Death panels are here!

[Harpy Eagle]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

 

[jc456]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who pays?

I supposed they pay for their license.

Who pays the insurance bills?

I supposed they pay for their insurance as well.

Who pays for those that have no insurance since you say that Govt should force them to be cared for?

Do you think that since the Govt forces them to be cared for it should be the responsibility of the government to pay for their bills?

well actually, they offer up financial assistance.

Who does?

 

[jc456]

I supposed they pay for their license.

Who pays the insurance bills?

I supposed they pay for their insurance as well.

Who pays for those that have no insurance since you say that Govt should force them to be cared for?

Do you think that since the Govt forces them to be cared for it should be the responsibility of the government to pay for their bills?

well actually, they offer up financial assistance.

Who does?

the hospital. you should go to one and see how they operate.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Ok, here are all the links that prove a top executives in a as a hospital must take an oath.

--------------------------------

There, you are proven wrong as I have given you every example showing they have to.

 

[jc456]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Ok, here are all the links that prove a top executives in a as a hospital must take an oath.

--------------------------------

There, you are proven wrong as I have given you every example showing they have to.

so I'm right. thanks.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who pays the insurance bills?

I supposed they pay for their insurance as well.

Who pays for those that have no insurance since you say that Govt should force them to be cared for?

Do you think that since the Govt forces them to be cared for it should be the responsibility of the government to pay for their bills?

well actually, they offer up financial assistance.

Who does?

the hospital. you should go to one and see how they operate.

I do not need to go see one, I am married to a nurse in a hospital that loses millions of dollars a year to those who cannot pay. And they are just like every other hospital out there.

You are speaking, once again, from a position of ignorance.

 

[g5000]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Argument from ignorance. YOU made the claim, you must prove it, liar.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Ok, here are all the links that prove a top executives in a as a hospital must take an oath.

--------------------------------

There, you are proven wrong as I have given you every example showing they have to.

so I'm right. thanks.

No, you are wrong. There is not one single bit of evidence to support the idea that top executives in a as a hospital must take an oath.

That makes you wrong. No different than if you said that Santa lived and the north pole and asked me to prove you wrong.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Argument from ignorance. YOU made the claim, you must prove it, liar.

If Jc did not have ignorance, he would have nothing.

 

[HappyJoy]

People with birth defects are not fully formed either, should we kill them?

They are in fact fully developed. Come on, you're better than this that's a pretty dishonest answer.

No, not really. I am if nothing else a pragmatist. What I would really like to see is abortions to decline through preventing more pregnancies and though education. If we could get more people to understand that it is a human being that is killed in an abortion and not just a lump of cells being removed I think it would go a long way in reducing the number we have. But, maybe that is just a pipe dream.

I too want to see a decline in abortions, everyone wants to see a decline in abortions and I'm pretty sure most people have figured out exactly what an embryo is.

I do not expect the law to ever be changed as it is not practical to do so. There is nothing in place to deal with an extra millin or so unwatned babies every year.

That's a good point.

The fact that you think of unborn embryos as children is on you, it's not a clinical definition, so I disagree with you. Calling them babies or children is understandable and I've done the same but in reality it's a euphemism.

There is no clinical definition for the word.

Embryo, fetus?

That it's a moral issue? I never said it wasn't.

yes, you keep saying it is a moral issue, but you never once give a moral justification for it. How can it be a moral issue if it is not morally justified?

It's a moral issue for the mother, that's what I mean, not for me to get in the middle of.

There is a reason you have to go with the value route and not the moral route when defending abortion.

No, I go the value route because you keep saying an embryo is a human being with no distinction with someone who is born or even self aware. That's why I'm giving you a very easy chance of saying a puppy is not worth the same as 1 million embryos and you so far have dodged the question.

I bring up morality because it's usually libertarians who do not want government to make laws on personal morality, maybe I'm wrong?

you are not wrong, but we do care about the liberty for all humans, not just the ones "fully formed". That is the problem with abortion, it deprives a human of its very life, there is no greater removal of liberty that that.

You mean embryos? They have the same rights as the mother?

Because the person at that point has constitutional rights.

We could change that if we really wanted to. At one time black people do not have those rights and we corrected that error.

You're comparing black people to embryos but you can't say 1 million embryos equals more than a puppy? Hmm, I don't think you're racist but I don't believe you are thinking this through.

You didn't answer my IVF question. Should that procedure end because ultimately that's going to lead to murder (in your eyes)?

Do you think women who get abortions should face the death penalty?

I never said it led to murder, murder is purely a legal term, not a moral one.

OK, so abortion is not murder, we agree but it's an inconsistent argument you're putting together when you want to tell me that an embryo is human just like anyone else and not make any distinctions and that purposefully killing one would not equate to murder.

It is also a red herring that has little to do with abortion. I have stated in this thread and often that for me personally the "arbitrary line" is at implantation, so IVF does not fall into my views on abortion.

But they are fertile eggs? Well, as long as we agree your line is arbitrary though I think it is out of convenience to your argument more than anything else.

Do you think women should be allowed to get an abortion in the case of rape?

I personally think it is wrong to punish a baby for the actions of its father, but since less than 1% of abortions are done for the reason I do not focus on that.

Regardless of the percentage, you're willing to throw that 1% off because it's inconvenient to your argument, they are still lives, correct?

 

[HappyJoy]

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Who pays?

I supposed they pay for their license.

Who pays the insurance bills?

I supposed they pay for their insurance as well.

The hospital? No, they are a for profit business, what do you think they are going to do? This could be hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single patient and could be long term care. You think the hospital, a for profit business is going to pay for this? No, they are going to pass that off to everyone else. You OK with that?

 

[jc456]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Ok, here are all the links that prove a top executives in a as a hospital must take an oath.

--------------------------------

There, you are proven wrong as I have given you every example showing they have to.

Hospital Networks Need a Hippocratic Oath - NYTimes.com

"The traditional primacy of the self-employed, solo, fee-for-service practitioner is fast giving way to salaried physicians in large hospital-based practices or in large group practices. The share of doctors who have an ownership stake in their practice may be down to about one-third, and only 2 percent of newly licensed physicians are seeking a solo practice."

 

[jc456]

I thought they took an oath.

Who pays?

I supposed they pay for their license.

Who pays the insurance bills?

I supposed they pay for their insurance as well.

The hospital? No, they are a for profit business, what do you think they are going to do? This could be hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single patient and could be long term care. You think the hospital, a for profit business is going to pay for this? No, they are going to pass that off to everyone else. You OK with that?

sure the hospital and the doctors have insurance.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They are in fact fully developed. Come on, you're better than this that's a pretty dishonest answer.

How can someone who's arms or legs did not form be "fully formed".

I too want to see a decline in abortions, everyone wants to see a decline in abortions and I'm pretty sure most people have figured out exactly what an embryo is.

I disagree, most pro abortion arguments come down to "well, it is just a lump of cells not different than a tumor".

Embryo, fetus?

.

There is no clinical definition for the word "child" or "children".

It's a moral issue for the mother, that's what I mean, not for me to get in the middle of.

So, you are saying that moral issues are totally up to the individual, that each of us gets to choose what is and what is not moral?

No, I go the value route because you keep saying an embryo is a human being with no distinction with someone who is born or even self aware. That's why I'm giving you a very easy chance of saying a puppy is not worth the same as 1 million embryos and you so far have dodged the question..

Well, you win the value argument, that is why you go to it. Yes, I am sure I would choose the dog. The problem with value arguments is that once they are successful in making one human less valuable than another, they are easy to apply to other groups, which is the reason this thread exist.

But values and morals do not equate to each other, one does not rely on the other.

We allow abortion because we perceive the baby in the womb to hold less value than the convenience of the mother, and because from a practical standpoint there is no way to stop it or to deal with the excess babies.

But, none of that makes it a moral practice.

One day there may be no better way to deal with the excess elderly. Using your fire example, would you save an 80 year old or a 20 year old?

Choosing life and death based on value to society is what leads to "death panels" and the like.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Ok, here are all the links that prove a top executives in a as a hospital must take an oath.

--------------------------------

There, you are proven wrong as I have given you every example showing they have to.

Hospital Networks Need a Hippocratic Oath - NYTimes.com

"The traditional primacy of the self-employed, solo, fee-for-service practitioner is fast giving way to salaried physicians in large hospital-based practices or in large group practices. The share of doctors who have an ownership stake in their practice may be down to about one-third, and only 2 percent of newly licensed physicians are seeking a solo practice."

Thank you so much for proving you were wrong.

If such an oath existed, there would not be a need for it to exist. Your own link is arguing that is should exist, not that it does.

 

[jc456]

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Ok, here are all the links that prove a top executives in a as a hospital must take an oath.

--------------------------------

There, you are proven wrong as I have given you every example showing they have to.

Hospital Networks Need a Hippocratic Oath - NYTimes.com

"The traditional primacy of the self-employed, solo, fee-for-service practitioner is fast giving way to salaried physicians in large hospital-based practices or in large group practices. The share of doctors who have an ownership stake in their practice may be down to about one-third, and only 2 percent of newly licensed physicians are seeking a solo practice."

Thank you so much for proving you were wrong.

If such an oath existed, there would not be a need for it to exist. Your own link is arguing that is should exist, not that it does.

yep I was wrong. I admit it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Bullshit. You are just making shit up now.

prove me wrong.

Ok, here are all the links that prove a top executives in a as a hospital must take an oath.

--------------------------------

There, you are proven wrong as I have given you every example showing they have to.

Hospital Networks Need a Hippocratic Oath - NYTimes.com

"The traditional primacy of the self-employed, solo, fee-for-service practitioner is fast giving way to salaried physicians in large hospital-based practices or in large group practices. The share of doctors who have an ownership stake in their practice may be down to about one-third, and only 2 percent of newly licensed physicians are seeking a solo practice."

Thank you so much for proving you were wrong.

If such an oath existed, there would not be a need for it to exist. Your own link is arguing that is should exist, not that it does.

yep I was wrong. I admit it.

 

[HappyJoy]

They are in fact fully developed. Come on, you're better than this that's a pretty dishonest answer.

How can someone who's arms or legs did not form be "fully formed".

Why do their legs and arms matter in this case? It's kind of a bullshit path you're going down, it's irrelevant and a strawman. Fully formed I'm referring to the brain and what one can think and feel. Considering we are talking about unborn fetuses that should have been obvious which is why I see you are better than this bullshit point you're making.

I too want to see a decline in abortions, everyone wants to see a decline in abortions and I'm pretty sure most people have figured out exactly what an embryo is.

I disagree, most pro abortion arguments come down to "well, it is just a lump of cells not different than a tumor".

When it comes down it, it is a cluster of cells, that is true. I don't think anyone is mistaking a tumor for a fetus.

Embryo, fetus?

.

There is no clinical definition for the word "child" or "children". [/quote[

Infant, neonate, adolescent? This is also kind of a bullshit argument you are making that isn't taking you anywhere.

It's a moral issue for the mother, that's what I mean, not for me to get in the middle of.

So, you are saying that moral issues are totally up to the individual, that each of us gets to choose what is and what is not moral?

No, I brought up morality because you're the libertarian, remember?

No, I go the value route because you keep saying an embryo is a human being with no distinction with someone who is born or even self aware. That's why I'm giving you a very easy chance of saying a puppy is not worth the same as 1 million embryos and you so far have dodged the question..

Well, you win the value argument, that is why you go to it. Yes, I am sure I would choose the dog. The problem with value arguments is that once they are successful in making one human less valuable than another, they are easy to apply to other groups, which is the reason this thread exist.

But you chose the dog... You added made the decision to give more value to the dog than the embryos..a lot of them.

But values and morals do not equate to each other, one does not rely on the other.

I don't know if they equate to each other and I don't believe that is the argument I was trying to make. My point is that you say killing an embryo is not murder, a whole bunch of them do not equal that of a dog and yet an embryo = human and you don't seem interested in any further distinctions. In almost every statement you've made you have put embryos (btw, I'm really tired of typing embryo) on the bottom of the list. You are not treating them as human.

We allow abortion because we perceive the baby in the womb to hold less value than the convenience of the mother, and because from a practical standpoint there is no way to stop it or to deal with the excess babies.

Actually I don't think population control was argued before the supreme court for a woman's right to choose but I do agree its probably an argument that is used today.

But, none of that makes it a moral practice.

Like I said, it's up to the mother, or at least that is my belief.

One day there may be no better way to deal with the excess elderly. Using your fire example, would you save an 80 year old or a 20 year old?

That's a good question, is the 20 year old female and hot?

Just kidding, I'd save the younger person, they have a whole life ahead of them.

Choosing life and death based on value to society is what leads to "death panels" and the like.

Except we all have our constitutional rights, I just don't consider the unborn to have them....cuz the don't.

Anyway, I respect your opinion you can have the last word.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why do their legs and arms matter in this case? It's kind of a bullshit path you're going down, it's irrelevant and a strawman. Fully formed I'm referring to the brain and what one can think and feel. Considering we are talking about unborn fetuses that should have been obvious which is why I see you are better than this bullshit point you're making.

But we are talking about value, a person with their arms and legs hold more value to society than those without them.

We both agree that the thing being aborted is a human, all that keeps it from being spared death is its lack of value.

If we are going to judge the baby in the womb on its value, why should we not use the same scale for everyone?

When it comes down it, it is a cluster of cells, that is true. I don't think anyone is mistaking a tumor for a fetus.

Well, when it comes down to it, so are we all. And I have heard the "no different than a tumor" argument 1000 times or more over the years, it is one of the most common pro-abortion arguments. Very few people share your honesty to admit it is a human, just not one worth keeping alive.

I don't know if they equate to each other and I don't believe that is the argument I was trying to make. My point is that you say killing an embryo is not murder, a whole bunch of them do not equal that of a dog and yet an embryo = human and you don't seem interested in any further distinctions. In almost every statement you've made you have put embryos (btw, I'm really tired of typing embryo) on the bottom of the list. You are not treating them as human.

Murder is a legal term, plain and simple. The legal system determines murder. That is all I am saying.

The embryo in the womb is growing, those in the warehouse are in a state of frozen animation. I do not seem them as a good comparison. I would kill 1000 dogs to save a baby in the womb if they were trying to kill it.

Like I said, it's up to the mother, or at least that is my belief.

So, we are back to the individual choosing what is moral and what is not. Would it not be more accurate to say the mother is choosing which is more valuable to her...her baby or her convenience?

That's a good question, is the 20 year old female and hot?

Just kidding, I'd save the younger person, they have a whole life ahead of them.

So, you are stating the 20 year old holds more value than the 80 year old? Is that correct?

Thank you for the final word, but feel free to reply if you choose to...

My final word is that abortion in this country is accepted based upon perceived values, and has nothing to do with morals, as there is no moral defensible argument for abortion.[/quote][/quote]