Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

[Loss Leader]

And you haven't actually answered my question.

I did. The answer is that there is no bright line. No one side is black and then immediately after passing some threshold, becomes white. That's not the way the universe works, it's not the way people work, and it's not the way the law works.

 

[theprestige]

... parents will choose what is in the best interests of their children.

Can you clarify what you mean here? On its face, this claim seems absurd to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

No abortion provider would agree to abort and kill a viable infant. It doesn't happen unless you are talking about a criminal doctor and in that case why would a new law stop him?

See, that's a much better argument than your denial that any such doctors exist. Now apply that logic to gun control.

But state laws regarding late term abortions are changing. If state laws provide loopholes for doctors to perform elective late term abortions, then a doctor wouldn't need to be a criminal in order to perform one.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did. The answer is that there is no bright line. No one side is black and then immediately after passing some threshold, becomes white. That's not the way the universe works, it's not the way people work, and it's not the way the law works.

Actually, that's precisely how the law works: an act which satisfies the requirements of a crime is illegal. An act which doesn't satisfy the requirements of a crime, no matter by how little it doesn't satisfy those requirements, is not a crime. Laws can only work by drawing lines. You have to do that.

So where are you willing to draw the line? What are you willing to make legal?

And a refusal to answer isn't an answer.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

See, that's a much better argument than your denial that any such doctors exist.

Is this your effort to backpedal?

Now apply that logic to gun control.

Can't, it doesn't apply at all.

But state laws regarding late term abortions are changing. If state laws provide loopholes for doctors to perform elective late term abortions, then a doctor wouldn't need to be a criminal in order to perform one.

You're still in lala land. Abortion providers are not going to kill viable infants unless the mother's life is at risk. You've been listening to too many pro-life liars who want to create outrage regardless that they are lying to do it.

You cited a criminal, I'm sorry, you cannot generalize to the medical field from that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, that's precisely how the law works: an act which satisfies the requirements of a crime is illegal. An act which doesn't satisfy the requirements of a crime, no matter by how little it doesn't satisfy those requirements, is not a crime. Laws can only work by drawing lines. You have to do that.

So where are you willing to draw the line? What are you willing to make legal?

And a refusal to answer isn't an answer.

The line is already drawn. Here, I'll quote from your link again:

The grand jury report states that "A medical expert with 43 years of experience in performing abortions was appalled. This expert told us, 'I've never heard of it [cutting the spinal cord] being done during an abortion'."[45]...

The seven other murder charges are all of first-degree murder; they relate to babies, whom staff have testified they saw move or cry after complete birth, and whose deaths are alleged to have resulted from subsequent lethal action. They arise because of the "born alive rule", a principle of common law

Does bigger help?

 

[Loss Leader]

Actually, that's precisely how the law works: an act which satisfies the requirements of a crime is illegal. An act which doesn't satisfy the requirements of a crime, no matter by how little it doesn't satisfy those requirements, is not a crime. Laws can only work by drawing lines. You have to do that.

Good gosh, your understanding of the law is appalling.

If the world were really so simple, why do you think there are lawyers? If all one needs to do is apply some bright line test to the facts, what exactly do you think lawyers do? In reality, laws are general written rules that promote justice.

Now, each of those words carries a great deal of meaning, but I'd like to focus on just one: words. What is a word? It is a rough and ready encapsulation of concept. The concept itself has no name, no description. We do our best to use whatever words we have to explain what we're thinking. But we often fail to agree. And if you have trouble believing this, try typing in fifty words or less how you feel about your mother.

You could write fifty or maybe even fifty thousand words about your mother and I doubt they would fully explain just exactly your emotions. I certainly couldn't do it.

That's all laws are, though. They're just a collection of words that sort of mean similar things to some people. And that's why lawyers exist. We try to persuade others that our interpretations should be the basis for decision-making. And usually there's a lawyer on the other side trying to argue that the words mean something very different.

You cannot draw a line. You can say that certain things are definitely on one side and others are definitely on the other. Aborting a 5 week-old fetus using medication is definitely allowable. Shooting a 17 year-old high school student is definitely not. But the closer you get to that line, the harder that call is to make. Shooting a 5 week pregnant woman in order to kill her fetus is definitely not allowed. Withdrawing life-support for a brain-dead 17 year old boy is.

Time, methodology, intent - all of these things help put the determination on one side or another. But if you think that a bunch of words can ever fully and finally draw a line between right and wrong, you are deluding yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a whole lot of words to write just to avoid saying yes or no.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's a whole lot of words to write just to avoid saying yes or no.

That's a whole lot of posts to write just to perpetuate your denial of reality: No one is killing babies, how about that.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a whole lot of posts to write just to perpetuate your denial of reality: No one is killing babies, how about that.

No one?

And I’m the one denying reality?

 

[ponderingturtle]

WA State has a serious problem with Catholic hospitals taking over other hospitals.

They delayed an emergency c-section for an detached uterus until the fetal heart rate ended because the 'Bishop' said so. The woman lost her uterus because of it and she desperately had wanted the child.

A win for the pro life movement then. You have to view it in the right fashion she was punished as she clearly deserved.