don’t know what he’s talking about. Unless there’s a statutory exclusion it’s simply med mal like any other med mal. Duty. Br standard of care. Causation. Damages. You get expert. They get expert. That’s it.
I can’t think of a standard of care that would support killing a healthy, viable, full term kid.
who is arguing to do that?
don’t know what he’s talking about. Unless there’s a statutory exclusion it’s simply med mal like any other med mal. Duty. Br standard of care. Causation. Damages. You get expert. They get expert. That’s it.
I can’t think of a standard of care that would support killing a healthy, viable, full term kid.
who is arguing to do that?
No one.
Googling the safety of near full-term abortion, it appears it's generally safer for the woman to carry the baby to term than to undergo abortion. So it sounds like the Mass law (without reading it) is enabling doctors to make hard decisions without legal repercussions that might otherwise hamstring the doctors that lead them to cover their asses rather than do what they believe is best for the safety of the mother.
Remember a few years back when all the trannies in the high schools were going to be shaking their slongs at the girls in the restrooms and locker rooms?
Now all the crazy bitches who have been carrying for 36 weeks are going to be racing to Massachusetts to kill their babies.
@hhlurker no the law gives the crazies an opportunity to do evil. Nothing more. The old law covered drs.
That is some flawed logic right there.My point is simple. Prenatal pain is nonsensical as a justification for an abortion. Every healthy fetus, every single one of use, endured frequent and severe pain during pregnancy.I don’t understand what pain has to do with anything.
Seriously? Where do you stand on laws prohibiting animal cruelty?
@unclemark what’s unconvincing? You’ve agreed multiple times to people with no understanding how the law works. Is that what you are doubling down on? That would be typical for you
no kids. Never went to law school. And you know? Child please. You’re a perfect Democrat
@unclemark since you still don’t understand. Let me explain it.
the prior law set standards for abortions post the final impt test. To cover anomalies. It was a reasonable law.
the woke lesbian lunatic gov removed those standards and gave drs unfettered ability to abort to birth. The legislature also removed any criminality. Effectively drs are immune from both civil and criminal liability to birth unless the abortion is botched.
understand? That’s not opinion. That’s reality.
Because You're hung up on the present situation (as you understand it), whereas I'm looking toward the future and how to change things for the better. Like crazy pregnant women, the present moment has a half-life of a nanosecond.@hhlurker then why didn’t it stick
My other response to you is admiration for your persistence in spite of overwhelming repetitive boredom.
@hhlurker the answer for the foreseeable future is very simple. ask if a dem came up with the idea. then you instantly know it will be stupid. if there's an election always vote for the person opposite the dem. that's the best we can do at this point. AI gave a fairly good description of this idiocy
Thats not the argument CoH was making. He was saying one point you can draw the line on when you should abort a fetus is its ability to feel pain. Once that occurs, no abortions should occur.Pls share with me your flawless logic for aborting a fetus that is “suffering pain.”
The Mass. legislature, Governor, and all those who celebrate the legislation to allow just that.