• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

Hatuey said:
23 week baby :

foetusDM0302_468x639.jpg


FFS.
Click to expand...

Omg, that looks so much like a baby and to think its legal up to 24 weeks here :S
 
talloulou said:
How is it NOT an abortion issue when the dr. involved had a legal license to kill both gestational ages?

It is an abortion issue.

The dr. didn't get in trouble for killing a 23 week old. He got in trouble for not properly staffing a clinic that is licensed to kill 23 week olds.
Click to expand...

The doctor involved violated the LEGAL considerations regarding his job. To make this an issue of whether or not abortion should be legal is ridiculous. Your attempt is see through. If a doctor goes beyond his position and starts using his practice to sell drugs does that mean that doctors should no longer be allowed to prescribe drugs to their patients? NO. It means that there are crooked people out there looking to make a buck. Nothing to do with a completely unrelated issue. What you and Jmak have tried to make this about is abortion. Not exactly what it is about. Which is a doctor who violated A) the law and B) the standards set in his field of his work.

Abortions are legal in the first trimester. After that they are no longer legal. This doctor not only violated those simple and clear guidelines. However how does that negate the fact that there are thousands of other doctors out there who do follow these guidelines? Somewhere along this thread you guys managed to turn this into the usual personhood arguments common in the Abortion thread. This isn't an issue that requires ANY kind of philosophical arguments regarding life. It's one about a doctor who broke the rules. Clear and simple.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
The doctor involved violated the LEGAL considerations regarding his job. To make this an issue of whether or not abortion should be legal is ridiculous. Your attempt is see through. If a doctor goes beyond his position and starts using his practice to sell drugs does that mean that doctors should no longer be allowed to prescribe drugs to their patients? NO. It means that there are crooked people out there looking to make a buck. Nothing to do with a completely unrelated issue. What you and Jmak have tried to make this about is abortion. Not exactly what it is about. Which is a doctor who violated A) the law and B) the standards set in his field of his work.
Click to expand...

No it's not ridiculous.

Find me one post in this entire thread where the response was:

A) You know that dr. should have had better staff. The staff was ill equipped to handle the job.

or

B) Was the staff in this case properly licensed?

or

C) Did the clinic have up to date equipment. With up to date equipment this botched abortion might not have been botched.

or even

D) Did the clinic keep good records????

THOSE are the reasons the dr. lost his license. He wasn't even in the building when the baby was tossed in a bio bag.

No other criminal charges have been filed.

The posters posting here mostly posted MURDER, HOMICIDE, HEINOUS, etc. Their problem, many of them pro-choicers, was the baby in the trash.

That's not the issue the state had at all. The BIO HAZARD bag is where the baby would have gone had the abortion NOT been botched.

So it is an abortion issue and a funny one at that because you don't regularly see many of these posters who are expressing outrage expressing anything but indifference to the fact that late term abortions are LEGAL in many mnay states. They also mostly expressed indifference to Obama's failure to feel a need to protect these babies who are accidentally born vs aborted.
 
talloulou said:
THOSE are the reasons the dr. lost his license. He wasn't even in the building when the baby was tossed in a bio bag.
Click to expand...
those are the reasons they took his license
it may have just been a convenient expedient way to revoke it
it may have been about the murder of the child, tbd later by the proper authorities
but for now his days are over, until he moves to another state :3oops:
 
talloulou said:
The posters posting here mostly posted MURDER, HOMICIDE, HEINOUS, etc. Their problem, many of them pro-choicers, was the baby in the trash.

That's not the issue the state had at all. The BIO HAZARD bag is where the baby would have gone had the abortion NOT been botched.
Click to expand...

Therein lies why as a general rule your side is typically ignored. On this forum who exactly has been making the argument that it would have been okay if the baby was still in the womb? Your side. Not mine. Don't try to twist our position just to make yourself feel better, it doesn't get you anything but ridicule.

The people on this forum have been calling it murder and such, but as you've said, many of us are pro-choice, which means that you clearly have little idea of what a majority of pro-choicer's actually believe. Which is why, by the way, I made that comment earlier about how your side typically doesn't even care about "details" like what other's actually think about the issue, and instead sit on your high horse and condemn us for a stance we don't even hold.
 
Indy said:
Therein lies why as a general rule your side is typically ignored. On this forum who exactly has been making the argument that it would have been okay if the baby was still in the womb? Your side. Not mine. Don't try to twist our position just to make yourself feel better, it doesn't get you anything but ridicule.

The people on this forum have been calling it murder and such, but as you've said, many of us are pro-choice, which means that you clearly have little idea of what a majority of pro-choicer's actually believe. Which is why, by the way, I made that comment earlier about how your side typically doesn't even care about "details" like what other's actually think about the issue, and instead sit on your high horse and condemn us for a stance we don't even hold.
Click to expand...

So if I go back and read through the Obama threads where he felt no need to vote to protect born babies I'll find you and aps protesting?

I doubt it. :2wave:
 
talloulou said:
So if I go back and read through the Obama threads where he felt no need to vote to protect born babies I'll find you and aps protesting?

I doubt it. :2wave:
Click to expand...

If you truly went through the thread and was honest about it you would slink away and pretend you weren't even having this discussion because you'd see that his stance wasn't pro-late term abortion, it was against recreating an already existing law in a more confusing format. :2wave:
 
Indy said:
If you truly went through the thread and was honest about it you would slink away and pretend you weren't even having this discussion because you'd see that his stance wasn't pro-late term abortion, it was against recreating an already existing law in a more confusing format. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Please he was the ONLY senator to speak in opposition to the bill. And if I recall correctly his thoughts can be summarized as he thought the bill was unconstitutional and wouldn't stand up because we can't force drs. to care for a pre-viable fetus born or unborn. I read his exact words when he made his opposition speech and it sounded like a resounding bunch of b.s.

I'll paraphrase: "I'm Obama and I'm going to vote present on this because I vote present on most everything and this here is a waste of time because a pre-viable fetus isn't a person even when they're born and even if this was to be voted in I doubt it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny because a fetus is not a person inside or out of the womb and were we to declare it a person it would affect all abortions - not just the botched ones. This isn't about born or unborn it's about viability and if drs. are made to save little pre viable persons then abortion is done for and we know abortion isn't going anywhere so why bother with the bull****? "
 
Indy said:
If you truly went through the thread and was honest about it you would slink away and pretend you weren't even having this discussion because you'd see that his stance wasn't pro-late term abortion, it was against recreating an already existing law in a more confusing format. :2wave:
Click to expand...

If you go through the transcripts of what he said when it was being debated, you'll find that's not what what he was worried about.
 
"if you think that there are possibilities that drs. would do that...." bwahahahaha

That's pretty funny.

I guess a big part of his opposition was drs. do the right thing and you're just trying to burden them by having another attending come on to the scene when an abortion is botched. It's unnecessary because I have confidence that the abortion dr. is gonna do the right thing.

hee hee.

I'm sorry but Obama's present vote on this is INDEFENSIBLE.
 
Fore the record, as I believe it was mentioned earlier, I just read that the doctor is under criminal investigation so the assumption that this is all just for show and nothing will be done was clearly incorrect.
 
Ala factcheck.org

Obama and 'Infanticide'

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
Click to expand...

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 and 2002, had met with opposition from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.
Click to expand...

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.
Click to expand...

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Now I will be fair to your side and concede that what he said on the floor and what he said later on in interviews and such do not overlay perfectly but I don't really think they contradict each other, and actually complement each other. To turn this into a "oh my god Obama is okay with killing babies" is ludicrous.
 
Indy said:
Now I will be fair to your side and concede that what he said on the floor and what he said later on in interviews and such do not overlay perfectly but I don't really think they contradict each other, and actually complement each other. To turn this into a "oh my god Obama is okay with killing babies" is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Still, he voted present on something that pertained to exactly the situation we are discussing in this thread. He was confident that abortion clinic drs. would "do the right thing" in the event of an accidental birth when it's been shown repeatedly that they often don't. The confidence Obama seems to have for the abortion drs. in clinics is misplaced and wrong IMO.

Also I cringed when Obama talked about how the human might come out possibly moving vs. dead and this in no way means it's viable and deserving of any care or treatment.

Freaking disgraceful business, abortion.
 
talloulou said:
Still, he voted present on something that pertained to exactly the situation we are discussing in this thread. He was confident that abortion clinic drs. would "do the right thing" in the event of an accidental birth when it's been shown repeatedly that they often don't. The confidence Obama seems to have for the abortion drs. in clinics is misplaced and wrong IMO.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain what you are getting at here? I thought I just showed that he wasn't relying on doctors to make the right choice because the law already existed. How is that relying on doctors instead of relying on the law?

*Disclaimer: My wife and I would not get an abortion, nor do I think it is all that great of a practice, but on the other hand I can accept that some people are forced into situations where it is necessary. Yes, people abuse it and they SHOULD face criminal charges but a decree that ALL abortion is illegal is way over the line.
 
Last edited:
Indy said:
Could you please explain what you are getting at here? I thought I just showed that he wasn't relying on doctors to make the right choice because the law already existed. How is that relying on doctors instead of relying on the law?

*Disclaimer: My wife and I would not get an abortion, nor do I think it is all that great of a practice, but on the other hand I can accept that some people are forced into situations where it is necessary. Yes, people abuse it and they SHOULD face criminal charges but a decree that ALL abortion is illegal is way over the line.
Click to expand...

If you listen to what Obama said in his opposition speech on the senate floor he opposed the piece of the legislation which would require an abortionist to bring in an attending physician in the event of an accidental life birth and allow the attending to make a decision regarding viability. He insinuated it was an unnecessary burden because Obama was confident it was unnecessary. In the case of live births the original abortion dr. would see that the right care was given.

Clearly, as this case demonstrates, he was wrong.
 
jallman said:
Hardly. Personhood is so much more than a double helix with the same repeating base pairs.

But I am not concerned about the personhood argument as much as I am about moral consequence. You take nothing from the fetuse before it reaches the stage in its morphological development required for spatial awareness to even be a possibility. If it doesn't have a functioning central nervous system, it has no concept of self and no ability to feel, desire, hurt...nothing. There is no moral consequence to the termination of a pregnancy in these instances.
Click to expand...




Isn't that at about 8 weeks?
 
talloulou said:
If you listen to what Obama said in his opposition speech on the senate floor he opposed the piece of the legislation which would require an abortionist to bring in an attending physician in the event of an accidental life birth and allow the attending to make a decision regarding viability. He insinuated it was an unnecessary burden because Obama was confident it was unnecessary. In the case of live births the original abortion dr. would see that the right care was given.

Clearly, as this case demonstrates, he was wrong.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll agree with that. I don't think that it means that he is pro late term abortion though, that is a stretch.

So can we agree that Obama's argument on the senate floor was flawed, and could have been made much better (following the lines of reasoning I've posted before), but he is not in favor of killing babies and doesn't hold extremist views?
 
Wrong!

The right wing is hard at work building slippery slopes again....


JMak said:
This is precisely what Obama supported when he opposed that Illinois state Born Alive Act. This is what the pro-abortionists approve of. Remember, this baby really wasn't a baby, not a human being, just a collection of cells with dubious human characteristics.

Didn't anyone see the stories of babies surviving attempted abortions being set aside in custodial rooms, on counters, and in closets to die?

I hope no one is shocked by this...there's a massive group of people in this country that don't have a problem with this because, again, this wasn't a baby, not a human, just a collection of cells that just happened to fall out and that should otherwise be available for medical research...

What a sick, sick world, eh?
Click to expand...
 
Indy said:
Ok, I'll agree with that. I don't think that it means that he is pro late term abortion though, that is a stretch.

So can we agree that Obama's argument on the senate floor was flawed, and could have been made much better (following the lines of reasoning I've posted before), but he is not in favor of killing babies and doesn't hold extremist views?
Click to expand...

Obviously I'll agree his argument on the senate floor was flawed. :mrgreen: As for the extremist views -I don't know. He did say he was confident that any dr. performing an abortion would make the right choice regarding viability and treatment in the event of a live birth. However he also did say that just because an infant is moving ie not dead doesn't mean it's viable and he insinuated that in cases of abortions the babies are never viable because if they were the abortion dr. wouldn't have agreed to do an abortion in the first place. I consider that circular logic pretty extremist. I certainly wouldn't consider Obama a reasonable moderate on abortion like Jallman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom