(05-22-2019 02:42 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't have a great answer. One of the all-time murky areas.

On this topic, as on many others, one of the most frustrating things about many contemporary discussions is the ardent refusal by so many to admit the possibility of murkiness.

And of course, the power and money for Politicians is in the argument, not in the solution

(05-22-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Somewhere there is someone willing to pay enough and get paid enough to make this happen and think they won't get caught

Isn't the last comment true about anything illegal, unethical, against industry standards, etc.? That fact is why enforcement and oversight are so important - you actually need to police people, companies, corporations, etc. to confirm they aren't breaking laws.

Aren't you just arguing with your own point here?

Sure... but in healthcare, it would be unethical to NOT protect the mother... AND the child, unborn or not. It's the laws that make this NOT the standard.

Take 'the right to an abortion' out of the law and terminating a pregnancy to save a mother's life is still the ethical/industry standard.... unless the mother said, no... let me die and save the baby... otherwise the ethical/industry standard would be to do what you could to protect both.... and only when one threatened the other would such a determination be made.

It doesn't take a lot of education to become a criminal and while that may be a career for some, it's not the same investment. Gosnell and what he did was far and away the exception in healthcare.

You made the claim that the purpose of this bill is to increase the number of people willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions. All you have to do to do that is make them legal and worth the money.

Quote:The point here isnt 'decriminalizing'. The point here is that these asshats effectively did that, yet point to their 'restriction' as though it is enough.

If you want to decriminalize it -- then have the fing balls to do it explicitly. If you want a proscription, put some fing teeth into it.

This candy ass excuse of a 'proscription' is just fing dressing so the NY legislature can 'stand tall' and try to lie their fing heads off and say that they have a 'regulation' in place.

I mean, you are pulling at will o wisps trying to find a means of enforcement on this. If a legislative body wants to put a restriction in place, they should be able to articulate within the law *how* it is enforced and what the liabilities are for not adhering to it.

Comparing the Alabama bill and the NY bill, while both are utterly grotesque, at least the Alabama legislature had the gd stones to put in an enforcement provision to it.

Exactly. The NY law eliminated the barrier altogether. It's illegal, but you won't be charged with anything, so is it really illegal?

My comment about the pay and get paid applies because now the 'cost' is essentially zero.