Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 11:50:20 GMT -5
Let's talk about other stuff! I'd love to; That's why I stopped here in this thread.;
Let's see -- we've got Andrew Cuomo, supposed Roman Catholic, not only promoting evil abortion legislation in New York which allows abortion up to minutes before birth, but frickin lighting up pink lights on tall buildings to celebrate it. Yeah.; If that ain't some moral confusion, I don't know what is. Or...Alexandria Ocasio Cortez' apocalyptic pronouncements on climate change. Or...how big the clown car is going to be for the Dem's in 2020 Or Trump's cave on the wall negotiations just when Dems were starting to get squirmy. Or the most recent social media pile-on which involves Tom Brokaw. or ANYTHING ELSE except this tired story.
You should probably pick one and start a new topic. So go for it, I'll chip in with an opinion! Since c.e. hasn't started a thread on any of these topics, I thought I'd help. Let's address them one by one, shall we? And markesq -- you said you'd chip in with an opinion. FFS. Did you actually look at the bill, or just read some propaganda? Let's take a look at the "evil abortion legislation in New York" that celawson is talking about, shall we? What it does is allow women to get a late term abortion when either the baby is not viable or when the mother's life or health is in danger. Here it is: www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2796We here in New York are worried about what the next two years may do to Roe v. Wade -- we want to make sure that our state law protects women in the event your Trump judges reverse it. You believe that a mother should be forced to carry a dead baby to term? Or be forced to risk her own life or health? Then I'd say the "moral confusion" is yours. ETA: To note, the previous NY law had been in place since 1970, predating Roe. Per that law, abortion after 24 weeks was a crime unless the mother's life was in immediate danger. If the baby was not going to survive and the mom didn't want to carry a dead baby to term, or if her health was threatened by continuing the pregnancy (and as I'm sure you know, sometimes such conditions are not apparent until late in a pregnancy), tough -- she had to travel to another state or carry the baby to term regardless. This new law was intended to address that situation. Here's more on what the new law changes, and what it doesn't, if you are interested in understanding it. www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-abortion-law-in-new-york-will-change-and-how-it-wont Here's the opening of that article: The change to New York law was intended to help women like Christensen. Me, I think it's fucking cruel to force them to continue a pregnancy under those circumstances, and it's insane to me that until now, we did. Ms. Christensen had the money to do what she did; a lot of women would not. Fuck anyone who thinks this was okay. I wonder if you read what any actual scientists say about climate change, rather than Fox News propaganda. www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-reportWe're leaving an awfully shitty world to the coming generations; it's actually too late to fix much of it, and we're running out of time to mitigate even worse results. I know you like to live in your pretty fantasy world where none of this is true, but for the sake of your kids, perhaps you should consider what the consequences are if Fox News is wrong and the climate change experts are right. FFS. Yes. A lot of Dems are talking about running for president. This is what happens way in advance of an election, and then candidates drop out or are winnowed out, and then a primary decides who the candidate will be. For example, you might remember the Republican presidential primary of 2016, when 17 Republican candidates threw their hats in the ring in March 2015, the largest primary field in American history: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and Scott Walker. Do you remember the first Republican primary debate in August 2015? I sure do. Now THAT'S a clown car. Seriously, do you even think about your points or do you just whap 'em up like spaghetti to see what sticks? Okay, you've got one viable point here -- Trump caved. But feel free to point out your evidence that any Dems were "starting to get squirmy." Trump managed to get Republicans to hold his stupid line for 35 days, and then he caved, getting exactly the same deal Democrats had put on the table (and Republicans had agreed to) in the first place. It was a complete loss for Trump, and I see ZERO evidence any Dems were squirmy. To the contrary, Nancy and Chuck knew damn well we Dems wanted them to hold the line on this. The only people saying otherwise are pro-Trump commentators desperately trying to spin, and I doubt even they believe it. You want to talk about this stuff? Fine. Talk. Though, frankly, it STILL isn't the really important stuff. It's right-wing distraction stuff.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jan 29, 2019 12:06:29 GMT -5
WEll Cass, come on. It's hard for me to comment when you're just taking the words out of my mouth. Agree with all your points, looking forward to celawson's response. Oh, but you did forget one of them: " Or the most recent social media pile-on which involves Tom Brokaw." Social media pile-on, or appropriate corrective response? I'm going with the latter since the evidence is that Hispanics are assimilating very well indeed, thank you very much, and have been for some time. Here's a 2013 WashPo article on the subject. Rather a lot of anecdotal evidence on social media, too, that assimilation is plentiful. Any evidence to the contrary, ce? Or is this just another old, white guy complaining about foreigners? I think so, I should recognize it as an old white guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 12:13:46 GMT -5
WEll Cass, come on. It's hard for me to comment when you're just taking the words out of my mouth. Agree with all your points, looking forward to celawson's response. Oh, but you did forget one of them: " Or the most recent social media pile-on which involves Tom Brokaw." Social media pile-on, or appropriate corrective response? I'm going with the latter since the evidence is that Hispanics are assimilating very well indeed, thank you very much, and have been for some time. Here's a 2013 WashPo article on the subject. Rather a lot of anecdotal evidence on social media, too, that assimilation is plentiful. Any evidence to the contrary, ce? Or is this just another old, white guy complaining about foreigners? I think so, I should recognize it as an old white guy. Well, I had to leave SOMETHING for you to address, Mark.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 13:22:52 GMT -5
Thanks for starting a new thread! I spent yesterday unexpectedly with my college daughter before she flew back to Oregon. Only time for the New York abortion law today. Although before you all get on me for defending Tom Brokaw, did I defend him? Or did I just state fact? Was there a social media pile-on or not? How do you know where I will fall on that issue? I guess we need to wait and see. I know the first tactic you usually use when responding to me is to assume I haven't read the information sufficiently or seen pertinent video. (Like last time, when I had actually seen plenty of video, even some that you didn't). In this case, I've read a fair amount - from the bill itself, to commentary from Roman Catholic theologians and from medical doctors. I can judge if what I've read is sufficient to call this an EVIL ABOMINATION. And it is unquestionably an evil abomination. Furthermore, the celebration of it is disgusting and horrifying. Did you not see the other two words that come after " TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE"? Here, I will type them for you so you don't miss them this time -- "OR HEALTH" Let's repeat that, because it's important - "OR HEALTH" And I think we all know how broadly "or health" has been and will be used to obtain abortions - - - physical or emotional or psychological health. That, of course, can encompass ANYTHING. And purposely so. Also, tell me one medical situation where a late term fetus needs to be killed first THEN delivered, rather than simply delivered, to save the life of the mother. You do realize, if the mother's life is at stake, killing the baby first then delivering it would take longer and pose more medical risk to the mother, right? Than simply delivering it immediately? In addition - this bill has removed some very important words from New York's definition of homicide. Here's an excerpt from the bill itself, bolding mine: So how did New York grapple with the complete moral illogic of advancing this bill while allowing homicide charges against "someone who causes the death of an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks"?
But before we answer that, let's look a little more deeply - the prior homicide law calls the fetus in these cases "AN UNBORN CHILD". Which is exactly what it is! Except in the pro-abortionist's twisted logic, "unborn child" is not defined by biology or medicine or science or living proof before our eyes, but rather by if it's wanted by the mother or not. That's right - the definition of "unborn child" is determined by another person's, the mother's, state of mind. If the unborn child is not wanted, they suddenly become non-children, pieces of tissue, a part of the mother's body to be killed and discarded like so much trash. So how did New York grapple with this conundrum? They removed (repealed, amended, whatever it is legislators do) the issue of unborn children from homicide law. Now homicide refers only to "a human being who has been born and is alive". Viable fetus in the womb at 35 weeks? Not a human being. Baby born at 35 weeks 1 sec after birth? Human being. I can't wrap my head around the moral and logical depravity of this malleable definition of human being. Any society that not only puts forth this sort of legislation but celebrates it with cheers and pink lights on a building is sick. And the gall to assume everyone, including those who are consistent morally and scientifically with what a fetus is, would want to celebrate this sickness by seeing pink lights on a skyscraper...it makes me physically ill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 13:36:46 GMT -5
You want to inflict your religious beliefs on the rest of us, even where we do not share them and where it has dire repercussions on individuals (see the New Yorker article story I cited for a pretty heartbreaking story). No thank you, but you're welcome to them. I also find it amusing that the old GOP "let the states decide!" bromide seems only to apply when states want to ban abortion. If they want to expand access to it, it's NO! THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT! But then, the "applies to thee, not to me" rule seems also to apply to, e.g., deficits (under Dems! BAD! under GOP? awesome!) Yuuuuuuge spending packages? (see previous parenthetical), extramarital affairs and sexual scandals (a Dem? terrible! a GOPer? pfft, who cares?), perjury (see previous parenthetical)... ETA: derail/ Heh. On the Covington video thing you raise, I notice that for all your outrage over how the original video that went viral omitted the BHI stuff that preceded it, you didn't remark on how the video you cited that was being circulated by right-wingers omitted the crucial context that the kid's "cheese it" was in reaction to the chaperone showing up, and not to his own sudden desire to show respect to Phillips. It was IMO way more misleading -- the context completely recharacterized the kid's actions. Yet the omission did not seem to trouble you. But again, context is apparently only important sometimes... ETA: Non-derail: Throwing around words like "evil!" "disgusting!" "depravity!" -- A Dem doing it, say, with regard to policies that separates children from their parents forever, throws them in cages, or lets them die of dehydration? Terrible! Mean! Judgmental! A GOPer doing it with regard to abortion rights? Righteous! I love your take that the woman's health doesn't matter, though, and shouldn't be a consideration. Apparently you believe the world is chock-full of women who get pregnant, wait eight months, and then decide, "aw, fuck it, I don't feel like giving birth; I'll fake some "health" issue to get rid of it." Me, I like to think the best of people.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jan 29, 2019 14:02:25 GMT -5
In addition - this bill has removed some very important words from New York's definition of homicide. Here's an excerpt from the bill itself, bolding mine: So how did New York grapple with the complete moral illogic of advancing this bill while allowing homicide charges against "someone who causes the death of an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks"?
But before we answer that, let's look a little more deeply - the prior homicide law calls the fetus in these cases "AN UNBORN CHILD". Which is exactly what it is! Except in the pro-abortionist's twisted logic, "unborn child" is not defined by biology or medicine or science or living proof before our eyes, but rather by if it's wanted by the mother or not. That's right - the definition of "unborn child" is determined by another person's, the mother's, state of mind. If the unborn child is not wanted, they suddenly become non-children, pieces of tissue, a part of the mother's body to be killed and discarded like so much trash. So how did New York grapple with this conundrum? They removed (repealed, amended, whatever it is legislators do) the issue of unborn children from homicide law. Now homicide refers only to "a human being who has been born and is alive". Viable fetus in the womb at 35 weeks? Not a human being. Baby born at 35 weeks 1 sec after birth? Human being. I can't wrap my head around the moral and logical depravity of this malleable definition of human being. Any society that not only puts forth this sort of legislation but celebrates it with cheers and pink lights on a building is sick. And the gall to assume everyone, including those who are consistent morally and scientifically with what a fetus is, would want to celebrate this sickness by seeing pink lights on a skyscraper...it makes me physically ill. Just addressing the legal portion of your argument (I'm a little weary, having attended an OIS at 3am this morning, I'm the old guy on the right chewing gum at the start of the press conf viewable here), but I’m afraid your outrage shows a poor understanding of how the law works, and must work. Now, I acknowledge that there is great difficulty (impossibility?!) in defining when a human being first exists, unless you pick the moment of conception. Even then, picking the exact moment, is, of course, not really feasible. Now, it being the case that “a human exists at conception” is more a moral/religious concept than biological one, when there is no medical or biological certainty, we’re sort of stuck. So, what happens by necessity is that a line is drawn. Do you know of any other way to do it? We can argue where the line should be, but there must be one, no? By way of comparison: if someone is 16 and 364 23/24 days old when they commit murder, they are looking at 25 years max. One hour later, and it’s the death penalty. Stupid, eh? Or, I’m tested at a 0.07 blood-alcohol level, so the cops let me go. 0.01 higher and I go to jail and lose my job. What sense does that make? Or, Cass sleeps with a guy ten minutes before his 17th birthday and she’s a rapist and registering as a sex offender for life. Had she waited ten minutes, no worries! Pretty nonsensical, I think you’d agree. So let’s be intellectually honest and agree that a line must be drawn, and that we just disagree where.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 14:31:17 GMT -5
No, Mark. A human exists at conception is absolutely a biological and scientific provable truth. Completely separate from religion or morality. At conception there is the combination of mother's and father's DNA which results in a new unique human individual biologic entity. This grows and develops separately from the mother (dependent on her yes, inside of her yes, an actual part of her body, no) and can only grow into a person, not a duck or a frog or a virus or a finger or an organ of the woman or anything that is not a human being. This is science. That's why Cassandra's accusation at me imposing my religion on her is a fallacy. I don't have to be Roman Catholic to have a moral aversion to killing a human being, at any stage in development. As a matter of fact, it's more morally and logically consistent to be opposed to abortion at all times during gestation than to draw an arbitrary line.
I agree with you on the arbitrary death penalty example you gave. And I do not agree with the death penalty in general. I wish it would be abolished. (for several reasons but that's for another thread)
Personhood (with rights and protections) is a different story. And I understand those arguments about there being an arbitrary time to designate personhood along development. I don't agree with them, but I can more easily understand them. However, some, like viability, don't make logical sense because then personhood depends on the state of technology. Think about that for a second - personhood depends on the state of technology. If technology improves and we can keep younger premature babies alive, then younger fetuses suddenly become persons? (would be sad for fetuses if we abort the person who would someday have developed this new technology)
In a similar vein, the mother wanting the fetus is also an illogical definition of personhood. The mother's state of mind does not change what the fetus is, biologically.
BTW, what happened to all of the reasonable people we've had on this board in the past who agreed that in an ideal world, abortion would not exist? That it should be a last resort in rarer circumstances than it is? That no one celebrates an abortion? Cassandra, you argued with me on that, IIRC I have seen those sentiments on this board by folks other than myself. Are those people now cheering and lighting pink lights for the most unrestricted abortion policy in the country? And calling it societal progress? It's the opposite of societal progress. It's barbarism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 14:49:24 GMT -5
Yes, c.e., in an ideal world, abortion would not exist. That's because in an ideal world, no woman would get pregnant except when she chose to get pregnant. No woman would ever lack health care, be in poverty, lack birth control, have abusive parents or an abusive partner, or be sexually assaulted. No birth control would ever fail. No woman would face a health issue that endangered her. No baby would have terrible birth defects. Etc., etc., etc. But see, we don't live in an ideal world or anything close to it. Therefore, having laws that pretend we do is nonsensical and downright cruel. I'd like to reduce abortions by ensuring that every woman has access to birth control, sex education, and health care, and that when a child is born, it will not be in dire poverty, lacking adequate food, healthcare, education, facing homelessness, etc. Countries that ensure that sort of thing have much lower abortion rates, even though it is legal. (We are not in fact such a country, unfortunately.) I categorically REJECT the idea that we should try to reduce abortions by making it illegal. All that does is create desperate situations for desperate women in bad circumstances, forcing them to dangerous extremes in order to have illegal abortions. You want to take the call out of the hands of women like Erika Christensen, just in case some woman out there somewhere, I dunno, really gets a kick out of getting third trimester abortions for funsies. I think that in the EXTREMELY rare cases of late-term abortions, overwhelmingly, the women have stories like Erika. I think we should leave that almost certainly heartbreaking decision to them and their doctor. To do otherwise is, IMO, barbaric. ETA: On the "abortions go down when it's legal " point, see, e.g., www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476ETA: In an ideal world, we would also not have murders, thefts, racism, poverty, illness, child abuse, assault, or rape. But unfortunately, we do have all those things. Should we enact laws that pretend we're in the idea world where we don't, or should we enact laws that address reality? ETA: My yuuuuge problem with much of the pro-life brigade is that their approach -- make abortion illegal! make birth control/sex education/healthcare harder to get! -- is not only terribly cruel to desperate women and assumes the very worst of them, but also, even taking that aside, not only will not decrease abortion rates but likely will INcrease them. It assumes women like Erika don't exist, but that women who have abortions at eight months for funsies are thick on the ground. It is, to use your word, barbaric.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 29, 2019 15:15:55 GMT -5
Thanks for starting a new thread! I spent yesterday unexpectedly with my college daughter before she flew back to Oregon. Only time for the New York abortion law today. Although before you all get on me for defending Tom Brokaw, did I defend him? Or did I just state fact? Was there a social media pile-on or not? How do you know where I will fall on that issue? I guess we need to wait and see. I know the first tactic you usually use when responding to me is to assume I haven't read the information sufficiently or seen pertinent video. (Like last time, when I had actually seen plenty of video, even some that you didn't). In this case, I've read a fair amount - from the bill itself, to commentary from Roman Catholic theologians and from medical doctors. I can judge if what I've read is sufficient to call this an EVIL ABOMINATION. And it is unquestionably an evil abomination. Furthermore, the celebration of it is disgusting and horrifying. Did you not see the other two words that come after " TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE"? Here, I will type them for you so you don't miss them this time -- "OR HEALTH" Let's repeat that, because it's important - "OR HEALTH" And I think we all know how broadly "or health" has been and will be used to obtain abortions - - - physical or emotional or psychological health. That, of course, can encompass ANYTHING. And purposely so. Also, tell me one medical situation where a late term fetus needs to be killed first THEN delivered, rather than simply delivered, to save the life of the mother. You do realize, if the mother's life is at stake, killing the baby first then delivering it would take longer and pose more medical risk to the mother, right? Than simply delivering it immediately? In addition - this bill has removed some very important words from New York's definition of homicide. Here's an excerpt from the bill itself, bolding mine: So how did New York grapple with the complete moral illogic of advancing this bill while allowing homicide charges against "someone who causes the death of an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks"?
But before we answer that, let's look a little more deeply - the prior homicide law calls the fetus in these cases "AN UNBORN CHILD". Which is exactly what it is! Except in the pro-abortionist's twisted logic, "unborn child" is not defined by biology or medicine or science or living proof before our eyes, but rather by if it's wanted by the mother or not. That's right - the definition of "unborn child" is determined by another person's, the mother's, state of mind. If the unborn child is not wanted, they suddenly become non-children, pieces of tissue, a part of the mother's body to be killed and discarded like so much trash. So how did New York grapple with this conundrum? They removed (repealed, amended, whatever it is legislators do) the issue of unborn children from homicide law. Now homicide refers only to "a human being who has been born and is alive". Viable fetus in the womb at 35 weeks? Not a human being. Baby born at 35 weeks 1 sec after birth? Human being. I can't wrap my head around the moral and logical depravity of this malleable definition of human being. Any society that not only puts forth this sort of legislation but celebrates it with cheers and pink lights on a building is sick. And the gall to assume everyone, including those who are consistent morally and scientifically with what a fetus is, would want to celebrate this sickness by seeing pink lights on a skyscraper...it makes me physically ill.
Why wait? It's easy enough to go back and read what Tom Brokaw said.
What's so controversial about that? Nothing wrong with wanting somebody who's coming to your country to speak the dominant language. That sounds entirely reasonable to me. However, where Brokaw is full of shit is where he says "make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English." A majority of Latinos do speak English already.
So what's the fuss? Seems like Latinos already see the upside of speaking English. If I could find this info in 30 seconds, Brokaw could have found the same in 15. Brokaw thought he was being smart when he said something dumb and looked like a clueless old White guy muttering about how Chico and Jose won't learn to speak fuckin' English.
Yamiche Alcindor, the White House correspondent for PBS, gently responded to Brokaw's brain cramp:
Did he get dunked on by social media? Yes. But did he deserve to get dunked on by social media? Hell, yes.
Oh, and 75% of Americans can not speak a second language. And probably don't want to either. A'murica! Fuck yeah!
By the way, celawson, if Alcindor's name is slightly familiar to you its because last November she asked your president a serious and sincere question and he responded as he always does: not answering the question but taking it as a personal slight:
The question was not racist. His unresponsive reply comforts White racists because Trump refuses to repudiate and reject them and THAT'S RACIST.
What a flaming asshole.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 15:27:33 GMT -5
IMO, celebrating this law so blatantly - smiles and cheers and the pink light - is telling girls and women that killing the life growing inside of you until the day before birth is not only legal but a societal GOOD. Both of those things are the opposite of a societal good.
I saw a Tweet yesterday where a woman who had an abortion spoke positively about the law and insisted that her abortion was NORMAL. And yes she wrote “normal” in all caps.um...NO. It’s NOT normal to have an abortion. Morally and statistically it is NOT NORMAL. But celebrations like New york’s Are trying to make it seem normal. I find that to be the very opposite of progress. Even after Roe v Wade, those who oppose abortion could at least think late term abortions remained reprehensible and tragic in most people’s eyes. Looks like you all in New York are out to change that perspective.
(Good grief my phone corrected New York to New Stork. What an awful coincidence. ) I haven’t read your example about tragic circumstances, but I will and I will comment on it.
But this is really a horrendous law, and I don’t think Democrats see how far away from the center they are going.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 29, 2019 15:39:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jan 29, 2019 19:15:06 GMT -5
1. I also wish there were no abortions. I don't really think anyone is pro-abortion, I mean really?
2. I actually have more respect for the all-or-nothing position. Well, nothing position: abortion is murder from day one, and it should be outlawed. Why? Because that argument is consistent, at least. Harsh, but consistent. But the thing is, I can't get on board with forcing a woman to bring a child into this world when it's the product of rape. How barbaric is that?? And the thing is, once you make an exception for something like rape, it becomes a matter of line drawing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 19:57:51 GMT -5
I think the Ohio thing is quite a bit further out from the average American's position on abortion than the New York thing, actually.
The Ohio law would prevent women from getting an abortion early in the first trimester, at a point before many women even know they're pregnant. A majority of Americans think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.
The New York law would allow a woman to have an abortion in the third trimester in limited circumstances: when her life or health is endangered, or when the baby isn't viable. While lots of people don't favor abortion rights as freely in the third trimester as they do in the first, an exception is when a woman's life is in danger -- people overwhelmingly agree on that. I have to think most non-extreme people wouldn't see much point in forcing a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term (frankly, to me it seems unspeakably cruel). And for all your handwringing about "oh, but a woman's health can mean ANYTHING!", c.e....yeah, I think few would say "pfft, so continuing the pregnancy is injurious to the mom's health, who cares?" if their own daughter's or sister's or wife's health was at stake. And really, you want the legislators to sit down with each and every woman and her doctor and override their decision on whether her health is sufficiently at risk enough to suit you?
Again, late term abortion is really quite rare, and will remain that way. The notion that there's a rash of women blithely having late-term abortions for fun is fucking ridiculous.
Again, I point to the fact that places where abortion is illegal have a higher rate than where it is legal. If we go by what happens in the real world, Republican's "pro-life" (and anti-birth control, etc.) policies, if enacted, would lead to more abortions -- and more dangerous abortions. Mine leads to fewer. And it doesn't put women like Erika in a horrible, heartbreaking position.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 29, 2019 20:14:40 GMT -5
nighttimer, forgive me I've got a ton of stuff to do today, and I already spent a lot of time on here. Would love to discuss Brokaw more tomorrow. And yeah, most people are very dug in on the abortion issue, I agree. But for younger folks who haven't formed a strong opinion yet on the matter, I hate them seeing the celebration that just occurred in New York. I think it sends a terrible message.
Mark, I just saw you on the video! Hi! I'm sorry you had a tough night. That officer to the left of you was falling asleep while standing up, LOL. At least you kept your eyes open. I agree with a lot of your last post. Unfortunately, there are plenty of vocal people who are pro-abortion. And that celebration we saw in New York illustrates that. But I understand your position.
Cassandra, regarding reality, I think there must be a better way to address society's unwanted pregnancies than a vague "health" disclaimer that allows unrestricted abortion up to birth. (The majority of women who have abortions were not using birth control.) And there CERTAINLY could have been a better way to present this law than cheering and lighting up buildings to celebrate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 20:39:48 GMT -5
The handful of women having abortions in the third trimester are not doing so because they neglected to use birth control.
ETA:
And once again, in asserting there must be some better way to keep abortions to a minimum, you're avoiding the fact that countries like Switzerland have far lower rates than e.g., Latin America. Your forbidding, finger-wagging, and hand-wringing approach doesn't work (unless your goal is unsafe abortions and misery). Make it easy to get birth control and sex education so that women who don't want babies don't have them, and have a better social safety net so that women can take care of their babies more easily -- that works.
I'm really, really tempted to make an observation on the things you bemoan as "setting a terrible example for young people" and the things you apparently think are just fine as examples for young people...
|
|