row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 5:47 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I don't know what that means. I mean I get all the words individually, but strung together I'm not sure. Expand stay that way....
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 5:39 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I'm only offering my opinion. Your latest message validates what I think. When the terrorists his the WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania on 9/11, many people able to empathize with more than 2 or 3 people impacted. I don't see it as an either/or issue with the mother/family v unborn child. In fact I think you have to work extra hard to view it as a Texas Death Match. Expand Like I said before, an abortion is a tragic event and sucks. Including for the unborn. But as far as my opinion on what the law should be, I view the mother’s right as absolute, and hopefully it aligns with the dad’s wants. 7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You already said I was not soul-less, and I agreed. You were right here, take a victory lap. Expand Haha no victory lap, you just misread something. I do it all the time! 7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Again, you do know something about her. I assume you were not in Gym Class with Jeffrey Dahmer. Do you have an opinion on him? Come to think of it, he really only murdered people who may never have been alive had Trans law been in effect. Expand I mean I saw she made a lot of comments but I never read them. The only thing I know about her is she is okay with late term abortions, which I’m okay with.
Dante Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/24/2019 at 1:29 AM, TakeYouToTasker said: I think it's time to revisit Roe. Expand The left is so brazen with their evil now it's an amazing time (and not in a good way). Then you have this fraud very concerned about the children due to gun violence while all the time supporting putting babies down like you would a sick dog. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-kamala-harris-doesnt-understand-about-gun-owners/
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 5:50 PM, Crayola64 said: Like I said before, an abortion is a tragic event and sucks. Including for the unborn. But as far as my opinion on what the law should be, I view the mother’s right as absolute, and hopefully it aligns with the dad’s wants. Haha no victory lap, you just misread something. I do it all the time! I mean I saw she made a lot of comments but I never read them. The only thing I know about her is she is okay with late term abortions, which I’m okay with. Expand One more question. I can't call a woman who aborts a child a "mother" for obvious reasons (and it's odd to me that you do, but whatevs), but when a woman actually does become a mother, what are your thoughts on the father and fiscal responsibility? If he prefers not to be involved, and actually preferred the mother abort the child, should he be compelled to contribute financially? And come to think of it, is abortion/death after abortion is the end result, does he have an obligation to pay/assist with expenses.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 6:18 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: One more question. I can't call a woman who aborts a child a "mother" for obvious reasons (and it's odd to me that you do, but whatevs), Expand I mean, that's a whole different topic. 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: but when a woman actually does become a mother, what are your thoughts on the father and fiscal responsibility? If he prefers not to be involved, and actually preferred the mother abort the child, should he be compelled to contribute financially? And come to think of it, Expand Of course he should have fiscal responsibility. For a number of reasons. One of which is we don't fathers to be able to escape child support by stating they wanted an abortion. 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: is abortion/death after abortion is the end result, does he have an obligation to pay/assist with expenses. Expand If he has to pay for abortion-related costs if he opposes the abortion? I don't know, I don't have any strong feelings on that. I would lean on saying he shouldn't have to assist with the expense.
3rdnlng Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 5:47 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I don't know what that means. I mean I get all the words individually, but strung together I'm not sure. Expand It's Canadian speak. 2
boyst Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 6:25 PM, Crayola64 said: I mean, that's a whole different topic. Of course he should have fiscal responsibility. For a number of reasons. One of which is we don't fathers to be able to escape child support by stating they wanted an abortion. If he has to pay for abortion-related costs if he opposes the abortion? I don't know, I don't have any strong feelings on that. I would lean on saying he shouldn't have to assist with the expense. Expand So, when it says thatbsomething shall not be infringed. What's your take?
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 6:47 PM, Boyst62 said: So, when it says thatbsomething shall not be infringed. What's your take? Expand what do you mean
boyst Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 6:48 PM, Crayola64 said: what do you mean Expand Your proclaiming that shall = must. That means when something says something must not be interfered with you literally mean it cannot, in your interpretation...?
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 6:47 PM, Boyst62 said: So, when it says thatbsomething shall not be infringed. What's your take? Expand it's means they are going to do whatever the heck they want to
bilzfancy Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 6:58 PM, row_33 said: it's means they are going to do whatever the heck they want to Expand How are abortion laws in Canada? Could Trudeau do the same as they're doing in NY?
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) On 1/31/2019 at 6:53 PM, Boyst62 said: Your proclaiming that shall = must. That means when something says something must not be interfered with you literally mean it cannot, in your interpretation...? Expand Shall equals must in most circumstances (its not me proclaiming it, its just a fact). Including that proposed bill (and the statute that exists). So in your example, shall not be infringed generally would mean must not be infringed. But I don't really know specifically what you are talking about. Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 7:18 PM, Crayola64 said: Shall equals must in most circumstances. Including that proposed bill (and the statute that exists). So in your example, shall not be infringed generally would mean must not be infringed. But I don't really know specifically what you are talking about. Expand You present yourself as an attorney, or someone who has experience in the law... I'm guessing you can figure out which constitutional amendment he's referring to;)
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 7:20 PM, Deranged Rhino said: You present yourself as an attorney, or someone who has experience in the law... I'm guessing you can figure out which constitutional amendment he's referring to;) Expand Yea, but I don't know what he is asking at all. Its probably me lol, sometimes I am slow!
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 6:25 PM, Crayola64 said: I mean, that's a whole different topic. Of course he should have fiscal responsibility. For a number of reasons. One of which is we don't fathers to be able to escape child support by stating they wanted an abortion. If he has to pay for abortion-related costs if he opposes the abortion? I don't know, I don't have any strong feelings on that. I would lean on saying he shouldn't have to assist with the expense. Expand You're one strange tater tot. A female can terminate the life of a child anywhere, any place, and time. No must, no fuss, anytime, any place anywhere. In this regard you are the mayor-elect of Sodom and Gommorah. At the same time, you want to hang society's moral baggage on someone who often had nothing to do with conception beyond being in the wrong at the wrong time. In this regard you're the moral majority. Then you swing back one more time and let the guy off the hook if he doesn't want to spend his bar mitzvah money to do the right thing.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 7:28 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You're one strange tater tot. Expand Law is a strange tater to my friend! 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: A female can terminate the life of a child anywhere, any place, and time. No must, no fuss, anytime, any place anywhere. In this regard you are the mayor-elect of Sodom and Gommorah. Expand 2 Yea, she is carrying the unborn child. 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: At the same time, you want to hang society's moral baggage on someone who often had nothing to do with conception beyond being in the wrong at the wrong time. In this regard you're the moral majority. Expand 1 Wrong place, wrong time? He ***** someone who wanted to have a child. And yea, I think there is great public polict in forcing parents to care for their children financially 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Then you swing back one more time and let the guy off the hook if he doesn't want to spend his bar mitzvah money to do the right thing. Expand Well, here we are no longer talking about financially supporting a child, its a medical procedure that the women decided in favor of. I think these are all pretty consistent views. The woman has the choice to make, and the financial burden isn't shared with the man. But once a child is in this world, we want the mom and dad being financially responsible.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 7:35 PM, Crayola64 said: The woman has the choice to make Expand The woman should NOT have the choice to make. Period. That's how we've gotten into this mess in the first place. Men should have equal say, since if the child's born the state enforces support, anyway.
Foxx Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) On 1/31/2019 at 4:45 PM, B-Man said: Explainer: What New York’s new abortion law does and doesn’t do FTA: ... Expand right. sometimes it's not what a law says, but what it doesn't say. On 1/31/2019 at 4:59 PM, Hedge said: I can't shake the possibility of these laws actually being secretly pushed by the religious right, knowing it will lead to public outcry. Then eventually the abortion issue finds its way back to the Supreme Court, resulting in Roe v. Wade being overturned. While I support Roe v Wade, I am horrified by these full term abortion laws. Expand the problem with this is that these laws are being passed to supersede any federal repeal of Row v Wade. Edited January 31, 2019 by Foxx 2
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 7:35 PM, Crayola64 said: Law is a strange tater to my friend! Yea, she is carrying the unborn child. Wrong place, wrong time? He ***** someone who wanted to have a child. And yea, I think there is great public polict in forcing parents to care for their children financially Well, here we are no longer talking about financially supporting a child, its a medical procedure that the women decided in favor of. I think these are all pretty consistent views. The woman has the choice to make, and the financial burden isn't shared with the man. But once a child is in this world, we want the mom and dad being financially responsible. Expand They are not. They are logically irreconcilable, and create a legal double standard which places a man's line of responsibility at conception, and a woman's at birth.
Foxx Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) On 1/31/2019 at 5:06 PM, LABillzFan said: Not really because they changed it from "must" to "shall." If it was already mandatory, why change the word to something that only implies mandatory? Because you could infer that as not mandatory. Expand On 1/31/2019 at 5:10 PM, Crayola64 said: 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. Expand it used to be that only when used in statutes and contracts is the word, 'shall' compulsory. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. ... Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."Sep 5, 2013 further: ... Until recently, law schools taught attorneys that "shall" means "must." That's why many attorneys and executives think "shall" means "must." It's not their fault. The Federal Plain Writing Act and the Federal Plain Language Guidelines only appeared in 2010. And the fact is, even though "must" has come to be the only clear, valid way to express "mandatory," most parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) that govern federal departments still use the word "shall" for that purpose. With time, laws evolve to reflect new knowledge and standards. During this transition, "must" remains the safe, enlightened choice not only because it imposes clarity on the concept of obligation, but also because it does not contradict any instance of "shall" in the CFRs." Right now, federal departments go through their documents to replace all the "shalls" with "must." It's a big hassle. If you look at page A-2, section q (PDF) of this link, it shows a sample of how a typical federal order describes this shift from "shall" to "must." Don't go through this tedious process. If you mean mandatory, write "must." If you mean prohibited, write "must not." ... reference Edited January 31, 2019 by Foxx
Recommended Posts