Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 17:57:01 GMT -5
Let me clarify what I meant. Yes of course fetal viability is a criterion. But it doesn’t HAVE to be in an individual case. And I do sympathize with the plight of Ms. Christensen. And I can see how abortion law in a pluralistic society could allow for that. BUT...the “OR” is morally problematic to me because in theory, a healthy fetus could be aborted due to a vague declaration that the mother’s health is at risk - which could be physical or mental health To me, that could encompass any reason at all for a late term abortion even severe stress at the thought of putting a baby up for adoption. I don’t know if that is a way this will play out, but the wording, to me, doesn’t eliminate that possibility or have any stipulation for how grave the medical situation must be. Because a doctor confronting a real patient with all her possible variable individual conditions should make that determination, not a legislator hysterically conjuring extreme situations out of his imagination (and in fact ones that are pretty damn unlikely).
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 30, 2019 17:59:08 GMT -5
In the interest of addressing "other stuff" that ain't got nothin' to do with Abortion Debate#7800, let me ask the resident New Yorker about this:
My wife has had surgery on both her knees. She loves NYC as much as I do, but my Lord, does she struggle with those hard-ass subway steps. Why in the hell is it in 2019 in the greatest city in the world in the supposed greatest country in the world are we worrying about building a fucking WALL to combat a threat that doesn't exist, those billions of bucks aren't being spent on infrastructure including fixing up the NYC subway system?
Malaysia Goodson should not be dead and her baby should not have to grow up without her mother. She will because too many politicians, bureaucrats and the public have the wrong priorities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 18:11:18 GMT -5
oh, god, this was so sad. Here's the thing. Our subway system is ancient. Lots of the stops don't have elevators -- and for many of them, it would be next to physically impossible to do it. (narrow tracks, bedrock, other stuff underground, rock...you should see some of these stops.) The damn thing is a mess, desperately needs all kinds of repairs and updates, and is immensely overburdened (we need more lines and trains). We're still repairing stops damaged in hurricane Sandy. Taking aside the ancient infrastructure and the amount of work needed, there's the money. This falls under Cuomo's bailiwick, and he has not exactly prioritized it; he and DeBlasio and the MTA have been at war over it forever. Finally, there's the time/logistics issue. Putting in an elevator means you close the stop and dig up the street. You're routing already packed, overburdened trains around it. Street traffic is affected. I live near an express stop that had an elevator put in a few years ago, and hoo boy. It's great now, but it was a huge pain in the ass for a while. Multiply that pain in the ass times a ton of stops. Bit by bit, they are adding elevators where they can. But it's a goddamn mess. Mostly, people stop and help you if you're struggling on steps with something. There's also the option of taking a bus rather than the subway. They can lower and the driver will help you on -- that's what folks in wheelchairs tend to do. But yeah, it's slower than the subway. Here, tragically, no one did stop to help (or maybe no one was around at that moment). Just heartbreaking. But the problem is so huge and expensive, I don't see it getting fixed any time soon. ETA: www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/nyregion/cuomo-mta-fare-increase.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 18:27:24 GMT -5
To note, raising the fares to pay for repairs and upgrades creates its own set of issues. Some cities have a "the farther out you live, the more your fare" policy for their public transport system. That maybe works okay in some cities, where the people at the ends of the service tend to be in reasonably well-off suburbs. Here, it tends to be the reverse -- the rich folks are in Manhattan. Lots of poor people live way out in the Bronx and Queens, and they depend on the system to get into work in Manhattan. They're barely making it as it is, paying $2.75 a ride. They can't afford to live closer in (see my previous posts about what it costs to live here), but the jobs are in Manhattan. And it's not just that they need the work -- the work also needs them. We need them able to afford to get in and out of the city.
And indeed, we all need the subway. Fuhgeddabout getting around in cars and cabs -- the streets are jammed. By far the most efficient way to get anywhere here is by subway. If I tried to drive downtown during rush hour (or any time except the dead of night) it would take me two to three times as long, at least, to drive than to take the subway. Not to mention trying to park.
It's a huge problem. It needs to get fixed. Dunno how it's going to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 20:27:28 GMT -5
By the way, I am among the people who are not pleased by Amazon's plan to put a headquarters here. Part of it is the tax giveaway they're getting -- but another part of it is that I just can't imagine how out transportation infrastructure is going to deal.
That headquarters would have been such a welcome boon in Buffalo or Detroit. Here...yeah, a lot of us are not so keen. I would have been so much happier to see it go to revitalizing the rust belt.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 30, 2019 21:21:31 GMT -5
I call it a medical procedure. I call your characterization that the governor's "very clear suggestion" was an endorsement of infanticide a ridiculous distortion of what he said. If a fetus is delivered alive, then "made comfortable" while the doctors and mother have a discussion on whether or not to abort kill it, that's allowing for infanticide. I don't see how you or anyone else can't process that. If you're okay with it, you're okay with it (I'm betting you actually aren't), but Northam said what he said. Predictably, of course, it's getting walked back by his spokespeople: And as I already noted, what he said wasn't actually consistent with the proposed Virginia law, at all. But pretending he didn't say what he said is as stupid here as it is when any other pol--like Trump--says something idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 30, 2019 21:39:26 GMT -5
I call it a medical procedure. I call your characterization that the governor's "very clear suggestion" was an endorsement of infanticide a ridiculous distortion of what he said. If a fetus is delivered alive, then "made comfortable" while the doctors and mother have a discussion on whether or not to abort kill it, that's allowing for infanticide. I don't see how you or anyone else can't process that. If you're okay with it, you're okay with it (I'm betting you actually aren't), but Northam said what he said. Predictably, of course, it's getting walked back by his spokespeople: And as I already noted, what he said wasn't actually consistent with the proposed Virginia law, at all. But pretending he didn't say what he said is as stupid here as it is when any other pol--like Trump--says something idiotic. Does he say anything that's not idiotic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 21:47:38 GMT -5
Just curious whether either of you read my posts. Like, you actually cannot kill babies if they survive an abortion because Federal law and shit. Perhaps given that, it's not surprising that that the Virginia bill in fact doesn't say you can kill babies who survive an abortion. There is no danger, at all, whatsoever, that infanticide is going to be legal in Virginia. That's Fake News Finally, his remarks were in fact made in a particular context, e.g. severe fetal abnormalities. We're not talking about killing a baby who was going to survive. We're talking about a compassionate end for one who won't. Yeah, I know. No one reads my posts, and law schmaw. I really don't know why I bother. It's an utter waste of time. ETA: Here, someone else saying what I said: nymag-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/01/no-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2019%2F01%2Fno-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 30, 2019 22:18:38 GMT -5
If a fetus is delivered alive, then "made comfortable" while the doctors and mother have a discussion on whether or not to abort kill it, that's allowing for infanticide. I don't see how you or anyone else can't process that. If you're okay with it, you're okay with it (I'm betting you actually aren't), but Northam said what he said. I cannot believe that you seem to be so willfully ignoring the context that has already been presented. This is not about "aborting" or "killing" a born baby. It is about choosing NOT to administer life-saving procedures (like the initial resuscitation mentioned in the interview--healthy babies don't generally need to be resuscitated) for a baby with severe defects that is most surely suffering and will die. That you interpret this to mean that VA law, or lawmakers, or the VA governor are totes cool with killing a baby cuz Mom and Doc decide it's totes cool to kill the baby makes me want to scream. I personally think that we, as humans, have become and will continue to become more compassionate over the centuries, not less. You only have to look at how we've historically treated others to see an upward trend. It's only the scaremongers and doomsayers who claim that we'll soon be killing our young and elderly on whims, out of selfishness, that we are losing our "moral compass." And this is being done to further completely unrelated political agendas, imo. Nevertheless, people fall for it, often because they like to clutch their pearls and claim the world's going to hell. No one is pretending anything. I'd be the first person to freak the fuck out if I thought infanticide or any other -cide was being suggested. What's stupid is your interpretation, imo.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jan 30, 2019 23:10:59 GMT -5
As I said earlier I am about as Pro-life as an individual can be and I cannot see any way a person can take what the Virginia governor said as "Yeah, we'll plop out a healthy, happy baby then let the mother and doctor confer to decide whether or not they want to kill it."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 31, 2019 9:18:20 GMT -5
Just curious whether either of you read my posts. Like, you actually cannot kill babies if they survive an abortion because Federal law and shit. Perhaps given that, it's not surprising that that the Virginia bill in fact doesn't say you can kill babies who survive an abortion. There is no danger, at all, whatsoever, that infanticide is going to be legal in Virginia. That's Fake News Finally, his remarks were in fact made in a particular context, e.g. severe fetal abnormalities. We're not talking about killing a baby who was going to survive. We're talking about a compassionate end for one who won't. Yeah, I know. No one reads my posts, and law schmaw. I really don't know why I bother. It's an utter waste of time. I do read your posts and I don't think Northam actually supports infanticide. And as I said, the Va law is not consistent with what he was suggesting, regardless. So your "law schmaw" doesn't make any sense to me, since what he was suggesting isn't legal and shouldn't be legal.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 31, 2019 9:27:26 GMT -5
As I said earlier I am about as Pro-life as an individual can be and I cannot see any way a person can take what the Virginia governor said as "Yeah, we'll plop out a healthy, happy baby then let the mother and doctor confer to decide whether or not they want to kill it." I don't think that's what he meant to say or actually said, at all. What I think he did was offer an explanation that was a) not actually consistent with what was being proposed and b) so poorly said as to suggest infanticide was an option. Does that mean he thinks any baby who is born can be arbitrarily killed shortly after birth? No, of course not. He's clearly talking about babies who are distressed or who have sever deformities. But that invites new arbitrary lines (like we don't have enough in the abortion debate, already). But again, these were nothing but Northram's own foolish comments; it's not reflective of the Va law, much less the NY law, and I'm unaware of any serious group arguing for what he was suggesting (apart from allowing the same sort of end-of-life options that are there for all. He invited the response he received, even if some (most) was over the top.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 31, 2019 12:32:03 GMT -5
I call it a medical procedure. I call your characterization that the governor's "very clear suggestion" was an endorsement of infanticide a ridiculous distortion of what he said. If a fetus is delivered alive, then "made comfortable" while the doctors and mother have a discussion on whether or not to abort kill it, that's allowing for infanticide. I don't see how you or anyone else can't process that. If you're okay with it, you're okay with it (I'm betting you actually aren't), but Northam said what he said. Predictably, of course, it's getting walked back by his spokespeople:
Nowhere did the governor say anything that was an endorsement of infanticide. It's not about processing it or being okay with it. It's about what the man SAID and not how you INTERPRETED it. Infanticide was just the right-wing trigger-word of the day repeated by right-wingers on social media and then again on this board.
You're doing that thing again where when someone doesn't read and interpret something the same way you do, it can't be a simple difference of opinion or not treading it the way you did. They are "pretending" or they are "stupid."
Then you dismiss them by comparing them to Trump. Now seems like a good time for a reviewing of the facts.
I am not pretending and I definitely am not stupid and nobody here gives less of a fuck for President Pussygrabber than me.
Governor Northam did not endorse infanticide. He endorsed the wild ideal that a woman's reproductive decisions are none of your business and that's the thing that put a wild hair up your nose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 12:36:22 GMT -5
No serious group COULD advocate for infanticide, given that there's federal law expressly speaking to the issue.
I actually don't think he invited that response. IMO, this was a set-up by pro-life groups hoping to evoke some awkward response or response they could take out of context and run with. Mission accomplished. I'm shaking my damn head, because there was a much neater answer, if he'd been prepared for it. But he wasn't, probably because, since the law change wasn't about that, the question came out of left field. Lesson: prepare for questions like this when amending abortion laws.
Think about it -- nothing in the law or in the proposed changes to the law permits infanticide, and indeed federal law expressly says it's a no-go. So where was this question coming from? Also think about how the right-wing media and commentators have broadcast the comment far and wide, stripped of the context of the severe deformities, stripped of the context that the law in question isn't about this at all, and that indeed the law wouldn't permit states to legalize infanticide. Democrats in fact aren't advocating infanticide, there's no danger of it happening -- but lord-a-mercy, you'd never know that from the conservative outrage machine, would you?
It says much to me that before I took a look at the actual law and the actual context, my reaction to the comment was similar to Rob's, Vince's and c.e.'s -- "gaah, infanticide bad!" Once I looked at all that, though, I'm irritated as fuck at how the situation has been twisted and used by the right-wing outrage machine. (And yes, the left-wing outrage machine does stuff like this too. This is what partisan outrage machines do. But please, conservatives -- don't pretend your side doesn't do it.)
(BTW, one of the things I find saddest about all this -- women seeking this particular procedure are actually pretty damn sympathetic, if you look at the actual women getting it as opposed to imaginary scare-closet hypotheticals. This procedure is both painful and expensive -- it's not something anyone wants to use because "oh heck, I don't feel like having a baby after all" or "meh, I can't be bothered with birth control." The women seeking this procedure are women who really wanted to be moms, and are being robbed of that because of heartbreaking circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 31, 2019 12:58:22 GMT -5
So ppl with scoff at the source, but here's a national review item from David French. www.nationalreview.com/corner/virginia-abortion-bill-barbaric/Here's the thing. If you have a pregnant woman who can't maintain the pregnancy for health reasons, reasons beyond those that go beyond the normal risks with a healthy pregnancy, and they're beyond the 2nd trimester, and the baby can't survive outside for whatever reason, that seems to be one thing. If on the other hand, it's mental health, that a woman is labor about to deliver or close to delivering a healthy baby or mostly healthy, (Can still survive, but might have down syndrome, or anther issue, but not one that will make them suffer through a short, painful life) That's different. I know part of the response is going to be, no mother would.... Yes, there are some that would. Putting in language that draws that line clearly seems reasonable to me.
|
|