CA considers anonymous abortion drug prescriptions

[NxNW]

It is simply indefensible - the rules of this forum notwithstanding.

Carl Sagan wrote a great piece decades ago that refutes your argument. I'll let you Google it up. But you're getting off topic.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Under the law, if that were the law, then by definition it would not be murder. Why did you set up your hypothetical this way?

To prove that you and others have no morals and you drift to and fro.

You would have been the slave-owners. The Dems were the slave-owners.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Carl Sagan wrote a great piece decades ago that refutes your argument. I'll let you Google it up. But you're getting off topic.

The topic is abortion. People keep claiming there is some magic argument out there, but they never share it.

 

[Pommer]

Slavery used to be legal - did that make it right?

Oddly, now only the government is “allowed” to enslave people.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Oddly, now only the government is “allowed” to enslave people.

Not according to the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[DaisyDay]

To prove that you and others have no morals and you drift to and fro.

I thought that was what you were getting at but you framed the question in such a way that all you've actually done is highlight your own ignorance and assumptions.

Your hypothetical defined murder a certain way then asked if something were not how you defined it, would it be what you defined - obviously, it would not. That has absolutely nothing to do with my morals and everything to do with your lack of logic. I am not the drifter here.

In other words, another clumsy, failed got-cha.

You would have been the slave-owners.

That's unlikely and an inflammatory accusation. Watch yourself - take a breath and stop making unwarranted attacks.

The Dems were the slave-owners.

I'm not a Democrat, you know. And Democrats of the 1860s became the Republicans of the 1960s.

The topic is abortion. People keep claiming there is some magic argument out there, but they never share it.

No such arguments are allowed here, so...

 

[DaisyDay]

Not according to the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Read the whole thing:

​

Thirteenth Amendment​

​

Section 1​

​

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.​

​

Section 2​

​

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​

​

​

The government controls prisoners or allows private prisons to do so.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I thought that was what you were getting at but you framed the question in such a way that all you've actually done is highlight your own ignorance and assumptions.

Your hypothetical defined murder a certain way then asked if something were not how you defined it, would it be what you defined - obviously, it would not. That has absolutely nothing to do with my morals and everything to do with your lack of logic. I am not the drifter here.

In other words, another clumsy, failed got-cha.

My argument is that what is or is not murder can get complicated - but not in regard to abortion.

If any nation's government selected a group of people and claimed that it was not only legal - but that it was a good thing to kill them - that would not change the fact that that nation has legalized and encouraged murder.

If we operate by your flimsy and every flip-flopping subjective definition - then you would need to speak out against the results of the Nuremburg Trials.

That's unlikely and an inflammatory accusation. Watch yourself - take a breath and stop making unwarranted attacks.

You have given me no reason to believe that that would be unlikely.

You believe it permissible to kill the unborn because it is legal - so if you are willing to go to that extreme - why not the lesser evil?

I'm not a Democrat, you know. And Democrats of the 1860s became the Republicans of the 1960s.

That never happened and you are not convincing me.

No such arguments are allowed here, so...

I was speaking in the general.

 

[NxNW]

The topic is abortion. People keep claiming there is some magic argument out there, but they never share it.

The topic is the anonymity of the doctors prescribing mail order abortion medication.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The topic is the anonymity of the doctors prescribing mail order abortion medication.

Like an executioner. Appropriate - but in this case they are not performing a public service.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't see how this could ever be truly anonymous... but even if we pretend that was a possibility, this idea is riddled with flaws.

1) Liability. Is there going to be some sort of waiver the patient is going to be have to sign that waives any potential to file a claim if a doctor mistakenly prescribes something incorrectly, or fails to account for medicine interactions?

2) Anonymity is only as strong as the weakest link the chain. Someone will spill the beans at some link in the process. All it would take is for a one or two pro-life pharmacists (who will most certainly be able to see who ordered the prescription) and the whole thing is kaput.


If these doctors who want to issue these medications are strong enough about their personal convictions, they'll put pen to paper and attach their name to it.

"I want to be a rebel, and go against the grain for the good of the cause, just so long as it doesn't come at the expense of my money or freedom" is a weak flex.