Numark3

Nothing in the bill would permit that, and whatever the governor says is not the law. It clearly says abortion during pregnancy, any vagueness of health does not go towards what you are mentioning. That goes to whether the abortion can occur, not the timing. In fact, the bill says medical support for the product of the abortion shall be utilized if it shows signs of life. Nothing permits them killing a born child. It looks like a stupid misstatement by the governor.

One, the magical abortion that doesn't injure the sleeping mother at night is beyond dumb, and impossible. Two, I doubt it (i haven't looked at how the NY bill affects criminal statues), but I would be surprised if it had an effect for your scenario.

Yawn Just because the mom is unharmed doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be criminal charges against her that wouldn’t fit. But ignoring that, you seem to be making an argument that because you can abort a baby, then why can’t someone kill the unborn baby outside the scope of the abortion statute and without anyone’s consent. Those aren’t the same things, as you see. me thinking a mom can abort baby, and me thinking someone can’t run up to her and kill the unborn baby aren’t contradictory.

I only skimmed the bill, how does it allow the baby being killed after being born? I didn't see anything about that. I think a line between born and unborn is pretty logical. Once a life is brought into the world, it has rights in my opinion. The line between different time-lengths of an unborn child don't make sense to me. Keep going with the woodchipper analogy, it is um, useful?

Nope, hence the unborn distinction. I just don't see making the difference between the different stages of the unborn life.

I would classify it as a child too, its just the unborn nature is important to me. I see the loss of an unborn child as an awful event for the family, but if its the family's choice, it just negates it for me. Doesn't bother me. If the husband wanted to have it, but not the wife, that would be awful. I don't see the logical difference between the first trimester and the day before birth. Why do you think the latter is disgusting and different? It's just further along in the process compared to the first example. Maybe that's the distinction I am not making.

That has to be a parody tweet. HAS TO BE

We're over it

You all are just going to have to get used to a lot of people being okay with this (like me!). I don't see the horrific disgustingness of killing an unborn child. Maybe because I don't have the religious foundation?

You taking quotes from cases, out of context, is really a pet peeve. Shall generally means mandatory. Misstating the law doesn't help your point.

There’s also a lot of useless degrees that can be a foundation for a useful graduate degree, like a Juris Doctor

Not a Nader fan? Haha

Historically doesn’t mean all? bills have been historically trash. “Jim Kelly was trash” is not the response!

I’ll have to read that decision and come back, that article/phrasing seems a little off for a couple reasons.

Theres lots of solutions. Federal loans for grad school can be much lower in interest, interest could not start accruing until after graduation, scholarships should not be taxable income for some (all?) situations. There’s a ton of little things.

No such thing as working for stuff, so I want to be on the list to get! Surely there is no middle ground where we (a) make college more affordable for those who need it and (b) stop punishing students in some/many respects with loans.

Yay free college and free everything. Me like

A typepad blog containing fbi files called bitterqueen is generally something I avoid because I don’t have great virus protection. i may stick my mouse in crazy, but I try not to click crazy

That’s the type of url I avoid!

Well then I agree it can and would happen. But I think its rare and doesn't impact whether or not we should have this law.

And yes, it will be an issue for the left, and an independent won't get elected, which is a shame. The two parties are catering so much to their loud minorities that they really arent that representative anymore, imo.

I have never considered voting independent (they are historically awful candidates). But I'll give this some thought.

...most people are generally idiots. But we have made distinctions in law across a ton of fields to allow its professionals to make judgments. There is nothing outrageous (you may disagree on religious or moral or philosophical levels or whatever) to abort a late-term fetus that can't survive (exception 1) or a late-term fetus that is a serious health risk (exception 2). Because that's reasonable, I don't have anything against the law. And I don't think "doctors will abuse this or broadly construe this for their beliefs" to be a valid attack on the law--i am okay with the legislature making laws with the assumption that doctors will do their best to follow it.

fake news goes both ways man

It's not that medical professionals would never, its that it is (1) rare and (2) we shouldnt let the possibility of bad apples in professions like doctors, lawyers, cops, etc., impact the laws we make. Do you want me to argue lawyers shouldn't be able to handle client funds because there are instances of them stealing? What about not letting cops have guns because there are examples of corrupt cops. Your logic doesn't hold up. The law provides for something very specific that must occur for a late-term abortion to occur, and we should trust medical professionals to make that determination. There are numerous examples in laws where something is normally prohibited, but we permit doctors and medical professionals to make judgments. You can't pick and choose these laws based on your moral and ethical beliefs of what would happen if a doctor abuses that privilege.