I've been thinking.... abortion isn't the problem

[vern_humphrey]

The main criterion for protecting innocent life is the recognition of God’s supreme creating power.

As for enforcement, have you read the whole thread? My point is that outlawing abortion may not significantly decrease the practice as one might think because successful enforcement is going to require the cooperation of the medical establishment. a

That’s like saying we can’t catch drug dealers if we don’t get the cooperation of the drug dealing establishment.

Therefore, we need to find ways to enlist that establishment (we can take suggestions from those providing care for women who are themselves already pro-life). If this goal sounds ambitious, ending/decreasing abortion simply using laws is even more so, in my opinion.

If we allow the underage victims of coerced abortions to sue upon reaching majority, we will deal a major blow to the abortion industry.

If we make 4D Sonograms a matter of informed consent, and allow women who were not shown 4Ds before being aborted to sue, we deal them another major blow.

 

[katy]

There is also the problem that prospective OB’s are rather discouraged if they are prolife, from what I have heard. I do like the idea of ultrasounds, and the idea allowing girls who were underage to sue later. Nothing scares Americans, anyway, more than the threat of a lawsuit.

 

[seekerz]

That’s like saying we can’t catch drug dealers if we don’t get the cooperation of the drug dealing establishment.

If we make 4D Sonograms a matter of informed consent, and allow women who were not shown 4Ds before being aborted to sue, we deal them another major blow.

Your analogy with drug dealers is not valid because the activity which defines them is itself criminal. I don’t think the practice of medicine can be termed criminal now do you? Again I ask: how would you even know if a woman had a procedure that was not medically indicated if she or the doctor didn’t tell you? When it comes down to her word against his - well, he’s the expert.

So an 18 year old testifies about an abortion performed 3 years prior and the doctor’s response is: “the pregnancy wasn’t developing normally; actually at the time I saw her there was no heartbeat”. Does a 15 year old know enough to counter that?!

Besides, why would she sue if she was told at the time that there was something wrong with the pregnancy?

A 4D ultrasound may convince some women not to abort, so that could be a good thing to legislate. Again though, a piece of paper cannot show a heartbeat, so it wouldn’t help those who regret later on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is also the problem that prospective OB’s are rather discouraged if they are prolife, from what I have heard. I do like the idea of ultrasounds, and the idea allowing girls who were underage to sue later. Nothing scares Americans, anyway, more than the threat of a lawsuit.

If we had those two provisions in law, it would cost us nothing to enforce the law – lawyers would come crawling out of the woodwork to sue abortionists.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your analogy with drug dealers is not valid because the activity which defines them is itself criminal.

If abortion were against the law, the activity which defines the abortionist would be criminal.

I don’t think the practice of medicine can be termed criminal now do you?

I don’t think the practice of pharmacy can be termed criminal now do you?

Yet those who sell illegal drugs are most assuredly criminals, are they not?

Again I ask: how would you even know if a woman had a procedure that was not medically indicated if she or the doctor didn’t tell you? When it comes down to her word against his - well, he’s the expert.

Where did you get your law degree?

So an 18 year old testifies about an abortion performed 3 years prior and the doctor’s response is: “the pregnancy wasn’t developing normally; actually at the time I saw her there was no heartbeat”. Does a 15 year old know enough to counter that?!

Where did you get your law degree?

A 4D ultrasound may convince some women not to abort, so that could be a good thing to legislate. Again though, a piece of paper cannot show a heartbeat, so it wouldn’t help those who regret later on.

And failure to show a 4D should be grounds for suit later on.

 

[seekerz]

Where did you get your law degree?

.

Come on Vern, if there’s something wrong with the point I’m making point it out. What does my degree or lack of it have to do with the substance of what I’m saying?

Incidentally, my point about the doctors is this: the practice of medicine is not itself a criminal activity therefore there are good doctors and bad ones. Regardless, we need them to prove commission of a crime in the medical arena.

I can’t diagnose abortion in a woman 5 years after the fact, can you? Would a jury just take any woman’s word without evidence? That could be a basis for money-grabbers to sue with no genuine cause; also know in former times as a “witch hunt”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Come on Vern, if there’s something wrong with the point I’m making point it out. What does my degree or lack of it have to do with the substance of what I’m saying?

Okay. What you’re saying is nonsense. It reflects a lack of understanding of court procedures and the rules of evidence.

I

ncidentally, my point about the doctors is this: the practice of medicine is not itself a criminal activity therefore there are good doctors and bad ones.

And drug dealers are simply pharmacists?

Regardless, we need them to prove commission of a crime in the medical arena.

Again, you lack understanding of court procedures and the rules of evidence.

And, if we need it, we can also get expert medical testimony.

I can’t diagnose abortion in a woman 5 years after the fact, can you? Would a jury just take any woman’s word without evidence? That could be a basis for money-grabbers to sue with no genuine cause; also know in former times as a “witch hunt”.

So you’re both a physician and a lawyer?

 

[seekerz]

Okay. What you’re saying is nonsense. It reflects a lack of understanding of court procedures and the rules of evidence.

Then please enlighten me, it would be easier on my faculties if you could use the example of the 18 year old in court that I used earlier, but by all means correct my misconceptions.

And, if we need it, we can also get expert medical testimony.

My point exactly. And to what profession would the expert medical witness belong? So do we need doctors to prove the crime?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then please enlighten me, it would be easier on my faculties if you could use the example of the 18 year old in court that I used earlier, but by all means correct my misconceptions.

I think you’re responsible for your own education. But let me point out that a victim is allowed to testify in court – and a victim’s testimony can be devastating. Let me also point out that we’re talking about tort law, not criminal law under my proposals.

My point exactly. And to what profession would the expert medical witness belong? So do we need doctors to prove the crime?

Most would be forensic pathologists. But if you think we must have such testimony, let me point out that many a rapist has been convicted based on complaints long after the crim took place.

 

[fix]

The main criterion for protecting innocent life is the recognition of God’s supreme creating power.

Many recognize that and still sin. Civil law must exist to regulate external conduct regardless of one’s internal desire. Right now positive law contradicts natural law. That is a problem for a few reasons, but certainly having no law to protect the innocent is a serious flaw and is wrong on several levels.

As for enforcement, have you read the whole thread? My point is that outlawing abortion may not significantly decrease the practice as one might think because successful enforcement is going to require the cooperation of the medical establishment.

It is not about changing the law a sole answer. As I pointed out before the civil law sends a message on some level. That message right now says anything goes. Cooperation with the medical establishment has nothing to do with what is right. If the so called establishment never admits murder is wrong that has no bearing on what the law must say.

Therefore, we need to find ways to enlist that establishment (we can take suggestions from those providing care for women who are themselves already pro-life). If this goal sounds ambitious, ending/decreasing abortion simply using laws is even more so, in my opinion.

Your argument seems to be to find one final solution to this probelm but there is no one way to solve it. It must be addressed in several ways.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your argument seems to be to find one final solution to this probelm but there is no one way to solve it. It must be addressed in several ways.

Indeed. It appears the only acceptable solution is one that prevents all abortions at one fell swoop, and also cures Global Warming, bad breath in dogs and the heartbreak of psoriasis.

 

[seekerz]

I think you’re responsible for your own education. But let me point out that a victim is allowed to testify in court – and a victim’s testimony can be devastating. Let me also point out that we’re talking about tort law, not criminal law under my proposals.

Most would be forensic pathologists. But if you think we must have such testimony, let me point out that many a rapist has been convicted based on complaints long after the crim took place.

Rape and abortion are different because as I’ve repeatedly said, the procedure of removing a pregnancy from the uterus could not in itself ever constitute wrongdoing under the law. There are valid reasons for doing so, for example if the baby was dead in the womb. On the other hand there is never a valid reason for having sex with someone against their will. Accept it or not, the above is one of the loopholes in the legal intricacies of outlawing abortion.

Also, please tell me what evidence the forensic pathologist would look at in giving an opinion on whether something wrong was done?

I do understand the value of victim testimony and support the right of women to sue (even now); all I’m saying is it’s difficult to prove an unwarranted procedure was done on someone claiming forced abortion. You can easily prove the procedure was done; proving it was unnecessary is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Rape and abortion are different because as I’ve repeatedly said, the procedure of removing a pregnancy from the uterus could not in itself ever constitute wrongdoing under the law.

You’ve said it - - but that doesn’t make it true.

Once again, where did you get your law degree?

There are valid reasons for doing so, for example if the baby was dead in the womb. On the other hand there is never a valid reason for having sex with someone against their will. Accept it or not, the above is one of the loopholes in the legal intricacies of outlawing abortion.

And there is never a valid reason for performing surgery against the patient’s will. There is never a valid reason for not giving a prospective patient full information regarding the proposed “treatment.”

Also, please tell me what evidence the forensic pathologist would look at in giving an opinion on whether something wrong was done?

Simple – many advanced abortions result in scarring and other marks. In addition, patholgic conditions that would require removal of the baby also leave physical evidence – if the abortionist claims he treated a tubal ligation, a pathologist can tell whether the victim’s condition confirms or refutes that claim.

I do understand the value of victim testimony and support the right of women to sue (even now); all I’m saying is it’s difficult to prove an unwarranted procedure was done on someone claiming forced abortion. You can easily prove the procedure was done; proving it was unnecessary is a whole different kettle of fish.

Proving it was against the victim’s will is easy, though.

Now, when you have a class action with hundreds of victims, it’s a stretch to expect a jury to believe all those abortions were necessary. Put the weeping victims on the stand. Add to that lack of any physical evidence that the abortions were “necessary” and you’ve won the case.

 

[seekerz]

You’ve said it - - but that doesn’t make it true.

Once again, where did you get your law degree?

If you break up anybody’s points in a discussion, the way you have conveniently separated my statement from the explanation that follows, you can turn the rational into unadulterated nonsense.

And there is never a valid reason for performing surgery against the patient’s will. There is never a valid reason for not giving a prospective patient full information regarding the proposed “treatment.”

Simple – many advanced abortions result in scarring and other marks. In addition, patholgic conditions that would require removal of the baby also leave physical evidence – if the abortionist claims he treated a tubal ligation, a pathologist can tell whether the victim’s condition confirms or refutes that claim.

What pathologic condition? Big words confuse me. How do you*** “treat *** a tubal ligation”?

Incidentally, what’s the penalty in your profession for being a “sell-out”? What proportion of doctors are indifferent to or supportive of abortion rights?

Proving it was against the victim’s will is easy, though.

Yeah? If my parents signed permission for me to have my appendix removed at age 16, what could I do about it? Bonafide diagnosis, bonafide signature = case closed. (Mind you I’m not saying abortion is the same as removing an appendix, just that the reasons for performing both procedures could be presented as medically and legally valid).

Now, when you have a class action with hundreds of victims, it’s a stretch to expect a jury to believe all those abortions were necessary. Put the weeping victims on the stand. Add to that lack of any physical evidence that the abortions were “necessary” and you’ve won the case.

Again I’m not a lawyer, but emotion and numbers alone can’t win a case or many obese people win suits against the fast food companies. Wouldn’t the complaining woman have to show evidence that something medically unnecessary was done to her? You seem to be saying that the doctor would have to prove that what he did was medically necessary (not too difficult, if her parents were willing participants).

On a more serious note, totally respectful of the grief some are suffering, do you have any idea how common an occurrence miscarriage is or what proportion of babies conceived actually get born (human interference excluded)?

 

[jack_hawkins]

There is never a valid reason for not giving a prospective patient full information regarding the proposed “treatment.”

the concept of informed consent is a lot more complicated than that
having been involved in the process of obtaining informed consent from patients, I know
there are actually a few valid reasons for not telling the patient everything about the procedure

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you break up anybody’s points in a discussion, the way you have conveniently separated my statement from the explanation that follows, you can turn the rational into unadulterated nonsense.

I’m not the one responsible for the unadulterated nonsense in your post.

What pathologic condition? Big words confuse me.

I’m not at all surprised to learn that.

How do you “treat a tubal ligation”?

If you’re talking about an ectopic pregnancy inside the fallopian tube, the common method is to excise the tube.

Incidentally, what’s the penalty in your profession for being a “sell-out”? What proportion of doctors are indifferent to or supportive of abortion rights?

In any profession, you will always find some honest people willing to tell the truth. Is it your claim that all patholists will lie on the stand? That the whole medical profession is a conspiracy to protect abortionists?

If the medical profession were as you say, no doctor would ever lose a malpractice case, now would he?

Yeah? If my parents signed permission for me to have my appendix removed at age 16, what could I do about it? Bonafide diagnosis, bonafide signature = case closed. (Mind you I’m not saying abortion is the same as removing an appendix, just that the reasons for performing both procedures could be presented as medically and legally valid).

Once again, where did you get your legal degree?

Again I’m not a lawyer,

Now how did I know that?

but emotion and numbers alone can’t win a case or many obese people win suits against the fast food companies. Wouldn’t the complaining woman have to show evidence that something medically unnecessary was done to her?

As I point out, both physical and expert evidence will back up the plaintiff’s claim.

On a more serious note, totally respectful of the grief some are suffering, do you have any idea how common an occurrence miscarriage is or what proportion of babies conceived actually get born (human interference excluded)?

Oh, no! Not the old “God aborts babys, so why can’t we?” argument!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

the concept of informed consent is a lot more complicated than that
having been involved in the process of obtaining informed consent from patients, I know
there are actually a few valid reasons for not telling the patient everything about the procedure

I am well aware of how the British system withholds vital information from patients.

But if you were practicing in the United States and were sued, that comment would come back to haunt you.

 

[seekerz]

Oh, no! Not the old “God aborts babys, so why can’t we?” argument!!

Is it my imagination or do I catch a hint of paranoia? Relax, all I was saying is, contrary to what you implied, a large number of miscarriages treated in any practice would hardly be something unusual.

As for that comment on “tugal ligation”, it was originally yours and with all due respect you have totally confused two very different conditions (tubal ligation refers to tying off the tubes to prevent pregnancy whereas in ectopic pregnancies, the part of the tube containing the pregnancy may be cut out - that is not the same as a tubal ligation).

Similarly, your references to “pathologic conditions” and “physical evidence”, while they sound nice, would sound even better with actual, concrete examples as in names of diseases or type of evidence that could prove a procedure was or wasn’t necessary.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Is it my imagination or do I catch a hint of paranoia?

When did you get your degree in psychiatry?

Relax, all I was saying is, contrary to what you implied, a large number of miscarriages treated in any practice would hardly be something unusual.

A deliberate abortion is not a miscarriage.

As for that comment on “tugal ligation”, it was yours and with all due respect you have totally confused two very different conditions (tubal ligation refers to tying off the tubes to prevent pregnancy whereas in ectopic pregnancies, the part of the tube containing the pregnancy may be cut out - that is not the same as a tubal ligation).

Similarly, you references to “pathologic conditions” and “physical evidence”, while they sound nice, would sound even better with actual, concrete examples as in names of diseases or type of evidence that could prove a procedure was or wasn’t necessary.

And similarly, your arguments would sound better if you could tell us when you got your legal, medical, and psychiatric degrees.

 

[seekerz]

When did you get your degree in psychiatry?

Diagnosing intriguing cases on the internet, of course

A deliberate abortion is not a miscarriage.

No, but it can closely resemble one especially if you want it to.

And similarly, your arguments would sound better if you could tell us when you got your legal, medical, and psychiatric degrees.

Shouldn’t someone support a law or legal action because they lack a law degree? Maybe one shouldn’t have an opinion on women’s medical issues if one is neither a woman or a doctor? Is that what you’re trying to say?