|
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 April 30 2019 02:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2019 02:18 Plansix wrote:On April 30 2019 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 30 2019 01:52 Plansix wrote:
Ralph Northam is an outlier in the Democratic party and gets his far share of critique from women's rights/heath groups on this very topic. He also isn't the leader of the party. Trump is the leader of the Republican party, no matter what they claim.
And Trump is full of shit a lot of the time and I'm going to continue to assume that what he claims is a lie until I am provided with evidence otherwise. A second quote from a member of the democratic party isn't proof of anything. Wait, are you arguing Trump was trying to portray/convince his audience that what he described is how every abortion works? He said doctors execute newborn babies with the mother. The exact quote: "The baby is born," Trump said. "The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so." That isn't what happens. The bill in discussion would make it illegal for a doctor to do anything but continue care for a baby that has critical deformities or complication that make it unable to survive without care. This could be against the express wishes of the parents, who would be both economically responsible for that treatment and everything that happens afterwords. That baby could be brain dead and the doctor would still be required to administer even if the parents were did not want to. Trump is full of shit. They do not execute babies any more than the doctors executed my grandmother who didn't want to be resuscitated. Even in context Trumps statements are overt lies, unless we rewrite what the word "executed" means. And if that is the case, then I'm going to redefine "Sadist" to include people who use the power of the state to force women to go through with unwanted pregnancies. So your issue is with the words "execute the baby" over "terminate the pregnancy" (which is typically used to describe a forced/assisted ending of pregnancy). Then it seems we have a few people who agree with Gors (no noted disagreement, besides conservatives I presume, yet) that Trump was trying to lead (more or less) his audience to believe (based on preexisting beliefs) all abortions are like he described. Am I accurately tracking positions here thus far? We’ve moved on from simple denial phase, into the phase where Trump’s right, but he should’ve used better language to describe a born-alive baby left to die. We have standards in this country, and when we’re talking about the mother and her doctors discussing what to do with the newborn, let no-one ever say that e-word. The next phase is that calling Trump’s language language on the abandonment and death of a newborn tantamount to incitement to violence against abortionists. Optional final phase is discussing if that speech is really protected by the first amendment. All because a few people listen to outlets that wouldn’t cover Northam’s extreme comments, so assumed Trump must be up to fabricating lies about abortion again.
It is good we have the Trump translator here to tell us all why Trumps words were correct, but also wrong, but also correct in spirit. If only we had someone here to translate the law that was vetoed in Wisconsin that required doctors to do something they were already required to do by law and took rights away from parents when deciding when to stop care for their dying child.
If only we had a Trump translator for when he mocked that disabled reporter, we might have been able to understand what was behind that and why it was good and right for the country to laugh at a disabled man.
|
On April 30 2019 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 19:50 Acrofales wrote:Re: Kwark, GH and BS (I just realized that shortening BerserkerSword to BS also sums up all his posts rather succintly  ) There are clearly two completely unrelated arguments going on: 1. Inflation is bad because <insert bad economic understanding>. That argument was dead before it begun, but somehow lasted 10 pages or so. 2. Current US monetary policy is bad, because the US has far too many impoverished people and it does nothing to help them. This is a somewhat interesting discussion, although I don't really agree with most of the points brought up so far. I think there is more here though, so lets go through them: - Fiat currency is bad for the worker, as it allows the government complete control over the currency and this has been mismanaged, leading to a spiralling government debt and a corresponding tax burden to pay that debt.
This seems like a reasonable argument, but I don't really see where the US has higher taxes since allowing its debt to really skyrocket with Reaganomics, or W financing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq almost entirely with increased debt. Moreover, I don't really see the connection between spiralling government debt and fiat currency. I'd say the clearest example of how having a "gold standard" (in this case, a USD standard) doesn't stop irresponsible borrowing is Argentina during the 1990s. In fact, looking at how that ended is a good argument in *favour* of a fiat currency that allows for QE, whereas the Corralito caused all the easing to happen all at once and decimated every Argentineans savings (and destroyed any confidence from foreign investors for over a decade). We can definitely have an argument about irresponsible borrowing by the US government, but the relationship to a fiat currency or not doesn't seem relevant.
- Wages aren't rising at the same rate as inflation. Leading to increased poverty.
This seems like the main argument against inflation. However, it shouldn't be, as wages and inflation are two different things: wages are about how much labor is worth now, inflation is purely about whether the value of your labor now should be worth more, the same, or less than it is worth *now* at some point in the future. The pressures on wages are unrelated to inflation, although I find GH's point that people are bamboozled into thinking a 1% pay rise is a good thing while inflation is 2% an interesting one. Not against inflation, but for better education of the masses. Economic thinking is something you absolutely need to learn, preferrably starting in primary school.
- The rich get richer, and monetary policy is to blame.
No. Compound interest is to blame. Basically, the rich will get richer as long as you assume an average RoI > 0 (meaning, if you invest money, you will get more back than you invested with), which is a basic tenet of capitalism (and possible even a universal law, I mean, why else would you invest at all). It isn't monetary policy, nor is it up to monetary policy to curb this (I'm not even sure it can). It *is* something the government can (try to) stop, through policies of redistribution. Death tax is a fantastic tax to do this. The US has indeed been running very fast in the opposite direction, leading to accelerated rich get richer syndrome, with Trump's tax cuts being just another example.
I pretty much agree with that. I'm just curious how you reconcile the difference in monetary inflation and reported numbers of price inflation?
I don't know. That leads us to a rather technical discussion of what inflation is and how you measure it. Insofar as I know, inflation and the amount of money in circulation are correlated, but not the same thing. That is because there is not (necessarily) a direct effect on the price of goods after the Fed "prints" more money. That is because the value of a US dollar is not exclusively determined by US citizens, but rather by foreign investors as well, so when the government issues a few trillion more USD in government bonds, those are technically dollars that enter into the economy (that money is created out of nowhere; or rather, what the US does is say that in the future they will give the holder of those bonds the corresponding amount of US dollars despite not actually having them right then). However, issuing a few trillion in government bonds does not immediately have an effect on the value of the US dollar. It *may* have an effect on how international investors view the US dollar and their trust in it (as do many other things), which may cause them to place less trust in the USD, which means the price of imported goods goes up. Similarly, this may cause investors to want higher guarantees (interest) if they loan US companies money, which is calculated into the price of products these companies create. Finally, the Fed can choose to "print money" in more direct internal market ways, for instance by buying up debt. This is a slightly more direct method of creating inflation, as it means whoever suddenly got debt relief no longer has to worry about paying interest or ever repaying that debt, and can instead use that money for other stuff, which increases domestic demand for some stuff, and thus prices rise.
Inflation is measured not at the "creation of money" level, but at the "consumer goods" level, and thus after all those complex effects that I don't really understand very well and probably missed many of in my paragraph above. These inflation indexes aim to quantify how much an "average" household spends in a month, and there are many arguments over what should or shouldn't be taken into account here, but the basis is pretty simple. If the only thing that we worry about in our inflation index is "the price of tomatoes" and the price of tomatoes went up by 10% since the last time we looked, then inflation is 10%.
Of course, we don't just look at the price of tomatoes. Because that would be silly. But in the end inflation is still just an index to quantify somehow the 1000s of things that affect the price consumers pay for things. And just as monetary policy can give government some control over inflation, there are plenty of other things that affect inflation too. For starters, the price of oil. But more simply, in our example of only looking at tomatoes, if a tomato plague devastated this year's crop worldwide, then the price of tomatoes would skyrocket. You are right that inflation is complicated because we would conclude there is 100s of percent inflation (because the price of tomatoes just went bananas), but in reality, many families adapted and switched from tomatoes to apples... and not only that but some of them now prefer apples and even if the price of tomatoes comes crashing back down (holy deflation, batman), they are still gonna persist in their apple based diet. So yeah, finding a *representative* set of products to index is far from easy. And it is obviously an active field of research to improve these indexes. But just because they don't fully capture consumer behaviour doesn't mean they are not useful or important descriptors of the cost of living.
|
On April 30 2019 03:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2019 19:50 Acrofales wrote:Re: Kwark, GH and BS (I just realized that shortening BerserkerSword to BS also sums up all his posts rather succintly ) There are clearly two completely unrelated arguments going on: 1. Inflation is bad because <insert bad economic understanding>. That argument was dead before it begun, but somehow lasted 10 pages or so. 2. Current US monetary policy is bad, because the US has far too many impoverished people and it does nothing to help them. This is a somewhat interesting discussion, although I don't really agree with most of the points brought up so far. I think there is more here though, so lets go through them: - Fiat currency is bad for the worker, as it allows the government complete control over the currency and this has been mismanaged, leading to a spiralling government debt and a corresponding tax burden to pay that debt.
This seems like a reasonable argument, but I don't really see where the US has higher taxes since allowing its debt to really skyrocket with Reaganomics, or W financing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq almost entirely with increased debt. Moreover, I don't really see the connection between spiralling government debt and fiat currency. I'd say the clearest example of how having a "gold standard" (in this case, a USD standard) doesn't stop irresponsible borrowing is Argentina during the 1990s. In fact, looking at how that ended is a good argument in *favour* of a fiat currency that allows for QE, whereas the Corralito caused all the easing to happen all at once and decimated every Argentineans savings (and destroyed any confidence from foreign investors for over a decade). We can definitely have an argument about irresponsible borrowing by the US government, but the relationship to a fiat currency or not doesn't seem relevant.
- Wages aren't rising at the same rate as inflation. Leading to increased poverty.
This seems like the main argument against inflation. However, it shouldn't be, as wages and inflation are two different things: wages are about how much labor is worth now, inflation is purely about whether the value of your labor now should be worth more, the same, or less than it is worth *now* at some point in the future. The pressures on wages are unrelated to inflation, although I find GH's point that people are bamboozled into thinking a 1% pay rise is a good thing while inflation is 2% an interesting one. Not against inflation, but for better education of the masses. Economic thinking is something you absolutely need to learn, preferrably starting in primary school.
- The rich get richer, and monetary policy is to blame.
No. Compound interest is to blame. Basically, the rich will get richer as long as you assume an average RoI > 0 (meaning, if you invest money, you will get more back than you invested with), which is a basic tenet of capitalism (and possible even a universal law, I mean, why else would you invest at all). It isn't monetary policy, nor is it up to monetary policy to curb this (I'm not even sure it can). It *is* something the government can (try to) stop, through policies of redistribution. Death tax is a fantastic tax to do this. The US has indeed been running very fast in the opposite direction, leading to accelerated rich get richer syndrome, with Trump's tax cuts being just another example.
I pretty much agree with that. I'm just curious how you reconcile the difference in monetary inflation and reported numbers of price inflation? I don't know. That leads us to a rather technical discussion of what inflation is and how you measure it. Insofar as I know, inflation and the amount of money in circulation are correlated, but not the same thing. That is because there is not (necessarily) a direct effect on the price of goods after the Fed "prints" more money. That is because the value of a US dollar is not exclusively determined by US citizens, but rather by foreign investors as well, so when the government issues a few trillion more USD in government bonds, those are technically dollars that enter into the economy (that money is created out of nowhere; or rather, what the US does is say that in the future they will give the holder of those bonds the corresponding amount of US dollars despite not actually having them right then). However, issuing a few trillion in government bonds does not immediately have an effect on the value of the US dollar. It *may* have an effect on how international investors view the US dollar and their trust in it (as do many other things), which may cause them to place less trust in the USD, which means the price of imported goods goes up. Similarly, this may cause investors to want higher guarantees (interest) if they loan US companies money, which is calculated into the price of products these companies create. Finally, the Fed can choose to "print money" in more direct internal market ways, for instance by buying up debt. This is a slightly more direct method of creating inflation, as it means whoever suddenly got debt relief no longer has to worry about paying interest or ever repaying that debt, and can instead use that money for other stuff, which increases domestic demand for some stuff, and thus prices rise. Inflation is measured not at the "creation of money" level, but at the "consumer goods" level, and thus after all those complex effects that I don't really understand very well and probably missed many of in my paragraph above. These inflation indexes aim to quantify how much an "average" household spends in a month, and there are many arguments over what should or shouldn't be taken into account here, but the basis is pretty simple. If the only thing that we worry about in our inflation index is "the price of tomatoes" and the price of tomatoes went up by 10% since the last time we looked, then inflation is 10%. Of course, we don't just look at the price of tomatoes. Because that would be silly. But in the end inflation is still just an index to quantify somehow the 1000s of things that affect the price consumers pay for things. And just as monetary policy can give government some control over inflation, there are plenty of other things that affect inflation too. For starters, the price of oil. But more simply, in our example of only looking at tomatoes, if a tomato plague devastated this year's crop worldwide, then the price of tomatoes would skyrocket. You are right that inflation is complicated because we would conclude there is 100s of percent inflation (because the price of tomatoes just went bananas), but in reality, many families adapted and switched from tomatoes to apples... and not only that but some of them now prefer apples and even if the price of tomatoes comes crashing back down (holy deflation, batman), they are still gonna persist in their apple based diet. So yeah, finding a *representative* set of products to index is far from easy. And it is obviously an active field of research to improve these indexes. But just because they don't fully capture consumer behaviour doesn't mean they are not useful or important descriptors of the cost of living.
Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough response.
I agree they are very important descriptors though I think they (for some of the reasons you mentioned in your tomato apple example) better measure consumer habits/pattern than cost of living in many ways.
One reason they are very important is because poverty and social programs use COLA's based on those indexes.
This is why I think one of the most important things people notice is how through inflation, combined with a failure to properly account for real increases in COL, you can nominally lift people out of poverty while actually impoverishing them further. Additionally that this is happening in the US and around the world with economic policies of taking massive loans from central banks in exchange for austerity.
To be clear I'm saying that this process obscures what is happening from your average citizen, not that it is literally causing their poverty (though it seems to be an undeniable factor of debatable significance).
|
As a brief sidenote, since some people don't seem to understand here. Trump deliberately talks about "execution of a living baby, ripping it from the mothers womb" (and yes, i watched not just the clip but the lead up to the sentence in question too).
That's not even close to what Northam said, of course Danglars doesn't have the balls to admit it. Here's the difference.
Trump is talking execution. Northam is talking euthanasia. He specifically stated the circumstances that in his opinion would allow late term abortion. Something that Danglars conveniently ignored.
I find it somewhat funny that Danglars instantly plays victim and preaches how people "deliberately misconstruct" what Trump is saying, when he's the one bullshitting in the first place by deliberately leaving out the key difference. And no, Trump wasn't talking about "deformed babies" or "not capable of living babies". He was talking babies. Any baby (and that's the reason why i watched the lead up too - to make sure that there's no weasling out of that).
Northam might be wrong in your view, that's fine if you're a birther. To argue that both said the same is just blatant bullshitting. They're not.
|
On April 30 2019 05:05 m4ini wrote:
As a brief sidenote, since some people don't seem to understand here. Trump deliberately talks about "execution of a living baby, ripping it from the mothers womb" (and yes, i watched not just the clip but the lead up to the sentence in question too).
That's not even close to what Northam said, of course Danglars doesn't have the balls to admit it. Here's the difference.
Trump is talking execution. Northam is talking euthanasia. He specifically stated the circumstances that in his opinion would allow late term abortion. Something that Danglars conveniently ignored.
I find it somewhat funny that Danglars instantly plays victim and preaches how people "deliberately misconstruct" what Trump is saying, when he's the one bullshitting in the first place by deliberately leaving out the key difference. And no, Trump wasn't talking about "deformed babies" or "not capable of living babies". He was talking babies. Any baby (and that's the reason why i watched the lead up too - to make sure that there's no weasling out of that).
Northam might be wrong in your view, that's fine if you're a birther. To argue that both said the same is just blatant bullshitting. They're not.
I think the clear verdict is that there was a misleading clip of Trump misleading (lying if one prefers) to his audience and the big problem is the rapidity with which people adopt and defend a narrative sans the context (danglars and the 11+ people that agreed with gors - the one that watched it and still managed to reach that conclusion). At least that's the point I'm arguing if that wasn't clear.
+ Show Spoiler +relevant supporting information On April 30 2019 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:I think at this point it's fair to say there is essentially ubiquitous agreement among those at hand (outside conservatives/republicans/libertarians/you get it and myself) 9-yes 0-no at time of posting + Show Spoiler +Poll: I agree with Gors takeYes (17) 94% No (1) 6% 18 total votes Your vote: I agree with Gors take (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
My next question is how many of those who have determined that Gors was accurate in his conclusion that Trump's audience was being manipulated watched the context of the clip (not the entire speech but at least a minute in either direction?) Poll: I watched at least 2 minutes of context for the Trump Abortion clipNo (3) 60% Yes (2) 40% I realize now I probably should have (0) 0% 5 total votes Your vote: I watched at least 2 minutes of context for the Trump Abortion clip (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): I realize now I probably should have
|
On April 30 2019 05:05 m4ini wrote:
As a brief sidenote, since some people don't seem to understand here. Trump deliberately talks about "execution of a living baby, ripping it from the mothers womb" (and yes, i watched not just the clip but the lead up to the sentence in question too).
That's not even close to what Northam said, of course Danglars doesn't have the balls to admit it. Here's the difference.
Trump is talking execution. Northam is talking euthanasia. He specifically stated the circumstances that in his opinion would allow late term abortion. Something that Danglars conveniently ignored.
I find it somewhat funny that Danglars instantly plays victim and preaches how people "deliberately misconstruct" what Trump is saying, when he's the one bullshitting in the first place by deliberately leaving out the key difference. And no, Trump wasn't talking about "deformed babies" or "not capable of living babies". He was talking babies. Any baby (and that's the reason why i watched the lead up too - to make sure that there's no weasling out of that).
Northam might be wrong in your view, that's fine if you're a birther. To argue that both said the same is just blatant bullshitting. They're not.
I don't think you'll find some game-changing moral distinction in clarifying that Ralph Northam didn't say it's ok to execute newborn babies, he only said it was ok to let them die from lack of medical care after birth. You're pretty intent on hitching your wagon to that one, and I wish you all the success in the world.
I deliberately linked the video of Northam's interview as well as the grilling that Kathy Tran took in the Virginia House of Delegates. I know people like you will make the assertion of lies and have absolutely nothing to cite to be the case That's exactly why I provided those links. The bill relaxed the health exceptions for late-term abortion up to the moment of birth, and Northam accurately described that if the woman delivers before the abortion, the baby would be kept comfortable while mother & physicians had a discussion. Northam wanted to use the example of severe fetal deformities, one possible reason for pursuing a late-term abortion, but the legislation he defended makes it legal for reasons including mental health alone. You have to use your critical faculties to think beyond the case the politician wants to refer to, and into what the bill actually says and does--the same procedure regardless of mental health, Down's syndrome, other deformities. Otherwise, why protest Trump's immigration policy when he makes explicit reference to MS-13, if you're not allowed to discuss the effects on a wide range of immigrants?
I call attention to it because you're rewriting history. The case of Kathy Tran and Ralph Northam in Virginia, and the Reproductive Health Act in New York inspired these legislative backstops trying to guarantee life saving care for newborn babies. It can only be called a cynical ploy to never look at the bill, swallow whole the politician's best spin, and try to use the circumstance to rip into your political opponents. Furthermore, substantively, nobody has contested that Northam's dialogue is perfectly descriptive of any late-term abortion procedure when the woman is actually in labor/dilating.
|
On April 30 2019 05:05 m4ini wrote:
As a brief sidenote, since some people don't seem to understand here. Trump deliberately talks about "execution of a living baby, ripping it from the mothers womb" (and yes, i watched not just the clip but the lead up to the sentence in question too).
That's not even close to what Northam said, of course Danglars doesn't have the balls to admit it. Here's the difference.
Trump is talking execution. Northam is talking euthanasia. He specifically stated the circumstances that in his opinion would allow late term abortion. Something that Danglars conveniently ignored.
I find it somewhat funny that Danglars instantly plays victim and preaches how people "deliberately misconstruct" what Trump is saying, when he's the one bullshitting in the first place by deliberately leaving out the key difference. And no, Trump wasn't talking about "deformed babies" or "not capable of living babies". He was talking babies. Any baby (and that's the reason why i watched the lead up too - to make sure that there's no weasling out of that).
Northam might be wrong in your view, that's fine if you're a birther. To argue that both said the same is just blatant bullshitting. They're not.
I don't think it's a lack of balls, I think he genuinely believes what he says. It's like when I try to educate Trump supporters on the Mueller report. They actually believe he was exonerated on everything despite it literally saying he isn't. They also genuinely believe that Trump's campaign didn't work with Russia despite all the evidence to the contrary and Mueller's very specific wording about not having evidence of them working with the government of Russia. Like, these people have never heard the phrase "plausible deniability" or the word "cutout". But they just go on and on about fake news, 13 angry Democrats (lolwut), and HER EMAILZ DOE.
Things have just gotten to the point where the very foundations of any argument, the facts, cannot be agreed upon. And both sides get different information from watching/reading the very same information. It's insanity.
|
On April 30 2019 06:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 05:05 m4ini wrote:
As a brief sidenote, since some people don't seem to understand here. Trump deliberately talks about "execution of a living baby, ripping it from the mothers womb" (and yes, i watched not just the clip but the lead up to the sentence in question too).
That's not even close to what Northam said, of course Danglars doesn't have the balls to admit it. Here's the difference.
Trump is talking execution. Northam is talking euthanasia. He specifically stated the circumstances that in his opinion would allow late term abortion. Something that Danglars conveniently ignored.
I find it somewhat funny that Danglars instantly plays victim and preaches how people "deliberately misconstruct" what Trump is saying, when he's the one bullshitting in the first place by deliberately leaving out the key difference. And no, Trump wasn't talking about "deformed babies" or "not capable of living babies". He was talking babies. Any baby (and that's the reason why i watched the lead up too - to make sure that there's no weasling out of that).
Northam might be wrong in your view, that's fine if you're a birther. To argue that both said the same is just blatant bullshitting. They're not.
I don't think you'll find some game-changing moral distinction in clarifying that Ralph Northam didn't say it's ok to execute newborn babies, he only said it was ok to let them die from lack of medical care after birth. You're pretty intent on hitching your wagon to that one, and I wish you all the success in the world.
He didn’t say this. He said it was legal for the parents to choose to discontinue life saving care if the baby had birth complications that made it unable to survive without intervention and would have severe birth defects. Which you have said you want to make a crime. You want to take health care decisions away from the parents and put them in the hands of the state. Or you don’t and you have been advocating for something you do believe it this entire time.
Mind you, if a child(non-newborn) had cancer and the parents were refusing medical treatment based on religious beliefs, no conservative would advocate for the state to force the child into treatment. It is only in the case of a dying baby right after birth that they want the state to force medical care over the objection of the parents.
|
Also the argument over late-term abortions is fucking horrendous. If anyone actually thinks that women out there carry a baby for 8 or 9 months and then just decide to abort, you're insane.
"Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.
What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump
|
On April 30 2019 06:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 06:06 Danglars wrote:On April 30 2019 05:05 m4ini wrote:
As a brief sidenote, since some people don't seem to understand here. Trump deliberately talks about "execution of a living baby, ripping it from the mothers womb" (and yes, i watched not just the clip but the lead up to the sentence in question too).
That's not even close to what Northam said, of course Danglars doesn't have the balls to admit it. Here's the difference.
Trump is talking execution. Northam is talking euthanasia. He specifically stated the circumstances that in his opinion would allow late term abortion. Something that Danglars conveniently ignored.
I find it somewhat funny that Danglars instantly plays victim and preaches how people "deliberately misconstruct" what Trump is saying, when he's the one bullshitting in the first place by deliberately leaving out the key difference. And no, Trump wasn't talking about "deformed babies" or "not capable of living babies". He was talking babies. Any baby (and that's the reason why i watched the lead up too - to make sure that there's no weasling out of that).
Northam might be wrong in your view, that's fine if you're a birther. To argue that both said the same is just blatant bullshitting. They're not.
I don't think you'll find some game-changing moral distinction in clarifying that Ralph Northam didn't say it's ok to execute newborn babies, he only said it was ok to let them die from lack of medical care after birth. You're pretty intent on hitching your wagon to that one, and I wish you all the success in the world. He didn’t say this. He said it was legal for the parents to choose to discontinue life saving care if the baby had birth complications that made it unable to survive without intervention and would have severe birth defects. Which you have said you want to make a crime. You want to take health care decisions away from the parents and put them in the hands of the state. Or you don’t and you have been advocating for something you do believe it this entire time. Mind you, if the child had cancer and the parents were refusing medical treatment based on religious beliefs, no conservative would advocate for the state to force the child into treatment. It is only in the case of a dying baby right after birth that they want the state to force medical care over the objection of the parents.
No, he described how third trimester abortions were handled when they were legal up to the moment the child is delivered. The child would be delivered and kept comfortable while the mother/doctor had a discussion. It's in the video. He literally backed a bill that would expand the necessary reasons for allowing a third trimester abortion, and referred to already legal reasons in Virginia state law to soften the blow.
I'd rather have that innocent baby alive, rather than the parents and doctors determining his fate, if somehow he's born and living. I don't care if you still think mom can legally end his life post-birth and it amounts to putting health care decisions in the hands of the state. It isn't your life to dispose of however some MD and you decide, and it deserves protections in law. Trump's reference to the abortion bill and how it was defended is politically effective BECAUSE it puts to lie the thought that a baby inside of his mother's body forfeits certain rights to life up to the moment of birth. I'm uninterested in pursuing rabbit trails on religious reasons if you can't bring yourself to understanding the facts and arguments. You wouldn't let Trump get away with selling a bill based on terrorism and gangs, why give Northam/Tran's and related bills a free pass?
|
On April 30 2019 06:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:Also the argument over late-term abortions is fucking horrendous. If anyone actually thinks that women out there carry a baby for 8 or 9 months and then just decide to abort, you're insane. "Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain. What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump
The one thing you're missing is why you should make it legal for women to abort their baby up to the moment of birth (and, in these cases, after). I really do think it's horrendous for the window for abortion to exist in the hours after birth, provided some doctor diagnoses fetal abnormalities or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman. Maybe for the sake of the life of the baby, we make it illegal in cases where the baby is successfully delivered alive. You know, not many women would kill their babies a day or a week after birth, but that's still illegal.
|
You do realize that if a child were in a car accident and was in a similar state, on life support and effectively brain dead, the parents would have the right to discontinue life saving measures? My wife has the right to do it for me if I were in a similar state.
You are advocating taking away rights from guardians that they have always had. But only when they are new-born babies. After that it’s no longer that hot button political issue.
|
On April 30 2019 06:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 06:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:Also the argument over late-term abortions is fucking horrendous. If anyone actually thinks that women out there carry a baby for 8 or 9 months and then just decide to abort, you're insane. "Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain. What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump The one thing you're missing is why you should make it legal for women to abort their baby up to the moment of birth (and, in these cases, after). I really do think it's horrendous for the window for abortion to exist in the hours after birth, provided some doctor diagnoses fetal abnormalities or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman. Maybe for the sake of the life of the baby, we make it illegal in cases where the baby is successfully delivered alive. You know, not many women would kill their babies a day or a week after birth, but that's still illegal.
Presuming you had your preference and the abortions are illegal to your satisfaction, what's to be done with the unwanted children?
Let me make clear I'm not using the economics to argue against the point (I'd like 0 abortions too), I just want to understand how this works out practically from your perspective.
|
|
|
On April 30 2019 06:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 06:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:Also the argument over late-term abortions is fucking horrendous. If anyone actually thinks that women out there carry a baby for 8 or 9 months and then just decide to abort, you're insane. "Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain. What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump The one thing you're missing is why you should make it legal for women to abort their baby up to the moment of birth (and, in these cases, after). I really do think it's horrendous for the window for abortion to exist in the hours after birth, provided some doctor diagnoses fetal abnormalities or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman. Maybe for the sake of the life of the baby, we make it illegal in cases where the baby is successfully delivered alive. You know, not many women would kill their babies a day or a week after birth, but that's still illegal.
I'm not even sure what you're asking or trying to get across. Are you asking me why it should be legal for a woman who has discovered her baby has a congenital condition that will result in death shortly after birth or horrible quality of life to terminate that pregnancy? That's a self-answering question bud. As a medical professional, I can tell you that "alive" does not mean much in some of the children/adults I have seen. If you think it's better to put a brain-dead neonate on life support and let it grow to adulthood, if it doesn't die before that, just "because it's alive", that's super fucked up.
And what the hell does "...or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman" mean? Are you implying that if a woman is anxious or stressed out that she will allow her baby to perish at a hospital after giving birth? I am sure that has literally never happened. The people who allow nature to do what it does, or who get a 9th month abortion, are doing so under the worst conditions and feel worse than anything you and I can even imagine. Why does the right like to pretend that there are women out there gleefully ripping babies apart?
|
On April 30 2019 06:45 Plansix wrote:
You do realize that if a child were in a car accident and was in a similar state, on life support and effectively brain dead, the parents would have the right to discontinue life saving measures? My wife has the right to do it for me if I were in a similar state.
You are advocating taking away rights from guardians that they have always had. But only when they are new-born babies. After that it’s no longer that hot button political issue.
Yes, likening the life or death of a baby just delivered should be viewed with the same seriousness as death by car. It's more parallel to choosing to run over your baby with a car, than suddenly being the victim or a car accident. But we start to get into the flaw
In fact, you don't even need as serious a predicate as a car accident. You can simply agree with your physician that your mental health would be so affected by the stress and anxiety from another kid, that the healthy baby is better left to die (relaxed mental health exception). Now, if you want your wife to have the ability to say your 4-year-old down's syndrome child is such a genetic abnormality that he's better off dead, I will disagree with you. I have higher standards for the state's obligation to preserve life contrary to parent's desire to see it ended.
We can have the discussion on a child existing in a persistent vegetative state when a different bill actually deals with observing that condition and making an exception based on it, which isn't the case here. We might even find agreement on that.
Thirdly, and importantly, guardians have not historically retained the rights to kill their child after birth based on the mental health of the mother. You may look at severe restrictions on third trimester abortions that seek to balance the new life of the baby and find other people to raise it if the mother cannot. You go too far.
|
On April 30 2019 06:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 06:42 Danglars wrote:On April 30 2019 06:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:Also the argument over late-term abortions is fucking horrendous. If anyone actually thinks that women out there carry a baby for 8 or 9 months and then just decide to abort, you're insane. "Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain. What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump The one thing you're missing is why you should make it legal for women to abort their baby up to the moment of birth (and, in these cases, after). I really do think it's horrendous for the window for abortion to exist in the hours after birth, provided some doctor diagnoses fetal abnormalities or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman. Maybe for the sake of the life of the baby, we make it illegal in cases where the baby is successfully delivered alive. You know, not many women would kill their babies a day or a week after birth, but that's still illegal. I'm not even sure what you're asking or trying to get across. Are you asking me why it should be legal for a woman who has discovered her baby has a congenital condition that will result in death shortly after birth or horrible quality of life to terminate that pregnancy? That's a self-answering question bud. As a medical professional, I can tell you that "alive" does not mean much in some of the children/adults I have seen. If you think it's better to put a brain-dead neonate on life support and let it grow to adulthood, if it doesn't die before that, just "because it's alive", that's super fucked up. And what the hell does "...or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman" mean? Are you implying that if a woman is anxious or stressed out that she will allow her baby to perish at a hospital after giving birth? I am sure that has literally never happened. The people who allow nature to do what it does, or who get a 9th month abortion, are doing so under the worst conditions and feel worse than anything you and I can even imagine. Why does the right like to pretend that there are women out there gleefully ripping babies apart?
I really don't have the interest in finding out what you think won't happen, or has never happened, based on whatever suppositions you're operating under. Continue to hold whatever guesses or notions you wish. I just want to know if you're ever willing to make a mental health exception, or fetal abnormality such as Down's syndrome, illegal in the third trimester and shortly after birth. Does the baby have any rights after delivery, not subject to the parent & doctor's discretion on what fetal abnormality is too destructive and what mental burden is too hard? Choose the full parental choice model if you wish: a parent may choose to abort the child soon right after delivery for whatever reason they choose to cite, provided the child is made comfortable during his expiration. The bill allows one doctor and any conception of mental health harm he decides upon. Other legislation is life of the mother, or the substantial and permanent physical or mental damage to the mother. I mentioned that conjectures about how often this happens says nothing about the moral question, just like how murder of infants is rare yet still illegal ... so I need more than pontification on how rare the instances are.
|
On April 30 2019 06:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 06:42 Danglars wrote:On April 30 2019 06:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:Also the argument over late-term abortions is fucking horrendous. If anyone actually thinks that women out there carry a baby for 8 or 9 months and then just decide to abort, you're insane. "Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain. What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump The one thing you're missing is why you should make it legal for women to abort their baby up to the moment of birth (and, in these cases, after). I really do think it's horrendous for the window for abortion to exist in the hours after birth, provided some doctor diagnoses fetal abnormalities or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman. Maybe for the sake of the life of the baby, we make it illegal in cases where the baby is successfully delivered alive. You know, not many women would kill their babies a day or a week after birth, but that's still illegal. I'm not even sure what you're asking or trying to get across. Are you asking me why it should be legal for a woman who has discovered her baby has a congenital condition that will result in death shortly after birth or horrible quality of life to terminate that pregnancy? That's a self-answering question bud. As a medical professional, I can tell you that "alive" does not mean much in some of the children/adults I have seen. If you think it's better to put a brain-dead neonate on life support and let it grow to adulthood, if it doesn't die before that, just "because it's alive", that's super fucked up. And what the hell does "...or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman" mean? Are you implying that if a woman is anxious or stressed out that she will allow her baby to perish at a hospital after giving birth? I am sure that has literally never happened. The people who allow nature to do what it does, or who get a 9th month abortion, are doing so under the worst conditions and feel worse than anything you and I can even imagine. Why does the right like to pretend that there are women out there gleefully ripping babies apart?
Danglars is asserting that these situations make it legal for a mother to tell a physician to let a perfectly healthy baby that has already been born to die simply because they don't want it.
Of course he's completely skated around the obscene hypocrisy in his stance, but Danglars doesn't have a shred of decency at this point so we shouldn't be surprised by that.
|
On April 30 2019 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 06:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 30 2019 06:42 Danglars wrote:On April 30 2019 06:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:Also the argument over late-term abortions is fucking horrendous. If anyone actually thinks that women out there carry a baby for 8 or 9 months and then just decide to abort, you're insane. "Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain. What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump The one thing you're missing is why you should make it legal for women to abort their baby up to the moment of birth (and, in these cases, after). I really do think it's horrendous for the window for abortion to exist in the hours after birth, provided some doctor diagnoses fetal abnormalities or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman. Maybe for the sake of the life of the baby, we make it illegal in cases where the baby is successfully delivered alive. You know, not many women would kill their babies a day or a week after birth, but that's still illegal. I'm not even sure what you're asking or trying to get across. Are you asking me why it should be legal for a woman who has discovered her baby has a congenital condition that will result in death shortly after birth or horrible quality of life to terminate that pregnancy? That's a self-answering question bud. As a medical professional, I can tell you that "alive" does not mean much in some of the children/adults I have seen. If you think it's better to put a brain-dead neonate on life support and let it grow to adulthood, if it doesn't die before that, just "because it's alive", that's super fucked up. And what the hell does "...or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman" mean? Are you implying that if a woman is anxious or stressed out that she will allow her baby to perish at a hospital after giving birth? I am sure that has literally never happened. The people who allow nature to do what it does, or who get a 9th month abortion, are doing so under the worst conditions and feel worse than anything you and I can even imagine. Why does the right like to pretend that there are women out there gleefully ripping babies apart? Danglars is asserting that these situations make it legal for a mother to tell a physician to let a perfectly healthy baby that has already been born to die simply because they don't want it. Of course he's completely skated around the obscene hypocrisy in his stance, but Danglars doesn't have a shred of decency at this point so we shouldn't be surprised by that.
If your last two posts are any indication, you simply want to insult and contradict without purpose or explanation. I appreciate your dislike, but do you have anything more to say besides sniping behind others? Do you desire me to answer you in the same kind, saying you’re wrong, lack decency, and are a hypocrite?
|
No, we expect you to concern troll while failing to engage with the topic beyond your superficial talking points about innocent babies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
