The Question That "Pro-Choice" Advocates Cannot Answer

IOW, you're inserting words into the question that weren't there. The question has nothing to do with government. Given your views, it seems to me that, precisely as I asked the question, your answer to the question would actually be no, that you don't advocate for killing said living humans.

Whether or not you support particular government (in)action is a different question, one of which I'd probably agree with you on, at least in part. I see it as an issue for the individual States to address as each of them see fit (this is per the US Constitution which doesn't give the US government any power to legislate on the issue... see Article I, see Amendment X).

Largely agreed, although I'd specify "Democrat" government (and that includes RINOs).

 

You're a doctor that gets to make such determinations?

 

Yes. Are you?

 

It has everything to do with government. How would enforce abortion laws?

 

My question was this:

"Do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?"

Where in that question is anything mentioned about government or abortion laws?

 

It is implied when discussing committing crimes. No one has an issue with people advocating something they believe in. Forcing those beliefs on others is the issue. There are no bad guys on the abortion issue. both sides believe they are standing up for what is right.

 

The court decided it was NOT a federal issue since its not mentioned in the Constitution. It gave all authority to the states to VOTE ON. They did or are doing so.

 

Fair enough, but in the end, there is no way to enforce abortion laws.

 

No (sorry, was I meant to evade the question?).

Not advocate for certainly, but then I don't advocate for the killing of fetuses either. I see abortion as a necessarily evil in some circumstances, much as the circumstances where innocent people killed or allowed to die (warfare, allowing unconscious terminally ill patients to die, people who put their own lives in danger to protect others).

 

Up to each state to enforce their own laws... whatever they may be. Too many options to address, Dr's that preform abortions could lose licenses to no enforcement at all in states that allow it completely.

 

Doctors also control the the most regulated industry and cannot prescribe narcotics to addicts. Does that mean that addicts are no longer getting drugs? Medical tourism, abortion drugs, and the internet render abortion laws useless.

 

There will always be lawbreakers... jus as there have always been for all laws. Abortion drugs can be banned.. from stores and from the mails (just as certain gun components can't be shipped to CA or NY.

 

Yet all criminals have guns and all crackheads have crack. There is no way to enforce abortion laws. If I gave you unlimited resources and manpower, how would you prevent a single abortion?

 

Slip saltpeter int the reservoirs!

 

Ha!

 

Where do you get the "global medical community axiom"?


From the National Institute of Health website

The Commission ultimately recommended a Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) which aimed to make the total brain standard into law in the states. This recommendation has been adopted by the American Bar Association and American Medical Association, and made into law in some form in all 50 states. The UDDA simply states: ’An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards’. This standard, through (1), incorporates the traditional cardiopulmonary test into the modern definition of death. It is (2) which serves as the ‘sufficient’ definition of death which can address more complex cases. Incorporating the cardiopulmonary test thus allows the traditional medical standards to continue to operate, so that doctors need not do an EEG before issuing a death certificate in every individual case.

The total brain standard for death represents an advance in the precision with which we have defined death. The total brain standard even helps explain the relevance of the traditional cardiopulmonary criteria for death. As the Commission notes: “the traditional “vital signs” of heartbeat and respiration were merely surrogate signs with no significance in themselves. On this view, the heart and lungs are not important as basic prerequisites to continued life but rather because the irreversible cessation of their functions shows that the brain had ceased functioning.” Insofar as the traditional criteria indicated the change that really mattered, they were helpful in determining death. With the further development of technology, these criteria have become more imperfect as measures of death. For instance, with the use of respirators and heart-lung machines, the traditional cardiopulmonary criterion is insufficient on its own as a definition of death, as heat and lung functions can now be performed artificially. As I will argue, the total brain criterion represents an advance over the old criteria in the sense that the brain is what matters in death.

 

From your very own copy/paste job which affirms that it's the current axiom and has been for ages...

 

No, it says it WAS the axiom. That the current standard is brain death. That the idea of "no heartbeat" was merely a surrogate sign with no significance in itself.

 

This isn't about science... it's about compassion.

 

Because you are using "irrelevant terminology" in your questions.

 

Logically impossible. Since I am the one who authored the question (basing my thread around it), the terminology that I chose to use within my question is, by definition, 100% completely and utterly relevant.

Anything that deviates away from my question, precisely as it was asked, is 100% completely and utterly ILLELEVANT.

 

I've tried to tell him this, repeatedly...

 

No.

For example from your OP you said that "living means having a heartbeat" which we have shown is NOT true.

But even if it were true the majority of the "fetal heartbeat" laws prohibiting abortion put a limit at about 6 weeks. There is no heartbeat at 6 weeks. There are electrical impulses in the tissue/cells that will eventually become the heart. But at 6 weeks there is no heart by any sense of the word. No heart means no heartbeat.

So your idea of "living means having a heartbeat" your terminology is irrelevant since
1. It isn't true
2. Even if it were true in the case of "fetal heartbeat" laws it isn't applicable.

 

Parents are the only authority qualified to determine when the unborn become people. Parents... not doctors... not scientists...... just parents

 

It's also simply incorrect.

Being the author doesn't mean there is any validity or relevance in what you wrote.