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

[Cecilie1200]

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."

Yes, what's wrong with you, Allie, that you couldn't have looked up a bunch of blogs and then misread a news article, the way Hick did? For shame.

Here are the parts you didn't want to include, Hick, you cherrypicking freak:

Danielle Deaver cradled her daughter, knowing the newborn's gasps would slowly subside, and the baby would die.

Through tear-blurred eyes, she looked her daughter over for physical defects.

Deaver, 34, of Grand Island, Neb., wanted to see something, anything to validate the news doctors delivered eight days before: Her baby had virtually no chance of survival. And if she lived, she would be severely disabled.

What Deaver saw was perfection: A tiny but beautiful child. Ten toes. Ten fingers. Long eyelashes.

Her baby tried desperately to inhale.

With her husband, Robb, at her side, Deaver sobbed, gently kissing her daughter's forehead and hoping her baby wasn't in pain.

::snip explanation of the law::

A nurse at Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital in Hastings instructed the couple to closely monitor their daughter's breathing so when it stopped the staff could accurately record the death.

The clock ticked.

At 3:15 p.m. Dec. 8, 1-pound, 10-ounce Elizabeth Deaver - named in memory of Robb's grandmother - made one final attempt to breathe.

It's obvious that she DID breathe - badly - for fifteen minutes, and then stopped. Nowhere does it say she was blue, or cyonotic, or any of the other shit your half-assed imagination has shoehorned in there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

Actually, the more I read about this, the more it seems that their legal thinking wasn't that questionable. The doctors apparently consulted several lawyers, and were advised not to induce under the circumstances, because it's such a new and untested law that the consequences were totally unpredictable. I can actually understand that. Without some clear-cut sign that Danielle's life and health were definitely in immediate danger, I can see not wanting to risk one's license, career, and possibly freedom, and coming down on the side of legal caution.

Frankly, I still think it should have qualified as legal, given the possibility of uterine damage or infection, but there's no guarantee the local prosecutor would see it that way.

Still, the Deavers don't really have a quarrel with the law, per se, from where I sit. There just needs to be more clarification as to what this new law sees as "life and health of the mother".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I don't know how I could have been any clearer. There is such thing as a political spectrum hence why we talk of the right, middle, and the left. The far left being communism, as you go towards the center you pass through liberalism, then you have the center, and moving to the right you have conservatism, and finally, all the way to the right you have fascism, hence, communism and fascism are literally at two opposite ends of the spectrum.

Am I mistaken? Can someone back me up on this? I thought this was basic political science.

Yes, you're mistaken. Where did you get this from? Did you make it up?

Personally, I prefer the Nolan Chart, which gives much more dimension to the mapping of political placement than the outdated linear model.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

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".

Actually, the more I read about this, the more it seems that their legal thinking wasn't that questionable. The doctors apparently consulted several lawyers, and were advised not to induce under the circumstances, because it's such a new and untested law that the consequences were totally unpredictable. I can actually understand that. Without some clear-cut sign that Danielle's life and health were definitely in immediate danger, I can see not wanting to risk one's license, career, and possibly freedom, and coming down on the side of legal caution.

Frankly, I still think it should have qualified as legal, given the possibility of uterine damage or infection, but there's no guarantee the local prosecutor would see it that way.

Still, the Deavers don't really have a quarrel with the law, per se, from where I sit. There just needs to be more clarification as to what this new law sees as "life and health of the mother".

I disagree completely, inducing labor for a woman who's water has already brokeen and for whom not birthing can only damage the baby further is in no way any kind of abortion. And, what you describe is the hospital making a CYA legal decission above a reasonned medical decisssion. Inducing labor to alleviate a medical condition a side effect of which is the baby may likely die, is not inducing labor for the purpose of killing the baby. Two seperate things.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, delivering the baby early does pose a risk to a babyRE , and the mother. PREMATURE LABOR AND DELIVERY IS RISKY. Not just for the baby but for the mother. I've never heard of a dr outside of an abortion clinice who induce labor for the convenience of the mother, if that procedure is not medically needed. In this case, it wasn't. Rushing labor and delivery in a high risk pregnancy is not good medicine. Twins are taken early by ceasarean because of the increased risk of premature vaginal birth; both to the babies and the mother. Doctors are not inclined to put patients at risk based on the fact that they are impatient for the situation to come to an end.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow. Again, sorry for the weird gibbering. Ravi says everyone is used to it. I hope so. It irritates the hell out of me, but I don't usually see it until after I've posted. My cursor leaps around as I'm typing, inserting letters where they don't belong, and resulting in weird gaps elsewhere.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Not if you're involved, they're not.

My theory was right: distracting you is easier than actually clearly refuting your points. It's funny that when I actually do use a logical fallacy purposefully to test an idea, you completely miss it and get completely sidetracked.

Logic seems to have no sway with you, but shiny distractions do wonders!

It's obvious that she DID breathe - badly - for fifteen minutes, and then stopped. Nowhere does it say she was blue, or cyonotic, or any of the other shit your half-assed imagination has shoehorned in there.

Again I ask: how did this baby die? It's a simple question you seem to be avoiding. Every article that discusses the anticipated issues all mention the same thing. You call it cherry picking when every article that discusses it is consistent, and yet you can provide ZERO evidence that the cause of death was any other reason.

You similarly ignore my previous explanation of breathing. It takes multiple parts: muscles moving the chest, lungs capable of inflating and filling with air, blood flow to the lungs, and the ability of air to cross between the lungs and blood. So yes, the baby attempted to breath, poorly. That doesn't mean it was successful. You read "gasp" and think everything is fine. That's rather shortsighted. Nevertheless these undisputed facts still remain:

• ALL babies born very prematurely suffer from the inability of the lungs to fully function properly.
• EVERY article that addresses the reason behind why this baby was non-viable consistently states the above reason without contradiction.
• EVERY article that describes how the baby died consistently reports gasping or the inability to breath.
• Gasping in a newborn is a sign of not getting enough oxygen to tissues.
• Babies that cannot get oxygen to their tissues turn blue.

The above is known as neonatal respiratory distress. I'm sure you're already slamming the REPLY button ready to type "but the articles didn't explicitly state that was the problem!!!" and you'd be correct. For everyone remotely knowledgeable about the topic and has enough reading comprehension to figure out the connection between the lay person reporting that omits medical jargon, and the reason every doctor already knew ahead of time the lungs would be the issue, this is a clear connection.

I disagree completely, inducing labor for a woman who's water has already brokeen and for whom not birthing can only damage the baby further is in no way any kind of abortion. And, what you describe is the hospital making a CYA legal decission above a reasonned medical decisssion. Inducing labor to alleviate a medical condition a side effect of which is the baby may likely die, is not inducing labor for the purpose of killing the baby. Two seperate things.

I agree with most of that.

Actually, delivering the baby early does pose a risk to a babyRE , and the mother. PREMATURE LABOR AND DELIVERY IS RISKY. Not just for the baby but for the mother. I've never heard of a dr outside of an abortion clinice who induce labor for the convenience of the mother, if that procedure is not medically needed. In this case, it wasn't. Rushing labor and delivery in a high risk pregnancy is not good medicine. Twins are taken early by ceasarean because of the increased risk of premature vaginal birth; both to the babies and the mother. Doctors are not inclined to put patients at risk based on the fact that they are impatient for the situation to come to an end.

Actually, you've provided no evidence that delivering a very premature baby early poses a risk to the mother. You continue to cite articles regarding induced labor at the 40 week or greater mark, and incorrectly apply it to the 20 week mark. Rushing labor and delivery is the standard of care most high risk pregnancies. Clearly you haven't done your reading on preeclampsia like I recommended. Further, no one anywhere has stated that labor would have been induced because people were impatient. That is yet another straw man you fabricated on your own.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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".

Actually, the more I read about this, the more it seems that their legal thinking wasn't that questionable. The doctors apparently consulted several lawyers, and were advised not to induce under the circumstances, because it's such a new and untested law that the consequences were totally unpredictable. I can actually understand that. Without some clear-cut sign that Danielle's life and health were definitely in immediate danger, I can see not wanting to risk one's license, career, and possibly freedom, and coming down on the side of legal caution.

Frankly, I still think it should have qualified as legal, given the possibility of uterine damage or infection, but there's no guarantee the local prosecutor would see it that way.

Still, the Deavers don't really have a quarrel with the law, per se, from where I sit. There just needs to be more clarification as to what this new law sees as "life and health of the mother".

I disagree completely, inducing labor for a woman who's water has already brokeen and for whom not birthing can only damage the baby further is in no way any kind of abortion. And, what you describe is the hospital making a CYA legal decission above a reasonned medical decisssion. Inducing labor to alleviate a medical condition a side effect of which is the baby may likely die, is not inducing labor for the purpose of killing the baby. Two seperate things.

No one ever said an abortion was "for the purpose of killing the baby". The definition of an abortion is, again, the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. A miscarriage is also known as a spontaneous abortion, because the body itself has chosen to terminate the pregnancy, usually resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. Removal of the embryo in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. Removal of a fetus who has died in utero is an abortion.

Whatever emotional connotations you have attached to the word "abortion" have nothing whatever to do with the actual definition of the word, or the fact that, practically and legally speaking, inducing labor with no intention of trying to save or prolong the life of the baby IS an abortion. Doesn't make it medically wrong, immoral, or unethical in this case. Just makes it an abortion.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not if you're involved, they're not.

My theory was right: distracting you is easier than actually clearly refuting your points. It's funny that when I actually do use a logical fallacy purposefully to test an idea, you completely miss it and get completely sidetracked.

Logic seems to have no sway with you, but shiny distractions do wonders!

It's obvious that she DID breathe - badly - for fifteen minutes, and then stopped. Nowhere does it say she was blue, or cyonotic, or any of the other shit your half-assed imagination has shoehorned in there.

Again I ask: how did this baby die? It's a simple question you seem to be avoiding. Every article that discusses the anticipated issues all mention the same thing. You call it cherry picking when every article that discusses it is consistent, and yet you can provide ZERO evidence that the cause of death was any other reason.


You similarly ignore my previous explanation of breathing. It takes multiple parts: muscles moving the chest, lungs capable of inflating and filling with air, blood flow to the lungs, and the ability of air to cross between the lungs and blood. So yes, the baby attempted to breath, poorly. That doesn't mean it was successful. You read "gasp" and think everything is fine. That's rather shortsighted. Nevertheless these undisputed facts still remain:

• ALL babies born very prematurely suffer from the inability of the lungs to fully function properly.
• EVERY article that addresses the reason behind why this baby was non-viable consistently states the above reason without contradiction.
• EVERY article that describes how the baby died consistently reports gasping or the inability to breath.
• Gasping in a newborn is a sign of not getting enough oxygen to tissues.
• Babies that cannot get oxygen to their tissues turn blue.

The above is known as neonatal respiratory distress. I'm sure you're already slamming the REPLY button ready to type "but the articles didn't explicitly state that was the problem!!!" and you'd be correct. For everyone remotely knowledgeable about the topic and has enough reading comprehension to figure out the connection between the lay person reporting that omits medical jargon, and the reason every doctor already knew ahead of time the lungs would be the issue, this is a clear connection.

I disagree completely, inducing labor for a woman who's water has already brokeen and for whom not birthing can only damage the baby further is in no way any kind of abortion. And, what you describe is the hospital making a CYA legal decission above a reasonned medical decisssion. Inducing labor to alleviate a medical condition a side effect of which is the baby may likely die, is not inducing labor for the purpose of killing the baby. Two seperate things.

I agree with most of that.

Actually, delivering the baby early does pose a risk to a babyRE , and the mother. PREMATURE LABOR AND DELIVERY IS RISKY. Not just for the baby but for the mother. I've never heard of a dr outside of an abortion clinice who induce labor for the convenience of the mother, if that procedure is not medically needed. In this case, it wasn't. Rushing labor and delivery in a high risk pregnancy is not good medicine. Twins are taken early by ceasarean because of the increased risk of premature vaginal birth; both to the babies and the mother. Doctors are not inclined to put patients at risk based on the fact that they are impatient for the situation to come to an end.

Actually, you've provided no evidence that delivering a very premature baby early poses a risk to the mother. You continue to cite articles regarding induced labor at the 40 week or greater mark, and incorrectly apply it to the 20 week mark. Rushing labor and delivery is the standard of care most high risk pregnancies. Clearly you haven't done your reading on preeclampsia like I recommended. Further, no one anywhere has stated that labor would have been induced because people were impatient. That is yet another straw man you fabricated on your own.

Thanks for asking.

"5 Reasons to Avoid Induction of Labor
The Risk of Inducing Labor
By Robin Elise Weiss, LCCE

"Increased risk of forceps or vacuum extraction used for birth.
When labor is induced babies tend to stay in unfavorable positions, the use of epidural anesthesia is increased and therefore the need to assist the baby's birth via the use of forceps and vacuum extraction is also increased"

"Increased risk of cesarean section.
Sometimes labor inductions don't take, but it's too late to send you home, the baby must be born. The most common cause of this is that the bags of waters has been broken, either naturally or via an amniotomy. Since the risk of infection is greater, your baby will need to be born via c-section."

5 Reasons to Avoid Induction of Labor - The Risks of Labor Induction

"The fundamental question to be addressed is whether induction of labor exposes you and your baby to more risk than remaining pregnant. With this question in mind, an elective induction should not be undertaken until the pregnancy has reached 39 weeks unless maturity of the baby's lungs has been confirmed by amniocentesis."

Sounds like the drs were trying to give this *practically dead* baby an opportunity to live, which of course flies in the face of the assertions (initially) that the baby had zero percent chance of survival (already debunked) or was practically dead anyway (also debunked).

"Adverse Outcomes Associated with Inducing Labor

• Overstimulation and over-contraction of the uterus, limiting blood flow to the placenta and the baby.
• Failure to achieve labor and vaginal delivery resulting in the need for a cesarean section."
• Inducing Labor Information on Healthline

As I stated, inducing labor before the 39th week is risky for the mom. The risk of C-section and infection are increased. Which is why most doctors will opt to wait to see if the mother will go into labor naturally and deliver the baby before they induce at such an early stage.

I imagine they were monitoring this woman very closely, and if the baby had died, they would have either induced her or taken the baby c-section immediately. But some things just have to be waited out, and birth and death are two of those things that people must wait for. You don't get to give death a hand, and you can't rush birth without the potential for serious adverse side effects.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You don't get to rename euthenasia because you don't like it's being done being called what it is. Puposefully killing the sick is unacceptable.

Where did I ever rename euthenasia? Can you point to where I ever used a false or inaccurate wording of this topic? Go on, quote me on something instead of making vague complaints. Put some integrity behind your words. Point out what was inaccurate, false, or misleading.

here asshole is where you claimed euthenasia was a loaded word that was inacurate... and it wasn't the first time

Let's go over the order of events there:

1. You claim I renamed euthanasia
2. I state I'm simply describing what's going on instead of using that word, in no way renaming or redefining it
3. You continue to claim I renamed euthanasia
4. I ask you to point out where
5. You give my opinion as to why I chose not to use that word, while still not pointing out where I either renamed or redefined it

Regardless of whether it is a loaded word or not, which is mere opinion which I don't even care about, I have still in no way or place renamed or redefined euthanasia. I have given you my reason why I didn't use the word, but I still haven't renamed or redefined it. If you don't like my reason, I STILL haven't renamed or redefined it. So why don't you actually respond to the point instead of whining about how I'm not using your word choice. If there's something factually INCORRECT in my word choice, please point it out.

You're just a lying sack of shit.

your such an ignorant ass.

Let me know when you're ready to make one of those things called points.

when people are given massive doses of painkiller to control their pain the objective isn't to kill them... thats an eventual side effect of the treatment. What you waqnt here is treatment specifically designed to kill... they are not the same. Your double stupid analogy is a strawman.

"double stupid analogy" I see you've graduated to 3rd grade name calling! Well done!

But you're still wrong in what I want. What I wanted was the option for abortion offered to this woman, and/or the actual availability of induced labor as determined by this woman and her doctor without CYA legal interference, and/or the double effect applied to the baby. Any of those options, alone or in combination are still better than the worst case scenario, which is the scenario that occurred. Do you disagree? Do you think there could have been some worse outcome for this situation than watching a baby asphyxiate for 15 minutes?

No, you're just a complete moron, claiming the side effect of treatment and the objective of treatment is the same thing in order too justify purposeful euthenasia is intellectually dishonest. It's what you're good at.

You continue to prove you don't understand what "intellectually dishonest" means. I DO agree that claiming what you THINK I claimed would be wrong. Unfortunately for your ridiculous argument I never claimed the two were the same thing. I'd ask you to point out specifically where you think I said that, but you don't have the integrity to actually support the things you say.

life its its own value dumbass. Your stupid assed quality of life BS is what's reductionist, reducing life to the degree of enjoyment in it. When we start making subjective judgements about who's quality of life is worth living and who's should be snuffed out we pretend to be gods. We are not.

So you think the value of life is life. That's it. Absolutely no actual response past that circular reasoning? You then go on to call quality of life, a long standing pillar of medical ethics, as "stupid assed." Amazing when the sum total of your argument is name calling an entire aspect of established ethics, as if the ignorant opinion of one person can instantly refute expert doctors and ethicists around the world.

You are incapable of discussing this established ethical issue due to your immaturity, incompetence, and unrelenting stubbornness in the face of a well established expert field. Perhaps next you will claim the moon doesn't exist or electricity is similarly "stupid assed" simply because you lack the intelligence and capacity to understand the concepts.

there are only two possibilities here dumbass. alive and dead. What you're trying to do is justify killing... thats not ethics dumbass, it's evil.

Justify killing? What I'm attempting to do is bring up the well established ethical issue of quality of life. What you are failing to do is sidestep the issue by replacing it with life and death. Quality of life is not life or death. Note how the term isn't "quality of death." So I can't help but ask: are you simply unable to understand the concept of quality of life or do you just like to avoid discussing it?

Do you need me to google the term to help you better understand it?

The point still stands: quality of life is an established medical ethical issue you continue to ignore. You can't even point out what would improve or reduce someone's quality of life. Maybe a simple matching game would help. Prove to me you aren't a complete invalid by at least pointing out which of the following would improve and which would reduce someone's quality of life: getting cancer, receiving surgery that allows a person to breath easier, gaining new enjoyable social interactions, depression, physical torture. Let's see how far you will go to avoid a simple concept due to your mix of stubbornness and ignorance.

whats absurd is your assinine assertion that I don't know what quality of life is, what's further absurd is you don't seem to get the fact that I reject the argument, it is not "ethical" to subjetively determine who's life is worth living.

The fact that you equate the evaluation of quality of life equivalent to the determination of whether someone's life is worth living directly shows you don't know what the term means. Similarly in the previous quote above, you equate it with life or death, which ALSO shows you are clueless to its meaning or application. Try again. Maybe google can help you.

I did not ask you what number you think people should be killed at. I asked you about the quality of life of this baby. Are you truly incapable of assessing it? OK, let me break it down into your childish viewpoint: was the baby's quality of life 1 or 100?

Alive until it wasn't. Thats the only quality that matters.[/quote]
This too is a statement of yours that shows you don't understand the concept. If you are incapable of even understanding what gives quality to people's lives, reducing it only to "life = quality," you are once again showing your reductionist immaturity. CLEARLY a healthy baby has a BETTER quality of life than one that asphyxiates until death. That statement which you avoid so much makes absolutely no judgment as to who should die or live. Again, the fact that you continually confuse the two shows you don't know what you're talking about while crying that everyone else is a "double stupid moron."

I've pointed it out over and over again, and your inane denials do not negate it.

Yes. We've all seen you make this silly little claim in other threads as well. You think by making a vague reference to something that it is pointing it out. When asked to specifically quote a person as it applies to the point you are failing to make however, you consistently are unable. When asked to even paste the link of the post which you claimed to have done so, you will refuse. And yet you go on to claim others as dishonest. Honestly, what grade are you in?

You don't even understand the ethical concept you moron. Is it ethical to give a person massive doses of painkillers to lessen their suffering that will as a side effect eventually kill them? Yeah, if thats what they want.

Is it ethical to PURPOSEFULY kill a person as the primary objective to lessen their suffering? hell ******* no.

They are NOT the same thing.

I'm well aware they're not the same thing, and you have yet to be able to provide a quote of me comparing them as equal. NEVERTHELESS, the top option was not available in this case, the second issue is known as physician assisted suicide, and I have still in no area claimed they were equivalent.

See the difference between me and you is that you whine a lot, making lots of little claims of what you or someone else said regardless of it being true, whereas I support my claims with direct quotes and citation. You should try including that level of integrity into your post sometimes. People might stop seeing you as someone trying to compensate for their vast deficiencies with childish name calling.

But you're right: it doesn't matter what my subjective quality of this baby's life is to you. I asked for yours, but you avoided the question. Pathetic.

I didn't avoid the question dumbass, I rejected the premise.

You rejected the premise that people have varying QUALITIES OF LIFE?! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Once again you're a copmpletye idiot, the procedure was available to her under the law, what prevented her getting it was an erroneous opinion by a dumbass lawyer. The fault is not in the law, its in the idiot lawyer.

This is still true, as I've mentioned before. What remains false is that the option was available to her. If it was available to her, she would have had it. She didn't, because it wasn't available. Similarly, if I want to examine whether water is available to a patient, it doesn't matter if the nurse won't bring it, or the faucet won't work, or the water was turned off in the building completely. If the end result is that the patient CANNOT get something desired, it is not available to them, REGARDLESS of the cause. You are right in that the fault was in the lawyer, but that doesn't make it any more AVAILABLE if she still can't have it. Maybe you're having trouble understanding the world "available."

But you're also right in that it's clear you have no interest in entering an ethical discussion. You make good excuses as to why, but the end result is still the same: you either lack the intellectual capacity or desire, and produce no ethical reasoning.

what I have no interest in getting into is a dumbass argument to justify killing, there is no ethical question involved.

Yes as I said: no interest in ethical discussion with poor excuses due to a deficiency in intellectual capacity. You don't even understand the basic ethical terminology. I don't blame you for making excuses and keeping up this "tough guy" name calling facade to seem as if you are above it while continually getting things wrong. I won't tell anyone, don't worry.

see how intellectually dishonest you are. You've taken QUESTIONS and comments about OTHER SITUATIONS which posed QUESTIONS and attempted to claim they were STATEMENTS about THIS situation.

Many of those citations are not questions whatsoever. The very first link, for example, doesn't have a single question mark in it. Nevertheless begging the question is still questioning the validity of the doctors, which you claimed did not happen in this thread and I directly proved incorrect. Asking "why didn't they operate?" is still questioning the validity of the doctors. Looks like you're wrong again, and used "intellectually dishonest" incorrectly yet again. What is that like 5 in one post?

Perhaps in your imaginary world, calling someone wrong without supporting it whatsoever, and then claiming you did support it when you still haven't may pass for intellectual discussion. But here I am enjoying repeatedly pointing out your shortcomings. Let's recap your argument in this last post:

asshole
You're just a lying sack of shit.
your such an ignorant ass.
moron
Your double stupid analogy is a strawman.
you're just a complete moron
intellectually dishonest
dumbass
Your stupid assed quality of life BS is what's reductionist
dumbass
thats not ethics dumbass, it's evil.
whats absurd is your assinine assertion
you're just to damned stupid to know it.
You don't even understand the ethical concept you moron.
hell ******* no
you're too damned stupid to figure it out.
you're a copmpletye idiot
dumbass argument
intellectually dishonest
intellectually dishonest
Wrong dumbass

Maybe if you keep saying these eloquent descriptors, someone will start believing they're true! Until then, I recommend you use supporting evidence for a change, as you may not be viewed as a child with anger management issues. :

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No one ever said an abortion was "for the purpose of killing the baby". The definition of an abortion is, again, the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. A miscarriage is also known as a spontaneous abortion, because the body itself has chosen to terminate the pregnancy, usually resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. Removal of the embryo in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. Removal of a fetus who has died in utero is an abortion.

Whatever emotional connotations you have attached to the word "abortion" have nothing whatever to do with the actual definition of the word, or the fact that, practically and legally speaking, inducing labor with no intention of trying to save or prolong the life of the baby IS an abortion. Doesn't make it medically wrong, immoral, or unethical in this case. Just makes it an abortion.

I don't know how to say this without sounding sarcastic, but: that was a surprisingly well formed argument from you. I agree. It kind of goes back to what i was saying before about how people who are incapable of discussing actual ethical issues need to resort to hot topic words and loaded or exaggerated phrases instead of analyzing the actual right or wrong of a specific situation. Allie's use of "butchering" and his use of "abortion" are perfect examples of it.

Actually, you've provided no evidence that delivering a very premature baby early poses a risk to the mother. You continue to cite articles regarding induced labor at the 40 week or greater mark, and incorrectly apply it to the 20 week mark. Rushing labor and delivery is the standard of care most high risk pregnancies. Clearly you haven't done your reading on preeclampsia like I recommended. Further, no one anywhere has stated that labor would have been induced because people were impatient. That is yet another straw man you fabricated on your own.

Thanks for asking.

"The fundamental question to be addressed is whether induction of labor exposes you and your baby to more risk than remaining pregnant. With this question in mind, an elective induction should not be undertaken until the pregnancy has reached 39 weeks unless maturity of the baby's lungs has been confirmed by amniocentesis."

Please note how my point was that you have in no way provided any evidence that inducing labor at the 20th week increasing the risk to the MOTHER. Please also note that your refutation is an article that discusses inducing labor at the 39th week comes with risk for the FETUS. You should realize that 39 does not equal 20, and mother does not equal fetus.

You continue to provide articles related to induced labor of a term pregnancy. That still means near the expected end, and NOT midway through. Believing that there is an increased risk of C-section at a 20 week induction is ridiculous. In other states, abortion is still fully legal at that stage due to the fact the a fetus is non-viable outside the womb at that point. When was the last time you heard of a woman needing a C-section for an elective abortion at that stage?

Which logical fallacy describes using completely inapplicable evidence because the reader is incapable of differentiating between weeks and people?

 

[BenNatuf]

Actually, the more I read about this, the more it seems that their legal thinking wasn't that questionable. The doctors apparently consulted several lawyers, and were advised not to induce under the circumstances, because it's such a new and untested law that the consequences were totally unpredictable. I can actually understand that. Without some clear-cut sign that Danielle's life and health were definitely in immediate danger, I can see not wanting to risk one's license, career, and possibly freedom, and coming down on the side of legal caution.

Frankly, I still think it should have qualified as legal, given the possibility of uterine damage or infection, but there's no guarantee the local prosecutor would see it that way.

Still, the Deavers don't really have a quarrel with the law, per se, from where I sit. There just needs to be more clarification as to what this new law sees as "life and health of the mother".

I disagree completely, inducing labor for a woman who's water has already brokeen and for whom not birthing can only damage the baby further is in no way any kind of abortion. And, what you describe is the hospital making a CYA legal decission above a reasonned medical decisssion. Inducing labor to alleviate a medical condition a side effect of which is the baby may likely die, is not inducing labor for the purpose of killing the baby. Two seperate things.

No one ever said an abortion was "for the purpose of killing the baby". The definition of an abortion is, again, the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. A miscarriage is also known as a spontaneous abortion, because the body itself has chosen to terminate the pregnancy, usually resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. Removal of the embryo in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. Removal of a fetus who has died in utero is an abortion.

Whatever emotional connotations you have attached to the word "abortion" have nothing whatever to do with the actual definition of the word, or the fact that, practically and legally speaking, inducing labor with no intention of trying to save or prolong the life of the baby IS an abortion. Doesn't make it medically wrong, immoral, or unethical in this case. Just makes it an abortion.

While an abortion does technically "end a pregnancy" the purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby, if it weren't the pregnancy could be terminated by birth. It is not the temporary condition of pregnancy that women get abortions to aleviate, that condition will end itself with no intervention, its the permenent condition of motherhood they're seeking to avoid.

 

[BenNatuf]

Where did I ever rename euthenasia? Can you point to where I ever used a false or inaccurate wording of this topic? Go on, quote me on something instead of making vague complaints. Put some integrity behind your words. Point out what was inaccurate, false, or misleading.

here asshole is where you claimed euthenasia was a loaded word that was inacurate... and it wasn't the first time

Let's go over the order of events there:

1. You claim I renamed euthanasia
2. I state I'm simply describing what's going on instead of using that word, in no way renaming or redefining it
3. You continue to claim I renamed euthanasia
4. I ask you to point out where
5. You give my opinion as to why I chose not to use that word, while still not pointing out where I either renamed or redefined it

Regardless of whether it is a loaded word or not, which is mere opinion which I don't even care about, I have still in no way or place renamed or redefined euthanasia. I have given you my reason why I didn't use the word, but I still haven't renamed or redefined it. If you don't like my reason, I STILL haven't renamed or redefined it. So why don't you actually respond to the point instead of whining about how I'm not using your word choice. If there's something factually INCORRECT in my word choice, please point it out.

It's euthenasia, don't like the word? Too bad, get over it. Not calling something what it is because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it not what it is.

Let me know when you're ready to make one of those things called points.

let me know when you develope the ability to understand them

"double stupid analogy" I see you've graduated to 3rd grade name calling! Well done!

Once again with the reading comprehension defficiency... Are you your anaolgy? Dumbass.

But you're still wrong in what I want. What I wanted was the option for abortion offered to this woman, and/or the actual availability of induced labor as determined by this woman and her doctor without CYA legal interference, and/or the double effect applied to the baby. Any of those options, alone or in combination are still better than the worst case scenario, which is the scenario that occurred. Do you disagree? Do you think there could have been some worse outcome for this situation than watching a baby asphyxiate for 15 minutes?

The option of abortion was closed to her, as it should have been since her life was not in any danger. The option of inducing labor was open to her legally. That she was deprived of this option because of some lawyers eroneous legal opinion is not a problem with the law or a denial of services caused by it.

You continue to prove you don't understand what "intellectually dishonest" means. I DO agree that claiming what you THINK I claimed would be wrong. Unfortunately for your ridiculous argument I never claimed the two were the same thing. I'd ask you to point out specifically where you think I said that, but you don't have the integrity to actually support the things you say.

Once again the intellectual dishonesty, your entire ******* argument regarding the double stupid analogy you gave is an intellectually dishonest attempt to equate two different purposes with two similar outcomes. They are NOT the same, your analogy does not hold. Medicating to aleviate pain with a side effect of EVENTUAL death and medicating to immediately KILL with the side effect of alleviating pain (and everything else) are not the same thing.

So you think the value of life is life. That's it. Absolutely no actual response past that circular reasoning? You then go on to call quality of life, a long standing pillar of medical ethics, as "stupid assed." Amazing when the sum total of your argument is name calling an entire aspect of established ethics, as if the ignorant opinion of one person can instantly refute expert doctors and ethicists around the world.

The entire argument of "quality of life" is a red herring used to justify euthenasia. Thats what it is, its not ethics there is nothing ethical about killing for convenience, its justification. That people who want the ability to choose to kill want to justify it does not turn it into an ethical argument. We are simply not capable of choosing for others whether or not their life is worth living based on whether or not we believe they are enjoying enough.

You are incapable of discussing this established ethical issue due to your immaturity, incompetence, and unrelenting stubbornness in the face of a well established expert field. Perhaps next you will claim the moon doesn't exist or electricity is similarly "stupid assed" simply because you lack the intelligence and capacity to understand the concepts.

You are simply incapable of discerning between ethics and justification. And, once again your appeal to authority is REJECTED.

Justify killing? What I'm attempting to do is bring up the well established ethical issue of quality of life. What you are failing to do is sidestep the issue by replacing it with life and death. Quality of life is not life or death. Note how the term isn't "quality of death." So I can't help but ask: are you simply unable to understand the concept of quality of life or do you just like to avoid discussing it?

Not life or death? Certainly is when your using it to justify killing. And once again, the only place its established as an "ethical" discussion is in the minds of those who wish to use this red herring to justify killing. There is nothing ethical about deciding whether or not another persons life is subjectively worth living. I understand the concept dumbass, I reject it, given your level of stupidity, rejection should be a concept you're familiar with. You know, like when the fat ***** at the bar you scoped out says no, it's not because she doesn't understand you want sex... it's because she's rejecting YOU.

Do you need me to google the term to help you better understand it?

you're such an ignorant ass... Why don't you try reading, or better yet put some effort into understanding what you read. Look you stupid ass liberal, people don't vote against liberals because they're too stupid to understand them, they vote against them because they do understand them and REJECT their assinine ideas. I understand what quality of life represents completely... I REJECT it as a premise for killing.

The point still stands: quality of life is an established medical ethical issue you continue to ignore. You can't even point out what would improve or reduce someone's quality of life. Maybe a simple matching game would help. Prove to me you aren't a complete invalid by at least pointing out which of the following would improve and which would reduce someone's quality of life: getting cancer, receiving surgery that allows a person to breath easier, gaining new enjoyable social interactions, depression, physical torture. Let's see how far you will go to avoid a simple concept due to your mix of stubbornness and ignorance.

I noticed you didn't include killing them as a way to improve their quality of life... which is what you've been advocating in this thread. So you tell me dumbass, how does killing the baby improve its quality of life? You really need to get over yourself, you're not that smart.

The fact that you equate the evaluation of quality of life equivalent to the determination of whether someone's life is worth living directly shows you don't know what the term means. Similarly in the previous quote above, you equate it with life or death, which ALSO shows you are clueless to its meaning or application. Try again. Maybe google can help you.

Repeating your canard over and over again won't make it true. If your going to make a life or death decission based on your subjective opinion of the quality of their life... it is Life OR death. Pretending its not won't change that.

Alive until it wasn't. Thats the only quality that matters.

This too is a statement of yours that shows you don't understand the concept. If you are incapable of even understanding what gives quality to people's lives, reducing it only to "life = quality," you are once again showing your reductionist immaturity. CLEARLY a healthy baby has a BETTER quality of life than one that asphyxiates until death. That statement which you avoid so much makes absolutely no judgment as to who should die or live. Again, the fact that you continually confuse the two shows you don't know what you're talking about while crying that everyone else is a "double stupid moron."

No, what it proves is that you're too ******* ignorant to even understand the concepts you aregue with, their is no quality of life in the dead. When you PURPOSEFULLY kill someone its not possible to be able to claim your "improving their quality of life". You are attempting to argue that the PURPOSE of the double effect is to end a persons suffering by killing them. It's not.

They give people who are suffering high doses of painkillers to improve their quality of life while their LIVING and attempt to keep them alive as long as possible to enjoy it. They are not trying to KILL them, they are trying to make what life they have left enjoyable. A side effect of these doses of painkillers is that it will EVENTUALLY hasten their death.

You are using that to attempt to argue that one person should be able to decide for another person whether or not they should be given LETHAL doses of medication to end their suffering by purposefully KILLING them and claiming its a quality of life issue. It's not.

You are the moron who doesn't understand the issue. You are not arguing an ethical point, you are arguing a justification for killing.

Yes. We've all seen you make this silly little claim in other threads as well. You think by making a vague reference to something that it is pointing it out. When asked to specifically quote a person as it applies to the point you are failing to make however, you consistently are unable. When asked to even paste the link of the post which you claimed to have done so, you will refuse. And yet you go on to claim others as dishonest. Honestly, what grade are you in?

Why in the hell would I post a link to a claim made in a post thats verified by the quote of you displayed in the post? I made the claim in the post and directly quoted the example I was replying to, if thats beyond your comprehensive ability, that would be a problem for you, not me. Redundancy won't make it any more true than it already is.

I'm well aware they're not the same thing, and you have yet to be able to provide a quote of me comparing them as equal. NEVERTHELESS, the top option was not available in this case, the second issue is known as physician assisted suicide, and I have still in no area claimed they were equivalent.

And yet the entire premise of your argument for the double effect is to argue as if they are.

See the difference between me and you is that you whine a lot, making lots of little claims of what you or someone else said regardless of it being true, whereas I support my claims with direct quotes and citation. You should try including that level of integrity into your post sometimes. People might stop seeing you as someone trying to compensate for their vast deficiencies with childish name calling.

No, the difference between me and you is that I don't set up strawmen, employ logical falacies, or use red herrings to attempt to win one argument by arguing a different one. Antoher difference is that I'm smart enough to reccognize it if I were.

You rejected the premise that people have varying QUALITIES OF LIFE?! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just like you did here with this strawman. I never rejected the premise that people have differing qualities of life, I rejected the premise that you could use it as a gauge to determine whether or not to kill them. You claiming that I don't understand the issue because I reject your argument does not equate to my not understanding it, what it is a a strawman you're attempting to employ to claim the superiority of your argument. It's a typical tactic for liberal assholes to employ and equates to you claiming you're right and I'm just too stupid to understand your point. Here's a shocker for you dumbass... my claims of your inability to grasp things aren't about your inability to understand my points, they're about your obvious inability to understand your own ******* points; and, your obvious inability to discern between not understanding and rejection.

Case in point. You bought up the double effect because you thought it supported youir argument to end the baby's suffering by killing it. It does not, I've pointed out to you OVER and OVER again, that the doses of medications given to people in that much pain are not designed to end their suffering by killing them, their designed to improve the quality of thier LIVING for as long as they can live, and other actions are taking to PROLONG thier living.

You then go off on some tangent about how I don't understand what quality of life is after you attempted to use a poor quality of life as a justification for euthenasia because you claim I wouldn't answer your stupid questions about it aside from euthenasia. One has nothing to do with the other, and once again you don't understand your own ******* argument. The double effect does not justify killing to end suffering, it allows the person will eventually die by taking other actions which aleviate their suffering. The purpose is to make thier LIVING more enjoyable, not to end their suffering by killing them.

You claim over and over that my rejection of your justification is due to my inability to enter and ethical argument based on the quality of life; yet, its been pointed out over and over that the decission to end someones suffering by purposefully killing them does not improve their quality of life... it ends it.

It's not my points you're too damned stupid to understand... it's your own. I'm not claiming any superiority of my argument based on your being too damned stupid to understand what I'm saying, I showing that you're too damned stupid to understand what you're saying.

This is still true, as I've mentioned before. What remains false is that the option was available to her. If it was available to her, she would have had it. She didn't, because it wasn't available. Similarly, if I want to examine whether water is available to a patient, it doesn't matter if the nurse won't bring it, or the faucet won't work, or the water was turned off in the building completely. If the end result is that the patient CANNOT get something desired, it is not available to them, REGARDLESS of the cause. You are right in that the fault was in the lawyer, but that doesn't make it any more AVAILABLE if she still can't have it. Maybe you're having trouble understanding the world "available."

Maybe you're having trouble understanding that the concept of the thread was that the law made it unavailable to her... thats false.

what I have no interest in getting into is a dumbass argument to justify killing, there is no ethical question involved.

Yes as I said: no interest in ethical discussion with poor excuses due to a deficiency in intellectual capacity. You don't even understand the basic ethical terminology. I don't blame you for making excuses and keeping up this "tough guy" name calling facade to seem as if you are above it while continually getting things wrong. I won't tell anyone, don't worry.

Oh please, stop you're incessant whining, there's no difference in you saying I lack the intellectual capacity or understanding to comprehend a thing and me calling you a dumbass, dumbass. Once again displaying your inability to comprehend your own ******* arguments.

see how intellectually dishonest you are. You've taken QUESTIONS and comments about OTHER SITUATIONS which posed QUESTIONS and attempted to claim they were STATEMENTS about THIS situation.

Many of those citations are not questions whatsoever. The very first link, for example, doesn't have a single question mark in it. Nevertheless begging the question is still questioning the validity of the doctors, which you claimed did not happen in this thread and I directly proved incorrect. Asking "why didn't they operate?" is still questioning the validity of the doctors. Looks like you're wrong again, and used "intellectually dishonest" incorrectly yet again. What is that like 5 in one post?

False. Asking "why didn't they opperate is a question, not a statement of anything. And, the fist link also didn't question the veracity iof the doctors, it questioned the veracity of the story. You know these things because it starts "the story...".

Perhaps in your imaginary world, calling someone wrong without supporting it whatsoever, and then claiming you did support it when you still haven't may pass for intellectual discussion. But here I am enjoying repeatedly pointing out your shortcomings. Let's recap your argument in this last post:

I've dispalyed that you are wrong by showing the logical falacies and inconsistancies in your argument... links aren't required to do that as I'm not relying on someone else to make my points for me and then misusing the information to make a different point... you are.

asshole
You're just a lying sack of shit.
your such an ignorant ass.
moron
Your double stupid analogy is a strawman.
you're just a complete moron
intellectually dishonest
dumbass
Your stupid assed quality of life BS is what's reductionist
dumbass
thats not ethics dumbass, it's evil.
whats absurd is your assinine assertion
you're just to damned stupid to know it.
You don't even understand the ethical concept you moron.
hell ******* no
you're too damned stupid to figure it out.
you're a copmpletye idiot
dumbass argument
intellectually dishonest
intellectually dishonest
Wrong dumbass

Maybe if you keep saying these eloquent descriptors, someone will start believing they're true! Until then, I recommend you use supporting evidence for a change, as you may not be viewed as a child with anger management issues. :

Maybe if you stop displaying your stupidity I'll stop pointing it out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I disagree completely, inducing labor for a woman who's water has already brokeen and for whom not birthing can only damage the baby further is in no way any kind of abortion. And, what you describe is the hospital making a CYA legal decission above a reasonned medical decisssion. Inducing labor to alleviate a medical condition a side effect of which is the baby may likely die, is not inducing labor for the purpose of killing the baby. Two seperate things.

No one ever said an abortion was "for the purpose of killing the baby". The definition of an abortion is, again, the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. A miscarriage is also known as a spontaneous abortion, because the body itself has chosen to terminate the pregnancy, usually resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. Removal of the embryo in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. Removal of a fetus who has died in utero is an abortion.

Whatever emotional connotations you have attached to the word "abortion" have nothing whatever to do with the actual definition of the word, or the fact that, practically and legally speaking, inducing labor with no intention of trying to save or prolong the life of the baby IS an abortion. Doesn't make it medically wrong, immoral, or unethical in this case. Just makes it an abortion.

While an abortion does technically "end a pregnancy" the purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby, if it weren't the pregnancy could be terminated by birth. It is not the temporary condition of pregnancy that women get abortions to aleviate, that condition will end itself with no intervention, its the permenent condition of motherhood they're seeking to avoid.

While the purpose of an elective abortion USUALLY is the death of the baby, that is not always the case, which is the point. People have become so blinded and emotional - understandably so - by the millions of elective abortions performed every year solely for that purpose that they now have trouble grasping the fact that pregnancy terminations due to severe complications - for the life and health of the mother, in other words - are ALSO abortions.

 

[frazzledgear]

No one ever said an abortion was "for the purpose of killing the baby". The definition of an abortion is, again, the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. A miscarriage is also known as a spontaneous abortion, because the body itself has chosen to terminate the pregnancy, usually resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. Removal of the embryo in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. Removal of a fetus who has died in utero is an abortion.

Whatever emotional connotations you have attached to the word "abortion" have nothing whatever to do with the actual definition of the word, or the fact that, practically and legally speaking, inducing labor with no intention of trying to save or prolong the life of the baby IS an abortion. Doesn't make it medically wrong, immoral, or unethical in this case. Just makes it an abortion.

I don't know how to say this without sounding sarcastic, but: that was a surprisingly well formed argument from you. I agree. It kind of goes back to what i was saying before about how people who are incapable of discussing actual ethical issues need to resort to hot topic words and loaded or exaggerated phrases instead of analyzing the actual right or wrong of a specific situation. Allie's use of "butchering" and his use of "abortion" are perfect examples of it.

Actually, you've provided no evidence that delivering a very premature baby early poses a risk to the mother. You continue to cite articles regarding induced labor at the 40 week or greater mark, and incorrectly apply it to the 20 week mark. Rushing labor and delivery is the standard of care most high risk pregnancies. Clearly you haven't done your reading on preeclampsia like I recommended. Further, no one anywhere has stated that labor would have been induced because people were impatient. That is yet another straw man you fabricated on your own.

Thanks for asking.

"The fundamental question to be addressed is whether induction of labor exposes you and your baby to more risk than remaining pregnant. With this question in mind, an elective induction should not be undertaken until the pregnancy has reached 39 weeks unless maturity of the baby's lungs has been confirmed by amniocentesis."

Please note how my point was that you have in no way provided any evidence that inducing labor at the 20th week increasing the risk to the MOTHER. Please also note that your refutation is an article that discusses inducing labor at the 39th week comes with risk for the FETUS. You should realize that 39 does not equal 20, and mother does not equal fetus.

You continue to provide articles related to induced labor of a term pregnancy. That still means near the expected end, and NOT midway through. Believing that there is an increased risk of C-section at a 20 week induction is ridiculous. In other states, abortion is still fully legal at that stage due to the fact the a fetus is non-viable outside the womb at that point. When was the last time you heard of a woman needing a C-section for an elective abortion at that stage?

Which logical fallacy describes using completely inapplicable evidence because the reader is incapable of differentiating between weeks and people?

1. I haven't read all the back and forth on this but from reading this part of the exchange it is apparent that some people are playing with words that actually have very specific medical and legal definitions. The law in this case forbids late term abortions and under the law an elective abortion IS more than just inducing birth! This is ONLY about ELECTIVE abortions where the fetus is alive - because the kind needed where the fetus has died in utero are NEVER an issue under the law -EVER and therefore totally irrelevant to this discussion. This is ONLY about ELECTIVE abortions -which means the fetus is alive and unless specifying otherwise, the issue is elective abortion. Inducing birth is NOT an interchangeable term with abortion no matter what the word splitters insist. Inducing birth for medically justified reasons is NEVER against the law -but aborting that child at that stage can be illegal because they are NOT synonymous words either medically or legally. The procedure carried out by a doctor on a woman whose fetus died but her body did not absorb or expel it -is NOT called an abortion. If the fetus is late term it is a stillbirth delivery and if it is earlier than that is it called fetal death with an incomplete spontanteous abortion. But what the doctor does in that case is NOT an "abortion", it is a D&C -dilation and curettage of the uterine contents. The doctor cannot "abort" a dead fetus because the pregnancy was already aborted when that fetus died. What happens in the woman's body is the spontaneous abortion -NOT what the doctor does when her body simply fails to complete it. But this isn't about any spontaneous abortion and is irrelevant.

Any baby regardless of its stage of development who takes even one breath is never a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion even if it later dies -it is counted as a live birth and infant death. An elective abortion is both a medical and legal term with specific meaning. It is NEVER EVER interchangeable with "inducing birth" -which is also a very specific medical term. An induced birth in no way resembles an elective abortion -the purpose of which is ALWAYS to destroy the life of the fetus. NOT just to end a pregnancy as if the feisty little fetus happens to survive its early birth mommy will be thrilled to take home the little guy she wanted dead in the first place! The procedures do NOT involve doing the same things medically and the specific outcomes intended are different which requires using different procedures to get them. Doctors being paid to carry out an abortion will never just induce birth and keep their fingers crossed the fetus won't survive -because if it takes ONE breath that child is instantly a US citizen with the exact same rights and protections under the law to keep its life that YOU have.

Someone being paid to perform an abortion is NOT being paid to just induce birth and make it come out -the doctor is SPECIFICALLY being paid to kill it. And that is recognized as the intent because the law requires that killing take place BEFORE the delivery of that child's head -by law - because no one is allowed to kill it after the head has been delivered. Babies born head first frequently start breathing and crying after delivery of the head while the rest of the body is still in the birth canal -so if the head has been delivered, it may NOT be killed and in late term abortions involving the partial birth of the child, the fetus is forcibly turned around so it enters the birth canal feet first and its head to be born last. When the body has been delivered and only the head remains in the birth canal the birth process is halted and forcibly held inside the canal to prevent its delivery so the abortionist can get a pair of scissor pushed in along side it and then used them to stab it in the head. The scissors are opened to enlarge the head wound enough enough to get a vacuum tube in it -and then its brains are sucked out and the skull collapsed. The brains are sucked out because babies have been known to survive horrendous head wounds that adults would not so removing the brains entirely is to make sure it stays dead. THEN delivery is completed. The other way late term abortions are performed is for the doctor to take a syringe and inject a high salt content saline solution through the abdominal wall, through the uterus and into the amniotic sac. It scalds the infant alive and women have reported violent reactions by their fetus as it thrashed in agony and whose contortions were visible to others until it finally died. Then labor is induced and a dead baby is delivered, often with its skin so badly burned it is slipping off. Incredibly there have been rare instances of babies surviving this procedure, born alive and then were hospitalized for months while they recuperated from the total body burns. It is why they came up with partial birth abortion and using scissors to stab it in the head to kill it instead of burning it alive -but hey, let's pretend the real issue is using "emotional" words to describe the incredible violence used and needed to kill a human being even at that age. That person objects to the word "butchered" because she wants to pretend what? It was just gently airbrushed out or something? You object to the word "butchered"???? Go watch a late term abortion and THEN come back and tell us all what word YOU think accurately describes what you saw. Only then do you have any grounds for insisting on the use of any other word.

So let's stop the pretense that an elective abortion, even a late term abortion is actually this kind of vague and almost touchy-feely kind of amorphous thing of just "ending a pregnancy early" so those who have never seen one can pretend its not really a lethally violent act being carried out against a living human child. You object to the use of "emotional" words? Tough shit and DEAL WITH REALITY of what is involved and done to a living human being in a late term abortion. With late term abortions, most abortionists will no longer attempt to kill and dismember the fetus in the uterus because of the high risk to the mother of uterine perforation, hemorrhage and death. In an elective abortion an act of violence is ALWAYS performed on that fetus to make sure it dies before its birth and it is NOT some kind of theoretical exercise where you can pretend otherwise. In a late term abortion in particular the level of violence carried out against the child has made medical staff vomit and faint. Anyone who thinks "abortion" and "inducing birth" are interchangeable terms and procedures should have to personally see the induction and outcome of an induced birth and then witness a late term abortion being performed - and see if they can spot the differences in procedures being done! When they are done puking that is. Not too many have the stomach for late term abortions and the turn over rate in staff is extremely high -for a reason.

The legal definition of an elective abortion involves the destruction of the fetus -otherwise it is NOT an elective abortion! An elective abortion both medically and legally is an act of destruction performed on the fetus for the express purpose of killing it -and NOT just inducing an early birth which would run a serious risk of giving birth to a living child that the mother still doesn't want to take home with her! NO ONE is allowed to kill a child that has been born alive -so the killing MUST take place prior to it having a chance to take its first breath -which again, requires an act of violence beyond merely inducing birth!

2. It looks like some people are trying to pretend that forcing the baby to die on an arbitrary time schedule and in a violent manner a few days earlier would have somehow resulted in a better resolution for this mother as if it would somehow reduce or alleviate her grief. You have got to be kidding. Inducing the birth of this child three days earlier would not in any way have changed any aspect of this sad story -the child would have still died shortly after birth. But at least having a late term abortion and having a doctor carry out a violent act of destruction on her child and stabbing it in the head with scissors will be no part of this mother's heartache nor an image that will haunt her for life. I provide again a link to one of several medical studies showing that women who have late term abortions, regardless of the reason -are at significant risk of suffering post traumatic stress syndrome and haunted for the rest of their lives because they KNOW the nature of the violent act carried out against their child. Get real -having your child killed in an unnatural act three days before it died a natural and nonviolent death would make mom feel better here? HOW????? That flies in the face of known studies regarding maternal grief dealing with stillborn babies and babies who die shortly after birth. Mothers AND their families do better emotionally and are better able to work through their grief faster if they see and hold their child and are able to tell it goodbye than never seeing their child at all -or than if they had someone stick a pair of scissors into the child's head and have THAT image as their last memory of their child. Oddly enough no woman is FORCED to see and hold her dying newborn -she CHOSE TO DO SO. Why if she really believed not seeing it all would be better for her? She still had that option but rejected it. The sadness and grief of having a child that would not survive long after its birth is going to occur no matter what -so the ONLY issue here is the STUPID notion that adding a layer of guilt and higher risk of post traumatic stress disorder on top of it for having someone carry out an act of violence on that child is actually going to help mom cope better with the death of her child or not. And studies show the way it happened is actually the physically and emotionally healthiest way to handle this.


From the medical Journal of Pregnancy: Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms

And the numbskull who insists there is no evidence either inducing birth or going through a late term abortion is riskier for the mother or not -you obviously didn't do a damn thing to back up that STUPID statement because you are WRONG. There are REAMS of medical reports, studies and evidence that both late term abortions AND inducing premature labor on women increases the risk to their physical health as well as any future pregnancies! In order to perform a late term abortion, the cervix must be FORCIBLY dilated since at that stage in pregnancy it is shut tight and the tissues thick and rigid in order to support the increasing weight of the growing fetus. Pregnancy itself already carries an increased risk of death for the mother. But inducing premature birth or late term abortion increases that risk of death. As the fetus grows, the uterus gets thinner and thinner as it expands -so late term abortions always carry a greatly increased risk of uterine perforation which then increases the risk of death. Forcibly dilating the cervix can and has caused permanent damage interfering with the ability of a woman to safely carry her next pregnancy to term due to cervical incompetence. Inducing premature labor -as opposed to inducing it in a woman who is full term -is not only very painful and unnatural for the woman whose body is NOT at all prepared for birth, but it also involves increasing the stress to the uterus which is not thinned and prepared to expel a fetus and therefore is at increased risk of uterine rupture to go along with permanent damage to the cervix -it can result in going into premature labor in future pregnancies as well or being unable to carry a pregnancy to term, which also increases the risk to any otherwise healthy and wanted fetus. In addition there is an increased risk of hemorrhage in premature labor than full term. The placenta is also at a different stage of development and it requires a lot of force to remove it from the uterine wall, not only extremely painful but carries an extremely high risk of the placenta tearing and a piece adhering to the uterine wall which continue to hemorrhage until a D&C is performed to remove it and may require a blood transfusion with all the risk that carries. A D&C is an invasive procedure and carries a risk of impairing future fertility and ability to carry a pregnancy to full term as well. All invasive procedures also carry a risk of death which can never be eliminated. Each premature birth whether natural or induced then increases the risk for another premature labor and birth -and that risk increases with each successive premature birth for any reason. It is why doctors only induce premature labor when the risk for the fetus of staying inside the mother is greater than the risk of premature birth or the mother has developed uncontrollable eclampsia which poses a risk to the lives of both mother and child. They typically don't do it even when it is known the fetus is likely to die shortly after birth because the risk to the mother doesn't drop just because of that fact. The risk of inducing premature labor for any other reason includes not only creating unnecessary problems at that moment for the mother -but all her future pregnancies as well.

The best outcome for this woman both physically and mentally is just what happened. Nothing would have relieved this woman of the grief of losing her child -but having someone perform a violent act on her child in order to kill it on an arbitrary time schedule when it was not medically necessary either for her or that child -will be no part of her grief or her family's grief. The vast majority of women, like THIS woman -chose to see and hold their dead or dying baby and 90% were glad they had. But of those who did not, 80% regretted it and that percent only continued to increase over time -indicating poor grief resolution and regrets. So the notion that forcing this child to die on someone's arbitrary time schedule and killed which would have prevented this woman from holding her child at all because of its ghastly appearance from the abortion would be the superior outcome of this sad story cannot be backed up. Even if the pro-abortion fanatics want to resist the truth, and even if this one particular woman believes at this particular moment that she would have been better off never seeing this child -repeated studies have shown that mothers of stillborn babies or those who died shortly after birth do better emotionally in the long run doing just what this woman did with her own child. Hold it, give what maternal comfort she could to her dying child, and tell it good-bye. And grieving for what was a sad and natural event instead of haunted by an unnatural and violent one - and moving on. There was nothing to be gained here that would have provided a more emotionally or physically healthier outcome by introducing an unnatural and violent act that carried increased risk to the mother right then as well as for all her future pregnancies.

http://www.nationalshare.org/Cacciatore_Radestad_Froen_in_Birth.pdf

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, folks, as usual we've gotten really far afield here, so let's try to bring it back to the thread topic.

1) There is nothing "fascist" about this law, either by the technical definition of the word or connotation the OP apparently places on it.

2) The law didn't "force" Danielle Deaver to give birth, or to watch her baby die. Both of those things were going to happen no matter what.

3) The law also didn't "force" her to carry her baby for those extra days. As with all laws that restrict abortion, it had the usual exception for the life and health of the mother. It was her doctors who were responsible for the extended time, when they and their lawyers decided that they didn't want to test the exception in the new law.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

here asshole is where you claimed euthenasia was a loaded word that was inacurate... and it wasn't the first time

Let's go over the order of events there:

1. You claim I renamed euthanasia
2. I state I'm simply describing what's going on instead of using that word, in no way renaming or redefining it
3. You continue to claim I renamed euthanasia
4. I ask you to point out where
5. You give my opinion as to why I chose not to use that word, while still not pointing out where I either renamed or redefined it

Regardless of whether it is a loaded word or not, which is mere opinion which I don't even care about, I have still in no way or place renamed or redefined euthanasia. I have given you my reason why I didn't use the word, but I still haven't renamed or redefined it. If you don't like my reason, I STILL haven't renamed or redefined it. So why don't you actually respond to the point instead of whining about how I'm not using your word choice. If there's something factually INCORRECT in my word choice, please point it out.

It's euthenasia, don't like the word? Too bad, get over it. Not calling something what it is because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it not what it is.

That's true. However claiming I redefined or renamed the word simply because you don't like my word choice, despite it still being completely correct and factual, is nothing short of immature. Once again I will ask you to support your own claim that I renamed or redefined euthanasia. You can't. You can't because I didn't, and therefore you are completely wrong in the original claim. Instead of just admitting that fault, attempting to address the ACTUAL point being made, and moving on, you focus on whining about how you don't like the choice of words I use even though they're still not wrong. How incompetent.

The option of abortion was closed to her, as it should have been since her life was not in any danger. The option of inducing labor was open to her legally. That she was deprived of this option because of some lawyers eroneous legal opinion is not a problem with the law or a denial of services caused by it.

You are correct, for once, in that the option of abortion was closed to her. Does your avoidance acknowledge that you were wrong regarding the availability of induced labor? Did you finally look up the meaning of the word? Regardless, the current argument that is being made now which you seem to continue missing is that it should not have been due to the circumstances. Instead, you draw completely arbitrary lines in the sand with no ethical reasoning whatsoever. You are in fact incapable of discussing the ethics. You are not only unfamiliar with common and established topics and terminology in the field, but won't even acknowledge them even after documentation is provided.

You most likely can't even tell me why you think abortion should have been available to her if her life was in danger from an ethical standpoint. At best I imagine you can only use some hand-waving and "because I said so" type response.

My continued claim is that abortion AND induced labor should both have been available to her at that point. It is clear that both options result in the same immediate outcome, so claiming one is good while the other is bad is just poor ethical reasoning. But again, you're not reasoning or considering ethics whatsoever. You're just spewing your own unsupported personal values.

Unfortunately for your ridiculous argument I never claimed the two were the same thing. I'd ask you to point out specifically where you think I said that, but you don't have the integrity to actually support the things you say.

Once again the intellectual dishonesty, your entire ******* argument regarding the double stupid analogy you gave is an intellectually dishonest attempt to equate two different purposes with two similar outcomes. They are NOT the same, your analogy does not hold. Medicating to aleviate pain with a side effect of EVENTUAL death and medicating to immediately KILL with the side effect of alleviating pain (and everything else) are not the same thing.

That last sentence is still true: they aren't the same thing. And yet, exactly as I predicted in my quote, you still can't point out where I claimed the two were the same. It's just an idea that you made up and attributed to me. This is better known as a straw man argument.

You see one of the main differences between you and me is that you throw temper tantrums and like to call others stupid regardless of whether something inaccurate was actually stated, whereas I like to just show you where exactly you went wrong.

This is the second time in a single post where I've asked you to support one of your straw man arguments by citing me, and the second time were you are completely incapable because it's simply not true. Perhaps I should just use your method of immaturity: Why do you think the mother should have suffered and died for the baby? That's so intellectually dishonest!

The entire argument of "quality of life" is a red herring used to justify euthenasia.

Again we return to your incompetence in basic established terminology and topics of medical ethics. Quality of life in and of itself has nothing to do with death. That's why it's called quality of LIFE. Equating it to such is like equating a discussion on butter knife design to murder because sometimes knives can be used to kill. It's reductionist, avoiding the topic, and fearful of the reality of the outcome of the discussion. If it truly is a red herring, you could say WHY it is. As usual for you though, you are completely incapable of supporting such frivolous hindrances.

For the same reason, you are incapable of discussing suffering, or even evaluating obvious distinctions in quality of life. You try your hardest to ignore them because acknowledging the established ethical topic might delve into truth. You can't have that, as it may prove you to be wrong. But it's clear to anyone reading this that you are already wrong and just avoiding the topic.

If you talk to 100 people do you think all of them will believe they have the exact same quality of life? Of course not. Some will be depressed, some will have chronic health problems, some will be happy despite problems. That in no way means the lower end of the spectrum should be killed on the street. You refuse to understand the well established term because you can't discuss the actual ethics or one of its many applications. This is better known as ignorance. If you shut your eyes tight enough, you think no one can see you.

So I can't help but ask: are you simply unable to understand the concept of quality of life or do you just like to avoid discussing it?

the only place its established as an "ethical" discussion is in the minds of those who wish to use this red herring to justify killing.

Oh you mean every hospital, ethics committee, major medical journal, and major medical organization in the entire country? Yes, clearly all of the highly educated and experienced brightest minds in the country are just making up terminology to kill people on the street. If only they had learned from your lack of education on the topic.

But you did answer my question: you're just avoiding the conversation that every ethics committee in the country deals with on a regular basis. You show your incompetence, once again.

I reject it, given your level of stupidity, rejection should be a concept you're familiar with. You know, like when the fat ***** at the bar you scoped out says no, it's not because she doesn't understand you want sex... it's because she's rejecting YOU.

Are you speaking from personal experience? Your immaturity is becoming more and more humorous. Based on the above method of communication in a debate, I'd peg you as a freshman college student. Maybe about to graduate high school.

you're such an ignorant ass... Why don't you try reading, or better yet put some effort into understanding what you read. Look you stupid ass liberal, people don't vote against liberals because they're too stupid to understand them, they vote against them because they do understand them and REJECT their assinine ideas. I understand what quality of life represents completely... I REJECT it as a premise for killing.

Ah the baseless ramblings of someone who can't make a point. Maybe if you keep throwing out personal opinions, you can convince yourself they will magically turn into fact! Let me know when you have some evidence you'd like to present.

I noticed you didn't include killing them as a way to improve their quality of life... which is what you've been advocating in this thread. So you tell me dumbass, how does killing the baby improve its quality of life? You really need to get over yourself, you're not that smart.

Who said killing a baby improves its quality of life? Once again you show yourself to be ignorant to the topic while claiming you understand it when you make that kind of statement. Death has nothing to do with improving quality of life. You're wrong yet again. I've recommended you google the topic several times now. You really should try it at some point.

Then you return to my intelligence after directly saying something incorrect, which only hints at your own insecurity.

They give people who are suffering high doses of painkillers to improve their quality of life while their LIVING and attempt to keep them alive as long as possible to enjoy it. They are not trying to KILL them, they are trying to make what life they have left enjoyable. A side effect of these doses of painkillers is that it will EVENTUALLY hasten their death.

Eventually? You mean in 5 minutes after they're given? You seem to contradict yourself when you state the goal is "to keep them alive as long as possible" when referring to the double effect. Once again you prove your ignorance on a topic. What is it you think morphine does to someone? Do you think every dose somehow magically removes an hour of someone's lifespan? No. It removes pain at lower doses with few long term "eventual" issues. At higher doses it puts a person to sleep. At higher doses, it stops their breathing. Now if a person is in unrelenting pain and the double effect is applied, how much is that person "enjoying it" as you claim if they are asleep? You are completely clueless on this topic yet you think your lack of knowledge and unsupported opinion has value. Isn't that just precious?!

You are using that to attempt to argue that one person should be able to decide for another person whether or not they should be given LETHAL doses of medication to end their suffering by purposefully KILLING them and claiming its a quality of life issue.

Still false. That's still your projected argument, not mine. Again I'd ask you to quote me saying that, but you once again won't, because you can't, because it's still false.

And yet the entire premise of your argument for the double effect is to argue as if they are.

Also still false. If it were true, you'd be able to prove it. But you won't, because you can't, because it's still false. Are you starting to see the pattern of your methods yet? And then you claim:

No, the difference between me and you is that I don't set up strawmen

AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What the **** do i care about some other persons subjective judgements about quality of life are?

it doesn't matter what my subjective quality of this baby's life is to you. I asked for yours, but you avoided the question.

I didn't avoid the question dumbass, I rejected the premise.

You rejected the premise that people have varying QUALITIES OF LIFE?! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I never rejected the premise that people have differing qualities of life, I rejected the premise that you could use it as a gauge to determine whether or not to kill them.

There's the string of this topic. Nowhere did I ask you to determine what point to kill someone. I asked you about your subjective interpretation of that baby's quality of life, which you avoided, claiming you "reject the premise." Nice backpedal though. And then you wonder why it's obvious to everyone that you're avoiding an actual ethical discussion at all costs.

So once again I will ask with full clarity: what is your personal interpretation of that baby's quality of life, with absolutely no relationship to issues of death? I look forward to your next excuse in avoiding this simple question. This is so amusing.

there's no difference in you saying I lack the intellectual capacity or understanding to comprehend a thing and me calling you a dumbass, dumbass.

Well, there is that little point of me actually showing where you don't understand things, supported with outside links or direct contradictions within your own posts. You know, that thing called evidence. You should try it sometime!

I've dispalyed that you are wrong by showing the logical falacies and inconsistancies in your argument...

Well, no not really. You've STATED I was wrong, but you won't actually show where. When asked to show where, you refuse and make up excuses. When asked to support anything you're saying with outside support, you refuse and make up excuses.

You see the mature debater would be able to point out the evidence. You have demonstrated your incapability to do such countless times. You could prove me wrong of course at any time by showing where you have actually shown such support to your argument, but as can be predicted, you will refuse and make up more excuses.

 

[BenNatuf]

Let's go over the order of events there:

1. You claim I renamed euthanasia
2. I state I'm simply describing what's going on instead of using that word, in no way renaming or redefining it
3. You continue to claim I renamed euthanasia
4. I ask you to point out where
5. You give my opinion as to why I chose not to use that word, while still not pointing out where I either renamed or redefined it

Regardless of whether it is a loaded word or not, which is mere opinion which I don't even care about, I have still in no way or place renamed or redefined euthanasia. I have given you my reason why I didn't use the word, but I still haven't renamed or redefined it. If you don't like my reason, I STILL haven't renamed or redefined it. So why don't you actually respond to the point instead of whining about how I'm not using your word choice. If there's something factually INCORRECT in my word choice, please point it out.

It's euthenasia, don't like the word? Too bad, get over it. Not calling something what it is because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it not what it is.

That's true. However claiming I redefined or renamed the word simply because you don't like my word choice, despite it still being completely correct and factual, is nothing short of immature. Once again I will ask you to support your own claim that I renamed or redefined euthanasia. You can't. You can't because I didn't, and therefore you are completely wrong in the original claim. Instead of just admitting that fault, attempting to address the ACTUAL point being made, and moving on, you focus on whining about how you don't like the choice of words I use even though they're still not wrong. How incompetent.

excuse me you disingenuous lying sack of shit? You're the one who whined like a little girl about the "loaded word" EUTHENASIA. I merely pointed out that choosing to not call it what it is will not make it something else.

You are correct, for once, in that the option of abortion was closed to her. Does your avoidance acknowledge that you were wrong regarding the availability of induced labor? Did you finally look up the meaning of the word? Regardless, the current argument that is being made now which you seem to continue missing is that it should not have been due to the circumstances. Instead, you draw completely arbitrary lines in the sand with no ethical reasoning whatsoever. You are in fact incapable of discussing the ethics. You are not only unfamiliar with common and established topics and terminology in the field, but won't even acknowledge them even after documentation is provided.

ethical reasons? How ******* stupid are you? There is no ethical reasonning involved in the fact that the LAW did not preclude the procedure. The thread is about the LAW making it unavailable to her and the law did not. A lawyer about as smart as you are did. Once again displaying that you'rwe too damned stupid to understand your own ******* arguments.

You most likely can't even tell me why you think abortion should have been available to her if her life was in danger from an ethical standpoint. At best I imagine you can only use some hand-waving and "because I said so" type response.

what an arrogant and ignorant ass you are. You know damned well my anser to that because you participated in the other thread, and were just as amazingly incoherant there. Abortionis always an option when a womans life is in danger because under our constituion she has the right of self defence. You aren't smart enough to understand your own arguments, speaking for me is deffinately way out of your league.

My continued claim is that abortion AND induced labor should both have been available to her at that point. It is clear that both options result in the same immediate outcome, so claiming one is good while the other is bad is just poor ethical reasoning. But again, you're not reasoning or considering ethics whatsoever. You're just spewing your own unsupported personal values.

More bullshit, the SCOTUS ruled that the state can restrict or ban late term abortions, the law does that, ethically the law must be obeyed. You are the moron putting your own personal lack of values above the law. Again a complete failure to understand your own arguments.

That last sentence is still true: they aren't the same thing. And yet, exactly as I predicted in my quote, you still can't point out where I claimed the two were the same. It's just an idea that you made up and attributed to me. This is better known as a straw man argument.

your entire argument equates them as ethical equivalents. Once again you don't even understand the arguments you make.

You see one of the main differences between you and me is that you throw temper tantrums and like to call others stupid regardless of whether something inaccurate was actually stated, whereas I like to just show you where exactly you went wrongThis is the second time in a single post where I've asked you to support one of your straw man arguments by citing me, and the second time were you are completely incapable because it's simply not true. Perhaps I should just use your method of immaturity: Why do you think the mother should have suffered and died for the baby? That's so intellectually dishonest! .

No, the difference is that I'm consistant, I understand my own arguments and apparently understand yours better than you do.

Again we return to your incompetence in basic established terminology and topics of medical ethics. Quality of life in and of itself has nothing to do with death. That's why it's called quality of LIFE. Equating it to such is like equating a discussion on butter knife design to murder because sometimes knives can be used to kill. It's reductionist, avoiding the topic, and fearful of the reality of the outcome of the discussion. If it truly is a red herring, you could say WHY it is. As usual for you though, you are completely incapable of supporting such frivolous hindrances.

For the same reason, you are incapable of discussing suffering, or even evaluating obvious distinctions in quality of life. You try your hardest to ignore them because acknowledging the established ethical topic might delve into truth. You can't have that, as it may prove you to be wrong. But it's clear to anyone reading this that you are already wrong and just avoiding the topic.

If you talk to 100 people do you think all of them will believe they have the exact same quality of life? Of course not. Some will be depressed, some will have chronic health problems, some will be happy despite problems. That in no way means the lower end of the spectrum should be killed on the street. You refuse to understand the well established term because you can't discuss the actual ethics or one of its many applications. This is better known as ignorance. If you shut your eyes tight enough, you think no one can see you.

you continue to show yourself incapable of understanding anything. You are attempting to use a quality of life issue to justify killing. It is that simple. Talking about suffering will not change the fact that what you have studiously adhered to is that the child should have been killed because its quality of life sucked. You are not qualified to make any such decission, no-one is. You seem to think if you cascade enough words around that fact it will somehow go away... it won't.

Oh you mean every hospital, ethics committee, major medical journal, and major medical organization in the entire country? Yes, clearly all of the highly educated and experienced brightest minds in the country are just making up terminology to kill people on the street. If only they had learned from your lack of education on the topic.

another strawman. I said quite clearly that massive doses of painkillers were given to people who REQUEST them to improve their quality of life for as long as their life lasts, which the doctors then try to extend. They are not purposefully killing anyone with any double stupid ethic you dreampt up. Once again you don't understand the argument you're making.

Who said killing a baby improves its quality of life? Once again you show yourself to be ignorant to the topic while claiming you understand it when you make that kind of statement. Death has nothing to do with improving quality of life. You're wrong yet again. I've recommended you google the topic several times now. You really should try it at some point.

As has been displayed quite clearly, not only do I understand the ethics of it (which you apparently don't), I also understand that the reason for doing it isn't to kill the patient, which you apparently don't, since you keep saying they should have used it to kill the patient.

Eventually? You mean in 5 minutes after they're given? You seem to contradict yourself when you state the goal is "to keep them alive as long as possible" when referring to the double effect. Once again you prove your ignorance on a topic. What is it you think morphine does to someone? Do you think every dose somehow magically removes an hour of someone's lifespan? No. It removes pain at lower doses with few long term "eventual" issues. At higher doses it puts a person to sleep. At higher doses, it stops their breathing. Now if a person is in unrelenting pain and the double effect is applied, how much is that person "enjoying it" as you claim if they are asleep? You are completely clueless on this topic yet you think your lack of knowledge and unsupported opinion has value. Isn't that just precious?!

so then, you don't know how its employed... you just think you do.

Still false. That's still your projected argument, not mine. Again I'd ask you to quote me saying that, but you once again won't, because you can't, because it's still false.


Also still false. If it were true, you'd be able to prove it. But you won't, because you can't, because it's still false. Are you starting to see the pattern of your methods yet? And then you claim:

denial won't help you, your argument is clear to anyone who reads the thread.

There's the string of this topic. Nowhere did I ask you to determine what point to kill someone. I asked you about your subjective interpretation of that baby's quality of life, which you avoided, claiming you "reject the premise." Nice backpedal though. And then you wonder why it's obvious to everyone that you're avoiding an actual ethical discussion at all costs.

So once again I will ask with full clarity: what is your personal interpretation of that baby's quality of life, with absolutely no relationship to issues of death? I look forward to your next excuse in avoiding this simple question. This is so amusing.

I've avoided nothing, in case you have trouble with the idea of your argument being rejected just think back to the fat ***** at the club last night. The baby's quality of life is irrelevant to whather it shouod be killed with an overdose.

there's no difference in you saying I lack the intellectual capacity or understanding to comprehend a thing and me calling you a dumbass, dumbass.

Well, there is that little point of me actually showing where you don't understand things, supported with outside links or direct contradictions within your own posts. You know, that thing called evidence. You should try it sometime!

except of course that you haven't. You'd have better luck proving something true, maybe you should start trying to prove you don't understand your own arguments... you'd probobly fail at that too.

I've dispalyed that you are wrong by showing the logical falacies and inconsistancies in your argument...

Well, no not really. You've STATED I was wrong, but you won't actually show where. When asked to show where, you refuse and make up excuses. When asked to support anything you're saying with outside support, you refuse and make up excuses.

you not understanding your arguments is not a problem for me. It's a problem for you.

You see the mature debater would be able to point out the evidence. You have demonstrated your incapability to do such countless times. You could prove me wrong of course at any time by showing where you have actually shown such support to your argument, but as can be predicted, you will refuse and make up more excuses.

I have shown it, your inability to discern it or refusal to acknowledge it is a fault for you, not me.

 

[newpolitics]

WTF are you talking about?

What a bunch of garbage.

I don't know how I could have been any clearer. There is such thing as a political spectrum hence why we talk of the right, middle, and the left. The far left being communism, as you go towards the center you pass through liberalism, then you have the center, and moving to the right you have conservatism, and finally, all the way to the right you have fascism, hence, communism and fascism are literally at two opposite ends of the spectrum.

Am I mistaken? Can someone back me up on this? I thought this was basic political science.

You are so far wrong its rediculous. different types of authoritarianism does not exist on both ends of the spectrum, they exist on the same end of the spectrum.

I don't know who taught you this, but they were wrong. Don't believe everything you are told. Google it, I'm telling you. This is basic stuff, man.

 

[grunt11b]

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

You do know that fascism is a left wing ideology right? You know, like the national socialist party and all that fun stuff you guys like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism