Immigration reform (for Byblos)

[Philip]

The fathers had well studied the history of the tyrants, dictators / kings, policies and laws behind centuries of blood-soaked Europe to guide their thinking. And, of course, Christian teachings and the Bible enormously influenced them - even as they instictively knew certain evils (like slavery) were wrong, even though many of them had not yet come to terms with it personally, with many so perversely misunderstanding the Bible as to use it to supposedly justify the institution. But the abolition mkovement unquestionably sprang from Christian consciouses. And the freedom from Britain finally provided the opportunity to freely create a new system. But if Washington had decided he wanted to be a king instead, well...

[edwardmurphy]

• Sophistry:
  soph·ist·ry /ˈsäfəstrē/
  noun
  the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

It is quite evident you don't even know what the term means.

I know what it means.

What I am arguing is the only logical and inescapable conclusion of attempting to redefine viability as anything other than after conception because, among other things, its ramifications stretch beyond life before birth but indeed well beyond after.

It seems like you're trying to take your beliefs on human reproduction and present them as inescapable, objective fact simply by declaring it to be so and disregarding all contrary positions.

The law allows for unrestricted abortions up to 24 weeks (not 21.5 or 22), making it a subjective moving target.

Viability is a subjective, moving target. Some babies can survive outside the womb at 23 weeks, while others aren't viable at 25 weeks. Some are never viable. Viability is complex, it depends on many factors, and sometimes it comes down to a physician making a judgement call. The law simply acknowledges that fact and frees the physician to do is job.

As to who decides if the woman's health is at risk, the law leaves it up to the health care provider, it does not provide any objective standard. The law allows for the mother's mental and/or emotional state to be a determining factor in allowing any-time abortion.

How can there be an objective standard of what constitutes risk? Our bodies are complex. Sometimes high blood pressure can be managed, but sometimes it causes a stroke and kills the mother. Sometimes gestational diabetes can be treated, but sometimes it's too severe. Allowing doctors to make decisions on a case by case basis is the best option.

Non-physicians such as PAs or midwives will be able to provide abortions

I don't understand this objection.

Were you under the impression that midwives and PAs are just pulled off the street, given a name tag, and sent to work? If so then please allow me to correct your misunderstanding. Midwives and PAs are actually highly trained medical professionals.

Lots of OB GYN practices employ midwives and PAs. They take care of routine cases so that the physicians can put more time into complex cases. Apparently it's led to better overall outcomes. Both of my daughters were delivered by midwives. They were excellent.

Late term abortions up to the moment of birth are decriminalized (all penal law as related to abortion were repealed) as long as the woman's health is at risk (note it says health, not just life, will see what that entails).

Great. That means that doctors are free to use their judgement without having some legislator second guessing everything they do.

This means if a person injures or kills a 9-month pregnant woman, they can only be charged with a crime against the woman, not the unborn child. By direct extension, RHA has redefined "human person" to exclude unborn children.

This sounds like punditry. Do you have additional information?

The new law also repealed section 4164 which afforded certain legal protections to children born alive after an abortion. Now the law is silent on such cases. With the decriminalization of late term abortions, it is clear what that means. A child born alive during an abortion can be terminated without any legal ramifications.

You seem to have this notion that people become OB GYNs and women become pregnant so that they can team up to murder babies and the only thing holding them back is some law saying that they can't. It's bizarre.

The thing is, 91% of abortions take place at about 13 weeks, where viability is a non issue. Another 8% take place between 13 and 21 weeks, where viability is still a non issue. The last 1 percent are done late, either to save the life of the woman or because they fetus has some severe disease or deformity that will prevent it from surviving outside the womb. If a viable baby can be saved without risking the life of the mother then they save the baby since that's, you know, the whole [love] point. If the baby cannot be saved without harming the mother then priority is given to the mother.

The whole thing already excruciatingly horrible for everyone involved. There's no need for nosy strangers and virtue signaling legislators butting in and second guessing everybody.

So where does that leave us (at least in NYS and other progressive states that will surely follow)? It is not only conceivable but quite likely that late term abortions become common. Any quack mental health practitioner can now declare a woman mentally or emotionally unfit to bare a child (for the most benign of reasons) and any PA or midwife can perform the abortion up to the moment of birth including if the woman is already in labor. And whether or not the child is born alive is no longer relevant since the law decriminalized the entire enterprise. It is now neither criminal nor newsworthy so the public will no longer have access to any kind of meaningful statistics.

Why would late term abortions possibly become common? Do you think that women who are pregnant and have no intention of carrying to term will suddenly decide to hold off until they've gained 50 pounds, stretched out their abdominal muscles, and gotten hemorrhoids, cankles, and chronic heartburn just because they can? There's a reason that over 90% of abortions take place at about week 13.

And where do the rest of those ideas come from?

If you thought the Alabama law was bad, this is not only infanticide, it is infanticide with full protection of the legal system. Those are the inescapable conclusions of attempting to redefine viability as anything other than at conception. It invariably leads to dehumanizing children.

You seem to have shockingly little trust in either women or the medical profession. What's that about?

[abelcainsbrother]

I go back to my earlier comment then, what's the difference between that and declaring all human beings who are unable to care for themselves inviable? The answer is there is no difference at all, according to your own definition of viability.

Enough with the sophistry. You know the difference.

That's the difference between a potential human and a human.

At any point after conception a fetus has all that it needs to develop. All it needs is the proper environment. Whether that environment is inside the womb or outside it is simply a matter of location, nothing more.

More sophistry.

The difference is that in the former case the "proper environment" is a human being's body, while the latter is pretty much anywhere else. The difference is that your position rests on your belief that the potential human in the womb matters more than the actual human who owns the womb. I disagree with that contention, and with your contention that a bunch of strangers are entitled to decide how the woman must proceed. And finally, I strongly disagree with the conservative contention that while they have the right to force the woman to carry to term, they have no responsibility whatsoever to care for either the woman or the baby they forced her to have.

• Sophistry:
  soph·ist·ry /ˈsäfəstrē/
  noun
  the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

It is quite evident you don't even know what the term means. What I am arguing is the only logical and inescapable conclusion of attempting to redefine viability as anything other than after conception because, among other things, its ramifications stretch beyond life before birth but indeed well beyond after. There is nothing fallacious about such an argument. But permit me to show you in light of NYS RHA.

Are you not familiar with New York State's RHA (Reproductive Health Act) newly enacted into law by our esteemed governor Andrew Cuomo? I suggest you get familiar with it and what it allows (and who is now able to make those decisions) then come back here and tell us it's a lie and that we're just peddling extremist misinformation.

Nope. If you can use quotes from the RHA to crushingly refute my argument then go ahead and do it, but you don't get to assign me homework.

Sure, I'd be happy to.

First a link to the full text of the RHA bill enacted into law on January 19, 2019: https://www.news10.com/news/local-news/ ... ealth-act/.

Here are some highlights:

• The law allows for unrestricted abortions up to 24 weeks (not 21.5 or 22), making it a subjective moving target.

• As to who decides if the woman's health is at risk, the law leaves it up to the health care provider, it does not provide any objective standard. The law allows for the mother's mental and/or emotional state to be a determining factor in allowing any-time abortion.

• Non-physicians such as PAs or midwives will be able to provide abortions

• Late term abortions up to the moment of birth are decriminalized (all penal law as related to abortion were repealed) as long as the woman's health is at risk (note it says health, not just life, will see what that entails). This means if a person injures or kills a 9-month pregnant woman, they can only be charged with a crime against the woman, not the unborn child. By direct extension, RHA has redefined "human person" to exclude unborn children.

• The new law also repealed section 4164 which afforded certain legal protections to children born alive after an abortion. Now the law is silent on such cases. With the decriminalization of late term abortions, it is clear what that means. A child born alive during an abortion can be terminated without any legal ramifications.

So where does that leave us (at least in NYS and other progressive states that will surely follow)? It is not only conceivable but quite likely that late term abortions become common. Any quack mental health practitioner can now declare a woman mentally or emotionally unfit to bare a child (for the most benign of reasons) and any PA or midwife can perform the abortion up to the moment of birth including if the woman is already in labor. And whether or not the child is born alive is no longer relevant since the law decriminalized the entire enterprise. It is now neither criminal nor newsworthy so the public will no longer have access to any kind of meaningful statistics.

If you thought the Alabama law was bad, this is not only infanticide, it is infanticide with full protection of the legal system. Those are the inescapable conclusions of attempting to redefine viability as anything other than at conception. It invariably leads to dehumanizing children.

Sophistry indeed.

Do you know if the people of New York voted for this like in Alabama? Because, if not, this can possibly be overturned at the Supreme Court level in the future when we have a conservative Supreme Court.The people are supposed to decide issues like this through elections.If the people of New York voted for this then it is Constitutional just like in Alabama.

[abelcainsbrother]

The GOP would never go for that, Paul. They're in the minority on the most important issues of the day. If there were national referendums on gun control, overturning Roe v Wade, marriage equality, universal healthcare, protecting the environment, and addressing climate change, just to name a few, the Republicans would lose them all. If you're trying to rule as a minority you don't embrace national referendums.

Then why have you liberals ALWAYS had to bypass the people go to the Government and have it forced on to America when it comes to abortion and issues like it? Because it is and has always been unconstitutional and it does not matter that you agree with the ruling. It is and has always been unconstitutional. This has been the issue all of these years and nothing has changed. So I'm sure that you won't have any problems with a Conservative majority Supreme Court? This is why these kinds of wedge issue will not divide Trump supporters.It is simply following the US Constitution too.Both former Democrats and Republicans who now support Trump agree.

[edwardmurphy]

Do you know if the people of New York voted for this like in Alabama? Because, if not, this can possibly be overturned at the Supreme Court level in the future when we have a conservative Supreme Court.The people are supposed to decide issues like this through elections.If the people of New York voted for this then it is Constitutional just like in Alabama.

The people didn't vote for either bill, Abe. Both went through their respective state legislatures. That's how representative democracy works.

Then why have you liberals ALWAYS had to bypass the people go to the Government and have it forced on to America when it comes to abortion and issues like it? Because it is and has always been unconstitutional and it does not matter that you agree with the ruling. It is and has always been unconstitutional. This has been the issue all of these years and nothing has changed. So I'm sure that you won't have any problems with a Conservative majority Supreme Court? This is why these kinds of wedge issue will not divide Trump supporters.It is simply following the US Constitution too.Both former Democrats and Republicans who now support Trump agree.

Abe, this is such a muddled mess that I'm not even sure what you're attempting to say. My guess is that it's more whining about how abortion and marriage equality are being forced on people, despite the fact that nobody is under any obligation to have anything to do with either. It's sad that when your fellow citizens gain a right that you've always enjoyed you act like you've lost something.

[abelcainsbrother]

Do you know if the people of New York voted for this like in Alabama? Because, if not, this can possibly be overturned at the Supreme Court level in the future when we have a conservative Supreme Court.The people are supposed to decide issues like this through elections.If the people of New York voted for this then it is Constitutional just like in Alabama.

The people didn't vote for either bill, Abe. Both went through their respective state legislatures. That's how representative democracy works.

Then why have you liberals ALWAYS had to bypass the people go to the Government and have it forced on to America when it comes to abortion and issues like it? Because it is and has always been unconstitutional and it does not matter that you agree with the ruling. It is and has always been unconstitutional. This has been the issue all of these years and nothing has changed. So I'm sure that you won't have any problems with a Conservative majority Supreme Court? This is why these kinds of wedge issue will not divide Trump supporters.It is simply following the US Constitution too.Both former Democrats and Republicans who now support Trump agree.

Abe, this is such a muddled mess that I'm not even sure what you're attempting to say. My guess is that it's more whining about how abortion and marriage equality are being forced on people, despite the fact that nobody is under any obligation to have anything to do with either. It's sad that when your fellow citizens gain a right that you've always enjoyed you act like you've lost something.

Wrong! We are not supposed to be a Democracy Ed. We are a Constitutional Republic.It is Unconstitutional for the Government to decide these issues for the people and I'm shocked you don't know it and are against it.It has been awhile but I'm pretty sure the Alabama voters voted for that law in the mid term elections,but I can't remember for sure.However it is a issue to put to a vote in the state and let the people vote on it and decide just like with medical marijuana,which I already gave you as an example. The medical marijuana folks had to get out in our State and campaign for medical marijuana,then they had to gather signatures in our state in order to get it put on the ballot.Then it was put to a vote and the people voted for it. This is how issues like abortion and all of the other issues you brought up are supposed to be decided.The Government as in the case of Roe vs Wade has no constitutional right to decide this issue for the people. It has been unconstitutional since then and still is today. When we have a conservative Supreme Court the PEOPLE will decide these issues like abortion,same sex marriages,transgender bathrooms,etc and not the Government. Remember - Power back to the people - Q

[edwardmurphy]

Wrong! We are not supposed to be a Democracy Ed. We are a Constitutional Republic.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not wrong. While the US is indeed a constitutional republic, the process by which decisions are made and laws are passed is called representative democracy. We, the people, directly elect other people to represent us at the the municipal, county, state, and federal levels of government, and then those people make decisions on our behalf. Most of us use the words "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably, since the US is both and most people understand that and know what we mean.

It is Unconstitutional for the Government to decide these issues for the people and I'm shocked you don't know it and are against it.

Nope.

In reality the voters elect representatives to send to the capital, and then those people make decisions for us. Referendums aren't all that common, nor is it uncommon for legislators to delay implementing, fundamentally change, or even completely ignore referendums they don't like. For example, in 2018 the citizens of Florida overwhelmingly passed a referendum stating that felons should regain their franchise after completing their sentences. The Republicans in the state legislature disagreed, so they added enough stipulations to basically nullify the law. That happens all the time, Abe.

It has been awhile but I'm pretty sure the Alabama voters voted for that law in the mid term elections,but I can't remember for sure.

Nope. I didn't want to be wrong and look stupid so looked it up before I used it as an example. It was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, as per usual.

However it is a issue to put to a vote in the state and let the people vote on it and decide just like with medical marijuana,which I already gave you as an example. The medical marijuana folks had to get out in our State and campaign for medical marijuana,then they had to gather signatures in our state in order to get it put on the ballot.Then it was put to a vote and the people voted for it.

Abe, this is a representative democracy. We elect leaders, those leaders make laws, and on occasion those laws are challenged on constitutional grounds and the courts decide whether or not they stand. That's how the system works. The US is not, not, not a direct democracy, in which decisions are typically made by ballot referendums. Some states don't even permit referendums, and those that do don't necessarily take them seriously.

This is how issues like abortion and all of the other issues you brought up are supposed to be decided.

No, it's not. Issues like abortion and all of the other issues I brought up are legislated on by our elected legislators, then signed into law by our elected executives. Sometimes people think that those laws are infringing on their constitutional rights so they sue, at which point the courts - typically appointed by our elected executives and confirmed by our elected legislators - decide if the law is constitutional. If it is then it remains the law, and if it's not then it gets struck down.

Those are the facts, Abe. That's the system. Water is wet, the sky is blue, and that's how our government works. There's no point disputing it.

The Government as in the case of Roe vs Wade has no constitutional right to decide this issue for the people. It has been unconstitutional since then and still is today.

Swing and a miss. The Supreme Court has the authority - granted by that Constitution that you keep name dropping but have clearly never met - to rule on the constitutionality of a law. Texas made a law banning abortion in almost all cases. The Supreme Court ruled that Texas overstepped and struck down the law, thereby striking down all laws that banned abortion in almost all cases. Thus abortion is legal in many cases.

When we have a conservative Supreme Court the PEOPLE will decide these issues like abortion,same sex marriages,transgender bathrooms,etc and not the Government.

Wrong again. No matter who is in the Supreme Court the laws will be passed by elected lawmakers and signed off on by elected executives. This idea you have about getting the government out of governing is one of the dumber things you've come up with.

What conservatives are actually hoping for isn't that "the people will decide," it's that the Supreme Court will uphold state laws preventing their neighbors from doing things they don't approve of. There won't be any referendums. If the SCOTUS upholds laws like the one they passed in Alabama then every state with a Republican majority will start pushing the envelope and before long all over the South and Midwest they'll be making it legal to fire people for being gay, prevent same sex couples from adopting kids, deprive women of their reproductive rights, allow Christian businesses to discriminate against homosexuals, and so on and so forth. The religious right will turn the screws on all the out groups, just like they did in the good old days.

And then will come the backlash, and the cancellations, and the boycotts, and the lost economic opportunities, and they shall reap the whirlwind...

Remember - Power back to the people
- Q

For [love] sake Abe, enough about Q. It's a scam. They're lying to you and making you look stupid.