This seems to be a decent analysis of it. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/03/...ortion-rights/
Tallaght Stadium Regular
I think the request though was to point out where it appears in the legislation?
Gab.com seems to be a site similar to facebook, so to direct us to that is as helpful as saying "Go to facebook" (and its wikipedia page isn't exactly encouraging - "Gab has been widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, antisemites, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories like QAnon")
"I heard it on the radio" is even less helpful.
And you didn't link to the Washington Examiner, you linked to the Washington Standard, which seems to be a clickbait site.
Yep. I think to clarify how I see it (and maybe Mark can correct where I'm wrong)
Lines 22-27 of the legislation say -
To experience a perinatal death is not the same as to kill a baby. Killing a baby is homicide, and this act doesn't mention homicide. That is covered under a different, unchanged, law.(H) THIS SECTION MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE ANY FORM OF INVESTIGATION OR PENALTY FOR A PERSON:
(1) TERMINATING OR ATTEMPTING TO TERMINATE THE PERSON’S OWN PREGNANCY; OR
(2) EXPERIENCING A MISCARRIAGE, PERINATAL DEATH RELATED TO A FAILURE TO ACT, OR STILLBIRTH.
The act is saying that if, in the course of an abortion, the baby is born but dies of natural causes (most likely related to the abortion), then this is effectively considered part of the abortion even though technically the child is no longer unborn.
That seems reasonable legislation to me (without going into the moral questions a birth during abortion raises in the first place)
You made a specific claim about NY law. I'm asking you to provide a link to back up that specific claim.
Any time I make a specific claim about anything being a fact, feel free to ask me for links.
Now, can you please provide a link to something that demonstrates that in NY, a born baby's life can be terminated anytime before the mother leaves hospital?
@mark12345, you've been warned many, many times about posting evidence for your claims here. Post real evidence for that last claim or retract it. Failure to do so will result in a suspension from this forum. And don't post about gab on Foot.ie again. It's a disgusting cesspool of racists, white supremacists, neo-nazis, qanon losers, and the utter dregs of society, I won't have it advertised here. Try posting something left-of-right there and see how "free" it is.
I will ban you completely from this site if you start up your nutty far-right crap again. There's no first amendment here, the site is owned and operated by me, and I get to decide if I don't want vile, disruptive nonsense posted here.
Same goes for everyone else, on both sides of this discussion. Post evidence or don't post.
Last edited by dahamsta; 04/07/2022 at 10:33 PM.
I think mark (inadvertently) flags an important factor, which SkStu mentioned earlier - social media. It's probably worthy of its own thread tbh (cos this post is going to veer off-topic...)
It's clearly not the only factor of course - the abortion referendum in 83 was fairly fractious and there was no social media then. Abortion is pretty much always going to be an emotive subject.
But social media does seem to be able to have a big impact on people's views (as mark has shown) I can't remember where I read this, but there was a survey of maybe 100 people attending a flat earth induction (or something like that) and every one of them got their interest in flat earth from YouTube. There was a study last year which said covid denial/anti-vax views could be linked to 12 influential people through social media. There's an article on Forbes about the link between social media and misinformation too. And National Geographic ran a feature a while back on what it called an attack on science, along the same lines.
It feels like these sort of nutty things - you can add in climate change denial, using your pronouns, alternative medicine, and so on - have been growing in recent years, whereas you would like to have thought increased information would decrease their prevalence instead. Some are harmless as they're clearly stupid (flat earth); others are potentially very dangerous (covid denial/anti-vax)
On a related note, I got the 50th anniversary Apollo 11 boxset there a couple of years ago and one thing it includes is a BBC debate from shortly after on the philosophical and social implications for mankind arising from travelling to another world. It's amazing how respectful the debate is, and how much it benefits from that (albeit it's a social debate rather than a political one, so it'll always be less charged)
Or you can take the infamous Life of Brian debate in 1979 between John Cleese, Michael Palin, Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark - the latter two argue in a more "modern style" (for want of a better word - personal attacks without making any real valid points - while the Pythons (and moderator Tim Rice) try engage in a genuine discussion. It's notable that the audience sees this almost straight away and sides with the Pythons. There's a very good background article on Wikipedia about the debate - for example "Cleese said [in 2013] that it left him bored and he realised that there was no attempt at a proper discussion, and no attempt to find any common ground."
I don't watch a huge amount of TV debates (or TV in general), but I don't think debates these days come close to this standard very often. I do think social media - 140 characters, block who you don't like, dismiss people as racist/right-wing/liberals/transphobes/TERFs instead of making a point, and so on - really does play into that.
And if that's the case, this sort of stuff is only going to grow in the coming years unfortunately, and not just in the US.
As I say, it can't be the only factor, but I think it is a big one.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 05/07/2022 at 5:44 AM.
Yes, this is the problem America in particular is facing, but also many other countries of course -- liberals and left-leaners* try to be moderate, to debate, to discuss, to be fair and even-handed, to negotiate, to be political. But the right don't make any effort at all these days, and you can't negotiate with someone that simply... won't negotiate. It's the paradox of tolerance.
Before Trump, when talking to people, I always said that we needed to avoid sinking to their level, we need to remain conscious of their humanity, we need to be fair and even-handed, but that's over now, I'm done with that now. We need to cut them off, cut them out, deplatform them, take away their voices, shut them up before they do any more harm. How we can recover from that when we take back control I really don't know, but being polite is so over now.
And I make no bones about what I think needs to happen in America, now, right now this minute -- they need to be on general strike, they need to be out in the streets, outside every capitol building, in their millions. If they don't get out on the streets now without guns, they're going to be out in the streets with guns in another year, or two, or three at the most. Their cities will look like Ukrainian streets. Because the racists and lunatics are already out on the streets, wearing "uniforms".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL4Ld09qXkY
* I refuse to use the word "leftist", which as far as I can see was reinvented by the right as an insult, and is now being used widely by others. Is it an attempt to embrace the term, like "gay", the N word, etc? I still don't like it, I consider it pandering.
Last edited by dahamsta; 05/07/2022 at 9:58 AM.
Leftist is definitely used pejoratively. Same as woke, snowflake, virtue signaller etc. Right wing press in UK's standard rebuke of an argument from the socially centre / left of centre usually takes at least one of these forms, introducing or even placing total reliance on an ad hominem angle to the argument. Priti Patel's Rwanda plans are apparently under attack from woke lawyers or lefty lawyers (better alliteration for a tabloid headline). Maybe they're just lawyers who think the policy is worth challenging on legal grounds.
Social media and the cancel culture that goes with it has made it impossible to make a mistake.
Look at that young race driver for red bull who made a racist remark while playing a video game recently (actual detail not reported) his contract was cancelled with red bull and when his other team held onto him on the basis that he is a young (gob****e i would add aren't they all at that age) who made a mistake and is his whole life to be cancelled because of this even when he apologises and expresses deep regret. The Formula 2 company came out and said they were surprised he was not dropped from his team,,,,
Does everyone believe that a young eejit who uses a racist term and then apologises should have his life ruined because the teams are afraid of a social media backlash.?
Not arguing for a second it wasn't 100% wrong whatever he said and maybe if i knew it might change my mind about this individual case but its the general black and white , right or wrong, no compromise no empathy no forgiveness possible that depresses me
Turn it around if the kid had used a word for Jews.....cancelled ?
Or said people who believe in Jesus are eejits ....cancelled ?
Is there no room for balance? Kevin Myers was hounded a couple of years ago for making a remark which was deemed anti jewish (if i remember right) despite a lifetime of pro jewish sentiment he was hammered and hammered.
Anyone in public life is one mistake away from being cancelled regardless of the other 99.9999% of their life. Its a scary world for them
Related to the social media angle...
Faster internet speeds linked to lower civic engagement in UK
'The analysis of behaviour among hundreds of thousands of people led by academics from Cardiff University and Sapienza University of Rome found faster connection speeds may have reduced the likelihood of civic engagement among close to 450,000 people – more than double the estimated membership of the Conservative party. They found that as internet speeds rose between 2005 and 2018, time online “crowded out” other forms of civic engagement.
'The study’s authors have also speculated that the phenomenon may have helped fuel populism as people’s involvement with initiatives for “the common good”, which they say are effectively “schools of democracy” where people learn the benefit of cooperation, has declined.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-engagement-uk
No study on Ireland, but we can't be that dissimilar. We need less online and more in-person interaction.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Agree with that. I see the creator of Friends has come out and made a grovelling apology for using the wrong pronouns for a transgender character on the show 25 years ago - it doesn't seem to matter that it's before all this pronoun nonsense was even invented, but she still has to apologise for it.
It's a very similar culture to that in North Korea, strangely. They start the week in schools* by asking pupils to tell tales on who did what. If someone accuses you of something, you have to stand in front of the class while others pile on the accusation; you can't deny it and then you have to profess shame and promise to try better. It's all part of the cult mindset they have there, and is obviously not a good thing to have creeping in here. In fact, here is a North Korean refugee who went to college in the US likening experience to living in North Korea.
(John McEnroe was asked on an American TV show if he wanted to apologise for comments he made on Emma Raducanu when she withdrew from her first Wimbledon a couple of years ago; I think she had a panic attack on court or something like that. His comments had been perfectly reasonable and came from the point of having been a young protege himself. He looked the host in the eye and just said "Eh - no". I had huge respect for him for that)
This is all veering in random directions now, so feel free to split of course!
* - details from This is Paradise! My North Korean Childhood by Hyok Kang.
I assume you mean nonsense for non-trans people, which I agree with. For trans people, I think they should absolutely be allowed to state their pronouns, if they wish, to help people not misgender them.
I'm sure I've said it here before, but on the subject in general, I think what happened with Graham Linehan is a tragedy. It all started with an episode of The IT Crowd, with Douglas Renholm dating a trans woman, and reacting in typical Douglas Renholm fashion. It was entirely within character, it didn't make his behaviour look ok, the reaction was just over the top and ridiculous. If he had just said that at the time, even with a back-handed "I'm sorry you were offended", it would be done and dusted. But the fundamentalists went mental with it, he reacted badly, and it's been a snowball down a hill ever since.
I wouldn't excuse his current behaviour for a second, but it's probably bordering on a mental health issue at the very least. Trans culture, and indeed LGBT culture in general, has fundamentalists like every other group, and they make other people fundamentalists against them.
Well I suppose there's various levels to that.
Non-trans people putting "he/him" or "she/her" on their e-mails/social media profiles is nonsense. Yes, I can assume your gender because humans have evolved to be spectacularly good at doing that.
For trans people - I think it's important to clarify what's covered by that. I don't agree with gender self-identification for example. I am male; I can't simply decide in the morning that I'm female. I know legally I can, but the law isn't science. And I think the way social media can lead to a form of groupthink (not sure if that's the best word - but similar to the examples given earlier on how it's driven belief in flat earth, covid denial, etc) is almost certainly by itself going to drive an increase in people claiming this. That doesn't really make sense and I don't buy into it. I can't decide in the morning that I'm black or 21, for example (though the age thing has been taken to court, strangely)
If you opt to go down the medical/operation route, then I think there's long been a general social acceptance to acknowledge this as a sex change, and your pronouns change and that's fine. But I think it's important to at least quietly acknowledge that a sex change still doesn't really change your sex. Biology is far, far more complicated than having your penis cut off and taking some hormones.
I think the recent FINA decision to effectively ban transgender people from women's competition reflects this, and is quite reasonable. Caitlyn Jenner (who as Bruce Jenner won Olympic gold in 1976 of course) is one of those who's supportive of the move, though I think there's been a lot of opposition to it from LGBT groups. Laurel Hubbard - the 43-year-old New Zealand weightlifter at the last Olympics - praised the IOC at the time for "establishing that sport is something for all people, that it is inclusive and is accessible", but Seb Coe, the President of World Athletics has said "If we’re making a judgment about fairness or inclusion, I will always fall down on the side of fairness.” I think this is an important discussion that gets drowned out by general mud-slinging in this area unfortunately.
Then there's the issue of stuff like xe/xem or ze/hir - and, no. This is just self-indulgence.
Of course, the huge complication in all this is that so far as I know, it's practically impossible to diagnose transgenderism as such; you can really only take someone's word for it. I'm not sure it's even possible to rule out the idea that it might be simply all in the head and that the future may see better ways of helping than surgery. (I know this is getting close to what was said about homosexuality back in the day, but I think neuroscience can at least prove sexual attraction, so knock yourself out with whoever you want as far as I'm concerned)
Another roundy-bouty, vaguely on topic, probably controversial post, but sure if it leads to more discussion, then what harm
(Also, I see mark12345 has quietly dropped away from the thread without acknowledging any of the points made on the Maryland bill...)
Again, i agree with all of the above Pineapple. The dialogue on these topics is so important but even sincere discussion as per the above is also so risky given the climate of consequence we are facing today which you and DaHamsta have both spoken about. I know we are in an obscure, wee corner of the internet but posting something like that on twitter or elsewhere would likely have consequences (in some ways depending on how important Pineapple Stu is in the public realm ).
Anyway, what really gets me - more than anything else - about the trans topic is the, admittedly small, number of parents who force their will onto their young pre-pubescent kids. If their girl is a tomboy or their boy is a bit effeminate they start changing their pronouns, dressing them up as the opposite sex and labelling them as trans/queer/whatever. It just feels so wrong to me to see that happen. Being a kid is about being a kid. Stop bringing sexuality and gender into it at that age. Let that be about individual self-exploration during or post puberty as it has been for long enough. And as a parent just be there to support their decision and love them. The imposing of wills on kids in those early years just comes across as grossly inappropriate, controlling and done in the spirit of virtue-signalling in a weird way, even.
I think for the majority of parents in that subset it is 100% about their need to demonstrate their own Right On attitude.
Common sense isn't as common as it used to be.
If your 18 (or thereabouts kid says he is gay) "no problem son, i love you regardless" if your 12 year old son plays with barbie, throw him an action man he probably just wants to play rather than define himself as he/she and make a statement about his sexual identity.
Bookmarks