1. #7221
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.
    I'm pretty sure several of us pointed out the reason why this wouldn't work is that lawmakers would just take what the doctors say and use that to make more restrictive, punishing exemptions that will inevitably result in problems due to cases where they don't fit those exact definitions, but still need an abortion to save lives.

  2. #7222
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.
    Why the absolute fuck should experts negotiate with non-experts about decisions in their field of expertise?
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  3. #7223
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    I'm pretty sure several of us pointed out the reason why this wouldn't work is that lawmakers would just take what the doctors say and use that to make more restrictive, punishing exemptions that will inevitably result in problems due to cases where they don't fit those exact definitions, but still need an abortion to save lives.
    I'm not going argue against positions like "We aren't going to do this, because you guys are just too bad faith to engage on the same level" or "I'm fearful that any restrictions will be Texas restrictions." Be as fearful or apprehensive about dishonesty as you wish.

    Just don't come to me saying both "The laws are wrong because the exceptions are bad/written by politicians not doctors" and "Doctors shouldn't get involved in consulting on the legislative process, making the exceptions meaningful to the purposes they are written." The same goes for "The legal and political intrusions on the doctors are the problem, we also value post-viability unborn babies" and "Pro-life legislation is so odious that doctors and pro-choice lawyers shouldn't help make them written to prioritize the sincere reasonable medical judgment of the doctor." I'd say that abandons practical considerations of laws that will be passed over your opposition, and women you think are impacted by such laws. If its cooties to make them better (you're mitigating harms by laws you oppose), then I doubt your sincere concern for the the impacts you decry. And maybe you are politically helped by poorly written laws: they get repealed faster, and you might get constitutional amendments in the backlash instead of mere repeal. Accusations of bad faith are a two-way street. Maybe the hard-nosed political calculation is desiring more pain and sacrifice now to achieve a better and faster results in the near future. I'm just speculating on this part, given the contradictions I see.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  4. #7224
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    I'm pretty sure several of us pointed out the reason why this wouldn't work is that lawmakers would just take what the doctors say and use that to make more restrictive, punishing exemptions that will inevitably result in problems due to cases where they don't fit those exact definitions, but still need an abortion to save lives.
    Or they just pretend doctors didn't actually say anything if it doesn't line up with their misogynist narrative, as proven by the conservative lawmakers and judges as well as run-of-the-mill conservatives like Tehdang in the Kate Cox fiasco, where her ob-gyn clearly testified that her patient's life was in grave danger as her medical professional opinion and the unborn fetus wasn't going to live more than few hours after birth due to a major congenital defect.

    There's just no point in discussion with conservatives, because their end goal is to destroy, disrupt and then control whatever is left in the aftermath.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  5. #7225
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,145
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.
    No, if you want to justify legislation denying women their basic human rights, it's on you to positively identify the need for said legislation. There has never been a single argument presented on this, in any arena of discussion I have ever been exposed to, that was not religious fascism at its core, or just wildly irrational and without any basis in reason whatsoever.

    Literally not one justification that makes any sense to a secular thinker.

    The legal system should not be overruling medical ethics when it comes to medical decisions.


  6. #7226
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I'm not going argue against positions like "We aren't going to do this, because you guys are just too bad faith to engage on the same level" or "I'm fearful that any restrictions will be Texas restrictions." Be as fearful or apprehensive about dishonesty as you wish.
    Yeah, except that dishonesty quite literally occurred in the Kate Cox case. The literal evidence that proves the point none of you conservatives are acting in any good faith.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  7. #7227
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,145
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Just don't come to me saying both "The laws are wrong because the exceptions are bad/written by politicians not doctors" and "Doctors shouldn't get involved in consulting on the legislative process, making the exceptions meaningful to the purposes they are written." The same goes for "The legal and political intrusions on the doctors are the problem, we also value post-viability unborn babies" and "Pro-life legislation is so odious that doctors and pro-choice lawyers shouldn't help make them written to prioritize the sincere reasonable medical judgment of the doctor." I'd say that abandons practical considerations of laws that will be passed over your opposition, and women you think are impacted by such laws. If its cooties to make them better (you're mitigating harms by laws you oppose), then I doubt your sincere concern for the the impacts you decry. And maybe you are politically helped by poorly written laws: they get repealed faster, and you might get constitutional amendments in the backlash instead of mere repeal. Accusations of bad faith are a two-way street. Maybe the hard-nosed political calculation is desiring more pain and sacrifice now to achieve a better and faster results in the near future. I'm just speculating on this part, given the contradictions I see.
    Pro-life legislation is so inherently abusive and unjust that working with those who seek to implement it is untenable. It's like expecting black advocacy groups to work with pro-slavery groups when crafting the "blacks are all now slaves" legislation. No, they should be actively resisting your intentionally abusive legislation with everything they have. There is no merit to it.

    Pro-life ideology is determinably evil. It exists to inflict suffering upon women as its primary purpose. No decent person should support such abusive legislation. Like anti-civil-rights legislation; supporting it pretty much by definition means you're a bad person.


  8. #7228
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    You'd do yourself a bit of good if you just take the L on this instance. The law is clearly not working, and this Texas woman suffered needlessly and had to go to a judge to ask for an exemption.

    Arguing that it's somehow the medical profession's fault in this instance is cruel, tehdang. It's not theoretical anymore.
    The cruelty is intentional. That's the pro-life goal; to increase the cruelty inflicted upon "bad" women. In this particular case, "bad" meaning "unchaste women who are not properly submissive to the demands of Christian churches".


  9. #7229
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The cruelty is intentional. That's the pro-life goal; to increase the cruelty inflicted upon "bad" women. In this particular case, "bad" meaning "unchaste women who are not properly submissive to the demands of Christian churches".
    I would say that's a gross understatement of what conservatives think of women. They don't just think there are "good" or "bad" women, they just think all women are livestock and cattle, that they are to be exploited, controlled and their rights as human beings be damned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    You'd do yourself a bit of good if you just take the L on this instance. The law is clearly not working, and this Texas woman suffered needlessly and had to go to a judge to ask for an exemption.

    Arguing that it's somehow the medical profession's fault in this instance is cruel, tehdang. It's not theoretical anymore.
    Careful, he's going to block you for making too much sense.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  10. #7230
    Our insurance company lawyers hated the words “reasonable engineering judgement.” Second only to “best practice.” Those words are open to interpretations. I assume the insurance companies for those doctors felt the same way about “reasonable medical judgement.” On the other hand, faith, as in “good faith belief” is a lot easier to defend. Especially when you are dealing with a hostile entity trying to make a political statement such as the State of Texas Attorney General Office. Keep in mind, the State of Texas “Bounty Law” is still in force. The exemption does not protect hospitals and doctors against private lawsuit through the “Bounty Law.” Abortion is a legal minefield for hospitals and doctors in Texas. In this case, I don’t blame them for trying to minimize their liability.

  11. #7231
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,145
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    I would say that's a gross understatement of what conservatives think of women. They don't just think there are "good" or "bad" women, they just think all women are livestock and cattle, that they are to be exploited, controlled and their rights as human beings be damned.
    Oh, sure, their framing of "good" women is deeply misogynistic, too. That's why I'm using quotes. I'm describing their perspective, not anything real.


  12. #7232
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    He shouldn't. His stated worldview on abortion, in this thread, considers the situation we're discussing as an entirely acceptable exemption to allow the abortion.
    And yet his only commentary so far has seemingly been to defend the court's decision preventing it.

  13. #7233
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,394
    Well the court decided to not punt and went ahead and let Texan women know they have no rights and only exist to serve as incubators - regardless of the risk to their health or the viability of the fetus.

    It's horrifying and I can only hope that this continued attack on women will have deep consequences for the GOP in 2024.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  14. #7234
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,954
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    And yet his only commentary so far has seemingly been to defend the court's decision preventing it.
    You mean a guy with a sexual predator as an avatar keeps taking anti women stances? I'm shocked I tell you...Shocked!
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  15. #7235
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    I don't know if these individual women have the courage to do it
    I know you didn't mean it in this way but this is essentially what I'm concerned about - women who see what is happening and decide to just suffer in silence because they don't have the means or the strength to fight.

    For every women who sues, or goes out of state for an abortion, or speaks loudly about the injustice there are thousands suffering in silence.

    I just hope those suffering in silence find their voice in the voting booth.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  16. #7236
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    He shouldn't. His stated worldview on abortion, in this thread, considers the situation we're discussing as an entirely acceptable exemption to allow the abortion.
    That assumes he has even an iota of a track record of being honest. How many times must he lie in everyone's faces before coming to a realization his words cannot be taken at face value?

    That he obviously supports a full-on, no exceptions abortion ban contrary to his claims - just look at his responses on the Kate Cox case; instead of putting the money where his mouth is, he attacks Cox's doctor and her expert opinion based on some flimsy, ridiculous pretext he made up on the spot. Are you again just going to assume good faith, that he somehow sincerely holds a balanced and moderate viewpoint on abortion bans that isn't just based on more conservative extremism?

    How much must obvious bad faith actors lie to you, in your face, before you finally realize that they aren't going to engage constructively, they aren't going to tell the truth, they aren't going to act on facts, they aren't going to act for the advancement of good?
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  17. #7237
    Paxton's argument when he asked the Texas Supreme Court to intervene and block the TRO last week.

    “Ms. Cox claims an elevated risk of uterine rupture if she delivers the baby vaginally because she has had two prior C-sections. She therefore believes a C-section is the safer option if the baby survives to term. But while Ms. Cox alleges ‘that a C-section at full term would make subsequent pregnancies higher risk,’ [she and her doctor] plead no facts suggesting that a subsequent pregnancy would place Ms. Cox ‘at risk of death’ or result in a ‘serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.’”



    It’s hard to overstate the malice it takes to argue a condition called “uterine rupture” does not meet that threshold. The scenario that Cox and her doctor are trying to avoid is one where her uterus literally tears itself open along her C-section scar during contractions. It is a not-uncommon complication in pregnancies where a woman tries to give vaginal birth after a previous C-section, which can be even more likely if multiple C-sections have previously occurred. If not swiftly treated, it can lead to catastrophic blood loss and force doctors to perform a hysterectomy to save the woman’s life. If that does not count as “risk of death” or “substantial impairment,” nothing does.

  18. #7238
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    The fucking hubris of this man and those involved in drafting this argument...
    Don't forget the cruelty, too.

  19. #7239
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Paxton's argument when he asked the Texas Supreme Court to intervene and block the TRO last week.
    It's really neat and not at all frustrating that people who are unable to understand or willfully misinterpret how medical procedures work get to be the final arbiter in regulating them.

    In Paxton's case I'm leaning towards the latter, just reaching for any excuse to support the conclusion he came up with. It really goes to show how absolutely meaningless the 'exemptions' they write into their abortion laws are when they can choose to ignore them with bullshit pretenses.

  20. #7240
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    You'd do yourself a bit of good if you just take the L on this instance. The law is clearly not working, and this Texas woman suffered needlessly and had to go to a judge to ask for an exemption.

    Arguing that it's somehow the medical profession's fault in this instance is cruel, tehdang. It's not theoretical anymore.
    If I was trying to become popular in these parts, I would instantly accept your advice. I'd also take it if I were a salesman trying to market my pro-life position to a pro-choice crowd.

    As it stands, I was tagged here (https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54340895) and read the post. Two things struck me as interesting in context:
    First, is this a viable (no pun intended) example of politicians inserting themselves in the stead of doctors? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, because the Texas law does not consider the expected survival of the unborn baby. No, because the doctor had opportunity to give to say that she believed her patient had a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function (or life-threatening physical condition) in her medical judgment and for some reason refused to do so in the court case. There's something more to this case, because the doctor did not state for the record her medical judgment, and the Texas Supreme Court decision put that quite plainly. It could be liability or insurance law, or whatnot.
    Second, is there anything about this case that justifiably introduces comparisons to my statements and positions in this thread? The answer is no, not that I've seen thus far. I've said the post-viability unborn babies deserve consideration in the law, because they are at that point a non-negligible second-body whose rights must be protected. If laws preserving them are dismissed as unnecessary, that presupposes that no mother at any time today through to decades in the future will consider a distressing life circumstance as necessitating abortion, when the better option would be carrying to term and adoption and care by the state. The second-body in the "my body my choice" formulation is viable, but this unborn baby apparently has an incredibly high likelihood of dying prior to childbirth and in its first year of life.

    What is there really to say on that post, other than laws ought to consider the likelihood of the unborn baby's survival to term, and survival beyond infancy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Because I'm a naive and optimistic person at heart. I struggle with dismissing opposing views and giving up ...

    I have, however, avoided discussion with him on other topics, because of what you stated ...
    I'm not asking for a press agent here. If you're interacting with my posts and asking and answering questions, I only ask that you extend the courtesy of presuming the other sincerely means what he or she writes. Alleged contradictions, hypocrisy, ignorance, and all. If you're unwilling to do so, just scroll past my posts or use forum features to automate the same task. I take the same attitude towards others, and I would be quite the hypocrite to deny them a similar approach.

    online gaming forum vs person to person
    Some of my approach here is limited in applicability to internet strangers. Having a discussion face-to-face on abortion is a very different enterprise.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •