Trump's Re-Election

[idhawkman]

Got to love how Candice clearly explains the political landscapes.

[burrrton]

Burrton, I thought you were the one kidding us. What Trump is describing (‘executing’ a baby after it’s been delivered and wrapped in a blanket) isn’t even an abortion issue. It’s simply capital murder as described in every law of every state, which is why it’s ridiculous to discuss legislation around it. Does anyone think what the president is saying is legal and/or is happening in the US, let alone New Jersey? It’s mind-boggling to think that even one person might believe him. As I said, I don’t think even he actually believes his own words (he can’t possibly be that ignorant), but he obviously is thinking his followers might.

I-5, the laws that are being passed allow a doctor to deliver a live baby (from a botched abortion) then put it off to the side and let it die.

You may not like the hyperbole of using the word "execute", but there's an argument it's not far from the truth. If someone pushes you down a well and walks away, they could fairly be charged with murder.

You acting like his phrasing is some egregious lie is BS and I think you know it.

[burrrton]

'm pretty neutral on abortion/right to life and have avoided jumping in on this portion of the thread, but I do want to address what has been a repeated pattern of Trump's arguments since he became a candidate for POTUS, and that is that he intentionally misstates or exaggerates examples in order to highlight his position on a particular issue, and sometimes, such as in this instance, they are so outlandish or extreme that a grade schooler could tell that there's no truth to them.

I agree with you, but when MDs are literally being allowed to let a live-born baby die, this isn't the hill you want to die on.

You're letting your irrational hatred of the guy cloud your judgment again.

[idhawkman]

Sorry Cbob, this just isn't true. The dem governor of Virginia (a Pediatrician by trade) stated this is exactly what they do in Virginia. Don't see much coverage of this outrage in the papers or on the news though, do you? I wonder where they'd fit it in though when they have to dedicate so much time to Russian Collusion, Obstruction, investigations of financial records, etc.

I had pledged not to respond to your ramblings because you were tempting me say things I might later regret, but I'm going to have to break my self imposed silence on your musings as this last one of yours is so utterly false and misleading that I couldn't resist responding.

That is NOT what they are currently doing in Virginia. What you are referring to is a bill currently in the Virginia Legislature that Governor Northam was commenting on in a radio interview last January. Here's a copy of what he said:

So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Republicans narrowly control the House of Delegates, so the bill is unlikely to pass anytime soon. A subcommittee voted to table the bill in a 5-3 vote Monday.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-a ... 019-01-30/

There is no comparison between this hypothetical situation that Northam was speculating on and the supposedly current practice that Trump claimed was going on in Wisconsin.

And furthermore, it would really help our online relationship if you would start referencing your claims rather than just winging it and expecting people to believe you.

I think you just made my point. This is what WOULD happen as you bolded under the bill that the Wisconsin bill supports, the NY law supports, etc. He's the pediatrician and in a clarification, he stated this is what would happen because of his background in this area. So I'm not sure why you think it is not in the bill that Trump was ridiculing in his GB rally. It's what they are advocating for with late stage, 3rd trimester abortions. Its hideous that they could be justified in murdering a human baby just because the abortion was botched or there's a defect of some kind. Remember, they governor said they would comfort, then stabalize, then have the discussion. This is unconscionable.

[burrrton]

Remember, they governor said they would comfort, then stabalize, then have the discussion.

They hate the guy, so they're playing semantic games because the MD doesn't actively *kill* the child, but rather just allows him/her to die.

It's a distinction without a difference, but Orange Man Bad™ and stuff.

[idhawkman]

Remember, they governor said they would comfort, then stabalize, then have the discussion.

They hate the guy, so they're playing semantic games because the MD doesn't actively *kill* the child, but rather just allows him/her to die.

It's a distinction without a difference, but Orange Man Bad™ and stuff.

Ah, good point. you are right, they wouldn't kill the kid, they'd just abandon it and let it die. There's got to be something in there about a hypocritical oath though, right?

[RiverDog]

'm pretty neutral on abortion/right to life and have avoided jumping in on this portion of the thread, but I do want to address what has been a repeated pattern of Trump's arguments since he became a candidate for POTUS, and that is that he intentionally misstates or exaggerates examples in order to highlight his position on a particular issue, and sometimes, such as in this instance, they are so outlandish or extreme that a grade schooler could tell that there's no truth to them.

I agree with you, but when MDs are literally being allowed to let a live-born baby die, this isn't the hill you want to die on.

You're letting your irrational hatred of the guy cloud your judgment again.

I am not arguing what MD's do and don't do. My point is how the POTUS frames a debate. He uses an argument that is loaded with obviously false information which inevitably turns the debate from what was a legitimate topic (as may be case in some of the abortion procedures such as you're referring to) into an argument revolving around DJT's personal honesty and credibility. There is no way to have an honest discussion of such issues when a major participant is making up stuff.

[burrrton]

There is no way to have an honest discussion of such issues when a major participant is making up stuff.

Again, we agree- this just isn't a case where he "made up stuff". The worst you can accuse him of is hyperbole ("execute" vs "let die"), and this over-the-top characterization of that as "OMG HORRIBLE LIE I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYONE BELIEVES HIM!" is weird.

Get a grip, dial it down from 11, and quit responding to literally everything he says with the same verbal tics (one of either "LIAR!", "RACIST!", "WHITE SUPREMACIST!", "HITLER!", "FASCIST!", etc chosen at random).

[RiverDog]

There is no way to have an honest discussion of such issues when a major participant is making up stuff.

Again, we agree- this just isn't a case where he "made up stuff". The worst you can accuse him of is hyperbole ("execute" vs "let die"), and this over-the-top characterization of that as "OMG HORRIBLE LIE I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYONE BELIEVES HIM!" is weird.

Here's what Trump made up:

"The baby is born," Trump said. "The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so."

Trump's claim that mothers and doctors are permitted to execute a baby after it leaves the womb is incorrect. The bill he referred to would mandate that health professionals do all they could to keep a baby alive if it was "born alive" and would penalize anyone who let a baby die.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/28/poli ... index.html

That scenario that Trump proposed could not legally take place under the proposed bill, so what we are left with is people like myself, Cbob, and I5 concentrating on Trump's false and misleading statements rather than the pros and cons of the proposed legislation.

Get a grip, dial it down from 11, and quit responding to literally everything he says with the same verbal tics (one of either "LIAR!", "RACIST!", "WHITE SUPREMACIST!", "HITLER!", "FASCIST!", etc chosen at random).

I'm going to ask you once to please stop. I enjoy debating you as most the time you treat my comments with respect rather than the way you are addressing me in the above paragraph.

[idhawkman]

Trump's paraphrase is almost verbatim what the Virginia Gov. said the bill would do and yet the only outrage is at Trump and not the bill or the Virginia Governor. That says it all.

[RiverDog]

Trump's paraphrase is almost verbatim what the Virginia Gov. said the bill would do and yet the only outrage is at Trump and not the bill or the Virginia Governor. That says it all.

Idahawk, I agree with you as you stated your point above. My problem with what you said is in your previous comments which said:

Sorry Cbob, this just isn't true. The dem governor of Virginia (a Pediatrician by trade) stated this is exactly what they do in Virginia.

That is a completely false statement, and it's statements like yours which are used to inflame the topic. If you want the "outrage" to be directed at the VA Governor, then quit phrasing your arguments with blatant falsehoods and start being more accurate.

That was my entire point with regard to Trump. He makes up stuff in order to create an effect that will incite his base. It's not an honest discussion.

[c_hawkbob]

It's a lie is the problem, and implicit lie. The protections for live birth babies already exists, there is no way the scenario he presents could ever happen under current law, yet he makes it seem as that's exactly what is happening unless they pass this BS slab of excess legislation. it's pure talking points for his idiot army, nothing more. It's Russian Troll level vitriol, designed to further divide and foster hate.

Sorry Cbob, this just isn't true. The dem governor of Virginia (a Pediatrician by trade) stated this is exactly what they do in Virginia. Don't see much coverage of this outrage in the papers or on the news though, do you? I wonder where they'd fit it in though when they have to dedicate so much time to Russian Collusion, Obstruction, investigations of financial records, etc.

I outright don't believe you.

*edit* And if I'd read on I'd have seen that Riv already debunked it and probably wouldn't have responded, but you and ya boy Trump need to that reasonable folk aren't buying it.

[idhawkman]

I outright don't believe you.

*edit* And if I'd read on I'd have seen that Riv already debunked it and probably wouldn't have responded, but you and ya boy Trump need to that reasonable folk aren't buying it.

Once you get away from the 10% bots of twitter, the nation is outraged by it. River had a good point about the white middle class women and voting for Trump, but issues like this where they are trying to push this extreme of a position will force them to either sit on the sideline or flop over to Trump.

I don't have it, but the Va governor stated that what he said on air is true. There's no getting around that. What they are allowed to do in NY and maybe soon in Wisconsin would be murder, but for some reason they are passing these laws and trying to justify it by saying it was suppose to be an abortion just because it didn't work correctly doesn't mean we can't let it die. Its sick. The vast majority of this country do not support third trimester or late stage abortions let alone killing/letting die a kid once it is in labor or half way out of the mother. (If you think I'm inflaming this, look up what late stage abortion is and tell me I'm wrong. They deliver the kid half way out of the mother and then suck its brains out. Sorry for the graphics but I am not going to sugar coat this in any way - it is absolutely hideous.)

[RiverDog]

I don't have it, but the Va governor stated that what he said on air is true.

Idahawk, I don't know where you heard or read that, but it's not true. It's easy to research and in multiple, credible sources. Here's one from yer ole favorite Fox News:

The intent of Northam's comments was not clear. But some conservative commentators and lawmakers believed he was discussing the possibility of letting a newborn die and was possibly endorsing "infanticide."

The proposed legislation in Virginia follows New York passing a bill last week loosening restrictions on abortion. New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington state also have passed new laws expanding abortion access or moved to strip old laws from the books that limit abortions.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fox-news-fir ... n-on-trump

Now please, if you want to debate the issues, then fine, I'm ready to make amends and accept you back within my circle of friends. But any debate of the issues has to be based on truth and honesty. If you happen to say something that turns out not to be true, just say "sorry, my bad" or something of that nature, but you keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole by trying to wiggle your way out of a gaff just to save face and not have to admit that you're human.

[idhawkman]

Idahawk, I don't know where you heard or read that, but it's not true. It's easy to research and in multiple, credible sources. Here's one from yer ole favorite Fox News:

The intent of Northam's comments was not clear. But some conservative commentators and lawmakers believed he was discussing the possibility of letting a newborn die and was possibly endorsing "infanticide."

The proposed legislation in Virginia follows New York passing a bill last week loosening restrictions on abortion. New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington state also have passed new laws expanding abortion access or moved to strip old laws from the books that limit abortions.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fox-news-fir ... n-on-trump

Now please, if you want to debate the issues, then fine, I'm ready to make amends and accept you back within my circle of friends. But any debate of the issues has to be based on truth and honesty. If you happen to say something that turns out not to be true, just say "sorry, my bad" or something of that nature, but you keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole by trying to wiggle your way out of a gaff just to save face and not have to admit that you're human.

Respectfully, you need to go back and listen to the quesiton and full answer the governor gave. He's not talking in past tense. I'll start looking for his clarification but that's what they do now for deformities and botched abortions. This bill/law would just make it written into law.

On a side note, I-5's original question was "could you believe what the president just said." or something to that effect. I pointed out that he was just quoting the virginia governor and the position of the Wisconsin Governor. That has not changed even with the word parsing you and Cbob have tried to do on this topic. Its the Left, and that's what they are pushing for. I don't know who could possibly defend those positions.

[idhawkman]

Here's a link though Riv. https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Governor-responds-to-backlash-for-late-term-abortion-remarks-505139131.html

Notice the part where he says, "its done in cases where..." That's not future tense or anything other than what's happening. He tries to clarify later but never back tracks on the "its done" part. The bill that was defeated was going to reduce the number of physicians from 3 to just 1 in order to proceed.

We may both look at this differently but I believe they do it now. I also believe it is a slippery slope. Who determines what is severly deformed? Who determines what is non-viable? There's a number of cases of people walking around that were botched abortions. I watched (ON HANNITY) an interview with a lady who was a result of a botched "Saline Injection" abortion which is designed to literally BURN the baby in the fetus turning it into a pile of goo. She was intelligent, educated and not visibly or mentally handicapped in any way that I could tell. I am sure she wouldn't have survived being left to die after the abortion failed.

I think we both agree though that any fetus born alive needs to have every chance of surviving and that decision shouldn't be given to the mother, father or docotrs. They have rights they are born with and until they can make their own decisions and communicate them we need to assume they want to live. I'm sure they are literally fighting for every breathe they take in that situation.

[burrrton]

That scenario that Trump proposed could not legally take place under the proposed bill, so what we are left with is people like myself, Cbob, and I5 concentrating on Trump's false and misleading statements rather than the pros and cons of the proposed legislation.

If it's the same legislation as what's being passed in NY and VA, outside of the difference between "letting die" and outright "execution", yes, it could, because of how they play fast and loose with the definitions of "born alive", "viable", and so on.

I'm going to ask you once to please stop. I enjoy debating you as most the time you treat my comments with respect rather than the way you are addressing me in the above paragraph.

I truly intended to include a "not necessarily you, RD" in there. Sorry for forgetting.

[RiverDog]

Here's a link though Riv. https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Governor-responds-to-backlash-for-late-term-abortion-remarks-505139131.html

Notice the part where he says, "its done in cases where..." That's not future tense or anything other than what's happening. He tries to clarify later but never back tracks on the "its done" part. The bill that was defeated was going to reduce the number of physicians from 3 to just 1 in order to proceed.

I listened to your entire video. At the very end, they quoted the gov. as speaking on the radio back in January about a hypothetical situation regarding the proposed bill and it said almost verbatim what I've been contending. From the text of your own link:

In a radio interview on WTOP, Northam defended the bill, saying, "It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

I see what you're saying as far as his use of the word "It's" might indicate that he's talking about current practice. But you have to read the entire article in order to get a context of what he was talking about, and it's clear from both the video you posted and the text in multiple articles written about the exchange that they were discussing the proposed bill. The Governor misspoke. He should not have said "It's" and instead should have said "It'd be", or "It would be done."

If you have information that VA, or any other state for that matter, has laws/procedures in place that allows for the types of actions you claim have been done in the past, or if you have any credible information that an MD or other health care professional anywhere in the country did not do everything possible to keep a new born infant from dying, then please post it. But if all you are doing is hanging your hat on the VA Gov's obvious misstatement in saying "It's" instead of "It'd be", I completely reject your claim as totally false and exists only in your mind.

[RiverDog]

That scenario that Trump proposed could not legally take place under the proposed bill, so what we are left with is people like myself, Cbob, and I5 concentrating on Trump's false and misleading statements rather than the pros and cons of the proposed legislation.

If it's the same legislation as what's being passed in NY and VA, outside of the difference between "letting die" and outright "execution", yes, it could, because of how they play fast and loose with the definitions of "born alive", "viable", and so on.

The proposed legislation Trump was talking about was in Wisconsin. Here is a section from the Wisconsin State Legislature website regarding the bill in question:

The bill also makes intentionally causing the death of a child born alive as a
result of an abortion or an attempted abortion a felony with a penalty of life
imprisonment, which is the same penalty as first-degree intentional homicide. The
mother of the child born alive may not be prosecuted under this provision in the bill.
Under current law, an individual who undergoes a live birth is considered born
alive. “Live birth” is defined as the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her
mother, of a human being, at any stage of development, who, after the expulsion or
extraction, breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or
definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord
has been cut and whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural
or induced labor, a cesarean section, or an abortion. Under current law, whoever is
born alive as a result of an abortion is considered to have the same legal status and
legal rights as a human being at any point after the human being undergoes a live
birth as the result of natural or induced labor or a cesarean section.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/r ... sals/ab179

What Trump was talking about would be impossible under both current statute and the proposed bill. There are two possibilities: Trump was uninformed, didn't do his homework and misspoke, or, as I5 has speculated, he intentionally lied because he knows his base will believe anything he says and he wanted to rile them up.

As far as your speculation about the proposed law being able to be twisted in order to allow an MD to commit infanticide, there is very little if any wiggle room in that definition of "live birth" I highlighted in bold that would allow for the type of interpretations you seem to be suggesting.

I'm going to ask you once to please stop. I enjoy debating you as most the time you treat my comments with respect rather than the way you are addressing me in the above paragraph.

I truly intended to include a "not necessarily you, RD" in there. Sorry for forgetting.

Thanks!

[burrrton]

As far as your speculation about the proposed law being able to be twisted in order to allow an MD to commit infanticide, there is very little if any wiggle room in that definition of "live birth" I highlighted in bold that would allow for the type of interpretations you seem to be suggesting.

Fair point.

[idhawkman]

I listened to your entire video. At the very end, they quoted the gov. as speaking on the radio back in January about a hypothetical situation regarding the proposed bill and it said almost verbatim what I've been contending. From the text of your own link:

In a radio interview on WTOP, Northam defended the bill, saying, "It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

I see what you're saying as far as his use of the word "It's" might indicate that he's talking about current practice. But you have to read the entire article in order to get a context of what he was talking about, and it's clear from both the video you posted and the text in multiple articles written about the exchange that they were discussing the proposed bill. The Governor misspoke. He should not have said "It's" and instead should have said "It'd be", or "It would be done."

If you have information that VA, or any other state for that matter, has laws/procedures in place that allows for the types of actions you claim have been done in the past, or if you have any credible information that an MD or other health care professional anywhere in the country did not do everything possible to keep a new born infant from dying, then please post it. But if all you are doing is hanging your hat on the VA Gov's obvious misstatement in saying "It's" instead of "It'd be", I completely reject your claim as totally false and exists only in your mind.

You may be right, he may have misspoke. You criticized the President for waiting two days to correct the wrong reporting of the Charlotte answer he gave which was totally about the statue protesters and not the white supremacists. I have yet to see the Gov. clarify his use of the word.

I also see what you might be saying in the article but I don't trust the media to properly paraphrase when I have the full context including tone and body language. So although you may be right, I don't think he was speaking metaphorically. I think he chose his words the way he did because of his knowledge and this is way too important of an issue to leave to chance. The media is failing us by not asking for better clarification on this.

Instead they divert the public's attention in this case specifically to "he wore black face in college". Who gives a crap about that when we have an issue like this. BTW, that black face story was outed by his own party, too. This gives me more reason to think the dems didn't want attention being brought to this issue and wanted to remove him quickly. They got into a big mess when they realized that the Lt. Gov. had multiple rape cases pressed against him by members of his own party and then the AG for Virginia also wore black face. That would leave the House Leader, a republican, to assume the Governor's mansion if all three of them would be removed. As vital as Virginia is to the democrats they can't afford to have that state go into a Rep. hands for the next election. So they drag their feet on doing anything about all three of those guys.

Bottom line, the press has effectively diverted the attention away from the late stage abortion issue but Trump won't let it go. Not until it is fully outed what the dems really want with that. I give him credit for that and this issue will be a big campaign issue for Trump in the coming election along with immigration, economy, health care, etc.

[idhawkman]

The proposed legislation Trump was talking about was in Wisconsin. Here is a section from the Wisconsin State Legislature website regarding the bill in question:

The bill also makes intentionally causing the death of a child born alive as a
result of an abortion or an attempted abortion a felony with a penalty of life
imprisonment, which is the same penalty as first-degree intentional homicide. The
mother of the child born alive may not be prosecuted under this provision in the bill.
Under current law, an individual who undergoes a live birth is considered born
alive. “Live birth” is defined as the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her
mother, of a human being, at any stage of development, who, after the expulsion or
extraction, breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or
definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord
has been cut and whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural
or induced labor, a cesarean section, or an abortion. Under current law, whoever is
born alive as a result of an abortion is considered to have the same legal status and
legal rights as a human being at any point after the human being undergoes a live
birth as the result of natural or induced labor or a cesarean section.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/r ... sals/ab179

What Trump was talking about would be impossible under both current statute and the proposed bill. There are two possibilities: Trump was uninformed, didn't do his homework and misspoke, or, as I5 has speculated, he intentionally lied because he knows his base will believe anything he says and he wanted to rile them up.

As far as your speculation about the proposed law being able to be twisted in order to allow an MD to commit infanticide, there is very little if any wiggle room in that definition of "live birth" I highlighted in bold that would allow for the type of interpretations you seem to be suggesting.

A couple of holes in that quote for me.

1. So the mother can't be sued or held liable? Who speaks for the kid and the care they get? Do they have the right to say "no extraordinary efforts" shall be taken? Who determines when the machines are turned off?

2. The part about "FULL EXPULSION". What does that mean? Does that include the placenta? So if the kid still has a toe inside the mother it is ok to kill it?

I can't believe as a society we are okay with legislation like this even being brought up.

[RiverDog]

I also see what you might be saying in the article but I don't trust the media to properly paraphrase when I have the full context including tone and body language. So although you may be right, I don't think he was speaking metaphorically. I think he chose his words the way he did because of his knowledge and this is way too important of an issue to leave to chance. The media is failing us by not asking for better clarification on this.

First off, there was no "body language." It was a radio interview. Secondly, the topic was the proposed bill, so that's the context that we have to judge his remarks from. And like I said, there is absolutely no evidence of the practices you claim is ongoing in VA or anywhere else in the country. You thought you heard something, which happens to all of us, but when we're confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we have to conclude that our assumptions were wrong. Heck, common sense would tell us that MD's are not killing newly born babies. That would be completely outrageous and we would have heard about it long ago.

Northam faced a huge grilling after those remarks he made, and rightfully so, by Republicans in the VA Legislature. Indeed, it started a nation wide debate, which even you picked up on, so there is no "failing by the media" to flush out what Northam was talking about. He made some very foolish remarks, which the right as used against him in this debate. If I were an abortion supporter, I'd be really pissed at Northham for giving the right to life group a huge weapon.

Bottom line, the press has effectively diverted the attention away from the late stage abortion issue but Trump won't let it go. Not until it is fully outed what the dems really want with that. I give him credit for that and this issue will be a big campaign issue for Trump in the coming election along with immigration, economy, health care, etc.

Except in the eyes of his hard core supporters, who would believe that the Earth is flat if Trump said so, he's is the one that steered the conversation away from the issue by using a false premise in a hypothetical example, so now instead of a debate on abortion, it's a debate on Trump's truthfulness. Let's get the facts straight and have an honest conversation based on truth and not false narratives.

Look, even though abortion isn't a hot button issue with me, I oppose this latest legislation that's been coming down the pike. A fetus in the third trimester is almost universally considered to be a living being and is way too late for any "freedom of choice" to be exercised. The only reason I jumped into this debate is that I saw you using an obviously false argument and couldn't sit still. It didn't take any effort at all to de-bunk your claim.

[RiverDog]

The proposed legislation Trump was talking about was in Wisconsin. Here is a section from the Wisconsin State Legislature website regarding the bill in question:

The bill also makes intentionally causing the death of a child born alive as a
result of an abortion or an attempted abortion a felony with a penalty of life
imprisonment, which is the same penalty as first-degree intentional homicide. The
mother of the child born alive may not be prosecuted under this provision in the bill.
Under current law, an individual who undergoes a live birth is considered born
alive. “Live birth” is defined as the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her
mother, of a human being, at any stage of development, who, after the expulsion or
extraction, breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or
definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord
has been cut and whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural
or induced labor, a cesarean section, or an abortion. Under current law, whoever is
born alive as a result of an abortion is considered to have the same legal status and
legal rights as a human being at any point after the human being undergoes a live
birth as the result of natural or induced labor or a cesarean section.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/r ... sals/ab179

What Trump was talking about would be impossible under both current statute and the proposed bill. There are two possibilities: Trump was uninformed, didn't do his homework and misspoke, or, as I5 has speculated, he intentionally lied because he knows his base will believe anything he says and he wanted to rile them up.

As far as your speculation about the proposed law being able to be twisted in order to allow an MD to commit infanticide, there is very little if any wiggle room in that definition of "live birth" I highlighted in bold that would allow for the type of interpretations you seem to be suggesting.

A couple of holes in that quote for me.

1. So the mother can't be sued or held liable? Who speaks for the kid and the care they get? Do they have the right to say "no extraordinary efforts" shall be taken? Who determines when the machines are turned off?

2. The part about "FULL EXPULSION". What does that mean? Does that include the placenta? So if the kid still has a toe inside the mother it is ok to kill it?

I can't believe as a society we are okay with legislation like this even being brought up.

I think the language defining birth is clear enough. You're getting pretty far fetched in your arguments. You can go through any law and pick it apart in the manner you're trying to do.

But I do agree that the proposed legislation goes way too far. Six months is plenty of time for a woman to make a decision on an abortion. And having a 2nd pinion as to whether or not the mother's life is in danger is a good idea anyway. It's always wise to get a 2nd opinion on a significant operation or procedure, especially in the medical field, where differences of opinion are common.

[idhawkman]

First off, there was no "body language." It was a radio interview.

Obviously, you did not watch the youtube video as it was being video taped and broadcast at the same time. So yes, there is video with body language and tone. It was part of a whole hour interview about everything from roads to taxes, etc.

[idhawkman]

I think the language defining birth is clear enough. You're getting pretty far fetched in your arguments. You can go through any law and pick it apart in the manner you're trying to do.

Never used to be that way until one of our presidents told us that it depends on the meaning of the word IS is. Parsing of words is exactly what you do to try and show Trump as lying. Don't get upset when someone else uses your same tactics for good reason.

[burrrton]

Six months is plenty of time for a woman to make a decision on an abortion.

I'm not an MD, but my friend is, and I'm also told there's also no medical reason to abort a late-term child vs just delivering him/her. He's an ER doc (and no conservative), and says if a woman came in 7mos along and her life was in danger (pre-eclampsia, whatever), there's no scenario in which killing the child improves her chances of survival.

It's nauseating that we're even having this barbaric discussion in 2019.

[RiverDog]

Back to the OP

A new poll is out that shows Joe Biden leading Trump:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/biden ... 2019-04-25

Obviously it doesn't tell us much as we're still 18 months away from the election, but it is an 8 point margin, which is significant when the opponent is a sitting POTUS, and coupled with Trump's historic disapproval numbers, it does show that he's vulnerable.

Also, he's in big trouble in Florida, where only 40% think he should be re-elected and even 23% of FL R's say he shouldn't be re-elected. Florida is critical to any R. One of the things the article argues is that Biden's association with Obama is more likely to attract the non white voters that stayed home in 2016 than the other candidates in the field.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... ll-1206260

And last but not least, here's a piece from Idahawk's favorite source that has a very good analysis as to why this election is likely to be very close and not the blowout by Trump that several of you are expecting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... spartanntp

[I-5]

Just in case, anyone (read: not women) might think that a woman or MD arrives at a decision to abort her baby after 24 weeks lightly:

"Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. Some fetal development problems or genetic anomalies do not show up or develop until later in pregnancy. Some examples might include anencephaly (described above) or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. With conditions like these, the fetus cannot survive out of the uterus. Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman's health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal. It's important to note, if a woman's health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion."

- Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Also, there is no such medical term called 'late term abortion'. It's a political phrase.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Back to the OP

And last but not least, here's a piece from Idahawk's favorite source that has a very good analysis as to why this election is likely to be very close and not the blowout by Trump that several of you are expecting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... spartanntp

The article also isn't saying Trump won't win it all, which is just being realistic. Equally realistic is that blowouts just don't happen, and Trump has enough negatives working against him that a 2nd term is not a given.

I sincerely do hope that it is close because that means at least one legitimate contender stepped up. Still hoping for a legit 3rd party.

[RiverDog]

Still hoping for a legit 3rd party.

I'm ripe for a 3rd party, too, but it won't happen in our lifetimes. The problem is the Constitution. Even if an independent or 3rd party candidate got enough votes to win the electoral college, unless he/she got a majority, the election would be tossed into the House of Representatives, which would in all likelihood install which ever party's candidate held the majority.

All a 3rd party would do would be to play the role of a spoiler, like Ross Perot was in 1992.

[burrrton]

Just in case, anyone (read: not women) might think that a woman or MD arrives at a decision to abort her baby after 24 weeks lightly:

"Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. Some fetal development problems or genetic anomalies do not show up or develop until later in pregnancy. Some examples might include anencephaly (described above) or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. With conditions like these, the fetus cannot survive out of the uterus. Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman's health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal. It's important to note, if a woman's health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion."

- Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Also, there is no such medical term called 'late term abortion'. It's a political phrase.

Call it whatever you want, and whether they arrive at the decision "lightly" or not is irrelevant.

[Aseahawkfan]

Just in case, anyone (read: not women) might think that a woman or MD arrives at a decision to abort her baby after 24 weeks lightly:

"Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. Some fetal development problems or genetic anomalies do not show up or develop until later in pregnancy. Some examples might include anencephaly (described above) or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. With conditions like these, the fetus cannot survive out of the uterus. Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman's health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal. It's important to note, if a woman's health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion."

- Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Also, there is no such medical term called 'late term abortion'. It's a political phrase.

There may be some abuse, but these decisions are hard. I read up on partial birth abortions. They are awful for all involved. I don't agree with abortion personally beyond life threatening circumstances or forced situations where choice was denied. I don't much want it made illegal. If there's some magic god, he can take care of things himself while the real world people do the best they can to figure out how to survive this place. Some of these women (and men for that matter) aren't ready for kids. I'd rather have them make the decision to abort, hopefully very early, than have some kid they barely take care of.

My main concern has always been the use of abortion to drive fetal stem cell production becoming like blood tests. It's way too much "murdering the unborn to achieve immortality" story time for me. I don't want women encouraged to get pregnant for material harvesting purposes.

[I-5]

burrrton,what do you think is possible with anencephaly? See below?

There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is death. Most anencephalic fetuses do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. Infants that are not stillborn will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.

[burrrton]

I-5, there are something like 13,000 'late-term abortions' every year- a small minority of those are due to fetal abnormalities, and an even smaller number are due to the life of the mother being endangered.

I'm not arguing there is never, ever a reason for one**, but pointing to a condition that affects 0.0001% of newborns (literally: 1 in 10,000- the rest miscarry) isn't persuasive, and you don't have to murder the baby suffering from it to get it out.

[I-5]

Two questions:

1. What exactly is a late term abortion, since it's not medically defined by science?

2. Where do you get the .0001% number exactly?

As an aside, my mom once told me that black people are responsible for 90% of crimes in the U.S., and I asked her how she knows that, and she said she 'just knows'..

[idhawkman]

burrrton,what do you think is possible with anencephaly? See below?

There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is death. Most anencephalic fetuses do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. Infants that are not stillborn will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.

Not to pick a nit but I have to on this one. Saying a fetus can't survive outside the womb is like saying, I can kill someone because, hey, they were going to die at some point anyways. We are not God and can not make these decisions.

[idhawkman]

Two questions:

1. What exactly is a late term abortion, since it's not medically defined by science?

Pretty sure it is defined as anything after the 3rd tri-mester has started so 6-9 months. Babies can and have survived as premies at those stages when born early.

2. Where do you get the .0001% number exactly?

As an aside, my mom once told me that black people are responsible for 90% of crimes in the U.S., and I asked her how she knows that, and she said she 'just knows'..

Probably a wive's tale then like eating xxx spiders in your life in your sleep. Circular reporting made that a folk story.

[I-5]

Burrton, no, it’s not at all like your analogy. Not even a little. It means the baby literally is not able to live under any kind of support, not just because it’s not in the womb. Read it again, it’s right there in plain language.

[burrrton]

1. What exactly is a late term abortion, since it's not medically defined by science?

You know good and well what it is- again, call it whatever you want and quit whining about the term being used.

2. Where do you get the .0001% number exactly?

As an aside, my mom once told me that black people are responsible for 90% of crimes in the U.S., and I asked her how she knows that, and she said she 'just knows'..

https://www.google.com/search?q=anencephaly+incidence

And the point is it could be *twice* that common and still be so vanishingly rare it's not even a rounding error.