New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted

[Numark3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

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. 

[3rdnlng]

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?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Numark3]

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]

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. 

 

 

[DC Tom]

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.

[Hedge]

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]

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]

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

[DC Tom]

1 minute 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?

 

Because the Hippocratic Oath is binding, with serious penalties attached.

[row_33]

keep trying, it has to be worth it for decency in this world

 

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by row_33

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Numark3]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

that camp is totally blind to any thinking along this way, you can try though.... 

 

 

 

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.  

[IDBillzFan]

16 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Gotcha.  I think this is the point of confusion.  Shall means mandatory in this context.  It’s not “may.”

 

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.

 

 

[Numark3]

6 minutes ago, GG said:

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?

 

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.  

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

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.  

 

Northrop explained that it does.

[Numark3]

Just now, 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.

 

 

 

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.  

[GG]

2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

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.  

Then what was Northrop referring to when he said that the parents and doctors can discuss it after birth.  CP occurs during delivery complications, which certainly straddles the line between pre and post birth.

[Numark3]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Northrop explained that it does.

 

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

Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, 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.

 

Hey, I learned something new. Interesting. 

[Numark3]

Just now, LABillzFan said:

 

Hey, I learned something new. Interesting. 

 

Yea!  Though interesting is a strong word haha.  These statutes are almost always written poorly with a ton of issues, so you'll see states choose shall or must, and overtime, try to make all of their statutes say one thing.  My state, minnesota, I believe passed a bill just going through all of the statutes and changing all of the musts to shalls.  As in, that was the only point of the bill.  

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

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!

1. When a person lacks empathy it can be a sign of sociopathic tendencies. I personally can't square your thoughts on full term children and ending their lives. My impression is on that issue is you lack empathy, hence my opinion about tendencies.

 

2. Apologies as you did not say I was souless. You were correct, I am not souless 

 

3. You don't know Kathy Tran, but you know her words and what she believes about the termination of the lives of children at the moment of birth. I do as well. To you, she may be a hero to the cause. To me, she is reprehensible. 

[Numark3]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

1. When a person lacks empathy it can be a sign of sociopathic tendencies. I personally can't square your thoughts on full term children and ending their lives. My impression is on that issue is you lack empathy, hence my opinion about tendencies.

 

I empahthize with the mother and family more with an unborn child.  It’s priority of empathy you have a problem with it. 

 

 

Quote

2. Apologies as you did not say I was souless. You were correct, I am not souless 

 

Beats me if you are!  I just didn’t accuse you of lacking one, how would I know.

 

Quote

 

3. You don't know Kathy Tran, but you know her words and what she believes about the termination of the lives of children at the moment of birth. I do as well. To you, she may be a hero to the cause. To me, she is reprehensible. 

 

I just don’t know anything about her, or her words.  Other than I believe she is the lady who sponsored the bill.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Crayola64

[row_33]

37 minutes ago, GG said:

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?

 

if his parents were moral people he would be fine

 

[DC Tom]

18 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

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

 

The governor executes and upholds the law...and again, in this authoritarian day and age...

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

I empahthize with the mother and family more with an unborn child.  It’s priority of empathy you have a problem with it. 

 

 

 

Beats me if you are!  I just didn’t accuse you of lacking one, how would I know.

 

 

I just don’t know anything about her, or her words.  Other than I believe she is the lady who sponsored the bill.

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. 

 

You already said I was not soul-less, and I agreed. You were right here, take a victory lap. 

 

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. 

[row_33]

10 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. 

 

that was really hardcore rough trade

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

that was really hardcore rough trade

 

I don't know what that means. I mean I get all the words individually, but strung together I'm not sure.