-=> Dale Shipp wrote to Dan Clough <=-

 DC> The point is right below here, which was that the law (as written)
 DC> will likely never come to be.  It was also to counter your
 DC> implication that the law was in practice right this minute.

 DS> The law has been passed and signed by the Governer.

Yes, and like nearly *EVERY* single state/federal law, it has a 
"takes effect on...".  In this case it does NOT take effect 
until November 2019, as I said originally.  A fairly weak attempt 
at diversion there on your part.

 DC> Neither, actually.  Admittedly it's an "educated guess", but I'm
 DC> pretty sure I'm correct.  As for the "absurdity" - I completely
 DC> agree that there needs to be allowances made for cases of
 DC> rape/incest.  No question about that.  My belief is that the law
 DC> was written the way it was knowing how much "outrage" it would
 DC> cause, and then.... they'll add the exceptions for rape/incest and
 DC> be able to claim that they've made concessions and the law should
 DC> be enacted with those changes.  In reality that is what was
 DC> desired/planned the whole time.

 DS> That statement is spin.  If they had meant for the exceptions to
 DS> be part of the law that they passed, they would have included
 DS> them.  Their intent was to totally ban abortions with no
 DS> exceptions (in direct contridiction to federal law by the way).

You missed the point (again).  They meant the wording to be 
exactly as written, yes.... but for a reason as I said above.  
When they go back and add exceptions for rape/incest, it will make 
it appear that they have "conceded" something and/or "compromised" 
in the interests of bipartisanship.  They still get what they 
want.  This kind of thing happens all the time.

 DC> The actual *REAL*
 DC> intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
 DC> Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.

 DS> Maybe so.

Not much "maybe" about it.

 DS> And thus go back to the era of coat hanger abortions and women
 DS> dying. I certainly hope that does not happen.

 DC> I hope it does happen.

 DS> You hope that many woman will start dying because of this --
 DS> sorry that you feed that cruel.

No, I do not hope that women start dying because of this.  Another 
weak attempt at twisting things up.

 DC> We've had legalized murder for far too
 DC> long.  If you're so against "women dying", why does it not bother
 DC> you that MILLIONS of babies have died?

 DS> Because they are not yet babies when the abortion happens.

Yeah, that's always the argument.  It has a human face, limbs, 
fingers/toes, internal organs, and a *HEARTBEAT*.  Telling me that 
is not a baby is............ ridiculous.

 DS> ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland.

 DC> This may be part of your problems... you're living in a Communist
 DC> section of the country!

 DS> Ah -- one of the rules of debate is that when you run out of
 DS> things to say, fall back on insulting your opponent.

I didn't insult you.  I merely pointed out that you're living in a 
very oppressive and govt-controlling part of the country.

 DS> And by no means do I live in a communist section of the country
 DS> -- there is no such thing in America.

Not yet, anyway.  Trust me when I tell you that there are plenty 
of people in America who will ensure it never happens, despite the 
attempts by the Leftists/Democrats to make it so.


... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux