Louisiana moves to make abortion pills ‘controlled dangerous substances’

[Lursa]

Ask the people that issued a warrant for the doctor’s arrest.

He broke a law regarding performing an abortion in LA. He's not in LA and he didnt perform an abortion in LA. He didnt break the law in prescribing the pills online. Unless you have a link?

Right, that’s why the phrase “She’s having a baby.” doesn’t exist in the English language, and the Mayo Clinic doesn’t start its webpage on a baby’s development in the first trimester with “You're pregnant. Congratulations! You'll undoubtedly spend the months ahead wondering how your baby is growing and developing.” It’s easy to understand, people have no problem calling an unborn a baby until they want to kill them, then we hear “It isn’t a baby, it’s a fetus.” As if “fetus” isn’t simply a medical term for a stage in a baby’s development.

People can use whatever terms they want. A couple happily expecting are emotionally invested, that's great. They should be, I hope. Why are you emotionally invested in stranger's unborn?

And look at you defensively (emotionally) criticizing people for using accurate terms like fetus or embryo. Do you hate doctors and biologists? Do they hate the unborn? It's not wrong to use the correct words and it should never be done when teaching children...using emotional rhetoric instead of facts and science.

Ah, so we are supposed to judge whether something is morally wrong by its legality, right? Which means that the slavers that abortionists resemble were morally justified because slavery was legal.

Where did I mention the law? I wrote "wrong" (a moral term) and authority. Why are you avoiding the question? Please answer it

"Your post seems to imply that having an abortion is wrong. If so, what authority, that US women must follow, says so?"​

​

In other words, who says abortion is wrong?

Do you think Leftists will agree that gun sellers in Red states should be able to sell and mail guns to people in Blue states without a care for the gun laws of those states?

I dont speak for others, why would you ask me that when I spoke for myself, showing your blanket assumptions are wrong?

 

[choiceone]

So a doctor practiced medicine in a state where he lacks a license, resulting in a dead baby, the mother that was coerced to take the pills in the hospital, and the mother that coerced her daughter to kill her granddaughter up on charges. I wonder if the Left would like to see guns treated the same way they want abortion pills treated.

The doctor practiced medicine in NY. There was no dead baby because embryos and fetuses aren't babies and unless the fetus had attained to viability, you can't reasonably make a case that the life was not part of the woman's own.

 

[choiceone]

Ask the people that issued a warrant for the doctor’s arrest.



Right, that’s why the phrase “She’s having a baby.” doesn’t exist in the English language, and the Mayo Clinic doesn’t start its webpage on a baby’s development in the first trimester with “You're pregnant. Congratulations! You'll undoubtedly spend the months ahead wondering how your baby is growing and developing.” It’s easy to understand, people have no problem calling an unborn a baby until they want to kill them, then we hear “It isn’t a baby, it’s a fetus.” As if “fetus” isn’t simply a medical term for a stage in a baby’s development.

I have taught English as a second language for a living, thanks. The expression, "She's having a baby," has two different meanings, depending on context. It either means, "She's going through labor right now," or else, "She's going to have a baby, but she isn't actually doing it right now."

The notion that the embryo is a baby is, by objective standards, false. The woman that wants the pregnancy is projecting the future on the present, as you are doing. The woman that doesn't want the pregnancy doesn't mix up the present and future.

Ah, so we are supposed to judge whether something is morally wrong by its legality, right? Which means that the slavers that abortionists resemble were morally justified because slavery was legal.

The people who were enslaved were persons who breathed, ate, and eliminated without depending on any specific person's body. That's why people ended slavery.

Do you think Leftists will agree that gun sellers in Red states should be able to sell and mail guns to people in Blue states without a care for the gun laws of those states?

 

[Gordy327]

Ask the people that issued a warrant for the doctor’s arrest.

They clearly have no case.

Right, that’s why the phrase “She’s having a baby.” doesn’t exist in the English language, and the Mayo Clinic doesn’t start its webpage on a baby’s development in the first trimester with “You're pregnant. Congratulations! You'll undoubtedly spend the months ahead wondering how your baby is growing and developing.” It’s easy to understand, people have no problem calling an unborn a baby until they want to kill them, then we hear “It isn’t a baby, it’s a fetus.” As if “fetus” isn’t simply a medical term for a stage in a baby’s development.

What about it? It's a commonly used, generic, and emotionally appealing phrase. A more accurate phrase would be, "she is gestating a fetus."

Ah, so we are supposed to judge whether something is morally wrong by its legality, right? Which means that the slavers that abortionists resemble were morally justified because slavery was legal.

What makes abortion wrong and by what authority?

Do you think Leftists will agree that gun sellers in Red states should be able to sell and mail guns to people in Blue states without a care for the gun laws of those states?

Last I checked, the USPS does not allow the general mailing of firearms.

 

[Doug64]

He broke a law regarding performing an abortion in LA. He's not in LA and he didnt perform an abortion in LA. He didnt break the law in prescribing the pills online. Unless you have a link?

He may have been physically present in New York, but the patient he prescribed the drugs for was physically present in Louisiana. Therefore, he was practicing medicine in Louisiana.

People can use whatever terms they want. A couple happily expecting are emotionally invested, that's great. They should be, I hope. Why are you emotionally invested in stranger's unborn?

So you don't care if complete strangers are abusing their children? After all, why would you be emotionally invested in strangers' children?

And look at you defensively (emotionally) criticizing people for using accurate terms like fetus or embryo. Do you hate doctors and biologists? Do they hate the unborn? It's not wrong to use the correct words and it should never be done when teaching children...using emotional rhetoric instead of facts and science.

I have no problem using medical terms in medical settings. What I find abhorrent is people trying to abuse medical terms in order to deny the inherent humanity of the unborn. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all stages of a baby's development up to birth. Because medical practitioners calls a pregnant woman a gravida, does that mean she ceases to be a woman?

Where did I mention the law? I wrote "wrong" (a moral term) and authority. Why are you avoiding the question? Please answer it

"Your post seems to imply that having an abortion is wrong. If so, what authority, that US women must follow, says so?"​

​

In other words, who says abortion is wrong?

When you say "what authority," I'm going to assume you mean someone that has authority to mandate or prohibit behavior--the law. But speaking morally, who says lying is wrong, or stealing, fraud, murder, any number of other actions you could name? Since we're a democratic nation made up of democratic states, one answer is everyone that supports laws opposing those actions--majorities in 27 states of the Union that have placed real restrictions on abortion, according to Guttmacher.

I dont speak for others, why would you ask me that when I spoke for myself, showing your blanket assumptions are wrong?

If you don't want to answer the question, we can move on.

 

[Lursa]

He may have been physically present in New York, but the patient he prescribed the drugs for was physically present in Louisiana. Therefore, he was practicing medicine in Louisiana.

Again, where's the law that he broke an NY law prescribing it? It's no different than if that woman drove there and had him perform an abortion...perfectly legal in NY.

So you don't care if complete strangers are abusing their children? After all, why would you be emotionally invested in strangers' children?

There's no abuse, dont make stuff up. The unborn suffer nothing....the women certainly do. How about the morality of intentionally causing women pain, suffering, health damage, possible death, against their will by denying them a much safer medical procedure?

Cue: "But it's not safe for the baybee!" No kidding?

Now please answer....why are you emotionally invested in strangers' unborn?

I have no problem using medical terms in medical settings. What I find abhorrent is people trying to abuse medical terms in order to deny the inherent humanity of the unborn. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all stages of a baby's development up to birth. Because medical practitioners calls a pregnant woman a gravida, does that mean she ceases to be a woman?

No one's denying the unborn is a human. And who cares if they use the correct term for a pregnant woman? Does the doctor to his patient? No, that's personal. Does the couple expecting a new family member? No, that's personal. They personalize the woman or unborn.

Why are you imagining, personalizing the unborn inside women you dont even know? That's disturbing.

When you say "what authority," I'm going to assume you mean someone that has authority to mandate or prohibit behavior--the law. But speaking morally, who says lying is wrong, or stealing, fraud, murder, any number of other actions you could name? Since we're a democratic nation made up of democratic states, one answer is everyone that supports laws opposing those actions--majorities in 27 states of the Union that have placed real restrictions on abortion, according to Guttmacher.

One authority a lot of people use is God...but as I was specific, US women arent obligated to obey it. So you're good there. Your descriptions of immoral behavior are all harmful to other people. Abortion does not harm a person, it may be sad but necessary, just like other tough decisions in life but by denying women an abortion using the force of law, it's harming her...her life, her health, herself as an individual not a slave, her moral agency.

If it's wrong why do most states allow abortion for between 12-24 weeks? Is the unborn more or less human?

If you don't want to answer the question, we can move on.

I have no problem answering questions, as you can see...I just expect that to go both ways in a "debate."

 

[Gordy327]

He may have been physically present in New York, but the patient he prescribed the drugs for was physically present in Louisiana. Therefore, he was practicing medicine in Louisiana.

Not at all. He filled out a prescription in NY, as he is allowed to do.

So you don't care if complete strangers are abusing their children? After all, why would you be emotionally invested in strangers' children?

What abuse? THe issue is about abortion. There are neither children or abuse in an abortion.

I have no problem using medical terms in medical settings. What I find abhorrent is people trying to abuse medical terms in order to deny the inherent humanity of the unborn. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all stages of a baby's development up to birth. Because medical practitioners calls a pregnant woman a gravida, does that mean she ceases to be a woman?

Medical terminology is accurate and appropriate regardless of setting. Clearly you want some more emotionally appealing.

When you say "what authority," I'm going to assume you mean someone that has authority to mandate or prohibit behavior--the law. But speaking morally, who says lying is wrong, or stealing, fraud, murder, any number of other actions you could name? Since we're a democratic nation made up of democratic states, one answer is everyone that supports laws opposing those actions--majorities in 27 states of the Union that have placed real restrictions on abortion, according to Guttmacher.

Morality is subjective. Some states may have restrictions against abortion. But there is no rational or legal reasons for such restrictions. Neither have the states been able to explain why there should be any.

If you don't want to answer the question, we can move on.

The question is irrelevant to the current topic of discussion. But it has been answered.

 

[SavannahMann]

So a doctor practiced medicine in a state where he lacks a license, resulting in a dead baby, the mother that was coerced to take the pills in the hospital, and the mother that coerced her daughter to kill her granddaughter up on charges. I wonder if the Left would like to see guns treated the same way they want abortion pills treated.

Guns are treated that way.

I can sell one or all of my Guns to anyone. I am not a dealer and do not have to have any sort of background check. Like the Character “Jeebs” in the movie Men in Black, I would just say he looked alright to me.

It would be very hard to convict me of a crime. Even if those guns were used to shoot up a Church, I committed no crime in selling the Guns. The person I sold to doesn’t even have to be a Resident of my State.

In fact, laws on the books would protect me. So long as I didn’t know that the buyer was a Convicted Felon I would be protected from any legal repercussions.

But this case is funny isn’t it? Louisiana had a law that Parents must be notified if an underage girl wanted an Abortion. Parental Consent. The Parents were the ones who were responsible for making decisions about the Child’s Healthcare. The Child was unable to legally decide such things on their own.

Now Mommy, who made a medical decision for their Child is awful, because the State doesn’t agree with that decision.

As usual. Conservatives are hypocrites.

 

[Bodi]

He may have been physically present in New York, but the patient he prescribed the drugs for was physically present in Louisiana. Therefore, he was practicing medicine in Louisiana.

What if the patient came to New York and the doctor knew that patient was returning to LA the next day... is that practicing in LA as well?

So you don't care if complete strangers are abusing their children? After all, why would you be emotionally invested in strangers' children?


I have no problem using medical terms in medical settings. What I find abhorrent is people trying to abuse medical terms in order to deny the inherent humanity of the unborn. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all stages of a baby's development up to birth. Because medical practitioners calls a pregnant woman a gravida, does that mean she ceases to be a woman?

The humanity? Of a zygote?