Alabama Abortion Bill

[DaShuckster]

I wanted to point out the scale and that you totally minimized it for the sake of painting pro-lifers as crying wolf.

I find it interesting that many of the same posters who staunchly defend restriction-free gun ownership regardless of the human consequences are the same ones who are aghast about late term abortions.

When it comes to pro-"life," the numbers would indicate that its supporters are more concerned with the fetus kind than the real kind.

 

[Crazyhole]

But of course this brings up a lot of others issues. I understand what you are saying, but babies obviously need people to survive. So, what happens with the unwanted children now? More orphanages? Are we cool with more food stamps and health benefits to families who cant really afford a child? These are all things that have to go along with restricting abortions.

Its a valid point, but if I had to choose between having a kid in an orphanage or killing them, I'm going with orphanage every time. Regarding food stamps and welfare, I think that a parent that keeps a kid instead of giving them away to an orphanage is much more deserving of assistance than a person who would abort a baby to maintain their lifestyle.

 

[Crazyhole]

I find it interesting that many of the same posters who staunchly defend restriction-free gun ownership regardless of the human consequences are the same ones who are aghast about late term abortions.

When it comes to pro-"life," the numbers would indicate that its supporters are more concerned with the fetus kind than the real kind.

That is totally disingenuous. You could make that case with the death penalty, but not with guns. There are several reasons why people can be pro 2nd-amendment and none of them are because they support the idea of people using a gun to kill someone.

 

[DaShuckster]

Its a valid point, but if I had to choose between having a kid in an orphanage or killing them, I'm going with orphanage every time.

That's easy for YOU to say as a man.

But the woman who gets knocked up is essentially told by a bunch of self-righteous blowhard legislators that she should be forced to become a human incubator regardless of any and all circumstances surrounding her pregnancy.

The decision should be hers, not the State or Federal government.

 

[Crazyhole]

I find it interesting that many of the same posters who staunchly defend restriction-free gun ownership regardless of the human consequences are the same ones who are aghast about late term abortions.

When it comes to pro-"life," the numbers would indicate that its supporters are more concerned with the fetus kind than the real kind.

And I would like an example of where any person here supports the idea of restriction free gun ownership. I cant think of a single person that has said they want dangerous or mentally unstable people to have a gun.

 

[Crazyhole]

That's easy for YOU to say as a man.

But the woman who gets knocked up is essentially told by a bunch of self-righteous blowhard legislators that she should be forced to become a human incubator regardless of any and all circumstances surrounding her pregnancy.

The decision should be hers, not the State or Federal government.

Did you seriously just equate maternity to being forced to be an incubator? If you can find me a single person who doesnt know that sex can lead to pregnancy I will gladly become pro-choice.

 

[DaShuckster]

Regarding food stamps and welfare, I think that a parent that keeps a kid instead of giving them away to an orphanage is much more deserving of assistance ...

You may be different so I will refrain from painting all social conservatives with the same brush. But it sure seems to me that quite a few of the conservatives who bash support for the "Black Welfare Moms" and their "broods" are the same ones who are staunchly anti-abortion. What happened to the "pro-life" part after the child was born?

...much more deserving of assistance than a person who would abort a baby to maintain their lifestyle.

Maintain their lifestyle? You do know that the majority of these women are poor to begin with, right?

 

[Cubs79]

Its a valid point, but if I had to choose between having a kid in an orphanage or killing them, I'm going with orphanage every time. Regarding food stamps and welfare, I think that a parent that keeps a kid instead of giving them away to an orphanage is much more deserving of assistance than a person who would abort a baby to maintain their lifestyle.

How are you supposed to determine this in states where abortion is basically banned?

 

[Cubs79]

I hate that last line of rationalization. Life is created by a male and a female. Both have responsibilities and obligations. Saying the man loses any choice also removes responsibilities. Because the man is in the equation does not devalue the woman. Because the woman is carrying the baby does not remove the man’s stake in the child.

Ugh, it’s too long to go into to phrase it exactly right to not get nitpicked apart. But the point is, we need to be reinforcing familial raising of the children, not legislating the other way.

It takes a male and a female to make a child yes, but that also doesn't mean the male carries anywhere near the burden or goes through the same things as a woman. The argument is more about the woman's autonomy over her body than it is the fetus though, and in that the male doesn't really factor in.

 

[DaShuckster]

Did you seriously just equate maternity to being forced to be an incubator?

It all depends on the situation. Look at the linked story I shared in this thread and then you decide:
A 12-year old girl is:
1) raped;
2) forced to have the rapist's child; and now, 9 years later,
3) a male judge, in his infinite wisdom, has decreed that the rapist's name should be put on the child's birth certificate and the rapist should be granted joint custody of the child.

You tell me, has society treated this girl as a human incubator?

 

[Crazyhole]

How are you supposed to determine this in states where abortion is basically banned?

How would it be difficult? A person or couple who have a child is more deserving than one who gave the child up for adoption or an orphanage. That wouldn't be difficult to track.

 

[Cubs79]

How would it be difficult? A person or couple who have a child is more deserving than one who gave the child up for adoption or an orphanage. That wouldn't be difficult to track.

I am not sure what you mean. We are talking about benefits for the child. Obviously if someone gave up legal custody of their child, they wouldn't receive benefits for that child. But the child itself, will obviously still need to be cared for. Either way, it almost certainly leads to more welfare. Which is fine, but it does seem, generally speaking, that the most pro life crowds also tends to be the same people who are against increases in different types of welfare.

 

[Crazyhole]

It all depends on the situation. Look at the linked story I shared in this thread and then you decide:
A 12-year old girl is:
1) raped;
2) forced to have the rapist's child; and now, 9 years later,
3) a male judge, in his infinite wisdom, has decreed that the rapist's name should be put on the child's birth certificate and the rapist should be granted joint custody of the child.

You tell me, has society treated this girl as a human incubator?

I remember that story. And as disgusting as it is, I'll make these 2 observations on it:

1: i don't think she was forced to not abort, which kind of makes it irrelevant.

2: this was clearly a failure of the justice system. Regardless of whether she had the right to abort, this guy should have spent the rest of his life in prison. Then to give him parental rights is a total lack of justice and common sense.

Aborting the baby doesn't fix the problems in that story.

 

[Crazyhole]

I am not sure what you mean. We are talking about benefits for the child. Obviously if someone gave up legal custody of their child, they wouldn't receive benefits for that child. But the child itself, will obviously still need to be cared for. Either way, it almost certainly leads to more welfare. Which is fine, but it does seem, generally speaking, that the most pro life crowds also tends to be the same people who are against increases in different types of welfare.

Welfare benefits go to adults, not minors. An adult who gives up a child to an orphanage or to adoption should have a somewhat restricted amount of welfare that they have access to because others are carrying the burden of raising the child. The system we have now does nothing to discourage a poor lifestyle that gives preference to pleasure over responsibility. Thats wrong, and I think most people would agree. Keeping a kid shows a level of responsibility that should be accounted for.

 

[Cubs79]

Welfare benefits go to adults, not minors. An adult who gives up a child to an orphanage or to adoption should have a somewhat restricted amount of welfare that they have access to because others are carrying the burden of raising the child. The system we have now does nothing to discourage a poor lifestyle that gives preference to pleasure over responsibility. Thats wrong, and I think most people would agree. Keeping a kid shows a level of responsibility that should be accounted for.

The actual benefits go to adults, obviously a 1 year old isn't going to be expected to manage money. But the purpose of the benefit, is to care for the child (at least with what we are talking about). If someone doesn't have legal custody of a child, they aren't going to get government benefits to care for that child.

 

[Crazyhole]

The actual benefits go to adults, obviously a 1 year old isn't going to be expected to manage money. But the purpose of the benefit, is to care for the child (at least with what we are talking about). If someone doesn't have legal custody of a child, they aren't going to get government benefits to care for that child.

And they should be penalized on those benefits if they continue having a reckless lifestyle. Should a mother who has multiple abortions keep receiving the same welfare benefits? That should prove that the person is using government money to keep making the same mistakes.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I hate that last line of rationalization. Life is created by a male and a female. Both have responsibilities and obligations. Saying the man loses any choice also removes responsibilities. Because the man is in the equation does not devalue the woman. Because the woman is carrying the baby does not remove the man’s stake in the child.

Ugh, it’s too long to go into to phrase it exactly right to not get nitpicked apart. But the point is, we need to be reinforcing familial raising of the children, not legislating the other way.

This is what I was talking about. It's part of the very sick abortion supporter playbook to 1.) completely dehumanize and degrade an unborn child to status of inconvenient tumor and 2) proclaim that men can't even have an opinion on the matter, even if it involves the slaughter of their own unborn child.

It's insane but there's a very clear strategy behind it. If these people can convince people that abortion is basically the same as having a blemish or tumor removed, then why would that be the business of any goddamn man? Or father? It's her body!

See, this all crumbles when you put things back into proper context, that being that we're talking about a living human life and child, and that living human life only exists because of the mother AND father, both of whom have rights and a say in that life they created.

There's a reason anti-life supporters work so hard to convince everyone that we're not actually dealing with life and there's a reason the goalposts on what is a "viable child" are so wildly shifting now.

 

[Cubs79]

And they should be penalized on those benefits if they continue having a reckless lifestyle. Should a mother who has multiple abortions keep receiving the same welfare benefits? That should prove that the person is using government money to keep making the same mistakes.

I am a little confused. If we are talking about child benefits, the adult isn't going to receive those benefits if they don't have custody of the child. So, if someone has an abortion, they dont have a child, so what benefits are you talking about?

 

[Cubs79]

This is what I was talking about. It's part of the very sick abortion supporter playbook to 1.) completely dehumanize and degrade an unborn child to status of inconvenient tumor and 2) proclaim that men can't even have an opinion on the matter, even if it involves the slaughter of their own unborn child.

It's insane but there's a very clear strategy behind it. If these people can convince people that abortion is basically the same as having a blemish or tumor removed, then why would that be the business of any goddamn man? Or father? It's her body!

See, this all crumbles when you put things back into proper context, that being that we're talking about a living human life and child, and that living human life only exists because of the mother AND father, both of whom have rights and a say in that life they created.

There's a reason anti-life supporters work so hard to convince everyone that we're not actually dealing with life and there's a reason the goalposts on what is a "viable child" are so wildly shifting now.

I didn't say men can't have an opinion on the matter, I stated my opinion on the matter.

Nothing crumbles. The whole debate surrounding abortion has always surrounded the concept of "when does human life begin". You, I assume, believe it begins at conception, and others do not. Nothing you said here is going to change anyones views. Typically I don't even talk about abortion because people have their minds made up and the argument goes nowhere, but since it is so much in the news right now I made an exception.

The goalposts haven't moved. You keep trying to imply Democrats are the one's changing things, when it is obviously Republicans in very Republican states who are changing things. I don't understand why you keep trying to make it as if the Democrat position on this issues has changed.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I didn't say men can't have an opinion on the matter, I stated my opinion on the matter.

Nothing crumbles. The whole debate surrounding abortion has always surrounded the concept of "when does life begin". You, I assume, believe it begins at conception, and others do not. Nothing you said here is going to change anyones views. Typically I don't even talk about abortion because people have their minds made up and the argument goes nowhere, but since it is so much in the news right now I made an exception.

The goalposts haven't moved. You keep trying to imply Democrats are the one's changing things, when it is obviously Republicans in very Republican states who are changing things. I don't understand why you keep trying to make it as if the Democrat position on this issues has changed.

Your last paragraph is absolutely wrong. There are many Democrats who used to go on record as saying they do not support late term abortion. This 20 week "viability" threshold used to be held up by many of them as where they do/would draw a line. That's now gone, as I've already established. Most every current candidate running for President is supportive of new laws passed in NY and elsewhere that establish legal elective abortion until birth.

These GA and AL laws are really in response to THOSE laws.

 

[Cubs79]

Your last paragraph is absolutely wrong. There are many Democrats who used to go on record as saying they do not support late term abortion. This 20 week "viability" threshold used to be held up by many of them as where they do/would draw a line. That's now gone, as I've already established. Most every current candidate running for President is supportive of new laws passed in NY and elsewhere that establish legal elective abortion until birth.

These GA and AL laws are really in response to THOSE laws.

Pro Life people also completely misinterpret what the NY and VA laws are.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

The RHA permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

 

[ChrisKnight06]

I'm struggling here. Regardless of whether one believes life begins at conception or not, we can all agree that the point a fetus reaches viability it is a very important mile marker in this discussion right? I'm willing to concede abortion prior to viability. After that point I'm having a very difficult time seeing justification for killing a baby unnecessarily as opposed to delivering it. I need a very specific reason why the baby would need to be killed.

I'm obviously not a doctor. I don't know what specific medical issues could arise past this viability stage that would result in potential death to the mother if the baby were delivered. If such a medical issue does arise and a real decision needs to be made I 100% believe that needs to be left up to the family. But if the baby can be removed alive as opposed to dead I can't possibly see justification for death. Maybe I'm sincerely missing something here and if so tell me. A man damn sure has every right to have a voice in this conversation regarding life, death and human rights.

 

[sk8knight]

Pro Life people also completely misinterpret what the NY and VA laws are.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

The RHA permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

The issues with New York’s law is that it allows medical professionals who aren’t doctors to perform abortions and it removed abortion from the criminal code.

The problem with Virginia’s law is that it’s more open for interpretation than New York’s laws and allows for third trimester abortions if one doctor can make a case that carrying the baby further would harm the mother’s physical or mental state. So a doctor that profits from abortion would find it easy to justify any abortion and doesn’t need a check and balance.

You conflated the two to make your straw man of what conservatives are getting wrong.

 

[Cubs79]

I'm struggling here. Regardless of whether one believes life begins at conception or not, we can all agree that the point a fetus reaches viability it is a very important mile marker in this discussion right? I'm willing to concede abortion prior to viability. After that point I'm having a very difficult time seeing justification for killing a baby unnecessarily as opposed to delivering it. I need a very specific reason why the baby would need to be killed.

I'm obviously not a doctor. I don't know what specific medical issues could arise past this viability stage that would result in potential death to the mother if the baby were delivered. If such a medical issue does arise and a real decision needs to be made I 100% believe that needs to be left up to the family. But if the baby can be removed alive as opposed to dead I can't possibly see justification for death. Maybe I'm sincerely missing something here and if so tell me. A man damn sure has every right to have a voice in this conversation regarding life, death and human rights.

A lot of people, including a lot of pro-choice people, are against abortion after viability in most cases. The GA and AL laws go far beyond that though. I think that is reason they are getting so much attention. Georgia has changed it so someone cant get an abortion after 6 weeks, and Alabama's law essentially bans abortion period, even in the case of rape or incest.

 

[Cubs79]

The issues with New York’s law is that it allows medical professionals who aren’t doctors to perform abortions and it removed abortion from the criminal code.

The problem with Virginia’s law is that it’s more open for interpretation than New York’s laws and allows for third trimester abortions if one doctor can make a case that carrying the baby further would harm the mother’s physical or mental state. So a doctor that profits from abortion would find it easy to justify any abortion and doesn’t need a check and balance.

You conflated the two to make your straw man of what conservatives are getting wrong.

So then what changes would you make? Should third trimester abortions be illegal no matter what? Even if the mothers health is at risk? If you don't trust doctors or medical professionals to make that call, then I assume you just think it should be banned period?

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

I'm struggling here. Regardless of whether one believes life begins at conception or not, we can all agree that the point a fetus reaches viability it is a very important mile marker in this discussion right? I'm willing to concede abortion prior to viability. After that point I'm having a very difficult time seeing justification for killing a baby unnecessarily as opposed to delivering it. I need a very specific reason why the baby would need to be killed.

I'm obviously not a doctor. I don't know what specific medical issues could arise past this viability stage that would result in potential death to the mother if the baby were delivered. If such a medical issue does arise and a real decision needs to be made I 100% believe that needs to be left up to the family. But if the baby can be removed alive as opposed to dead I can't possibly see justification for death. Maybe I'm sincerely missing something here and if so tell me. A man damn sure has every right to have a voice in this conversation regarding life, death and human rights.

Good points. I tend to agree with what you are saying.

The part I highlighted in your post essentially flies in the face of not what is an abortion issue, but a matter of women's health. Or at least that what many of the pro choice crowd have morphed the debate into. For them, you and I should have no say. Abortion is a matter of women's health, well-being, and shit, I dunno, the right to pursue happiness I guess. And here is where the debate moves into territory that borders on lunacy, at least for me.

But again, I like your perspective.

 

[DaShuckster]

It's insane but there's a very clear strategy behind it. If these people can convince people that abortion is basically the same as having a blemish or tumor removed, then why would that be the business of any goddamn man? Or father? It's her body

I'd be willing to bet that two of the special circumstances behind the vast majority of abortions are: 1) the father is encouraging an abortion; or 2) the father isn't even in the picture.

But, of course, it's other men who want to get on their high horse and tell the pregnant woman what she must do.

 

[Cubs79]

I'd be willing to bet that two of the special circumstances behind the vast majority of abortions are: 1) the father is encouraging an abortion; or 2) the father isn't even in the picture.

But, of course, it's other men who want to get on their high horse and tell the pregnant woman what she must do.

This is what I don't think people tend to understand. Most people don't have abortions for the hell of it, they do it because they don't feel they are in a position to raise a child for whatever reason, and often times, that reason has to do with the dad not being in the picture or a is guy who clearly isn't dad material.

 

[Crazyhole]

I am a little confused. If we are talking about child benefits, the adult isn't going to receive those benefits if they don't have custody of the child. So, if someone has an abortion, they dont have a child, so what benefits are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is welfare benefits for a person who continues to make decisions that are detrimental to their own well being. A person who is on welfare and has multiple abortions probably doesn't deserve that kind of support anymore. A person who carries a child to term and makes the decision to raise it deserves the level of compassion that welfare is supposed to represent.

 

[sk8knight]

So then what changes would you make? Should third trimester abortions be illegal no matter what? Even if the mothers health is at risk? If you don't trust doctors or medical professionals to make that call, then I assume you just think it should be banned period?

I simply don't believe in the presented fallacy that it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother in late term pregnancies. There are a large number of very well-regarded doctors that say that they would deliver the healthy baby. That makes sense because, even if they killed the baby, the woman would still need to deliver it to complete the abortion. The baby doesn't just disappear out of the womb once it's dead. I trust doctors to make medical decisions but I'm not sure that they are directed to make decisions on behalf of an otherwise healthy baby. But please tell my why any doctor would want to kill a baby that they otherwise would not. This happened more than 11,000 times last year.

To your other question, we don't let doctors make decisions to kill otherwise healthy people today because they make have a deleterious effect on another person's physical or mental condition. That's the court's decision where each party can be represented. I'd like to go to the model that's used in some European countries where the baby has independent representation in a hearing. This way all human beings have due process.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is what I don't think people tend to understand. Most people don't have abortions for the hell of it, they do it because they don't feel they are in a position to raise a child for whatever reason, and often times, that reason has to do with the dad not being in the picture or a is guy who clearly isn't dad material.

They may not have an abortion for the hell of it, but they also knew that having sex could lead to pregnancy. Thats where "choice" comes into play.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'd be willing to bet that two of the special circumstances behind the vast majority of abortions are: 1) the father is encouraging an abortion; or 2) the father isn't even in the picture.

But, of course, it's other men who want to get on their high horse and tell the pregnant woman what she must do.

So there aren't pro-life women who also have a level of authority in lawmaking? You're trying to create a narrative that conservative pro-life men are the only ones that aren't ok with abortion.

 

[Cubs79]

They may not have an abortion for the hell of it, but they also knew that having sex could lead to pregnancy. Thats where "choice" comes into play.

Sex is human nature, it just is, and we aren't going to stop people from having sex, it just isn't realistic. I do say, we are living in strange times though when a lot of men are basically telling women not to put out.

 

[Cubs79]

So there aren't pro-life women who also have a level of authority in lawmaking? You're trying to create a narrative that conservative pro-life men are the only ones that aren't ok with abortion.

Of course there are pro life women, but in Alabama the 25 yes votes in the state Senate that passed the bill were all white males.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

So then what changes would you make? Should third trimester abortions be illegal no matter what? Even if the mothers health is at risk? If you don't trust doctors or medical professionals to make that call, then I assume you just think it should be banned period?

OK I think this is where the disconnect is. I tried touching on it but was probably rambling a bit. That and I'm completely ignorant of the more common health risks.

If the mothers health is at risk and carrying to term is not optimal but we're beyond viability, what does killing the baby pre or post removal do? Couldn't the pregnancy just be stopped and the baby removed alive?

 

[fried-chicken]

I simply don't believe in the presented fallacy that it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother in late term pregnancies. There are a large number of very well-regarded doctors that say that they would deliver the healthy baby. That makes sense because, even if they killed the baby, the woman would still need to deliver it to complete the abortion. The baby doesn't just disappear out of the womb once it's dead. I trust doctors to make medical decisions but I'm not sure that they are directed to make decisions on behalf of an otherwise healthy baby. But please tell my why any doctor would want to kill a baby that they otherwise would not. This happened more than 11,000 times last year.

To your other question, we don't let doctors make decisions to kill otherwise healthy people today because they make have a deleterious effect on another person's physical or mental condition. That's the court's decision where each party can be represented. I'd like to go to the model that's used in some European countries where the baby has independent representation in a hearing. This way all human beings have due process.

Abortion up to viability (24 weeks) and then delivery at anytime the woman requests after that. Can't force a woman to carry a baby if she doesn't want to and shouldn't abort a baby that can live when there are so many good families that are on waiting lists to adopt. In any situation where a doctor deems it medically risky to deliver a baby it would be woman's choice. If a doctor is advising to abort a baby for medical reasons they should have prove the risk.

 

[fried-chicken]

OK I think this is where the disconnect is. I tried touching on it but was probably rambling a bit. That and I'm completely ignorant of the more common health risks.

If the mothers health is at risk and carrying to term is not optimal but we're beyond viability, what does killing the baby pre or post removal do? Couldn't the pregnancy just be stopped and the baby removed alive?

I think it's really rare and never happens but sometimes things like the baby is deformed to the point where it is not viable outside of the womb. It's heart is on the outside type situation. Pregnancy is inherently risky so if you know the baby has no chance of survival you would choose to abort than to put the mother at risk for an additional 10 weeks or whatever.

 

[Crazyhole]

Of course there are pro life women, but in Alabama the 25 yes votes in the state Senate that passed the bill were all white males.

Well only 7 of their Senate members aren't white men so it probably isnt an accurate representation of the country as a whole

 

[Cubs79]

I simply don't believe in the presented fallacy that it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother in late term pregnancies. There are a large number of very well-regarded doctors that say that they would deliver the healthy baby. That makes sense because, even if they killed the baby, the woman would still need to deliver it to complete the abortion. The baby doesn't just disappear out of the womb once it's dead. I trust doctors to make medical decisions but I'm not sure that they are directed to make decisions on behalf of an otherwise healthy baby. But please tell my why any doctor would want to kill a baby that they otherwise would not. This happened more than 11,000 times last year.

To your other question, we don't let doctors make decisions to kill otherwise healthy people today because they make have a deleterious effect on another person's physical or mental condition. That's the court's decision where each party can be represented. I'd like to go to the model that's used in some European countries where the baby has independent representation in a hearing. This way all human beings have due process.

You are welcome to your opinion, I completely disagree, but to each their own. I do wonder though, how many people who have your opinion would maintain that opinion if it was their wife or girlfriend who was having health risks by carrying a child to term.

How can a baby have representation in a hearing? Those people aren't representing the fetus, who might not even have consciousness, they are representing their own views.

 

[DaShuckster]

I simply don't believe in the presented fallacy that it is necessary to kill the baby to save the mother in late term pregnancies.

A week or so ago I shared a story about a woman I worked with in Virginia who had an abortion because the mother was at risk of bleeding to death. Maybe medical procedures have changed since this happened, but if this was a "fallacy," the would-be mother and father deserved Oscars for their performance.

...we don't let doctors make decisions to kill otherwise healthy people today because they make have a deleterious effect on another person's physical or mental condition.

Doctors can't make a decision to KILL any human being, which is why State-run executions using lethal injections for capital offenses involve zero medical personnel.