|
gatesealer posted:However, when that politician says something stupid, and that stupid thing has to do with their bill, it is a good bet that the politician has no idea what they are talking about for the bill. Again, this can be said of pretty much every politician, and every bill ever. See e.g. the rep from Georgia who thought Guam would fall into the ocean if marines were moved there, and pretty much any statement about "assault rifles" by anyone ever. But then, I don't have much respect for the intelligence of any of our elected officials.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But what about the legions of doctors and OB/GYN's who don't agree with every professional organization, VitalSigns? The Silent Medical Majority, if you will? Never presumed to say whether it was a majority or not. My point, however, is that organizational amicus briefs do not necessarily reflect the views of their entire membership so making blanket statements that "because such and such group filed an amicus no reputable members of such and such field agree with my opponent" is a logical fallacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Again, this can be said of pretty much every politician, and every bill ever. See e.g. the rep from Georgia who thought Guam would fall into the ocean if marines were moved there, and pretty much any statement about "assault rifles" by anyone ever. But then, I don't have much respect for the intelligence of any of our elected officials. So if you're dismissing the opinion of expert groups, how do you actually think that you can determine if the restrictions on abortion clinics are reasonable or just part of the United States hyperreligious attack on female freedom? What is your actual method for determining this, since you're dismissing the common sense ones?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Never presumed to say whether it was a majority or not. My point, however, is that organizational amicus briefs do not necessarily reflect the views of their entire membership so making blanket statements that "because such and such group filed an amicus no reputable members of such and such field agree with my opponent" is a logical fallacy. Just because every single professional organization agrees vaccines don't cause autism, that doesn't mean there's not a single doctor in them that doesn't know The Truth That They Don't Want You To Know. Sorry vaxxers, get your AMA out of here, come back when you have the signature of every doctor in the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Never presumed to say whether it was a majority or not. My point, however, is that organizational amicus briefs do not necessarily reflect the views of their entire membership so making blanket statements that "because such and such group filed an amicus no reputable members of such and such field agree with my opponent" is a logical fallacy. Don't tell it to the people in this thread, tell it to pregnant rape victims who have to take a bus to another state to get the rape fetus out of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just because every single professional organization agrees vaccines don't cause autism, that doesn't mean there's not a single doctor in them that doesn't know The Truth That They Don't Want You To Know. Sorry vaxxers, get your AMA out of here, come back when you have the signature of every doctor in the world. that's a straw man and you know it. Look, the fact of the matter is, I *am* pro choice. However, arguments that try to suggest abortion is a minor trifle rather that what it is: A medical procedure with significant impact on the woman's body, cheapen the overall cause. You want to win this argument, acknowledge there *is* a state interest in regulating physicians and argue that in the overall balance, these restrictions go too far. and the goals can be achieved through less restrictive means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:that's a straw man and you know it. Look, the fact of the matter is, I *am* pro choice. However, arguments that try to suggest abortion is a minor trifle rather that what it is: A medical procedure with significant impact on the woman's body, cheapen the overall cause. What is 'significant impact', and what does that have to do with the issue under discussion? quote:You want to win this argument, acknowledge there *is* a state interest in regulating physicians and argue that in the overall balance, these restrictions go too far. and the goals can be achieved through less restrictive means. Nobody argued that there isn't state interest in regulating physicians, though. What is being pointed out is the regulations for doctors and places that do abortion are totally out of scale with the rest of medical regulation. What's hard to get about that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:these restrictions go too far. There. right there. You actually do understand that this bill is dumb, but for some reason you are insistent on defending it. It was struck down because the restriction were not good and placed an undue burden on clinics in a state that would love nothing more than to outlaw abortion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Look, the fact of the matter is, I *am* pro choice. However, Nobody's buying it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:However, arguments that try to suggest abortion is a minor trifle rather that what it is: A medical procedure with significant impact on the woman's body, cheapen the overall cause. Not really. If women's health were the actual issue, then it would be relevant that abortions are less of a health risk than actually carrying the pregnancy to term. Most of us realize that women's health really isn't the issue here, so your concern trolling isn't interesting at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:that's a straw man and you know it. Look, the fact of the matter is, I *am* pro choice. However, arguments that try to suggest abortion is a minor trifle rather that what it is: A medical procedure with significant impact on the woman's body, cheapen the overall cause. You want to win this argument, acknowledge there *is* a state interest in regulating physicians and argue that in the overall balance, these restrictions go too far. and the goals can be achieved through less restrictive means. But, medically speaking, it is relatively minor? From a link on the last page: quote:As Dr. Laube explained to the court, abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States, alarmist claims to the contrary notwithstanding:
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Somehow it's the most backwards and anti-choice states that discovered the real secrets to safeguarding womens' health. And it looks a lot like reducing the number of locations women can get an abortion, however,
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:that's a straw man and you know it. Look, the fact of the matter is, I *am* pro choice. However, arguments that try to suggest abortion is a minor trifle rather that what it is: A medical procedure with significant impact on the woman's body, cheapen the overall cause. You want to win this argument, acknowledge there *is* a state interest in regulating physicians and argue that in the overall balance, these restrictions go too far. and the goals can be achieved through less restrictive means. Tattooing is a medical procedure with significant impact on a woman's body, but you can be drunk
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:that's a straw man and you know it. Look, the fact of the matter is, I *am* pro choice. However, arguments that try to suggest abortion is a minor trifle rather that what it is: A medical procedure with significant impact on the woman's body, cheapen the overall cause. You want to win this argument, acknowledge there *is* a state interest in regulating physicians and argue that in the overall balance, these restrictions go too far. and the goals can be achieved through less restrictive means. You literally have a bigger chance of getting a fatal infection or the like when you get a tattoo or piercing than you do being damaged by an abortion. You know what kind of abortions damaged women a lot? The ones done in back alleys and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You want to win this argument, acknowledge there *is* a state interest in regulating physicians and argue that in the overall balance, these restrictions go too far. and the goals can be achieved through less restrictive means. Oh right, I forgot that the AMA, like the NRA, is mainly concerned with removing all state regulation on physicians, which is why they make fringe pronouncements such as The AMA and ACOG's joint brief posted:There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges. Emergency room physicians, hospital-based physicians, and on-call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion-related complications. Moreover, there is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose more stringent requirements on abortion facilities than it does on other medical facilities that perform procedures with similar, or even greater, risks. Sorry AMA, if you want to win this argument, maybe try putting patient safety first rather than sticking to your freewheeling all-bets-are-off-in-medicine agenda. <  >
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Which is now all that millions of Texans have access to. There used to be a clinic in Lubbock. That clinic served all of west Texas. The nearest now is a minimum of a 5 hour drive and possible upwards of 12-13 one way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Which is now all that millions of Texans have access to. There used to be a clinic in Lubbock. That clinic served all of west Texas. The nearest now is a minimum of a 5 hour drive and possible upwards of 12-13 one way. Well, like Actus seems to think, better you have a ridiculous drive then your doctor not have admitting privileges for a pretty safe procedure. It's not like Texas republicans have a massive hate boner for abortions or anything. gatesealer fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
I don't think Actus really thinks anything bad. Texas has done a good job trying their damndest to mask this as something other than de-facto outlawing abortion across most of the state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Somehow it's the most backwards and anti-choice states that discovered the real secrets to safeguarding womens' health. Well, that's only natural, as these places are also the most religiously free and have the most transparent equalitarian voting systems, so it only stands to reason they'd be brave innovators in women's health, miles ahead of those liberals at Johns Hopkins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well, that's only natural, as these places are also the most religiously free and have the most transparent equalitarian voting systems, so it only stands to reason they'd be brave innovators in women's health, miles ahead of those liberals at Johns Hopkins. Voters aren't disenfranchised there, they just stay home because they know that the system is acting in their best interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Oh...is that the only service these abortion clinics provide? Seems the scope of their practice is rather limited. Yes, there are some very remote ones (counties with more cattle than people) where it's just that, a nurse with a key to the pillbox and video conference software to the doctor at large. Yes, that's a narrow scope, but it also covers a large percentage of usage cases for the area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Never presumed to say whether it was a majority or not. My point, however, is that organizational amicus briefs do not necessarily reflect the views of their entire membership so making blanket statements that "because such and such group filed an amicus no reputable members of such and such field agree with my opponent" is a logical fallacy. Claiming that a few individuals who might disagree with their professional organization but don't care enough to file a brief to put that disagreement on the public record matter in any way shape or form was a red herring anyway but good job trolling people into arguing about it for a whole page.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nobody's buying it. And that right there is why this debate will keep on going. The logic that someone supporting the idea of some regulation on abortion is automatically a secret anti-woman pro-lifer is the same as saying someone who supports reasonable firearm regulation hates the second amendment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And that right there is why this debate will keep on going. The logic that someone supporting the idea of some regulation on abortion Okay, so this has to be a gimmick, because you can't possibly be ignoring that everyone here supports the idea of some regulation on abortion as a medical procedure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Claiming that a few individuals who might disagree with their professional organization but don't care enough to file a brief to put that disagreement on the public record matter in any way shape or form was a red herring anyway but good job trolling people into arguing about it for a whole page. So courts accept amicus briefs from "concerned citizens"? News to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, so this has to be a gimmick, because you can't possibly be ignoring that everyone here supports the idea of some regulation on abortion as a medical procedure. What regulations would you support? I'll admit where my bias comes from: One of the first cases I handled was a medical malpractice lawsuit in federal court dealing with severe scarring as the result of a botched laser hair removal procedure done in a physician's office. Lasers designed to target melanin + black patient = fail. Said physician had lost his practice privileges at every hospital in the state. So now he was doing in-office procedures, and loving them up. So, at face value, I don't see a problem with holding physicians doing ANY procedure to higher standards, making sure they have hospital practice privileges, making sure their clinic meets certain emergency care standards etc. etc. is a bad thing. Where I think the Texas law got it wrong was looking just at abortion rather than including lasik, lypo, etc. etc. Now, if you want to say this is because I'm an anti-woman secret pro life plant, fine. But the fact of the matter, again, is that the whole loving point of Roe v. Wade was to prevent women from having to rely on quacks. So SOME regulation is needed. The results of the Texas law are a problem. But at the other end of the spectrum are the Dr. Gosnell cases. There is a reasonable middle ground to be had and, while you may disagree with someone's ideas on where that middle ground might lie, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as a liar, a troll, or an idiot isn't really a compelling argument. Rarely does a case with absolutely no merit on the opposing side made it this far in the appellate process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And that right there is why this debate will keep on going. The logic that someone supporting the idea of some regulation on abortion is automatically a secret anti-woman pro-lifer is the same as saying someone who supports reasonable firearm regulation hates the second amendment. drat the AMA and its devil-may-care attitude! How can they refuse to define protocols for abortion that incorporate the most up-to-date evidence-based medical information available! Those butchers at the AMA may be irresponsibly announcing "eh, do abortions however ya want, don't bother washing your hands, just grab whatever's lying around the garden shed and have at it!" but I, Rick Perry, will not countenance such brazenly risky behavior in my state. *looks the other way while enough fertilizer to wipe out a few city blocks in a 6 kiloton explosion is trucked into a warehouse in the middle of town, doesn't check on it for a decade*
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And that right there is why this debate will keep on going. The logic that someone supporting the idea of some regulation on abortion is automatically a secret anti-woman pro-lifer is the same as saying someone who supports reasonable firearm regulation hates the second amendment. What debate? You haven't actually made any valid points. When a 5 year old argues that he didn't color on the walls, it was the dog and a space alien, that's not a debate either. Edit- so you heard a thing about a doctor screwing up once therefor this law is valid and it's requirements necessary. Even though, again, there are no medical associations that agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The results of the Texas law are a problem. Once again, You understand the point everyone is making. You just loving refuse to give up on a point that no one is making. The only thing we have been saying is that the Texas law was not proper regulation and was in fact an attempt to undermine the legality of abortions by making it so difficult for anyone to have a clinic that only 7 were left in the state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Edit- so you heard a thing about a doctor screwing up once therefor this law is valid and it's requirements necessary. Even though, again, there are no medical associations that agree. No medical associtations? I will thank you sir to not impugn the medical and scientific credentials of Americans United for Life who are after all, crafting these template laws to protect women in states across the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What regulations would you support? Whatever OB/GYNs think is appropriate, pretty much. Also include nurses in that. quote:I'll admit where my bias comes from: One of the first cases I handled was a medical malpractice lawsuit in federal court dealing with severe scarring as the result of a botched laser hair removal procedure done in a physician's office. Lasers designed to target melanin + black patient = fail. Said physician had lost his practice privileges at every hospital in the state. So now he was doing in-office procedures, and loving them up. So, at face value, I don't see a problem with holding physicians doing ANY procedure to higher standards, making sure they have hospital practice privileges, making sure their clinic meets certain emergency care standards etc. etc. is a bad thing. Higher standard than what? quote:Where I think the Texas law got it wrong was looking just at abortion rather than including lasik, lypo, etc. etc. What the holy hell is the relationship between these things? Again, seems like you must be a gimmick account to lump abortion in with those. quote:So SOME regulation is needed. Are you under the severely stupid impression that abortion, prior to this law, was unregulated in Texas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What debate? You haven't actually made any valid points. When a 5 year old argues that he didn't color on the walls, it was the dog and a space alien, that's not a debate either. Please show me where I said I supported the law. In fact, I seem to recall frequently saying that the restrictions went too far. The only argument I have actually advanced is that going at this with the "everything the other side says is stupid because they hate women" attitude that is regrettably all too common on this side of the abortion debate weakens your position. The fact remains, if something has risen this high in the appellate review process, there ARE valid counterpoints, and you make a much better argument by understanding why your opponent thinks the way they do and treating them a rational, thoughtful, albeit incorrect then by just defaulting to omg republicans and Christians want in my vagina. It's a simplistic approach to a complex issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And that right there is why this debate will keep on going. The logic that someone supporting the idea of some regulation on abortion is automatically a secret anti-woman pro-lifer is the same as saying someone who supports reasonable firearm regulation hates the second amendment. No, as with gun rights issues, not giving in to the other side's rhetoric is why we'll prevail over mealy-mouthed liars like yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And that right there is why this debate will keep on going. The logic that someone supporting the idea of some regulation on abortion is automatically a secret anti-woman pro-lifer is the same as saying someone who supports reasonable firearm regulation hates the second amendment. We are talking about a specific regulation crafted to chip away at abortion rights in a manner that is meant to sound like a health concern to fool credulous people on cursory review. It's not "automatic" because we are talking about a specific law, in real life, in Texas, in he United States, on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, as with gun rights issues, not giving in to the other side's rhetoric is why we'll prevail over mealy-mouthed liars like yourself. Ad hominems. Now that's compelling. Also, yes...you got me...I created a SA account 7 years ago just to bide my time and wait to troll abortion threads that might come up 7 years in the future. Gimmick account? Really? ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The fact remains, if something has risen this high in the appellate review process, there ARE valid counterpoints, and you make a much better argument by understanding why your opponent thinks the way they do and treating them a rational, thoughtful, albeit incorrect then by just defaulting to omg republicans and Christians want in my vagina. It's a simplistic approach to a complex issue. Actually, if you had been paying any attention to Texas (where I am from) at all, you would know that the entire reason it got this far was because people like Rick Perry would love nothing more than to make abortion illegal or, barring that, make it so difficult for doctors to preform abortions that they would effectively be made illegal from the lack of clinics. You recognize this, I have seen it in your posts. What you seem to fail to grasp is that regulations already exist because it is a medical procedure and at this point you seem far to invested in this to back out now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The only argument I have actually advanced is that going at this with the "everything the other side says is stupid because they hate women" attitude that is regrettably all too common on this side of the abortion debate weakens your position. The fact remains, if something has risen this high in the appellate review process, there ARE valid counterpoints, and you make a much better argument by understanding why your opponent thinks the way they do and treating them a rational, thoughtful, albeit incorrect then by just defaulting to omg republicans and Christians want in my vagina. It's a simplistic approach to a complex issue. Just to be clear, you're the one who is accusing the AMA of refusing to recognize the right of the state to regulate medical procedures, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
gatesealer posted:Actually, if you had been paying any attention to Texas (where I am from) at all, you would know that the entire reason it got this far was because people like Rick Perry would love nothing more than to make abortion illegal or, barring that, make it so difficult for doctors to preform abortions that they would effectively be made illegal from the lack of clinics. Rick Perry does not control when a court grants cert. Cases with no legitimate appellate issues are denied cert. Even a party who ultimately loses at the Supreme Court has a position valid enough that the court decided it wasn't a complete waste of time to explain why they are wrong. What's really amusing me about all of this is that I never once said I agreed with the law. And as you recognized, anyone who's been paying attention should be able to infer that, in fact, I do think the law went too far and there are other, less restrictive means of getting the same public interest met. I'm just willing to recognize that people with whom, at the end of the day, I disagree, may have reasons for thinking the way they do that aren't related to being the Vagina boogey man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just to be clear, you're the one who is accusing the AMA of refusing to recognize the right of the state to regulate medical procedures, right? And where did I say that? All I said was "The AMA filed an amicus, therefore there are no competent physicians who agree with this law" is a logical fallacy. Because it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
It's annoying since everyone, the people making the law, the people supporting the law, and the people opposed to it knows what the goal is. People who are universally opposed to health care for the poor aren't suddenly going to be stricken with the need to protect women in this one very specific circumstance. However everyone has to pretend that the supporters and writers of these sorts of laws aren't trying to pull a fast one because that would be impolite or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:17
|
|
