh, they blame the abortion doctors now, claiming that medication for medication abortions really is unsafe because those doctors couldn't provide the aftercare in cases of complications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom