Planet Rugby Forum

Big Nipper wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Turbo, if you look at the proposal and example the VA Gov. gave in that article, you'll see why that bill was/needed to protect a child after "failed" abortion.

Nipper - There are two occassions where I haven't posted a link. Don't fall into DT's exaggeration of "he never posts links" crap. The reaction to my post from you lot is the same with or without a link, so get over it.

Twice is two times too often - you are a hack

saffer13 wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Turbo, if you look at the proposal and example the VA Gov. gave in that article, you'll see why that bill was/needed to protect a child after "failed" abortion.

There's quite a lot going on in that article, which bit in particular were you referring to?

Well your thoughts on the following then (I'm paraphrasing):
- VA Gov wanting to propose a bill suggesting that with a failed abortion, baby needs to be kept comfortable while mom and dad decide what to do with said baby.
- And then as a counter to the above proposal/suggestion, what is wrong with a bill protecting a child born after a failed abortion?

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Turbo, if you look at the proposal and example the VA Gov. gave in that article, you'll see why that bill was/needed to protect a child after "failed" abortion.

There's quite a lot going on in that article, which bit in particular were you referring to?

Well your thoughts on the following then (I'm paraphrasing):
- VA Gov wanting to propose a bill suggesting that with a failed abortion, baby needs to be kept comfortable while mom and dad decide what to do with said baby.
- And then as a counter to the above proposal/suggestion, what is wrong with a bill protecting a child born after a failed abortion?

OK, as they pointed out in your article, infanticide is already illegal, it's already covered.

saffer13 wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Turbo, if you look at the proposal and example the VA Gov. gave in that article, you'll see why that bill was/needed to protect a child after "failed" abortion.

There's quite a lot going on in that article, which bit in particular were you referring to?

Well your thoughts on the following then (I'm paraphrasing):
- VA Gov wanting to propose a bill suggesting that with a failed abortion, baby needs to be kept comfortable while mom and dad decide what to do with said baby.
- And then as a counter to the above proposal/suggestion, what is wrong with a bill protecting a child born after a failed abortion?

OK, as they pointed out in your article, infanticide is already illegal, it's already covered.

I understand that. I was referring to what Northam and the other lass was going to propose and also mentioned in the same article. First abortion ok even up to and while the woman is dilating and then post birth after a failed abortion. Are you in favor of that stance?

§ 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of §§ 18.2-72 and 18.2-73, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester provided the following conditions are met:

(a) Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

(b) The physician and two consulting physicians certify and so enter in the hospital record of the woman, that in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

(c) Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.

"When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable."

Northam continued: "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. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."

saffer13 wrote:Easier not to give a stance on something I guess.

saffer13 wrote:Easier not to give a stance on something I guess.

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Easier not to give a stance on something I guess.

I had an idea that would be your take away from my post

Blake wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Easier not to give a stance on something I guess.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

The current law that Turbogoat posted seems very reasonable and very comprehensive. I don't see what the failed bill adds at all, other than the threat of imprisonment for the physicians.

saffer13 wrote:

Blake wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Easier not to give a stance on something I guess.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

The current law that Turbogoat posted seems very reasonable and very comprehensive. I don't see what the failed bill adds at all, other than the threat of imprisonment for the physicians.

And I wasn't referring to the current law.

The proposed bill that Northam and the other lass were talking about was what I was referring to and should something like that pass, then the failed bill you're referring to would come into play.

For example, if the proposed bill they were talking about were to become a reality, then a baby surviving a failed abortion may still be killed. That is why the failed bill is important, to prevent something like that from happening.

BokJock wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Blake wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Easier not to give a stance on something I guess.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

The current law that Turbogoat posted seems very reasonable and very comprehensive. I don't see what the failed bill adds at all, other than the threat of imprisonment for the physicians.

And I wasn't referring to the current law.

The proposed bill that Northam and the other lass were talking about was what I was referring to and should something like that pass, then the failed bill you're referring to would come into play.

For example, if the proposed bill they were talking about were to become a reality, then a baby surviving a failed abortion may still be killed. That is why the failed bill is important, to prevent something like that from happening.

Was their bill going to allow late term abortions for healthy babies and healthy mothers?

saffer13 wrote:, then a baby surviving a failed abortion may still be killed.

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:, then a baby surviving a failed abortion may still be killed.

It's that level of misunderstanding that really underscores what was so poor about the reporting and politicising of this issue.

saffer13 wrote:

BokJock wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Blake wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Easier not to give a stance on something I guess.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

The current law that Turbogoat posted seems very reasonable and very comprehensive. I don't see what the failed bill adds at all, other than the threat of imprisonment for the physicians.

And I wasn't referring to the current law.

The proposed bill that Northam and the other lass were talking about was what I was referring to and should something like that pass, then the failed bill you're referring to would come into play.

For example, if the proposed bill they were talking about were to become a reality, then a baby surviving a failed abortion may still be killed. That is why the failed bill is important, to prevent something like that from happening.

Was their bill going to allow late term abortions for healthy babies and healthy mothers?

Well that's part of the debate and then we get into other parts of the debate about when is a baby a baby, etc....even within the physicians circles there is debate about whether any "condition" warrants a late term abortion but that's not the part I was reffering to. I was referring to a failed abortion...which at that point is not a late term abortion anymore, the baby is born and waiting to learn its fate. Again, according to what Northam and co were suggesting.

saffer13 wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:, then a baby surviving a failed abortion may still be killed.

It's that level of misunderstanding that really underscores what was so poor about the reporting and politicising of this issue.

So northam and his pal did not state that about a failed abortion?

Turbogoat wrote:First the Trump Inauguration committee, now the Trump Organization. Busy week.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/05/poli ... index.html

Saint wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:First the Trump Inauguration committee, now the Trump Organization. Busy week.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/05/poli ... index.html

Are there enough lawyers even in the US to handle this?

Turbogoat wrote:

Saint wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:First the Trump Inauguration committee, now the Trump Organization. Busy week.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/05/poli ... index.html

Are there enough lawyers even in the US to handle this?

While Lawyers are one thing the US will never run short of, they may not find many top flight lawyers willing to represent Trump now, despite all the fame/notoriety that would come with it. His reputation as the client from hell is getting pretty well known.

Akkerman wrote:sounds like it was a great speech, anyone caught it ?

Turbogoat wrote:Just catching up on it all now, doesn't appear to have been anything too unexpected?
North Korea summit might be one item I guess, otherwise, just predictable stuff.

No State of Emergency declared yet? Wonder if the growing GOP opposition to it is having an effect.

What the hell was that line "No legislation while there's investigation"?

An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way!

Kiwias wrote:Actually what he said was. Still not sure what he is talking about.

An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way!

Kiwias wrote:Actually what he said was. Still not sure what he is talking about.

An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way!

Kiwias wrote:Actually what he said was. Still not sure what he is talking about.

An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way!

Saint wrote:

Kiwias wrote:Actually what he said was. Still not sure what he is talking about.

An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way!

It's just poor speechwriting. Without anything particularly definitive or positive to say, the speechwriter has tried to reach for lofty rhetoric. Unfortunately, because the speechwriter isn't that good, and Donny is very poor at delivery, you've just ended up with some meaningless alliteration.

The general theme of the speech seemed to be "I want to be bipartisan, but I'm not prepared to trade off anything in return"

Turbogoat wrote: Aha, I knew I didn't have the full quote right. The actual quote is even worse though, trying to draw a parallel between war/peace and legislation/investigation, as if they're diametric opposites. The painful silence as he paused for what they'd hoped would be a standing ovation for that line was palpable.

Turbogoat wrote:

BokJock wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Missed it if already posted on another thread and didn't need to start another U.S. political thread so might as well use this as the catch-all, which is what it's become anyway.

Gov. Northam (D) and Virginia making a few waves lately. First with abortion, now with KKK, blackface, and sexual assault allegations.

I wonder if the Kav protesters will have as much to say about these unsubstantiated allegations? For the record, I'll still assume the innocent until proven guilty stance for him as well.

Saffer13, what has happened to the Democrats caught up in this sort of stuff so far?

Kav is busy toasting his appointment to the SC with Squi, Tobin and PJ.

Roy Moore was endorsed by the President of the USA.

I look forward to the 5 working day FBI investigation into Northam without actually speaking to Northam at any point as much as anybody.

One good thing about this and the Steve King issue is that most other elected officials from the same party as the offender have been pretty united in calling for their resignation. At least the rest of them know how bad the optics are on this sort of stuff.

Maybe at some point there can be some sort of moment where it can be decided that enough time has passed, or society has changed so much over that period that it's considered too harsh to judge/condemn someone for their actions all those years ago.
Dressing up in blackface/KKK outfits in the mid 80's though? Probably not the watershed moment that sparks that idea though. That would've been a shit idea even back then.
It's not too much to ask to hold your elected officials to a higher standard, but it's getting harder to find those people who have led a perfect life beforehand (or at least don't have any evidence to prove otherwise)

I look forward to the 5 working day FBI investigation into Northam without actually speaking to Northam at any point as much as anybody.

Leinster in London wrote:

I look forward to the 5 working day FBI investigation into Northam without actually speaking to Northam at any point as much as anybody.

Turbo, I don't quite understand what you are getting at here. Maybe I'm being whooshed, but why on earth would the FBI investigate a fancy dress party? Is there an implication that somebody was murdered or raped, or is blackface now a worse crime ?

Akkerman wrote:sounds like it was a great speech, anyone caught it ?

BokJock wrote:Watch out Uthokiloshe - there is a new stag sniffing around your territory

DragonKhan wrote: