New York Times endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president

[Alien826]

I disagree with Harris on many issues, but you nicely summarized why one should vote for her and not The One Who is Orange (been reading a lot of western fiction lately and so was thinking what a good Indian name would be for Trump).

I would add that if one cares about environmental conservation, Harris is (by far!), the lesser of two evils.

Thank you. Wouldn't it be nice to have an election where we voted for someone rather than against someone? Not that I think there's anything wrong with Harris, just that an option would be a pleasant change.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It can't be "both". That is a nonsensical answer. And I strongly suspect you know it is nonsense.

If Congress sets out one set of guidelines, and the AMA sets out a different set of guidelines, should Congress overrule the AMA, or should the AMA take precedence over Congress?

No, they work together to write a law or regulation. No I don't think itis nonsensical but your side loves to tell other people what they are thinking.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You just claimed there are secular reasons, but are unable to present any of them? You don't even have to agree with them, but claiming they exist leaves it up to you to provide evidence for your assertion.

Unable? no, unwilling, yes, Start another thread if you want to talk about secular reasons against abortion. I have talked about this before on this site.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You were told by several people including me what her restrictions were and you were given links to boot. It would be back to the standards of Roe v Wade. Regulations were allowed, but they were largely paper tigers. Not because they could not be enforced, but rather because there was no need to enforce them.

Seriously, women do not just go out and have abortions at the drop of a hat. There are usually very good reasons for them.

And here is the ultimate hypocrisy test, if you do not support planned parenthood then one is not really antiabortion. It appears in that case that people are trying to immorally control the behavior of others.

And I acknowledged that she said she would want Roe restrictions. I don't oppose planned parenthood. I oppose abortion in most cases.

 

[Alien826]

That's news to me. When I think about all of the decisions I made practicing medicine unaware that the government had laws I was expected to know and obey. Thanks for the heads up.

I actually used to decide when a patient needed to return for follow-up, or how often I wanted them checking their blood pressure or glucose at home. I chose whether a chest X-ray was necessary and which if any antibiotic to prescribe. And there were laws for those all along? I guess that I was lucky to avoid sanctioning and prosecution all those years.

Maybe you read my question that @We Never Know answered with "doctor assisted suicide"? It was whether anyone could think of a medical procedure that was governed by law or regulation, in the timing or method, that is. I did some googling and found boat loads of laws and regulations that apply to medical practice, but they mostly seem to be about billing, confidentiality and so on, not the actual procedures.

Maybe, as a medical professional, you can think of any?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Not from abortion. The government exists to optimize the lives of its citizens, which means its duty is to protect reproductive rights, not limit them. First and second trimester concepti are entitled to no protection that the pregnant woman doesn't provide or choose unless that is the will of the people. It's not. It's the will of the theocrats on the Supreme Court who lied about their intentions and the church whose anti-choice agenda they are there to impose on the will of unwilling people.

The government has an interest to protect life, even unborn life.

He's a liar. I know exactly what Trump means on his coherent days. You still haven't figured out who and what he is.

Ok, if you say so. He lies as much as any other politician just like Kamala.

That's news to me. When I think about all of the decisions I made practicing medicine unaware that the government had laws I was expected to know and obey. Thanks for the heads up.

So doctors can do anything they want with a patient. Ok. Malpractice does not exist?

I actually used to decide when a patient needed to return for follow-up, or how often I wanted them checking their blood pressure or glucose at home. I chose whether a chest X-ray was necessary and which if any antibiotic to prescribe. And there were laws for those all along? I guess that I was lucky to avoid sanctioning and prosecution all those years.

I never said there were laws about those things. Strawman.

Ok, but what are your reasons for imposing them on people who disagree, assuming that you prefer criminalizing abortion?

To protect the life of the unborn.

This is the bottom line for people like me. It's not about what you feel is immoral for you to do. We don't mind you considering abortion murder or embryos children with rights. Feel free to live your life that way and make arguments in support of your position.

I think abortion is the same as killing your 2 yo kid so yeah I will support people and measures to stop it. fighting for people that cannot fight for themselves is a moral and ethical thing to do.

It's that you keep deflecting back to that as if it should matter to others when the discussion turns to who should make those decisions - the mother or the government. Anti-choicers seem uninterested in what these women want for their lives - just what they want to forbid them from doing.

It depends on the situation. If it is a true life risk for the mother then the mother should decide what to do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thanks. This illustrates what I have been trying to say, about talking past each other.

To you, the human being does not exist until 'it' is birthed.

To me, it is a child, made in the image and likeness of God. That is why there is a huge disconnect between us after just your first two sentences.

I know I cannot change your view on this and there is certainly no way you can change mine. So?

Peace

Then I'll just ask you this: if you had the power to impose your view on others, would you use it? Whether they like it or not?

I would not. And in the end, that's what it comes down to.

(And by the way, if you would deliberately vote someone into office because they promised to exercise that power for you, you are saying that, yes, you would impose your view on others.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

The government has an interest to protect life, even unborn life.

Ok, if you say so. He lies as much as any other politician just like Kamala.

So doctors can do anything they want with a patient. Ok. Malpractice does not exist?

I never said there were laws about those things. Strawman.

To protect the life of the unborn.

I think abortion is the same as killing your 2 yo kid so yeah I will support people and measures to stop it. fighting for people that cannot fight for themselves is a moral and ethical thing to do.

Well then you are just factually wrong.

It depends on the situation. If it is a true life risk for the mother then the mother should decide what to do.

Women don't care what you think we should be doing with our bodies. We don't need any permissions from you. Go worry about your own body and stop being creepy about other peoples' bodies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The government has an interest to protect life, even unborn life.

No. Would you protect a fern? It's alive. How about a chicken? It's animal life. How about Putin. He's human life.

He lies as much as any other politician just like Kamala.

Are you kidding? Rhetorical question. I know that you're not.

So doctors can do anything they want with a patient.

I didn't say that. You wrote that they couldn't make any decisions free from the government and I disagreed.

I never said there were laws about those things.

You wrote, "We don't allow doctors to make decisions free from government laws." I'm telling you that you are wrong.

I think abortion is the same as killing your 2 yo kid

Then don't get one.

It depends on the situation. If it is a true life risk for the mother then the mother should decide what to do.

Otherwise, YOU should decide, right?

Actually, even in this case, it's you deciding who decides.

 

[Kathryn]

You didn't.
Just tap danced around it.

I totally answered it and here is my answer again. Sorry if it's not detailed enough for you:

I already said I would not personally choose to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest but since over 98 percent of abortions would be forbidden, I'm OK with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I acknowledged that she said she would want Roe restrictions. I don't oppose planned parenthood. I oppose abortion in most cases.

Opposing abortion is simply you meddling in the business of others. You should be supporting Planed Parenthood since abortion services are only a small part of their work. What they try to do is to prevent the need for abortions in the first place. They provide both education and free to low priced contraceptives to those that need them. Neighborhoods with a Planned Parenthood office have lower abortion rates than those that do not. ``

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well then you are just factually wrong.


Women don't care what you think we should be doing with our bodies. We don't need any permissions from you. Go worry about your own body and stop being creepy about other peoples' bodies.

I am concerned with the bodies of the unborn. I know you are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am concerned with the bodies of the unborn. I know you are not.

The unborn are a bit like the undead. They are not "people". You need to ask yourself what makes an organism a "person".

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No. Would you protect a fern? It's alive. How about a chicken? It's animal life. How about Putin. He's human life.

Abortion is about human life. As far as putin, I would not care much if he died but I would not advocate murdering him either.

I didn't say that. You wrote that they couldn't make any decisions free from the government and I disagreed.

No, I said not all decisions.

You wrote, "We don't allow doctors to make decisions free from government laws." I'm telling you that you are wrong.

I agree I was not accurate. I did not mean all decisions.

Then don't get one.

I won't and I won't let anyone kill their 2 yo either if I can help it.

Otherwise, YOU should decide, right?

I never said I would be the sole decider of abortion laws. Jeez.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The unborn are a bit like the undead. They are not "people". You need to ask yourself what makes an organism a "person".

This is where we disagree. I bet after a long discussion back and forth we will still not agree.

 

[fantome profane]

I am concerned with the bodies of the unborn. I know you are not.

Would you point a gun a a woman’s head and force her to have a child?

Because that is what the power of government is, it is pointing a gun at someone’s head.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Would you point a gun a a woman’s head and force her to have a child?

Because that is what the power of government is, it is pointing a gun at someone’s head.

No it is not. Is it the government pointing a gun to your head to not speed, steal or kill?

 

[fantome profane]

No it is not. Is it the government pointing a gun to your head to not speed, steal or kill?

Yes, that is exactly what it is.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, that is exactly what it is.

Then explain how?

 

[fantome profane]

Then explain how?

Government is the use of force. It is the use of violence or the threat of violence. That is what government is.

Don't ever forget that.