CSNbbs

(05-16-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/men-ca...7Kz#page=2

"Twenty-five members of the Alabama State Senate voted to pass the nation's most restrictive abortion bill on Tuesday — and every single one of them were white men."


\Why is their race important?

\Also, should men not be allowed to vote on this?

Race isn't important.

Men should certainly be allowed to vote on women's issues.

People's backgrounds inform and influence their views.

So why bring it up?

Did you read my last line?

yes, of course.

(05-16-2019 08:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 07:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-15-2019 05:35 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]The most common formulation seems to be "If you don't support X, it's because he/she is Y, and therefore you are Y-ist" -- which is identity politics in condescending and divisive form.

Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?

It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

Certainly not with that attitude. :(

In my experience — specifically including interactions with Rice faculty — difficulties in having useful conversation are mostly driven not by alleged racists, but by racism-baiters, who are hardly paralyzed by any reluctance to condescend. Almost as a rule, they do not even want conversation. They want to scold; whether their target deserves scolding is mostly irrelevant.

I see what you’re saying on an individual, one-on-one conversation, and jumping the gun in terms of someone’s rationale, but do we not think sexism is still influencing a portion of the population’s decision making?

It is clear that in 2016 a great many Clinton voters (though perhaps not a majority) supported her for sexist reasons. On the other hand, if Margaret Thatcher had been American, she would have won the White House thirty years ago. So yes, sexism seems to influence a portion of the population's decision-making. But only a portion.

You mentioned conversations. I can't have a conversation with the US population; I can only converse with people I interact with. And I've tried to do that -- tried quite hard. In that experience, the difficulties in having useful conversation about -isms have come almost entirely from the ism-baiters, not from the accused or presumed -ists.

To give a couple of examples of my attempts:
- During the campus debate about the College Master title (which never really was a debate), a Rice professor told me that since I didn't agree with him that the title Master was intolerable, I wanted Rice to go back to being a segregated campus.

- During a discussion of NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, I suggested that opposition to the gesture is not necessarily racist, or even necessarily based on opposition to Black Lives Matter itself: one can reasonably believe that the National Anthem should not be used as a vehicle to call attention to ANY personal cause, no matter how important. That's an entirely neutral view: it does not matter what skin color the advocate has, or whether the cause is "Black Lives Matter" or "Abortion Is Murder" or "God Hates Fags". In response, I was called racist. And for good measure, since one of the people who disagreed with me was female, I was called sexist too. As you know, I am neither.

Of the roadblocks to productive conversation, skittishness on the part of ism-baiters seems to be pretty far down the list.

This is a big problem. If we can't have reasonable discussions when we have different viewpoints then we are just going to widen the already-too-wide divide in our nation.

(05-16-2019 04:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 08:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 07:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, based on comments from Owl#s and OO, it seems that both have experience suggesting that this formulation does exist. So if we admit that people do act against others because they are Y, how do we go about talking about that and combatting it? Or do we not for fear that someone might feel that someone is being condescending to them?
It seems to be a rather difficult issue, rife with problems, that doesn’t lend itself to generating any productive conversations.

Certainly not with that attitude. :(
In my experience — specifically including interactions with Rice faculty — difficulties in having useful conversation are mostly driven not by alleged racists, but by racism-baiters, who are hardly paralyzed by any reluctance to condescend. Almost as a rule, they do not even want conversation. They want to scold; whether their target deserves scolding is mostly irrelevant.

I see what you’re saying on an individual, one-on-one conversation, and jumping the gun in terms of someone’s rationale, but do we not think sexism is still influencing a portion of the population’s decision making?

It is clear that in 2016 a great many Clinton voters (though perhaps not a majority) supported her for sexist reasons. On the other hand, if Margaret Thatcher had been American, she would have won the White House thirty years ago. So yes, sexism seems to influence a portion of the population's decision-making. But only a portion.
You mentioned conversations. I can't have a conversation with the US population; I can only converse with people I interact with. And I've tried to do that -- tried quite hard. In that experience, the difficulties in having useful conversation about -isms have come almost entirely from the ism-baiters, not from the accused or presumed -ists.
To give a couple of examples of my attempts:
- During the campus debate about the College Master title (which never really was a debate), a Rice professor told me that since I didn't agree with him that the title Master was intolerable, I wanted Rice to go back to being a segregated campus.
- During a discussion of NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, I suggested that opposition to the gesture is not necessarily racist, or even necessarily based on opposition to Black Lives Matter itself: one can reasonably believe that the National Anthem should not be used as a vehicle to call attention to ANY personal cause, no matter how important. That's an entirely neutral view: it does not matter what skin color the advocate has, or whether the cause is "Black Lives Matter" or "Abortion Is Murder" or "God Hates Fags". In response, I was called racist. And for good measure, since one of the people who disagreed with me was female, I was called sexist too. As you know, I am neither.
Of the roadblocks to productive conversation, skittishness on the part of ism-baiters seems to be pretty far down the list.

This is a big problem. If we can't have reasonable discussions when we have different viewpoints then we are just going to widen the already-too-wide divide in our nation.

One thing that I have enjoyed particularly about this particular chat room is that we have been able to disagree, sometimes very strongly, while for the most part not being disagreeable. I think that is a lesson that we as a nation need to learn. Maybe the world should just be run by Rice people.

ETA: Got a confession to make. I'm not sure what I typed, but autocorrect changed "Rice" to "white" when I originally posted. I'm just thankful that I caught the error and was able to correct it before anybody reacted to it.

(05-16-2019 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 04:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 08:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 07:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Certainly not with that attitude. :(
In my experience — specifically including interactions with Rice faculty — difficulties in having useful conversation are mostly driven not by alleged racists, but by racism-baiters, who are hardly paralyzed by any reluctance to condescend. Almost as a rule, they do not even want conversation. They want to scold; whether their target deserves scolding is mostly irrelevant.

I see what you’re saying on an individual, one-on-one conversation, and jumping the gun in terms of someone’s rationale, but do we not think sexism is still influencing a portion of the population’s decision making?

It is clear that in 2016 a great many Clinton voters (though perhaps not a majority) supported her for sexist reasons. On the other hand, if Margaret Thatcher had been American, she would have won the White House thirty years ago. So yes, sexism seems to influence a portion of the population's decision-making. But only a portion.
You mentioned conversations. I can't have a conversation with the US population; I can only converse with people I interact with. And I've tried to do that -- tried quite hard. In that experience, the difficulties in having useful conversation about -isms have come almost entirely from the ism-baiters, not from the accused or presumed -ists.
To give a couple of examples of my attempts:
- During the campus debate about the College Master title (which never really was a debate), a Rice professor told me that since I didn't agree with him that the title Master was intolerable, I wanted Rice to go back to being a segregated campus.
- During a discussion of NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, I suggested that opposition to the gesture is not necessarily racist, or even necessarily based on opposition to Black Lives Matter itself: one can reasonably believe that the National Anthem should not be used as a vehicle to call attention to ANY personal cause, no matter how important. That's an entirely neutral view: it does not matter what skin color the advocate has, or whether the cause is "Black Lives Matter" or "Abortion Is Murder" or "God Hates Fags". In response, I was called racist. And for good measure, since one of the people who disagreed with me was female, I was called sexist too. As you know, I am neither.
Of the roadblocks to productive conversation, skittishness on the part of ism-baiters seems to be pretty far down the list.

This is a big problem. If we can't have reasonable discussions when we have different viewpoints then we are just going to widen the already-too-wide divide in our nation.

One thing that I have enjoyed particularly about this particular chat room is that we have been able to disagree, sometimes very strongly, while for the most part not being disagreeable. I think that is a lesson that we as a nation need to learn. Maybe the world should just be run by Rice people.

Elitist.

We need Aggies and Longhorns for diversity.



J/K

(05-16-2019 02:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 02:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 01:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Race isn't important.

Men should certainly be allowed to vote on women's issues.

People's backgrounds inform and influence their views.

So why bring it up?

I think the optics of a bunch of white men voting for a law that is going to disproportionately affect poor women (and therefore black women) in Alabama is what has generated some anger.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...ate-senate


"An abortion ban as radical as the one voted for in Alabama is about the elimination of women – particularly poor women – as a threat to the social order; it is a measure designed to ensure that poor people stay poor, and women stay home."

"to lose control of one’s reproductive health is to lose control of one’s life, or that a woman without means to travel will be forced to carry a baby with severe fetal abnormalities to term, or simply that the consequence of sex is once again borne by the woman – all the things that were supposed to have been banished in 1973."

"People of means who want abortions in Alabama will fly out of state, as they always have, given that the state has only three abortion clinics. For everyone else, an abortion is not only a cost investment but an emotional and imaginative one. It is hard enough, in a state such as Alabama, to get the courage up to go to an abortion clinic. But to have to travel vast distances for a frightening procedure that is illegal at home might be for many, too much. Which is of course why the bill passed. Everything about it says: stay where you are."

Nothing like a dual 'sexist' and 'racist' deplorable knee jerk. When in doubt, use all the divisions you can.

I don't know, Tanq. Given Alabama's fraught history with their treatment of black people perhaps you should give them some level of a pass when it comes to anger over this issue?

Just pointing out that is some segments it is 'all about racism, all the time', and 'all about sexism, all the time', wash, rinse, repeat and add in whatever aggrieved segment du jour.

In this vein, what did you think of the reporting on the Kavanaugh hearings that stressed both the sex and racial makeup of one side's Judiciary Committee delegation? I think your stretch to say 'well gee, the population of Supreme Court nominees has been traditionally poor (i.e. black)' goes straight out the window, doesn't it?

And yes, I am pretty fing tired of the incessant ringing of that (those) bell(s). And perhaps that incessant ringing has made be a tad jaundiced over every single time the bell is rung, which may or may not have a scintilla of justification.

Quote:What are your thoughts on this Alabama abortion law?

I think the Alabama legislature wackjobs are only equaled by the NY legislature and VA legislature wackjobs on the same subject, but opposite polarity.

I will paraphrase a post I saw elsewhere by someone whose views I respect greatly that each side in this shithole of a subject has gone stark raving mad in their exhibition of extremism.

What are your thoughts? Or is that last line just a tagline rhetorical question?

(05-16-2019 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 04:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 08:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 07:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I see what you’re saying on an individual, one-on-one conversation, and jumping the gun in terms of someone’s rationale, but do we not think sexism is still influencing a portion of the population’s decision making?

It is clear that in 2016 a great many Clinton voters (though perhaps not a majority) supported her for sexist reasons. On the other hand, if Margaret Thatcher had been American, she would have won the White House thirty years ago. So yes, sexism seems to influence a portion of the population's decision-making. But only a portion.
You mentioned conversations. I can't have a conversation with the US population; I can only converse with people I interact with. And I've tried to do that -- tried quite hard. In that experience, the difficulties in having useful conversation about -isms have come almost entirely from the ism-baiters, not from the accused or presumed -ists.
To give a couple of examples of my attempts:
- During the campus debate about the College Master title (which never really was a debate), a Rice professor told me that since I didn't agree with him that the title Master was intolerable, I wanted Rice to go back to being a segregated campus.
- During a discussion of NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, I suggested that opposition to the gesture is not necessarily racist, or even necessarily based on opposition to Black Lives Matter itself: one can reasonably believe that the National Anthem should not be used as a vehicle to call attention to ANY personal cause, no matter how important. That's an entirely neutral view: it does not matter what skin color the advocate has, or whether the cause is "Black Lives Matter" or "Abortion Is Murder" or "God Hates Fags". In response, I was called racist. And for good measure, since one of the people who disagreed with me was female, I was called sexist too. As you know, I am neither.
Of the roadblocks to productive conversation, skittishness on the part of ism-baiters seems to be pretty far down the list.

This is a big problem. If we can't have reasonable discussions when we have different viewpoints then we are just going to widen the already-too-wide divide in our nation.

One thing that I have enjoyed particularly about this particular chat room is that we have been able to disagree, sometimes very strongly, while for the most part not being disagreeable. I think that is a lesson that we as a nation need to learn. Maybe the world should just be run by Rice people.

Elitist.

We need Aggies and Longhorns for diversity.



J/K

How dare you forget UH and TSU. They are our neighbors for goodness sake... how dare we reject their wish to make their lives better?

No Walls!!!! NO Hedges!!!! Abolish ( R )ICE!!!!!

(05-17-2019 07:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Rice93' pid='16101607' dateline='1558034390']
[quote='tanqtonic' pid='16101575' dateline='1558033628']
[quote='Rice93' pid='16101552' dateline='1558032932']
[quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16101260' dateline='1558024576']


I think the Alabama legislature wackjobs are only equaled by the NY legislature and VA legislature wackjobs on the same subject, but opposite polarity.

I will paraphrase a post I saw elsewhere by someone whose views I respect greatly that each side in this shithole of a subject has gone stark raving mad in their exhibition of extremism.

What are your thoughts? Or is that last line just a tagline rhetorical question?

As I understand it, the Alabama law will mean that if an 12-year-old girl is raped by her uncle and gets pregnant then she will be compelled to have the baby. Horrific, right?

What is equally horrific in the New York bill?

The following is from Snopes:

"1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.


3) It removes abortion from the criminal code and places it entirely within the realm of public health law. Performing a late-term abortion had previously been a felony in New York, which as the Syracuse Post-Standard observed, “had a chilling effect on doctors in New York who were reluctant to provide abortions after 24 weeks when the mother’s life was in danger or the fetus was no longer viable. In a widely reported case, one New York woman had to travel to Colorado to terminate her pregnancy when she found out after 31 weeks that the baby she was carrying would not survive outside the womb.”"

This may not be a website that you trust so I'd be interested in what your views are regarding the New York bill that make it just as horrifying as the Alabama bill.

(05-17-2019 07:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 04:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2019 08:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]It is clear that in 2016 a great many Clinton voters (though perhaps not a majority) supported her for sexist reasons. On the other hand, if Margaret Thatcher had been American, she would have won the White House thirty years ago. So yes, sexism seems to influence a portion of the population's decision-making. But only a portion.
You mentioned conversations. I can't have a conversation with the US population; I can only converse with people I interact with. And I've tried to do that -- tried quite hard. In that experience, the difficulties in having useful conversation about -isms have come almost entirely from the ism-baiters, not from the accused or presumed -ists.
To give a couple of examples of my attempts:
- During the campus debate about the College Master title (which never really was a debate), a Rice professor told me that since I didn't agree with him that the title Master was intolerable, I wanted Rice to go back to being a segregated campus.
- During a discussion of NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, I suggested that opposition to the gesture is not necessarily racist, or even necessarily based on opposition to Black Lives Matter itself: one can reasonably believe that the National Anthem should not be used as a vehicle to call attention to ANY personal cause, no matter how important. That's an entirely neutral view: it does not matter what skin color the advocate has, or whether the cause is "Black Lives Matter" or "Abortion Is Murder" or "God Hates Fags". In response, I was called racist. And for good measure, since one of the people who disagreed with me was female, I was called sexist too. As you know, I am neither.
Of the roadblocks to productive conversation, skittishness on the part of ism-baiters seems to be pretty far down the list.

This is a big problem. If we can't have reasonable discussions when we have different viewpoints then we are just going to widen the already-too-wide divide in our nation.

One thing that I have enjoyed particularly about this particular chat room is that we have been able to disagree, sometimes very strongly, while for the most part not being disagreeable. I think that is a lesson that we as a nation need to learn. Maybe the world should just be run by Rice people.

Elitist.

We need Aggies and Longhorns for diversity.



J/K

How dare you forget UH and TSU. They are our neighbors for goodness sake... how dare we reject their wish to make their lives better?

No Walls!!!! NO Hedges!!!! Abolish ( R )ICE!!!!!

I guess now I will be labeled a UH-ophobe. And of course, the TSU snub means I am a racist.

In a somewhat related vein...

Trump on Buttegieg's husband

Good to remember this when charges of homophobia are leveled at Trump.

The problem 93, is in the way the phrase 'the health of the mother is threatened'.

The NY lawmakers *could* have rephrased that to 'the life', or even to 'the physical health'. Think about the differences.

Had they done either of those two I probably would be fine with that portion of the NY bill. But, 93, I hate to tell you that legally "words matter", both their *inclusion* and to their *exclusion*.

But, even worse, and fatal to the 'gee its okay' in its own right, follows.

The second issue is that the actual bill is worded in the positive:

Quote:A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

Their is no penalty for violating the 'allowance'. Again -- the state of New York has *zero* penalty for violating Section 2599. Lets get down and dirty -- New York has enacted a regime that has removed *all* civil and criminal liability for performing an abortion up until delivery.

So yes --- it is extremist as fk when you actually understand what it has put into place. And to be blunt, it is fking horrific.

In short, this bill allows what Kermit Gosnell did for years with zero penalty. Literally. Are you actually good with that? While there is a (not explicit but implicit) proscription against third term viable pregnancy abortions, a violation of that proscription has zero consequences -- either civilly or criminally.

No offense 93 -- read the bill and understand all of its implications before opining on it.

(05-17-2019 09:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]The problem 93, is in the way the phrase 'the health of the mother is threatened'.

The NY lawmakers *could* have rephrased that to 'the life', or even to 'the physical health'. Think about the differences.

Had they done either of those two I probably would be fine with that portion of the NY bill. But, 93, I hate to tell you that legally "words matter", both their *inclusion* and to their *exclusion*.

But, even worse, and fatal to the 'gee its okay' in its own right, follows.

The second issue is that the actual bill is worded in the positive:

Quote:A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

Their is no penalty for violating the 'allowance'. Again -- the state of New York has *zero* penalty for violating Section 2599. Lets get down and dirty -- New York has enacted a regime that has removed *all* civil and criminal liability for performing an abortion up until delivery.

So yes --- it is extremist as fk when you actually understand what it has put into place. And to be blunt, it is fking horrific.

In short, this bill allows what Kermit Gosnell did for years with zero penalty. Literally. Are you actually good with that? While there is a (not explicit but implicit) proscription against third term viable pregnancy abortions, a violation of that proscription has zero consequences -- either civilly or criminally.

No offense 93 -- read the bill and understand all of its implications before opining on it.

As I read it, there have to be justifiable reasons for performing abortions beyond the second trimester. The justification will be made by the health care provider. If the provider is not meeting the standard care then their license to deliver care would presumably be revoked?

From what I've read, the point of changing the criminal aspect of performing an abortion was to bring this issue from under the umbrella of criminal law and putting it under the umbrella of public health law?

I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 09:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]The problem 93, is in the way the phrase 'the health of the mother is threatened'.

The NY lawmakers *could* have rephrased that to 'the life', or even to 'the physical health'. Think about the differences.

Had they done either of those two I probably would be fine with that portion of the NY bill. But, 93, I hate to tell you that legally "words matter", both their *inclusion* and to their *exclusion*.

But, even worse, and fatal to the 'gee its okay' in its own right, follows.

The second issue is that the actual bill is worded in the positive:

Quote:A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

Their is no penalty for violating the 'allowance'. Again -- the state of New York has *zero* penalty for violating Section 2599. Lets get down and dirty -- New York has enacted a regime that has removed *all* civil and criminal liability for performing an abortion up until delivery.

So yes --- it is extremist as fk when you actually understand what it has put into place. And to be blunt, it is fking horrific.

In short, this bill allows what Kermit Gosnell did for years with zero penalty. Literally. Are you actually good with that? While there is a (not explicit but implicit) proscription against third term viable pregnancy abortions, a violation of that proscription has zero consequences -- either civilly or criminally.

No offense 93 -- read the bill and understand all of its implications before opining on it.

As I read it, there have to be justifiable reasons for performing abortions beyond the second trimester. The justification will be made by the health care provider. If the provider is not meeting the standard care then their license to deliver care would presumably be revoked?

Not under the law in question. There is *no* penalty for violating the section. As in zero, nada, nilch. I find it great that you would welcome any penalty, I am glad you tap your slippers together three times and proffer one, but there is none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

As for 'justifiable reasons', those reasons include the 'health of the mother'. Not 'physical health', but 'health'. Including 'mental health.' To be blunt, the 'mental health' exception is one that people can drive a fleet of 18 wheelers through for a justification rationale.

Quote:From what I've read, the point of changing the criminal aspect of performing an abortion was to bring this issue from under the umbrella of criminal law and putting it under the umbrella of public health law?

I personally think a 'Gosnell-type' abortion needs to have criminal penalties associated with it. Do you even know who Kermit Gosnell is and why I am referring to him?

In short, under these provisions, Gosnell and his practices would be untouchable. Not only that but earlier this year the Queens DA pulled off the table a charge under the old 'viability standard' based on the change in law.

Quote:In February 2019, the Queens district attorney's office dropped a charge of second-degree abortion against a man who murdered his pregnant girlfriend, saying their ability to press the charge was repealed by the Reproductive Health Act.

Quote:I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

The problem is that this law *allows* literally the murder of a 8.99 month old viable pre-delivery infant. Even if it is 'closely scrutinized'. Being 'closely scrutinized' doesnt really help any viable fetus, does it?

I guess when the standard is 'closely scrutinized' then a law that *allows* and has zero penalty for its violation is okey dokey.

In that case, lets just make, say forcible rape subject to non-penalty bearing standards, since that too should be 'closely scrutinized'. Does that sound fun to you?

In short, this law shuts out *any* penalty for *any* abortion: from an RU-86 clump of cells-cide to as close as you can get for actual murder, to be blunt. I think where there is room in this law for someone like Kermit Gosnell (or the asswipe who knifed his pregnant girlfriend) to avoid not just jail time, but even a gd fine is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

So yes, I still stand by my 'horrific' standard for this law.

(05-17-2019 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='tanqtonic' pid='16102940' dateline='1558102278']
The problem 93, is in the way the phrase 'the health of the mother is threatened'.

The NY lawmakers *could* have rephrased that to 'the life', or even to 'the physical health'. Think about the differences.

Had they done either of those two I probably would be fine with that portion of the NY bill. But, 93, I hate to tell you that legally "words matter", both their *inclusion* and to their *exclusion*.

But, even worse, and fatal to the 'gee its okay' in its own right, follows.

The second issue is that the actual bill is worded in the positive:

Quote:A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

Their is no penalty for violating the 'allowance'. Again -- the state of New York has *zero* penalty for violating Section 2599. Lets get down and dirty -- New York has enacted a regime that has removed *all* civil and criminal liability for performing an abortion up until delivery.

So yes --- it is extremist as fk when you actually understand what it has put into place. And to be blunt, it is fking horrific.

In short, this bill allows what Kermit Gosnell did for years with zero penalty. Literally. Are you actually good with that? While there is a (not explicit but implicit) proscription against third term viable pregnancy abortions, a violation of that proscription has zero consequences -- either civilly or criminally.

No offense 93 -- read the bill and understand all of its implications before opining on it.

As I read it, there have to be justifiable reasons for performing abortions beyond the second trimester. The justification will be made by the health care provider. If the provider is not meeting the standard care then their license to deliver care would presumably be revoked?

Not under the law in question. There is *no* penalty for violating the section. As in zero, nada, nilch. I find it great that you would welcome any penalty, I am glad you tap your slippers together three times and proffer one, but there is none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

As for 'justifiable reasons', those reasons include the 'health of the mother'. Not 'physical health', but 'health'. Including 'mental health.' To be blunt, the 'mental health' exception is one that people can drive a fleet of 18 wheelers through for a justification rationale.

Quote:From what I've read, the point of changing the criminal aspect of performing an abortion was to bring this issue from under the umbrella of criminal law and putting it under the umbrella of public health law?

I personally think a 'Gosnell-type' abortion needs to have criminal penalties associated with it. Do you even know who Kermit Gosnell is and why I am referring to him?

[\quote]

yes

Quote:In short, under these provisions, Gosnell and his practices would be untouchable. Not only that but earlier this year the Queens DA pulled off the table a charge under the old 'viability standard' based on the change in law.

Quote:In February 2019, the Queens district attorney's office dropped a charge of second-degree abortion against a man who murdered his pregnant girlfriend, saying their ability to press the charge was repealed by the Reproductive Health Act.

Quote:I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

The problem is that this law *allows* literally the murder of a 8.99 month old viable pre-delivery infant. Even if it is 'closely scrutinized'. Being 'closely scrutinized' doesnt really help any viable fetus, does it?

I guess when the standard is 'closely scrutinized' then a law that *allows* and has zero penalty for its violation is okey dokey.

In that case, lets just make, say forcible rape subject to non-penalty bearing standards, since that too should be 'closely scrutinized'. Does that sound fun to you?

In short, this law shuts out *any* penalty for *any* abortion: from an RU-86 clump of cells-cide to as close as you can get for actual murder, to be blunt. I think where there is room in this law for someone like Kermit Gosnell (or the asswipe who knifed his pregnant girlfriend) to avoid not just jail time, but even a gd fine is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

So yes, I still stand by my 'horrific' standard for this law.

I get your opposition to the law as written. Would you be OK with it, then, if it said "physical health"?

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

(05-17-2019 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

(05-17-2019 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I get your opposition to the law as written. Would you be OK with it, then, if it said "physical health"?

No. That would not have any effect on the 'zero punishment' issue of the bill.

In order to prevent the Gosnells of this world, there must be a punishment associated with those acts.

The biggest issue for me is the 'zero punishment' for a violation of the proscription.

And, to be honest, that is its intended effect. The zero punishment is not a byproduct -- the act did far more than create Section 2599.

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

Scrutinized by whom?

It takes two doctors, right? So, you and I start an abortion mill. You sign off on mine, and I sign off on yours.

If not to facilitate an uptick in questionable abortions, what is the purpose of this bill?

(05-17-2019 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

Then why not enact an exemption to the previous third semester abortion statute which says 'Abortions of non-viable fetuses are exempted.'?

Sorry '93, I really dont think how you 'understand it' tells the full story.

The NY Legislature could have put 'non-viable' into a penalty-bearing statute. They *chose* not to.

They could have exempted *non-viable* procedures into the then standing statute. They *chose* not to.

What they *did* choose to do is simply 'make third semester abortions' *far* easier to obtain overall *and* with *zero* punishment for a provider that violated the provision.

Your 'understanding' and what the actions of Legislature were, and what the previous law *was* are simply not on the same level.

I dont think you fully understand the impact of a law with *zero* civil or criminal penalties, nor what that zero penalty stance says about the full intent of Legislature.

The simple fact is the NY Legislature may have wanted easier access to non-viable and health complication their semester abortions -- what they did is make *any* and *all* third semester abortions okey dokey. The lack of a penalty speaks volumes about their true intent.

(05-17-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

Then why not enact an exemption to the previous third semester abortion statute which says 'Abortions of non-viable fetuses are exempted.'?

Sorry '93, I really dont think how you 'understand it' tells the full story.

The NY Legislature could have put 'non-viable' into a penalty-bearing statute. They *chose* not to.

They could have exempted *non-viable* procedures into the then standing statute. They *chose* not to.

What they *did* choose to do is simply 'make third semester abortions' *far* easier to obtain overall *and* with *zero* punishment for a provider that violated the provision.

Your 'understanding' and what the actions of Legislature were, and what the previous law *was* are simply not on the same level.

I dont think you fully understand the impact of a law with *zero* civil or criminal penalties, nor what that zero penalty stance says about the full intent of Legislature.

The simple fact is the NY Legislature may have wanted easier access to non-viable and health complication their semester abortions -- what they did is make *any* and *all* third semester abortions okey dokey. The lack of a penalty speaks volumes about their true intent.

How does this law make *any* and *all* third trimester abortions OK? Are you saying that because "mental health" could be seen as a justification for a 3rd trimester abortion?

You are probably right regarding the wording of the bill. I'm not a lawyer. I guess that I have faith that nobody is really wanting to abort healthy 3rd trimester fetuses. I also have faith in the medical profession that this practice would not be accepted. I know that there are monsters/outliers in every profession but as the gun lobby has pointed out I don't think these monsters will be swayed in either direction by legislation. If a doctor is going to make up a "fake" mental health issue to justify an abortion then he/she could easily make up a fake "physical health" issue to justify it as well.

(05-17-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

Then why not enact an exemption to the previous third semester abortion statute which says 'Abortions of non-viable fetuses are exempted.'?

Sorry '93, I really dont think how you 'understand it' tells the full story.

The NY Legislature could have put 'non-viable' into a penalty-bearing statute. They *chose* not to.

They could have exempted *non-viable* procedures into the then standing statute. They *chose* not to.

What they *did* choose to do is simply 'make third semester abortions' *far* easier to obtain overall *and* with *zero* punishment for a provider that violated the provision.

Your 'understanding' and what the actions of Legislature were, and what the previous law *was* are simply not on the same level.

I dont think you fully understand the impact of a law with *zero* civil or criminal penalties, nor what that zero penalty stance says about the full intent of Legislature.

The simple fact is the NY Legislature may have wanted easier access to non-viable and health complication their semester abortions -- what they did is make *any* and *all* third semester abortions okey dokey. The lack of a penalty speaks volumes about their true intent.

What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.