A Texas judge has granted a pregnant woman permission to obtain an abortion in an unprecedented challenge to the state’s ban that took effect after Roe v.
Yes, being specific is more specific. I assume you’re implying that more specific = better. The point of the comenter you replied to is that the specifics of the type of healthcare they are receiving is unnecessary. You shouldn’t need a judge to give your doctor permission to provide you with healthcare. It doesn’t matter what kind it is.
Hide our stance? The original commenter summarized the article in a way that made their stance clear. They believe the procedure in the article is medical care. They don’t have to state what procedure they’re talking about because it’s in the article.
Your accusation that they’re trying to hide what the procedure is leads me to believe you don’t agree that it is healthcare. So in the interest of having a productive discussion about the topic of this article I will make an argument and ask you what you think.
What is considered healthcare should be decided by medical professional consensus.
Your access to healthcare should not be dependent on a judges approval.
The procedure we are discussing detailed in the article is considered healthcare by medical professional consensus.
Conclusion. Access to the procedure we are discussing detailed in the article should not be dependent on a judges approval.
Texas judge grants permission for woman to access healthcare.
That’s what really happened.
Getting the government to sign your permission slip before being allowed necessary medical care
Just small government things
I think it’s more specific to specify what that healthcare actually is.
Yes, being specific is more specific. I assume you’re implying that more specific = better. The point of the comenter you replied to is that the specifics of the type of healthcare they are receiving is unnecessary. You shouldn’t need a judge to give your doctor permission to provide you with healthcare. It doesn’t matter what kind it is.
To you, maybe. But you don’t get to deem what’s necessary for everyone else.
You’re arguing in bad faith when you try to hide your stance behind vagueness. Both sides do it, and I never take either of you seriously when you do.
Hide our stance? The original commenter summarized the article in a way that made their stance clear. They believe the procedure in the article is medical care. They don’t have to state what procedure they’re talking about because it’s in the article.
Your accusation that they’re trying to hide what the procedure is leads me to believe you don’t agree that it is healthcare. So in the interest of having a productive discussion about the topic of this article I will make an argument and ask you what you think.
What is considered healthcare should be decided by medical professional consensus.
Your access to healthcare should not be dependent on a judges approval.
The procedure we are discussing detailed in the article is considered healthcare by medical professional consensus.
Conclusion. Access to the procedure we are discussing detailed in the article should not be dependent on a judges approval.
What do you think?
I think you assumed an argument that is not mine and then proceeded to argue against it as though you were arguing against me.
I was very clear from the beginning, and my position has not changed nor have you invalidated it.