Thursday, July 28, 2022
Honesty
I think that most people would agree that honesty is important, and that it's especally important in our leaders and our news media. Yet, somehow that's not what we see. After Roe was overturned, we saw the news media, activists, and politicians harping endlessly about how women with ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages would be dying left and right, and we heard about a 10 year old rape victim who chose to drive an onerous 2.5 hours to terminate her child. Yet, as we see in the article below, those concerns were all false. Somehow, the folks who bashed Trump for lying, don't hold others to the same standard.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/every-abortion-law-in-america-protects-women-with-ectopic-pregnancies/
We now know that Dr Birx and others were less than honest about the COVID vaccine, yet many politicians and media members keep repeating the narrative, rather than the Truth.
"I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection"
Then there are the accusations of falsified research on Alzheimers drugs.
https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
How many billions did these folks recieve in federal funding, and how many millions did they make selling flase hope to Alzheimers patients and their families.
Then we also find out that that most of what we've been told about depression isn't True.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/202207/depression-and-serotonin-what-the-new-review-actually-says
Finally, we don't see these sorts of stories getting nearly as much publicity as they should.
https://winteryknight.com/2022/07/25/what-is-it-really-like-for-a-young-woman-to-regret-her-gender-transition-3/
The problem is that for too many, when the narrative is contradicted by the Truth, they choose to stick with the narrative because it's more attractive to them and aligns with their prejudices. Which is fine, until you start holding those you disagree with to a different, and higher standard.
Brian Deese yesterday: "Two negative quarters of negative GDP growth is not the technical definition of recession."
Brian Deese 2008: "Econimists have a technical definition of recseeion, which is two consecutive querters of negative growth."
It's hilarious when people contradict themsleves, and when folks on their side make excuses for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
83 comments:
https://time.com/6194397/abortions-lifesaving-ectopic-pregnancy/
"The problem is that for too many, when the narrative is contradicted by the Truth, they choose to stick with the narrative because it's more attractive to them and aligns with their prejudices."
Indeed. That IS a problem. It's sometimes almost like they wouldn't recognize historic levels of corruption and dishonesty if it smacked them with a 2x4.
Tucker Carlson spoke last night of the lies regarding what constitutes a recession. As you say, it's especially pernicious when the people trying to disabuse the public of the notion are on record as having stated the definition as two months of economic contraction. In the meantime, people aren't concerned with what one calls the situation in which they're struggling to pay bills, buy groceries or stand in line for the first time at a food bank. But people do know what putting lipstick on a pig looks like.
"Indeed. That IS a problem. It's sometimes almost like they wouldn't recognize historic levels of corruption and dishonesty if it smacked them with a 2x4."
Shocking, Dan agrees with something without equivocating.
Art,
If Trump was president, all the MSM and the rest of the people twisting and bending to avoid the obvious would be saying the exact opposite. This is all about establishing a narrative before the mid term elections that we aren't in a resection. Unfortunately, when Q3 numbers come out in Oct, and we have 3 quarters of negative GDP, they'll need to come up with another way to redefine recession.
It's like the meme they posted from the White House Twitter account where it said that the average single peson would save like $35.00 per week since gas has dropped from it's highest price. Ignoring that gas is still roughly twice as expensive as it was when Biden took office.
Interesting, I post a link with the actual language from virtually all 50 states, and Dan counters with an article that says that doctors are confused. I think that any confused doctors can either do their research, or treat their patients with the best possible treatments and in good faith, using the best practices, and trust the government that they'll figure it out.
Strangely enough, the notion of clarifying the nuances of the laws of the state they practice medicine in apparently never crossed the mind of anyone interviewed. Nor did the article actually provide and actual specific cases where anyone was actually harmed by any of these laws. It was all conjecture and supposition.
Actual text of state laws or conjecture and supposition, which is more reasonable to believe?
Even the opening case referenced in the article failed to show how the first timer was in any danger of conflicting with standing law. Of course, the very notion he'd be concerned with his license in one of the most dangerous states for the unborn is comical...except for how evil the whole thing is.
When speaking of ectopic pregnancies, most medical professionals don't even regard dealing with them as abortions in the first place, but the pro-aborts need to portray them in that way. Indeed, it would be difficult to make the case any abortion played any role in actually saving a pregnant woman's life. They simply assert it because the real goal has nothing to do with saving the lives of pregnant women anyway.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/get-facts-straight-treating-ectopic-pregnancy-not-abortion/
The next link provides examples of how baby killers misuse ethical treatments to promote baby killing by pretending abortions are taking place when they're not:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/miscarriage-ectopic-delivery-not-abortions/
Of course, abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-ever-necessary-save-life-mother/
This reality doesn't mitigate the reasonableness of legally providing for the possibility that such a situation might present itself. The problem with doing so however is the fact that pro-abort monsters will abuse the exemption as it suits them to do so. No one would interfere when a "doctor" pretends to play God and dare insist the woman will die without an abortion. They will use this knowledge to perpetuate the heinous practice to their profit and the mother's as well.
What the doctors are saying is that, from their informed medical expert opinion, the laws are just written so poorly and loosely that medical professionals COULD be held accountable. And they are the ones who would know, being, you know, medical experts and all.
But I get that you and the modern conservative/GOP movement think that all knowledge and understanding begins and ends with you and if you don't get a point, then the point must be worthless.
But I prefer to listen to experts and informed people over non-experts and ill-informed people.
But go ahead. Keep telling the medical experts that their medical understanding is faulty. That will help.
The point being, the doctors and their medical expertise and knowledge about stuff that you may not understand are saying that the law is poorly written and poses a threat to them. That is not dishonest. That is their expert opinion on the laws as written.
On the other hand, you calling their honest opinions dishonest is, itself, dishonest. Not your expert opinion.
So, now that that's been pointed out to you, hopefully you'll do the honest thing and admit you misspoke. Come on. Be better than the corrupt modern conservatives living in the shadows of Trump.
As I understand it, as neither a legal nor medical expert, the problem is that the laws have exceptions for the life of the mother, but who decides what is a threat to the mother's life?
Can any doctor make that call? Will they be judged after the fact that the medical experts made a decision wrongly? What are the criteria for what justifies a life of the mother abortion ? Who's making up this criteria? Based on what?
You see the problem, don't you?
What if proceeding with a birth means the mother has a 99% chance of dying, I suppose you think that's a valid reason to have an abortion, to save the life of that mother. Right?
But what if proceeding with the pregnancy only poses a 50% chance that the mother dying, is that justified? What if it's only 35%? What if the doctor cannot accurately give a percentage of the chance of the mother's death? But in that doctor's opinion, it would be best to abort. Who gets to decide and based on what?
The laws do not go into anything like the kind of detail necessary to keep medical staff legally protected. These are all exceedingly reasonable questions, you can understand this, right?
More documentation of the problems...
"If the exemption is for the "life of the mother," then there is a lot more at stake legally. Proving that a woman would have absolutely died without an abortion is a difficult burden to overcome because the risks aren't always clear."
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/what-is-included-in-a-life-of-the-mother-exception-to-an-abortion-ban/
"But look closer at the laws, and you'll see they don't spell out how to determine which health concerns permit an abortion.
That leaves a gray area for doctors considering what to do with a case like Bindeman's, explains Jenni Villavicencio, an OBGYN, and a member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
"We have heard a lot of doctors who are afraid and concerned and not sure how to proceed and take care of the patients that they have in front of them," Dr. Villavicencio said. ..
Newsy found, for the most part, abortion bans are like South Dakota's.
They don't get specific about what medical conditions endanger a pregnant person's life. "
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsy.com/amp/stories/what-health-exceptions-in-abortion-bans-actually-say/
It's pretty impressive that Dan thinks that drs are the best option for legal expertise. Of course, the rest of the comment is just made up bullshit.
I'll simply note that Dan chose not to acknowledge that I linked to the actual text of the state laws, and didn't bother to point out one specific instance where his "medical experts" identified any specific problems with the actual text of the laws.
But that's what happens when you look to get legal expertise from drs.
"But I prefer to listen to experts and informed people over non-experts and ill-informed people."
There is so much that is problematic about Dan's entire comment, represented by this sentence.
1. No where does Dan or the article actually provide any information that indicates that any of the drs referenced are actually "experts" in any relevant field. For example, when an expert witness testifies in court, the attorny is required to demonstrate that the expert witness actually is an expert in a field that is relevant to the case. Dan hasn't done anything of the sort. Merely announced that the people who say things that help his case are "experts" and are beyond questioning.
2. Just because someone might be an "expert" in one field or specialty, doesn't mean that they are an "expert" in other fields or specialties.
3. Dan has previously chosen to ignore "experts" when those "experts" have a financial interest in one particular outcome. I would argue that any dr who does enough abortions to be considered an "expert" has a financial interest in preventing any legislation that would potentially limit abortions.
4. If all drs are medical "experts" as Dan seems to be claiming, then Dan would have to acknowledge that when drs (medical "experts" by his definition), don't agree with his hunches, that he needs to acknowledge that he is wrong and the "experts" are right.
5. The assumption that a dr is automatically a "medical expert" has yet to be proven by Dan. But even if that unproven premise is True, that doesn't mean that an oncologist is a medical "expert" regarding a how to treat cataracts.
6. This is a discussion about the law, medical "experts" really have no standing to offer "expert" testimony regarding legal matters
"The point being, the doctors and their medical expertise and knowledge about stuff that you may not understand are saying that the law is poorly written and poses a threat to them. That is not dishonest. That is their expert opinion on the laws as written."
Because repeating yourself almost verbatim in two consecutive comments is the rational thing to do.
"On the other hand, you calling their honest opinions dishonest is, itself, dishonest."
I'm sorry, perhaps you could point out where I specifically called the medical "experts" opinions "dishonest". Failure to do so will mean that your comment gets ignored.
"but who decides what is a threat to the mother's life?"
I didn't read the actual language in every law, but as I remember many of the laws specify who makes those decisions. For those that don't, wouldn't the logical course be to pass a law that specifies those things? Or perhaps, it would relate to the state laws that concern all medical decisions. It seems like some drs are faced with life and death decisions somewhat regularly, how are those decisions evaluated? Or maybe fall back on the old operating in good faith, and the best interest of the mother principle.
"Can any doctor make that call?"
Do you mean that a dr who isn't treating the patient, or consulting with the treating dr? This seems like a stupid question.
"Will they be judged after the fact that the medical experts made a decision wrongly?"
1. Assuming facts not in evidence. You haven't demonstrated that all drs are "medical experts", or acknowledged that if you really want to set this as your standard that you have to defer to every dr, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
2. Have you ever heard of "malpractice" or that drs already have review boards to make these sorts of determinations already?
3. Drs are routinely judged after the fact, did you not know this?
"What are the criteria for what justifies a life of the mother abortion ?"
In general, anything that puts the life of the mother at significant risk.
"Who's making up this criteria? Based on what?"
The same people that assess risk for every medical procedure that drs perform. State legislators? Who made those decisions when Roe was in force? Drs are trained to make those sorts of risk decisions, they do it all the time. I've had multiple consultations with drs where they go over the risks of various surgeries. It's like you think that abortion is some sort of magical procedure that is completely unrelated to any other medical procedure.
When an abortion dr, perforates the mothers bowel during the abortion, or severs an artery, or something similar, shouldn't they be judged afterwords?
"You see the problem, don't you?"
No.
"What if proceeding with a birth means the mother has a 99% chance of dying, I suppose you think that's a valid reason to have an abortion, to save the life of that mother. Right?"
As I've already said that I believe that saving the life of the mother is one reason for an exception to laws against abortion, I fail to see why you're asking this question.
"But what if proceeding with the pregnancy only poses a 50% chance that the mother dying, is that justified? What if it's only 35%?"
Then there isn't a significant risk of the death of the mother is there? Especially if you balance the risk inherent in any surgery, let alone the risks inherent in abortion.
"What if the doctor cannot accurately give a percentage of the chance of the mother's death?"
Then they'd make the decision like they would in any other surgical procedure of indeterminate risk.
"But in that doctor's opinion, it would be best to abort. Who gets to decide and based on what?"
Well, according to you, the dr is the "medical expert" and should be able to make that decision. What if the "medical expert" is convinced that the risk to the mother is low, but the mother insists on abortion, are you suggesting that she is more qualified than the "medical expert"?
"The laws do not go into anything like the kind of detail necessary to keep medical staff legally protected. These are all exceedingly reasonable questions, you can understand this, right?"
That's quite an unproven, blanket statement for someone who is not a medical or legal expert. Why would I take such an absurd, unproven, hunch seriously enough to reply in detail.
But hey, I answered virtually all of your questions (or asked clarifying questions so that I can better answer them), I guess we'll see how many you answer.
I'm sorry, did Roe v. Wade provide any sort of clear listing of any and all possible situations and what should be done?
Are you suggesting that legislators should make these sorts of decisions?
What is to stop these concerned people from simply coming up with a list of these situations and codifying them into law?
Again, the ones that I read all had language that gives the drs plenty of leeway and holds them to such common legal standards such as "acting in good faith" and "reasonable standards of care".
For example. If a woman goes into the ER and is losing blood due to an ectopic pregnancy complication faster than it can be transfused, then wouldn't the reasonable course of treatment be to stop the bleeding regardless of the consequences? If the application of a tourniquet which might save someone from bleeding to death causes that person to lose a limb, would that risk justify failing to use a tourniquet?
The problem that you have is you can't actually argue on the merits of the case. There's no question that the MSM and liberal politicians are not being honest about these laws. hell you're not being honest. You can't deny that there are exceptions in virtually every single state that would allow abortion (or similar procedures) to save the life of the mother. So, you are left with criticizing the exceptions laws because some people tell you that they aren't 100% perfectly, crystal clear. Of course 100% perfectly, crystal clear is an unreasonable standard, but the fact that you can find some people you consider "experts" to obfuscate the Truth is all you care about.
The reality is that your entire argument, hinges on the fact that these exceptions ARE written into the law. The MSM and liberal politicians are lying about these exceptions, and your choose to ignore the fact that the exceptions exist (and the DFL candidates and the MSM are lying about them), and focus on the (tiny) possibility that there will be a rare case that isn't a perfect fit.
Do you not understand that making laws based on incredibly rare exceptions, leads to bad laws?
While the pendulum has been on your side regarding answering questions for quite a few threads over the last several months, there are a fair number of questions in this thread for you to answer. Given the reality that many of those questions represent impediments to me in answering all of your questions, I will be insisting that any comments after 4:50 CDT on August 1 prioritize answering questions. I will further request that they be organized in a format where the full quote of the question is followed immediately by the entirety of a clear, concise answer.
I know this might interfere with your usual stream of consciousness rambling comments, but I'm asking you for you help so that I don't have to try to figure out what specific questions you're answering.
I had to point out one more thing. Dan's entire argument hinges on one article where a few "medical experts" throw out some extreme hypothetical possibilities about what they think might happen. It's all hypothetical, what if scenarios that don't support the narrative that these exceptions don't exist. I guess it's now honesty to lie about something if it furthers the liberal agenda.
Dan's "concerns" would seem more sincere if it was joined with denying all abortions where there was clearly no threat to the mother's life to bring the pregnancy to term.
Craig...
"did Roe v. Wade provide any sort of clear listing of any and all possible situations and what should be done?"
Nope. That's the point. The decision should be made by the mothers and their medical and familiar support, not legislators dictating their religious hunches on others.
"Are you suggesting that legislators should make these sorts of decisions?"
Nope. That's the point. The decision should be made by the mothers and their medical and familiar support, not legislators dictating their religious hunches on others.
"What is to stop these concerned people from simply coming up with a list of these situations and codifying them into law?"
The GOP, primarily. The point would be that there ARE NO "list of rules for given situations" that can be created, it's a medical decision between a doctor, their patient and their support people/family. That's the point.
"Again, the ones that I read all had language that gives the drs plenty of leeway and holds them to such common legal standards such as "acting in good faith" and "reasonable standards of care"."
I don't care what you read into the laws. The reality is, given the loose language of the laws, these medical experts could be held legally accountable for decisions they and their patients made in good faith.
That's the point. It doesn't MATTER what you think. Get it?
"If a woman goes into the ER and is losing blood due to an ectopic pregnancy complication faster than it can be transfused, then wouldn't the reasonable course of treatment be to stop the bleeding regardless of the consequences? If the application of a tourniquet which might save someone from bleeding to death causes that person to lose a limb, would that risk justify failing to use a tourniquet?"
I'm not a medical expert NOR the patient. That's a call to be made by the patient and their medical experts. NOT a bunch of religious zealots. That's the point.
"The problem that you have is you can't actually argue on the merits of the case. There's no question that the MSM and liberal politicians are not being honest about these laws."
Bullshit. That is a stupidly false claim that YOU can't support. Any rational human who is not blinded by religious zealotry can see that reporters and politicians are just reporting what the experts are saying. That's the point. Your claim of them being dishonest is, itself dishonest and stupidly dishonest. You can't prove it. It's an empty, false claim. IF you could prove it, you would. You can't and you won't.
Can you admit you can't prove it?
Be better than that.
THere. There's a batch of direct, clear, obviously factual or reasonable answers from me in the face of your opting to NOT admit your false claims are false and that's why you're not answering questions. You were caught in a stupidly false claim and you're not adult enough to admit it.
"If a woman goes into the ER and is losing blood due to an ectopic pregnancy complication faster than it can be transfused, then wouldn't the reasonable course of treatment be to stop the bleeding regardless of the consequences?"
I don't know. I'm not a medical expert. That's the point. It's a decision for the medical expert and the person and family involved. That's the point.
"The problem that you have is you can't actually argue on the merits of the case."
Another stupidly false claim period of course I'm arguing on the merits of the case. Medical decisions are tricky complex scenarios. Such decisions about people's lives should be made by the person and their medical advisers and their families and loved ones. Not by some religious zealot legislator.
That's precisely the point. That's precisely the merits of the case.
Why wouldn't medical decisions be made by the people involved and their medical advisers, instead of legislators? Argue on the merits of the case, indeed. How was that not the merit to the case?
Another question for you to ignore. Another stupidly false claim for you to make and not even try to support.
Art,
Absolutely.
"Nope. That's the point. The decision should be made by the mothers and their medical and familiar support, not legislators dictating their religious hunches on others."
Actually Roe DID place some restrictions on abortion, and DID NOT allow for unrestricted abortions. It seems as though you are saying that there should be absolutely zero restrictions on abortion, as long as the "mothers and their medical and familiar" all agree. Is this what you are saying, that absolutely zero restrictions should be put on abortion as long as the "mothers and their medical and familiar" decide that it's appropriate?
"I don't care what you read into the laws. The reality is, given the loose language of the laws, these medical experts could be held legally accountable for decisions they and their patients made in good faith."
What an interesting position to take. To openly admit that you don't care what the actual language of the laws in question say (regardless of your attempt to imply that I can't read and interpret straightforward English), what other laws do you not care about?
'That's the point. It doesn't MATTER what you think. Get it?"
Since I've never once even hinted that what I think is the standard for anything, this is a bizarre and absurd thing to "ask". What does matter is what the law says, and you still haven't pointed out one example of a law that doesn't make exceptions for saving the life of the mother. Nor have you explained how focusing on these extremely rare cases has any application to the vast majority of abortions in which the abortion isn't about saving the life of the mother.
"The GOP, primarily."
Please name specific examples with details of instances where that GOP has actively opposed legal language that would prevent abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk?
"I'm not a medical expert NOR the patient. That's a call to be made by the patient and their medical experts. NOT a bunch of religious zealots. That's the point."
Impressive. Claiming ignorance as if that ignorance is somehow something to be proud of. Do you literally not understand that there is literally no medical decision that is completely unregulated, and free from scrutiny after the fact? The fact that you think that you have to be a "medical expert" to decide when to perform life saving care makes me damn glad you'll never be in a position to make these decisions.
"Bullshit. That is a stupidly false claim that YOU can't support."
I literally provided evidence that there is no law, in any state that would prevent a woman from having the results of an ectopic pregnancy removed if it threatened her life, which is being reported regularly in the media. You haven't even interacted with the actual language you rail against, and this is your attempt to dodge reality?
"Can you admit you can't prove it?"
Why would I admit that I can't prove something so obviously True? The MSM and liberal politicians are pushing the narrative that women will die from ectopic pregnancies because of the laws in place after Roe, this is simply a false narrative.
"Another stupidly false claim period of course I'm arguing on the merits of the case."
The "case" I'm referring to is the topic of the post. The "case" you can't make, and are actively avoiding discussing, is the fact that the MSM, liberals, and folks like you are pushing a false narrative, which is demonstrated to be false if one only reads the actual text of the laws y'all are lying about.
Further, reverence of the left for 9 old white men legislating from the bench and the fear from the left of simply allowing the legislative process to work, would be amusing of if wasn't so pathetic.
"Why wouldn't medical decisions be made by the people involved and their medical advisers, instead of legislators?"
Which is exactly what the current laws allow in the tiny number of cases where abortion (or a similar procedure) might be necessary to save the life of the mother.
"Argue on the merits of the case, indeed. How was that not the merit to the case?"
Because the "case" in the context of this post, is the reality that there is a false narrative being pushed by the MSM and the APL which is intended to use the incredibly rare instances where a mother's life might be at risk due to complications from a pregnancy, as a means to legitimize all abortion for any reason up to (and past) birth. It's a despicable tactic designed to leverage these incredibly rare situations and the women and children they affect to move forward a political goal.
"https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/27/as-abortion-rights-constitutional-amendment-heads-to-ballot-governor-newsom-takes-additional-new-action-to-protect-women-and-providers-in-california/"
Given you opposition to legislators or the public making medical decisions, I can only presume that you oppose the bill above.
I have to ask, does your opposition to keeping medical decisions between "the patient and their medical experts." apply to any and all medical decisions?
Do you object to any restrictions being placed on decisions between "the patient and their medical experts"?
Are you caliming that all drs are "medical experts"?
Art,
Along with your obvious point, what I find strange is that I'm literally agreeing with Dan that there should be protections and exceptions in place for this tiny minority of cases where a woman might die as the result of something going wrong with a pregnancy. I'm literally pointing out that the protections/exceptions that Dan claims to want are already written into these laws. I'm literally and unequivocally saying that there are a tiny number of situations where the life of the mother takes priority over the life of the child (especially if the child is already dead, miscarriage, or is unable to survive, ectopic pregnancy). As you note the problem is in the attempt to use a tiny minority of instances (I've posted the numbers before), to justify the vast majority of abortions for convenience.
Craig...
"What does matter is what the law says, and you still haven't pointed out one example of a law that doesn't make exceptions for saving the life of the mother."
sigh. You're still not understanding. READ CLOSELY AND COMPREHEND:
NO. ONE. IS. SAYING. THAT. THE. LAWS. BANNING. ABORTIONS. DON'T. HAVE. WORDS. SAYING. "to save the life of the mother."
Understand that much?
What we're saying is that the language goes undefined, leaving open the possibility of causing harm to the medical professionals who perform an abortion based upon their medical expertise.
One of the actual laws, grabbed at random. From Oklahoma:
"Medical emergency"means a condition in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself"
https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB4327/2022
WHO WILL DECIDE if the procedure what "necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman..."? Based upon WHAT criteria? What if someone later on says, "Hey! That wasn't necessary!"? Will medical experts be charged with murder? Lose their license?
It literally is not spelled out. And as you should know, even if you're ignorant of legalities: Vague laws are bad laws.
Craig has endlessly said some version of this:
"As you note the problem is in the attempt to use a tiny minority of instances (I've posted the numbers before), to justify the vast majority of abortions for convenience."
No one is doing this. I'm not doing this.
You're asking the wrong questions, ignoring the right questions and making stupidly false claims demonstrating dishonesty on your part (to the point of the post).
Speaking of stupidly false claims:
" is the fact that the MSM, liberals, and folks like you are pushing a false narrative, which is demonstrated to be false if one only reads the actual text of the laws y'all are lying about. "
Prove it, liar. THIS ITSELF is a damned lie and a stupid one. Anyone stupid enough to make such a claim should swat themselves in the head with a 2x4 until they recognize why it's a stupidly, obtusely false claim.
IF medical and legal experts are raising a legitimate concern, and
IF reporters report their concerns, and
IF politicians cite those concerns,
THEN, there is nothing - not one single blessed thing in all of heaven and earth - that is false about it. YOUR CLAIM itself, is false, as I've just demonstrated.
Reporting what experts are saying is NOT a false claim on the part of anyone.
If you want to try to unravel reality and make that claim, then the onus is on the liar (aka, you) to support it. Empty, stupidly false claims do not stand on their own. They just get flushed down the toilet with the rest of your loose diarrhea.
Craig...
"Given you opposition to legislators or the public making medical decisions, I can only presume that you oppose the bill above."
Please explain precisely HOW this law involves the public or legislators making private medical decisions for others (ie, forcing their religious and/or philosophical views on someone's medical decisions against their will).
I'll wait.
When you can't do that, feel free to apologize for falsely representing what the law in question does.
Politicians providing protection for INDIVIDUALS to make their own medical decisions is not the same as politicians forcing their religious/philosophical views on others by forcing them to adhere to the politicians' religious views on medical decisions.
One is a protection of liberty, the other is an infringement upon liberty, including religious liberty.
Did you know that many (most?) Jewish folk do not consider personhood to be part a fetus... that personhood comes with the first breath (ie, after they're born)?
Are you okay with forcing Jewish people against their religious views to proceed with fetal development against their own religious beliefs/views? What about their religious liberty?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/
Craig...
"I have to ask, does your opposition to keeping medical decisions between "the patient and their medical experts." apply to any and all medical decisions?"
Yes, short of mental illness, I reckon. That is, if a person does not have the capacity to make a decision (a fetus, a baby, a severely incapacitated person, etc), then it should be between the family/supporters of the person/baby/fetus and the medical advisers.
You?
"Do you object to any restrictions being placed on decisions between "the patient and their medical experts"?"
I'd be wary of any restrictions. IF the medical advisers were incompetent or criminal, not then. If the individual is severely mentally incapacitated, not then. But I'd be very wary otherwise.
"Are you caliming that all drs are "medical experts"?"
All medical doctors and other related specialists in medical fields are, by definition, medical experts. Of course, some could be incompetent medical experts, but that doesn't make them not medical experts.
Do you disagree with this notable reality?
Craig...
"Please name specific examples with details of instances where that GOP has actively opposed legal language that would prevent abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk? "
This is not what I've said. Read what I've said instead of reading INTO what I've said something that I haven't said. Don't be obtuse.
From WaPo, here are three examples of real world abortion complications that have arisen because of these changing laws removing women's rights to self-determination:
"A woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy sought emergency care at the University of Michigan Hospital after a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new restrictions on abortion.
At one Kansas City, Mo., hospital, administrators temporarily required “pharmacist approval” before dispensing medications used to stop postpartum hemorrhages, because they can also be also used for abortions.
And in Wisconsin, a woman bled for more than 10 days from an incomplete miscarriage after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue amid a confusing legal landscape that has roiled obstetric care."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/16/abortion-miscarriage-ectopic-pregnancy-care/
IF it is happening in the real world, and
IF reporters report on what's really happening in the real world,
THEN it is not false to report on it.
Not sure what you're failing to understand about facts and false claims and dishonesty.
Perhaps you're ready to apologize for your dishonesty?
As you can see if you're reading actual journalism (from the same article):
"While state abortion bans typically carve out exceptions when a woman’s life is endangered, the laws can be murky, prompting some obstetricians to consult lawyers and hospital ethics committees on decisions around routine care."
No one is saying in the media that these laws don't have language in place. They're pointing out the reality that medical and legal experts are noting the language is too vague to be good legal doctrine.
Any time you're prepared to apologize for your dishonesty - just admit you made a mistake. No one will think lesser of you for it. It will show good will and intellectual honesty on your part.
Craig...
" It seems as though you are saying that there should be absolutely zero restrictions on abortion, as long as the "mothers and their medical and familiar" all agree. Is this what you are saying, that absolutely zero restrictions should be put on abortion as long as the "mothers and their medical and familiar" decide that it's appropriate?"
Abortion IS a medical procedure. I probably tend to say that any medical decisions should be made by individuals and their medical experts and family/supporters. You want to have implants put under your forehead to give you the appearance of "horns..."? Doesn't seem wise to me, but that's really between you and your medical experts.
You are being told that your pregnancy may result in death or medical trauma for you and they're advising you to get an abortion? That's your call to make. What if you're 20 weeks along and this is what you think is best, given your medical expert's advise? That's your decision to make. What if you're nearly to term - eight or nine months - and it's what your medical experts are recommending? Again, your call to make.
So, pretty wide open to people making their own medical decisions about their own lives, if that's what you're asking.
Now, are you a white woman pregnant with your boyfriend who is of a different race and your daddy is wanting you to abort that child because he doesn't want a mixed race child? I'd certainly say that's not a medically viable reason to have an abortion and it's a morally repugnant reason.
What if you've learned that your child will be born with Down Syndrome and you want to abort for that reason? Again, that's not a medically viable reason to have an abortion and it's morally repugnant, in my opinion.
But what if you've learned that your fetus, if born, will be born with severe medical conditions and may/will be in great pain if carried to completion? More complex. I'm generally opposed to the idea of having an abortion for reasons that you don't like the fetus' race/gender/physical condition (ie, having a disability). But I think it's obviously a continuum and I tend to trust the mothers and their supporters to make that call over the gov't.
As already noted: Not every faith tradition would affirm a fetus has personhood, so it would seem to be contrary to freedom of self-determination and freedom of religion to force someone to carry a fetus to birth to please my religion/philosophy.
Does that answer your question? I hope you can understand that it's a complex question with no simple answer.
I'm going to start with the obvious. Dan scrounged around and found 3 cases where drs were so confused by the laws in their states that they had to make accommodations. That's right, 3.
1. You'll note that in none of the 3 cases he cites, did he actually look at what the state law actually said. he's merely choosing to accept things that he believes further his cause.
2. The other question is what is the remedy to these 3 situations. From what Dan has hinted at so far, his response is to simply remove any and all laws regarding any sort of abortion or abortion like procedure because there was confusion on the part of 3 drs.
3. Dan appeared earlier to completely dismiss changing the laws to add clarity and remove confusion, so I guess the only possible answer to to use these incredibly rare instances to justify all abortion, at any time, for any reason.
"IF it is happening in the real world, and IF reporters report on what's really happening in the real world, THEN it is not false to report on it."
Where did I say that reporting on actual events in the real world was "false"?
"Not sure what you're failing to understand about facts and false claims and dishonesty."
What you're "sure" about has zero bearing on anything.
"Perhaps you're ready to apologize for your dishonesty?"
Perhaps you can show me where I've been "dishonest" by quoting my "dishonest" claim in context, and showing me the data that proves my quoted claim was incorrect. FYI, Maybe you've missed it when I've said the following.
1. I've always acknowledged that this tiny minority of situations exist, and that the laws should acknowledge and accommodate those exceptions.
2. I've posted the actual numbers of these exceptions which demonstrate how tiny in number they are.
3. I've pointed out that the actual language of the laws you want to repeal already allows for these exceptions.
I know it's hard to accept for someone with your exceptional academic background, but maybe the problem is that you're attributing things to me that I haven't actually said.
"As you can see if you're reading actual journalism (from the same article): "While state abortion bans typically carve out exceptions when a woman’s life is endangered, the laws can be murky, prompting some obstetricians to consult lawyers and hospital ethics committees on decisions around routine care." No one is saying in the media that these laws don't have language in place. They're pointing out the reality that medical and legal experts are noting the language is too vague to be good legal doctrine. Any time you're prepared to apologize for your dishonesty - just admit you made a mistake. No one will think lesser of you for it. It will show good will and intellectual honesty on your part."
1. At last you acknowledge that the narrative that the laws don't already have exceptions is false.
2. Yet you seem to be arguing that the only possible solution to language that you perceive to be "murky" (I have to note that you haven't actually provided any actual language that troubles you) is to eliminate all laws that restrict any abortions in any way.
3. I literally agree with you that these rare instances should be exempted from these laws, as do the people who wrote the laws, yet you're insistent in fomenting a disagreement where there is none. Beyond your insistence in using this tiny minority of tragic situation to remove any and all restrictions on abortion for any reason.
Craig...
"Claiming ignorance as if that ignorance is somehow something to be proud of."
I didn't claim ignorance. I stated reality. I am NOT a medical expert. YOU are not a medical expert. I and you and some old white congressman are NOT the people involved. That's not claiming ignorance. That's stating reality.
Do you understand the difference?
Seriously. Don't pass that by. You made a rather astonishing and stupidly couple of false claims there and ignored the reality of the matter, which I was simply noting. There's nothing whatsoever about being "proud of ignorance" in noting simple reality.
"Do you literally not understand that there is literally no medical decision that is completely unregulated, and free from scrutiny after the fact?"
This, of course, is astoundingly false. Incorrect. We make unregulated medical decisions every day. I suspect that you're speaking of medical experts, though, that they are not free of scrutiny after the fact. And yes, that IS true. If doctors withhold an abortion to save the life of the mother, for instance, EVEN THOUGH they knew the mother's life was at risk, and they did so because they were philosophically opposed to abortion, for instance, that doctor might be held liable, after the fact, for failing to take action.
But that's different than a doctor who believes that there is some "high risk" of potential medical trauma or even death for a woman, and advises her of that, and the woman choosing to have an abortion... than them being scrutinized or even criminalized after the fact because some backseat religious zealot makes a claim that "this was not medically necessary!" or even if there is a constant risk of backseat hyperscrutiny based on religious opposition to abortion, NOT based on the facts as the medical staff had available to them.
But this gets to those questions that you keep ignoring. Answer them and then maybe we'll get somewhere.
"Understand that much?"
No, because I see the headlines, read the stories, read the social media posts and see the protest signs.
You literally look like a literal moron when you make these stupid "NO ONE" claims.
"WHO WILL DECIDE if the procedure what "necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman..."?"
Since you took the snippet from the law out of context, I guess we'll never know what the law actually says, will we? But the assumption would be that it's the same process that takes place in every other medical decision where someone's life is at risk. Are you really so stupid and blinded by zeal for abortion that you don't realize that there are already guidelines in place for these types of decisions? It it really so confusing to conclude that a woman who's hemorrhaging (regardless of the cause) needs to have the bleeding stopped ASAP?
"Based upon WHAT criteria?"
Again, without context we won't know what the law says, but we can assume. Again, the medical profession has all sorts of guidelines for these types of decisions, why would those be the starting point? Or why not add specifics to the bill?
"What if someone later on says, "Hey! That wasn't necessary!"? Will medical experts be charged with murder? Lose their license?"
I asked something like this earlier and you didn't answer, so I'll try again. Are you unaware that the medical profession already has mechanisms in place to evaluate these kinds of situations? Are you aware that every medical decision that ends in the death of a patient, or a negative outcome is studied and evaluated and carries the risk of losing one's license, civil litigation, or criminal charges? Are you really suggesting that abortion is some sort of magical procedure that is exempt from the standards and practices of the entire US medical community?
"Vague laws are bad laws."
So why wouldn't you heartily support making them less vague?
"As you note the problem is in the attempt to use a tiny minority of instances (I've posted the numbers before), to justify the vast majority of abortions for convenience."
"No one is doing this. I'm not doing this."
Again with the nonsensical "NO ONE" statements. Again, I read/watch/listen to the news, follow liberals on social media and see the placards/her the chants at the protests. The question is, what are you doing? What is your solution?
"You're asking the wrong questions, ignoring the right questions and making stupidly false claims demonstrating dishonesty on your part (to the point of the post)."
Who made you the arbiter of what questions are the "right" questions? Why would you even make this stupidly, hubris filled claim?
Craig...
"1. At last you acknowledge that the narrative that the laws don't already have exceptions is false."
There is NO SUCH "NARRATIVE." That claim is the stupidly false one.
By all means, SUPPORT your stupidly false claim if you think you can.
But you can't so you won't.
The question remains: Will you apologize for this ongoing arrogant attack on honesty and decency?
" is the fact that the MSM, liberals, and folks like you are pushing a false narrative, which is demonstrated to be false if one only reads the actual text of the laws y'all are lying about. "
"Prove it, liar. THIS ITSELF is a damned lie and a stupid one. Anyone stupid enough to make such a claim should swat themselves in the head with a 2x4 until they recognize why it's a stupidly, obtusely false claim."
I know your attention span is similar to a goldfish, but do you really not remember the 10 year old girl who was impregnated (read raped) by someone within her family circle? The MSM and the rest all agreed that OH law prevented her from getting an abortion in OH, and he had to make the grueling 2 hour trip to Indy to get the abortion. Except we find that she OH law would have accommodated her, and the her dr didn't engage in her duty as a mandatory reporter, and that he mother was trying to keep the rapist out of jail. That's only the most well known of the cases, and enough to demonstrate the idiocy of your "NO ONE" claims.
"IF medical and legal experts are raising a legitimate concern, and
IF reporters report their concerns, and
IF politicians cite those concerns,
THEN, there is nothing - not one single blessed thing in all of heaven and earth - that is false about it. YOUR CLAIM itself, is false, as I've just demonstrated."
Yet, I've never said anything like any of that. But if you need to lie to protect your narrative, go ahead. I'll simply note your complete lack of actual in context quotes to back up any of your bullshit.
"Reporting what experts are saying is NOT a false claim on the part of anyone."
It is if the claim is false. Are you really suggesting that "experts" are never wrong?
Since Dan is just regurgitating his same old talking points, slinging bullshit, and wasting my time, I'll take a break and note that he's stopped answering the questions that I told him needed to be answered. He answered some of them, but not all. Now he's choosing to go one the offensive as a way to dodge the questions he's skipped.
Craig...
" The MSM and the rest all agreed that OH law prevented her from getting an abortion in OH, and he had to make the grueling 2 hour trip to Indy to get the abortion. Except we find that she OH law would have accommodated her, and the her dr didn't engage in her duty as a mandatory reporter, and that he mother was trying to keep the rapist out of jail. That's only the most well known of the cases, and enough to demonstrate the idiocy of your "NO ONE" claims. "
That you fail to accurately understand reporting is not a proof that they are being dishonest, only that you are, as always, failing to understand written words with a scary regularity.
Go ahead, CITE the news story where something known to be false was reported.
When you can't (and you won't) have the decency to admit you can't.
"Please explain precisely HOW this law involves the public or legislators making private medical decisions for others (ie, forcing their religious and/or philosophical views on someone's medical decisions against their will)."
Excellent dodge of the question I asked. While misrepresenting the reason I asked it.
Therefor I'm done with addressing that comment.
Do you oppose any and all laws/ordinances/regulations/etc that require people to engage in medical procedures or treatments when those procedures or treatments are deemed by the patient and their "medical experts" to be unwanted or unnecessary?
Given the indisputable legal fact that minors are not allowed to enter into a contract or to legally consent to medical treatment, who is making decisions for the child when the parents are prevented by the state from exercising their parental rights?
"Yes, short of mental illness, I reckon."
You seem very sure about this answer, are you really positive that you are 100% committed to removing any and all levels of government from any and all medical decisions and leaving those (with your exceptions of age and incapacity) decisions 1005 in the hands of the patient and their medical professional?
"You?"
Not 100% no. I don;t think I'd be comfortable with a patient and their "medical expert" deciding that the treatment for a hangnail is high doses of Fentanyl? I also like the fact that we as a country have decided that we'll hold our "medical experts" and medical facilities to certain standards of competency and cleanliness etc. So, I'm not for a medical system that's completely 100% based on what the patient and their "medical professional" want to do.
"I'd be wary of any restrictions."
What does that even mean? How about being specific?
"All medical doctors and other related specialists in medical fields are, by definition, medical experts. Of course, some could be incompetent medical experts, but that doesn't make them not medical experts."
Really so you are saying that the dr who graduated last in his class from a no name med school in the Caribbean, is just as much of an expert as Ben Carson? Or that Ben Carson is just as much of an expert about Diverticulitis as a GI dr? Is the possibility that any particular dr was forced to perform one abortion in medical school make them an expert on abortion? Does a dr who has a financial interest in performing as many of a particular procedure as possible really qualify as an expert? An unbiased expert?
"Do you disagree with this notable reality?"
Yes, I do. Especially with medicine being so specialized now. Expertise on the pancreas doesn't equate to "medical expertise" beyond that.
REAL LIFE EXAMPLE. A friend of mine who is an excellent opthalmologist was considering oing to Haiti after the earthquake years ago. He freely admitted that he was NOT a medical expert in the kind of conditions he'd be asked to treat and acknowledged that he'd essentially be functioning as a nurse. This is also why most drs are unlikely to stop and treat someone in a car accident, because the know the limits of their expertise.
Given that reality, shouldn't anyone offered as an "expert" actually have to have expertise in the specific field they're speaking on as a bare minimum?
Craig: Q-"What is to stop these concerned people from simply coming up with a list of these situations and codifying them into law?"
Dan: A' "The GOP, primarily."
Also Dan, (disputing that he said the above) "This is not what I've said."
Dan's answer to a specific question abut what is stopping people from clarifying these "murky" laws was "The GOP, primarily"
But he really didn't say that at all.
I'm not even going to try to unravel Dan's complicated and meandering non answer to the question of whether or not he agrees with any restrictions on abortion. He starts out sounding like he doesn't think there should be, then he starts pulling from his prejudices and indicates that he doesn't think that X,Y, or Z is a good enough reason to abort. In short, it sounds like he's trying to avoid saying what he seems to be saying.
For the reasons he thinks abortion is not appropriate (race,Downs,disability) one wonders why.
1. If the fetus isn't a fully human person at it's appropriate stage of development, what difference does it make?
2. What if it's born with one of the conditions Dan feels like it would have been OK to abort, can the baby still be terminated after it's born? (If it has an illness that will resort on the possibility of pain, or a shortened life span for example)
3.
"You are being told that your pregnancy may result in death or medical trauma for you and they're advising you to get an abortion? That's your call to make. What if you're 20 weeks along and this is what you think is best, given your medical expert's advise? That's your decision to make. What if you're nearly to term - eight or nine months - and it's what your medical experts are recommending?"
These questions all seem to fall under the exceptions that everyone agrees are already present in virtually every state law. So, I feel like repeating myself would be a waste of time. If Dan's too stupid to get it by now, one more repetition isn't going to help.
I think this is why he dodged comment on his support of the CA law, because he knows that the CA law expands abortion to virtually any time, for any reasons, no restrictions, and he was very clear that "NO ONE" is advocating that.
As is usual when Dan does this sort of thing, it's possible that I missed something no matter how hard I tried, I also suspect he'll ignore the reasons why I ignored one comment, and that I summarized his whopping 3 cases rather than deal with them individually as an excuse not to answer any of the questions he's already dodged, or will likely ignore. I guess I'll have to make calls about the worthiness of his future comments at the time I see them.
Craig...
"You seem very sure about this answer, are you really positive that you are 100% committed to removing any and all levels of government from any and all medical decisions and leaving those"
No, not sure at all. Generally speaking, YES, I do trust individuals to make their own decisions - even poorly - especially given advice from actual experts (and when I say expert, I don't mean that if you put a sign up and say "I treet brane surgerys for CHEEP, o boy!" that you are a qualified or good expert.
Because of course.
Yes, generally I support people making their own decisions with advice from experts. But there may indeed be exceptions. Indeed, I've made a few. I didn't say my exceptions were limited to just those couple/few. Those were just a couple that came to me. Let's talk specifics and I can give you more specific answers.
But if you want to speak in vague generalities, yes, I trust people to make their own decisions and with expert advice, in cases where expertise is needed.
Do you think otherwise?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-sues-idaho-abortion-ban-first-post-roe
This is an excellent example of the DOJ, MSM, and liberal social media pushing a false narrative in order to push a narrative.
The relevant section of Idaho Law seems reasonably clear.
"The physician determined in his good faith medical judgement and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman."
1. The law specifies who is empowered to make the decision.
2. It sets out criteria to inform the decision (the legal principle of good faith, and medical judgement based on the facts, only on the facts known at the time).
3. It's clear about the purpose. To prevent the death of the pregnant women.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith
All the above comment really does is raises the question again. Are you 100% sure that you support removal of the government from any and all medical decisions?
Your vague, generalized answers don't see to really help much. Your "Yes, but..." really means no, yet you seem adamant that in this one specific circumstance you want the government 100% removed from the decision.
So, if you are so concerned with specifics, be specific.
Do you believe that the government should be 100% excluded from all medical decisions and the the dr and patient should have 100% freedom to decide what's best?
Do you believe that in the case of abortion, that the government role should be different than from any other medical decision?
Do you believe that abortion should be restricted or limited in any way?
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-06-24/black-women-abortion-roe-v-wade-maternal-mortality
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2318570-how-repealing-roe-v-wade-in-the-us-will-lead-to-more-womens-deaths/
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturn-economic-impact/
These three are representative of the narrative being pushed. Essentially the repeal of Roe means women will die because the state laws don't have exceptions.
"That you fail to accurately understand reporting is not a proof that they are being dishonest, only that you are, as always, failing to understand written words with a scary regularity."
It's dishonest of they don't correct their mistakes, or if they leave out relevant information that was available to them in the story.
"Do you understand the difference?"
Yes, I understand that you seem to be claiming that it's impossible for anyone other than a "medical expert" to understand anything related to medical decisions, and that the people's elected representatives are too stupid to write laws regarding medical restrictions. I can only assume that you would consider Rand Paul MD is someone who actually is a "medical expert" and who is an elected legislator completely qualified to write and understand these laws, correct?
"I suspect that you're speaking of medical experts, though, that they are not free of scrutiny after the fact. And yes, that IS true. If doctors withhold an abortion to save the life of the mother, for instance, EVEN THOUGH they knew the mother's life was at risk, and they did so because they were philosophically opposed to abortion, for instance, that doctor might be held liable, after the fact, for failing to take action."
Given that the context is a discussion about "medical experts" making medical decisions, about a medical procedure, of course I'm not talking about taking a freaking Advil for a freaking headache.
But the reality is that drs decisions are regulated, examined, on virtually every decision they make, especially those involving great risk, life and death, etc.
Your bizarre attempt to separate decisions about abortion from every other medical procedure or instances where lives are at risk is simply stupid. To try to ignore the fact that there are literally zero medical decisions abut medical treatment by medical doctors that are made with zero restriction, oversight, and risk of sanction is simply stupid.
It's almost like y'all want separate, looser, virtually zero restrictions on abortion regardless of how the rest of the medical community is regulated.
For example.
1. Should every stand alone abortion clinic be required to meet all of the state, local, and federal requirements for an stand alone surgical center?
2. Should stand aloe abortion clinics be held to the same level of cleanliness, as every other stand alone surgical center.
3. Should drs who perform abortions in their offices, or in a stand alone surgery center be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital with a trauma center within a 10 minute transport radius? (or at least withing close enough proximity to transport a patient quickly enough to save her life)
4. Should a stand alone abortion center be required to have the equipment, supplies, and personnel on site to handle any reasonable complications from the abortion procedure?
I think I've dealt with most of Dan's vague, seemingly contradictory comments and answered the most worthy questions. Unfortunately, I need to get busy so I can get out of town tomorrow, so anything else will just have to wait.
"These three are representative of the narrative being pushed."
Cite and quote the words that you think, in your head, are dishonest and pushing a narrative. Again, reporting what experts are saying is not pushing a narrative. It's reporting what experts are saying. You understand the difference, right?
Support your claims like an adult or admit you can't.
Craig...
"These three are representative of the narrative being pushed."
Your first link is an editorial which, by definition, offers opinions about topics. So I skipped to your second one.
Your second link was to a source, new scientist. com, that required registration to read. But I could read the opening paragraph and it said...
"A large body of evidence shows that restricting access to abortion doesn’t reduce the number of abortions, only increases the risk of death for those who need them"
That is, it appears to be citing research.
Are you saying the research does not exist?
Are you saying you have proof that the research is not valid or is, indeed, false and part of a deliberate false narrative?
Are you saying that the claim that they're citing research is false?
What is false and pushing a narrative in that story? Be specific. Support your claim. You know, like an adult. Empty claims are meaningless and I'm spending way too much time schooling you on how to reason like a rational adult.
What is factually mistaken in the story?? Do you have proof of anything?
Dan...
"Do you understand the difference?"
Craig...
"Yes, I understand that you seem to be claiming that it's impossible for anyone other than a "medical expert" to understand anything related to medical decisions, and that the people's elected representatives are too stupid..."
So, no. You don't understand. What you "understand " that I "seem to be saying" is not what I'm saying.
So again, no. You don't understand.
Craig...
"Your vague, generalized answers don't see to really help much. Your "Yes, but..." really means no, yet you seem adamant that in this one specific circumstance you want the government 100% removed from the decision."
1. If you ask a vague question you have to get a vague answer. If you want specific answers, give specific circumstances. Not sure what's unclear to you about this.
2. I didn't say and don't want 100% removed from any accountability. Of course. There IS oversight for medical practices. I'm fine with that.
3. Other medical procedures do not come with a threat of losing your license or even imprisonment for good faith performance of the procedure, right? If you botch the procedure? Yes. But for merely thinking, "I believe an appendectomy or abortion or tooth removal is called for and will recommend that to my patient..." in those scenarios, only abortion is isolated by religious zealots for special scrutiny outside of doctor and patient satisfaction.
That is, if a doctor recommends an appendectomy and it goes as planned and the patient is satisfied, there's not anyone who's going to look over the doctor's shoulder and ask threateningly, "WAS it truly necessary ?? Maybe you should go to jail for murder!"
Do you understand the difference?
"Should every stand alone abortion clinic be required to meet all of the state, local, and federal requirements for an stand alone surgical center?"
I would like to see reasonable standards done in a consistent manner. Not one set of standards that are especially cumbersome for abortion clinics that that aren't in place at other comparable size medical operations. As I understand it, that's what's been in place in some conservative States.
Do you think abortion clinics should have standards that are MORE stringent and cumbersome than other medical operations?
"2. Should stand aloe abortion clinics be held to the same level of cleanliness, as every other stand alone surgical center."
Same answer as above.
"3. Should drs who perform abortions in their offices, or in a stand alone surgery center be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital with a trauma center within a 10 minute transport radius?"
No. Is I understand it, it's not necessary. As I understand it, this has been used as a way to to block abortion clinics from operation, not a good faith effort at medical care.
"4. Should a stand alone abortion center be required to have the equipment, supplies..."
Yes. Within reason. (Ie, Not onerous requirements that are above and beyond what's reasonable in an effort to make abortion clinics go out of business.)
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/targeted-regulation-abortion-providers#
Dan's far more concerned with the leftist agenda than with the lives of those involved. Abortions routinely result in serious harm to the mother and always to the unborn. Dan doesn't care about any of that. He's only concerned with the agenda. The reality is this:
There are many who specialize in difficult pregnancies who insist abortion is never necessary and that there is no occasion by which an abortion is necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. These experts know that procedures intended to save both lives cannot always succeed and the infant will die regardless of their attempts to save it along with its mother. But this isn't abortion. This is a medical procedure which fails in its Godly objective: to save both lives. Dan prefers just killing the kid as if it's actually necessary without any effort expended to demonstrate it was or might be. The "experts" he cites, by comparison, are simply lazy and unworthy of the appellation "expert" by virtue of their wanton disregard for life. Dan's every bit as contemptible as the people and positions he defends.
Dan just posted a link from the Guttmacher institute. The Guttmacher institute is an offshoot of Planned Parenthood, and is unashamedly pro abortion. I occasionally cite their data because it's hard for pro aborts to argue against their numbers because they are so clearly pro abortion. In this case, I'd suggest that offering Guttmacher as a neutral and unbiased source for anything is absurd and would therefore ignore anything from Guttmacher as hopelessly biased.
I think that Dan is trying to suggest that most or all efforts to hold abortion clinics to standards of care similar to other surgical centers are wrong and should not be imposed. It'll be interesting to see if he actually dealt with the specific restrictions that I've already mentioned.
Ah, the appeal to authority fallacy. Without actually identifying and qualifying those quoted as "experts", we're simply supposed to blindly accept them as "experts" because Dan says so.
1. An op/ed can be used to advance a narrative, false or otherwise, to pretend otherwise is simply foolish.
2. Why would I answer questions based on your assumptions about something based on reading a fraction of the piece?
" I would like to see reasonable standards done in a consistent manner. Not one set of standards that are especially cumbersome for abortion clinics that that aren't in place at other comparable size medical operations."
So is that a yes or no to the actual question I asked?
"As I understand it, that's what's been in place in some conservative States."
Based on one piece from an incredibly biased source. Not very impressive. Maybe you should check with some actual unbiased sources that aren't in the business of supporting abortion providers.
"Do you think abortion clinics should have standards that are MORE stringent and cumbersome than other medical operations?"
Interesting, you won't answer my question but demand that I answer yours.
My answer is that without specific examples, I can't really answer specifically. For example, I can see that specific regulations on the machine that crushes the babies skull in utero, and the machine that vacuums out the remains of the unborn child might be appropriate and might only apply to facilities that perform abortions. I can see that regulations about how the remains are discarded after they're sucked out would only apply to facilities that [perform abortions. Are you suggesting that specific regulations that apply to specific procedures and specific machines are always wrong if they don't apply to medical facilities that don't use those machines and procedures?
"2. Should stand aloe abortion clinics be held to the same level of cleanliness, as every other stand alone surgical center." Same answer as above."
Since you didn't actually provide an "answer above", I'm not sure what you mean.
"3. Should drs who perform abortions in their offices, or in a stand alone surgery center be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital with a trauma center within a 10 minute transport radius?" No. Is I understand it, it's not necessary. As I understand it, this has been used as a way to to block abortion clinics from operation, not a good faith effort at medical care."
Interesting, are you suggesting that based on a single biased source that women who get abortions never have life threatening complication? Or are you suggesting that all abortion facilities and drs are 100% capable of treating any and all possible complications of an abortion procedure, on site and that victims of abortion complications never need to be admitted o hospitals? It takes about 8-10 minutes for a human to exsanguinate, are you really suggesting that a woman with post abortion hemorrhaging shouldn't be able to be admitted to a hospital and treated by her "medical expert" in less than the time it takes to bleed to death?
"4. Should a stand alone abortion center be required to have the equipment, supplies..." Yes. Within reason. (Ie, Not onerous requirements that are above and beyond what's reasonable in an effort to make abortion clinics go out of business.)"
You just can't do what Jesus said and "let your yes, be yes". Would you say that it's unreasonable to require abortion clinics to have the equipment and supplies on hand necessary to treat the top 5 complications of abortion surgery? Would you say that the dr providing the abortion should be trained and qualified to treat at least the top 5 complications of abortion surgery and be required to be in proximity to the patient until it's cleat that the woman ins't suffering from complications?
Should abortion providers be required to report to public heath officials on any and all complications that directly from the abortion surgery, and should that data be made available publicly?
"That is, it appears to be citing research."
Maybe a link to some of it might be helpful. Dan's favored sources can pretty much say anything and as far as Dan's concerned, it's authoritative and acceptable because..."experts".
"As I understand it,"
Hardly compelling given Dan's low capacity for understanding. Maybe a link to some of it might be helpful.
Craig...
"the appeal to authority fallacy."
The appeal to an authority ON A PARTICULAR TOPIC for informed knowledge ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC is not a fallacy. It's rational.
If I am experiencing heart pain and the symptoms of a heart attack, I'm going to go to a heart specialist. That is not an "appeal to authority fallacy." It's rational and informed.
On the other hand, going to a hairdresser with NO medical training and NO experience on the human heart to get information on my heart pains and I cite THE HAIRDRESSER's uninformed opinion on heart disease as a reason to choose some treatment plan, THAT would be an appeal to authority fallacy.
So, when I say, " I prefer to listen to experts and informed people over non-experts and ill-informed people." that is NOT a fallacy. It's just plain common sense that God gave most of us. unfortunately, increasingly, conservatives are just shoving common sense along with expert opinion out the window in favor of their preferred voodoo doctors and conspiracy theorists (with apologies to actual voodoo doctors.)
Do you understand that appealing to experts as a reasonable source of information in their areas of expertise is NOT a logical fallacy? Do you understand that rejecting their opinions out of hand just because you don't like their expert opinion (even if you're not an expert or in a place to know as much as they do on the topic at hand) is just foolish and irrational?
Just checking.
Craig complained about my answer, saying, "So is that a yes or no to the actual question I asked?"
And at the same time, when he responded to my question, he said, "My answer is that without specific examples, I can't really answer specifically."
That is precisely my answer. Although I did you one better, I said (with some additional clarification):
"My answer is that without specific examples, I can't really answer specifically. But yes, I would like to see reasonable standards done in a consistent manner. Not one set of standards that are especially cumbersome for abortion clinics that that aren't in place at other comparable size medical operations."
And thereby gave an exact answer to a vague, non-specific question.
I said,
"As I understand it, that's what's been in place in some conservative States."
And Craig responded...
"Based on one piece from an incredibly biased source."
I never said that understanding came from one source. It comes from reading the news regularly and paying attention to what's going on in the world and, as someone living in a conservative state with conservative/anti-abortion laws in place, what I've seen in my own state.
Did you know that the conservatives in our state said that abortion clinics could only operate IF they filled out a certain set of forms... AND THEN, they didn't provide those forms?!
Wake up. Pay attention to what's going on. Stop taking seriously only the words of biased anti-choice sources.
"Do you understand that appealing to experts as a reasonable source of information in their areas of expertise is NOT a logical fallacy?"
I do. The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that the "experts" you refer to actually have the high degree of expertise in the areas you assume they do. Which is an example of the logical fallacy.
"Do you understand that rejecting their opinions out of hand just because you don't like their expert opinion (even if you're not an expert or in a place to know as much as they do on the topic at hand) is just foolish and irrational?"
Yet you reject the opinions of experts all the time when you don't like their positions. But, I'm pointing out that you simply anointing someone as an "expert" without demonstrating their qualifications that make them an expert, means nothing.
I wouldn't go to Ben Carson (literally the foremost expert in his field in the US) to have him treat a retinal detachment. Just because someone is a dr, doesn't mean they are an expert in every single aspect of medicine.
"And thereby gave an exact answer to a vague, non-specific question."
OK, if you say so. I'll note that my response was an attempt to get some actual clarification from you regarding your question. Instead of providing that clarification, you bitch because I asked for it.
"I never said that understanding came from one source."
Yet strangely enough, you only cited one, biased source. You cited zero other sources. But hey, I guess I'm supposed to read your mind.
"Did you know that the conservatives in our state said that abortion clinics could only operate IF they filled out a certain set of forms... AND THEN, they didn't provide those forms?!"
That's quite a claim, yet one with absolutely zero proof.
"Wake up. Pay attention to what's going on. Stop taking seriously only the words of biased anti-choice sources."
Interesting, you cite an incredibly biased pro abortion source as your ONLY source, then make up this bullshit about the "sources" you think I might have used. Once again, quite a claim with zero proof.
So with a choice between two opposing "experts", Dan favors the "experts" who support needlessly and barbarically murdering the pre-born. Nice. And right up Dan's alley, they lie about it.
The same is true with "biased" sources. A source biased toward life is far more honorable a source, and likely far more trustworthy as to the truth of their narrative.
"The appeal to an authority ON A PARTICULAR TOPIC for informed knowledge ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC is not a fallacy. It's rational."
Dan likes to believe only his "experts" have total knowledge...and correct and accurate knowledge...of the subject, when in fact he's more concerned they're following the heinous narrative. Even if those I favor are wrong, their intentions are still honorable, seeking to save both mother and child rather than outright killing the child as if there's no other option.
I'm not anointing anyone an expert. Doctors and actual medical experts (ie, people who have studied and are learned in the questions at hand) across the nation are raising serious reasonable concerns that even NON-experts like me can see.
Now, if you want to try to be an adult and SUPPORT your stupidly, diabolically false suggestion that these people AREN'T experts, do so.
In the meantime, just get the hell out of the way and let the adults do the work of justice and governing.
Good God in heaven, the stupidly false claims and allegations and slander and schoolchild gossip of empty-headed conservatives of today is just so very deeply depraved and pathetic.
God have mercy on your souls and if you all are truly too simple-minded to understand what is wrong with your stupidly false claims, then God bless your punkin' souls.
Marshal...
"Dan likes to believe only his "experts" have total knowledge...and correct and accurate knowledge"
Another of the unending, stupidly false claims that are commonplace amongst today's so-called "conservatives." I've NEVER said anything like this ever in my life. I've NEVER suggested anything like this in my life. It's a stupidly false and unsupported claim (unsupported precisely because it's stupidly false).
OF COURSE, if there is a conservative expert in a particular field (say, Ben Carson in the field of brain surgery), then he IS an expert in that field. It doesn't matter if I might disagree with him on some points, he would remain an expert and I've never suggested anything like that he wouldn't be.
But, if nine out of ten doctors (experts, all) who specialize in lung cancer all recommend not smoking, then I would ten to go with the vast majority. Which isn't to say that the ONE expert might be right, just that the odds are not in his favor.
And then, if we find out that the ONE expert is getting paid by the tobacco industry, even more reason to place less faith in his opinion.
Understand how that works?
Come on, boys. Disagree if you want with what I'm actually saying, but just stop it the face-numbingly stupid false claims.
"I'm not anointing anyone an expert. Doctors and actual medical experts (ie, people who have studied and are learned in the questions at hand) across the nation are raising serious reasonable concerns that even NON-experts like me can see."
1. I'm confused, you earlier said that all drs are "medical experts", but now you appear to have separated drs and medical experts into two categories.
2. As I've pointed out, and you haven't addressed, not all drs are "experts" in all areas of medicine.
3. You posted ONE article/op ed that quoted a bunch of drs. Which of those drs specifically are "medical experts" in an appropriate specialty?
4. Where are the credentials of these drs that establish the fact that they are "medical experts" in the particular specialty under discussion?
5. How many of these "experts" stand to be impacted financially by any abortion restrictions?
6. If these "medical experts" stand to either make or lose a significant amount of money as a result of the imposition or removal of these restrictions, isn't their testimony tainted by their financial interest in the outcome?
"Now, if you want to try to be an adult and SUPPORT your stupidly, diabolically false suggestion that these people AREN'T experts, do so."
Your inability to demonstrate that the people quoted in the one article/op ed you linked to are in fact "medical experts" in appropriate specialties, and the they aren't influenced by their financial gain or loss, isn't my problem. Your knee jerk reaction to accepting anyone as an expert who agrees with you isn't my problem. It also ignores the fact that there are ample examples of experts in multiple relevant fields (embryology, biology, OB/GYN. pediatrics, neonatology, etc who disagree with your experts. Are you suggesting that these other experts are wrong, even though they are (by your definition) medical experts?
For example. By any and all possible measure Dr Ben Carson (pediatric neurosurgeon) would be considered a medical expert, yet he disagrees with you and the "experts" you've put forth. Should I ignore someone who was literally the best in their field (which is relevant to this discussion), who's credentials are well attested, and who's spoken publicly about this issue, in favor of some random drs (without the expertise of Carson) who Newsweek got to comment? If I should ignore Dr Carson, then why?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/25/ben-carson-likens-abortion-to-slavery-wants-to-see-roe-v-wade-overturned/
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ben-carson-abortion-stance-121456
It's always refreshing when you choose to lower yourself to ad hom attacks, vitriol, and the like instead of proving your claims.
FYI, my pointing out that you haven't demonstrated the expertise of the drs in the ONE article/op ed you googled, isn't a false claim. You trying to twist this reality is both stupid and false.
Okay, one more.
" As I've pointed out, and you haven't addressed, not all drs are "experts" in all areas of medicine."
Yes. You caught me. I think that the dentist is fully qualified to do open heart surgery AND build and fly rocketships to Mars. Because that is rational to think that this is what I think.
What in the name of all that is holy and good is WRONG with you all? One of your crew recently called me a pedophile because I support LGBTQ folks. You make stupidly false claim and read things that are obviously false into my words over and over. NONE of it is accurate, true, good or moral.
You all (modern Trump-style "conservatism") are destroying the world with your half truths, slander, stupidly false claims, gossip, twisting of truths and ignoring reality and attacking actual experts trained in actual fields. I am not being overly hyperbolic when I say you all are destroying the world. This relentless attack on truth and expertise and good, decent people is hellish, deadly and diabolical. You've got to stop it.
Repent. Pretend this is not me but Nathan, speaking to David.
YOU are that man. You are slandering and spreading false witness and NONE of it is of the realm of God, but of a much darker and more deadly realm.
Repent.
Clearly a mere appeal to "experts" can't possibly get it done, especially since that appeal is based solely on the side of an issue for which Dan's "experts" advocate. The reality is we each have "experts" we can cite to support our positions. The question is whether or not the "experts" of either side are adept at providing actual evidence and not, like Dan's "experts", simply state the same opinion. "My" experts on abortion are those who specialize in difficult pregnancies and insist no legitimate reason exists for ever aborting...that is, intentionally killing a fetus as a strategy for saving the life of a pregnant woman at risk. Dan's side never proves, or gives compelling evidence why aborting a child was the only option, nor that doing so had any actual benefit without which the pregnant woman would die. They...at least those Dan cites...merely insist that it is so, and we're to simply believe them. Not likely given their earnings are dependent upon taking innocent life.
"My" experts also include those who used to be pro-abortion, but came to see the light. I've posted in the past at least one video from such a convert. I don't think I've seen a case where a OB/GYN who never aborted went to the dark side.
So it's not a matter of citing "experts" so much as Dan simply ignoring there are people with equal or superior expertise who are not vested in unnecessary killing. Dan wants to believe all "experts" are on his side. It's typical lefty crapola, such as "97% of scientists agree with Al Gore" or "all election officials say the election was legit" and other leftist talking points, as if no legit experts exist who can support the other side of the issue.
At the same time, Dan wets himself whining about "stupidly false claims and allegations and slander and schoolchild gossip of empty-headed conservatives" while never providing any compelling evidence that any claims are such. It's just a childishly petulant stomping of his little feet when faced with truths he cannot competently counter.
"What in the name of all that is holy and good is WRONG with you all?"
Interesting that your first instinct is that the other guys are always wrong. In this case, nothing is wrong. You've offered one article/op ed and insist that the drs quoted in it are "medical experts". You've further claimed that all drs are "medical experts". I'm simply expecting you to prove your claims that the drs you offer as "medical experts" are in fact "experts" in relevant fields. Of course offering "medical experts" to comment of legal matters seems strange to me, but you seem to think it appropriate.
But when you equate yourself to biblical prophets or to Jesus, you totally give yourself credibility. Because ad hom attacks are exactly how those folks rolled.
Brother, we are like Jesus, we are like the old time prophets... or we should be. If you're not comparing yourselves to them, get out of the church game you're playing. Because it ain't a game, boys.
These slanders and lies are not part of the realm of God. That's all there is to it.
How awesome Dan is claiming the mantle of both the OT prophets AND Jesus. This notion that he has some extraordinary insight into the Kingdom of God and can pass judgement on others is either some degree of insanity, or incredible hubris.
Not me, personally. All of us. The church. Hey Jesus seriously.
The church is to be like Jesus. The church is to be like Old Testament prophets. Are you not aiming for that?
Again, if not, quit playing at church. Go take up bowling or something.
And I have no unique insight which is not common to humanity. Do good to others. Side with and support the poor, the needy, the children, the foreigners, the Least of these.
Stop slandering, spreading false witness, attacking marginalized groups, demonizing those who disagree with you and marginalized groups.
Love, support, be allies, don't oppress or cause harm.
THIS, My dear brothers, is the realm of God. Embrace it. Or if not, at least have the decency to get out of the way.,
The notion that you think is that this is some extraordinary insight is just bizarre.
Dan, if you think that you're like Jesus or like the "old time prophets", then I have absolutely no interest in a Jesus that acts like you. None. No I'm not aiming to be exactly like an OT prophet. I'm hoping to do the best job of following Jesus that I can, but I certainly am not planning to claim that I possess His authority, power, nature, or abilities. I hope to point others toward Jesus, not to be Jesus. You're starting to sound like a LDS or something.
The fact that you think that you can define the Kingdom of God by selectively choosing certain things that you like is quite impressive.
The notion that you think that you are this spitting image of Jesus and can define things that others must ascribe to is truly bizarre.
"if you think that you're like Jesus or like the "old time prophets", then I have absolutely no interest in a Jesus that acts like you."
Well, of course, I am no Jesus, nor have I said I'm Jesus' spitting image (another stupidly false claim) but I AM striving to act like him, defending and siding with the poor, marginalized and oppressed, welcoming the least of these and striving to understand the Realm of God as Jesus spoke of it, not as humans imagine it. What precisely am I "selectively choosing certain things...?" That Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized? That Jesus said that when we stand and ally with the "least of these," we're doing so for him? That when the moral police set out to stone an oppressed woman (gay guy, person of color, transgender person), that Jesus replied with "neither do I condemn you..." and put the morality police in their place? That Jesus spoke clearly and repeated of the trap and trappings of wealth and spoke of a realm of love and grace, not seeking and storing up wealth and power? These are ALL just Jesus' clear words. The example and teachings he left us SPECIFICALLY for us to follow and NOT just follow, but to do even greater things that Jesus did.
Again, that's sort of the point of accepting the teachings of Jesus, is that we walk in Jesus' steps.
And again, if you're not striving to do this "following Jesus" stuff, maybe take up bowling, instead? Gardening? Microbrewing? Something where you're not hurting anyone else, preferably.
"...if you think that you're like Jesus or like the "old time prophets", then I have absolutely no interest in a Jesus that acts like you."
What if, when that Day comes, you complain to Jesus about that foolish false teacher, Dan! and Jesus responded but, "Ah, poor Dan... he wasn't a great follower, but he did get it right at least some of the time and especially when it comes to grace and working for justice, well, good on him!" Will you tell Jesus to His Face that you have no interest in that kind of "Jesus..."?
Woe.
Post a Comment