facist law forces mom to give birth just to watch the child die 15 minutes later

[BenNatuf]

Who? If you meant this toward me I've never said that. What I've said is it appears the hospital used some pretty questionable legal reasonning to decide not to induce labor. It appears to me from the story that the woman and the doctors wanted to, but were told they couldn't on what appears to be pretty shaky legal grounds. Which appear to me to have been more of an exercize in CYA.

No, not you. That was directed to STH.

NP... it was hard to tell.

 

[BenNatuf]

Well, since you are a proponent, and you know how all the arguments should be made...

you should have no problem with this

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

I'm not sure where you're trying to go.

Earlier in the thread you posted about having the right arguments and how abortion rights supporters were barking up the wrong tree with this one (I agree). I've been trying to get abortion rights supporters to address the points and answer the questions I posed in that thread... so far, a couple have tried but not been very successful. If you'd rather not, thats fine, but I won't hijack this thread further on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The legal issue here is not what is the right decision, but who should make the decision. If people think the mother should make a particular decision they have every right to say so. If people think they, the government or even the doctor should make the decision for her and government guns should enforce it, they are too arrogant to take seriously and should be ignored as the fools they are. Those people need to figure out how to run their own lives before they bother trying to tell someone else how to run theirs.

Interesting. "If people agree with me, then they have every right to say so. If they disagree with me, they're fools and should be ignored."

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Was there a link I missed besides the OP? Because the story linked in the OP did not mention this. Aren't lungs developed enough to survive by the 23rd week? It would seem to me they must be since with proper medical care babies have been born and survived in the 21st week. how did she live for 15 minutes without lungs?

She had lungs. That was a misstatement. She had underdeveloped lungs. And apparently, even when an extremely premature baby survives, their lungs are never entirely right. It seems in this case, her chances of survival were virtually non-existent, and even if it had happened, she'd have been severely disabled, both in ability to breathe and other basic functions, like the ability to eat.

OK, thats tragic, but it seems to me if thats the case this baby was not 23 weeks into gestation. I'm not a doctor, so I definately coulod be wrong, but I think there may be some error in the date of conception here.

No, just a difference in conditions.

 

[BenNatuf]

Also, this is for the a OP if s/he ever comes back to thier thread.

In what way is this law fascist? How does it serve any corporate interest? Where is there a union of corporate and government interest at its core? Do you even know what fascism is, or do you just call everything you disagree with fascist? I only ask the last because that would be sort of... you know... fascist (if I were to use the deffinition you apparently did).

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Also, this is for the a OP if s/he ever comes back to thier thread.

In what way is this law fascist? How does it serve any corporate interest? Where is there a union of corporate and government interest at its core? Do you even know what fascism is, or do you just call everything you disagree with fascist? I only ask the last because that would be sort of... you know... fascist (if I were to use the deffinition you apparently did).

No. Many throw the word out there with no clue what it means, and wont do a simple google search to find out.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm pretty sure the OP said FACIST.

In which case, the law is FACIST because that poor mom was forced to FACE her child when it was born alive.

Damn facist law.

 

[gekaap]

Yeah, waaay back in the thread I had the argument with with the OP about the use of the word "fascist." The basic argument was that the law constitutes government control over people's lives, and that constitutes fascism. I went into detail about the real meaning of fascism, and how it incorporates militarism and war as means to increase nationalist sentiment, and its heavy corporatist element, and that seemed to end that part of the discussion.

 

[BenNatuf]

Yeah, waaay back in the thread I had the argument with with the OP about the use of the word "fascist." The basic argument was that the law constitutes government control over people's lives, and that constitutes fascism. I went into detail about the real meaning of fascism, and how it incorporates militarism and war as means to increase nationalist sentiment, and its heavy corporatist element, and that seemed to end that part of the discussion.

Militarism and war are not neccessary to fascist policy, for that matter neither is nationalism. Those are tools that national socialist used to prop themselves up in their half-fascist regime. In the end though their is little difference between fascism and communism, they are both forms of authoritarian socialisism, and they are both progressive.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, waaay back in the thread I had the argument with with the OP about the use of the word "fascist." The basic argument was that the law constitutes government control over people's lives, and that constitutes fascism. I went into detail about the real meaning of fascism, and how it incorporates militarism and war as means to increase nationalist sentiment, and its heavy corporatist element, and that seemed to end that part of the discussion.

Militarism and war are not neccessary to fascist policy, for that matter neither is nationalism. Those are tools that national socialist used to prop themselves up in their half-fascist regime. In the end though their is little difference between fascism and communism, they are both forms of authoritarian socialisism, and they are both progressive.

 

[BenNatuf]

Yeah, waaay back in the thread I had the argument with with the OP about the use of the word "fascist." The basic argument was that the law constitutes government control over people's lives, and that constitutes fascism. I went into detail about the real meaning of fascism, and how it incorporates militarism and war as means to increase nationalist sentiment, and its heavy corporatist element, and that seemed to end that part of the discussion.

Militarism and war are not neccessary to fascist policy, for that matter neither is nationalism. Those are tools that national socialist used to prop themselves up in their half-fascist regime. In the end though their is little difference between fascism and communism, they are both forms of authoritarian socialisism, and they are both progressive.

modern day progressives seem a little slow, thier predecessor knew what fascism was and half of them embraced it. Now, if you don't dress it in jackboots they can't identify it... guess their mirrors are a little cloudy.

 

[AllieBaba]

Most progressives cling desperately to the notion that fascism is a right wing phenomenon. It's their lack of understanding of history that is the culprit.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I've already said multiple times that the fate of the baby does not justify active euthanasia. It's not ethical. You say I'm ignoring that point, yet I've been clear on it multiple times already.

OK. Let's explore that. Maybe we can get somewhere in this thread instead of the angry mob of conservatives continuing to make up straw man arguments at every opportunity.

What about prematurely ending the suffering by asphyxiation of this baby is specifically unethical? If you actually want to get into a discussion about ethics, you will need to use ethical arguments regarding right and wrong, not buzz words with negative connotation that immaturely express distaste on the topic.

So let's discuss the core of the ethical issue. With regard to cultural precedence, actively hastening death secondary to reducing suffering is not only legal, but commonplace in every state of this country. One state goes so far as to make the ethical claim that outright death to avoid further suffering is acceptable as a primary effect of medical intervention.

Now that we've established it is not an unforgivable taboo in this culture, we can go on to discuss why reduction of suffering in the face of impending death is not unethical. Specifically this general topic references quality of life. I will make the claim that there exists a spectrum regarding quality of life whereas one extreme has full quality of life and should never entertain the idea of death, and the other has an absolutely unbearable deficient quality of life with no chance of recovery. Let's start there and see what unrelated topic you disagree with.

 

[AllieBaba]

You are asserting things that aren't true.

No straw men from this side.
Where did you see that the baby asphyxiated? You didn't, you're making it up.
You assert that hastening death is legal and commonplace in every state. That's a lie.

Finally, *we* (i.e., YOU) established nothing.

Your posts consist of half truths, outright lies, opinions and fables presented as fact, and a variety of logical fallacies that you like to pretend actually PROVE something. They don't even mean anything, let alone establish a point.

If you want to make a point, you don't just say "I say it and that is your proof". That's not the way grownups debate. Any time you make an assertion or a statement of fact, you HAVE to provide a citation or reference...that means proof. You have to reference a fact that supports your statement, preferably with a link.

You also have the unfortunate habit of bringing totally new material into the convo and passing it off as relevant, supporting fact when there has been no previous reference to it and you provide absolutely no context or evidence to support it. Yet you pretend it's legitimate evidence.

It's not. Research your material so you can speak with real authority, and back up what you say. Otherwise, you come across as a know-nothing pseudo intellectual who puts a LOT of effort into using a LOT of words without ever actually proving anything or even making a point.

 

[gekaap]

OK. Let's explore that. Maybe we can get somewhere in this thread instead of the angry mob of conservatives continuing to make up straw man arguments at every opportunity.

What about prematurely ending the suffering by asphyxiation of this baby is specifically unethical? If you actually want to get into a discussion about ethics, you will need to use ethical arguments regarding right and wrong, not buzz words with negative connotation that immaturely express distaste on the topic.

So let's discuss the core of the ethical issue. With regard to cultural precedence, actively hastening death secondary to reducing suffering is not only legal, but commonplace in every state of this country. One state goes so far as to make the ethical claim that outright death to avoid further suffering is acceptable as a primary effect of medical intervention.

Now that we've established it is not an unforgivable taboo in this culture, we can go on to discuss why reduction of suffering in the face of impending death is not unethical. Specifically this general topic references quality of life. I will make the claim that there exists a spectrum regarding quality of life whereas one extreme has full quality of life and should never entertain the idea of death, and the other has an absolutely unbearable deficient quality of life with no chance of recovery. Let's start there and see what unrelated topic you disagree with.

You're really over complicating things. Medical ethics, as established and generally practiced, preclude active euthanasia. Your mentioning of Oregon assisted suicide laws is even flawed because in those cases the medical involvement pretty much ends at a doctor providing a prescription. It is the patient who does the deed. Furthermore, such practices remain highly controversial and are far from being accepted within the health care community's system of ethics.

All that being said, whether you or I agree or disagree that medical ethics has room for active euthanasia is not really important. You are demanding that the law of Nebraska must make active euthanasia an option; that the law is wrong to preclude such a measure. That, however, is faulty. With only a singular and still controversial exception, no state has any such allowance in their laws. Is is not necessary that Nebraska law have such a provision, because it is a long way from being something generally accepted by the health care profession. Would be acceptable for the law to have such a provision? Maybe, maybe not. That's really a separate issue. But it is not necessary based on the general standards of practice that are currently accepted. So any argument that the law is somehow wrong because of this specific case comes down to seeking a special accordance. The law should not be written for such a special case. It should be written to recognize the general standards of practice that are accepted as ethical by the industry.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

And since we're talking about people ignoring things, you've ignored the point I brought up about how there's nothing in all of this that actually affirms that it's the LAW AS WRITTEN that stopped the doctors from inducing labor. Inducing labor is not a form of late term abortion. You have yet to justify that jump.

No, I do not have to justify that jump. IF I make that jump, then I should justify it. UNTIL that point, YOU should continue to avoid fabricating my arguments. Abortion should be available to women in these circumstances. Induced labor should also have been available to her, not only in law but in practical availability. The law as it is written continues to be something that you obsess over, despite no one else in this thread caring, myself included.

STH does not care . It feel that RU486 should be ground up into Flintstones multivitamins for little girls and sold at Wal-Mart.

Ah conservative debate tactics. The highest integrity of intellectualism.

In what way is this law fascist? How does it serve any corporate interest? Where is there a union of corporate and government interest at its core? Do you even know what fascism is, or do you just call everything you disagree with fascist? I only ask the last because that would be sort of... you know... fascist (if I were to use the deffinition you apparently did).

yeah gekaap and others thoroughly debunked that earlier in the thread. we can't figure out why that word was used.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You are asserting things that aren't true.

No straw men from this side.

Really now? Let's see.

what you propose is euthanasia. It's murdering people before their time on the ass backwards assumption you're doing THEM a favor.

BTW, I'm 100 percent certain that you are going to die.

May I off you now? Save you the grief I know is coming to you?

Dr.Drock in no way proposed killing all people who will eventually die. Not only is this straw man, but fallacy of necessity, if it isn't a slippery slope altogether.

So what you're saying is that if you determine a child's life will not be worth living, you should be able to snuff it out, based upon the fact that the child will die anyway.

No, he never stated that. You did. Straw man.

You think it's a horror to carry a baby that's less than perfect?

That if a baby is sick then we should just kill it before it has a chance to take a breath of air, to be hugged by its mother, to see her face?

That's a funny kind of compassion. Pretty much not compassion at all.

Compound straw man. Where on earth did you see Care4all state she believed a baby should be killed if it is sick or less than perfect? Where was that EVER stated by anyone in this thread?

Should we just kill pancreatic cancer patients as soon as they're diagnosed?

As far as that goes, a large percentage of boys die in their teens...should we just determine which ones are at higher risk, and kill them at birth?

Straw men via begging the question. Where did anyone in this thread make those claims or any equivalent generalization?

the idea that you can eradicate death by killing is absolutely crazy.

the idea that killing something inside your body is better than killing it outside your body. In both places, a baby should be in your loving care.

Double straw man!

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

straw

you don't get to kill babies based upon your own inconvenience and suffering. That's wrong, just as it's wrong to kill any child because he's disabled, or irritating, or a financial drain.

straw

Yes, having imperfect babies is a terrible trial to unfortunate parents. Hopefully someday we can kill all imperfect babies 5 days before they would be born naturally. What an incredible relief that would be to Care.

straw

You equate baby killing with a cessation of misery. Check.

straw

apparently in this case, the mother's health is of secondary importance. That baby needed to be killed, dammit!

straw

Care, however, views the baby as an abomination

straw

So the only thing you are supporting is putting the mother at risk, and taking the life of a child that would most likely die anyway. Because you, personally, can't stand the thought of an imperfect child.

straw

So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?

straw begging

It's amazing. Care4All consistently says one thing: the decision should be made by the patient AND HER DOCTOR. You then respond by saying Care believes the mother alone should dictate all. Are you willfully stupid or is it accidental?

thank you for clearing up that the mother's desires are the only factor to take into consideration.

straw after being corrected on your straw

I just noticed...Care is not a proponent of killing babies BEFORE their time, which implies she's ok with killing them when they're time is up...or when someone determines it's time.

So she's just a proponent of killing babies, period, I guess.

Yes, it IS very easy to claim or insinuate a stance is wrong when you completely fabricate it and assign it to another person.

Try to stick to the facts and maybe we can have a convo. Keep making shit up and nobody is going to take you seriously.

You should take your own advice. Maybe it would have helped you avoid having an entire thread dedicated to your stupidity. I expect you will, in your usual fashion, completely ignore this mountain of evidence that speaks to your hypocrisy and incompetence.

Where did you see that the baby asphyxiated? You didn't, you're making it up.

Just when I think you can't possibly say anything more inane, you bring this to the table. HOW DO YOU THINK THE BABY DIED? Just because they didn't use a word outside your vocabulary directly in the article does not mean I'm making it up. Basic reading comprehension would have clued you into that.

You assert that hastening death is legal and commonplace in every state. That's a lie.

Yet another straw man. What I stated was "actively hastening death secondary to reducing suffering is not only legal, but commonplace in every state of this country." What you read was half of it, as usual, missing the actual point, which is still true. It is specifically known as the double effect. I would recommend you read up on it, but you seem to have an aversion to educating yourself on things before speaking.

Your posts consist of half truths, outright lies, opinions and fables presented as fact, and a variety of logical fallacies that you like to pretend actually PROVE something. They don't even mean anything, let alone establish a point.

You keep saying things like this, and I have yet to see you pick out a single point I made and actually refute it as lie or fable. Which logical fallacy is that?

If you want to make a point, you don't just say "I say it and that is your proof". That's not the way grownups debate. Any time you make an assertion or a statement of fact, you HAVE to provide a citation or reference...that means proof. You have to reference a fact that supports your statement, preferably with a link.

Ah I love it that you think you're in a position to offer debating advice, after countless examples of ridiculous straw man arguments you constantly produce. If you would like me to reference or cite any point I make, simply ask for it and I will provide it. Please keep in mind however that I reserve the right to point you to a dictionary when you once again demonstrate your incompetence with basic English.

As usual, I look forward to you making up ridiculous twisted interpretations of things I said in this post, and completely ignoring all the areas where I point out your deficiencies.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief. I quit after the first two paragraphs, where you simply re-asserted you know absolutely nothing, and where you proved you have no concept of what a logical fallacy is.

It's sort of like watching a retard shouting macaroni! at regular intervals, thinking he is conveying thought, when really all he's doing is drawing attention to his deficits.

Meanwhile, give some thought to what I said before. More words don't make you look smart if you are incapable of making a point, or the points you do make are false
BTW, someone who doesn't recognize metaphors and parallels probably shouldn't bother with editing or picking apart other people's material.

 

[AllieBaba]

And for the record, kindly provide verification that the baby died of asphyxiation. You made that assertion...you need to back it up. Saying *how do you think it died* is not verification, nor evidence of it. Otherwise, just cross that assertion off your slate and let's move onto the next lie.