|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. Meanwhile, there is this wonderful tactic of finding someone who says something stupid, claim that they are in the other team, and then claiming that everyone on that side (which you still define yourself) thus agrees with that stupid thing. To anyone who pays any attention, it should be obviously clear that very few people are either at the "abortion always legal" or "abortion always criminal" side of things. But for some reason, people always try to split every issue into two sides that fight. That might be a result of the US two-party system, but i am seeing similar things here from time to time. There clearly are a lot of different positions on political questions, not only with relation to abortion, the same is true for most complex questions of policy. But it is a lot easier to just assume that everyone who disagrees with you have basically the same position. So, if you define yourself as "pro-life", don't assume that everyone who you define as "pro-choice" is a hivemind that agrees on everything. The same thing is true the other way around. Also, i gotta say that i am pretty annoyed that this particular wave of argument seems to be seeping over into Germany from the US. We now also have militant pro-life people who sue doctors who neutrally posit that they perform abortions, because they claim that that is "advertisement", and advertisement for abortions is illegal under German law.
I blame the internet. It has allowed movements like that to bring their bush league tactics to other nations. Just learn from the US and don’t engage them as good faith actors. They want to restrict access to abortion and they will use any tactic to do it. They don’t believe in a middle ground on this, because their goal is to make sure no one can get an abortion.
|
On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says.
You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions.
|
On February 27 2019 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions.
But you haven't addressed my post pointing out the need for nuance, or the one he quoted.
|
On February 27 2019 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions.
No, it's never your fault that everyone else always misinterprets your intentionally vague assertions, and yet other people can hold discussions among themselves just fine.
|
On February 27 2019 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions. But you haven't addressed my post pointing out the need for nuance, or the one he quoted.
I don't have time to respond to every post. And I'm less likely to respond to posts that go on tangents from the point that I initially raised. That abortion policy preferences generally lie on a spectrum instead of being all or nothing is nothing more than pointing out the obvious and is otherwise unrelated to the changing attitude that I was highlighting. Likewise, my abortion policy preferences are generally irrelevant to that topic (and I frankly don't have the time or inclination to go through a thorough examination on that point). All you really need to know is that I'm generally pro-life and am in favor of pursuing policies that would drastically reduce the frequency of abortions.
|
United States41992 Posts
On February 27 2019 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions.
You’re literally ignoring the yes/no questions to explain your view in favour of making this post denying that you ignore yes/no posts explaining your views. Instead of telling us what you believe you’re trying to get into an argument about how you’re totally willing to tell us what you believe. How can you not see this? You don’t prove your willingness to answer questions by insisting that you’re willing to answer questions, you do it by answering the damn question.
|
On February 27 2019 05:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions. You’re literally ignoring the yes/no questions to explain your view in favour of making this post denying that you ignore yes/no posts explaining your views. Instead of telling us what you believe you’re trying to get into an argument about how you’re totally willing to tell us what you believe. How can you not see this? You don’t prove your willingness to answer questions by insisting that you’re willing to answer questions, you tonit by answering the damn question.
He does see it. He just doesn’t care because he is all about winning the argument. I’ve said it before, Dauntless argues politics like every attorney I’ve worked for. He only engages in discussions that benefit his assertions and draws lines is or is not relevant based on how he feels it will impact his argument. And when called on this tactic, he will say that he doesn’t have time to respond to all this frivolously non-sense that posters keep bringing up. He controls the discussion, its direction and the facts that are allowed to be discussed.
Though the attorneys I worked for never really resorted to personal attacks when they got called out on this tactic.
|
I feel like we have all had this conversation at least 800 times and it always goes the exact same way. And for some reason, it seems to only be an issue with xDaunt.
|
|
|
On February 27 2019 05:28 JimmiC wrote:
Pro-lifers should really concern themselves with putting all that money into raising all the children that are born. Then the "abortions of choice" few would make that choice if they knew their kid would be raised in a happy loving home instead in the mess that is the foster system or in their own home without the ability to provide for them. They also should be big into sex education so people stop having so many "accidental" pregnancy's.
The problem with providing adequate sex education and contraception is that it empowers women as well as men. Denying access to resources that help women commence an "informed" pregnancy, then denying them the opportunity to have an abortion as well is a great way to shit on women through the veil of law and order.
|
|
|
United States41992 Posts
On February 27 2019 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 05:20 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2019 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions. You’re literally ignoring the yes/no questions to explain your view in favour of making this post denying that you ignore yes/no posts explaining your views. Instead of telling us what you believe you’re trying to get into an argument about how you’re totally willing to tell us what you believe. How can you not see this? You don’t prove your willingness to answer questions by insisting that you’re willing to answer questions, you tonit by answering the damn question. He does see it. He just doesn’t care because he is all about winning the argument. I’ve said it before, Dauntless argues politics like every attorney I’ve worked for. He only engages in discussions that benefit his assertions and draws lines is or is not relevant based on how he feels it will impact his argument. And when called on this tactic, he will say that he doesn’t have time to respond to all this frivolously non-sense that posters keep bringing up. He controls the discussion, its direction and the facts that are allowed to be discussed. Though the attorneys I worked for never really resorted to personal attacks when they got called out on this tactic.
He’s not even trying though. This isn’t clever deflecting or controlling the argument, it’s just “nuhuh, I cant hear you”. An attorney trying this would lose an argument with a determined fifth grader. Why even go to the bother to type out a few paragraphs explaining that you’re too busy to say yes or no? That’s what I don’t get. It’s not about the bad faith, it’s that even the bad faith is done badly.
|
On February 27 2019 05:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 05:27 Plansix wrote:On February 27 2019 05:20 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2019 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions. You’re literally ignoring the yes/no questions to explain your view in favour of making this post denying that you ignore yes/no posts explaining your views. Instead of telling us what you believe you’re trying to get into an argument about how you’re totally willing to tell us what you believe. How can you not see this? You don’t prove your willingness to answer questions by insisting that you’re willing to answer questions, you tonit by answering the damn question. He does see it. He just doesn’t care because he is all about winning the argument. I’ve said it before, Dauntless argues politics like every attorney I’ve worked for. He only engages in discussions that benefit his assertions and draws lines is or is not relevant based on how he feels it will impact his argument. And when called on this tactic, he will say that he doesn’t have time to respond to all this frivolously non-sense that posters keep bringing up. He controls the discussion, its direction and the facts that are allowed to be discussed. Though the attorneys I worked for never really resorted to personal attacks when they got called out on this tactic. He’s not even trying though. This isn’t clever deflecting or controlling the argument, it’s just “nuhuh, I cant hear you”. An attorney trying this would lose an argument with a determined fifth grader. Why even go to the bother to type out a few paragraphs explaining that you’re too busy to say yes or no? That’s what I don’t get. It’s not about the bad faith, it’s that even the bad faith is done badly.
I never said he was that good at it, especially now that folks have caught on to the tactic over the years. Only that the tactic is grounded in how attorneys frame legal arguments around fact sets. The facts exist, you can’t get rid of them. But you can argue the ones that hurt your case don’t matter and the ones that help your case are the foundation of the legal question at hand.
|
On February 27 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:38 Ryzel wrote:On February 27 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:
Justify the NY bill all you want, but the fact remains that it likely has contributed to a popular backlash against pro-choice positions as is reflected in that poll. Same with the NC governor's comments. Those are the only two relevant things that happened in the period when the big shift in abortion attitudes happened. How much coverage nationwide did these two events receive? I do respect you xDaunt but the principle of parsimony makes it hard for me to believe that the reason for a 14(!) point shift in nationwide opinion over the span of a month is due to two events I had no knowledge of before today, and not due to polling error of some kind (which is quite prevalent and difficult to control even among authoritative pollsters). Northram got quite a bit of media play, probably more than the NY bill. Frankly, I half suspect that Democrats/leftists dropped the yearbook/blackface stuff when they did to make his infanticide comments go away. Regardless, I'm certainly open to alternative explanations for why there's been such a sudden, huge shift. It could be polling error, but that's highly unlikely given that it's not a new poll.
Thanks for this response (as well as Plansix’s follow-up). I see what you mean that it’s unlikely to be polling error if it’s the exact same poll as last month. I suppose it could be that pro-lifers are more outraged over the past month, ergo more likely to take the time to do a phone survey about abortion views, but obviously that’s hard to prove conclusively.
It’s certainly an interesting occurrence and something to look out for as an indicator of future trends, but I think I’m with Plansix in that I’d need to see those numbers stay that way over the next few months before I think the national opinion is truly shifting. Thanks for sharing it though, and confirming that I’ve been living under a rock haha
|
On February 27 2019 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like we have all had this conversation at least 800 times and it always goes the exact same way. And for some reason, it seems to only be an issue with xDaunt.
I get along just fine with plenty of posters. The common denominator among those posters isn't that they agree with me on anything substantively, but rather that they are genuinely curious, intelligent, and take the time to critically assess my posts before responding. Unfortunately, too many posters not only fail to meet these criteria, but are more interested in picking fights with me than actually engaging in a discussion.
|
I don't know if it was brought up already and I missed it in the last ten pages or so, but Mitch McConnell is blaming Democrats for not supporting voter ID laws for the election fraud that happened in North Carolina by people paid by the GOP to aid the GOP in a scheme that voter ID laws would not have stopped.
|
Mitch McConnell is a shameless piece of shit, so why bother listening to a thing that comes out of that mans mouth? Voter ID laws wouldn’t have done shit because the Republican candidate hired a dude to was harvesting absentee ballots. There is no solution to that except to catch them in the act and hold a new election.
The only solution to to McConnell’s lying mouth is to kick his ass out of majority leader position.
|
United States41992 Posts
lol. Clearly the way to stop Republicans from rigging an election by ballot stuffing after the fact is to stop minorities from voting. It all makes sense.
|
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a sitting Rep congressman in the Judiciary Committee. I don't really know what to add, the tweet speaks by itself, and that's on the day of Cohen's closed-door testimony, and the eve of his public testimony. It's just disgusting, not even veiled witness intimidation...
|
That tweet is going to go very poorly for him. The Democrats control the house and are not going to allow that type of behavior from a member of Congress.
Edit: always amusing defense attorney Popehat has weighed in with sage advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
