September 14, 20223 yr 38 minutes ago, toolg said: I did not agree to a legal cutoff. You said that. I did not. This you right? ”That's disgusting. It can't happen because an otherwise healthy fetus at 35 weeks will be born alive. Premature, but live.” So then you DO think that a pregnant woman in her 3rd trimester should be able to get an elective abortion? No complications, not medically urgent. Just an elective abortion?
September 14, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said: 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. This is where you lose me. A bunch of politicians and laymen should absolutely not be involved in drawing that line. Leave it to the state medical board to make that decision.
September 14, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, toolg said: I said the matter is private. I meant that. Is vaccination? 35 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: This is where you lose me. A bunch of politicians and laymen should absolutely not be involved in drawing that line. Leave it to the state medical board to make that decision. Political stooges? No thanks. Even less accountability that the pols
September 14, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, DEagle7 said: This is where you lose me. A bunch of politicians and laymen should absolutely not be involved in drawing that line. Leave it to the state medical board to make that decision. It ultimately has to be written into law by the legislature though in order to become law and be enforceable. Of course with the idea being that the law is based on the recommendations from the experts in the industry. I’m a professional civil engineer. There are laws we have to follow when it comes to erosion and sediment pollution control and post construction stormwater management for construction projects. Those laws are based on guidance from people in the industry, but they are laws written by the legislature no less. That’s what makes them enforceable.
September 14, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said: Political stooges? No thanks. Even less accountability that the pols At least they're in the field and have the appropriate medical knowledge base. But if that doesn't work for ya then leave it to the national medical society like ACOG. Because the alternative of having Lindsay Graham weigh in makes the least sense out of any of those. 44 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: It ultimately has to be written into law by the legislature though in order to become law and be enforceable. Of course with the idea being that the law is based on the recommendations from the experts in the industry. I’m a professional civil engineer. There are laws we have to follow when it comes to erosion and sediment pollution control and post construction stormwater management for construction projects. Those laws are based on guidance from people in the industry, but they are laws written by the legislature no less. That’s what makes them enforceable. You already can face legal punishment for practicing outside the guidance of these groups. If you perform a procedure or prescribe a medication that isn't approved or recommended by the governing medical societies you can face losing your license, legal payments, or even jail time. Like with civil engineering, where I'm sure the laws are phrased in a way that says "when doing X you must be in accordance with Y guidelines as established by Z organization" This isn't that. This is laymen making specific cutoffs based on their morality, not expert opinions. To riff off your engineer analogy, it'd be like Pat Toomey coming out one day and trying to make a law saying "you can only have 2 storm drains per construction site now", and when pressed as to where he got that number from his only response was "Jesus".
September 14, 20223 yr 27 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: This isn't that. This is laymen making specific cutoffs based on their morality, not expert opinions. To riff off your engineer analogy, it'd be like Pat Toomey coming out one day and trying to make a law saying "you can only have 2 storm drains per construction site now", and when pressed as to where he got that number from his only response was "Jesus". This made me chuckle lol.
September 14, 20223 yr 28 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: At least they're in the field and have the appropriate medical knowledge base. But if that doesn't work for ya then leave it to the national medical society like ACOG. Because the alternative of having Lindsay Graham weigh in makes the least sense out of any of those. You already can face legal punishment for practicing outside the guidance of these groups. If you perform a procedure or prescribe a medication that isn't approved or recommended by the governing medical societies you can face losing your license, legal payments, or even jail time. Like with civil engineering, where I'm sure the laws are phrased in a way that says "when doing X you must be in accordance with Y guidelines as established by Z organization" This isn't that. This is laymen making specific cutoffs based on their morality, not expert opinions. To riff off your engineer analogy, it'd be like Pat Toomey coming out one day and trying to make a law saying "you can only have 2 storm drains per construction site now", and when pressed as to where he got that number from his only response was "Jesus". Yea I’d be fine with that then. However it’s done I think there should be a cutoff for elective abortions (which there already are I think in just about every state). I just don’t know if we’ll ever have a compromise on the issue. To me, the following things should be a basic agreement on both sides of the issue 1) there should be exceptions in the case of medical necessity. 2) there should be exceptions in the case of rape/incest 3) there should be exception in the case of non viable fetus 4) there should be a cutoff where elective abortions are no longer allowed (probably prior to 24 weeks) 5) there should be a minimum timeframe when it’s allowed (maybe 6 weeks being the earliest cutoff point?) And so then it should be a matter of coming to agreement on when that cutoff is. And most importantly, I think both sides should remember that the overall goal is to reduce unplanned pregnancies. You reduce unplanned pregnancies, you reduce the demand for elective abortions. And we should focus on policy directives that lead to a reduction of unplanned pregnancies.
September 15, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: Is vaccination? Political stooges? No thanks. Even less accountability that the pols False equivalence. Pregnancies/abortions aren't contagious, dumb ass.
September 15, 20223 yr 18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: False equivalence. Pregnancies/abortions aren't contagious, dumb ass. Incorrect, midget all comes down to the individual making their own risk/benefit analysis, which is apparently a very very private matter
September 15, 20223 yr 20 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Incorrect, midget all comes down to the individual making their own risk/benefit analysis, which is apparently a very very private matter Once again, Mr. Insect Scientist, a pregnant woman poses zero risk to others in her immediate vicinity in a classroom, in a workplace, on a bus, etc. An infected unvaccinated idiot, on the other hand, can easily spread disease to others (and by proxy also to those same people's friends and families) in the above settings. This is a simple concept easily grasped by anyone with even the slightest bit of intellect. So I guess it comes as no surprise that you're struggling with it so much.
September 15, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Once again, Mr. Insect Scientist, a pregnant woman poses zero risk to others in her immediate vicinity in a classroom, in a workplace, on a bus, etc. An infected unvaccinated idiot, on the other hand, can easily spread disease to others (and by proxy also to those same people's friends and families) in the above settings. This is a simple concept easily grasped by anyone with even the slightest bit of intellect. So I guess it comes as no surprise that you're struggling with it so much. Doesnt matter. Its between the person and their doc apparently also please keep repeating hunts moronic take on my degree and expertise. Hint: its not entomology. why is it that engineers grossly overestimate their own intellect? And relevance? And height?
September 15, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said: Doesnt matter. Its between the person and their doc apparently also please keep repeating hunts moronic take on my degree and expertise. Hint: its not entomology. why is it that engineers grossly overestimate their own intellect? And relevance? And height? After you just repeated kz's projection about height. Then you talk about overestimating your own intellect after you compare vaccinations to abortions. I may not be some genius, but at least I'm not a dumb ass like you.
September 15, 20223 yr 13 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: Once again, Mr. Insect Scientist, a pregnant woman poses zero risk to others in her immediate vicinity in a classroom, in a workplace, on a bus, etc. An infected unvaccinated idiot, on the other hand, can easily spread disease to others (and by proxy also to those same people's friends and families) in the above settings. This is a simple concept easily grasped by anyone with even the slightest bit of intellect. So I guess it comes as no surprise that you're struggling with it so much. In the case of Covid, an infected vaccinated idiot can easily spread disease to others (and by proxy also to those same people's friends and families).
September 15, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, GreenReaper said: In the case of Covid, an infected vaccinated idiot can easily spread disease to others (and by proxy also to those same people's friends and families). With current variants, sure, but that wasn't nearly as likely pre-omicron, nor is it with the the vast majority of diseases schools currently have mandates for like measles, polio, pertussis, etc.
September 15, 20223 yr Author 6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: With current variants, sure, but that wasn't nearly as likely pre-omicron, nor is it with the the vast majority of diseases school currently have mandates for like measles, polio, pertussis, etc. It's still much less transmissible in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated anyway.
September 15, 20223 yr 11 hours ago, toolg said: I did not agree to a legal cutoff. You said that. I did not. I agree 100% that Lindsay Graham shouldn't be determining the specifics of any medical care, treatment, etc. I'm more inline with what DEagle has been describing. So, yes to some actual legal policy but built on clear positions taken by medical experts. I'm not sure I understand your position though. It seems like you are saying there shouldn't be any legal framework whatsoever with regard to medical care. I'm likely not understanding what you are saying though. Can you clarify please (or not of course if you don't want to)? Thanks.
September 15, 20223 yr @DrPhilly I posted two links yesterday. This should make my position clear: American Medical Association LINK Quote we will oppose any law or regulation that compromises or criminalizes patient access to safe, evidence-based medical care, including abortion. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists LINK Quote Induced abortion is an essential component of women’s health care. Like all medical matters, decisions regarding abortion should be made by patients in consultation with their health care providers and without undue interference by outside parties. Like all patients, women obtaining abortion are entitled to privacy, dignity, respect, and support. So that I may understand your position more clearly, where do you draw the line? Where do you think the law should cutoff when abortion should/shouldn't be allowed?
September 15, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, toolg said: @DrPhilly I posted two links yesterday. This should make my position clear: American Medical Association LINK The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists LINK So that I may understand your position more clearly, where do you draw the line? Where do you think the law should cutoff when abortion should/shouldn't be allowed? I wasn't limiting this to abortion when asking you and it seems like your position is going to be the same for all medical care (nicely consistent). So, I now think you are fine with legal frameworks as long as they meet the standards set forth by the key medical boards and associations. Is that correct? As for my position, I don't know exactly where to draw it but somewhere in the area of 20 weeks, perhaps a few more. Also, it wouldn't be a hard line so that it would remain an option if the mother's safety were at issue (as determined by a registered medical doctor) or in cases of rape or incest. There might be other exceptions as well.
September 15, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I wasn't limiting this to abortion when asking you and it seems like your position is going to be the same for all medical care (nicely consistent). So, I now think you are fine with legal frameworks as long as they meet the standards set forth by the key medical boards and associations. Is that correct? Yes. I agree. 5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: As for my position, I don't know exactly where to draw it but somewhere in the area of 20 weeks, perhaps a few more. Also, it wouldn't be a hard line so that it would remain an option if the mother's safety were at issue (as determined by a registered medical doctor) or in cases of rape or incest. There might be other exceptions as well. I know exactly where to draw the line: When patient and doctor decide it is the best course of action.
September 15, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, toolg said: Yes. I agree. I know exactly where to draw the line: When patient and doctor decide it is the best course of action. Yep, thanks! All clarified now.
September 16, 20223 yr On 9/15/2022 at 12:44 PM, toolg said: @DrPhilly I posted two links yesterday. This should make my position clear: American Medical Association LINK The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists LINK So that I may understand your position more clearly, where do you draw the line? Where do you think the law should cutoff when abortion should/shouldn't be allowed? Stop reimbursing it and watch their tune change…
September 17, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: Stop reimbursing it and watch their tune change… Yes because if there's one thing that hurts an OBGYN's bottom line, it's more pregnancies and births. Good point.
Create an account or sign in to comment