(05-19-2019 10:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]And on this issue, I am on neither the right nor the left. I am pro-choice with specific limitations which I have enunciated repeatedly here. I suppose my position makes me a "conservative" in the sense that my position was pretty much the American position before the religious right nutcases began taking over some legislatures in the 1920s or so and later. I oppose both the Alabama law and the New York law.
I imagine that you and I are pretty aligned on this issue (as well as I can be aligned because I haven't completely worked out my feelings on every facet of abortion).
Many legal and political watchers (including, at the time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have pointed out that such a thoughtful middle ground is exactly where we would have arrived legislatively if Roe v. Wade had not tried to short-circuit the political give-and-take by fiating a result.* Roe is very much the Dred Scott of our time.
*That was also my position in my 14th Amendment class in law school, the only course in which I got an A+. That and $10 might buy me lunch.
Have to agree with you on this. I have been having a nice discussion with Hambone on another thread on the 'rights' basis for each side.
With that discussion, it is interesting to see where the 'natural rights' school and the 'living Constitution' school actually have significant overlap. Both having a lot of tension with the 'textualist' basis.
And, even if Roe were overturned (my call is that it will not be, because even though the Court is more 'right' than the RvW or the Casey court, that 'right' faction is also very aware and very observant of stare decisis), my best guess is that the vast majority of states would enact or change their current laws to reflect pretty much the framework of Casey or Roe, if not adopting an even more liberal stance on abortion issues. At that point the issue would be precisely where it always has belonged --- as a purely political question with each State's legislature and Governor.
(05-19-2019 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Have to agree with you on this. I have been having a nice discussion with Hambone on another thread on the 'rights' basis for each side.
With that discussion, it is interesting to see where the 'natural rights' school and the 'living Constitution' school actually have significant overlap. Both having a lot of tension with the 'textualist' basis.
And, even if Roe were overturned (my call is that it will not be, because even though the Court is more 'right' than the RvW or the Casey court, that 'right' faction is also very aware and very observant of stare decisis), my best guess is that the vast majority of states would enact or change their current laws to reflect pretty much the framework of Casey or Roe, if not adopting an even more liberal stance on abortion issues. At that point the issue would be precisely where it always has belonged --- as a purely political question with each State's legislature and Governor.
Part of my purpose there was to do exactly what we talk about here... that Rice people do so well... Debate, even vehemently.... not argue. Tanq is far more versed in the legalities of such issues and I am merely a student/observer... and yet still, we can disagree without devolving.
I think the right (on the issue... I'm generally right but fairly left/libertarian on this issue) is trying to force an issue on 'rights of the unborn', hence leaving off the common exceptions... so that the court can't fall back on them.
RvW certainly recognizes the right of a woman to an abortion, and also the 'obligation?' of the state to protect potential life... neither of which actually appear anywhere else... The religious right want the first part of RvW overturned, and the left (whether they realize it or not) want the second half overturned. So EVERYONE seems to want it overturned.... even a lot who think it ONLY says a woman has a right to an abortion.
The Alabama law seems to challenge that on its face. Laws allowing late term abortions seem to challenge the other part of Rowe... although Rowe doesn't say the state HAS to regulate abortions, merely that it CAN... so exceptions by state seem totally reasonable under Rowe.
For disclosure, I am 100% pro choice... I merely want the choice to be made as soon as humanly possible after the event. I think it 'cruel' (not a perfect word but close enough)to be allowed to 'think about it' for months while the fetus develops. I think sex education shouldn't be as much about biology and reproduction (that's another class) but instead about the implications of sex on relationships and 'being a teenager'... basically preparing people well in advance of such a decision to make an informed decision.... including the decision to have sex or not... the risks of sex, including but not limited to pregnancy and potentially being tied to two other people for 18 years.
(05-19-2019 12:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2019 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Have to agree with you on this. I have been having a nice discussion with Hambone on another thread on the 'rights' basis for each side.
With that discussion, it is interesting to see where the 'natural rights' school and the 'living Constitution' school actually have significant overlap. Both having a lot of tension with the 'textualist' basis.
And, even if Roe were overturned (my call is that it will not be, because even though the Court is more 'right' than the RvW or the Casey court, that 'right' faction is also very aware and very observant of stare decisis), my best guess is that the vast majority of states would enact or change their current laws to reflect pretty much the framework of Casey or Roe, if not adopting an even more liberal stance on abortion issues. At that point the issue would be precisely where it always has belonged --- as a purely political question with each State's legislature and Governor.
Part of my purpose there was to do exactly what we talk about here... that Rice people do so well... Debate, even vehemently.... not argue. Tanq is far more versed in the legalities of such issues and I am merely a student/observer... and yet still, we can disagree without devolving.
I think the right (on the issue... I'm generally right but fairly left/libertarian on this issue) is trying to force an issue on 'rights of the unborn', hence leaving off the common exceptions... so that the court can't fall back on them.
RvW certainly recognizes the right of a woman to an abortion, and also the 'obligation?' of the state to protect potential life... neither of which actually appear anywhere else... The religious right want the first part of RvW overturned, and the left (whether they realize it or not) want the second half overturned. So EVERYONE seems to want it overturned.... even a lot who think it ONLY says a woman has a right to an abortion.
The Alabama law seems to challenge that on its face. Laws allowing late term abortions seem to challenge the other part of Rowe... although Rowe doesn't say the state HAS to regulate abortions, merely that it CAN... so exceptions by state seem totally reasonable under Rowe.
For disclosure, I am 100% pro choice... I merely want the choice to be made as soon as humanly possible after the event. I think it 'cruel' (not a perfect word but close enough)to be allowed to 'think about it' for months while the fetus develops. I think sex education shouldn't be as much about biology and reproduction (that's another class) but instead about the implications of sex on relationships and 'being a teenager'... basically preparing people well in advance of such a decision to make an informed decision.... including the decision to have sex or not... the risks of sex, including but not limited to pregnancy and potentially being tied to two other people for 18 years.
You dont know what you are talking about and you suck. /sarcasm off
I only have one 'nit' with the comments above. The courts have recognized a 'fundamental right' on behalf of women and put a blanket ban on state restrictions that have an 'undue burden' on abortion up until viability. The conservative/right truly does wish to have this overturned. And, I dont think any state has an 'obligation' to protect the unborn -- more that they 'can exercise' power to protect at this point. NY has exercised this option by specifically refusing to use any power to protect an unborn during the period that they could. (My position is that passing a 'no-liability whatsoever proscription' *no* exercise of state power, even in the slightest.)
I dont think the left wishes to 'overturn' anything associated with the state's interest side -- there really is nothing to 'overturn'. The only thing progressives can do is 'expand' the right afforded to women such that no state can exercise any power to protect the unborn.
(For the record, I have known Ham as long as I have known George --- going on 35 years at this point. George got his 'George sucks' via a third person at his work.)
(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]"Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities.
Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
Quote:Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).
Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.
Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.
In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.
Yes... if you supported a system that allowed for slavery then you would support slavery.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
To suggest that I am OK with Gosnell's actions is just about as ridiculous as me saying that a supporter of the Alabama law is in favor of poor, black women dying due to pregnancy-related issues.
Quote:Quote:I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.
To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.
Quote:To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists.
The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.
The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.
Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.
Quote:It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.
Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.
I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.
If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.
Quote:Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.
Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?
(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.
Quote:Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.
Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?
Professionals in all industries lose their licenses all of the time for doing something that is technically legal...
(05-20-2019 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Professionals in all industries lose their licenses all of the time for doing something that is technically legal...
Yes they do, but do you really expect a New York medical board to be composed of people whose views are at variance with the specific New York law in question? I don't. In fact, I would expect at least some of those on such a board to have been consulted in drafting the law.
I think a Texas medical board might pull his ticket, but not a New York one.
(05-20-2019 10:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Professionals in all industries lose their licenses all of the time for doing something that is technically legal...
Yes they do, but do you really expect a New York medical board to be composed of people whose views are at variance with the specific New York law in question? I don't. In fact, I would expect at least some of those on such a board to have been consulted in drafting the law.
I think a Texas medical board might pull his ticket, but not a New York one.
I think you're taking a broad leap there.
That would be like me suggesting the Texas PE board would be less strict with their licensure because Texas is generally a conservative state when it comes to government intervention.
(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.
As stated multiple times, the rationale was likely to provide more available doctors who are willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions when needed.
Quote:Quote:Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.
Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?
Yes. A total knee replacement is a legally acceptable procedure but if a doctor puts in the left knee implant instead of the right knee implant (and does it on multiple occasions) then he or she will certainly have a day of reckoning with the medical board.
(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]"Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities.
Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
Quote:Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).
Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.
Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.
In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.
Yes... if you supported a system that allowed for slavery then you would support slavery.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
To suggest that I am OK with Gosnell's actions is just about as ridiculous as me saying that a supporter of the Alabama law is in favor of poor, black women dying due to pregnancy-related issues.
Quote:Quote:I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.
To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.
Quote:To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists.
The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.
The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.
Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.
Quote:It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.
Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.
I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.
If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
Basic econ 101 question then since you cannot answer the question asked. When a cost goes to zero, is the expected demand for such a good expected to fall or rise?
Yes or No. A law that puts into place a zero liability for providing a good service increases the social cost to the provider? Yes or No.
Since I sense of obdurance here I guess we will have to go back to the basic building blocks to the 'yes/no' answer asked, but avoided.
Ancillary question: do you find the action by the Queens DA to not prosecute a person who stabbed and killed his third-trimester pregnant girlfriend in any way illuminating? Now consider the charges that Gosnell was tried on. Can you differentiate Gosnell's actions in any way, shape, or form from the stabber?
I am amazed at the obstinance at even recognizing the environment that the law ccreates. Whoo hoooo..... with Gosnell the Second, the Queens decision means no criminal charges and your answer means there *might* (get that, *might*) be a medical inquiry into Gosnell the Seconds credentials. Yeah, *that* 'might have your credentials reviewed' is a real gd serious impediment to the Gosnell the Second.
But somehow you refuse to acknowledge in the slightest that environment. (yeah, this board really needs a 'self forehead slap' emoji....)
(05-20-2019 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.
Quote:Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.
Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?
Professionals in all industries lose their licenses all of the time for doing something that is technically legal...
Wow, *that* the provider 'might' be reviewed and 'might' face disciplinary action sure gives me an overriding sense of comfort. I feel *much* better about the moral weight afforded to viable fetuses in New York.
I think that the 'might be reviewed' and 'might face licensure' action sure telegraphs the moral weight that the NY legislature stacks against crushing an 8.999 month fetus skill and dismembering it prior to removal.
I think that moral comparison denoted there more than tells me that the care shown for any such 8.999 month old fetus by the NY Legislature.
They swept up the care extended to any such late term fetus with a used broom and threw it to the wind when they stacked against the standard we now have in this board of a *possible* action of a 'might be reviewed' by some unnamed body under some unnamed professional provision.
(05-20-2019 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]"Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities.
Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
Quote:Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).
Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.
Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.
In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.
Yes... if you supported a system that allowed for slavery then you would support slavery.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
To suggest that I am OK with Gosnell's actions is just about as ridiculous as me saying that a supporter of the Alabama law is in favor of poor, black women dying due to pregnancy-related issues.
Quote:Quote:I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.
To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.
Quote:To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists.
The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.
The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.
Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.
Quote:It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.
Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.
I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.
If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
Basic econ 101 question then since you cannot answer the question asked. When a cost goes to zero, is the expected demand for such a good expected to fall or rise?
Yes or No. A law that puts into place a zero liability for providing a good service increases the social cost to the provider? Yes or No.
Since I sense of obdurance here I guess we will have to go back to the basic building blocks to the 'yes/no' answer asked, but avoided.
Ancillary question: do you find the action by the Queens DA to not prosecute a person who stabbed and killed his third-trimester pregnant girlfriend in any way illuminating? Now consider the charges that Gosnell was tried on. Can you differentiate Gosnell's actions in any way, shape, or form from the stabber?
I am amazed at the obstinance at even recognizing the environment that the law ccreates. Whoo hoooo..... with Gosnell the Second, the Queens decision means no criminal charges and your answer means there *might* (get that, *might*) be a medical inquiry into Gosnell the Seconds credentials. Yeah, *that* 'might have your credentials reviewed' is a real gd serious impediment to the Gosnell the Second.
But somehow you refuse to acknowledge in the slightest that environment. (yeah, this board really needs a 'self forehead slap' emoji....)
Sorry... I thought "I doubt it" implied "no" and therefore I thought I answered your yes/no question. I wasn't meaning to avoid it.
(05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.
As stated multiple times, the rationale was likely to provide more available doctors who are willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions when needed.
But here's the problem with that. They could have accomplished that with a much less expansive statute than this. This permits things beyond the scope of that.
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.
Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?
Yes. A total knee replacement is a legally acceptable procedure but if a doctor puts in the left knee implant instead of the right knee implant (and does it on multiple occasions) then he or she will certainly have a day of reckoning with the medical board.
But that's not because of any statutory regime, that's simple malpractice. Gosnell is an ethical issue, that's different and more complicated. If you make the assumption that the New York law accurately reflects the prevailing ethical standard there (which seems reasonable), then no they would not act. And no, they don't even act on the simple malpractice mistakes as often as they should.
(05-20-2019 11:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry... I thought "I doubt it" implied "no" and therefore I thought I answered your yes/no question. I wasn't meaning to avoid it.
In fact, based on the timeline of posts, it looks like you answered it three times between 9:22 and 9:23. :)
I've done that too on occasion.
(05-20-2019 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.
As stated multiple times, the rationale was likely to provide more available doctors who are willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions when needed.
But here's the problem with that. They could have accomplished that with a much less expansive statute than this. This permits things beyond the scope of that.
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.
Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?
Yes. A total knee replacement is a legally acceptable procedure but if a doctor puts in the left knee implant instead of the right knee implant (and does it on multiple occasions) then he or she will certainly have a day of reckoning with the medical board.
But that's not because of any statutory regime, that's simple malpractice. Gosnell is an ethical issue, that's different and more complicated. If you make the assumption that the New York law accurately reflects the prevailing ethical standard there (which seems reasonable), then no they would not act. And no, they don't even act on the simple malpractice mistakes as often as they should.
I understand the concern with the elimination of the criminal aspect of the New York law. I believe that Tanq laid that out well and I share the concerns over this. I feel like I am more on your side of this when it comes to this part of the New York law than is evident on this thread.
Do you guys have concerns that pregnant women in their 3rd trimester who have an urgent need for an abortion have difficulty finding doctors willing to participate? And it seems to be related to the criminal aspect of current legislation? Do you have a solution for that situation?
(12-09-2016 06:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-09-2016 05:59 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This one seems relevant to the discussion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...fa0f485028
Over/under on # of people asking how that is any different than calling out a CEO?
I think another telling story about the influence he has on people based on his Twitter use and style of attack is what happened to Megyn Kelly. I heard this story on NPR a few weeks ago, terrifying, but luckily she has the means to afford protection.
Quote:It was my year of guards and guns — you know, thanks to Trump. I was under security threat for most of the nine months he was really coming after me. I had strange people showing up at my house. I had strange people casing my house. I had my children looking out the windows afraid. ... Every time he would come after me, he would release — as I describe in the book — a torrent of nastiness in my life, and I had to sort of just be steady at the helm, because I was going to cover this race come hell or high water.
By far, the tweet that bothered me the most was that of Trump's top lawyer, Michael Cohen, who's a senior executive with the Trump organization. When things were at a fever pitch after that first debate, Michael Cohen retweeted somebody saying, "Let's gut her." That one to me was the most disturbing and visceral. ...
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502042198/...-and-ailes
Michael Cohen was not Trump's top lawyer. He was a "fixer," something that every serious real estate developer needs. We've got somebody holding up the environmental approvals, go fix it, don't tell us what you did, and send us a bill.
Those people tend to be sleazy characters. They have to be to do their job. They exist primarily to give the boss deniability.
(05-20-2019 11:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]"Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities.
Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
Quote:Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).
Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.
Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.
In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.
Yes... if you supported a system that allowed for slavery then you would support slavery.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
To suggest that I am OK with Gosnell's actions is just about as ridiculous as me saying that a supporter of the Alabama law is in favor of poor, black women dying due to pregnancy-related issues.
Quote:Quote:I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.
To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.
Quote:To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists.
The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.
The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.
Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.
Quote:It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.
Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.
I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.
If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
Basic econ 101 question then since you cannot answer the question asked. When a cost goes to zero, is the expected demand for such a good expected to fall or rise?
Yes or No. A law that puts into place a zero liability for providing a good service increases the social cost to the provider? Yes or No.
Since I sense of obdurance here I guess we will have to go back to the basic building blocks to the 'yes/no' answer asked, but avoided.
Ancillary question: do you find the action by the Queens DA to not prosecute a person who stabbed and killed his third-trimester pregnant girlfriend in any way illuminating? Now consider the charges that Gosnell was tried on. Can you differentiate Gosnell's actions in any way, shape, or form from the stabber?
I am amazed at the obstinance at even recognizing the environment that the law ccreates. Whoo hoooo..... with Gosnell the Second, the Queens decision means no criminal charges and your answer means there *might* (get that, *might*) be a medical inquiry into Gosnell the Seconds credentials. Yeah, *that* 'might have your credentials reviewed' is a real gd serious impediment to the Gosnell the Second.
But somehow you refuse to acknowledge in the slightest that environment. (yeah, this board really needs a 'self forehead slap' emoji....)
Sorry... I thought "I doubt it" implied "no" and therefore I thought I answered your yes/no question. I wasn't meaning to avoid it.
Lolz -- so a regime that removes all liability for an action doesnt promote the violation of that standard. Interesting.
I am sure the 'zero liability' will do a ****-ton of inhibiting those actions.
I think that we need to institute, immediately!, a 'zero liability' regime for fraud. That will *sure* as hell make sure no fraud is committed. Sound good to you?
(05-20-2019 11:18 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 11:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry... I thought "I doubt it" implied "no" and therefore I thought I answered your yes/no question. I wasn't meaning to avoid it.
In fact, based on the timeline of posts, it looks like you answered it three times between 9:22 and 9:23. :)
I've done that too on occasion.
Ugh. Deleted two of them. I'm not a fan of this platform.
(05-20-2019 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]"Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities.
Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
Quote:Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).
Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.
Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.
In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.
Yes... if you supported a system that allowed for slavery then you would support slavery.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
To suggest that I am OK with Gosnell's actions is just about as ridiculous as me saying that a supporter of the Alabama law is in favor of poor, black women dying due to pregnancy-related issues.
Quote:Quote:I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.
To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.
Quote:To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists.
The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.
The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.
Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.
Quote:It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.
Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.
I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.
If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
Basic econ 101 question then since you cannot answer the question asked. When a cost goes to zero, is the expected demand for such a good expected to fall or rise?
Yes or No. A law that puts into place a zero liability for providing a good service increases the social cost to the provider? Yes or No.
Since I sense of obdurance here I guess we will have to go back to the basic building blocks to the 'yes/no' answer asked, but avoided.
Ancillary question: do you find the action by the Queens DA to not prosecute a person who stabbed and killed his third-trimester pregnant girlfriend in any way illuminating? Now consider the charges that Gosnell was tried on. Can you differentiate Gosnell's actions in any way, shape, or form from the stabber?
I am amazed at the obstinance at even recognizing the environment that the law ccreates. Whoo hoooo..... with Gosnell the Second, the Queens decision means no criminal charges and your answer means there *might* (get that, *might*) be a medical inquiry into Gosnell the Seconds credentials. Yeah, *that* 'might have your credentials reviewed' is a real gd serious impediment to the Gosnell the Second.
But somehow you refuse to acknowledge in the slightest that environment. (yeah, this board really needs a 'self forehead slap' emoji....)
Tanq, when you say not prosecute, do you mean at all? Or just for abortion?
The guy was still charged with first-degree murder...
https://nypost.com/2019/02/08/accused-mu...s-new-law/
Quote:Queens District Attorney Richard Brown sent out a press release saying Anthony Hobson, 48, would be charged with second-degree abortion as well as murder in Sunday’s fatal stabbing of Jennifer Irigoyen, 35.
But a DA spokeswoman later told The Post that the abortion charge “was repealed by the Legislature, and this is the law as it exists today.”
Just making sure you're not misinterpreting the news and saying that the guy was not charged for any crime for that heinous act. He was charged for a very serious crime still.
(05-20-2019 11:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 11:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.
Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.
In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.
Yes... if you supported a system that allowed for slavery then you would support slavery.
I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.
To suggest that I am OK with Gosnell's actions is just about as ridiculous as me saying that a supporter of the Alabama law is in favor of poor, black women dying due to pregnancy-related issues.
Quote:To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.
The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.
The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.
Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.
Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.
I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.
If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.
Basic econ 101 question then since you cannot answer the question asked. When a cost goes to zero, is the expected demand for such a good expected to fall or rise?
Yes or No. A law that puts into place a zero liability for providing a good service increases the social cost to the provider? Yes or No.
Since I sense of obdurance here I guess we will have to go back to the basic building blocks to the 'yes/no' answer asked, but avoided.
Ancillary question: do you find the action by the Queens DA to not prosecute a person who stabbed and killed his third-trimester pregnant girlfriend in any way illuminating? Now consider the charges that Gosnell was tried on. Can you differentiate Gosnell's actions in any way, shape, or form from the stabber?
I am amazed at the obstinance at even recognizing the environment that the law ccreates. Whoo hoooo..... with Gosnell the Second, the Queens decision means no criminal charges and your answer means there *might* (get that, *might*) be a medical inquiry into Gosnell the Seconds credentials. Yeah, *that* 'might have your credentials reviewed' is a real gd serious impediment to the Gosnell the Second.
But somehow you refuse to acknowledge in the slightest that environment. (yeah, this board really needs a 'self forehead slap' emoji....)
Sorry... I thought "I doubt it" implied "no" and therefore I thought I answered your yes/no question. I wasn't meaning to avoid it.
Lolz -- so a regime that removes all liability for an action doesnt promote the violation of that standard. Interesting.
I am sure the 'zero liability' will do a ****-ton of inhibiting those actions.
I think that we need to institute, immediately!, a 'zero liability' regime for fraud. That will *sure* as hell make sure no fraud is committed. Sound good to you?
Please see my above response to Owl#'s. I'm not going to be a champion for this aspect of the New York law. That wasn't my goal as I was trying to understand your viewpoint better and then have a discussion about it.