• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

Where's the evidence that these late term abortions are happening and need to be addressed with legislation?
 
Junebug said:
I don’t have time to explain my full views today, but, suffice it to address ITC’s criticism, sometimes.
Click to expand...

Should the mental health of the mother be considered at 19 weeks? Do you find an abortion less abhorrent at 15 weeks than 24?
 
Junebug said:
The view that economic markets function best without government picking winners and losers has nothing to do with the scope of non-economic activity that should be regulated by the criminal law.
Click to expand...

Do you consider all healthcare decisions to be outside the scope of the free market economy?
 
Junebugs of the world make medicine more complicated by bringing lawsuit after lawsuit against medical practitioners so much so that all bases need to be covered in fear of being litigated against, turn around and claim that there must be enough half rate hack doctors out there that will sign off on a feelings induced abortion with no worries about malpractice, licensing, etc... seems legit.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
Junebugs of the world make medicine more complicated by bringing lawsuit after lawsuit against medical practitioners so much so that all bases need to be covered in fear of being litigated against, turn around and claim that there must be enough half rate hack doctors out there that will sign off on a feelings induced abortion with no worries about malpractice, licensing, etc... seems legit.
Click to expand...

If you talk to actual doctors who still actually practice, this is what they'll tell you.
 
We're not all qualified to opine on matters of social policy. We may think we are, but we're not. When we opine on matters of social policy that we're not qualified to opine on then we draw (ridiculous) analogies between the Controlled Substances Act and abortion policy.

ETA: What an arrogant post, Junebug. Damn.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
I must’ve missed the left turn in Albuquerque. I thought this was a political message board, where, you know, people opine on social policy.
Click to expand...

I don't think many of us believe that we are more qualified to opine on these issues than experts in the fields of social policy/medical practice. Many of us are arrogant (myself very much included), but that's a special level of arrogance.
 
Junebug said:
1. My understand of the current state of the law is that, at 19 weeks, a woman can choose to have an abortion because she doesn’t like the way she looks pregnant in a bikini. She doesn’t have to justify her decision on any ground. Her mental health is thus irrelevant at the stage.

2. Generally, yes, I find abortion more abhorrent the futher along the fetus is in development. The same is true of the stages of birth. I can’t fathom how doctors who perform D & X and D & E can live with themselves.

What are your thoughts on your questions?
Click to expand...

Same as my thoughts on abortion in general, that women aren’t approaching these decisions cavalierly. That I trust women and medical professionals to make their best decision.

I also think we should have comprehensive sex education for all kids, give out condoms like candy, use taxpayer money to pay for access to birth control, and provide for better access to health care for women. I think those things have more impact on reducing abortions than prohibition and snarky comments about mental health for women.
 
Junebug said:
Keep those goalposts moving. Your original question was whether I felt more qualified than physicans to opine on social policy questions related to abortion. Of course we can all learn from experts in social policy and in the field we are discussing, but at the end of the day, social policy is judgment, not science. Legislators, who actually make social policy, aren’t geniuses who know everything about everything. Viewed charitably, they process information, make a judgment about it, and move on to the next issue.

I wouldn’t defer to a physician on matters of abortion policy any more than you would defer to me on matters of jurisprudential policy. Ultimately, we both have to arrive at our own conclusions, just like legislators. We just have fewer resources and less information, and our conclusions are less consequential.
Click to expand...

I believe that you know more about jurisprudence than I do. We have discussed as much on a few occasions. I trust the opinions of medical experts over originalist lawyers when it comes to abortion policy.
 
Junebug said:
Keep those goalposts moving. Your original question was whether I felt more qualified than physicans to opine on social policy questions related to abortion. Of course we can all learn from experts in social policy and in the field we are discussing, but at the end of the day, social policy is judgment, not science. Legislators, who actually make social policy, aren’t geniuses who know everything about everything. Viewed charitably, they process information, make a judgment about it, and move on to the next issue.

I wouldn’t defer to a physician on matters of abortion policy any more than you would defer to me on matters of jurisprudential policy. Ultimately, we both have to arrive at our own conclusions, just like legislators. We just have fewer resources and less information, and our conclusions are less consequential.
Click to expand...

So then you trust that legislators in VA have done that? Not only would a woman have her voice, her physicians’s opinion, and also the collective judgement of her state legislature. Seems like it checks your boxes then.
 
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05/nancy-pelosi-medicare-for-all/
TOP NANCY PELOSI AIDE PRIVATELY TELLS INSURANCE EXECUTIVES NOT TO WORRY ABOUT DEMOCRATS PUSHING “MEDICARE FOR ALL”

"...Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices, specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing."
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05/nancy-pelosi-medicare-for-all/
TOP NANCY PELOSI AIDE PRIVATELY TELLS INSURANCE EXECUTIVES NOT TO WORRY ABOUT DEMOCRATS PUSHING “MEDICARE FOR ALL”

"...Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices, specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing."
Click to expand...

I just read that piece and don't see anything in there to support the headline. This line seems like a more accurate summary. "Democrats, Primus said, are united around the concept of universal coverage, but see strengthening the Affordable Care Act as the means to that end." Is there something specific in there that particularly bothered you?
 
tiltdeac said:
I just read that piece and don't see anything in there to support the headline. This line seems like a more accurate summary. "Democrats, Primus said, are united around the concept of universal coverage, but see strengthening the Affordable Care Act as the means to that end." Is there something specific in there that particularly bothered you?
Click to expand...

I looked through the slides and skimmed the article.

Agree with tiltdeac.

I think the slides accurately offer a brief summary and reflection of the history and challenges and opportunities wrt health care reform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top