(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.