Supreme Court considers legality of Tasers - Page 3

**Jiro** · 05-08-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn

You do not know the whole story.

actually I do. it's right there in the link.

Quote:

Sgt. Tom Jenkins of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department investigates a public disturbance. When the officer attempts to question a hostile male individual, he is forced to physically retrain the man when he does not comply with directives. The intoxicated man curses the officer during questioning and sobs openly when he's arrested. Meanwhile, a victim/witness describes how the belligerent suspect verbally assaulted an Asian man and several other citizens without cause.

to add to story above - Sgt. Jenkins repeatedly told him to take his hands out of his pockets and the guy kept putting his hands in his pockets and he was looking very shifty and suspicious so Sgt. Jenkins immediately took him down. He ain't taking no chance and he's damn right.

perhaps my

confused you. I didn't have any problem with officer's action. Point is - he didn't need no dang baton, mace, taser, or gun to handle the situation. Effective hand-to-hand combat was all he needed. Plus - he has a right professional attitude and he's in great shape. If a police officer fell short of that... he should be encouraged to improve on it and train regularly for it so that he's not a liability for city.

I was just jabbing you for this -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn

It would be insane if cops had hand-to-hand battles with suspects. Taking huge chances with lives that way. Cops have to take control of situations fast, otherwise things can and will get out of hand...and people die.

I find it quite comical because that's like saying "it would be insane if soldiers had to go to front line to engage with enemies."

uuuuummmmmm..... if cops do not want to engage with suspects physically, clearly.... the job's not for them. perhaps mall cop or casino security guard monitoring security cameras is more fitting for them.

Glenn · 05-08-2012, 01:32 PM

We pay for malpractice. Do you think doctors print money in their office to pay for it? That money comes from somewhere...think about it.

Glenn · 05-08-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

actually I do. it's right there in the link.

perhaps my

confused you. I didn't have any problem with officer's action. I was just jabbing you at this -

I find it quite comical because that's like saying "it would be insane if soldiers had to go to front line to engage with enemies."

uuuuummmmmm..... if cops do not want to engage with suspects physically, clearly.... the job's not for them. perhaps mall cop or casino security guard monitoring security cameras is more fitting for them.

Soldiers have a completely different job than police officers.

**Jiro** · 05-08-2012, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn

Soldiers have a completely different job than police officers.

fine. SWAT then? Border Patrol? Firemen?

all above require you to go in and get your hands dirty. that applies for cops too.

if cops wants to keep their hands too clean and pretty, clearly it's not for them. I suppose desk job will do for them then.

**Jiro** · 05-08-2012, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn

We pay for malpractice. Do you think doctors print money in their office to pay for it? That money comes from somewhere...think about it.

doctors have their own malpractice insurances but then... this is where it gets more complicated because of medical malpractice reforms and different state laws. and doctors employed by Medicaid or not. et cetera.

I did some digging and what did I see.....

Republicans vote to obligate taxpayers for malpractice damages: | Insurance Center

Quote:

Oklahoma taxpayers may soon be required to pay damages to victims of medical malpractice, thanks to a Republican bill intended to shelter negligent doctors and their insurance companies from responsibility for the worst cases of medical malpractice.

“At the same time Republicans are condemning reforms of the health insurance industry as ‘socialism,’ they have come up with a plan to take money out of taxpayers’ pockets to subsidize the most outrageous and horrible examples of medical incompetence,” stated Rep. Scott Inman, D-Del City.

Senate Bill 2163 is a follow-up to the tort reform plan passed by the Republican-controlled legislature last year. It creates a “Health Care Indemnity Trust Fund,” from which damages will be paid to victims of medical malpractice when a jury finds the level of negligence great enough to justify removing the $400,000 cap on non-economic damages. These include matters such as reduced quality of life or pain and suffering.

“Imagine a person who went to the hospital for an appendectomy, and somehow ended up having an arm or leg amputated by mistake. It’s easy to see how a jury might decide to award that person more than the $400,000 cap the legislature approved last year,” said Rep. Ryan Kiesel, D-Seminole. “Under the terms of SB2163, the negligent doctor would only have to pay the first $400,000 of the non-economic damages, while taxpayers, including the victim of the malpractice, are left to pay the rest.”

The bill proposes using an estimated $20 million in state funds to create the fund, and imposes a permanent burden on taxpayers by requiring the state to purchase insurance that would replenish the fund when it is depleted by payments to victims. Efforts by Democrats to return responsibility for maintaining the fund to doctors and their insurance companies were blocked by Republicans.

A bill that would have barred the use of any taxpayer dollars to buy such insurance, HB2726 by Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Pryor Creek, was sent to the Economic Development and Financial Services Committee, where it was killed by committee chairman Rep. Daniel Sullivan, House author of SB2163.

During Tuesday evening’s debate, Rep. Kiesel suggested an amendment to SB2163 that would eliminate taxpayer responsibility for replenishing the fund, but the Republican leadership dismissed the idea.

“The net result of this is to leave taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in damages that should rightfully be paid by the doctors that caused those damages and their insurance companies,” Rep. Kiesel said. “This is nothing less than a taxpayer-funded bailout for negligent doctors and the insurance companies that enable them to continue practicing medicine.”

Numerous studies have shown that a very small percentage of doctors are responsible for the overwhelming majority of malpractice cases.

“It is beyond me how Republicans can oppose the Federal Health Care Reform that will cover over 200,000 Oklahomans who currently do not have insurance, and at the same time be in favor of forcing tax payers to buy a supplemental insurance policy for bad doctors,” said Rep. Kiesel. “To me, it makes zero sense to oppose health insurance for sick people, but support buying insurance for negligent doctors.”

The final vote on SB2163 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives was 53 to 41. It now goes to the governor for final consideration.

**Foxrac** · 05-08-2012, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

doctors have their own malpractice insurances but then... this is where it gets more complicated because of medical malpractice reforms and different state laws. and doctors employed by Medicaid or not. et cetera.

I did some digging and what did I see.....

Republicans vote to obligate taxpayers for malpractice damages: | Insurance Center

Wow, I'm glad that I don't live in Oklahoma.

airportcop · 05-08-2012, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

doctors do not kill or hurt people. doctors save them and despite of their best efforts, some patients die.

when a police officer points a gun at suspect, it's to kill him.
when a police officer raises a baton at suspect or aim mace/taser, it's to hurt him.

does doctor cut to kill? or to hurt?

we do not pay for their malpractice. doctor's insurance does. but we taxpayers do have to pay for wrongful deaths or injury caused by police officers.

Man jiro, your point of view is twisted! A police officer never intends to kill but it sometimes happens when he pulls the trigger. Same thing with his baton! His intent is not to kill or injure but to stop the behavior that is causing the threat!!! We pay for malpractice insurance through high health insurance premiums! And no, doctors sometimes mess up even though they didn't intend to hurt or kill people but they do at times due to their mistakes and such! Done wasting my time on this discussion as I know it as a professional! Good day sir!

Grayma · 05-08-2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn

It would be insane if cops had hand-to-hand battles with suspects. Taking huge chances with lives that way. Cops have to take control of situations fast, otherwise things can and will get out of hand...and people die.

I agree with Jiro that tasers are over-used and often resorted to because it's easy and fast not becaues it's necessary.

But the suggestion that over-use of tasers could be addressed by police having more hand-to hand combat training is just ridiculous. Women on the police force would be at a serious disadvantage, in spite of all the female warriors we see on (fictional) television shows.

Grayma · 05-08-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

doctors do not kill or hurt people. doctors save them and despite of their best efforts, some patients die.

Look up the word 'iatrogenic.' death caused by your medical care is the 3rd leading cause of death in this country. Medical care is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

when a police officer points a gun at suspect, it's to kill him.
when a police officer raises a baton at suspect or aim mace/taser, it's to hurt him.

When a police officer points a gun it is to stop the suspect. If the suspect can only be stopped by shooting, then he will shoot, but the police officer usually hopes pointing the gun is good enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

does doctor cut to kill? or to hurt?

Abortion doctors always cut to kill.

C-sections are typically necessary for about 3 percent of births, or less, but doctors perform them ten percent of the time and even more. that means that every years thousands of doctors cut open women for their own convenience rather than for the best interests of the women or their children.

There are sadistic doctors out there who do things for own selfish reasons, just as there are sadistic cops, teachers, and selfish human beings everywhere. No profession (or political party) sanctifies its members with holiness just because they are a member of that profession (or political Party).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

we do not pay for their malpractice. doctor's insurance does. but we taxpayers do have to pay for wrongful deaths or injury caused by police officers.

Jiro, a doctor sets his or her fees based on his or her expenses. Like everybody else who works for a living, they pass on the cost of doing business to their customers or clients.

When their expenses go up, their rates go up, when their expenses go down, if they are nice people, their rates go down. It works the same way for hospitals. Occasionally a clinic or hospital has gone bankrupt because of high malpractice insurance rates and lawsuits, in which case everybody in the community ends up paying the price.

High malpractice insurance payments are absolutely part of the cost of doctor's fees, so yes, we do pay for it. This is really a very basic economic concept- businesses of any sort must consider their expenses when they set their prices, and make sure their prices will be enough to cover their expenses and give them more than enough to live on.

when you buy groceries you are not just paying for groceries, you are paying for the store's costs of hiring and paying its employees, you are paying for their insurance against theft or flood or fire, you are paying for the benefits they provide, if any, to employees, you are paying their utility bills, and you are paying the owner. All of those things and more must be considered carefully by the business owner when he or she sets prices. It's not any different for a doctor.

We pay for it in other ways, too:

Quote:

While the causes of rapidly rising medical malpractice insurance premiums remain contentious and unsettled, the consequences are rippling through communities, threatening to diminish patients' access to care and increase health care costs, with an uncertain impact on quality, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2002-03 site visits to 12 nationally representative communities. The severity of malpractice insurance problems varied across communities, with some physicians changing how and where they care for patients. For example, rather than treat patients in their offices, more physicians are referring patients to emergency departments. And many physicians, especially those practicing in high-risk specialties, are unwilling to provide emergency department on-call coverage because of malpractice liability concerns.

I urge you to read the entire article: Issue Brief No. 68

**Jiro** · 05-08-2012, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Man jiro, your point of view is twisted! A police officer never intends to kill but it sometimes happens when he pulls the trigger. Same thing with his baton! His intent is not to kill or injure but to stop the behavior that is causing the threat!!!

that's what I just said. a justified use of force. It is part of their job description. I did not say police officers are out there, shooting and hurting them around like a bunch of hooligans.

I strongly advise you to read my posts very slowly and carefully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

We pay for malpractice insurance through high health insurance premiums! And no, doctors sometimes mess up even though they didn't intend to hurt or kill people but they do at times due to their mistakes and such! Done wasting my time on this discussion as I know it as a professional! Good day sir!

good day to you too sir

**Jiro** · 05-08-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

I agree with Jiro that tasers are over-used and often resorted to because it's easy and fast not becaues it's necessary.

But the suggestion that over-use of tasers could be addressed by police having more hand-to hand combat training is just ridiculous.

so what do you suggest what we should do about over-use of tasers issue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Women on the police force would be at a serious disadvantage, in spite of all the female warriors we see on (fictional) television shows.

Like I said... clearly police job is not for those who cannot handle the physical rigor. why even bother applying for it in the first place? utter waste of taxpayers' money for people who cannot handle it. there are many female cops who can handle it. and there are some female cops who clearly do not belong there.

all skills are regressive. that's why any professionals have to constantly train for it.

**Jiro** · 05-08-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Look up the word 'iatrogenic.' death caused by your medical care is the 3rd leading cause of death in this country. Medical care is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S.

Like I said.... despite of doctor's best effort... some patients do die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

When a police officer points a gun it is to stop the suspect. If the suspect can only be stopped by shooting, then he will shoot, but the police officer usually hopes pointing the gun is good enough.

there you go. it's shoot to kill. that's what gun is for. Let's not quibble around into some minuscule trifles. I'd prefer if we stick with big picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Abortion doctors always cut to kill.

C-sections are typically necessary for about 3 percent of births, or less, but doctors perform them ten percent of the time and even more. that means that every years thousands of doctors cut open women for their own convenience rather than for the best interests of the women or their children.

abortion? I'm not even gonna go there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

There are sadistic doctors out there who do things for own selfish reasons, just as there are sadistic cops, teachers, and selfish human beings everywhere. No profession (or political party) sanctifies its members with holiness just because they are a member of that profession (or political Party).

As I said repeatedly.... I'm not talking about criminals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Jiro, a doctor sets his or her fees based on his or her expenses. Like everybody else who works for a living, they pass on the cost of doing business to their customers or clients.

When their expenses go up, their rates go up, when their expenses go down, if they are nice people, their rates go down. It works the same way for hospitals. Occasionally a clinic or hospital has gone bankrupt because of high malpractice insurance rates and lawsuits, in which case everybody in the community ends up paying the price.

High malpractice insurance payments are absolutely part of the cost of doctor's fees, so yes, we do pay for it. This is really a very basic economic concept- businesses of any sort must consider their expenses when they set their prices, and make sure their prices will be enough to cover their expenses and give them more than enough to live on.

when you buy groceries you are not just paying for groceries, you are paying for the store's costs of hiring and paying its employees, you are paying for their insurance against theft or flood or fire, you are paying for the benefits they provide, if any, to employees, you are paying their utility bills, and you are paying the owner. All of those things and more must be considered carefully by the business owner when he or she sets prices. It's not any different for a doctor.

We pay for it in other ways, too:

Looks like I was right then. You are confusing between public service and private service.

Taxpayers are not responsible for doctor's malpractice payment or store's upkeep. "Trickling down" doesn't count. But we do pay for legal settlement if our city gets sued for police misconduct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

I urge you to read the entire article: Issue Brief No. 68

all for more reason why Obamacare makes sense!

airportcop · 05-08-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's what I just said. a justified use of force. It is part of their job description. I did not say police officers are out there, shooting and hurting them around like a bunch of hooligans.

I strongly advise you to read my posts very slowly and carefully.

good day to you too sir

Jiro,

Here is what you said (in post #60) and I copied it from your post! "when a police officer points a gun at suspect, it's to kill him.
when a police officer raises a baton at suspect or aim mace/taser, it's to hurt him."

"does doctor cut to kill? or to hurt?"

Remember what you said before you post! There is always proof in the pudding! And yes as Grayma says, abortion is to kill! We shoot to stop the threat not to kill! We use a Taser, mace or baton not to injure but to stop the threat! Wake up and don't always think you are right! You're not perfect buddy! Neither am I! I think you just like to stir it up and keep the hate going like a troll does! See ya!

**Jiro** · 05-08-2012, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Jiro,

Here is what you said (in post #60) and I copied it from your post! "when a police officer points a gun at suspect, it's to kill him.
when a police officer raises a baton at suspect or aim mace/taser, it's to hurt him."

"does doctor cut to kill? or to hurt?"

right.... like I said - let's stick with big picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Remember what you said before you post! There is always proof in the pudding! And yes as Grayma says, abortion is to kill!

Like I said - I'm not even gonna go there. For now, let's stick with what the laws says... not your religious belief on abortion. I do not care for it. The law does not recognize fetus as a viable being until it's at third trimester. And then abortion is illegal at that point so technically and legally, nobody is killed during abortion procedure. and that's what the law says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

We shoot to stop the threat not to kill!

same shit. different wording. you shoot to stop the threat... how? by killing a person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

We use a Taser, mace or baton not to injure but to stop the threat! Wake up and don't always think you are right! You're not perfect buddy! Neither am I! I think you just like to stir it up and keep the hate going like a troll does! See ya!

anytime you use taser, mace, or baton... they get hurt. You should know what I'm trying to say. Do you prefer that I walk on eggshell and choose a certain word more palatable for your taste?

Grayma · 05-08-2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Like I said.... despite of doctor's best effort... some patients do die.

that's what you said, but the article I pointed out said that doctor errors (and other medical errors) are the third leading cause of death in America. Are you sure you want to call that their best efforts when those efforts are the cause of death?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

there you go. it's shoot to kill. that's what gun is for. Let's not quibble around into some minuscule trifles. I'd prefer if we stick with big picture.

And I prefer accuracy, so I will stick to that. You were wrong when you said that the police only point a gun at somebody in order to kill them. The first intention is deterrence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

abortion? I'm not even gonna go there.

You already went there when you rhetorically asked if a doctor's goal was ever to kill. Yes, sometimes it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Looks like I was right then. You are confusing between public service and private service.

Taxpayers are not responsible for doctor's malpractice payment or store's upkeep. "Trickling down" doesn't count. But we do pay for legal settlement if our city gets sued for police misconduct.

So you make an assertion that it totally false and unsupported by the facts, then people point out your error and you say you were right after all and make up a new list of qualifications and rules to change your original claim.

Trickling down certainly does count, since we do pay it either way. the cost of malpractice is passed down to us. Doctors and other medical staff make terrible mistakes (not their 'best efforts) which accidentally kill far more people each year than the police do- and your reponse to that is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

all for more reason why Obamacare makes sense!

That is a LOL statement, yes it is. Take an industry that is the 3rd leading cause of death, and the best thing to do is add a thick wall of bureaucracy and political entanglement and red tape. Government is so efficient at everything else it does.

airportcop · 05-08-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

right.... like I said - let's stick with big picture.

Like I said - I'm not even gonna go there. For now, let's stick with what the laws says... not your religious belief on abortion. I do not care for it. The law does not recognize fetus as a viable being until it's at third trimester. And then abortion is illegal at that point so technically and legally, nobody is killed during abortion procedure. and that's what the law says.

No, not at all, they are just babies!

same shit. different wording. you shoot to stop the threat... how? by killing a person.

No, you apparently don't understand or care to either!

anytime you use taser, mace, or baton... they get hurt. You should know what I'm trying to say. Do you prefer that I walk on eggshell and choose a certain word more palatable for your taste?

You take the cake jiro! Wasted breath is all I can say!

airportcop · 05-08-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

that's what you said, but the article I pointed out said that doctor errors (and other medical errors) are the third leading cause of death in America. Are you sure you want to call that their best efforts when those efforts are the cause of death?

And I prefer accuracy, so I will stick to that. You were wrong when you said that the police only point a gun at somebody in order to kill them. The first intention is deterrence.

You already went there when you rhetorically asked if a doctor's goal was ever to kill. Yes, sometimes it is.

So you make an assertion that it totally false and unsupported by the facts, then people point out your error and you say you were right after all and make up a new list of qualifications and rules to change your original claim.

Trickling down certainly does count, since we do pay it either way. the cost of malpractice is passed down to us. Doctors and other medical staff make terrible mistakes (not their 'best efforts) which accidentally kill far more people each year than the police do- and your reponse to that is:

That is a LOL statement, yes it is. Take an industry that is the 3rd leading cause of death, and the best thing to do is add a thick wall of bureaucracy and political entanglement and red tape. Government is so efficient at everything else it does.

AMEN!!! Preach on sister! I'm listening!

Grayma · 05-08-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

... The law does not recognize fetus as a viable being until it's at third trimester. And then abortion is illegal at that point so technically and legally, nobody is killed during abortion procedure. and that's what the law says. ...

False on every level. Are you just making things up, or is there some reason you imagined these things were true?

The fetus is viable in the second trimester. Abortion is legal well beyond viability. The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to allow the legislature of any state to determine viability. That is entirely a medical term (and it changes), not a legal term.
Abortion is legal in most states well into the third trimester- I have no idea why you think it is illegal in the third trimester. States actually have been prevented from banning third trimester abortions

Furthermore, in several places (chicago in particular) if the 'fetus'(which is just Latin for child or offspring) survives the abortion, by almost anybody's definition then being a viable, living being, breathing on its own, the doctor can still kill it- and generally does- without getting into trouble. In Illinois state law sppecifically protects the physician from being charged for killing a baby who has survived the abortion and is breathing (and crying to be fed) outside the womb.

Schizophrenically, the law also recognizes the unborn child as a human being in many places, which is why a person who kills a woman's unborn child can be charged with manslaughter.
RealChoice: Third Trimester Abortions and the Law

**Foxrac** · 05-08-2012, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

You take the cake jiro! Wasted breath is all I can say!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

False on every level. Are you just making things up, or is there some reason you imagined these things were true?

The fetus is viable in the second trimester. Abortion is legal well beyond viability. The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to allow the legislature of any state to determine viability. That is entirely a medical term (and it changes), not a legal term.
Abortion is legal in most states well into the third trimester- I have no idea why you think it is illegal in the third trimester. States actually have been prevented from banning third trimester abortions

Furthermore, in several places (chicago in particular) if the 'fetus'(which is just Latin for child or offspring) survives the abortion, by almost anybody's definition then being a viable, living being, breathing on its own, the doctor can still kill it- and generally does- without getting into trouble. In Illinois state law sppecifically protects the physician from being charged for killing a baby who has survived the abortion and is breathing (and crying to be fed) outside the womb.

Schizophrenically, the law also recognizes the unborn child as a human being in many places, which is why a person who kills a woman's unborn child can be charged with manslaughter.
RealChoice: Third Trimester Abortions and the Law

As pro-choice, I have disagree with both of you but no question asked.

Both of you should know about between pro-choice and pro-life. They disagree around about abortion.

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

that's what you said, but the article I pointed out said that doctor errors (and other medical errors) are the third leading cause of death in America. Are you sure you want to call that their best efforts when those efforts are the cause of death?

again... doctor does not need to kill or hurt in order to do their job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

And I prefer accuracy, so I will stick to that. You were wrong when you said that the police only point a gun at somebody in order to kill them. The first intention is deterrence.

neither of us is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

You already went there when you rhetorically asked if a doctor's goal was ever to kill. Yes, sometimes it is.

no... I did not go there. You quibbled around. And like I said - let's stick with facts, accuracy, and laws, shall we? Nobody is killed in abortion process as fetus is not legally and medically recognized as a viable being until third trimester and it's illegal to perform abortion at that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

So you make an assertion that it totally false and unsupported by the facts, then people point out your error and you say you were right after all and make up a new list of qualifications and rules to change your original claim.

where?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Trickling down certainly does count, since we do pay it either way. the cost of malpractice is passed down to us. Doctors and other medical staff make terrible mistakes (not their 'best efforts) which accidentally kill far more people each year than the police do- and your reponse to that is:

nope it doesn't count. either we paid it directly or not. simple as that. in lawsuit with city regarding police misconduct, taxpayers are directly responsible for legal settlement.

we are not directly responsible for malpractice settlement. doctor's malpractice insurance is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

That is a LOL statement, yes it is. Take an industry that is the 3rd leading cause of death, and the best thing to do is add a thick wall of bureaucracy and political entanglement and red tape. Government is so efficient at everything else it does.

that's fine. we can agree to disagree. you choose to do nothing and continue on this current path where it's contributing to 3rd leading cause of death.

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

No, not at all, they are just babies!

sorry. the law and medical community disagree with you. You're an officer of laws. Why don't we stick with laws? The law says a fetus is not a viable being (meaning... it's not even medically and legally recognized as "baby" or a "person") until 28 weeks (more or less). So let's stick with law, shall we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

No, you apparently don't understand or care to either!

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

You take the cake jiro! Wasted breath is all I can say!

so why do you keep wasting your breath?

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

False on every level. Are you just making things up, or is there some reason you imagined these things were true?

the source you gave me basically proved me right.

Quote:

Florida: Florida's post-viability restriction provides that no abortion may be performed in the third trimester of pregnancy unless two physicians certify in writing that the abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. If an abortion is performed during viability, the physician must "use that degree of professional skill, care, and diligence" most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus except that "the woman's life and health shall constitute an overriding and superior consideration to the concern for the life and health of a fetus when such concerns are in conflict." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 390.0111(1), (4) (Enacted 1978; Last Amended 1998; Last Renumbered 1998).

Quote:

Kansas: Kansas' post-viability abortion restriction provides that no abortion may be performed after viability unless the attending physician and another financially and legally independent physician determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or continuation of the pregnancy would cause a "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" of the woman. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-6703(a) (Enacted 1992; Last Amended 1998). The Kansas Attorney General has interpreted this exception to include mental health. Op. Kan. Att'y. Gen. 2000-020.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

The fetus is viable in the second trimester.

let's not lie in here, shall we? second trimester is between 14 weeks and 26 weeks. According to Roe v Wade... viability is usually at 28 weeks and can be as early as 24 weeks. What you're telling me is that a fetus at 14 or 16 or 18 weeks is considered as viable. Very misleading, isn't it? Since you said, I quote - "I prefer accuracy"... then the real truth is.... a fetus may or may not be viable at or nearing end of second trimester but it is definitely considered as viable at third trimester.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Abortion is legal well beyond viability.

yes.... only due to extenuating circumstance where it's a dire medical emergency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to allow the legislature of any state to determine viability. That is entirely a medical term (and it changes), not a legal term.

because it's to prevent some states with similar belief like you from quibbling around and meddling with person's constitutional rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Abortion is legal in most states well into the third trimester- I have no idea why you think it is illegal in the third trimester. States actually have been prevented from banning third trimester abortions

quibbling around, aren't we? and you are purposely lying to us and misleading us. According to your source and Roe v Wade... a person has a right to abortion until viability (which is typically around 28 weeks and can be as early as 24 weeks) and then of course... there may be a serious medical complication that would jeopardize a person's well-being and there are legal procedures and system in place where at least 2 physicians will have to approve abortion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Furthermore, in several places (chicago in particular) if the 'fetus'(which is just Latin for child or offspring) survives the abortion, by almost anybody's definition then being a viable, living being, breathing on its own, the doctor can still kill it- and generally does- without getting into trouble. In Illinois state law sppecifically protects the physician from being charged for killing a baby who has survived the abortion and is breathing (and crying to be fed) outside the womb.

Schizophrenically, the law also recognizes the unborn child as a human being in many places, which is why a person who kills a woman's unborn child can be charged with manslaughter.
RealChoice: Third Trimester Abortions and the Law

yea that's uh.... yea fascinating

now you see why I said I'm not even gonna bother touching this before? this is precisely why.

rolling7 · 05-09-2012, 07:56 AM

Hey Jiro,

The way I see it, you don't want to touch abortion because it blows your negativity about cops out of the water. You are claiming that as long as the doctors do an abortion according to the law, then they are not "KILLING" anyone. You are claiming that is not the JOB requirement of doctors. Of course, we can all read your saying about "bad apples" in every profession. And yet, you absolutely won't give officers the same standards. Like I said, your total negativity against officers shows and stinks to high heaven.

CrazyPaul · 05-09-2012, 10:14 AM

An abortion is legal, therefore an abortion doctor is not a murderer.

airportcop · 05-09-2012, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

An abortion is legal, therefore an abortion doctor is not a murderer.

At least in yours and Jiro's mind!

CrazyPaul · 05-09-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

At least in yours and Jiro's mind!

Tell me why cops don't arrest abortion doctors for murder.

rolling7 · 05-09-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

Tell me why cops don't arrest abortion doctors for murder.

Where it is justified under the law, cops do not arrest these doctors but in a few cases the doctors have been charged because they could not justify their procedure. Where it is justified under the law cops do not arrest other cops. Taking a life is not always charged as murder but is, nevertheless, taking a life. Same applies to those getting the death plenalty, when their sentence is carried out is not murder but still taking a life. Double standard can not be applied but some want a double standard.

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Where it is justified under the law, cops do not arrest these doctors but in a few cases the doctors have been charged because they could not justify their procedure. Where it is justified under the law cops do not arrest other cops. Taking a life is not always charged as murder but is, nevertheless, taking a life. Same applies to those getting the death plenalty, when their sentence is carried out is not murder but still taking a life. Double standard can not be applied but some want a double standard.

life? what life? how can you take a "life" if there's no life to begin with?

that's why I didn't want to discuss about this because I knew ya'all can't even discuss this with rationality. Why don't we stick with the laws, shall we? The law and medical community do not recognize fetus as a viable being until it is and abortion is illegal after viability.

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

At least in yours and Jiro's mind!

no. it's the law.

airportcop · 05-09-2012, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

no. it's the law.

And the law is wrong on this one! Our country is already paying for this abomination!

05-09-2012, 07:56 AM	#83 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	Hey Jiro, The way I see it, you don't want to touch abortion because it blows your negativity about cops out of the water. You are claiming that as long as the doctors do an abortion according to the law, then they are not "KILLING" anyone. You are claiming that is not the JOB requirement of doctors. Of course, we can all read your saying about "bad apples" in every profession. And yet, you absolutely won't give officers the same standards. Like I said, your total negativity against officers shows and stinks to high heaven. airportcop likes this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-08-2012, 01:32 PM	#62 (permalink)
Glenn Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Washington Posts: 2,909	We pay for malpractice. Do you think doctors print money in their office to pay for it? That money comes from somewhere...think about it.

05-09-2012, 10:14 AM	#84 (permalink)
CrazyPaul Registered User Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 2,975	An abortion is legal, therefore an abortion doctor is not a murderer.