One thing I enjoy about Christie is he is a pro. I don't like his politics generally and about teacher's unions specifically, but he is one cool cucumber when he needs to be.
Not watching, the news that Trump will be throwing a funding party for Giuliani come September is humorous enough ... odds are Trump will take a giant cut of the proceeds..
Your sense of humor is sharp. I sense a comic 'entity' in you. Maybe a famous one? (Don't answer that just keep it in your heart that I think that way.)
The abortion discussion was Earth 2. I lost track of how many candidates said Democrats are fighting for legal abortion up until point of birth. Like our doctors as showing the mothers their freshly harvested babies, and the mothers are saying “oh shit, it has red hair - kill it!”
I felt that way too. But then I thought about what they were getting after. Republicans/conservatives have the abortion issue back as a states rights debate and although some of them are talking about federalizing it again for their purposes to restrict it. . . what they are getting at in this case and being wary concerning is LIBERAL states will use their states rights to install free and open abortions into state law. Christie even said so much when he talked about California, Illinois, and one other state I can't recall right now using the lack of a federal ban or limitation to do so.
Nevermind the obvious ridiculousness of talking about freedom/states rights/people (states) should have control over their own decisions-the conservatives are not caught on the horns of a dilemma because they really don't want states to do any of that just do as conservative red-states SAY.
I read the link. It was shorter than most articles I read and videos that I watch. But you don't care about any of that, because decidedly your role here is to troll.
So let's get this out of the way ONCE AND FOR ALL!
In the link, what does it say about "good faith" abortion practices "after viability"?
However, the bill would also legalize abortion after fetal viability, “when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, a continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health,” according to the bill.
That language would overrule various state laws. Likewise, critics like The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the term “health” is too open-ended and could allow abortions for virtually any reason, so long as it’s signed off by an abortion provider.
How fucking retarded. “Virtually any reason” is OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION, nothing else as the right continues to imply. These types of conditions are determined well in advance of birth. If it’s a determination made later in the pregnancy it’s because the mother’s life may be at risk or the baby will not survive outside of the womb. The most heartless people on this planet want that mother to carry that future corpse to term and risk her own life to deliver a fully baked dead body.
How fucking retarded. “Virtually any reason” is OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION, nothing else as the right continues to imply
Tough words from someone being so easily manipulated. Progressives shout over and over that it must be "related to a serious health condition" even though the law itself says so no such thing. It just says a risk to health. For starters, given that abortionists have testified to Congress that in their opinion ALL pregnancies constitute a risk to health, guess what that means?
But the exceptions are even broader than just physical health. "Mental health" is also an acceptable reason. All a mother has to do is say "I'm stressed out about the idea of being a mother" or "I'm worried about being able to afford a kid" and boom, you can kill a viable human, legally.
The talking points about "serious health risks" are just that, designed to give cover so the ignorant will go along with something they would oppose if they knew how these laws are designed to be interpreted. Watch what happens when someone proposes a law allowing post 20 weeks abortion only for "serious health risks" and defines serious as commonly understood. The same people who claim that's what this law says, will go ballistic opposing a law that actually sets that requirement.
e even quoted the vague part but still chooses to believe it doesn't mean what the words say.
Yep, its intentionally designed to make it seem reasonable (few people want a mother's life put at risk) to people who don't pay attention to details while hiding it's extremity (no actual restrictions on abortion until birth) from them. the exceptions completely swallow the rule.
I will say this: You remind me of Donald Trump in one regard: 1. You troll people with abandon and no one seems able to be able to put an end to it. It would seem to be above the law on this site. It's so Trumpian.
Thank you for the 'assist.' It shows cooperation. I get tired of the 'game' sometimes. MAGA is all game all the time. Such people question girl's and women's motivations, and doctors integrity, while hugging a sloppy, old, tired, lying, wretched creature like Trump to their chests and breasts. I trust girls, women, and doctors more than MAGA officials who lie to keep a loser on the ticket and get this. . .they sent him money every time he ask for it! Wow. Conservatives have 'bought' Trump with cold hard cash!
The vague language you are insisting on does not exist. This bill overwhelmingly addresses the myriad of efforts by the religious right to interfere with a woman’s choice.
That is not vague. This quote from Sean is vague and wholly unsupported by the bill:
"Mental health" is also an acceptable reason. All a mother has to do is say "I'm stressed out about the idea of being a mother" or "I'm worried about being able to afford a kid" and boom, you can kill a viable human, legally.
Again, NOT IN THE BILL. Efforts to claim this bill implies this type of language are simply more attempts by the religious right to take away a woman’s right to choose. I also see NOTHING referring to “up to the moment of birth”. Point it out for us if you disagree.
The vague language you are insisting on does not exist
Of course it does But don't think It's not obvious you've moved the goalposts from claiming the abortions of viable babies must be "RELATED TO A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION," because that language doesn't exist.
But sure I'll read your bill for you:
Section 9:
A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
And health, under the Bolton case of 1973, was legally defined in 2021 to include a mother's mental or physical health.
Pay attention. What matters is how the Supreme Court defined "health" in abortion cases in 2021. Legally, "health" has to include mental and physical health.
I also see NOTHING referring to “up to the moment of birth”. Point it out for us if you disagree
Then you don't understand your own bill. There is no time limit on post viability abortions. So what does that mean?
Post viability does not automatically imply dismembering a baby inside a mother whose water just broke. Your transparent boogie man scare tactics are intellectually vacuous.
How fucking retarded. “Virtually any reason” is OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION, nothing else as the right continues to imply
The idea that "risk to a patient's health" will be limited to actual serious health conditions and not used as a wide open loophole is naive enough to be considered "fucking retarded", yes.
t viability does not automatically imply dismembering a baby inside a mother whose water just broke.
You've proven my point here. You first claimed that post viability abortions are limited to serious health conditions, but can't provide any proof of that in the text. You then claim it doesn't allow abortions up until birth, but you can't show any language in the bill that puts a time limit on the abortion. The lack of any restriction of course means none exists.
The whole purpose of these bills (drafted by abortion industry) is to create the illusion of compromise or reasonableness, while making any restriction or limit on abortion impossible.
Because it's codified in other US law. This would not be the only law in existence. Other US law would be used to define terminology if it is left undefined in this statute.
Doe V Bolton, decided the same day as Roe, is arguably the more important case regarding how Courts actually implemented the right to abortion until 2022. In Doe, the Court defined how the womans's health exception must be interpreted:
: We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton/
So anytime "health" was mentioned in the context of abortion before 2022 they were incorporating this definition including all of these aspects of health.
It's pretty much right there in Section 2: Findings and purpose.
6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
1 (1) Abortion services are essential to health 2 care and access to those services is central to people’s ability to participate equally in the economic 4 and social life of the United States. Abortion access 5 allows people who are pregnant to make their own 6 decisions about their pregnancies, their families, and 7 their lives. 8 (2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly 9 has recognized the constitutional right to terminate 10 a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate 11 a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the 13 treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant. 16 (3) Nonetheless, access to abortion services has 17 been obstructed across the United States in various 18 ways, including blockades of health care facilities 19 and associated violence, prohibitions of, and restrictions on, insurance coverage; parental involvement 21 laws (notification and consent); restrictions that 22 shame and stigmatize people seeking abortion services; and medically unnecessary regulations that neither confer any health benefit nor further the safety 25 of abortion services, but which harm people by delaying, complicating access to, and reducing the 2 availability of, abortion services. 3 (4) Reproductive justice requires every individual to have the right to make their own decisions 5 about having children regardless of their circumstances and without interference and discrimination. Reproductive Justice is a human right that can 8 and will be achieved when all people, regardless of 9 actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration status, sex (including gender identity, sex 11 stereotyping, or sexual orientation), age, or disability 12 status have the economic, social, and political power 13 and resources to define and make decisions about 14 their bodies, health, sexuality, families, and communities in all areas of their lives, with dignity and 16 self-determination. 17 (5) Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on reproductive health, including abortion, 19 that perpetuate systems of oppression, lack of bodily 20 autonomy, white supremacy, and anti-Black racism. 21 This violent legacy has manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and experimentation on Black 23 women; forced sterilizations; medical experimentation on low-income women’s reproductive systems; 25 and the forcible removal of Indigenous children. 1 access to equitable reproductive health care, including 2 abortion services, has always been deficient in the 3 United States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) and their families. 5 (6) The legacy of restrictions on reproductive 6 health, rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of 7 a dark history. Presently, the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall especially heavily on people with 9 low incomes, BIPOC, immigrants, young people, 10 people with disabilities, and those living in rural and 11 other medically underserved areas. Abortion-specific 12 restrictions are even more compounded by the ongoing criminalization of people who are pregnant, including those who are incarcerated, living with HIV, 15 or with substance-use disorders. These communities 16 already experience health disparities due to social, 17 political, and environmental inequities, and restrictions on abortion services exacerbate these harms. 19 Removing medically unjustified restrictions on abortion services would constitute one important step on 21 the path toward realizing Reproductive Justice by 22 ensuring that the full range of reproductive health 23 care is accessible to all who need it.
If you can read the red highlighted portions of what is just a small portion of section two and still come away insisting that this bill isn't trying to secure right to abortion for virtually any reason then no amount of discussion is going to get you to see reality. Most of the little I posted has nothing to do with serious medical conditions but, rather, excuses based on economic, social, racial, sexual and perceived concepts of bodily autonomy. This bill all but states "abortion for any reason at any time".
Wtf are you talking about?! Maybe you posted that in the wrong discussion, because it clearly has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Nobody is taking their pregnancy to the point of birth and terminating at the last minute for any of those reasons. Un-fucking-real.
Only in paranoia "he's fucking up the status quo" land. How is one man such a threat? Your candyass peers are afraid of "but he's gonna" bullshit. There are checks and balances in place to make sure ANY threat he may THINK he can get away with will be crushed like a bug FFS.
Life must be tough for you guys, being petrified of every boogeyman your manipulators put in front on you.
I wouldn't say tough, but it does get tedious being the only people willing to consider what might go wrong and having to listen to others desperate to jump into the van any time they're offered candy.
Well, that’s not overly broad at all! What’s next in the queue of delay tactics based on things that might happen? Maybe the Democrats will pass FDA regulations allowing the sale of nine month cured fetuses for consumption. The sky is the limit in your world when it comes to delay tactics in the abortion debate.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that he was running from Donald Trump’s cultish mob threatening to hang the vice President and hunt down other members of congress. How is that deflection? It’s directly related to your stupid comment.
Perhaps if you read your own post to which I was replying it may clear it up for you. Hint: You were denying that this bill wanted to make abortion legal for virtually any reason. You claimed it doesn't say that. Actually, if you read it, it does. Just not expressly in those words. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can see it, however. Thanks for your time.
It doesn’t even remotely imply that any woman would knowingly carry a healthy baby for nine months and then decide to terminate the pregnancy at the last minute. Nor does it imply that any medical professional would attempt to justify such action. There simply is no language that would satisfy your side, it’s just a nonstop effort to delay and upend the debate with incredibly obtuse and unrealistic what if’s.
People engage in intellectual dishonesty all the time when it comes to politics. So there will be those who play dishonest semantic games but suggesting that those of only one ideology engage in that dishonesty is flat out wrong.
You just admitted the language was vague so your claim was based on ignorance. Your claim turns out to be correct, but luck is no substitute for fact-based analysis.
I had. You simply claimed the act was vague. You made no informed comment on the actual content, just went along with the flow. You would still not know if I had not provided the relevant content.
Thank you for this post. I did not have time to read much of the actual bill as it was near the end of my graveyard shift when this caught my attention. I simply found it noteworthy that Section 2: Findings and Purpose, seemed to make obvious the intent of the bill without even getting into the details. What you've presented are the some of the details behind the intent, to my mind.
I think this sort of thing shows why the debate about abortion is probably pointless at this point. Whether it is about a Democratic or Republican bill, no one is going to make any useful progress if people can't even be honest on what the bill says, what it attempts to accomplish or what its flaws may be.
I was shocked when I read the actual content of the act. While I believe abortion should be a decision made by a woman and her physician up to the point of viability, I am entirely against eliminating all medical checks and limitations on when an abortion can be done.
It is my opinion that most people who would be considered pro-choice also seek sensible guidelines and limitations. That only an extreme fringe would want abortion to be without any sensible guidelines.
Practical, sensible, responsible legislation seems to be beyond our reach in our divisive partisan environment.
Politically, this act seems like a very bad move for those seeking fair, practical abortion laws.
The bill spoke about "good-faith posing of risk/s to patient's health" the assumption is that, all things being equal, a patient's can have an abortion after viability if a healthcare provider deems it appropriate for health reasons.
That is, after reaching fetal viability there HAS TO BE A QUALIFIED HEALTH REASON TO ABORT. . .nothing in this bill makes it explicit that a girl or woman could just 'waltz' into a provider's office and abort a fully developed child willy-nilly.
Of course, conservatives question motives (and they might be right to do so considering the physician/provider) but what is the alternative (maybe a list of qualified reasons to abort after viability)?
Politically, this act seems like a very bad move for those seeking fair, practical abortion laws.
Perhaps it is my cynicism speaking, but I don't think this bill was written with the intent to pass it. I think it was simply a political tool aimed at convincing certain groups that they are oppressed and that it is in their best interest to support the Democratic Party. As you say, this bill doesn't address sensible guidelines and limitations as far as I can see. Rather than appealing to medical necessity for instances of valid abortion practices it simply seems to make its argument on a concepts of racial, sexual, economic and a host of other "Social Justice" topics. Ideology rather than actual need, in other words.
And note that we ( those involved in this portion of the conversation) aren't even speaking on the level of whether abortion is moral or not. We've simply been talking about what the purpose of this bill intends.
I am entirely against eliminating all medical checks and limitations on when an abortion can be done.
If you’re writing a law that is intended to ensure that abortion remain a matter between a woman and her doctor, then that’s how it should be written. There will always be some medical conditions that could challenge the maximum cut off date as determined by politicians. The fact is doctors aren’t performing late term abortions for reasons that aren’t medically dire for the mother or unborn. The hysteria on display here is unwarranted and serves only to stifle the issue and delay the conversation.
My position is that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor up to the point of viability. After that, I would like practical guidelines to be set. And this should not be a big issue because third trimester abortions are very rare. So guidelines that ensure medical necessity (e.g. life of mother) should be in place.
Trust me I carefully read what you wrote three times and I read the bill. In reading the bill the "without limitation" clause does mean that an abortion can happen after viability when the health of the mother or some other unknown emergency (qualified) cause arises.
(I have no particular interest in being proved right or wrong. I am simply trying to interpret the clause.)
If you’re writing a law that is intended to ensure that abortion remain a matter between a woman and her doctor, then that’s how it should be written. There will always be some medical conditions that could challenge the maximum cut off date as determined by politicians. The fact is doctors aren’t performing late term abortions for reasons that aren’t medically dire for the mother or unborn.
(a) General Rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
(10) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient’s health.
Written differently:
(10) There shall be no limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgement of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient's heatlh.
That is, this law will do away with the notion in states that after viability is reached there can be no permitting of an abortion for any reason.
That is how I interpret what Rep. Judy Chu is saying (even if not so clear on its face).
And as the conservative commenters are suggesting; they see a "devil" in the details or lack thereof. But, it still remains to be made clear if they can make the leap to "abortion on demand" which is the more proper phrase for what they are claiming democrats want to see happen at any time before birth.
(10) There shall be no limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgement of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient's heatlh.
Prove that most of them are the woman who just wants to get rid of the fetus she has been carrying for the past eight months. I most likely could prove that most are for the life of the mother, if I cared to. I doubt that you can prove me wrong. Why don't you waste your time trying.
I am entirely against eliminating all medical checks and limitations on when an abortion can be done.
Why?
IMNAAHO, anti-abortion stances are always based in religiousity. The preacher said it's wrong! So I'm surprised by this position, in a staunchly anti-religious person.
Unless you're a rigorous vegan, I don’t see what is wrong about putting an end to the existence of a human fetus. We slaughter thousands of animals every day. An heifer is more a "person", by any reasoned, logical standard than is an unborn fetus.
If the slaughter of animals is acceptable in some conditions, it can only be unacceptable in other conditions if the difference between the two is clear. So... why is it ok to slaughter some animals, but not to put an end to an entity that isn't even born yet?
(Also... "viable" is entirely dependent on technology and semantics. A newborn is immediately viable... or not at all for another couple years.)
This is technology and semantics. Depending on the equipment of the hospital, a fetus may be viable at very different ages. Depending on semantics, a newborn may not be viable for several years.
Some day, gestation will be possible, entirely extra-uterine. What would be the "point of viability" in that case? (I'm assuming that we're searching for logic that is applicable to all situations - we can't just say "we'll worry about that when it happens.")
Your commentary is so predictable. The point under contention is made by the political and social right in this country that people want to rip fetuses out of the uterus for any reason whatsoever right up to the point of birth. You prove the contention that the right has made.
I am confident in my ability to back my contention up.
Sean knows all of what’s in that link. He’s been doing this here for years. Good luck trying to get an answer from him about where his own personal line is when it comes to the abortion. He knows how unpopular that admission would be.
The restrictions that you noted in blue mean that you agree or disagree or something else?
Reading down through the list I see many of the impediments that the pro-life politicians had managed to legislate for the purposes of slowing the process down so that the woman would be beyond "viability" (really a semantical hole there."
I think you might want to more carefully read what I posted @7.3.75 because the act explicitly eliminates common limitations and safeguards.
No, I understood what was posted. I worded what I said badly. What I said was:
As you say, this bill doesn't address sensible guidelines and limitations as far as I can see. Rather than appealing to medical necessity for instances of valid abortion practices it simply seems to make its argument on a concepts of racial, sexual, economic and a host of other "Social Justice" topics. Ideology rather than actual need, in other words.
What I meant to convey was:
The bill wasn't addressing the issue from a sensible guidelines and limitations angle as far as I can see. As you say, it actually attempts to remove them and instead, seems to argue from concepts of racial, sexual, economic and a host of other "Social Justice topics. Ideology rather than actual medical need.
I've been suffering from a continuous headache for over a week now and was pretty tired when I wrote that so it was rushed and badly worded.
In your rush to denigrate you forgot to read this (from your quoted text) :
I didn't forget to read it. I simply don't see what you do in it. Specifically the part about "good faith". All medical decisions are supposed to be in good faith but there is ample evidence that they are not. Dr's overprescribing opioids for instance and what is being done to children medically in the name of trans ideology for another. In other words, in good faith has no objective, solid standard that would prevent abortion at any time for any reason.
Nor have I denigrated anything. I'm having a conversation about what the bill says and how vague it is.
A psychopath who was Australia's youngest-ever murderer when he killed an innocent three-year-old girl will be freed from prison despite experts warning there's a high chance he'll violently offend again.
In one of the most shocking cases in Australian history, the now 36-year-old man, known only as SLD, walked down the road from his adoptive home to kill toddler Courtney Morley-Clarke when he was just 13-years-old.
The court heard SLD had a very difficult childhood.
He was one of three children and was abused by his junkie mother before entering the foster system at just two-years-old.
Despite being a problem child, he was adopted by a family in the small NSW Central Coast town of Point Clare when he was four.
However, the newfound stability did little to change the 'disturbed' nature of the boy.
If you can't (as a human) see the difference between treating humans and fish differently, what would be the point? Human life is more valuable and worthy of a protection than that of a fowl or fish. That is axiomatic.
You support the government handing out licenses to hunt people?
IMNAAHO, anti-abortion stances are always based in religiousity.
I am not talking about anti-abortion stances. I am talking about sensible guidelines for abortion based on factors such as gestation stage, health of mother, health of fetus, etc.
Unless you're a rigorous vegan, I don’t see what is wrong about putting an end to the existence of a human fetus.
I am against a gratuitous abortion of a viable, healthy fetus. For example, a woman who decides she no longer wants to be inconvenienced by pregnancy a month before her due date.
Also... "viable" is entirely dependent on technology and semantics. A newborn is immediately viable... or not at all for another couple years.
The term viable in the context of abortion has a more specific meaning. You know this.
Some day, gestation will be possible, entirely extra-uterine. What would be the "point of viability" in that case? (I'm assuming that we're searching for logic that is applicable to all situations - we can't just say "we'll worry about that when it happens.")
Viability means that the fetus is fully formed, with a functioning nervous system, etc. Future technology will allow extracting a first trimester fetus and growing it into a human being, but that will not change the biological stage within the woman. Since we are talking about abortion, development stage in the womb still matters.
Further, even in the case where a fetus is grown extra-uterine, prior to viability (e.g. prior to a nervous system and pain), I can see termination of the fetus. After that stage, I can see regulations.
The restrictions that you noted in blue mean that you agree or disagree or something else?
I am pointing out where the act is explicitly eliminating basic restrictions and safeguards that we have all pretty much lived under for the past 50 years.
Good luck trying to get an answer from him about where his own personal line is when it comes to the abortion.
Lol. I've said it countless times on this site.
Because science demonstrates that any "cut off " point is arbitrary and results in the destruction of a developing human life that takes about 25 years to complete, I oppose the taking of it. I'm a humanist.
Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. Typically, these procedures cost well over $1,000, excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days, and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.
Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.
Roe v. Wademade the concept of viability critical to the regulation of abortion, particularly when it comes to abortions later in pregnancy. Viability is not set at a specific date in the pregnancy, rather multiple factors play into the determination of viability, including gestational age, fetal weight and sex, and medical interventions available.
Many states have passed a range of laws that restrict access to abortions later in pregnancy, by either placing gestational age limits on abortion and/or by banning clinicians from performing certain procedures.
Yes, your claim was virtually all are for the health of the mother. Even your own link says "Almost half of individuals who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did not suspect they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, and other barriers to care included lack of information about where to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage and inability to pay for the procedure."
So your claim that virtually all are for the health of the mother is false, no matter how broadly you define health.
I am against a gratuitous abortion of a viable, healthy fetus.
Why? Why business is it of yours? It's the woman's decision, possibly with medical input.
The term viable in the context of abortion has a more specific meaning. You know this.
If you adopt a special meaning for a word in order to ensure a particular logical result, your reasoning is circular.
Please don't tell me what I know or don't know.
Viability means that the fetus is fully formed, with a functioning nervous system, etc.
That is hardly "viable" in any practical sense. Without assistance, a newborn dies within days at most.
Why do you you consider pain to be significant? All animals feel pain.
As I said initially, I have only very rarely seen arguments against abortion that were not based in religion. I should have added that this fact is often not recognized by the person making the argument.
That's a choice people can make on their own. For instance, I believe WWII was just. You may not.
There is no independent final arbiter. The best system, though far from perfect, is to allow war to be declared only through the support of the population through democratic representatives, not one person.
The babies killed in "just" wars are still dead.
Sure are. That's why wars are bad and to be avoided unless to prevent something worse. .
If you are so misanthropic as to see no difference between the life of a fish, and that of your neighbor or wife, what's the point of wasting my time composing sentences about sentience, sustenance or our natural instinct to propagate our species ? I would hope even someone who hates humanity, would recognize from a strictly utilitarian point of view, that allowing humans to kill other humans without legal repercussion would mean the end of society and return civilization to the stone age. Does that appeal to you?
But if you have to to equate humanity to fish, I've made my point.
For instance, I believe WWII was just. You may not.
I am not going to debate the reasons why men throughout recorded history have gone to war to build empires to gain power over the masses and amass vast fortunes.
Ethics/morals are an individual struggle. Laws can be enacted to establish boundaries. Our prisons are overflowing with the people who are not capable of obeying them.
This video discusses the abortion issue in relation to The Trolley Problem.
Why? Why business is it of yours? It's the woman's decision, possibly with medical input.
No, it should absolutely be with medical input. Abortion is a serious medical procedure.
Early term abortions prior to viability (roughly) are removing an unfeeling, unformed biological mass. Late term abortions are dealing with a life form that can feel pain and is developed into what we normally consider a human (albeit not legally a person). It is as human as you in terms of biological functionality, just younger and not recognized as a person.
Please don't tell me what I know or don't know.
Please do not pretend to be obtuse. You understand context and you know that viability in the context of abortion is more specific than a dictionary definition for general usage. Don't tell me you do not know this because that would be an utterly absurd claim.
That is hardly "viable" in any practical sense. Without assistance, a newborn dies within days at most.
Commonly, viable in the context of abortion means that the fetus has formed to the point where it could survive outside of the womb with normal medical care (e.g. keeping it warm, ensuring it has sufficient oxygen, etc.) Your comment suggests that you are going to stick with a general, loose definition of viable since you have stated that newborns are not viable. If that is how you are going to proceed, I am not going to discuss this with you further.
Why do you you consider pain to be significant?
Empathy. Being cut up while alive and feeling the pain is a factor that I consider. If the abortion technique avoids pain then that removes this factor. What is left then is viability (i.e. developed to the point where it has the full complement of human biology to enable normal survival).
All animals feel pain.
I am more concerned with human pain than the pain of cattle, chickens, fish, etc. While I would prefer no life form experience pain, it is an inevitable fact that life must eat life to survive and unless all life forms go vegan, that means pain. My position is to minimize the pain where possible because there is no practical way to eliminate it.
Surely you would be concerned about your puppy being in pain.
As I said initially, I have only very rarely seen arguments against abortion that were not based in religion.
Life of the mother? Rape? Incest? Age of the person? Physical disabilities? You routinely ignore all nuance as far as I’ve seen, and I distinctly remember you simply bowing out of an exchange long ago when I opened that can of worms.
This is a problem. Why must you define "viable" "specially" for abortion? Certainly because your position collapses if you use straightforward English. If a special definition is needed to support your position, there's no possible discussion. You can just "reinterpret" whatever you need.
Apparently you agree that discussion is pointless.
Religion obviously underpins your position. You value human life higher than other animals, without justification.
results in the destruction of a developing human life that takes about 25 years to complete,
Yes, to have a fully functioning adult brain takes 25 years.
So why is the GOP pushing to relax child labor laws to allow 14 year olds to work hazardous jobs?
Could it be that the US elite have a shortage of low-skilled workers to exploit?
Or is it because wages have become so out of sync with rising costs that everyone in the family will be required to work just to survive?
Why should 14-year-olds be working period? Shouldn't they be attending school, doing their homework and then having some fun with their friends and family before taking up adult financial responsibility?
Who benefits from exploiting child labor? It is not the child.
Unless you're a rigorous vegan, I don’t see what is wrong about putting an end to the existence of a human fetus. We slaughter thousands of animals every day. An heifer is more a "person", by any reasoned, logical standard than is an unborn fetus
Bob, while I can certainly see where you thoughts are on this clearly and entirely, I have pulled out this out for comment. The difference (if one is to be allowed/considered) is that after viability, humanity can empathize, imagine, and experience the 'fullness' of what a human life can be with its possibilities. Other animals for which we can not communicate, reason with, or even possess for up to a century (in some cases) are limited by capacity.
That said, I can definitely understand what point you are bringing forward in this discussion. That is, even the lowly ant has value (and wants to live/survive/exist) to fulfill it.
the 'fullness' of what a human life can be with its possibilities.
Without taking into consideration that there is a fully functioning human life that is being used as an incubator and then lifelong supporter of that potential life.
Nowhere do the anti-choicer ever factor in the well-being of the woman. Never. The woman (or girl) is just an incubator for the child that someone in society hopes to use for pleasure or profit.
Why must you define "viable" "specially" for abortion?
I do not make any definitions. I am using the accepted meaning for viability within the context of abortion.
You are now denying the concept of usage semantics. As an experienced linguist, that defies logic. Thus I conclude you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
"Potential" is clearly a major difference among species. What does that imply? Which potentials are important, and how may we "weigh" one trait against another? We don't put value on "knowing which way is North", so an Arctic Tern would surely consider us retarded.
If an individual does not live up to its species's theoretical potential, what are the consequences? This could lead to eugenics.
Intelligence is probably important... for species that actually use it. Beavers do not, yet they build better than most of us. What animals "deserve" to not be killed because they're intelligent? Whales? Crows? Is there a cut-off or is there a sliding scale?
IMNAAHO, the most important variable among species is self-awareness. There are quite a few self-aware species, in different genuses, from cetaceans to corvids to (in some opinions) great apes. Like many traits, self-awareness comes at a particular point in the development of a young individual. Importantly, for us humans, it comes a while after birth.
Personally, I have never come to any firm conclusions.
So your claim that virtually all are for the health of the mother is false, no matter how broadly you define health.
Allright. I will accept that I was wrong on the specifics of a procedure that is only performed on 1-2%, (of abortion procedures after 21 weeks).
This is why the country has a problem with Republicans (and Democrats too, if you think long enough)..
Nobody has the time to listen.
Most people, be they right or left, respect someone who listens to what they have to say. Listening to what someone has to say is the greatest compliment that you can show them. Most people want to opine. But that ain't listening..
Anyway, you were correct in your contention that I was not accurate. Just what does that mean? Not much from where I sit. The point of this charade was to determine if the majority of the people wished to abort after the totally arbitrary mark of 21 weeks. It turns out that not many women ever seek this procedure after 21 weeks. The ones who are
20 weeks did not suspect they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, and other barriers to care included lack of information about where to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage and inability to pay for the procedure."
The reason for these barriers is the buzz of disinformation and backwards laws created specifically so the woman who is in the position to make the decision is legally taken out of the question by an arbitrary date. These women have the same right as any of bodily autonomy. I do not believe that the state has shown a compelling interest, moreso than the woman and her physician intrisically have, to compel any action that both the woman and those whom she has entrusted her care disagree with. It is not yet the business of the government.
This question of compelling interest is the main question. It is not should she or shouldn't she make this decision. That is totally beside the point. The state has no compelling interest on an event that still remains unknown. (The live birth of a child)
In my opinion, we should not even be having this discussion. The question of how to proceed with a pregnancy should be between the woman and those she trusts. The final decision lays only on her shoulders.
It is a far more personal decision than you will ever have to make.
My position is that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor up to the point of viability.
As a libertarian I see no compelling interest of the state in the condition of pregnancy until after live birth. The reason for this attitude? "Don't you have anything else to do?"
As long as it is inside the mother, it is not a separate being. Until it is fully removed physically from the mother, the mother is totally responsible for both the well-being of the child and the well-being of herself. If she decides to place interest in herself above the interest of the child ,looks like the third party wannabe interloper are just shit out of luck.
But, if we look at this through a lens of realism, what mother is going to say at the last moment, "I don't want it!"?
Just about zero % of women who carry a child to the point of birth are going to. Something would have to be terribly wrong for the woman to do this. Which really points to the propensity of people to believe that something like this is possible in the first place.
Ohhhh, these cruel creatures that could suffer through the difficulties of pregnancy and then decide,"Ehhh, I don't want it"
Who wrote that word? Me? I don't read where I did.
In what way don't humans value "North"? I don't follow your reasoning for bringing it in and asserting "North" is valueless to humans.
The issue for viability and when it can be arbitrarily declared in fairness to mother and child is: Waste.
A child on the 'runway' or 'threshold' or "advent" of being born carries with it the potential to be a WASTED life if it is preempted to proceed into the world.
That is what drives humanity to save more than it 'let go.'
Waste must not be how we think of viable life once it has landed on the threshold to entering this world.
By the way, the word abortion as applied to humans is something humans execute more so than other species that I know of. Thus, this is a specific tasking and not a general issue on the standard value or worthiness of all species existing on the planet to live uninterrupted.
I don't think I said that at all. As a matter of fact, I am sure I didn't.
Personally, I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that every life should be given a chance to flourish. I do not believe that a mother should abort a fetus simply from a desire to be free of a burden. But that is what I believe. Others believe differently. I cannot and should not impress my beliefs upon others. I should be able to discuss and debate the similarities and differences of these beliefs with others.
In terms of appearing presidential in their performance tonight I would rank them in this order
Haley
Christie
Pence
Hutchinson
and then, uh, um, hmm,
uh, uh............
Ramaswamy was a complete embarrassment to the American political system.
DeSantis appears to have a nervous tic from the neck up, he moves his head up and down more than Lizzo moves her big butt.
Tim Scott was the invisible man.
Bergman or whatever his name is seems like a nice man.
------------------
For some reason the Fox hosts let Ramaswamy totally dominate the first hour of the debate. He interrupted everybody and tried to talk over everybody. You might say he made De Santis , who was standing next to him on the stage, look like a shadow.
Unfortunately for him, in terms of electability, Ramaswamy came off as a lunatic.
I actually don't like Ramaswamy, because I can see through the man as if he was politically transparent. And on that note: I see his confidence, a laser focus, a coolness (when delivering his 'lines and not easily rattled when called out or booed'), and the "I came to accomplish something" (Step 1) in this first debate. Remember he is rising in the polls and that invisible "red meat suit" he is wearing. . .is going to be quite tasty to MAGA who might be looking for someone who is Trump without the baggage.
Also, it is interesting and important that Ramaswamy and DeSantis 'secured' the center seats in the first debate. Why? Because when those two would speak their eyes connected with the camera positioned somewhere behind the moderators each and every time. The other debaters appeared to be dealing with angles and of course should not catch the camera's eye!
On that note: Wonder who will be vying for the center two 'posts' in the next debate. It will be interesting to see. I just might watch for that alone.
Pence surprised me: 1. He wanted a national 15-week ban on abortions. Which is over twice as much as DeSantis. I would have thought Pence would have wanted a total ban on abortions without exception possibly (even).
He interrupted everybody and tried to talk over everybody.
All part of the plan: It was Trump 'domination' and he pulled it off well. Even though the others bit into him deep for making the stunt. Such brazenness is MAGA 'gold.' And I think Ramaswamy will get a 'rush' from MAGA for having done it to the "well-heeled politicians" he was surrounded by and facing.
I also think Haley did best, thus another old belief has been dispelled:
An old shoe ad
She can lead the nation. She seemed a bit uncomfortable up there though. Pence came out as the solid man of integrity that he is. DeSantis was a bit too low key. Ramaswamy got a few shots in at Christie. Tim Scott could have done better. Burgum and Hutchinson seemed to be running for the Republican nomination for the year 1930.
What Pence says and what he would ultimately push for are two different things, imo. He is fervently anti-choice and considers abortion to be a moral issue requiring national legislation.
Ramaswamy is like Trump 2.0. Another businessman whose ego is so big he thinks he can be president in spite of the fact that he doesn’t know how anything works.
I don't like Ramaswamy, but I will give him his due. That dude was selling that dazzling smile (big teeth too) and probably could sell ice water to people in winter. Just because. That said, something interesting 'flowed across' from Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy. . .are they both of India heritage? I won't look it up this late, but they threw lighting 'bolts' and sparks when they collided on a point of disagreement.
Interesting observation, he was a bit over the top in rascal fashion. I agree. That dude, Ramaswamy was "All eyes on me." And, what a focus. I even saw shades of Obama in his delivery: Unshakeable.
You dont get elected president by annoying the hell out of everybody watching.
I don’t know; it worked for Trump. I remember the first debate I listened to in 2016, and he was calling people names. I thought, “what? Are you in the 5th grade? Why would anybody vote for this juvenile punk?” But they did.
Just saw a poll (for what it is worth) showing slimy Ramaswamy to be the winner by 44% of the respondents.
Haley is second with 25% of respondents.
So, yeah, the electorate (especially the GOP it seems) has a ton of people who are swayed by theatrics over content. Not a great indication of intelligence.
One more thing about Ramaswamy: He is clearly the 'centerpiece' of a great deal of EARNED MEDIA this morning in newsrooms and online!
Earned media (or free media) is content relating to a person or organization which published by a third party. It includes articles by media outlets, interviews with the person or representatives of the organization, or bylined editorials in trade press and other publications. It may also include social media sharing and unpaid mentions by podcasters.
Thanks for that analysis. I saw a bit of Haley on the news this morning. I think she is secretly a moderate but has to show her right wingedness until she gets elected
I agree , it was a good analysis, however, rating whether the candidate would support Trump as a good/bad made no sense to me.
If Trump is the nominee, then it really doesn't matter if any of the others would support him....they are not the nominee, and not many people put a lot of energy into who someone else backs.
Also, can you imagine the hatred from the left that would flow if Ramaswamy, Haley or Scott would be the top and or second ticket to each other? Two conservative minorities that dared to not toe liberal lines running against the chosen old white guy? The biggest culprits would be white liberals where racist comments would flow like water.
... rating whether the candidate would support Trump as a good/bad made no sense to me.
Anyone who would even consider Trump as the nominee shows a lack of concern for protecting and defending the CotUS and the rule of law.
That is why I show it as a negative.
I understand that the candidates are dealing with a dysfunctional GOP and that they are stuck between a rock and a hard spot. Thus I do not consider this a show-stopper, just a negative. Note that Haley is high on my list in spite of her support for Trump.
I notice no leftist tried to rebuke the comment.
What makes you think a 'leftist' gives a shit about your reply to DoW?
If Trump is the nominee, then it really doesn't matter if any of the others would support him....they are not the nominee, and not many people put a lot of energy into who someone else backs.
I agree, it used to be that endorsements from other Party leaders had value but since Trump runs as anti-establishment, their endorsements aren't very important.
Also, can you imagine the hatred from the left that would flow if Ramaswamy, Haley or Scott would be the top and or second ticket to each other?
Yes, hate seems to be the primary motivation as the polarization deepens.
The biggest culprits would be white liberals where racist comments would flow like water.
The left is very quick to label someone as a racist.
What was unsettling today was the audience. Further evidence that the GOP has lost its fucking mind. It is like the majority of the audience were mindless Trump-bots. Any hint of bad against Trump was booed. The audience seemed like a high-school audience (both in demeanor and awareness of reality).
Trump probably placed his surrogates there and/or a paid audience members to boo and represent him in a manner fitting to his stature as 'boss hog'! Instruction: Boo everybody who dares to trash Trump.
That 'freak' had he wanted to be a part of the debate should have come and been on the stage. Trump and Carlson were not debating a damn thing. It was a fluff piece most likely (I did not and will not watch it for any other conclusion of it.)
It pisses me off that this morning the news cable shows are intermingling Trump's fluff piece with the RNC debate. Why does Trump get to run rough-shod over all formats, including NewsTalkers?
To me, the debate was defined by one question by the moderator.
GOP presidential candidates asked at debate if they would support Trump as nominee if he's convicted
Only Hutchinson and Christie did not raise their hands in support. That tells me one thing the majority of candidates on that stage do not have the balls or leadership ability to hold the highest office in the land. They are simply Trump wannabes.
GOP presidential candidates asked at debate if they would support Trump as nominee if he's convictedOnly Hutchinson and Christie did not raise their hands in support. That tells me one thing the majority of candidates on that stage do not have the balls or leadership ability to hold the highest office in the land.
An analyst said this morning that the Republican Party has forfeited forever their claim to be the party of law and order. That is exactly right. Supporting a convicted felon to be president is spitting in the face of law and order.
Indeed, it was a major negative for me. Haley disappointed me in this regard but her positives kept her high in my ranking. This was a chance for Burgum to differentiate himself; he failed.
Burgnum seemed reserved and his opening statement was muted/strong/weak. Did he actually reference that he is from a small town of 300 people? It was strange to me in the sense that North Dakota has a much larger population and he did not 'toot' that fact. Sometimes the opening is the first impression. And I could not forget the 300 people comment though I tried to do so for his sake.
Don't blame others for your (the GOP) own failure. The GOP should have pushed Trump away on Jan 20, 2021. The GOP did the opposite.
Trump is the likely nominee because the GOP is supporting him. It is the choice of those supporting and defending Trump. The D party very likely wants Trump, the indictments helped Trump, but the fault for Trump blocking the GOP nomination for decent candidates lies with the GOP members themselves.
... the fault for Trump blocking the GOP nomination for decent candidates lies with the GOP members themselves.
Yes he is Jim; Trump is making your vote for Haley irrelevant. Because of the domination by Trump of the (dysfunctional) GOP, voting for any other nominee is like voting third party in the general election. It is a protest vote at best. Maybe a vote for V.P.
The solution is to do whatever possible to eliminate Trump as the dominant (by far) nominee candidate.
One thing is for certain. Anyone on that stage last night can destroy Joe Biden in a debate and that is why Biden won't be debating anyone.
Safe statement when you know Trump (the far and away leader of the republican party) was absent. Very safe indeed to make. You best guy in the past went down to defeat in debates and presidential victory to Biden!
The democrats made that impossible.
And so, you comments about anybody other than Trump being the GOP candidate you will vote for is moot.
And your statement:
I think she could break the glass ceiling. How many feminists here would be excited about that?
Is only a taunt at feminists, because you clearly don't think anybody but Trump will be the nominee!
There probably a couple Republicans that could beat Biden if things went their way. Haley and Christie, possibly Hutchinson, although I will call that less likely. I dont think any of the other 5 that were on that stage last night could beat Biden, particularly not DeSantis and Ramaswamy, who are far right lunatics who I would love to debate if I were the Democratic candidate.
Pence has no chance whatsoever even if he gets the GOP nomination. He is a known hard liner on abortion and even if he tried to moderate that a little bit no one would believe him.
Pence should spare himself all that uphill mountain fruitless effort and quit now.
Most leftists do. They think 2020 will be replayed where Biden will beat Trump fairly easily.
The truth is many millennials and Gen xers have seen Biden in action and are rethinking their 2020 votes. I think if Trump is the nominee, he will have a much easier time beating Biden, especially since the memory for most of him beating their queen is fading.
The mid terms were less than a year ago, and there was nothing in there could be seen as a repudiation of Biden. To the contrary the widely predicted red wave never happened.
The majority of Americans are sick and tired of MAGA and want that ideology gone. Get rid of MAGA thought and the GOP will have a chance. Dont and you will lose to whoever the Democrats run.
People should not be as afraid of Trump winning as they should be of Trump losing. His cult of followers make it clear that another Trump loss will not be tolerated. He has no prayer of winning an honest election.
Wrong again. If Trump tried that misogynistic bullying bullshit on Haley he would incur the wrath of an awful lot of people. particularly women....of all political stripes. It would turn out to be the worst mistake he has yet made.
Nikki Haley has repeatedly waffled on the subject of Donald Trump ever since she left the UN. Her record of "standing up" to Trump is tissue paper thin.
Nope. Too many blind Trump supporters who will buy whatever bullshit comes from his mouth. Look at how Trump blatantly lied to and ridiculed Kaitlan Collins (a 31 year old female) during the CNN Town Hall. The audience was applauding his lies and ridicule.
Your constant intention to ignore Trump doesnt do jack shit, Jack. You have a live and let live attitude about him, which is leading our country into a dark path. I guess you are libertarian and dont give a shit.
#Breaking This is the most unpatriotic person in America. Twice-impeached four times-indicted twice-convicted former president Donald Trump who tried to destroy our democracy and steal our votes. #TrumpMugShot#TrumpArrest
An old, tired, bastard of a human being who won't stop until more lives are lost through hook or crook! And, the country is sitting around watching one man make a mockery out of all the freedoms he has been given by destroying those he touches or worse touch him.
What does this narcissist fear the most? Isn't it time we all tried to find out?! HINT: Trump enjoys sucking all the oxygen out of a room. He feeds off the energy of others that join his enterprises.
1. Deprogram Trump's cultic personality or at least his minions.
2. And for goodness sake, the media must stop feeding this freak's insatiable appetite to be the center of its 'universe.'
How can the defense of the indefensible get worse or more irrational or shrill?
Currently there are those who are seeking to vote for GOP candidates other than Trump.
As their options close, they will have no choice but to vote for Trump (or abstain). This will (should) frustrate them to no end. Many will suck it up, and go full-scale-GOP-loyalty. This means they will go full-boar on defending Trump.
Given Trump is indefensible, all that can happen is increasingly irrational and shrill 'arguments'.
I'm kind of favoring Nikki but she looks like she's wearing a bathrobe.
You should probably get out more....
I'm not able to watch it, but I'd rather watch a SNL rerun of it anyway.
Don't care what she was wearing, she sounded as good as I always thought she would. That UN experience as well as the Governor of SC shined through.
Appearances do not matter.
DeSantis is doing the bobblehead thing again.
Yeah, but he or Haley or Trump will beat a withering and wiped out Biden. The others are also rans.
Anyone who is impressed by Vivek Ramaswamy needs to have their head examined.
Is he the most worrisome in your opinion?../s
He's a clown with as much chance of becoming president as you or I do.
Bummer that he didn’t even get a chance to tell us all about the deep state 9/11 coverup.
Didn't they say that about somebody in the 2016 election?
It may be that Ramaswamy wasn't there to run for President but, rather, to run for the position of Trump's VP.
I thought the same thing watching his over-the-top support for Trump.
And that makes Vivek a Suck up to a former president villain, in my opinion.
A clown show has broken out where a debate was supposed to be.
It could be worse. Can you imagine what this would be like if Trump were participating?
I think everyone was well prepared for this. I didn't see any breakout moments nor did I see any disasters.
Let us know when Brandon the Human Fuck Up Machine's First primary debate is scheduled for?
Oh, that is right Brandon refuses to debate.
Why would any candidate with a 40 to 50 point lead bother to debate?
All the candidates on stage last night would destroy basement Biden in a debate.
Absolutely destroy him …. and they know it.
oh … you were serious?
For the first time ever I put a few people on ignore.
I'll bet you can guess who they are.
Makes one wonder if they want a medal or a chest to pin it on.
The biggest fool on the stage, Ramaswamy, is totally dominating the debate. Its kind of amazing.
I liked Christie’s comment that Ramaswamy sounds like ChatGPT.
One thing I enjoy about Christie is he is a pro. I don't like his politics generally and about teacher's unions specifically, but he is one cool cucumber when he needs to be.
Not watching, the news that Trump will be throwing a funding party for Giuliani come September is humorous enough ... odds are Trump will take a giant cut of the proceeds..
More money down the drain.
All drains lead to Donald.
Getting flushed down the toilet seems to be a more popular activity, more and more these days.
Your sense of humor is sharp. I sense a comic 'entity' in you. Maybe a famous one? (Don't answer that just keep it in your heart that I think that way.)
The abortion discussion was Earth 2. I lost track of how many candidates said Democrats are fighting for legal abortion up until point of birth. Like our doctors as showing the mothers their freshly harvested babies, and the mothers are saying “oh shit, it has red hair - kill it!”
Totally agree.
I felt that way too. But then I thought about what they were getting after. Republicans/conservatives have the abortion issue back as a states rights debate and although some of them are talking about federalizing it again for their purposes to restrict it. . . what they are getting at in this case and being wary concerning is LIBERAL states will use their states rights to install free and open abortions into state law. Christie even said so much when he talked about California, Illinois, and one other state I can't recall right now using the lack of a federal ban or limitation to do so.
Nevermind the obvious ridiculousness of talking about freedom/states rights/people (states) should have control over their own decisions-the conservatives are not caught on the horns of a dilemma because they really don't want states to do any of that just do as conservative red-states SAY.
I didn't. That happens to be in the bill the democrats want to pass in congress.
READ!
Democrat Bill Legalizing Abortion Through All Nine Months, For Virtually Any Reason, Fails In Senate | The Daily Wire
That is why our dishonest media seldom asks democrats what restrictions to abortion they believe in.
Like you, they might just get the answer they don't want to hear and what is worse, the public might get informed on the democrat position.
What did the bill state about "good faith" medical judgements to abort after viability? Nuance is everything in this.
I read the link. It was shorter than most articles I read and videos that I watch. But you don't care about any of that, because decidedly your role here is to troll.
So let's get this out of the way ONCE AND FOR ALL!
In the link, what does it say about "good faith" abortion practices "after viability"?
However, the bill would also legalize abortion after fetal viability, “when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, a continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health,” according to the bill.
That language would overrule various state laws. Likewise, critics like The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the term “health” is too open-ended and could allow abortions for virtually any reason, so long as it’s signed off by an abortion provider.
How fucking retarded. “Virtually any reason” is OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION, nothing else as the right continues to imply. These types of conditions are determined well in advance of birth. If it’s a determination made later in the pregnancy it’s because the mother’s life may be at risk or the baby will not survive outside of the womb. The most heartless people on this planet want that mother to carry that future corpse to term and risk her own life to deliver a fully baked dead body.
How fucking retarded. “Virtually any reason” is OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION, nothing else as the right continues to imply
Tough words from someone being so easily manipulated. Progressives shout over and over that it must be "related to a serious health condition" even though the law itself says so no such thing. It just says a risk to health. For starters, given that abortionists have testified to Congress that in their opinion ALL pregnancies constitute a risk to health, guess what that means?
But the exceptions are even broader than just physical health. "Mental health" is also an acceptable reason. All a mother has to do is say "I'm stressed out about the idea of being a mother" or "I'm worried about being able to afford a kid" and boom, you can kill a viable human, legally.
The talking points about "serious health risks" are just that, designed to give cover so the ignorant will go along with something they would oppose if they knew how these laws are designed to be interpreted. Watch what happens when someone proposes a law allowing post 20 weeks abortion only for "serious health risks" and defines serious as commonly understood. The same people who claim that's what this law says, will go ballistic opposing a law that actually sets that requirement.
e even quoted the vague part but still chooses to believe it doesn't mean what the words say.
Yep, its intentionally designed to make it seem reasonable (few people want a mother's life put at risk) to people who don't pay attention to details while hiding it's extremity (no actual restrictions on abortion until birth) from them. the exceptions completely swallow the rule.
I will say this: You remind me of Donald Trump in one regard: 1. You troll people with abandon and no one seems able to be able to put an end to it. It would seem to be above the law on this site. It's so Trumpian.
I knew you would kick the can. Pffft.
Thank you for the 'assist.' It shows cooperation. I get tired of the 'game' sometimes. MAGA is all game all the time. Such people question girl's and women's motivations, and doctors integrity, while hugging a sloppy, old, tired, lying, wretched creature like Trump to their chests and breasts. I trust girls, women, and doctors more than MAGA officials who lie to keep a loser on the ticket and get this. . .they sent him money every time he ask for it! Wow. Conservatives have 'bought' Trump with cold hard cash!
Point out the language in this bill:
The vague language you are insisting on does not exist. This bill overwhelmingly addresses the myriad of efforts by the religious right to interfere with a woman’s choice.
Dude, I read my share. And If I needed a "flunky" - I would not choose you for the job. So that is a . . . . . . . . . untruth.
The Daily Wire is nothing but a right wing propaganda site.
That is not vague. This quote from Sean is vague and wholly unsupported by the bill:
"Mental health" is also an acceptable reason. All a mother has to do is say "I'm stressed out about the idea of being a mother" or "I'm worried about being able to afford a kid" and boom, you can kill a viable human, legally.
Again, NOT IN THE BILL. Efforts to claim this bill implies this type of language are simply more attempts by the religious right to take away a woman’s right to choose. I also see NOTHING referring to “up to the moment of birth”. Point it out for us if you disagree.
The vague language you are insisting on does not exist
Of course it does But don't think It's not obvious you've moved the goalposts from claiming the abortions of viable babies must be "RELATED TO A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION," because that language doesn't exist.
But sure I'll read your bill for you:
Section 9:
A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the
treating health care provider, continuation of the
pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
And health, under the Bolton case of 1973, was legally defined in 2021 to include a mother's mental or physical health.
That is laughably weak.
Again, NOT IN THE BILL
Pay attention. What matters is how the Supreme Court defined "health" in abortion cases in 2021. Legally, "health" has to include mental and physical health.
I also see NOTHING referring to “up to the moment of birth”. Point it out for us if you disagree
Then you don't understand your own bill. There is no time limit on post viability abortions. So what does that mean?
Leftists support abortion up until the moment of birth.
Really? Which ones. Quotes, please. We’ll wait.
Post viability does not automatically imply dismembering a baby inside a mother whose water just broke. Your transparent boogie man scare tactics are intellectually vacuous.
The idea that "risk to a patient's health" will be limited to actual serious health conditions and not used as a wide open loophole is naive enough to be considered "fucking retarded", yes.
t viability does not automatically imply dismembering a baby inside a mother whose water just broke.
You've proven my point here. You first claimed that post viability abortions are limited to serious health conditions, but can't provide any proof of that in the text. You then claim it doesn't allow abortions up until birth, but you can't show any language in the bill that puts a time limit on the abortion. The lack of any restriction of course means none exists.
The whole purpose of these bills (drafted by abortion industry) is to create the illusion of compromise or reasonableness, while making any restriction or limit on abortion impossible.
Of course it is.
Because it's codified in other US law. This would not be the only law in existence. Other US law would be used to define terminology if it is left undefined in this statute.
It is fool hearty to make comments such as this. Without qualification, your statement means:
ALL who are left of me support abortion at any time.
That is obviously not true. And it is obviously not true of ALL who are legitimately politically left.
It is a stupid claim and making it harms one's credibility. So why make such ridiculous claims?
A much better statement is that people on the political left typically support abortion later in term than those on the politically right.
Doe V Bolton, decided the same day as Roe, is arguably the more important case regarding how Courts actually implemented the right to abortion until 2022. In Doe, the Court defined how the womans's health exception must be interpreted:
So anytime "health" was mentioned in the context of abortion before 2022 they were incorporating this definition including all of these aspects of health.
Or that people on the left overwhelmingly vote for politicians who support no restrictions on abortion.
That doesn't even consider things like the Affordable Care Act or the ADA.
And the gaslighting continues …
So the bill never happened?
Considering that "gaslighting" has become a term meaning "pointing out things liberals don't want to believe", OK fine.
Life must be tough for you guys, being petrified of every boogeyman your manipulators put in front on you.
It's pretty much right there in Section 2: Findings and purpose.
If you can read the red highlighted portions of what is just a small portion of section two and still come away insisting that this bill isn't trying to secure right to abortion for virtually any reason then no amount of discussion is going to get you to see reality. Most of the little I posted has nothing to do with serious medical conditions but, rather, excuses based on economic, social, racial, sexual and perceived concepts of bodily autonomy. This bill all but states "abortion for any reason at any time".
Thank you.
Kind of like the tough YOU guys have with Trump in front of you? That kind of obsessive tough?
Trump is a very REAL threat, unlike your imaginary boogeymen.
Only in paranoia "he's fucking up the status quo" land. How is one man such a threat? Your candyass peers are afraid of "but he's gonna" bullshit. There are checks and balances in place to make sure ANY threat he may THINK he can get away with will be crushed like a bug FFS.
Tell that to this candyass.
I wouldn't say tough, but it does get tedious being the only people willing to consider what might go wrong and having to listen to others desperate to jump into the van any time they're offered candy.
Deflection seen and noted. Name one of those in attendance that just sauntered down the hall to safety. You can't. They all "ran" metaphorically.
what might go wrong
Well, that’s not overly broad at all! What’s next in the queue of delay tactics based on things that might happen? Maybe the Democrats will pass FDA regulations allowing the sale of nine month cured fetuses for consumption. The sky is the limit in your world when it comes to delay tactics in the abortion debate.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that he was running from Donald Trump’s cultish mob threatening to hang the vice President and hunt down other members of congress. How is that deflection? It’s directly related to your stupid comment.
no, no it isn't.
How is one man such a threat?
Your question.
That you didn't answer...............
Maybe you just missed it, so I’ll repeat:
Donald Trump’s cultish mob threatening to hang the vice President and hunt down other members of congress.
Maybe you can sell that elsewhere. They likely had no idea what was going on outside and only knew they were told to run and hide.
Suuuure. The warning to put on their gas masks was related a problem with the HVAC. You need to stop.
Got a picture of anyone in Congress in said gas masks?
Google it. They’re out there and I’m not your assistant.
You made the claim. It is up to you to prove it...........thanks.
Perhaps if you read your own post to which I was replying it may clear it up for you. Hint: You were denying that this bill wanted to make abortion legal for virtually any reason. You claimed it doesn't say that. Actually, if you read it, it does. Just not expressly in those words. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can see it, however. Thanks for your time.
Just not expressly in those words.
It doesn’t even remotely imply that any woman would knowingly carry a healthy baby for nine months and then decide to terminate the pregnancy at the last minute. Nor does it imply that any medical professional would attempt to justify such action. There simply is no language that would satisfy your side, it’s just a nonstop effort to delay and upend the debate with incredibly obtuse and unrealistic what if’s.
"the left will ..." "the right will ...."
General statements of nonsense.
People engage in intellectual dishonesty all the time when it comes to politics. So there will be those who play dishonest semantic games but suggesting that those of only one ideology engage in that dishonesty is flat out wrong.
You contested it without even bothering to do a two second search.
Turning to the content of the act:
Meaning = the following do not limit one from conducting or receiving an abortion
In short, this act does indeed appear to remove all the classical restrictions and safeguards on abortions.
The language in the section Drakk offered is indeed vague. That is why I read further into the act. H. R. 3755 is shocking.
You just admitted the language was vague so your claim was based on ignorance. Your claim turns out to be correct, but luck is no substitute for fact-based analysis.
I had. You simply claimed the act was vague. You made no informed comment on the actual content, just went along with the flow. You would still not know if I had not provided the relevant content.
Indeed.
Oxygen hoods. You said gas masks. Thanks for the pictures though. I stand corrected..........
That is usually their playbook.
Thank you for this post. I did not have time to read much of the actual bill as it was near the end of my graveyard shift when this caught my attention. I simply found it noteworthy that Section 2: Findings and Purpose, seemed to make obvious the intent of the bill without even getting into the details. What you've presented are the some of the details behind the intent, to my mind.
I think this sort of thing shows why the debate about abortion is probably pointless at this point. Whether it is about a Democratic or Republican bill, no one is going to make any useful progress if people can't even be honest on what the bill says, what it attempts to accomplish or what its flaws may be.
I was shocked when I read the actual content of the act. While I believe abortion should be a decision made by a woman and her physician up to the point of viability, I am entirely against eliminating all medical checks and limitations on when an abortion can be done.
It is my opinion that most people who would be considered pro-choice also seek sensible guidelines and limitations. That only an extreme fringe would want abortion to be without any sensible guidelines.
Practical, sensible, responsible legislation seems to be beyond our reach in our divisive partisan environment.
Politically, this act seems like a very bad move for those seeking fair, practical abortion laws.
The bill spoke about "good-faith posing of risk/s to patient's health" the assumption is that, all things being equal, a patient's can have an abortion after viability if a healthcare provider deems it appropriate for health reasons.
That is, after reaching fetal viability there HAS TO BE A QUALIFIED HEALTH REASON TO ABORT. . .nothing in this bill makes it explicit that a girl or woman could just 'waltz' into a provider's office and abort a fully developed child willy-nilly.
Of course, conservatives question motives (and they might be right to do so considering the physician/provider) but what is the alternative (maybe a list of qualified reasons to abort after viability)?
Perhaps it is my cynicism speaking, but I don't think this bill was written with the intent to pass it. I think it was simply a political tool aimed at convincing certain groups that they are oppressed and that it is in their best interest to support the Democratic Party. As you say, this bill doesn't address sensible guidelines and limitations as far as I can see. Rather than appealing to medical necessity for instances of valid abortion practices it simply seems to make its argument on a concepts of racial, sexual, economic and a host of other "Social Justice" topics. Ideology rather than actual need, in other words.
And note that we ( those involved in this portion of the conversation) aren't even speaking on the level of whether abortion is moral or not. We've simply been talking about what the purpose of this bill intends.
Have to go back to work. Have a nice day.
I think you might want to more carefully read what I posted @7.3.75 because the act explicitly eliminates common limitations and safeguards.
I am entirely against eliminating all medical checks and limitations on when an abortion can be done.
If you’re writing a law that is intended to ensure that abortion remain a matter between a woman and her doctor, then that’s how it should be written. There will always be some medical conditions that could challenge the maximum cut off date as determined by politicians. The fact is doctors aren’t performing late term abortions for reasons that aren’t medically dire for the mother or unborn. The hysteria on display here is unwarranted and serves only to stifle the issue and delay the conversation.
My position is that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor up to the point of viability. After that, I would like practical guidelines to be set. And this should not be a big issue because third trimester abortions are very rare. So guidelines that ensure medical necessity (e.g. life of mother) should be in place.
In your rush to denigrate you forgot to read this (from your quoted text) :
Virtually all of these late term abortions are for the health of the mother.
Trust me I carefully read what you wrote three times and I read the bill. In reading the bill the "without limitation" clause does mean that an abortion can happen after viability when the health of the mother or some other unknown emergency (qualified) cause arises.
(I have no particular interest in being proved right or wrong. I am simply trying to interpret the clause.)
In which case I agree with Hal 7.3.92:
And Thomas 7.3.94 :
And you, TiG 7.3.93:
Written differently:
(10) There shall be no limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgement of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient's heatlh.
That is, this law will do away with the notion in states that after viability is reached there can be no permitting of an abortion for any reason.
That is how I interpret what Rep. Judy Chu is saying (even if not so clear on its face).
And as the conservative commenters are suggesting; they see a "devil" in the details or lack thereof. But, it still remains to be made clear if they can make the leap to "abortion on demand" which is the more proper phrase for what they are claiming democrats want to see happen at any time before birth.
Yes, that is heading in the right direction.
Good faith medical judgment should be the end of this debate
Seems logical. Emotions will screw that up.
Virtually all of these late term abortions are for the health of the mother.
prove that.
Prove that most of them are the woman who just wants to get rid of the fetus she has been carrying for the past eight months. I most likely could prove that most are for the life of the mother, if I cared to. I doubt that you can prove me wrong. Why don't you waste your time trying.
Why?
IMNAAHO, anti-abortion stances are always based in religiousity. The preacher said it's wrong! So I'm surprised by this position, in a staunchly anti-religious person.
Unless you're a rigorous vegan, I don’t see what is wrong about putting an end to the existence of a human fetus. We slaughter thousands of animals every day. An heifer is more a "person", by any reasoned, logical standard than is an unborn fetus.
If the slaughter of animals is acceptable in some conditions, it can only be unacceptable in other conditions if the difference between the two is clear. So... why is it ok to slaughter some animals, but not to put an end to an entity that isn't even born yet?
(Also... "viable" is entirely dependent on technology and semantics. A newborn is immediately viable... or not at all for another couple years.)
This is technology and semantics. Depending on the equipment of the hospital, a fetus may be viable at very different ages. Depending on semantics, a newborn may not be viable for several years.
Some day, gestation will be possible, entirely extra-uterine. What would be the "point of viability" in that case? (I'm assuming that we're searching for logic that is applicable to all situations - we can't just say "we'll worry about that when it happens.")
You made the allegation. it’s your responsibility to prove ot.
Or did you just realIze you posted a falsehood and are now deflecting rather than admitting it?
nless you're a rigorous vegan, I don’t see what is wrong about putting an end to the existence of a human fetus.
There yo go. Pro-abortionists believe viable human life is no more worthy of protection than a chicken.
why is it ok to slaughter some animals, but not to put an end to an entity that isn't even born yet?
Because humans aren't just "some animals." That's monstrous.
Your commentary is so predictable. The point under contention is made by the political and social right in this country that people want to rip fetuses out of the uterus for any reason whatsoever right up to the point of birth. You prove the contention that the right has made.
I am confident in my ability to back my contention up.
There is a start.
Nothing like arguing the logical fallacy from the one to the many. "One person stated it: Therefore it must hold in all cases."
Sean knows all of what’s in that link. He’s been doing this here for years. Good luck trying to get an answer from him about where his own personal line is when it comes to the abortion. He knows how unpopular that admission would be.
The restrictions that you noted in blue mean that you agree or disagree or something else?
Reading down through the list I see many of the impediments that the pro-life politicians had managed to legislate for the purposes of slowing the process down so that the woman would be beyond "viability" (really a semantical hole there."
No, I understood what was posted. I worded what I said badly. What I said was:
What I meant to convey was:
I've been suffering from a continuous headache for over a week now and was pretty tired when I wrote that so it was rushed and badly worded.
I didn't forget to read it. I simply don't see what you do in it. Specifically the part about "good faith". All medical decisions are supposed to be in good faith but there is ample evidence that they are not. Dr's overprescribing opioids for instance and what is being done to children medically in the name of trans ideology for another. In other words, in good faith has no objective, solid standard that would prevent abortion at any time for any reason.
Nor have I denigrated anything. I'm having a conversation about what the bill says and how vague it is.
My reply was to CB, not you.
OK, Sean... let's dance.
Without resorting to religion... why? What, precisely, is the difference between a newborn human and (for example) a newborn heifer?
Some humans are worse than animals. This is monstrous.
I never have. Why would I start now?
If you can't (as a human) see the difference between treating humans and fish differently, what would be the point? Human life is more valuable and worthy of a protection than that of a fowl or fish. That is axiomatic.
You support the government handing out licenses to hunt people?
I am not talking about anti-abortion stances. I am talking about sensible guidelines for abortion based on factors such as gestation stage, health of mother, health of fetus, etc.
I am against a gratuitous abortion of a viable, healthy fetus. For example, a woman who decides she no longer wants to be inconvenienced by pregnancy a month before her due date.
The term viable in the context of abortion has a more specific meaning. You know this.
Viability means that the fetus is fully formed, with a functioning nervous system, etc. Future technology will allow extracting a first trimester fetus and growing it into a human being, but that will not change the biological stage within the woman. Since we are talking about abortion, development stage in the womb still matters.
Further, even in the case where a fetus is grown extra-uterine, prior to viability (e.g. prior to a nervous system and pain), I can see termination of the fetus. After that stage, I can see regulations.
But your own link proves your contention wrong.
Are you against war? That is killing human life.
I am pointing out where the act is explicitly eliminating basic restrictions and safeguards that we have all pretty much lived under for the past 50 years.
Lol. I've said it countless times on this site.
Because science demonstrates that any "cut off " point is arbitrary and results in the destruction of a developing human life that takes about 25 years to complete, I oppose the taking of it. I'm a humanist.
Yes, unless it is to prevent more killing. Just wars exist.
From the article:
Yes, your claim was virtually all are for the health of the mother. Even your own link says "Almost half of individuals who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did not suspect they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, and other barriers to care included lack of information about where to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage and inability to pay for the procedure."
So your claim that virtually all are for the health of the mother is false, no matter how broadly you define health.
Why? Why business is it of yours? It's the woman's decision, possibly with medical input.
If you adopt a special meaning for a word in order to ensure a particular logical result, your reasoning is circular.
Please don't tell me what I know or don't know.
That is hardly "viable" in any practical sense. Without assistance, a newborn dies within days at most.
Why do you you consider pain to be significant? All animals feel pain.
As I said initially, I have only very rarely seen arguments against abortion that were not based in religion. I should have added that this fact is often not recognized by the person making the argument.
A human and a fish are both living creatures. Why is it OK to kill one, but not the other?
Who decides what a "just" war is? What makes that person the final moral arbitrator on human life?
The babies killed in "just" wars are still dead. Their lives did not count because someone declared it was a "just" war?
That's a choice people can make on their own. For instance, I believe WWII was just. You may not.
There is no independent final arbiter. The best system, though far from perfect, is to allow war to be declared only through the support of the population through democratic representatives, not one person.
The babies killed in "just" wars are still dead.
Sure are. That's why wars are bad and to be avoided unless to prevent something worse. .
If you are so misanthropic as to see no difference between the life of a fish, and that of your neighbor or wife, what's the point of wasting my time composing sentences about sentience, sustenance or our natural instinct to propagate our species ? I would hope even someone who hates humanity, would recognize from a strictly utilitarian point of view, that allowing humans to kill other humans without legal repercussion would mean the end of society and return civilization to the stone age. Does that appeal to you?
But if you have to to equate humanity to fish, I've made my point.
I am not going to debate the reasons why men throughout recorded history have gone to war to build empires to gain power over the masses and amass vast fortunes.
Ethics/morals are an individual struggle. Laws can be enacted to establish boundaries. Our prisons are overflowing with the people who are not capable of obeying them.
This video discusses the abortion issue in relation to The Trolley Problem.
Really? Being drafted was a choice?
Welp...
I make it a rule not to bother with you... but such rules must be tested from time to time.
Have a great life.
No, it should absolutely be with medical input. Abortion is a serious medical procedure.
Early term abortions prior to viability (roughly) are removing an unfeeling, unformed biological mass. Late term abortions are dealing with a life form that can feel pain and is developed into what we normally consider a human (albeit not legally a person). It is as human as you in terms of biological functionality, just younger and not recognized as a person.
Please do not pretend to be obtuse. You understand context and you know that viability in the context of abortion is more specific than a dictionary definition for general usage. Don't tell me you do not know this because that would be an utterly absurd claim.
Commonly, viable in the context of abortion means that the fetus has formed to the point where it could survive outside of the womb with normal medical care (e.g. keeping it warm, ensuring it has sufficient oxygen, etc.) Your comment suggests that you are going to stick with a general, loose definition of viable since you have stated that newborns are not viable. If that is how you are going to proceed, I am not going to discuss this with you further.
Empathy. Being cut up while alive and feeling the pain is a factor that I consider. If the abortion technique avoids pain then that removes this factor. What is left then is viability (i.e. developed to the point where it has the full complement of human biology to enable normal survival).
I am more concerned with human pain than the pain of cattle, chickens, fish, etc. While I would prefer no life form experience pain, it is an inevitable fact that life must eat life to survive and unless all life forms go vegan, that means pain. My position is to minimize the pain where possible because there is no practical way to eliminate it.
Surely you would be concerned about your puppy being in pain.
You see religion in my argument?
Lol. I've said it countless times on this site.
Life of the mother? Rape? Incest? Age of the person? Physical disabilities? You routinely ignore all nuance as far as I’ve seen, and I distinctly remember you simply bowing out of an exchange long ago when I opened that can of worms.
LOL. Of course. In my defense, I still have a headache and am really tired. Sorry.
No worries. We all have done this.
This is a problem. Why must you define "viable" "specially" for abortion? Certainly because your position collapses if you use straightforward English. If a special definition is needed to support your position, there's no possible discussion. You can just "reinterpret" whatever you need.
Apparently you agree that discussion is pointless.
Religion obviously underpins your position. You value human life higher than other animals, without justification.
Yes, to have a fully functioning adult brain takes 25 years.
So why is the GOP pushing to relax child labor laws to allow 14 year olds to work hazardous jobs?
Could it be that the US elite have a shortage of low-skilled workers to exploit?
Or is it because wages have become so out of sync with rising costs that everyone in the family will be required to work just to survive?
Why should 14-year-olds be working period? Shouldn't they be attending school, doing their homework and then having some fun with their friends and family before taking up adult financial responsibility?
Who benefits from exploiting child labor? It is not the child.
Bob, while I can certainly see where you thoughts are on this clearly and entirely, I have pulled out this out for comment. The difference (if one is to be allowed/considered) is that after viability, humanity can empathize, imagine, and experience the 'fullness' of what a human life can be with its possibilities. Other animals for which we can not communicate, reason with, or even possess for up to a century (in some cases) are limited by capacity.
That said, I can definitely understand what point you are bringing forward in this discussion. That is, even the lowly ant has value (and wants to live/survive/exist) to fulfill it.
Without taking into consideration that there is a fully functioning human life that is being used as an incubator and then lifelong supporter of that potential life.
Nowhere do the anti-choicer ever factor in the well-being of the woman. Never. The woman (or girl) is just an incubator for the child that someone in society hopes to use for pleasure or profit.
Like axlotl tanks from Dune books
I do not make any definitions. I am using the accepted meaning for viability within the context of abortion.
You are now denying the concept of usage semantics. As an experienced linguist, that defies logic. Thus I conclude you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
Yes. Obviously .
We are done, Bob.
"Potential" is clearly a major difference among species. What does that imply? Which potentials are important, and how may we "weigh" one trait against another? We don't put value on "knowing which way is North", so an Arctic Tern would surely consider us retarded.
If an individual does not live up to its species's theoretical potential, what are the consequences? This could lead to eugenics.
Intelligence is probably important... for species that actually use it. Beavers do not, yet they build better than most of us. What animals "deserve" to not be killed because they're intelligent? Whales? Crows? Is there a cut-off or is there a sliding scale?
IMNAAHO, the most important variable among species is self-awareness. There are quite a few self-aware species, in different genuses, from cetaceans to corvids to (in some opinions) great apes. Like many traits, self-awareness comes at a particular point in the development of a young individual. Importantly, for us humans, it comes a while after birth.
Personally, I have never come to any firm conclusions.
Are there other species where it comes before or during birth?
Third try is a charm.
Allright. I will accept that I was wrong on the specifics of a procedure that is only performed on 1-2%, (of abortion procedures after 21 weeks).
This is why the country has a problem with Republicans (and Democrats too, if you think long enough)..
Nobody has the time to listen.
Most people, be they right or left, respect someone who listens to what they have to say. Listening to what someone has to say is the greatest compliment that you can show them. Most people want to opine. But that ain't listening..
Anyway, you were correct in your contention that I was not accurate. Just what does that mean? Not much from where I sit. The point of this charade was to determine if the majority of the people wished to abort after the totally arbitrary mark of 21 weeks. It turns out that not many women ever seek this procedure after 21 weeks. The ones who are
The reason for these barriers is the buzz of disinformation and backwards laws created specifically so the woman who is in the position to make the decision is legally taken out of the question by an arbitrary date. These women have the same right as any of bodily autonomy. I do not believe that the state has shown a compelling interest, moreso than the woman and her physician intrisically have, to compel any action that both the woman and those whom she has entrusted her care disagree with. It is not yet the business of the government.
This question of compelling interest is the main question. It is not should she or shouldn't she make this decision. That is totally beside the point. The state has no compelling interest on an event that still remains unknown. (The live birth of a child)
In my opinion, we should not even be having this discussion. The question of how to proceed with a pregnancy should be between the woman and those she trusts. The final decision lays only on her shoulders.
It is a far more personal decision than you will ever have to make.
As the saying goes,"Priceless"
Could you please be just a little closer to the topic?
The law of the wild: Eat, or be eaten.
I loved Jack London
As a libertarian I see no compelling interest of the state in the condition of pregnancy until after live birth. The reason for this attitude? "Don't you have anything else to do?"
Exactly, it's not like a fetus is actually an alive human being.
I think I'm as close to the topic as the member I responded to.
No. Not really.
Big fish eat little fish.
As long as it is inside the mother, it is not a separate being. Until it is fully removed physically from the mother, the mother is totally responsible for both the well-being of the child and the well-being of herself. If she decides to place interest in herself above the interest of the child ,looks like the third party wannabe interloper are just shit out of luck.
But, if we look at this through a lens of realism, what mother is going to say at the last moment, "I don't want it!"?
Just about zero % of women who carry a child to the point of birth are going to. Something would have to be terribly wrong for the woman to do this. Which really points to the propensity of people to believe that something like this is possible in the first place.
Ohhhh, these cruel creatures that could suffer through the difficulties of pregnancy and then decide,"Ehhh, I don't want it"
The conflations involved are mind bending.
And both get got by a BassMaster
Exactly, it's a damn parasite.
Who wrote that word? Me? I don't read where I did.
In what way don't humans value "North"? I don't follow your reasoning for bringing it in and asserting "North" is valueless to humans.
The issue for viability and when it can be arbitrarily declared in fairness to mother and child is: Waste.
A child on the 'runway' or 'threshold' or "advent" of being born carries with it the potential to be a WASTED life if it is preempted to proceed into the world.
That is what drives humanity to save more than it 'let go.'
Waste must not be how we think of viable life once it has landed on the threshold to entering this world.
By the way, the word abortion as applied to humans is something humans execute more so than other species that I know of. Thus, this is a specific tasking and not a general issue on the standard value or worthiness of all species existing on the planet to live uninterrupted.
I don't think I said that at all. As a matter of fact, I am sure I didn't.
Personally, I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that every life should be given a chance to flourish. I do not believe that a mother should abort a fetus simply from a desire to be free of a burden. But that is what I believe. Others believe differently. I cannot and should not impress my beliefs upon others. I should be able to discuss and debate the similarities and differences of these beliefs with others.
I am not a monster. I am merely me.
You didn't, I did.
After debate 1, here is my ranking and some gut reaction positives and negatives:
Candidate
1
Christie
Grounded, experienced, rational, cool-headed, tough, statesperson
Will not support Trump as nominee
2
Haley
(Slightly) not as strong as Christie
Would support Trump as nominee
3
Pence
Experience, integrity,
statesperson
Would support Trump as nominee
4
Hutchinson
5
DeSantis
Would support Trump as nominee
6
Burgum
Would support Trump as nominee
7
Scott
Would support Trump as nominee
8
Ramaswamy
Slimy salesman, disagree with policy ... especially on energy and I will not vote for a moron who irresponsibly declares AGW a hoax.
Would support Trump as nominee and is clearly all about defending Trump for political gain.
I agree with your analysis. Also, Christie and Haley were sensible on choice.
In terms of appearing presidential in their performance tonight I would rank them in this order
Haley
Christie
Pence
Hutchinson
and then, uh, um, hmm,
uh, uh............
Ramaswamy was a complete embarrassment to the American political system.
DeSantis appears to have a nervous tic from the neck up, he moves his head up and down more than Lizzo moves her big butt.
Tim Scott was the invisible man.
Bergman or whatever his name is seems like a nice man.
------------------
For some reason the Fox hosts let Ramaswamy totally dominate the first hour of the debate. He interrupted everybody and tried to talk over everybody. You might say he made De Santis , who was standing next to him on the stage, look like a shadow.
Unfortunately for him, in terms of electability, Ramaswamy came off as a lunatic.
With Pence’s position on abortion he may as well drop out now. He is clueless on where the country is at on abortion.
I actually don't like Ramaswamy, because I can see through the man as if he was politically transparent. And on that note: I see his confidence, a laser focus, a coolness (when delivering his 'lines and not easily rattled when called out or booed'), and the "I came to accomplish something" (Step 1) in this first debate. Remember he is rising in the polls and that invisible "red meat suit" he is wearing. . .is going to be quite tasty to MAGA who might be looking for someone who is Trump without the baggage.
Also, it is interesting and important that Ramaswamy and DeSantis 'secured' the center seats in the first debate. Why? Because when those two would speak their eyes connected with the camera positioned somewhere behind the moderators each and every time. The other debaters appeared to be dealing with angles and of course should not catch the camera's eye!
On that note: Wonder who will be vying for the center two 'posts' in the next debate. It will be interesting to see. I just might watch for that alone.
Pence surprised me: 1. He wanted a national 15-week ban on abortions. Which is over twice as much as DeSantis. I would have thought Pence would have wanted a total ban on abortions without exception possibly (even).
All part of the plan: It was Trump 'domination' and he pulled it off well. Even though the others bit into him deep for making the stunt. Such brazenness is MAGA 'gold.' And I think Ramaswamy will get a 'rush' from MAGA for having done it to the "well-heeled politicians" he was surrounded by and facing.
I also think Haley did best, thus another old belief has been dispelled:
An old shoe ad
She can lead the nation. She seemed a bit uncomfortable up there though. Pence came out as the solid man of integrity that he is. DeSantis was a bit too low key. Ramaswamy got a few shots in at Christie. Tim Scott could have done better. Burgum and Hutchinson seemed to be running for the Republican nomination for the year 1930.
What Pence says and what he would ultimately push for are two different things, imo. He is fervently anti-choice and considers abortion to be a moral issue requiring national legislation.
Burgum made the most sense on the abortion question.
SCOTUS overturned Roe in part due to the belief that states should be allowed to set their own rules on the procedure.
“What is going to work in New York will never work in North Dakota and vice versa,” Burgum said.
Ramaswamy is like Trump 2.0. Another businessman whose ego is so big he thinks he can be president in spite of the fact that he doesn’t know how anything works.
Very good assessment IMO.
I don't like Ramaswamy, but I will give him his due. That dude was selling that dazzling smile (big teeth too) and probably could sell ice water to people in winter. Just because. That said, something interesting 'flowed across' from Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy. . .are they both of India heritage? I won't look it up this late, but they threw lighting 'bolts' and sparks when they collided on a point of disagreement.
I wouldnt buy ice water from him in summer. You dont get elected president by annoying the hell out of everybody watching.
Ramaswamy kept reminding me of Jim Carrey in the Mask:
Interesting observation, he was a bit over the top in rascal fashion. I agree. That dude, Ramaswamy was "All eyes on me." And, what a focus. I even saw shades of Obama in his delivery: Unshakeable.
I don’t know; it worked for Trump. I remember the first debate I listened to in 2016, and he was calling people names. I thought, “what? Are you in the 5th grade? Why would anybody vote for this juvenile punk?” But they did.
Just saw a poll (for what it is worth) showing slimy Ramaswamy to be the winner by 44% of the respondents.
Haley is second with 25% of respondents.
So, yeah, the electorate (especially the GOP it seems) has a ton of people who are swayed by theatrics over content. Not a great indication of intelligence.
That is the reason that Trump got elected.
And that just makes me sad. Ambassador Haley is anything but slimy. What the hell is the matter with people?
You know what they ought to do? Make the debates a mud wrestling match. That's basically all Ramaswamy was doing just like trmp did in 2016
ecially the GOP it seems) has a ton of people who are swayed by theatrics over content.
Its an online poll. That's the epitome of theatrics over content. It has no value.
One more thing about Ramaswamy: He is clearly the 'centerpiece' of a great deal of EARNED MEDIA this morning in newsrooms and online!
Trump is a master of the art of political noise!
Another early results poll:
I would switch Christie and Haley but good analysis.
Thanks for that analysis. I saw a bit of Haley on the news this morning. I think she is secretly a moderate but has to show her right wingedness until she gets elected
All of the candidates are operating in a bizarre (surreal) environment with the irrational Trump support in their party.
I just wish she could blink both eyes at the same time...
I agree, good analysis.
I agree , it was a good analysis, however, rating whether the candidate would support Trump as a good/bad made no sense to me.
If Trump is the nominee, then it really doesn't matter if any of the others would support him....they are not the nominee, and not many people put a lot of energy into who someone else backs.
Also, can you imagine the hatred from the left that would flow if Ramaswamy, Haley or Scott would be the top and or second ticket to each other? Two conservative minorities that dared to not toe liberal lines running against the chosen old white guy? The biggest culprits would be white liberals where racist comments would flow like water.
I notice no leftist tried to rebuke the comment.
Says a lot about their line of thinking.
[Deleted]
Anyone who would even consider Trump as the nominee shows a lack of concern for protecting and defending the CotUS and the rule of law.
That is why I show it as a negative.
I understand that the candidates are dealing with a dysfunctional GOP and that they are stuck between a rock and a hard spot. Thus I do not consider this a show-stopper, just a negative. Note that Haley is high on my list in spite of her support for Trump.
What makes you think a 'leftist' gives a shit about your reply to DoW?
Bout as much as any "righty" gives a shit about your snobby responses to us.
I agree, it used to be that endorsements from other Party leaders had value but since Trump runs as anti-establishment, their endorsements aren't very important.
Yes, hate seems to be the primary motivation as the polarization deepens.
The left is very quick to label someone as a racist.
What was unsettling today was the audience. Further evidence that the GOP has lost its fucking mind. It is like the majority of the audience were mindless Trump-bots. Any hint of bad against Trump was booed. The audience seemed like a high-school audience (both in demeanor and awareness of reality).
Trump probably placed his surrogates there and/or a paid audience members to boo and represent him in a manner fitting to his stature as 'boss hog'! Instruction: Boo everybody who dares to trash Trump.
I think the audience was predominantly Fox viewers.
There was another audience at the same time.
They were on Twitter:
"BREAKING : Tucker Carlson interview with President Trump rapidly approaches 100 MILLION views on X within hours:
BREAKING: Tucker Carlson interview with President Trump rapidly approaches 100 MILLION views on X within hours | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com
Maybe the home run everyone was looking for was hit over there.
I'm not familiar with Post Millenial so I briefly skimmed through it. This soon popped up
You're using another far right crack pot source Vic.
One need not read about it. We only need our eyes.
The claim that Biden fell asleep has been debunked by numerous fact checkers. Your eyes dont mean a damn thing.
Every one of them is a leftist site.
Your eyes dont mean a damn thing.
To the contrary they mean everything.
To you, everything to the left of INFOWARS is a leftist site.
And you are the only one on this site who ever even mentions infowars.
That 'freak' had he wanted to be a part of the debate should have come and been on the stage. Trump and Carlson were not debating a damn thing. It was a fluff piece most likely (I did not and will not watch it for any other conclusion of it.)
It pisses me off that this morning the news cable shows are intermingling Trump's fluff piece with the RNC debate. Why does Trump get to run rough-shod over all formats, including NewsTalkers?
Donald Trump discussed here, I PROTEST!
No time for the usual Texan1211 bs. Have a nice day.
More hyper-partisan bs.
Call it whatever floats your raft. SEE YOU LATER.
To me, the debate was defined by one question by the moderator.
GOP presidential candidates asked at debate if they would support Trump as nominee if he's convicted
Only Hutchinson and Christie did not raise their hands in support. That tells me one thing the majority of candidates on that stage do not have the balls or leadership ability to hold the highest office in the land. They are simply Trump wannabes.
An analyst said this morning that the Republican Party has forfeited forever their claim to be the party of law and order. That is exactly right. Supporting a convicted felon to be president is spitting in the face of law and order.
Indeed, it was a major negative for me. Haley disappointed me in this regard but her positives kept her high in my ranking. This was a chance for Burgum to differentiate himself; he failed.
Burgnum seemed reserved and his opening statement was muted/strong/weak. Did he actually reference that he is from a small town of 300 people? It was strange to me in the sense that North Dakota has a much larger population and he did not 'toot' that fact. Sometimes the opening is the first impression. And I could not forget the 300 people comment though I tried to do so for his sake.
One thing is for certain. Anyone on that stage last night can destroy Joe Biden in a debate and that is why Biden won't be debating anyone.
I picked Haley years ago and last night only affirmed my thinking.
I think she could break the glass ceiling. How many feminists here would be excited about that?
Trump is blocking the only nomination slot.
You have to rid the GOP of Trump first.
The democrats made that impossible.
Don't blame others for your (the GOP) own failure. The GOP should have pushed Trump away on Jan 20, 2021. The GOP did the opposite.
Trump is the likely nominee because the GOP is supporting him. It is the choice of those supporting and defending Trump. The D party very likely wants Trump, the indictments helped Trump, but the fault for Trump blocking the GOP nomination for decent candidates lies with the GOP members themselves.
... the fault for Trump blocking the GOP nomination for decent candidates lies with the GOP members themselves.
Not for this voter
Yes he is Jim; Trump is making your vote for Haley irrelevant. Because of the domination by Trump of the (dysfunctional) GOP, voting for any other nominee is like voting third party in the general election. It is a protest vote at best. Maybe a vote for V.P.
The solution is to do whatever possible to eliminate Trump as the dominant (by far) nominee candidate.
There is a looooooong way to go and the domination, as you put it, could fizzle.
One can hope for that or one can actively work against Trump.
Thus far, hope is failing miserably.
Haley would steal Trump's lunch money in a debate if he showed up.
Look Jim, I hope you are right. I think you are engaging in very wishful thinking ... but I would very much like to see the GOP rid itself of Trump.
I would love to see that. She has so much more intelligence and class in her little finger than trmp could ever buy
Trump will squash Nikki Haley like a bug , so to speak, when the time comes. Everyone knows that but some people engage in wishful thinking.
Safe statement when you know Trump (the far and away leader of the republican party) was absent. Very safe indeed to make. You best guy in the past went down to defeat in debates and presidential victory to Biden!
And so, you comments about anybody other than Trump being the GOP candidate you will vote for is moot.
And your statement:
Is only a taunt at feminists, because you clearly don't think anybody but Trump will be the nominee!
Sounds like you WANT Trump to be the candidate? Why? So you have something to bitch about for another 5 years?
And Haley would squash Biden like a bug in a debate.
So there you go.
It’s Stockholm Syndrome ……. Inverted …..
That is true for anyone given the GOP seems all in for Trump.
JR is a D. Of course he wants the GOP to nominate a loser. Makes good sense if one wants the Ds to win.
There probably a couple Republicans that could beat Biden if things went their way. Haley and Christie, possibly Hutchinson, although I will call that less likely. I dont think any of the other 5 that were on that stage last night could beat Biden, particularly not DeSantis and Ramaswamy, who are far right lunatics who I would love to debate if I were the Democratic candidate.
Pence has no chance whatsoever even if he gets the GOP nomination. He is a known hard liner on abortion and even if he tried to moderate that a little bit no one would believe him.
Pence should spare himself all that uphill mountain fruitless effort and quit now.
Don't hate the player; hate the game, partisan role-player.
I'd pay to see that..................
Well at this point this is just interesting academic musing. Trump has the nomination unless something spectacular happens.
Most leftists do. They think 2020 will be replayed where Biden will beat Trump fairly easily.
The truth is many millennials and Gen xers have seen Biden in action and are rethinking their 2020 votes. I think if Trump is the nominee, he will have a much easier time beating Biden, especially since the memory for most of him beating their queen is fading.
The mid terms were less than a year ago, and there was nothing in there could be seen as a repudiation of Biden. To the contrary the widely predicted red wave never happened.
The majority of Americans are sick and tired of MAGA and want that ideology gone. Get rid of MAGA thought and the GOP will have a chance. Dont and you will lose to whoever the Democrats run.
People should not be as afraid of Trump winning as they should be of Trump losing. His cult of followers make it clear that another Trump loss will not be tolerated. He has no prayer of winning an honest election.
1. My head doesnt bobble up and down like DeSantis' does.
2. I am not a right wing extremist.
3. I havent signed a six week abortion ban.
4. I am far more likable than he is.
5. Ramaswamy has proposed 5 or 6 policies that the majority of people will consider extreme, including changing the voting age to 25.
6. He's a lunatic.
Oh please you would get used as a mop against DeSantis.
I dont have the desire to debate this with you.
Wrong again. If Trump tried that misogynistic bullying bullshit on Haley he would incur the wrath of an awful lot of people. particularly women....of all political stripes. It would turn out to be the worst mistake he has yet made.
Further proof you couldn't handle DeSantis....................
Couple that with Haley herself. I don't think she takes shit off of anyone. She was tough as hell in the UN. Pulled absolutely NO punches.
you bore me
Nikki Haley has repeatedly waffled on the subject of Donald Trump ever since she left the UN. Her record of "standing up" to Trump is tissue paper thin.
Don't give a damn about how she stands on Trump. She isn't one to fret the little things. He is but a mosquito at her picnic.
Actually I believe that would have been your mother. I am a male and cannot bear children although some folks think men can.
You said or implied she will stand up to Trump. She has no record of ever having done this.
She never had a need to..................FFS
Nope. Too many blind Trump supporters who will buy whatever bullshit comes from his mouth. Look at how Trump blatantly lied to and ridiculed Kaitlan Collins (a 31 year old female) during the CNN Town Hall. The audience was applauding his lies and ridicule.
Other than trying to be honest, conscientious , and patriotic.
Correct. It bobbles up and down when liberals talk.
Correct. You're a left wing extremist.
Correct. You haven't been elected to a position to do so.
You have "tremendous" likeability. You're making likeability great again.
81% of Democrats think " paying your own bills " is extreme.
Does he let his hatred for a single person he's never met control every thought process? That would be bad.
I dont hate Trump. I have said that many times.
You on the other hand, enable him.
And I believe you just as much as I believe him.
I know, right? Here I am, just going about my day, acting like the sky isn't falling. It's a wonder I can sleep at night.
Your constant intention to ignore Trump doesnt do jack shit, Jack. You have a live and let live attitude about him, which is leading our country into a dark path. I guess you are libertarian and dont give a shit.
Over the last few years he has said that he doesnt pay any attention to Trump. I think that is a synonym for ignoring him. [Deleted]
Maybe that time won't come. Maybe something happens with Trump along the way.
OMG, then the dems will have to dump Biden in a hurry!
Whereas your constant obsessing about him is changing the world, one forum post at a time.
What would my "attention" achieve, exactly?
She's a younger Susan Collins.
Where is your proof the "majority" of Americans are tired of MAGA and want the ideology gone.
BTW.....you are not the "majority" of Americans, so your opinion does not hold weight.
That is hilariously accurate.
An old, tired, bastard of a human being who won't stop until more lives are lost through hook or crook! And, the country is sitting around watching one man make a mockery out of all the freedoms he has been given by destroying those he touches or worse touch him.
He was listed at 6’3” and 215? Does the Fulton county jail have its head up its ass?
Is anything in Fulton County clean?
That's what you've been waiting for.
MSNBC had it up immediately.
There will be a reckoning for your side.
keep defending this piece of human garbage vic. see where it gets you.
Here is how this will likely unfold:
I do not want to see this happen, but gird your loins for a level of delusional, irrationality we have not yet seen.
What does a narcissist like Donald Trump fear the most? 1. The truth? 2. Peace and quiet? 3. Being ignored?
I would say ... being known as a loser.
What does this narcissist fear the most? Isn't it time we all tried to find out?! HINT: Trump enjoys sucking all the oxygen out of a room. He feeds off the energy of others that join his enterprises.
1. Deprogram Trump's cultic personality or at least his minions.
2. And for goodness sake, the media must stop feeding this freak's insatiable appetite to be the center of its 'universe.'
Currently there are those who are seeking to vote for GOP candidates other than Trump.
As their options close, they will have no choice but to vote for Trump (or abstain). This will (should) frustrate them to no end. Many will suck it up, and go full-scale-GOP-loyalty. This means they will go full-boar on defending Trump.
Given Trump is indefensible, all that can happen is increasingly irrational and shrill 'arguments'.