(05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: "Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities.
Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.
Quote:Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).
Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.
Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.
In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.
Quote:I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.
To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.
Quote:To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists.
The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.
The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.
Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.
Quote:It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.
Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.
I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.
If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?
Quote:*edit* I'm sorry you and your wife went through that.
Thank you. The decision for the procedure was not an issue. The larger issue was the discovery of the non-viability.