‘My baby's not gonna make it and neither am I’; Women flee Okla. for life-saving abortions

[rjs330]

It's between the woman and her doctor, outside of any restrictions. Always. No exceptions. I mean, how difficult is this to understand?

You said the day before the birth it would not be allowed. Did you not? Why wouldn't it be allowed? And who would enforce that? Now you changed your mind. Which is okay by the way. You are entitled to.

So did you change your mind?

 

[rjs330]

Didn't someone explain that you had to listen to both?

Yes, we chose to trust the professional not the attorney. Isn't that what you want? To trust the professional?

 

[rjs330]

Wait, I thought the talking point was that doctors were overreacting and there was nothing in the bill stopping them from helping women.
Seems like now the argument has changed quite a bit.
Why the flip flopping? Which view do you really hold?

What are you talking about. Your concerns is that the doctors could be sued so we shouldn't have any laws against abortion because the doctor could be sued. I pointed out that's not a reason because doctors can be sued now for many things. So that's not a valid excuse. And in all cases the doctor has to defend his position and why it was his profession judgement on why it was done.

This one should be easy. The mothers life was at risk and here are the medical reasons for that. We had to do the abortion because the mother was going to die if we didn't. And here are the medical reasons for that.

I certainly hope you are not claiming the doctors are inviolate and should never be sued for anything because they are always right are you? Is a doctor never wrong?

People hold doctors in high regard and if they present their case and show how it was necessary medically we would believe them. After all that's PRECISELY why we wrote that in the law. Because we do want to protect the mothers life and we DO recognize that it is sometimes necessary to protect her life.

Otherwise we would just simply say abortion is against the law no matter what. But that's not what was written. If a doctor believe it was necessary to protect the mothers life then all he has to do is say so and give the medical reasons.for that. After all he should know what they are right?

 

[rjs330]

Sure it is. It'll certainly fix the problem described in this thread.

I get that you don't like it. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't address the problem.

Okay.

Let's just kill everyone who has covid. That's a solution to stop the spread. That'll fix the problem for sure. I get you don't like it. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't address the problem.

I also say that if I catch someone stealing my property I should be able to shoot them dead. I get that you don't like it, but they will never steal again. That'll fix the problem.

Just cause you offered a solution doesn't mean it's a real solution.

You know how to stop drunk driving? Don't have any drunk driving laws. Problem solved.

 

[rjs330]

And just a few posts after an admission that getting sued is for doing their job would be a consequence of this bill since they don't have the autonomy to do their job.

The flip flopping makes me wonder if any of these post are actually sincere, or just a smoke screen.

If course they would be sued. That's what the law said. You are the ones hand wringing over it. But like I said doctors can be sued now. And guess what they still exist. Doctors don't lose every case you know. This is easy. So don't do an abortion if the mothers life is not at risk. If it is do the abortion and write in your charts, which doctors have to do, why her life was in danger. And if someone sues defend it. After all you have the medical documentation to show it.

All this hand wringing over suing doctors into oblivion, when it hasn't happened. And unless the doctor is aborting babies when they shouldn't be it won't happen..

 

[Bradskii]

You said the day before the birth it would not be allowed. Did you not? Why wouldn't it be allowed? And who would enforce that? Now you changed your mind. Which is okay by the way. You are entitled to.

So did you change your mind?

I said outside of any restrictions. Which I had to do because I assumed everyone would accept that there would be some. You obviously didn't. You've been corrected.

Now you've been asking what the difference might be between an abortion a week after conception and a week before birth. That you cannot conceive of the difference is totally beyond me. Whether you agree with it is something else. But that you cannot understand it is simply not credible.

 

[disciple Clint]

That's the response I expected. And the one that tells us what we needed to know.

To say noting about the fact that it is the response that the question deserved.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, we chose to trust the professional not the attorney. Isn't that what you want? To trust the professional?

No. I want you to listen to the facts and determine who is telling the truth based on those facts. And who is bending it for their own benefit. Rather than 'Hey, he's a doctor. He must be telling the truth!'

Doctor A: Her life was in danger.
Doctor B: Her life wasn't in danger.

Seems you have a problem here. Despite these being expert opinions and not matters of fact. That's generally why doctors are called to give evidence. The court would like expert medical opinion.

Doctor A: Her life wasn't in immediate danger but I performed an abortion because it is a medical fact that it would have been.
Doctor B: I completely agree.

Verdict? Guilty as charged. And that's a madness you are trying to support.

 

[Bradskii]

To say noting about the fact that it is the response that the question deserved.

I always find it useful when people are so adamant about what others should and shouldn't do in certain situations to ask what they would do if their son or daughter or partner was in the same situation. Their response tells us something about them. And their refusal to respond tells us more about their conviction regarding the matter.

 

[disciple Clint]

Sure thing, see post 64. I even quoted it when replying to it. Seems hard to miss.

Seriously? come on that hardly come even close to supporting your comment.

 

[disciple Clint]

You could. But then we would need to get into the morality aspect and that is a long drawn out discussion that we will not agree on. The fact remains that women have died due to being refused abortion. You can avoid that but it will not make your case stronger. In fact I would say it does the opposite which is why even pro life republicans are running away from abortion bans.

Except that there still no evidence that any woman has died as a direct result of being denied an abortion.

 

[disciple Clint]

I always find it useful when people are so adamant about what others should and shouldn't do in certain situations to ask what they would do if their son or daughter or partner was in the same situation. Their response tells us something about them. And their refusal to respond tells us more about their conviction regarding the matter.

I am happy for you and also for whoever the "us" is that you speak for.

 

[Bradskii]

I am happy for you and also for whoever the "us" is that you speak for.

'Us' is everyone that reads the thread.

 

[disciple Clint]

'Us' is everyone that reads the thread.

What does someone assuming that they speak for others tell "us" about them?

 

[Bradskii]

What does someone assuming that they speak for others tell "us" about them?

I don't speak for them. I don't speak for anyone in this forum. My views are my own. As are everyone else's their own. I'm pointing out that your answers, or lack of them, inform us all, whatever views we have. What others make of that information is not for me to say. It will be their call.

 

[KCfromNC]

What are you talking about. Your concerns is that the doctors could be sued so we shouldn't have any laws against abortion because the doctor could be sued. I pointed out that's not a reason because doctors can be sued now for many things. So that's not a valid excuse.

Like I said, this admission that doctors could in fact be sued for rendering the care they deem best contradicts the earlier excuses that doctors were overreacting and there was nothing wrong with the law.

And in all cases the doctor has to defend his position and why it was his profession judgement on why it was done.

This one should be easy. The mothers life was at risk and here are the medical reasons for that. We had to do the abortion because the mother was going to die if we didn't. And here are the medical reasons for that.

Glad you know better than doctors and their legal representatives how reality works.

I certainly hope you are not claiming the doctors are inviolate and should never be sued for anything because they are always right are you? Is a doctor never wrong?

If I believed that I would have written it. But I didn't, so it seems like yet another attempt to avoid talking about the actual issue.

People hold doctors in high regard and if they present their case and show how it was necessary medically we would believe them.

This is confidently asserted, and yet for some reason actual doctors disagree.

 

[KCfromNC]

Okay.

Let's just kill everyone who has covid. That's a solution to stop the spread. That'll fix the problem for sure. I get you don't like it. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't address the problem.

I also say that if I catch someone stealing my property I should be able to shoot them dead. I get that you don't like it, but they will never steal again. That'll fix the problem.

Just cause you offered a solution doesn't mean it's a real solution.

You know how to stop drunk driving? Don't have any drunk driving laws. Problem solved.

Do you have any serious responses to my proposal, or do you really want us to comment on these histrionics?

 

[KCfromNC]

If course they would be sued. That's what the law said. You are the ones hand wringing over it. But like I said doctors can be sued now. And guess what they still exist. Doctors don't lose every case you know. This is easy. So don't do an abortion if the mothers life is not at risk. If it is do the abortion and write in your charts, which doctors have to do, why her life was in danger. And if someone sues defend it. After all you have the medical documentation to show it.

All this hand wringing over suing doctors into oblivion, when it hasn't happened. And unless the doctor is aborting babies when they shouldn't be it won't happen..

This seems to ignore the fact that doctors aren't being sued because they're avoiding given health care to women who need it.
One might think that the lack of comment on that important issue means that those who agree with the law think it is working as intended.
All of the attempts to dodge that point make it look like there's some understanding that wouldn't be a popular view, but at the same time any discussion about how to change it is met with diversions, distractions and outright ridicule.

Not hard to come to a conclusion given those facts.

 

[KCfromNC]

Seriously? come on that hardly come even close to supporting your comment.

Your opinion is noted - as are the complete lack of reasons presented to back it up.

 

[Bradskii]

This one should be easy. The mothers life was at risk and here are the medical reasons for that. We had to do the abortion because the mother was going to die if we didn't. And here are the medical reasons for that.

But the law doesn't say that, does it. The law says the woman's life has to be in immediate danger. If it said what you just stated then the problem in the op would never have ocurred. In fact, this whole thread is based on a law which you have completely misepresented.