Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Just now, whatdrought said: Bold: Who determines who has rights and who doesn't? How is that arbitrary definition determined? In the 1800's it was determined by those in power based on skin color. In the 1930's it was determined by those in power based on religion and ethnic background. How do these rights become determined, and by who? Right, and after birth is a pretty clear line that cant be abused to the same degree as race or sex or whatever.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 37 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: YES. And the bill says that baby has to be given measures of life support if there is evidence of viability. Which is what the governor means by "keeping the infant comfortable". They keep it on life support while deciding whether or not to abort it. Again, this is now moving towards arguing about the color of the sky (not because of you) because the bill didn't pass.
whatdrought Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: Right, and after birth is a pretty clear line that cant be abused to the same degree as race or sex or whatever. That's really a false sense of security though. I believe you when you say you believe it's a clear line, but the problem built into your argument is that it's still a human life whose rights are being determined by someone else. What stops the line from shifting to 3 weeks post birth. 3 months. 3 Years. Etc.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, LABillzFan said: There is no need for life support for the production of an abortion if the abortion was successful. If you are aborting the child, and it arrives alive, "measures for life support...shall be available..." Gotcha. I think this is the point of confusion. Shall means mandatory in this context. It’s not “may.” 1 minute ago, LABillzFan said: You can kill it or let it die after they're born. And there is no such thing as an after-birth abortion. It's calling killing or letting the baby die. I agree it’s a dumb term. I’m against after-birth abortion, murder is fine!
B-Man Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Which is what the governor means by "keeping the infant comfortable". They keep it on life support while deciding whether or not to abort it. Again, this is now moving towards arguing about the color of the sky (not because of you) because the bill didn't pass. Thank Goodness. See above for for the NYS Law.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Which is what the governor means by "keeping the infant comfortable". They keep it on life support while deciding whether or not to abort it. Again, this is now moving towards arguing about the color of the sky (not because of you) because the bill didn't pass. 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. Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: But that’s not true. The bill says “shall” which is mandatory, there is no decision process. I get the confusion though now. It's noteworthy that they changed it from "must" to "shall" because VA case law has inexplicably given the word "shall" some wiggle room. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: But that’s not true. The bill says “shall” which is mandatory, there is no decision process. I get the confusion though now. It is true. Again, the governor (who has done those procedures) makes that clear. They deliver the infant and keep it comfortable (ie - put it on life support) while a decision is being made. 1
3rdnlng Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Crayola64 said: 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. So, libs are immortal and have the power of life and death over babies? 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: 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! I said you may have sociopathic tendencies. I was being honest with my analysis, but I'm no psychiatrist. You said I was soulless, or could be considered as such because I was against extingushing life because someone might be having a panic attack while going through labor, or comparing those who would terminate the life of a child at/near or after the birth of the child. One more thought on this. If a woman was hemmoraging due to a late term complication, and the choice would be between saving the child or saving the mother, I could understand the difficult decision that would have to be made. I believe those decisions are already made, and the family goes on to grieve regardless of the outcome. I've been blessed with the woman in my life being strong, tough and of strong character. I believe each one would willingly sacrifice their lives in that situation, and in at least one case that amazing woman saw it through. She survived, the baby did not. In my case, the doctors were quite insistent that one of my children might have significant health issues based on sonogram (ultrasound, whatever) reading a and suggested alternatives to ending the pregnancy. That option was contrary to our views, and late on my wife had a major health issue and it seemed fairly clear the baby would not survive the night. 21 years later we remain incredibly lucky and grateful to have him healthy and happy in our lives. Here's the thing on that...or situation does not color the way I look at choices others might make, but I am grateful to have a strong, decent and amazing woman in my life. Not all are as strong, decent or amazing. Kathy Tran, for example.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: It is true. Again, the governor (who has done those procedures) makes that clear. They deliver the infant and keep it comfortable (ie - put it on life support) while a decision is being made. 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 2 minutes ago, Rob's House said: It's noteworthy that they changed it from "must" to "shall" because VA case law has inexplicably given the word "shall" some wiggle room. 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)
Hedge Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Which is what the governor means by "keeping the infant comfortable". They keep it on life support while deciding whether or not to abort it. 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.
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, libs are immortal and have the power of life and death over babies? I haven't died yet!
GG Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 I saw an amazing sight last night. A kid with cerebral palsy wrestled for his middle school team. He wasn't out there for a sympathy display, but was pitted in a real match. He lost, but lasted the entire three rounds, despite the obvious limitation of not being able to fully plant his feet or have full hand strength in both arms. Bravo. Wonder if a kid like this will now exist with NYS & VA laws? 2
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I said you may have sociopathic tendencies. I was being honest with my analysis, but I'm no psychiatrist. I wouldn't place any weight on what someone gets from a few forum posts. Quote You said I was soulless, or could be considered as such because I was against extingushing life because someone might be having a panic attack while going through labor, or comparing those who would terminate the life of a child at/near or after the birth of the child. 1 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." Quote One more thought on this. If a woman was hemmoraging due to a late term complication, and the choice would be between saving the child or saving the mother, I could understand the difficult decision that would have to be made. I believe those decisions are already made, and the family goes on to grieve regardless of the outcome. I've been blessed with the woman in my life being strong, tough and of strong character. I believe each one would willingly sacrifice their lives in that situation, and in at least one case that amazing woman saw it through. She survived, the baby did not. In my case, the doctors were quite insistent that one of my children might have significant health issues based on sonogram (ultrasound, whatever) reading a and suggested alternatives to ending the pregnancy. That option was contrary to our views, and late on my wife had a major health issue and it seemed fairly clear the baby would not survive the night. 21 years later we remain incredibly lucky and grateful to have him healthy and happy in our lives. 2 Yea the experiences can be truly awful. Quote Here's the thing on that...or situation does not color the way I look at choices others might make, but I am grateful to have a strong, decent and amazing woman in my life. Not all are as strong, decent or amazing. Kathy Tran, for example. 1 I don't know Kathy Tran! Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, 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. Could be. But try going the other way with it... If Roe is overturned, the power goes back to the states. PP pushes these bills in NY, VA and others which they know to be extreme. This causes outrage on the right/pro-life crowd and makes them rethink overturning Roe because they see that if they do, it'll be the wild west at the state level. 2
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It is true. Again, the governor (who has done those procedures) makes that clear. They deliver the infant and keep it comfortable (ie - put it on life support) while a decision is being made. It should be noted that "the bill" and "the governor's interpretation of the bill" are not the same thing. It should also be noted that, no matter what the bill says, the governor's interpretation is worrisome in a culture that currently believes in "the law is what I say it is" authoritarianism. 1
Hedge Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It is true. Again, the governor (who has done those procedures) makes that clear. They deliver the infant and keep it comfortable (ie - put it on life support) while a decision is being made. And how would this not violate the Hippocratic Oath? Would all of the murdering actually have to be done by a non-physician?
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: It should be noted that "the bill" and "the governor's interpretation of the bill" are not the same thing. It should also be noted that, no matter what the bill says, the governor's interpretation is worrisome in a culture that currently believes in "the law is what I say it is" authoritarianism. Very true.
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Hedge said: And how would this not violate the Hippocratic Oath? Would all of the murdering actually have to be done by a non-physician? that camp is totally blind to any thinking along this way, you can try though.... that they think they can see makes it 10 times worse compared to them being plain ignorant Edited January 31, 2019 by row_33
Recommended Posts