- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,550
- Reaction score
- 31,148
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Where I stand is aside, while the woman chooses what is done with her body.
It's not that I'm suggesting we do without laws.Okay then...How do suggest we as a species/civilization manage several Billion individuals?
Or, to simplify, how would you recommend (without laws) we somehow create a utopia that meets your individual needs without stomping on mine, for several million individuals?
I can agree our society is flawed, and imperfect...hell I sometimes find it disgusting. Yet, this is what we have, and to pretend it is not just seems to me rather naive.
To expect everyone else to bow down before my opinion is also...unrealistic, and possibly cruel.
we are forced to live and let live, or kill each other.
It's not that I'm suggesting we do without laws.
Then, perhaps you might accept them, and at least accept the reality of them.
More that I think the laws we've been passing are too specific.
Yet, they are societal law you can disagree with them, but hey are still society in action.
And I have no desire for a utopia created to meet my individual needs, but rather a general framework that allows for individuals to build their own personal version of utopia, while restraining them from methods/actions that would endanger that option for other individuals.
We have precisely that...right now
I’m not sure, but I suspect that in multiple cases around the country (and most likely the world) there are laws that specifically address a certain action or several, and which are unnecessary – said action already being illegal, albeit perhaps not directly, under a previous law.
Much like our system...
Unnecessary legislation/laws, mainly passed (IMO) so that politicians can say “I was part of this, vote me back into office”, or in short, “I did something”.
And…stuff.
No.
So...we should defy law...because we don't agree with it?
Paperwork? You mean the medical records which are protected under the privacy clause of the 4th Amendment?
Wow. No offense, but under your proposal one of two things will have to happen. Either we can maintain lax investigative procedures such as the one which faced your wife (and in which case, there will definitely be a sudden increase in the number of "miscarriages" across the country), or we can impose more intrusive investigative procedures that look at more than just paperwork. How would you like it if your wife was subjected to a cavity search in order to rule out a self-induced abortion?
...snip...
Edit: And I disagree with your statement "We have precisely that...right now."
Yes.
The state of NY had no problem getting my wife's medical records of the miscarriage from the nurses station to make their determination, given that the state requires the investigation.
I'm not sure what you think a miscarriage entails, but as the hospital had to remove the ZEF from my wife and she nearly bled to death in the process, I there's little more a cavity search would discover. Everything that could have been examined in a cavity search was already examined (and stitched) in removing the ZEF.
Yes.
The state of NY had no problem getting my wife's medical records of the miscarriage from the nurses station to make their determination, given that the state requires the investigation.
I'm not sure what you think a miscarriage entails, but as the hospital had to remove the ZEF from my wife and she nearly bled to death in the process, I there's little more a cavity search would discover. Everything that could have been examined in a cavity search was already examined (and stitched) in removing the ZEF.
I was actually speaking in more general terms, not specifically about abortion laws…Which means I was straying a bit from the main topic, I suppose.You said this "And I have no desire for a utopia created to meet my individual needs, but rather a general framework that allows for individuals to build their own personal version of utopia, while restraining them from methods/actions that would endanger that option for other individuals."
I see this as the whole point of Roe vs. Wade...it is a general framework that allows for individual freedom and has no aspect that allows for the endangerment of others.
Basically...it lets everyone involved maintain the freedoms they enjoy without interfering with anyone else’s.
I was actually speaking in more general terms, not specifically about abortion laws…Which means I was straying a bit from the main topic, I suppose.
Understood
But.
What if you think it does interfere with another person’s rights? The right that an unborn child has to life, for example…
Then, it would seem, Roe vs. Wade violates that statement I made.
Then you disagree with the law, as you are welcome to...yet it is the law nonetheless.
That decision, like most involving abortion, hinges on what point in the process of reproduction you believe a potential human should be considered “a life” and thus protected. If ever.
No, it does not...there is nothing to tell you your belief must be changed to conform to said law.
Most of us, I think, don’t consider partial-birth abortions acceptable, outside such being the only option to save the mother. Some of us not even then, I suppose.
But everything else in between that and conception is apparently fair game, in general.
And so…the argument continues.
True.Then you disagree with the law, as you are welcome to...yet it is the law nonetheless.
I should have been clearer…No, it does not...there is nothing to tell you your belief must be changed to conform to said law.
I favor aborting as soon as the gender can be determined to be male. The world would be a so much better place.Other -
I am opposed to late-term abortions, when the fetus is able to develop emotional attachments (as a result of this, abortion will erase these attachments and the fetus will cease to exist, which is where it becomes a moral issue).
I am in favor of earlier abortions, when the fetus is unable to form such attachments. This accounts for about 97% of all abortions.
I favor aborting as soon as the gender can be determined to be male. The world would be a so much better place.
.
So what your saying, among other things, is 1.) pregnancy can be life threatening and 2.) there was a criminal investigation of the miscarriage to determine if charges should be brought against your wife and/or doctor(s)?
Yes. So stop worrying about investigations, they already happen, this is by far nothing new.
I am forced to assume "Jerry" is not quite who he pretends to be...as the odds of me ever running into an individual this incapable of functional logic, average societal understanding, and basic cognitive ability are likely astronomical in proportion.
Thus I have developed a theory..."Jerry" is an exceptional gamer, and though I am hesitant to state it....he should continue.
I personally would prefer an illusion of this unfortunate aspect of our little experiment Life), than wondering if I am actually in contact with it.
Moderator's Warning: |
Knock off the personal attacks, tecoyah. |
I would stop short of claiming such criminal investigations are commonplace. Perhaps in NY, but I am yet convinced there is any sort of mandatory investigation. I doubt a woman in Long Island who miscarried at home would be subject to criminal charges for not reporting it and/or not subjecting herself to a formal medical examination/investigation.
Again, the majority of miscarriages occur outside a hospital and most miscarriages before 10 weeks occur without the necessity of DNC.
Most miscarriages take place away from a hospital and most women who miscarry before 10 weeks can do so safely without a DNC or medical intervention.
I am forced to assume "Jerry" is not quite who he pretends to be...as the odds of me ever running into an individual this incapable of functional logic, average societal understanding, and basic cognitive ability are likely astronomical in proportion.
Thus I have developed a theory..."Jerry" is an exceptional gamer, and though I am hesitant to state it....he should continue.
I personally would prefer an illusion of this unfortunate aspect of our little experiment Life), than wondering if I am actually in contact with it.
I don't get it.
you're an adult grown male. shoving aside 7 year old children to increase the odds of your survival at the cost of their lives isn't "a viable option to consider". It's despicable.
That's nice.