KK posted:

---

your position goes against the purpose of government, and so even if your were 100% right about your positions within the field of healthcare, you still would not be justified in using the government to enforce it.

---

malkieD2 posted:

---

Sorry, but thats only your opinion of what the purpose of government is - you don't speak for every senator etc etc. At least one person will disagree with you, which invalidates your claim.

---

Jefferson posted:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

---

Locke posted:

---

Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Sec. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.

---

SkyeLightrider posted:

---

I understand your position as a member of the field. However, IIRC, the Hippocratic Oath states that a doctor shall do no harm to any patient for that would be unethical.

Taking that into consideration, I think Kimball is right with this fundamental question.

When does the pregnancy stop being one patient and start being two patients?

With that question in mind, any issue with abortion does become a question of ideology. Even in the medical community, there is no standard to when this occurs. Are there two patients at conception, or is it not until birth? I work in the medical profession on EMR software and I know that as soon as a pregnancy is confirmed a new epsiode is opened that tracks both the mother and child's health. Is it that point when we have medical records on the growing baby that it is a patient? Since there is no legal or medical definition for when exactly the baby becomes patient #2, wouldn't the doctor or pharmacist refusing treatment for believing the child (or bunch of cells that will be a child) to be a viable patient be perfectly acceptable in upholding the Hippocratic Oath?

Hence, Kimball is right in the sense that this arguement is purely ideological, and any law that forces someone to treat what they consider a living patient as a "health risk" to another patient could be construed as unethical and/or a violation of the provider's rights to provide healthcare to, in their opinion, two patients instead of just one. Unfortunately, any attempt for the medical or legal community to even try to standardize the turning point so to speak of when one patient becomes two will have the same stigma of forcing one ideology over another.

---

Vaderize03 posted:

---

To answer an earlier question:

...It's forcing them to spend a great deal of money unnecessarily with the intent of driving them out of business.

A rather backhanded way of shutting down a clinic; it's also a shame, because these clinics provide a lot more than just abortion services...
Peace,

V-03

---

Kimball_Kinnison posted:

---

]No, that's not just my opinion. It is a statement of fact going back to many of the founding documents for the US explaining the political philosophy upon which it was founded, which in turn is derived from the British system of government.

---

SkyeLightrider posted:

---

Malkie, as a doctor, can you please answer my question I raised on the last page? I'll repost it. I'd like your opinion as a professional.

---

SL posted:

---

Since when has pregnancy been considered a disease that needs to be cured?

---

SL posted:

---

When does the pregnancy stop being one patient and start being two patients?

With that question in mind, any issue with abortion does become a question of ideology. Even in the medical community, there is no standard to when this occurs.

---

malkieD2 posted:

---

Kimball_Kinnison posted:

---

]No, that's not just my opinion. It is a statement of fact going back to many of the founding documents for the US explaining the political philosophy upon which it was founded, which in turn is derived from the British system of government.

---

then why is my comment about the purpose of healthcare invalid considering I can back that up with historical references ? You can't have it both ways.

---

malkieD2 posted:

---

SL posted:

---

Since when has pregnancy been considered a disease that needs to be cured?

---

SL posted:

---

When does the pregnancy stop being one patient and start being two patients?

With that question in mind, any issue with abortion does become a question of ideology. Even in the medical community, there is no standard to when this occurs.

---

I disagree. It is reasonably well established in the medical community that 6 weeks is the time point where you could feasible start to consider a second life.

---

SkyeLightrider posted:

---

Then my next question is, what determines that 6 week point as being the start of life? Also, what is happening in the prior 6 weeks that doesn't constitute life?

---

KK posted:

---

Then go ahead and back it up and I might concede the point. I'd love to see you supply more substance to your argument.

---

KK posted:

---

However, as I pointed out in my last few posts, even if you are 100% correct on the purpose of healthcare, that still doesn't make it appropriate to use the government to enforce that position on others.

---

malkieD2 posted:

---

Already have done, but you rejected it. Why provide more?

---

malkieD2 posted:

---

I totally disagree. The government already enforce many things on us, including the recommendation of various services.

---

Kimball_Kinnison posted:

---

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to infringe them. Just because you can point to places where the government has failed in its purpose in the past doesn't justify advocating continued or increased failure in that purpose today or in the future.

---

malkieD2 posted:

---

again, nothing but your opinion on what government is supposed to do

---

Vaderize03 posted:

---

Nah, that corollary doesn't fit at all.

---