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.
A theory I just came up with: one of the reasons that republicans are so adamantly anti-abortion is that it allows them to claim some sort of moral high ground, they work themselves up into a state where abortion is literally murder and it makes them sick others are okay with this. And this is very important for the GOP, because they know they have precious little high ground to work with.
On October 11 2016 23:31 ticklishmusic wrote: Wikileaks releasing THE NEXT BIGGEST THING and having it turn out to be pretty regular work emails also makes me feel like Clinton has Assange paid off or something, lol
I really hope 20 years from now we learn that the Clinton foundation had been planning this overthrowing of the GOP for 10+ years and that Donald/Assange were crucial players. All the murders were real, everything was real. An amazing, incredible conspiracy.
Shit, if the Clintons are capable of pulling that off they're playing fucking 90 dimensional chess while Trump is trying to figure out how the Scrabble board works
The more I read these emails, the more I am assured that government is just like a lot of offices I worked at. The grand theory of donors contacting the CF to get meetings at the state department likely degrades down to some overworks staffer saying “Fuck it, I’m just going to contact the charity with CLINTON written on the side. I bet they know who I have to email to set up this meeting.”
On October 11 2016 16:40 zeo wrote: It must have been a pretty wild ride these past few days for some of you guys. From triumphant proclamations of the demise of Trump, he's finished, done for, people are leaving the building - to hysterical 'b-b-but what about the boogie man?' for the last 4 pages.
What a time to be alive.
How trapped into the post truth bubble do you have to be to smugly and unironically make such an observation? If you'd stick your head out of the alt-retard blogosphere for one moment you'd see that on any aggregator or betting site her odds are at 80% or higher. They've been going only up for a few weeks and we've only seen a few polls from after the tape (with massive swings in Clinton's favor), the full effect will be seen in 3 or so days. But don't fret, it will be difficult for him to go below 10% chances, as he gets closer to virtually having no chance it takes an exponential amount of idiocy and/or scandals to lower further.
On October 11 2016 23:45 Grumbels wrote: A theory I just came up with: one of the reasons that republicans are so adamantly anti-abortion is that it allows them to claim some sort of moral high ground, they work themselves up into a state where abortion is literally murder and it makes them sick others are okay with this. And this is very important for the GOP, because they know they have precious little high ground to work with.
While I don't think Republicans are anti-abortion solely so that they claim the high ground, the latter is definitely a large component of what drives the religious right generally. If one sits in on a Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, or Pat Robertson sermon, it becomes clear that God-given superiority through grace and faith is definitely a cornerstone of religious conservatism in this country.
(and to appease our resident conservatives, yes, liberals perform a similar operation, only the stimulus comes from mostly different sources, namely academia)
As if the task of conquering populism in the democratic primary wasn't impressive enough, we are seeing her take on Russia, neckbeard anarchist hackers, the right, the alt right and 20 year olds who are convinced they understand social justice. This will be an amazing victory if she ends up winning. Historic conquering of unique circumstances.
On October 11 2016 16:40 zeo wrote: It must have been a pretty wild ride these past few days for some of you guys. From triumphant proclamations of the demise of Trump, he's finished, done for, people are leaving the building - to hysterical 'b-b-but what about the boogie man?' for the last 4 pages.
What a time to be alive.
How trapped into the post truth bubble do you have to be to smugly and unironically make such an observation? If you'd stick your head out of the alt-retard blogosphere for one moment you'd see that on any aggregator or betting site her odds are at 80% or higher. They've been going only up for a few weeks and we've only seen a few polls from after the tape (with massive swings in Clinton's favor), the full effect will be seen in 3 or so days. But don't fret, it will be difficult for him to go below 10% chances, as he gets closer to virtually having no chance it takes an exponential amount of idiocy and/or scandals to lower further.
Your aggregator and betting odd sites a day before Brexit:
My favorite part is that you don’t provide links, so we can’t even check where that came from. The polls showed the vote to be close for the Brexit, even if people didn’t believe it. And most of the predictions for how the election will go are based on polling data.
On October 11 2016 16:40 zeo wrote: It must have been a pretty wild ride these past few days for some of you guys. From triumphant proclamations of the demise of Trump, he's finished, done for, people are leaving the building - to hysterical 'b-b-but what about the boogie man?' for the last 4 pages.
What a time to be alive.
How trapped into the post truth bubble do you have to be to smugly and unironically make such an observation? If you'd stick your head out of the alt-retard blogosphere for one moment you'd see that on any aggregator or betting site her odds are at 80% or higher. They've been going only up for a few weeks and we've only seen a few polls from after the tape (with massive swings in Clinton's favor), the full effect will be seen in 3 or so days. But don't fret, it will be difficult for him to go below 10% chances, as he gets closer to virtually having no chance it takes an exponential amount of idiocy and/or scandals to lower further.
Your aggregator and betting odd sites a day before Brexit
Do you want to bet money on the result of the presidential election?
So it was clear to me from the very start that Eichenwald is a giant blowhard - how else do you re-link the same article 30 fucking times in a row on Twitter in 2 hours, and make a huge deal out of two very generic sentences - and reading the comments and searching the story gave a somewhat more innocuous, though equally or more stupid, explanation. It seems that an alternative source for that quote was... r/the_Donald. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/56t1ws/wikileaks_bombshell_sidney_blumenthal_states_that/
My commentary on Trump's "useful idiot" Russian ties still stands (I didn't even take Eichenwald's idiotic article into consideration for that), but I think it's far more likely he was stupid enough to just read it off of Reddit and call it a day.
Snapshot of relevant twitting from the reddit post; the original twit was deleted:
Eichenwald is posting stuff to drum up support for his long-shot bid to win the Pulitzer that Fahrenthold has all but locked up. I almost feel bad for him, it's like having pocket aces + an ace on door, then losing to a royal flush (happened to me once).
On October 11 2016 10:16 JumboJohnson wrote: If you were aborted you wouldn't know it, so why would you care if your mother picked that option?
This is not a good argument
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion..
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +
(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad.
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
I didnt say you said you had no position. I said your position is a "nothing" position because it doesnt make any sense..
There are no good arguments for banning abortion, only religious ones.
Hmm, there are only religious arguments for banning abortions? Interesting because I am definitely not religious, arguably closer to anti-religious than religious and yet I fall into the anti-abortion camp.
Abortion arguments can more or less be broken down into two camps:
1) Those that argue that abortion is allowable under all circumstances 2) those that concede that abortion is not morally acceptable in the case of being a person, but seek to argue that some abortions are okay based on whether the fetus is developed enough to constitute "personhood"
Most people argue number 2. Arguments for #1 are much rarer, because it's much easier to create similar scenarios involving adults/infants that most reject.
For me, as I guess it probably is for most, it becomes fairly "straightforward" from what is for me a fundamental tenant: That the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible. We only get one life, and I believe that control of that life ought to be an unalienable right that cannot be willfully infringed upon by any other person.
That pretty much rules out any exceptions to abortion with exception of situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Of course, that does leave open to discussion the point at which something becomes a human being deserving of that right; and I'm not completely sold on my position there, but I've seen good philosophical arguments both for and against various stages of development. Certainly, biology doesn't and won't give us anything to go on their; so it's going to come down to philosophical discussion anyway.
Thanks for posting! I don't run into many atheist/agnostic prolife in my area, and I expect most of the "no argument exists" crowd say it because they've never met one.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion and how politically dear do you hold that view? What was your take on the sudden switch of the DNC to remove support for the Hyde Amendment this year?
Sorry to interrupt your little attempt at an anti abortion circle jerk but I think in your excitement you missed something.
For your position to be for or anti abortion you need to have a clear understanding of where you consider life to start in a situation where abortion is purely preferential with no extenuating circumstances (rape, life of mother etc..) i.e "I choose not to have this baby".
You cant say you are anti abortion like he did with the "human -> control fate etc etc... "+ Show Spoiler +
also news flash, even when youare born sadly most humans dont control their own fate. If you have ever worked with street kids, addicts and runaways sometimes you wonder thinking was it worth them even being born. I generally dismiss the thought because who the fuck am I to think like that, but it does strike you momentarily from time to time, especially when faced with all that suffering. anyway sorry for that digression
and then say .. well im not quite sure when something becomes human. So really his conclusion was a pretty big "nothing" in terms of solidifying his position. Even if there was a conclusion..
I do agree that anti abortion arguments arent only religious in nature which was the original point he was addressing, thats silly ofcourse some people can just hold a belief that life begins at conception without any religious reasoning for it.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
Theres plenty of unnecessary things said all the time, if this is the first one that caught your eye ...well I guess I apologize if anyone was offended. + Show Spoiler +
(is what I would say if I was Trumpian..).
Seriously though, it wasn't necessary, my bad.
Edit:
Also the position isnt particularly novel, not sure where the novelty is. To me it seems rather incoherent and contradictory based on the reasoning. It doesn't have to be, but in this case it is.
Summed up as
Abortion - bad Why? - Humans destiny not controlled by said human What is human ? - dono
Wait.. what ? So why do we have problem with abortion again ? What you are talking about is murder.
I didn't say I had no position. I said it was much more open to discussion (with regards to swaying my thoughts). Look above for clarification
I'm a bit confused how you can say that "the prime and most fundamental right for any human should be to control their own fate to the extent possible," but then come down unequivocally in the anti-abortion camp. The principal you stated should also apply to pregnant women wanting to "control their own fate," and allow them to decide what to do with a pregnancy.
Pregnancy causes permanent changes to a person's body, and giving birth has a not-insignificant mortality rate. I don't understand why you don't have qualms about forcing someone to go through that against their wishes.
Would you also force a person go through a medical procedure, say a kidney donation (also potentially life threatening, also causes permanent changes to a person's body) to save a child after it is born? If not, how is that different from forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
All that being said, I think a reasonable ending point is to allow abortion up until the point a fetus is viable outside of the womb, subject to reasonable exceptions.
Also for some context, here is the account of a woman who decided to get a late term abortion after it turned out that her fetus had a disorder which would cause it die soon after being born. The whole process seems like an unjust nightmare:
What happened at 31 weeks?
We went back to get a growth scan, and we saw the growth had fallen off a cliff. And this was the first time that we had been presented with this idea that there was something deeply wrong with the baby that had nothing to do with me. Until that point, all the really bad news had been with me, and my weird body. He had been thriving despite the environment.
But on this scan, he’d gone from the 37th percentile to the 8th. And he wasn’t swallowing.
...
That’s when he realized that from a medical standpoint, the situation was bad, and terminal. He didn’t realize initially what that meant in terms of our options—that the laws in New York meant we couldn’t do anything in the state... This baby was unviable, basically. That’s what they say. They say that the baby is “incompatible with life.”
...
To be clear, if the doctors thought there was any way he might make it, I would have taken that chance. I truly would have put myself through anything. What I came to accept was the fact that I would never get to be this little guy’s mother—that if we came to term, he would likely live a very short time until he choked and died, if he even made it that far. This was a no-go for me. I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible.
...
There are a few doctors in the country—four of them, you interviewed one of them—who will do this. But my doctor had previously referred patients to Dr. Hern, who’s in Boulder. He’s this 78-year-old man who’s been doing this for decades, who developed a lot of the abortion procedures that we know to be the most safe. He’s had 37,000 patients and he’s never lost anyone. And he’s a zealot, but he has to be. There are websites dedicated to offering money to kill him; his practice has four layers of bulletproof glass. They’ve been shot at. He was there during the Roe v. Wade decision. He’s been through it all. And the only other peer he had at his level was Dr. Tiller, who was killed in 2009.
...
I have really good insurance right now, so I do have the hope they’ll reimburse for something. Because here’s one thing you should know. If you get the entire procedure done at the clinic at this late date, it’s $25,000. Cash... So between the insurance and the good staff salaries, the money’s gone. $25,000 sounds like a lot for a procedure, but these procedures are rare; it’s not like he’s doing a lot of these. They are not profiting. Right now, they’re in desperate need of a new roof. That’s the kind of situation Dr. Hern is working with.
Thats why I said he had a nothing position. Because everyone will agree on the idea that you have the right to control your own destiny (which for a newborn is a debatable thing anyway. He never clarified on when he believes something is human but still anti abortion.
Dude. How is the bolded part necessary? He saw a novel position and was interested to hear more. How is that a circle jerk? Don't inflame an inherently controversial topic.
I didnt say you got there yet.. hence the use of the word attempt. Admittedly I was just basing this of potential and history.
Seems a lot of people have taken this mentality of late and it quite frankly sucks. It sucks because it blocks your ears from hearing any exception to a perceived rule and even if someone were to change their tune on a particular topic, it'll likely be missed because of 'history'.
While I would be inclined to agree with you, its observable enough at this point to be scientific fact at this point. You know observable phenomenon, hypothesis testing all that good stuff. + Show Spoiler +
question how genuine the curiosity was because the position itself makes no sense and Danglars is not stupid.
As I have repeatedly said already, its ok that your not sure, or if even if you believe abortion is wrong period outside of any religious reasoning. Thats your prerogative. But you cant say to a thinking person that "I am against Y because of reason X but then go on to say "not sure if X applies though" so lets talk about that. But I am still against Y.
I don't understand why you keep saying this. I've said multiple times where I believe "humanness" begins. It's like you're trying to troll me or something, Ive stated it...and you keep saying I haven't.
I am confused. Or put another way, where have I said "not sure if X applies"
Trump's going full ballistic on Paul Ryan. I think he's trying to get him to unendorse at this point.
Also, he blatantly lies to the public and says he won every post-debate poll, which is only even loosely true if he means every online poll. While misspelling "despite." What a trashcan. Too bad there's zero accountability for saying demonstrably false things in our democracy.
On October 11 2016 23:45 Grumbels wrote: A theory I just came up with: one of the reasons that republicans are so adamantly anti-abortion is that it allows them to claim some sort of moral high ground, they work themselves up into a state where abortion is literally murder and it makes them sick others are okay with this. And this is very important for the GOP, because they know they have precious little high ground to work with.
I legitimately think Trump is deteriorating psychologically. He's going to be diagnosed with dementia in 2 years and it will all make sense. A man with the early signs of psychological deterioration will have won the GOP primary. #NotTheOnion
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WXkwODm.png)
