(05-08-2019 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:45 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Umm, I'd say it's pretty clear that Northam stated precisely that. Sounds to me like you're not willing to defend that, and are looking for some way around it. Now, how much he or his staff backtracks from that position in subsequent questioning, and whether that was a misspeak or what he actually intended, are issues that we can discuss. But his direct quote was pretty much stating that he would execute a baby after birth. And I didn't see or hear much imprecision.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, with limitations. But my limitations would not allow anything remotely close to what Northam described in pretty direct words.

Of course I'm not willing to defend that! Who would defend the execution of viable babies??!?! Do you think that there is a doctor or nurse in the United States who would participate in killing a healthy newborn baby?

I think Northam got a question that he wasn't really prepared for and stumbled on his answer. Do I think that he supports the murder of newborn babies? God, no.

You mean now that Kermit Gosnell is behind bars?

Laws matter, and the specific words of laws matter. I don't give a flip what doctors like Northam say they would and wouldn't do. Bully for them, but all doctors are humans, and that means there are some flawed, unethical doctors. Accordingly, laws need to be drawn so as to prohibit that which must not be done, not leave it up to doctors who say "even if the law allowed for that, we wouldn't do it."

+1. And that is the rationale behind the eventual outcome in the Citizen's United case as well and why the SCOTUS invalidated that particular statute.

But, in defense of Northam, the numbers of third trimester abortions is shockingly small (less than 1%) , and the estimated of 'golly just wanna have it' third trimester abortions (i.e. third trimester abortions that are *not* non-viable or severe fetal abnormalities) are probably less than 1% of that <1%.

Yes, the Gosnalls could (and do) happen. But I can understand Northam's answer with <1% being post- 24 weeks, and about 99% of that number being the 'non-viable' and 'severe abnormalities' situation.

If one wishes to add a proscription in the law as to viable healthy unborns post 24-weeks --- no problem from this quarter. But Northam's answer was very much directed to the norm of the post- 24 week period, imo.

I'm not accusing Northam of harboring a secret desire to pave the way for infanticide for healthy babies. I'm accusing him of being naïve, not very bright, and having poor judgment (which, incidentally, was also shown by thinking it was ok to dress up in blackface at a third-rate medical school). If the law allowed for it, it would happen, no matter what Northam can or cannot conceive of. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. And frankly, why did he and others dig in their heels against amendments to the drafted words to ensure that the stuff he assures us is so rare and beyond the pale, the less than 1% of 1%, remains so?

(05-08-2019 10:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:45 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Umm, I'd say it's pretty clear that Northam stated precisely that. Sounds to me like you're not willing to defend that, and are looking for some way around it. Now, how much he or his staff backtracks from that position in subsequent questioning, and whether that was a misspeak or what he actually intended, are issues that we can discuss. But his direct quote was pretty much stating that he would execute a baby after birth. And I didn't see or hear much imprecision.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, with limitations. But my limitations would not allow anything remotely close to what Northam described in pretty direct words.

Of course I'm not willing to defend that! Who would defend the execution of viable babies??!?! Do you think that there is a doctor or nurse in the United States who would participate in killing a healthy newborn baby?

I think Northam got a question that he wasn't really prepared for and stumbled on his answer. Do I think that he supports the murder of newborn babies? God, no.

You mean now that Kermit Gosnell is behind bars?

Laws matter, and the specific words of laws matter. I don't give a flip what doctors like Northam say they would and wouldn't do. Bully for them, but all doctors are humans, and that means there are some flawed, unethical doctors. Accordingly, laws need to be drawn so as to prohibit that which must not be done, not leave it up to doctors who say "even if the law allowed for that, we wouldn't do it."

Not completely familiar with Gosnell's story but was he executing full-term, viable babies or was he killing babies in earlier trimesters who were felt to be viable outside the womb? Not that it makes a major difference but trying to figure out the details as it relates to the proposed legislation.

Can you really legislate monsters like this away? I look at arguments like you just made and I think, "Wait... I thought Republicans think gun laws are pointless because criminals won't obey the laws anyway?"

Without putting too fine a point on it, Gosnell aborted anyone, anytime, anyplace, any trimester, any reason or no reason, and if he didn't get the job done inside the mother, he took care of it outside the mother.

Your gun control analogy is flawed. All laws get violated. Laws against murder may not prevent murderers from murdering but they serve a clear societal purpose by acknowledging what is malum in se as such. The fact that the law is going to be violated is not an argument against its utility. When, on the other hand, something previously neutral or legal is proposed to be made illegal (malum prohibitum), then yeah, it is kind of a conservative instinct to say wait a minute...knowing that this law, like all laws, is going to be violated by those who ignore laws, what is the justification for also making this heretofore-legal-thing off limits to the law-abiding?

I agree with you. I've always been annoyed by the gun rights people who make the argument that laws are pointless.

Quote:I also think it's a classic conservative position that laws should be downstream from society/culture. As the latter changes and evolves, then and only then should the laws be changed, democratically, to reflect that. The progressive position, again not to put too fine a point on it, is the opposite. Change the law first -- legislatively or judicially, whichever is more expedient -- and the "enlightening" of society will follow.

And there are those who believe in infanticide and are considered quite enlightened, to the point of having endowed chairs at Princeton and other cultural vanguards. So it's not paranoid to think the idea may have found some purchase in the Virginia House of Delegates and elsewhere -- and if it hasn't, it shouldn't be any problem to agree to some specific words that make that clear.

I may be naive. I can't fathom that people without severe, rare psychiatric disorders would be ok with murdering full-term, healthy infants after delivery. It seems so absurd that I can't imagine the need for laws forbidding it. Again... I may just be naive. I need to do some reading on the reasons that Democrats are pushing for some of these laws.