14 minutes ago, toolg said:

I want experts in charge of those regulations. Not politicians. Like this: https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare

So then you do want regulations.  Should those be backed with laws?  If not, should doctors lose their licenses if they don't follow the regulations setup by medical experts OR how else should those regulations be enforced?

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So then you do want regulations.  Should those be backed with laws?  If not, should doctors lost their licenses if they don't follow the regulations setup by medical experts OR how else should those regulations be enforced?

As it is now: by the governing medical body of the state in which they work. Like the State Bar revoking a lawyer's ability to practice law.

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So then you do want regulations.  Should those be backed with laws?  If not, should doctors lost their licenses if they don't follow the regulations setup by medical experts OR how else should those regulations be enforced?

The state has laws that doctors must follow, yes. Medical boards have to license the doctors... What are you getting at? You think some politicians can decide how doctors can practice? No.  Laws regarding medical procedure should be backed up by experts in that field. Not some shady politicians.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ruling-egregious-allowance-government-intrusion-medicine

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

Why get the state involved? Let individuals and their doctors decide and let people go to offices and practices that align with their beliefs. Don't force a doc or patient to do something they disagree with. 

Because people have wildly differing opinions on the ethics of it, obviously

In practical reality because the feds are incompetent and arent doing anything to settle it.

if its what their people want they should act on it no? Or only when it aligns with our individual opinions?

42 minutes ago, toolg said:

Yes. She can choose to end the pregnancy at 38 weeks. Happens all the time. The child can go for adoption. There are ways for the mother to surrender the child.

What are you talking about?  No, it doesn't happen all the time because it's literally illegal.  You can't have a voluntary abortion at the 38 week mark.  I think pretty much throughout the nation 24 weeks is the cutoff. 

 

"There are ways for the mother to surrender the child."

Ummm yeah, that's not what we're talking about.  Birthing the child and then putting the child up for adoption is NOT AT ALL THE SAME as having an abortion at 38 weeks. 

 

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

What are you talking about?  No, it doesn't happen all the time because it's literally illegal.  You can't have a voluntary abortion at the 38 week mark.  I think pretty much throughout the nation 24 weeks is the cutoff. 

 

"There are ways for the mother to surrender the child."

Ummm yeah, that's not what we're talking about.  Birthing the child and then putting the child up for adoption is NOT AT ALL THE SAME as having an abortion at 38 weeks. 

 

I am talking about induced labor. That's how a pregnancy ends at 38 weeks. It will usually result in a live birth. Women choose to end the pregnancy early for a multitude of reasons.

40 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

So you don’t want Lindsey Graham (who is a HOF power bottom) deciding if women can get an abortion or not?  

no, i don't. 

10 minutes ago, toolg said:

I am talking about induced labor. That's how a pregnancy ends at 38 weeks. It will usually result in a live birth. Women choose to end the pregnancy early for a multitude of reasons.

Yes, today that's the only LEGAL way for a pregnancy to end because there are laws against performing abortions at cutoff points that are earlier than 38 weeks. For example, in PA the cutoff is 24 weeks.

Hence why we are having this hypothetical conversation for the "abortion decision should only be between the mother and the doctor" crowd. 

Based on that logic, it would then be legal for a pregnant woman to voluntarily have an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy no matter how far along she is.  And I think that's wrong.  And I don't think you can actually sit there with a straight face and say you'd be ok with a mother choosing to have an abortion (where no medical necessity exists) of a viable soon to be born baby.  

Yes, there has to be some laws involved.   There HAS to be some point in the pregnancy where even the most pro choice person goes, "no that's too far along in the pregnancy to have an abortion unless it's medically necessary"

Again, what you'd be saying is that people like Kermit Gosnell should be allowed to be legal practitioners of medicine.   Because that's what he was doing.  He was giving voluntary abortions to women who were beyond the 24 week cutoff point and therefore legally weren't allowed to have one. 

22 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

As it is now: by the governing medical body of the state in which they work. Like the State Bar revoking a lawyer's ability to practice law.

That was the answer I expected but I wanted to hear tool's opinion.

Members of those boards are often appointed by politicians, correct?

32 minutes ago, toolg said:

The state has laws that doctors must follow, yes. Medical boards have to license the doctors... What are you getting at? You think some politicians can decide how doctors can practice? No.  Laws regarding medical procedure should be backed up by experts in that field. Not some shady politicians.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ruling-egregious-allowance-government-intrusion-medicine

I'm getting at the point that there are rules and regulations that both doctors and parents need to follow regarding medical care.  I'm not against having those be indirectly set by elected officials thru the process of appointments to boards, etc.  I'm also not against having reasonable frameworks in place thru law (be that state or federal) that the experts work within to set detailed policy.

I have no idea what’s legal and what’s not.  I just know that whatever Dr. Philly is arguing is clearly wrong

13 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yes, today that's the only LEGAL way for a pregnancy to end because there are laws against performing abortions at cutoff points that are earlier than 38 weeks. For example, in PA the cutoff is 24 weeks.

Hence why we are having this hypothetical conversation for the "abortion decision should only be between the mother and the doctor" crowd. 

Based on that logic, it would then be legal for a pregnant woman to voluntarily have an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy no matter how far along she is.  And I think that's wrong.  And I don't think you can actually sit there with a straight face and say you'd be ok with a mother choosing to have an abortion (where no medical necessity exists) of a viable soon to be born baby.  

Yes, there has to be some laws involved.   There HAS to be some point in the pregnancy where even the most pro choice person goes, "no that's too far along in the pregnancy to have an abortion unless it's medically necessary"

Again, what you'd be saying is that people like Kermit Gosnell should be allowed to be legal practitioners of medicine.   Because that's what he was doing.  He was giving voluntary abortions to women who were beyond the 24 week cutoff point and therefore legally weren't allowed to have one. 

Over most of the course of human history, women have been able to choose how to have their children without government intervention. Why does the law need to be involved now? Unfortunate things can happen in the course of pregnancy no matter how far along she is. We don't need laws or politicians to decide when it's the right time to end a pregnancy. 

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I have no idea what’s legal and what’s not.  I just know that whatever Dr. Philly is arguing is clearly wrong

Yeah, you always get that one wrong on pretty much every single topic

8 minutes ago, toolg said:

Over most of the course of human history, women have been able to choose how to have their children without government intervention. Why does the law need to be involved now? Unfortunate things can happen in the course of pregnancy no matter how far along she is. We don't need laws or politicians to decide when it's the right time to end a pregnancy. 

Why do you keep dodging this? I’ll ask again, and this time please actually answer this very simple question:

A healthy pregnant woman is 35 weeks pregnant with a normal viable fetus.  There are no complications.  She decides she wants to have an abortion and end the life of this normal viable fetus.  Do you think she should legally be allowed to do that?    Yes or no.

34 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

That was the answer I expected but I wanted to hear tool's opinion.

Members of those boards are often appointed by politicians, correct?

Usually appointed by the governor. I believe (could be mistaken) they have relatively short term limits and have to have a certain percentage that are physicians in thay field though. 

57 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Because people have wildly differing opinions on the ethics of it, obviously

In practical reality because the feds are incompetent and arent doing anything to settle it.

if its what their people want they should act on it no? Or only when it aligns with our individual opinions?

I'm not saying there should be no reasonable limitations or oversight. I just think that line should be drawn by experts in that individual field, such as the state medical board.

8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Usually appointed by the governor. I believe (could be mistaken) they have relatively short term limits and have to have a certain percentage that are physicians in thay field though. 

I agree with you that the medical board approach is the way to go generally speaking.

29 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, you always get that one wrong on pretty much every single topic

Yeah?  

21 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Why do you keep dodging this? I’ll ask again, and this time please actually answer this very simple question:

A healthy pregnant woman is 35 weeks pregnant with a normal viable fetus.  There are no complications.  She decides she wants to have an abortion and end the life of this normal viable fetus.  Do you think she should legally be allowed to do that?    Yes or no.

That's disgusting. It can't happen because an otherwise healthy fetus at 35 weeks will be born alive. Premature, but live.

Now, let me turn your facetious hypothetical around. What if something happens during an otherwise healthy pregnancy at 35 weeks where the baby suddenly becomes unviable. Why would you want a law that bars a woman from ending the pregnancy? That's gross.

49 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah?  

si señor

1 hour ago, toolg said:

That's disgusting. It can't happen because an otherwise healthy fetus at 35 weeks will be born alive. Premature, but live.

Now, let me turn your facetious hypothetical around. What if something happens during an otherwise healthy pregnancy at 35 weeks where the baby suddenly becomes unviable. Why would you want a law that bars a woman from ending the pregnancy? That's gross.

It is disgusting, and it should absolutely be illegal. And we should absolutely have laws on the books making it illegal (which we already do). Yes, it could happen through dismemberment (which is how they happen for women seeking abortions near the 24 week mark), or just go the Gosnell route and snip their necks.   So then yes, you are in agreement that the decision is not SOLELY up to the mother and the doctor, and that there should be a legal cutoff, set by the legislatures, for when such a procedure should no longer be allowed except in the case of medical necessity.  

 

"What if something happens during an otherwise healthy pregnancy at 35 weeks where the baby suddenly becomes unviable. Why would you want a law that bars a woman from ending the pregnancy? That's gross."

Of course I wouldn't want that.  Where have I EVER implied that I would want a law that bans abortions in the case of a non-viable fetus?  As I have already stated NUMEROUS times, any abortion laws should have an exception for the case of the fetus not being viable. 

I said the matter is private. I meant that. 

36 minutes ago, toolg said:

I said the matter is private. I meant that. 

Riiiiight.  You said it’s private, but then you agree that there should be a legal cutoff for when a abortion shouldn’t be allowed unless it’s medically necessary.  So in essence you don’t think it’s 100% private because you do agree that there should be a legal cutoff for voluntary abortions.    Which I think is a very logical and reasonable position.

The question then becomes, when is that cutoff?  6 weeks? 12 weeks? 15 weeks? 20 weeks? 24 weeks? 
I think the majority of the western world has it at about 10-15 weeks if I recall correctly. 

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

then you agree that there should be a legal cutoff for when a abortion shouldn’t be allowed unless it’s medically necessary.  

I did not agree to a legal cutoff. You said that. I did not.