|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 11 2016 07:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 06:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 11 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Yeah the right will never let go of abortion, they actually have some ground there. There is no legitimate defense for being anti-gay outside of religion. Its a shame that they still think in 2016 that a woman should not have absolute and uncontested control over what happens inside her body. I dunno what kind of "ground" they could have. If you fail to see the argument of the other side then idk what to tell you. It's difficult to draw the line at where a fetus is human and gets constitutional rights, and it's even harder to evaluate if the fetus's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy. If you think these are cut and dry cases you are delusional. Better to be literally conservative in these situations where you don't really know what's right. Your position makes no sense to me.
The only human part of being human is consciousness. That's how I see it, anyway. In thr absence of consciousness, its just biomass no more worthy of life than a patch of moss.
|
On October 11 2016 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 07:13 biology]major wrote:On October 11 2016 06:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 11 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Yeah the right will never let go of abortion, they actually have some ground there. There is no legitimate defense for being anti-gay outside of religion. Its a shame that they still think in 2016 that a woman should not have absolute and uncontested control over what happens inside her body. I dunno what kind of "ground" they could have. If you fail to see the argument of the other side then idk what to tell you. It's difficult to draw the line at where a fetus is human and gets constitutional rights, and it's even harder to evaluate if the fetus's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy. If you think these are cut and dry cases you are delusional. Better to be literally conservative in these situations where you don't really know what's right. Your position makes no sense to me. The only human part of being human is consciousness. That's how I see it, anyway. In thr absence of consciousness, its just biomass no more worthy of life than a patch of moss.
Eh, the field of bioethics has a lot of interesting stuff about how to determine human-ness and how that relates to abortion. Here's some stuff I wrote from back when I took a class on it... haha, I literally don't remember any of this, but good to know I used to know things.
In Catholicism, abortion is pretty much always a no-no. The only time it is allowed is "indirect", where abortion is not the intent of the abortion-- an example would be like if the mother had cancer and the fetus would be killed by chemotherapy. Of course, that enters the gray area where the risk of chemo vs the risk to the child compete, and that becomes hard to decide. I didn't see anything about rape, so I suppose that children from rape should be carried to term anyways...
In Judaism, abortion is more permissible. The fetus is treated "as the thigh of the mother", which implies that it generally should not be destroyed or mutilated, but can be to preserve the greater whole. For example, if the mother had flesh-eating disease in her leg the doctor could cut it off to save her. Extending this analogy to the fetus, the mother could abort it if it presented some danger to her. However, this "danger" can be psychological or physical, and then it gets complicated. If the child tested positive for Tay-Sachs, the mother can abort if she feels she cannot take on the psychological burden. Unfortunately again, this sort of decision framework gives the mother a lot of leeway. On the other end of the spectrum, a girl who got pregnant because she didn't use protection could say that having a child would make her depressed, ruin her life and should be aborted.
Islam begins to treat the fetus as a person (it is "ensouled") at around 4 months. Before then, abortion is generally permissible. That's the only real rule. Note that Islamic bioethics is the least developed of the fields.
My personal belief is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or a serious threat to the mother's health, in conjunction with good sex ed and decently-priced contraceptives. But that's idea, so abortion through the first trimester is fine with me.
|
On October 11 2016 07:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 06:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On October 11 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Yeah the right will never let go of abortion, they actually have some ground there. There is no legitimate defense for being anti-gay outside of religion. Its a shame that they still think in 2016 that a woman should not have absolute and uncontested control over what happens inside her body. I dunno what kind of "ground" they could have. If you fail to see the argument of the other side then idk what to tell you. It's difficult to draw the line at where a fetus is human and gets constitutional rights, and it's even harder to evaluate if the fetus's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy. If you think these are cut and dry cases you are delusional. Better to be literally conservative in these situations where you don't really know what's right. Your position makes no sense to me.
Polling suggests even nonreligious people heavily favor restrictions on late term and partial birth abortions. Most democrat politicians favor abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning. Clinton's been on both sides of the fence on this one. I wonder how much longer the Democrat party can exist when their policy is too extreme for most Americans.
|
"Most democrat politicians favor abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning."
this is patently false.
|
On October 11 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:
"Most democrat politicians favor abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning."
this is patently false.
Why deal with reality when you can just make shit up?
|
On October 11 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:
"Most democrat politicians favor abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning."
this is patently false.
I'll try to find it again after work if you'd like. The last time it was brought up, the matter was matter of factly accepted. But of course, the fetus is an extension of the mothers body and it makes sense to make it the mothers call up to actual delivery.
So lose-lose: I'm weird for thinking Democrats would ever have a problem with it, and absurd to think it's a minority view. Good luck in future elections reconciling that social issue. How many times did Clinton veto a partial birth abortion ban again?
|
|
|
United States41989 Posts
On October 11 2016 07:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:
"Most democrat politicians favor abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning."
this is patently false. I'll try to find it again after work if you'd like. The last time it was brought up, the matter was matter of factly accepted. But of course, the fetus is an extension of the mothers body and it makes sense to make it the mothers call up to actual delivery. So lose-lose: I'm weird for thinking Democrats would ever have a problem with it, and absurd to think it's a minority view. Good luck in future elections reconciling that social issue. How many times did Clinton veto a partial birth abortion ban again?
I'm fine with abortion up to the point where it would live if removed from the mother's body. Medical science pushes that date back and it's a case by case thing but as far as I'm concerned the mother should be able to withdraw support freely.
|
And secondly, aren't we talking about the de facto position of the current Democrat candidate (she said no federal restrictions whatsoever before she said limited restrictions) and platform? Granted it's been a few months since I read the DNC policy document.
|
On October 11 2016 07:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:
"Most democrat politicians favor abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning."
this is patently false. I'll try to find it again after work if you'd like. The last time it was brought up, the matter was matter of factly accepted. But of course, the fetus is an extension of the mothers body and it makes sense to make it the mothers call up to actual delivery. So lose-lose: I'm weird for thinking Democrats would ever have a problem with it, and absurd to think it's a minority view. Good luck in future elections reconciling that social issue. How many times did Clinton veto a partial birth abortion ban again?
If the GOP tried to pass reasonable laws about abortion, vetoes would happen. But they don't.
|
On October 11 2016 07:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote:
"Most democrat politicians favor abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning."
this is patently false. I'll try to find it again after work if you'd like. The last time it was brought up, the matter was matter of factly accepted. But of course, the fetus is an extension of the mothers body and it makes sense to make it the mothers call up to actual delivery. So lose-lose: I'm weird for thinking Democrats would ever have a problem with it, and absurd to think it's a minority view. Good luck in future elections reconciling that social issue. How many times did Clinton veto a partial birth abortion ban again?
How many times was Clinton faced with a pure bill that pertained only to partial birth abortion?
The answer is zero, they always came as part of an omnibus bill.
Is this where I wax poetic with prolix-laden jargon intended to indict your stunning lack of knowledge with regards to what Democrats actually support? Surely, I'd expect the same from you should I decide to proclaim that Republicans support bans on abortion even in the case of a threat to the mother's health....oh wait...
|
I'd guess the veto was to block a blanket ban on DNX.
Interestingly, providers get around it by inducing death prior to performing the abortion b/c the statute states that it's impermissible to partially deliver then kill the fetus.
|
As Donald Trump’s campaign unravels, the Republican National Committee has gone dark — failing to give GOP vendors guidance on whether to keep working for the nominee or to move resources into down-ballot races, and not even returning calls from party members ahead of a critical late-afternoon meeting about the way forward.
Numerous Republicans on Monday used the same phrase to describe the response of the RNC to their questions: “radio silence.”
The RNC plans to conduct a closed conference call with members on Monday at 5 p.m., but numerous Republicans said they could not get through to the committee all day. And vendors working on Trump Victory, the effort dedicated to winning the White House, still have not yet been given the green light to restart pro-Trump mailings just four weeks until the election. On Saturday, one day after the bombshell tape was released, the committee sent an email to mail vendors asking them to “put a hold/stop on all mail projects.”
(After publication of this story, a committee spokeswoman, Lindsay Walters, said that the mail campaign would be “moving forward as scheduled.”)
Amid the confusion, an email chain that ballooned to include the entire RNC circulated, with many warning party leadership not to withdraw support from Trump. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus appeared to be looped in to the chain at one point.
Members made clear, in the chain obtained by POLITICO, that they do not want the RNC to reallocate resources to other races, despite the surfacing of a 2005 video in which the Republican nominee can be heard bragging about sexual assault and his subsequent drop in the polls.
“I'm disappointed to hear post-debate pundits saying Republicans will meet Monday to discuss pulling funds from Trump,” wrote Tamara Scott, the RNC committeewoman from Iowa, in an email sent to a group of RNC members on Sunday night. “How do we encourage those with the purse strings to stay the course?”
People who spoke up on the email chain urged each other to ensure that their public comments about Trump are positive.
Source
|
|
|
Apparently, Podesta met with Tom DeLonge to talk about UFOs and Hillary has said that she'd like to release the Roswell files. lol?
|
Haha yeah he's been doing that for a month now, I've been following his Twitter. They recently added Kifs voice actor to do the groans. It's really uncanny.
|
On October 11 2016 08:25 farvacola wrote:
Apparently, Podesta met with Tom DeLonge to talk about UFOs and Hillary has said that she'd like to release the Roswell files. lol?
~~~100 years in the future of TL~~~
Pegasus Galaxy Politics Megathread
|
|
|
On October 11 2016 08:25 farvacola wrote:
Apparently, Podesta met with Tom DeLonge to talk about UFOs and Hillary has said that she'd like to release the Roswell files. lol?
I guess I've always wanted to know what kind of experimental planes they were testing out in the desert, or maybe greys are really the puppet masters all along.
|
On October 11 2016 08:25 farvacola wrote:
Apparently, Podesta met with Tom DeLonge to talk about UFOs and Hillary has said that she'd like to release the Roswell files. lol?
This isn't new it's been known since the days when the leak of Bill Clinton asking, after he was inaugurated, wanting to know what happened to JFK and if UFO's were real
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
