Numark3

The governor? Who cares (well, its troubling for other reasons). The bill doesn't permit it. What the governor says isn't law.

This is something I actually know about (which is rare!). The statute uses shall over 80 times already, all for mandatory purposes. It used must only one time. It is extremely common for bills revising statutes to also change terms for consistency purposes. So the bill changed the "must" (which isn't used) to "shall" which is used. There are a lot of reasons why the shall in that sentence means mandatory: 1) All the other "shalls" do, so it would be absurd to treat it differently. 2) Virginia courts presume shall means mandatory. 3) Treating shall as "may" in this context makes no sense. Why would you need a bill saying you can or may try and save the baby if it is viable? We already have that authority.

I don't believe cerebral palsy can be detected before birth.....so the laws would have no impact. But awesome story, and always really cool to see moments like that.

Well that camp keeps explaining to you that the bill doesn't permit after-birth abortion. I wouldn't be okay with that. But keep on ignoring it.

Very true.

I wouldn't place any weight on what someone gets from a few forum posts. I said you were not soulless. Unless I made a typo? EDIT: Yea, I said "I get the pro-life arguments, I don't see you as a soulless monster who is forcing women to have babies against their will." Yea the experiences can be truly awful. I don't know Kathy Tran!

I haven't died yet!

See below, but I believe it is referring to "Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability." The "shall" is mandatory, there is no decision process. The governor is incorrect. There isn't anything else in the bill that would have permitted after-birth abortions Good point (though caselaw shows a very very very very very very very strong preference towards it meaning mandatory). But from experience, the reason for the change from "must" to "shall" is obvious. It is for consistency reasons, and this change is common when revising statutes. In the statute, the word "shall" is used over 80 times, all clearly for mandatory purposes. The change from must to shall is to keep the statute consistent (keep using shall for mandatory purposes, not must, which was used only the one time)

But that’s not true. The bill says “shall” which is mandatory, there is no decision process. I get the confusion though now. its a confusing topic because shall means permissive outside of the legal context a lot of the times, and even sometimes in the legal context! But here it’s mandatory.

Gotcha. I think this is the point of confusion. Shall means mandatory in this context. It’s not “may.” I agree it’s a dumb term. I’m against after-birth abortion, murder is fine!

Right, and after birth is a pretty clear line that cant be abused to the same degree as race or sex or whatever.

You are an absolute fool of a person. Costco is the best store out there...

Good post. I agree there really isn’t middle ground on this topic. I think the best you can do is try to understand each other. But you’re right, from your perspective, some of the pro-Hoover beliefs would be awful. I would disagree, but that’s more than fair. I appreciate the well-thought out reply. I just don’t see my views as soulless! Now see, this is actually ignorance. I said ignorance/education has nothing to do with this abortion debate. It’s a difference in beliefs. Plenty of people are having rational conversations. you coming in here and posting this makes you guilty of exactly what you are complaining about. Go ahead and categorize and characterize half the population in you odd post. As if that’s not the definition of ignorance.

And again, if anyone can point to where it permits after birth abortions, let me know. I'll gladly donate $25 to a pro-life charity.

As my republican mother once told me, college must be making this country stupid.

Us democrats shop at Costco Sam's club is for the republicans

The funniest part about all this is the after-birth abortion fakenews originates from a democratic governor. The irony is not lost upon me lol. Of course, because it supports your beliefs, many of you are clinging to a democratic governor's words, wholly unsupported by the text of the bill, as the truth. In ANY other circumstance, you would be pointing to the text as the truth, and the democrats's wrong message as fakenews. Its very disappointing to see a lot of you reverse logic because it is convenient for your beliefs. It is just like the MAGA hat kids debacle. Whatever suits your opinions I guess, who cares about the truth or facts.

It is no doubt broadening the ability to abort babies. This bill would permit abortions in a lot more situations. You are right. One of the situations is NOT after-birth abortions. I am sorry, but this is just plain wrong and is a lie. (I don't believe you are the one of the people saying it allows it. I get that you think both are equally wrong, that is fair!)

YES. And the bill says that baby has to be given measures of life support if there is evidence of viability. Lol, okay I am taking a position to take a position. There is not a single word in that bill that would authorize after-birth abortions. You keep citing stuff not in the bill, like the governor's words. The vagueness of "impairing mental health" would go towards broadening if an abortion can occur. IT DOES NOT GO TO THE TIMING OF AN ABORTION. There is nothing vague in the bill about the timing of the abortion (it is during the "pregnancy"). There is nothing in the bill about after-birth abortions (it does not permit it). The bill clearly permits late-term abortions udner certain reasons, and it clearly does not permit after-birth abortions. And you can gladly stop debating it with me, you are spreading fake news. It is funny this board will continuously be upset with fakenews and media lies, but will further it when it aligns with your belief. It makes a difference because the bill allows abortion before birth, but not after birth. Despite a ton of you claiming otherwise without explaining how the bill would ever permit it. Facts matter people.

IF THERE ARE MEDICAL REASONS. What is the scenario where five minutes before birth an abortion is necessary for medical reasons? It doesn't exist. Yes the time limit is extreme, but the contingent medical reasons place the limits you are ignoring. Just like returning a car may have the extreme time limit of one second after purchase, the requirement of new knowledge would place the limits you want. And even if it didn't have the medical reason requirements, just because the time limit is extreme, does not mean it is actually going to happen. WHo is carrying a baby for 9 months and then being like nope, abort it five minutes before pregnancy. That would be beyond rare. Taking a statute to its extremes is the worst way to argue against a statute. Because it ignores the 99% of its substance. And the after-birth stuff is absolutely fake news until someone shows anything in any of the abortion bills that would permit it. I did read the bill, where does it say that? I will gladly admit I am wrong if someone (anyone???) could show me where the bill permits killing a baby after it is born.

*sigh*

I also think taking the statute to its extreme is a misunderstanding of statutes. For example, let's say there is a law that allows you to return cars six weeks after purchase IF you learn something wrong with the car you did not know about at the time of purchase. Seems clear, right? You can return a car if you learn something is wrong with it anytime within six weeks of purchase. You saying "how can anything occur five minutes before birth that warrants an abortion for medical reason exist" is equivalent to someone saying "how can anyone learn something brand new about the car, that they didn't know at the time of purchase, 10 seconds after they purchased the car?" You saying "now people will be aborting babies 5 minutes before birth for no reason" is the equivalent of someone saying "now people will return cars five minutes after they purchase it for no reason." Taking a statute to its extreme in time limit, and then saying this is what is going to happen all the time, is silly talk. These are the same arguments you all are making, by taking the time limits to an extreme. Guess what, this hypothetical where there is a baby that is not harming the mother in any way, and one minute after birth she is like "oh look, time to abort the baby" is not based in reality. It doesn't happen. I have no idea what you are talking about (maybe you are joking). There are ignorant and uneducated opinions out there. We can all point them out... (also I meant to say illegal immigration, not education lol) I think I explicitly said pro-life is not ignorant.

And we are taking his word as gospel because....it backs up your view? The guy that loves to go on fox news and say his schtick. You know, there are actual studies and credible medical sources we can cite to, not a tweet. The same as anything else. Ignorance/uneducated exists, and you can spot them. Not sure what you are asking. If someone says building a wall will stop all illegal immigration, and they have never looked into it before, that would be an ignorant/uneducated opinion. Two things. First, no offense, but your take on gaining knowledge on abortion based on having children is dumb. Its thinking pro-choice people are ignorant because of their lack of contact with children, or having a child. Which simply isn't true. You are making an emotional argument, when that's not how I think. Could someone's views on abortion change after giving birth, sure. Could someone's views on immigration change after having their family murdered by an immigrant change sure? Could someone's views on a minority change after a minority rapes their daughter? Sure. Yes, personal experiences can change views. No, the fact personal experiences can change someone's opinions is not relevant to my views. Plenty of people that are okay with this law, have children. Two, these bills would not permit handing over a living baby to a doctor to kill. That is no longer abortion, it is outside the scope of pregnancy, and is just plain wrong. Sorry. Its fakenews. I'm using the language from the bill, smarty pants. I think a lot of trouble pro-life people have is being unable to see the views of someone pro-choice, and they chalk it up to disgusting, immoral, soulless, or sociopathic. In reality, its just you not seeing where the opposing side is coming from, and what you are left with is lack of understanding so you demonize it. In reality, its just placing the rights of a mother and family over that of an unborn child. I get the pro-life arguments, I don't see you as a soulless monster who is forcing women to have babies against their will.

Im liking this build up! Well the bill would only have allowed it for medical reasons, not based on want/need. But even if it didn’t, I just dont place much ethical concern on killing an unborn child. Though I definitely see the argument and your point of view. I mean figuring that out isn’t hard (it is killing something near birth). I respect it, but don’t agree. Thats your right. At a certain point I have started to try and understand opposing views, even those I think are ignorant/uneducated or wrong. i actually don’t think pro-life views are ignorant, I just disagree with it.

You know, the sooner you all stop demonizing the opposing side, the sooner we might start giving any value to your opinion. Yes yes yes, the libs are immortal and if only I saw a picture of a unborn child I’d be enlightened. I hope to be having a child soon in my life! But Iv been around plenty, and I think you are mistaken in thinking my opinion comes from a lack of emotion or empathy. I know there is a lot of love and attachment that goes towards an unborn child, from the minute pregnancy starts. I’m not coming from a place of “it’s not life yet” or anything like that. I just value the family’s choice to terminate an unborn child more.