4merper4mer Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 3 hours ago, Crayola64 said: No because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how law works and what the bill says. This is such a ridiculous argument. Look, the bill allows abortion right up until birth (though that’s an extreme and would be beyond rare). Why can’t you all just complain about that as immoral or whatever without making the argument it allows after birth abortions? Christ. Saying it would be extreme and beyond rare is beyond horse *****. Ther is nothing to base that on. The governor described what could happen in his view. Where did he get this understanding? Thin air?
Rob's House Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 Crayola's explanation of statutory interpretation is accurate. Although some courts go outside the boundaries, they are not supposed to look at legislative history unless the language of the statute is so ambiguous as to make its interpretation unclear. The statements of a governor would have little to no effect (officially) even where the language is ambiguous because he is not part of the legislative branch. He's an executive. As far as expert witnesses, they can provide their opinions regarding the facts of a case, but they are not permitted to answer the ultimate legal question, nor are they permitted to give their interpretation of statutes. 2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Saying it would be extreme and beyond rare is beyond horse *****. Ther is nothing to base that on. The governor described what could happen in his view. Where did he get this understanding? Thin air? Tran is a piece of ***** and so is the governor. It wouldn't surprise me if both support killing a healthy baby after birth for the convenience of the birther. I say birther because anyone who would kill her baby doesn't deserve to be called the mother. 1 1
4merper4mer Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Crayola's explanation of statutory interpretation is accurate. Although some courts go outside the boundaries, they are not supposed to look at legislative history unless the language of the statute is so ambiguous as to make its interpretation unclear. The statements of a governor would have little to no effect (officially) even where the language is ambiguous because he is not part of the legislative branch. He's an executive. As far as expert witnesses, they can provide their opinions regarding the facts of a case, but they are not permitted to answer the ultimate legal question, nor are they permitted to give their interpretation of statutes. Tran is a piece of ***** and so is the governor. It wouldn't surprise me if both support killing a healthy baby after birth for the convenience of the birther. I say birther because anyone who would kill her baby doesn't deserve to be called the mother. Is there an accepted definition of birth here? Crowning? All the way out? Umbilical cord cut? Circumcision? Rolling over? Able to say "please don't kill me"? For decades these people have hidden their intent by calling it "legal, safe and rare", now we're to believe them when they celebrate laws like this by loudly cheering Andy and lighting up buildings pink? We're supposed to believe that an late term abortion could save a mothers life in a circumstance, still unexplained, that a live birth could not. But we don't believe them when they describes the specific of what they want. Edited February 3, 2019 by 4merper4mer
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: Is there an accepted definition of birth here? Crowning? All the way out? Umbilical cord cut? Circumcision? Rolling over? Able to say "please don't kill me"? For decades these people have hidden their intent by calling it "legal, safe and rare", now we're to believe them when they celebrate laws like this by loudly cheering Andy and lighting up buildings pink? We're supposed to believe that an late term abortion could save a mothers life in a circumstance, still unexplained, that a live birth could not. But we don't believe them whe they describes the specifics of what they want. My only point was hate it for allowing late-term abortions. Don't hate it for pushing a secret agenda of pro-infantacide beliefs.
4merper4mer Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: My only point was hate it for allowing late-term abortions. Don't hate it for pushing a secret agenda of pro-infantacide beliefs. Who said pro infanticide beliefs? It allows what LA said it allows on the last page. You say it doesn't because shall means maybe or chocolate means vanilla or whatever but this thing opened a lot of doors,plain and simple. Nobody has to like infanticide for infanticide to be allowed. 2
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 29 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Tran is a piece of ***** and so is the governor. It wouldn't surprise me if both support killing a healthy baby after birth for the convenience of the birther. I don't know anything about Tran (haven't looked into it or really followed it), but agreed on the governor. What a bozo
Cinga Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 13 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Is there an accepted definition of birth here? Crowning? All the way out? Umbilical cord cut? Circumcision? Rolling over? Able to say "please don't kill me"? For decades these people have hidden their intent by calling it "legal, safe and rare", now we're to believe them when they celebrate laws like this by loudly cheering Andy and lighting up buildings pink? We're supposed to believe that an late term abortion could save a mothers life in a circumstance, still unexplained, that a live birth could not. But we don't believe them when they describes the specific of what they want. That part just pisses me off... School shootings are another example of "rare", but the argument from that same crowd is, well, if it saves just one life we should ban all guns.... Someone please define rare to me?
4merper4mer Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Cinga said: That part just pisses me off... School shootings are another example of "rare", but the argument from that same crowd is, well, if it saves just one life we should ban all guns.... Someone please define rare to me? Rare will be defined after birth is defined.
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 The VA proposed law muddies the waters to the point that no killing of a baby shortly after birth will ever meet the standards of infanticide.
B-Man Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 Update: Sources telling @Lvozzella and me that tip to @bigleaguepol about Northam’s yearbook photo came from medical-school classmate or classmates upset about governor’s abortion remarks earlier in the week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/lifestyle/style/a-tip-from-a-concerned-citizen-helps-a-reporter-land-the-scoop-of-a-lifetime/2019/02/03/e30762ea-2765-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html … 12:46 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Gee, too bad those physicians didn't realize how the bill ACTUALLY should be interpreted .
row_33 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Update: Sources telling @Lvozzella and me that tip to @bigleaguepol about Northam’s yearbook photo came from medical-school classmate or classmates upset about governor’s abortion remarks earlier in the week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/lifestyle/style/a-tip-from-a-concerned-citizen-helps-a-reporter-land-the-scoop-of-a-lifetime/2019/02/03/e30762ea-2765-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html … 12:46 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Gee, too bad those physicians didn't realize how the bill ACTUALLY should be interpreted . People are gullible enough to pretend the bill won’t end up resulting in a total free-for-all infanticide in a few years? Edited February 3, 2019 by row_33 1
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 15 minutes ago, row_33 said: People are gullible enough to pretend the bill won’t end up resulting in a total free-for-all infanticide in a few years? It is a free for all!!!!!
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 2 hours ago, B-Man said: Update: Sources telling @Lvozzella and me that tip to @bigleaguepol about Northam’s yearbook photo came from medical-school classmate or classmates upset about governor’s abortion remarks earlier in the week. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/lifestyle/style/a-tip-from-a-concerned-citizen-helps-a-reporter-land-the-scoop-of-a-lifetime/2019/02/03/e30762ea-2765-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html … 12:46 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Gee, too bad those physicians didn't realize how the bill ACTUALLY should be interpreted . The ultimate in ad hominem attacks. And weak-ass bull####. "We can't argue with his support of infanticide...wait, I know, we'll leak that he wore blackface once in school!" Northam's statements couldn't stand on their own, they didn't need an unrelated character assassination to cut him off at the knees.
row_33 Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 (edited) Meanwhile they are still using MRI technology to decipher the pen scrawls of Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook and diary Edited February 4, 2019 by row_33
Koko78 Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 18 minutes ago, DC Tom said: ...they didn't need an unrelated character assassination to cut him off at the knees. Depends on which 'they' you're talking about. Anti-abortion people didn't need to cut him off at the knees with an unrelated photo. The pro-abortion interests he just outed did.
3rdnlng Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: Depends on which 'they' you're talking about. Anti-abortion people didn't need to cut him off at the knees with an unrelated photo. The pro-abortion interests he just outed did. Hell, it could have been Planned Parenthood that outed him for those remarks. The lieutenant Governor is more abortion friendly than the Governor. The LG used to work for PP. 1
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 9 minutes ago, B-Man said: . "Let's talk about this..." - Northam. 1
B-Man Posted February 4, 2019 Posted February 4, 2019 ALEXANDRA DESANCTIS: Democrats Overplay Their Hand On Abortion: In New York and Virginia, state governments are working to loosen restrictions on late-term abortion—and giving the anti-abortion movement an opportunity. “It is unsurprising that abortions this late in pregnancy are vastly unpopular with the American public. Gallup polling from 2018 found that only 13 percent of Americans favor making third-trimester abortions “generally” legal, and only 18 percent of Democrats shared that position. Women reject late-term abortion at an even higher rate than men. A Marist survey from earlier this year found that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, and majorities of Democrats and those who describe themselves as pro-choice agreed.” This is why I think Trump should suggest we adopt a “more European” approach to the issue. Aside from the fun in watching lefties’ heads explode at having this “all civilized countries do it my way” argument thrown back at them, it’s also a political winner. .
Recommended Posts