DC Tom Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) keep trying, it has to be worth it for decency in this world Edited January 31, 2019 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts