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

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

So you're making the ethical claim that only a patient ought to be able to initiate their own cessation of suffering through suicide after being cleared by a doctor. That sure is convenient when discussing an ethical case regarding a child. But instead of putting off the topic, let's explore it further. After all, you ARE making claims that these things aren't ethical, so it's high time you made the case WHY.

The baby clearly can't make the decision to end its own suffering, but you are well aware who makes all medical decisions for newborns anyway.

Furthermore, such practices remain highly controversial and are far from being accepted within the health care community's system of ethics.

Controversial sure, and yet completely integrated into the medical community's ethical considerations. Washington has it's own version, and Virginia just proposed a similar policy. REGARDLESS of physician assisted suicide, you are still completely ignoring the double effect, which IS an established and non-controversial method of secondarily bringing about death through the administration of pain relieving medications, that is NOT controversial in the medical community. Every major medical organization, including but not limited to the American Medical Association, sees the double effect as ethically sound. This leads me back to the question: why do you see it as unethical when so many doctors would disagree?

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.

Yes, you've mentioned this before, and as I mentioned before, laws should be written for the common practices and not the special cases, but hold exceptions for such special cases. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, as it underlies every aspect of this justice system, right down to all the countless exceptions and exemptions allowed in your taxes. In other words: physician assisted suicide, abortion, and the double effect are all seen as ethical to varying degrees, and all come as exceptions to the general rules of murder and medical malpractice. Claiming application of these principles to this case is unethical and should not dictate law exceptions is contrary to what is already established.

Sounds like we're getting somewhere now. I look forward to your response regarding the double effect and its application in this instance.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

More words? I simply used your words and stated "straw" after every time you made a straw man argument. Perhaps the word "straw" is too many for you? I like how you went from claiming all those fabricated arguments you attributed to other people were really just "metaphors and parallels." Remind me again how insisting care believed imperfect babies should be killed is a metaphor for what she actually said. Oh that's right, you can't. Because it's not. Nice back pedal though!

So instead of addressing the points that I made and taking responsibility for all your straw man arguments, you decide to make ad hominem attacks and go off on useless tangents that in no way refute or directly respond to my post. What did I say you were going to do when faced with such evidence?

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.

Bingo!

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.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were clueless about how the baby actually suffered. See I thought you had actually read the articles presented in this thread by various people regarding the cause of death before claiming I was wrong to say the baby asphyxiated. My mistake. Next time I won't assume you actually read things like news articles or the several pages in this thread that examined the cause of death.

Welcome to The United States of Misogyny | Death and Taxes
"Deaver’s water broke early meaning there wasn’t enough amniotic fluid necessary for her fetus’s development, mainly affecting her baby’s lungs. She was told her daughter wouldn’t be able to breath once outside of the womb."

ThinkProgress » Woman Forced To Watch Her Baby Die Because Nebraska Anti-Abortion Law Prohibited Doctor From Acting
"Her water broke early and, without amniotic fluid, the fetus would not develop lungs to survive outside the womb."

Her baby wasn't expected to live, but Nebraska law banned abortion | The Des Moines Register | DesMoinesRegister.com
"Her baby tried desperately to inhale. ... made one final attempt to breathe."

Baby lungs are not developed at that age. They are needed to breath. Let me know if you still have questions about these things I'm clearly "making up."

 

[frazzledgear]

Neb. mom carried non-viable pregnancy due to law | The Associated Press | Nation | San Francisco Examiner

Danielle Deaver was about 22 weeks into her pregnancy when doctors told her she wouldn't be able to carry to term and her child would die soon after birth. Then to her surprise, she learned doctors couldn't end her non-viable pregnancy because of a new Nebraska law barring late-term abortions.

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

So is this an argument in favor of late term abortions and the suggestion the law need not be concerned about late term abortions at all? Or the fact the law did not allow exceptions for fatal conditions in the fetus who would not survive its own birth? Truth is YOU are the whacko when it comes to this issue -not everyone else.

Frankly I do not see a political point to be made at all here. Its just a sad story and I doubt it will make legislators revisit the law. I am moved by the sad story of a mother finding out she is carrying a child that will not survive -but not so moved about her being pregnant another three days before birth occurred on its own. Only a whacko on the issue, a NUTJOB who thinks this is actually a typical story in the first place -would even suggest that if she had just been able to let a doctor stab her child in the head and suck its brains out three days earlier she would have been better off in some way as opposed to giving birth and holding her child as it died! I find the first image to be horrifying, brutal, violent and inhumane - the second to be a sad fact in nature. And no whacko nutjob like YOU can convince anyone with any common sense that the violent murder of the child would somehow have provided a better conclusion for the mother. The vast majority of women who abort early in their pregnancy suffer long term emotional damage (in spite of whacko nutjobs like YOU who want to pretend it has no more effect on a woman than flushing a turd) but those who have late term abortions are often haunted by it for life regardless of why they had it done and suffer a much higher rate of post traumatic distress disorder than women who aborted early in pregnancy. In addition late term abortions pose a more serious health risk to the mother than natural birth -so no one can claim killing the child before it is born on its own somehow protects the mother's emotional OR physical health. It provably poses a more serious risk to the mother than birth does and provably causes more emotional health problems for the mother than birth and the child dying naturally. Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms But at least knowing her child wasn't killed, wasn't stabbed in the head and its brains sucked out to insure a killed, dead child was delivered instead of a living one no matter how short that life would have been -won't be ANY part of her heartache. Doctors used to hide stillborn babies and often those they knew were destined to die shortly after birth from their mothers until they realized the mothers actually did much better emotionally and were better able to move through their grief if they were allowed to hold their dead child. So I am not the least bit persuaded to believe that this woman would in ANY way be better off never having seen her child at all, never being able to say good-bye to it and instead left with the memory of having given permission to someone to carry out an incredibly violent, brutal act that if done to a dog would send someone to jail and for the rest of her life always haunted by the mental image of the violent act she allowed to happen to her own child. Instead she held her child and told it good-bye as it died a natural death. And you truly have to be a MAJOR nutjob on the issue to pretend stabbing the child in the head with scissors and sucking its brains out is somehow better for the child than a natural death shortly after birth -so it sure as hell isn't about what is best for the child either. What it really boils down to is whether its "better" somehow for the child to be forced to die on someone's arbitrary TIME SCHEDULE instead of allowing nature to take its course -even though and ESPECIALLY when allowing nature to take its course is actually LESS risky for the mother's emotional and physical health!

By the way, keep up with the times. The majority now OPPOSE abortion including a majority of all women -and the OVERWHELMING majority of women who have given birth themselves oppose abortion. Gee I guess that makes the majority of all women "fascist social conservative" -except "fascist" is actually more appropriate for those who SUPPORT abortion -not oppose it.

And while you are at it MORON, you NUTJOBS need to learn what fascism really is. I hope you know just how STUPID you really sound when you accuse people who oppose killing others the "fascists". Because it actually applies to those who support killing others on all sorts of grounds -from being unwanted, to being "imperfect" to being brain damaged, etc - and insist that makes killing them acceptable and justified. THAT belief itself is a FASCIST ONE! YOU actually support a page right out of Mein Kampf buddy! The LEFT are the fascists MORON! They always have been and always will be. FASCISM is GOVERNMENT having complete power and FORCIBLY suppressing all criticism and opposition. Maybe you really didn't know this -but conservatives OPPOSE government having the size and power to be able to do that. LIBERALS are the ones who love big, centralized, powerful government. NOT conservatives. Which is why ALL totalitarian states are LEFTIST. Without exception. The Nazis were leftists, communists are leftists, fascists are LEFTISTS, dictators are leftists. They are all leftwing, they all want a large, powerful government with total or near total control of the individual - and they just disagree about which group should be wielding all that massive power and control. If you believe government should even have that kind of power at all -then it doesn't matter who would be wielding that power, you are a LEFTIST for the simple fact you favor a government with that kind of power in the first place. It doesn't matter WHY you would favor it -liberals in particular like to give these smarmy, touchy-feely justifications for why they desire a massive, powerful government even though history has proven government is anything BUT touchy-feely and can NEVER be trusted with massive power! Power is ALWAYS a corrupting influence no matter how well intentioned the reasons given for wanting it consolidated in a massive, powerful government and away from the people who are soon viewed as little more than government owned property who exist for the benefit of government. The safest way to lessen its corrupting influence is by disseminating it into the hands of many -and KEEPING it there. NOT by centralizing it in a large, massive, powerful government. So a conservative doesn't believe government should EVER have that kind of power at all - no matter who would be wielding it and no matter how many smarmy touchy-feely reasons liberals just insist justifies such a system! The opposite of one totalitarian state is NOT another totalitarian state! And you really have to be a moron to believe otherwise -or a product of our public school system which no longer educates our kids and instead indoctrinates them -including deceiving them into believing the political differences between the left and right are just about which side will wield that massive government power. The TRUTH is only ONE side WANTS that massive, powerful government with total control -and the other side DOESN'T. No matter who would be holding the reins of power!

Every time a liberal screeches about conservatives being "fascists" I immediately know they are poorly educated, ignorant PARROTS, the "useful idiots" of which Marx spoke so "highly". One long standing tactic of the left -and is reiterated by Saul Alinksy in that piece of FILTH "Rules for Radicals" is to confuse and deceive the public by falsely accusing the other side of the left's own worst sins. And they do, hoping that if the truth comes out at least some of their LIE will stick and cause the public to see it all as a "wash" with both sides guilty of doing what only the left actually does. Which is why the left INSISTS on portraying conservatives as desiring that same massive, centralized, all powerful government the left wants -and only disagreeing with them about who should be in control of that massive, powerful government. It is a LIE and it is one of their most effective and most believed lies too. But conservatives OPPOSE such a government no matter who has power. The very term "conservative" for American conservatives refers to their belief that we should deviate very little and CONSERVATIVELY away from the system our founders created, a system they tried to insure could NOT accumulate enough power to turn on its own people in the first place. (Conservatives of another country refers to them adhering to something else inside their own country and the term in no way is interchangeable for US conservatives -so an American liberal actually has far more in common with the Iranian conservatives controlling Iran than US conservatives ever would. Its about POWER and who has it -the left, like the Iranian mullahs, believe GOVERNMENT should have it. While US conservatives believe the PEOPLE of Iran should have it. It is why the left so often find themselves on the WRONG SIDE supporting and defending terrorists and dictators like Chavez and Castro -and even Saddam Hussein. The left already identifies with the system of government being run or desired by all of them -massive and powerful with near or total control over the individual. Any other differences are minor in comparison because they already favor that kind of system in the first place -even though they may offer different reasons for wanting such a system.) When was the last time you heard a conservative say they believed GOVERNMENT should shut down MSNBC because it is a piece of crap station posing as a news station? I can't count the number of LIBERALS who sincerely believe GOVERNMENT should have the power to shut down Fox though -and all because they just don't like the points of view being aired on it! LIBERALISM cannot tolerate DISSENT and a whole lot of liberals believe in using the power of GOVERNMENT to FORCIBLY silence dissent and criticism -FASCISM. Something you never hear conservatives say because conservatives do NOT fear dissent and debate and totally unlike liberals absolutely do NOT believe some speech is just too "dangerous" to let others hear. So you might want to read REAL history about who fascists really are and what they actually believe BEFORE accusing those of it who are actually the most opposed to a system that would even allow the rise of fascism at all! It is a FACT that only the LEFT can BE fascists in the first place since conservatives oppose government even having that kind of power in the first place! If they supported a fascist government -then they are NOT conservatives in the first place! (And please -no one be stupid enough to insist Nazis were rightwing and comparable to US conservatives. Even their social agenda was entirely LEFTWING, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gun control and the disarming the people. You can't safely run a fascist state if the people have the means to defend themselves against it -which is why conservatives OPPOSE disarming the people! No people have EVER been made "safer" by disarming them and leaving them helpless to defend themselves either against criminals of society -or their own government gone bad. Stalin once claimed that Nazism was the opposite of communism and some people really are STUPID enough to believe that one totalitarian state is the opposite of another one. But BOTH were leftwing, one just slightly more so than the other - and merely disagreed about which group should be wielding all that state power! ANARCHY, no government control at all - is the opposite of totalitarianism and that does NOT by any stretch of the imagination describe either communism or Nazism, does it?

 

[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.

More words? I simply used your words and stated "straw" after every time you made a straw man argument. Perhaps the word "straw" is too many for you? I like how you went from claiming all those fabricated arguments you attributed to other people were really just "metaphors and parallels." Remind me again how insisting care believed imperfect babies should be killed is a metaphor for what she actually said. Oh that's right, you can't. Because it's not. Nice back pedal though!

So instead of addressing the points that I made and taking responsibility for all your straw man arguments, you decide to make ad hominem attacks and go off on useless tangents that in no way refute or directly respond to my post. What did I say you were going to do when faced with such evidence?

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.

Bingo!

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.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were clueless about how the baby actually suffered. See I thought you had actually read the articles presented in this thread by various people regarding the cause of death before claiming I was wrong to say the baby asphyxiated. My mistake. Next time I won't assume you actually read things like news articles or the several pages in this thread that examined the cause of death.

Welcome to The United States of Misogyny | Death and Taxes
"Deaver’s water broke early meaning there wasn’t enough amniotic fluid necessary for her fetus’s development, mainly affecting her baby’s lungs. She was told her daughter wouldn’t be able to breath once outside of the womb."

ThinkProgress » Woman Forced To Watch Her Baby Die Because Nebraska Anti-Abortion Law Prohibited Doctor From Acting
"Her water broke early and, without amniotic fluid, the fetus would not develop lungs to survive outside the womb."

Her baby wasn't expected to live, but Nebraska law banned abortion | The Des Moines Register | DesMoinesRegister.com
"Her baby tried desperately to inhale. ... made one final attempt to breathe."

Baby lungs are not developed at that age. They are needed to breath. Let me know if you still have questions about these things I'm clearly "making up."

That's great, you can be taught. But all the erroneous bs aside from the link - you could have left all that shit out. It's completely irrelevant. And I don't read blathering crap from people who just like to bloviate.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

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.

Never calmed to be an intellectual. you watch the video yet you gargoyle? Had what you advocate happened Mama would have been spared any suffering at the time while babe got a surgical instrument run threw her head . Assisted suicide has no place here. That was hashed out in another thread, and you need to stop using it to deflect.

 

[AllieBaba]

So what happened to the "legal in every state" argument? It seems to have disappeared...

 

[newpolitics]

It's funny how to me, in this instance, conservatives completely doubt the expertise of the doctors and label their prognosis as a conspiracy, but when it comes energy (oil, fracking), military (going to Iraq), or finance, expert opinion is always welcome without scrutiny. How convenient that they get to pick and choose which experts are actually experts, especially in a field which is actually a science, backed by years of hard evidence, and repeatable calculations, math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc... as compared to some arbitrarily assigned expertise, given credibly solely on their ranking in a pecking order (President, General, Economist) who only speculate using broad opinions based more on beliefs, hunchs, and biased views, and their appeal to popular opinion and momentum, rather than actual concrete science. What ******* bullshit this hub-bub is. It's logical blasphemy.

 

[editec]

It's funny how to me, in this instance, conservatives completely doubt the expertise of the doctors and label their prognosis as a conspiracy, but when it comes energy (oil, fracking), military (going to Iraq), or finance, expert opinion is always welcome without scrutiny. How convenient that they get to pick and choose which experts are actually experts, especially in a field which is actually a science, backed by years of hard evidence, and repeatable calculations, math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc... as compared to some arbitrarily assigned expertise, given credibly solely on their ranking in a pecking order (President, General, Economist) who only speculate using broad opinions based more on beliefs, hunchs, and biased views, and their appeal to popular opinion and momentum, rather than actual concrete science. What ******* bullshit this hub-bub is. It's logical blasphemy.

Unless we happen to be experts in a field, we are all forced to decide which experts we believe in debates where expert opinions are necessary.

We see this happening in all sorts of debates where scientific or engineering issues are central to the discussion.

Now I happen to agree with you that most conservatives on THIS board are know-nothings.

Some of them obviously revel in their ignorance. The wallow in it like pigs in a sty. Those types aren't really worth writing to.

But as I said originally, when it comes to issues of science, unless you are yourself an expert, you are depending on experts to craft you POV, just as those who disagree with you probably are.

That is basically why I seldom enter into those debates.

Dueling expert debates are pointless.

My scientist can beat up your scientist debating leads exactly nowhere as can be so clearly seen in, as two examples, the Global Warming debates and the 911 debates.

ALSO we see that to a lesser extend in many ECON debates.

However in social science issues (econ included) I feel more qualified to take a stance so I tend to gravitate to those issues

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

These idiots don't even know what it is they follow. They haven't figured out that the fascist and communist branches of their ideology have united and and abandonned ideological purity in favor of whateverever collectivist authoritarianism method they can use to advance the whole. Their early calls for eugenic ellimination of undesireables is being conducted in our nations cities with the wholesale slaughter of half a generation of black babies in the name of "choice" and now they're pushing thier second facet by seeking to base madical treatments on their "worth" to society wherein the very young and very old are allowed to "die with dignity" because we can't afford the treatment... it's for the greater good.

Hillary might have known what she was advocating when she claimed to be an "early 20th century progressive", but so few people know their history that most people thought that was a good thing.

The biggest difference between a fascist and a communist is where they keep thier scapegoats.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

why do you insist on being intellectually dishonest? changing the name of euthenasia will not make it not euthenasia. That its distateful is not a rerason to rename it, its a reason not to do it.

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.

suicide and murder are not the same, and actively hastening death to reduce suffering is neither commonplace nor legal in the other 49 states. Lying will not help.

Now that we've established it is not an unforgivable taboo in this culture,

your strawman establishes nothing except that your incapable of defending your opinion without it

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.

lifes quality is in living it, those who don't have NO quality of life because they have NO life... another strawman

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.

lets not, you don't get to frame the argument with your strawmen and then claim everyone else must maintain the discussion in your boundaries. You ain't that smart.

 

[BrianH]

We (Americans) have too much time on our hands to be worried about this. Children are born still all the time. There are instances where the mother is a couple weeks away from giving birth when the umbilical cord wraps around the child's neck and kills it. Mothers have to give birth to dead babies in this case. It's just nature and a fact of life. The baby is going to have to come out either way, whether it's alive or dead. They would still have had to dig the baby out of the mother if they had "aborted" it before hand. The way I see it is that this woman got to enjoy the life of her baby for a few minutes rather than killing it in the womb...

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

induced labor was available to her and was denied only because the hospital put its questionable legal opinion ahead of the medical opinion of the doctors.

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.

The word was used because progressives are generally stupid when it comes to knowing what it actually is they support and like to call any exercize of governmental authority they disagree with "Fascist".

 

[BenNatuf]

It's funny how to me, in this instance, conservatives completely doubt the expertise of the doctors and label their prognosis as a conspiracy, but when it comes energy (oil, fracking), military (going to Iraq), or finance, expert opinion is always welcome without scrutiny. How convenient that they get to pick and choose which experts are actually experts, especially in a field which is actually a science, backed by years of hard evidence, and repeatable calculations, math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc... as compared to some arbitrarily assigned expertise, given credibly solely on their ranking in a pecking order (President, General, Economist) who only speculate using broad opinions based more on beliefs, hunchs, and biased views, and their appeal to popular opinion and momentum, rather than actual concrete science. What ******* bullshit this hub-bub is. It's logical blasphemy.

Whats really funny is how no conservative has done what you say and it seems to be progressives who like to trot out their "57 nobel lauriettes" and talk about "every respected economist" and "all of the experts" and claimed but non-existant "consensus".

Maybe what you need to support your criticism is a mirror?

 

[BenNatuf]

Now I happen to agree with you that most conservatives on THIS board are know-nothings.

How deliciously ironic that you'd make such an assinine statement in a thread started by a lib complaing that a law protecting the life of viable fetus' is "fascist".

 

[SmarterThanHick]

That's great, you can be taught. But all the erroneous bs aside from the link - you could have left all that shit out. It's completely irrelevant. And I don't read blathering crap from people who just like to bloviate.

Oh I see. You claim I'm making stuff up, and then in your usual fashion when proven wrong, claim it is all irrelevant anyway. If it's all irrelevant, why did YOU take the time to pull it out and demand proof?

I am always amused when you are directly proven wrong and then try to squirm away with some dumb back pedal. Did I mention I am amused often on this board?

Nevertheless I'm glad to see that you are first learning how the baby died, 29 pages into a thread involving the ethical issues surrounding life and death of this case. That kind of makes every one of your posts before this point completely clueless as usual for you.

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.

Never calmed to be an intellectual. you watch the video yet you gargoyle? Had what you advocate happened Mama would have been spared any suffering at the time while babe got a surgical instrument run threw her head . Assisted suicide has no place here. That was hashed out in another thread, and you need to stop using it to deflect.

Gargoyle?

Which video? I remember someone posted a youtube clip a while back and I believe they said they didn't watch it, so I didn't. Did you have a point to make? Go on, use your words!

So what happened to the "legal in every state" argument? It seems to have disappeared...

Yes, things tend to disappear when your eyes are closed. If you would just direct your limited attention span to another one of my posts higher on THIS PAGE, you will see:

REGARDLESS of physician assisted suicide, you are still completely ignoring the double effect, which IS an established and non-controversial method of secondarily bringing about death through the administration of pain relieving medications, that is NOT controversial in the medical community. Every major medical organization, including but not limited to the American Medical Association, sees the double effect as ethically sound.

complete with link for people who are not familiar. The double effect is legal and common in every state.

If you actually try reading people's posts you'd probably have an easier time with representing their points correctly, avoiding straw man arguments, and actually following a thread. Just a suggestion.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

These idiots don't even know what it is dthey follow. They haven't figured out that the fascist and communist branches of their ideology have united and and abandonned ideological purity in favor of whateverever collectivist authoritarianism method they can use to advance the whole. Their early calls for eugenic ellimination of undesireables is being conducted in our nations cities with the wholesale slaughter of half a generation of black babies in the name of "choice" and now they're pushing thier second facet by seeking to base madical treatments on their "worth" to society wherein the very young and very old are allowed to "die with dignity" because we can't afford the treatment... it's for the greater good.

Hillary might have known what she was advocating when she claimed to be an "early 20th century progressive", but so few people know their history that most people thought that was a good thing.

The biggest difference between a fascist and a communist is where they keep thier scapegoats.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from eachother. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

why do you insist on being intellectually dishonest? changing the name of euthenasia will not make it not euthenasia. That its distateful is not a rerason to rename it, its a reason not to do it.

You think using accurate descriptions of the event instead of using your loaded word is intellectually dishonest? Not only is my point accurate, involving the reduction or removal of suffering in the face of impending death, but you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word dishonest. Have a read:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/135767-why-are-you-so-dishonest.html

suicide and murder are not the same, and actively hastening death to reduce suffering is neither commonplace nor legal in the other 49 states. Lying will not help.

Suicide and murder are not the same, and actively hastening death secondarily to reduced suffering is both legal and commonplace in every single state. It's known as the double effect, a medically ethical concept which I have brought up and previously linked to multiple times in this thread. "Lying will not help" So dramatic.

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.

lifes quality is in living it, those who don't have NO quality of life because they have NO life... another strawman

Triple negative! Fantastic.

Sounds like you don't understand the term quality of life or it's ethical applications, seeing as you're applying your own subjective value statement to it. But let's look at your statement anyway. "Life's quality is in living it." So what kind of quality of life do you think this baby had for the 15 minutes it asphyxiated? Let's say scale of 1 to 100, where 100 is awesome and 1 is the worst possible quality of life possible. I just want to see where your subjective reasoning stands. Give me a ballpark number.

While you're thinking of that, please go read up on straw man, because it's clear you don't know what it means. Alternately, if you'd like to support your point, just point out whose argument I misrepresented in the above quote.

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.

lets not, you don't get to frame the argument with your strawmen and then claim everyone else must maintain the discussion in your boundaries. You ain't that smart.

Once again you don't understand what quality of life means and are just assuming I'm making up new terms and applying similarly fabricated definitions to them. Clearly in your mind that means I'm making a straw man argument, which even if the previous sentence were true is still not a straw man, and therefore you refuse to participate in any ethical discussion on the matter.
Quality of life definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms
Quality Of Life -- Medical Definition
Assessment of Quality-of-Life Outcomes - New England Journal of Medicine

Amazing! One of the most prestigious medical journals in the world is writing about this topic and yet you think I was the one who first created it while "dishonestly lying." I should be getting royalties for all those experts using my lying terminology!

induced labor was available to her and was denied only because the hospital put its questionable legal opinion ahead of the medical opinion of the doctors.

Aha, a solid point instead of unsubstantiated name calling. Progress. You are partially right in that the hospital put its legal issues above the medical opinion. You are incorrect in stating that induced labor was available to her. If that were the case, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HER.

But you bring up a good issue regarding the prevention of ethically sound services by legal uncertainty. Would you like to enter ethical discussion now?

 

[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.

These idiots don't even know what it is dthey follow. They haven't figured out that the fascist and communist branches of their ideology have united and and abandonned ideological purity in favor of whateverever collectivist authoritarianism method they can use to advance the whole. Their early calls for eugenic ellimination of undesireables is being conducted in our nations cities with the wholesale slaughter of half a generation of black babies in the name of "choice" and now they're pushing thier second facet by seeking to base madical treatments on their "worth" to society wherein the very young and very old are allowed to "die with dignity" because we can't afford the treatment... it's for the greater good.

Hillary might have known what she was advocating when she claimed to be an "early 20th century progressive", but so few people know their history that most people thought that was a good thing.

The biggest difference between a fascist and a communist is where they keep thier scapegoats.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from eachother. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

WTF are you talking about?

What a bunch of garbage.

 

[newpolitics]

It's funny how to me, in this instance, conservatives completely doubt the expertise of the doctors and label their prognosis as a conspiracy, but when it comes energy (oil, fracking), military (going to Iraq), or finance, expert opinion is always welcome without scrutiny. How convenient that they get to pick and choose which experts are actually experts, especially in a field which is actually a science, backed by years of hard evidence, and repeatable calculations, math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc... as compared to some arbitrarily assigned expertise, given credibly solely on their ranking in a pecking order (President, General, Economist) who only speculate using broad opinions based more on beliefs, hunchs, and biased views, and their appeal to popular opinion and momentum, rather than actual concrete science. What ******* bullshit this hub-bub is. It's logical blasphemy.

Unless we happen to be experts in a field, we are all forced to decide which experts we believe in debates where expert opinions are necessary.

We see this happening in all sorts of debates where scientific or engineering issues are central to the discussion.

Now I happen to agree with you that most conservatives on THIS board are know-nothings.

Some of them obviously revel in their ignorance. The wallow in it like pigs in a sty. Those types aren't really worth writing to.

But as I said originally, when it comes to issues of science, unless you are yourself an expert, you are depending on experts to craft you POV, just as those who disagree with you probably are.

That is basically why I seldom enter into those debates.

Dueling expert debates are pointless.

My scientist can beat up your scientist debating leads exactly nowhere as can be so clearly seen in, as two examples, the Global Warming debates and the 911 debates.

ALSO we see that to a lesser extend in many ECON debates.

However in social science issues (econ included) I feel more qualified to take a stance so I tend to gravitate to those issues

You certainly raise some good points. What you are talking of is an information problem, because we don't have the same information as experts, and are forced to trust them. I remember this issue in economics class, where, for example, you take your car to the mechanic, and he charges you x amount to do y. You have no way of knowing whether y was necessary or excessive, so therefore whether x was too high or not. Basically, as everyone knows, mechanics can take advantage of you if you dont know cars. It happens all the time. The same happens in many other fields. You may not really know if a procedure or process must be done, but we have to trust the experts, within reason (we are not going to pay $100,000 to fix a cavity, we would know he/she is lying about something). This is a huge problem, because we are forced to trust experts. I think though, the real distinction comes in when politics/financial gain are involved with an expert decision. For example, a scientist who is hired by say, a fracking corporate conglomerate who wants to insure that no damage to the water supply is being, is getting paid by that company not to find truth, but to find only information that backs their claim that the water supply is not effected. Hence, it is utterly biased, yet, based upon the agreed upon claim that this man is an expert, his credibility is high, and his decision is not questioned by most. (I realize this may be a loaded example that may spur a tangent debate. I am not claiming this is true, but this is not a new idea, similar situations have happened, and are happening everyday, all the time. In other words, corruption)

In the case of medicine, doctors take a hypocratic oath, and their decisions are never, in any way, supposed to be political or religious. I think this separates this field of expertise from many others such as economists, military personnel, and others commonly found within the realm of politics. This is because medicine is based on science, and science is non-biased. Then the problem becomes that medicine is not an exact science, and in more difficult stages, becomes more of an art, because problems are so complex and open to interpretation with regards to diagnosis, prognosis, proper treatment, etc... my point is, I do not believe these doctors have any reason to do any procedure other than what is agreed upon by many to do the proper thing in any given situation. In science, anything is subject to peer review. The same is the case with this operation. These doctors are dealing with human life, when their own stated aim and profession is the care of human life, whether that means ending pain, or enduring it because it is worth it. In this case, they felt that the baby was going to die no matter what. I am sure MANY doctors had to concur. Therefore, I find it highly implausibe that any political, religious, or financial reasons caused their collectively belief that this baby was going to do. All this talk of, 'who are they to decide,' 'only god can say that,' 'they should have operated in utero,' is kind of ridiculous to me. If they thought they help the baby they would have. Obviously they realized that couldn't, and had to cut their losses, and then moved their attention to the mother to try and help minimize her pain. We know nothing of the nature of the baby's condition, and to sit here and judge the doctors is so arrogant to me, because it assumes that they don't know what they are talking about, and that they possibility had mal-intent or simply didn't care enough to really try and help the baby. Now, it then becomes us who try to act like experts, and usurp their own. Obviously, we as humans, prefer life, especially in the case of babies, the most helpless of humans (I am in no way making an argument either way for abortion). It is an evolutionary interest we have, to vie for our own survival, obviously, but you have to recognize that for what it is, pure instinct, and not disregard the information and reality at hand, such as in this case. This baby was going to die, and people can not accept that. There, the mother was put through the psychological torture of knowing this to be the case while still being obligated to hold the pregnancy for the remainder of the term, and the physical pain of the whole process.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from eachother. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

WTF are you talking about?

What a bunch of garbage.

Did the word "spectrum" confuse you? Poor dear. Perhaps you should attempt to support your refutation as to why it's garbage instead of your usual 3rd grade tactics of comprising the entirety of your point in name calling. You know, try that intelligent supported debate thing for once.