Immigration reform (for Byblos)

[edwardmurphy]

... a fetus is an extension of its mother.

Says who, you?

Yeah, me. And others. If your religiously-based assertions of fact and interpretations of data are permissible then so are mine. That's what it means to live in a free, secular society. You don't get to be right about everything just by claiming divine authority.

Says who, you?

Ahh, no.

In this instance every single rational observer in the world is in complete agreement that a fetus can't live outside of its mother's body until it can. The current record is 21 weeks, 5 days but that's not the norm. The actual survival rate at 22 weeks is around 10%.

And what if science advances to a point where it can exist without her, at any point after conception? Then what? If we move the viability target once again, we'd end up exactly with existing independently outside the womb. See how logic works? But you'd have to have a fit mental capacity to reach that conclusion and gymnastics tend to do that.

Yeah, I see how that logic works - it works speculatively. You're basically talking about the society in A Brave New World, where everyone was conceived in a test tube and decanted at full term. If that ever happens then we'll have some more things to figure out, but basing current policy on eventualities pulled from science fiction seems silly to me.

After it reaches viability the mother is no longer a necessity. Sure, it still needs food, water, and air, but anyone can provide those things.

And your alternative is what, let's get rid of it before it becomes a real burden?

Seems like you've lost the thread. I'm not offering any alternatives. I'm simply stating what I believe and what position I take in the national discussion, same as you. The only difference is that I'm not trying to support my beliefs with an appeal to divine authority.

Personally, my wife has been pregnant twice and I have 2 kids. If she were to become pregnant again she would have the pregnancy aborted.

I don't owe you an explanation for why we would make that decision, but I'll provide one regardless. I'm 48 and my wife is 45. Our second daughter had to be induced a month early due to fears that she wasn't thriving and might be stillborn if we delayed. The principle cause for her slow development and low birth weight was maternal age. If my wife were to become pregnant again her odds of carrying to term and delivering a healthy baby without complications to either of them is lower than we will accept. We have two girls and we need to guard our health. Beyond that, we also need to guard our finances. We want to give both of our girls the best start that they can get. Our best option to keep them safe in an increasingly uncertain world is to send them out healthy, educated, debt free, and with money in the bank. Having a third child as we approach 50 would undercut our ability to do that, and to be frank, I care more about my two existing children than about a nonexistent potential child.

If you want to simplify all of that to "get rid of it before it becomes a real burden" then I guess that's up to you, but from where I'm standing it would be the most responsible choice. And as I mentioned previously, nobody outside of my marriage gets or deserves a vote. It's our business.

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.

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.

[abelcainsbrother]

If the embryo or the fetus is not a HUMAN life, what is it then?

This is just semantics. A fetus has potential to become a human, but as long as it's a partially developed extension of the mother it's still just potential.

And again, almost all abortions - 99% - take place well before the fetus is anywhere close to viable.

I agree, Government should stay out of this UNLESS it is to make a law or to enforce a law.

What? Once the government makes and enforces a law that's the whole ballgame.

If viability is determined by the fetus' ability to survive outside the womb then viability ought to also be the ability to survive independently outside the womb, since otherwise it is entirely and utterly dependent on external care.

Careful with the mental gymnastics. You're going to pull something.

Prior to viability a fetus is an extension of its mother. It cannot exist without her. After it reaches viability the mother is no longer a necessity. Sure, it still needs food, water, and air, but anyone can provide those things. That's the difference between a potential human and a human.

In the future you're going to have to get out in your State and campaign for abortion and try to convince the people in your State it is not a life,etc,then gather signatures to get it put on a ballot in your State,then allow the PEOPLE in your State to vote on whether or not they agree with you or not.I guess you are getting practice at it being here.The days of bypassing the people in your State,going over their heads to the Supreme Court and having your liberal religious views on abortion forced on to the rest of the people are just about over.You're going to have to do it just like the medical marijuana folks did.Power back to the PEOPLE!

[edwardmurphy]

That's not how it works, Abe. I'll use marriage equality as an example of what actually happens:

1) Gay people want to get married. They lobby for that right, and in some states they are successful.

2) Christians in other states are alarmed that people in neighboring states are doing stuff they don't approve of. For example, people in Georgia don't feel like they should have to recognize a marriage between two men, even if it was performed in Colorado, where same sex marriages are legal.

3) The aforementioned Christians make laws saying that homosexuals will never get the right to marry in their state and that they never have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. They are aware that the right to marry has always been available to same race heterosexual couples and has more recently been granted to mixed race heterosexual couples, but they still think it's okay to deny that right to gay couples.

4) A few homosexual couples in states that passed these laws sue on the grounds that denying them a right that everyone else has, and doing so on religious rounds, is unconstitutional.

5) The case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and the gay couple wins. The law that says gay couples may not get married is struck down, as is the provision that states can refuse to recognize same sex marriages.

If one law banning marriage between same sex adults is struck down as unconstitutional that means that all such laws are unconstitutional. Marriage between homosexual couples is therefore legal, not because the SCOTUS made it legal, but because it has always been a natural right and the States that banned it violated the Constitution by doing so.

That's how it works, Abe. That's American Constitutional law.

I wish that you'd put a bit of effort into educating yourself about how our laws and government work. You're entitled to whatever political opinions you want to have, regardless of how stupid I might think they are, but comments like the one you just made aren't a matter of opinion. What you said is false, incorrect, and wrong. You're spouting ignorant nonsense based on a flawed understanding of reality.

Read a civics book, Abe. Go to the library and check out American History for Dummies. Educate yourself so that you don't always look like a moron.

[abelcainsbrother]

That's not how it works, Abe. I'll use marriage equality as an example of what actually happens:

1) Gay people want to get married. They lobby for that right, and in some states they are successful.

2) Christians in other states are alarmed that people in neighboring states are doing stuff they don't approve of. For example, people in Georgia don't feel like they should have to recognize a marriage between two men, even if it was performed in Colorado, where same sex marriages are legal.

3) The aforementioned Christians make laws saying that homosexuals will never get the right to marry in their state and that they never have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. They are aware that the right to marry has always been available to same race heterosexual couples and has more recently been granted to mixed race heterosexual couples, but they still think it's okay to deny that right to gay couples.

4) A few homosexual couples in states that passed these laws sue on the grounds that denying them a right that everyone else has, and doing so on religious rounds, is unconstitutional.

5) The case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and the gay couple wins. The law that says gay couples may not get married is struck down, as is the provision that states can refuse to recognize same sex marriages.

If one law banning marriage between same sex adults is struck down as unconstitutional that means that all such laws are unconstitutional. Marriage between homosexual couples is therefore legal, not because the SCOTUS made it legal, but because it has always been a natural right and the States that banned it violated the Constitution by doing so.

That's how it works, Abe. That's American Constitutional law.

I wish that you'd put a bit of effort into educating yourself about how our laws and government work. You're entitled to whatever political opinions you want to have, regardless of how stupid I might think they are, but comments like the one you just made aren't a matter of opinion. What you said is false, incorrect, and wrong. You're spouting ignorant nonsense based on a flawed understanding of reality.

Read a civics book, Abe. Go to the library and check out American History for Dummies. Educate yourself so that you don't always look like a moron.

You've ignored what the US Constitution says.Because it is all about WE THE PEOPLE which you have ignored. You're still stuck in the unconstitutional Matrix still thinking like being unconstitutional is now correct,when it is'nt.We are simply going to go back to going by the Constitution which means the PEOPLE are going to decide these issues you bring up and NOT THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE. I already gave you an example with the medical marijuana folks that you ignored. The same thing applies to same sex marriages - the people will decide it through elections in their State.We NEVER needed the Government to decide any of these issues for the people.

[edwardmurphy]

Nope, I'm not ignoring anything. "We the people" doesn't mean that every single decision is made by public referendum. In reality, while laws are only made by legislative bodies, the Supreme Court has the Constitutional power to strike laws down. When people make restrictive laws aimed at controlling their neighbors' behavior they open the door for those laws to be challenged and struck down, thereby effectively immunizing the behavior they were were trying to suppress from their attempts to suppress it. That's what happened in Roe v Wade and that's how marriage equality came to pass. I'm not talking about politics here, Abe, I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of how our system works. I'm talking Civics 101. That's what happened. Those are the facts.

Now, I'll grant that the current Supreme Court, recently packed with right wing ideologues, might hear conservative challenges to Roe v Wade and/or Obergefell v. Hodges, and they might reverse those decisions. Maybe. And maybe the next Democratic Senate majority, enraged by Mitch McConnell's hypocritical [nonsense], will pack the court with liberal ideologies and reverse them again. Who knows.

[abelcainsbrother]

Nope, I'm not ignoring anything. "We the people" doesn't mean that every single decision is made by public referendum. In reality, while laws are only made by legislative bodies, the Supreme Court has the Constitutional power to strike laws down. When people make restrictive laws aimed at controlling their neighbors' behavior they open the door for those laws to be challenged and struck down, thereby effectively immunizing the behavior they were were trying to suppress from their attempts to suppress it. That's what happened in Roe v Wade and that's how marriage equality came to pass. I'm not talking about politics here, Abe, I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of how our system works. I'm talking Civics 101. That's what happened. Those are the facts.

Now, I'll grant that the current Supreme Court, recently packed with right wing ideologues, might hear conservative challenges to Roe v Wade and/or Obergefell v. Hodges, and they might reverse those decisions. Maybe. And maybe the next Democratic Senate majority, enraged by Mitch McConnell's hypocritical [nonsense], will pack the court with liberal ideologies and reverse them again. Who knows.

Wrong! Nobody was suppressing anybody when it comes to Roe vs Wade as you liberals bypassed the people and forced abortion on to the rest of America.It is and has always been the issue as far as conservatives are concerned. In the future with conservative justices like we are going to have if and when they are confronted with a case like abortion where it was not decided by the people,it will be struck down and sent back to the States as a States rights people choice issue. No reversals,no bans, just sending it back to the States for the people to vote and decide the issue. This does not mean it is over for abortion like you imply,it is just that the people are going to decide it and not the government. If the polls that I do not believe are correct then the people will vote for abortion but I've never believed the polls that claim that the majority of Americans are for abortion.This is why I see you out in your State campaigning for abortion in the future.

[Byblos]

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.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't know but maybe a referendum, a vote, for issues like abortion and immigration, would be a great idea.

[Byblos]

I don't know but maybe a referendum, a vote, for issues like abortion and immigration, would be a great idea.

No, it wouldn't. Generally speaking, majority rules runs counter to conservatism, at least here in the U.S.

[edwardmurphy]

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.

[Byblos]

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.

Thank God for that.

[PaulSacramento]

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.

Hmm, you maybe right.
It is important to have a counter to the "tyranny of the majority", that is for sure.
Still, referendum's should be a viable option for polarizing issues.
That said, when RIGHTS are in question, there is never an easy solution.

[Byblos]

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.

Hmm, you maybe right.
It is important to have a counter to the "tyranny of the majority", that is for sure.
Still, referendum's should be a viable option for polarizing issues.
That said, when RIGHTS are in question, there is never an easy solution.

They are certainly used at the state and local levels, and very effectively I might add. At the federal level they become a weapon to usurp power, much like the popular vote would nullify the collective votes of all states but the most populous.

[PaulSacramento]

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.

Hmm, you maybe right.
It is important to have a counter to the "tyranny of the majority", that is for sure.
Still, referendum's should be a viable option for polarizing issues.
That said, when RIGHTS are in question, there is never an easy solution.

They are certainly used at the state and local levels, and very effectively I might add. At the federal level they become a weapon to usurp power, much like the popular vote would nullify the collective votes of all states but the most populous.

When I read your constitution, the foresight of your found fathers blows me away.
Understanding where they were coming from ( and out of) and their realization of the dangers of an unarmed population ( easily controlled by a tyrannical government), the dangers of "vote by population" only, the dangers of NOT have inalienable rights, I am just in awe about what they wrote and what has been amended since then.
Not perfect mind you, but for their time, really, really good.

[Byblos]

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.

Hmm, you maybe right.
It is important to have a counter to the "tyranny of the majority", that is for sure.
Still, referendum's should be a viable option for polarizing issues.
That said, when RIGHTS are in question, there is never an easy solution.

They are certainly used at the state and local levels, and very effectively I might add. At the federal level they become a weapon to usurp power, much like the popular vote would nullify the collective votes of all states but the most populous.

When I read your constitution, the foresight of your found fathers blows me away.
Understanding where they were coming from ( and out of) and their realization of the dangers of an unarmed population ( easily controlled by a tyrannical government), the dangers of "vote by population" only, the dangers of NOT have inalienable rights, I am just in awe about what they wrote and what has been amended since then.
Not perfect mind you, but for their time, really, really good.

I've been here for almost 40 years and I am still in awe of it.