The Abortion Truth Liberals Can't Deny
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
1. Between 2005 and 2014 there were 78 storylines on tv shows dealing with abortions. I have no idea how many of them were on a "major" sitcom, whatever that is defined as. I also have no idea why that's the dividing line for any sort of meaning. Girls had one, Parenthood, The Fosters, Sex and the City, Six Feet Under are all fairly well known shows with comedic bents that featured it.
2. Abortion isn't exactly a funny subject. It's a third rail, deeply felt issue on both sides, so why would you make jokes about it unless you are trying to make sure one half of your audience doesn't return for the next episode whichever way you go with it?
3. After reading that article, I'm still unsure what the truth is that I'm trying to deny but can't. Is it supposed to be that a baby is a baby sometimes, and a fetus other times? The truth is that a fetus is a fetus. It's a pretty clear medical term without much confusion. A baby is a baby. Also a pretty clear term without much confusion. A collection of cells isn't a baby. You can argue about what kind of protections it deserves and at what point, but it's qualitatively different from a baby/infant.
2. Abortion isn't exactly a funny subject. It's a third rail, deeply felt issue on both sides, so why would you make jokes about it unless you are trying to make sure one half of your audience doesn't return for the next episode whichever way you go with it?
3. After reading that article, I'm still unsure what the truth is that I'm trying to deny but can't. Is it supposed to be that a baby is a baby sometimes, and a fetus other times? The truth is that a fetus is a fetus. It's a pretty clear medical term without much confusion. A baby is a baby. Also a pretty clear term without much confusion. A collection of cells isn't a baby. You can argue about what kind of protections it deserves and at what point, but it's qualitatively different from a baby/infant.
So the crux of the matter is when does a fetus become a baby? A person?
Is it strictly the point where the fetus becomes viable without the aid of the mother?
What do you say about Democrats who contend that abortion should be legal without limitations, which HRC and Sanders have both stated recently? Basically, they are advocating murder of babies (persons) in late stages of pregnancies. How is this not murder? Why does the baby (person) not have rights? Why are the rights of the mother more important than the rights of the baby in this case?
1. The law pretty much says that yes, viability (i.e. third trimester) is the point where the moral calculus shifts from mother to child except in certain instances (life of the mother for example). All but seven states have laws that restrict or deny abortion after viability. I'm fine with saying once the child is viable outside the womb, you need life of the mother to be in danger to have an abortion.
2. No, HRC and Sanders are not proponents for any and all abortions any time forever until the moment before the head of a healthy baby of no threat to the mother pokes out of the womb. The VAST majority (92%) of all abortions happen in the first trimester. Only 1.3% of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later (and the third trimester doesn't start until week 24). There aren't fully solid numbers but one study that looked at it said the number of true third trimester abortions was something like .08% of annual abortions. So no, no one is advocating murder of babies in late stages of pregnancy, and it rarely happens anyways.
Your remaining questions aren't going to be answered because if you believe that a collection of cells has equivalent rights to a full grown human woman (in fact, superior rights) then you aren't going to be happy with the answer of someone who does not believe that, or vice versa.
In recent years I have come to believe it will be science, not religious beliefs, that will seal the case on abortion. By that I mean at some point in my lifetime (I am 41) a fertilized "collection of cells" will be able to be grown into a fully formed healthy baby OUTSIDE the natural womb. At this point the argument will shift to socio-economic issues (who pays to lab grow an unwanted baby and who raises it) and perhaps the mental health of the mother (maybe it was incest rape and she can't stand the thought of a baby from such a union). Both sides better start preparing their arguments now.
If curious about my bias (we all have one) I am one touched deeply (my own child) by the choice of abortion or not and while I made my choice and she is truly the best human being I know (college freshman now), I have a hard time telling every woman she can't choose (though my Christian tenants certainly compel me to lean that way). In the end God will judge, not me. I can vote and I can pray for mom and babies (born or unborn) but I am not one to preach to others or ram religious beliefs down a non-believers throat, or march in the streets. Just my 2.5 cents.
If curious about my bias (we all have one) I am one touched deeply (my own child) by the choice of abortion or not and while I made my choice and she is truly the best human being I know (college freshman now), I have a hard time telling every woman she can't choose (though my Christian tenants certainly compel me to lean that way). In the end God will judge, not me. I can vote and I can pray for mom and babies (born or unborn) but I am not one to preach to others or ram religious beliefs down a non-believers throat, or march in the streets. Just my 2.5 cents.
qazplm won't believe this, but I agree completely with your second paragraph. I find abortion to be morally reprehensible, but I am also thankful that I have never had to make the gut-wrenching choice of having to abort a pregnancy.
Been reading Qaz on here for many years (and other forum vets). I think he is more reasonable than you might think in real life, but we all have our internet voice and it is easy to play the foil on here, especially when there are jackasses about. Like me, Qaz has softened a bit over the years (in a good way) and it helps his voice get received better. I know I credit him and others for intelligently (if sometimes a bit zealously) sharing their thoughts and in turn challenging my own. While I am a centrist with a right leaning fiscal/military lean and left leaning social lifestyle lean (older brother is gay fwiw), hearing both sides of the argument here, and on Peegs' Watercooler board, has really helped shape my thoughts over the years. Wish Noodle would post more here, he is all over the Watercooler (more active board). Noodle sounds like a level headed guy I'd really like to buy a beer
I'm of the don't start none, won't be none mentality. If folks want nice and agreeable out of me, they only need be nice and agreeable right back. And they can disagree with me til the cows come home and I won't attack them.
I don't agree with terminal at all about libertarianism. But he's a respectful guy, and he's a smart guy, so my interaction with him will recognize both. Others on here are neither, and my interactions with them will recognize both. Gr8 and I don't agree about a ton, but usually we get along well enough, although we have our tiffs from time to time. He's a smart guy who usually comes at things from a vantage point of trying to understand the other side. There's a handful of other folks on here like that on all sides of the aisle as it were.
Then there are a ton of other folks...and I'm sorry, I don't have time for their nonsense other than to mock.
That's just not true. You're regularly in attack mode, including with gr8. Face it, you're just a liberal hyper-partisan, and will defend Obama and Hillary Clinton regardless of what they do or what they've done and even when their policies make little sense for this nation.
Am also damn tired of so-called conservatives like GWB and Mitt Romney who play the same games as Obama and HRC, except they come at it from the other side. In the end, the country ends up in nearly the same place regardless - which is in worse shape.
1. Gr8 himself has said and will no doubt say again that he gets that part of my responses on here are to how some aholes approach me. I'm sure he doesn't like everything about how I post, nor I him, but all in all, I'm pretty sure he doesn't view me as a "liberal hyper-partisan who will defend everything anyone does."
2. See 1 for why I spend no time worrying about the feelings of folks like you. When someone says "you're a liberal hyper-partisan" they ain't trying to treat you respectfully.
3. I've criticized both Obama and Hillary on this board, and others on a whole host of things. I did it for Obama here just in the past week. You could look through the posts and find them, not that hard. So, it's not even accurate.
4. I also have little time for the "everyone sucks" folks who think it's wise to play that everyone does it from both sides card. That's not wisdom, it's intellectual laziness.
Whenever I "defend" someone, anyone, it will be because I believe in that defense. If I didn't, then I wouldn't. I don't defend Obama's naive attempts to compromise starting off with a group of folks who from the start were looking to make him a one term President. I don't defend that sequestration was his idea, and what a horrible idea it was. I don't defend that setting up a private email server was a really dumb decision, or that Hillary, while I think she'd make a fine President, is a godawful campaigner. I could easily come up with other areas of disagreement.
But it's easier for you to label and dismiss...and so, I return the favor to you, because why waste your time doing otherwise?
I think your responses to folks to the Fox News crowd here are completely warranted. I think, like anyone else including me, certain topics are going to elicit more emotional responses from you than others, so you and I tend to tilt a little bit quicker about certain things than others. Racial issues such as Mike Brown come to mind, and I think that's perfectly understandable.
I don't think you're any more "hyper-partisan" than anyone else on here, and probably less so than the Fox News Crowd. As I've said a dozen times here, to people who are on the fringe of either side, those who are closer to the center appear to be on the other fringe. I think that applies specifically to SDBoiler1, who is so far to what he views as The Right, I probably strike him as a Bleeding Heart Liberal.
I don't claim to be a robot. Obviously, I'm a human (allegedly) who has emotional responses sometimes. I agree I have buttons and you have buttons, and sometimes we push each others buttons. But all in all, as I list you amongst the "reasonable" folks on here, I'm not unreasonable either. It's primarily the "Fox News Crowd" as you say for me.
I don't even pretend to necessarily be "in the center" or even necessarily near the center. I'm a solidly left person. Not an extreme left wing, but not really even center left either. I don't like communism, believe in US force projection, like capitalism so long as it is managed...but I don't have many right of center beliefs.
gr8,
This is where you misread me. I am farther to the right than you, but I am no supporter, for instance, of Ted Cruz. In the past you've characterized these kinds of people as RWNJs. I agree with that term for these people.
So you know, I watch both MSNBC and Fox News. I like to hear both sides talk and try to make their cases. I have more affinity for Fox than MSNBC, but I don't automatically go "orthodox" or hard-right Republican, because I've seen how awful some of the Republican policies have been for this country (for instance, Free Trade all day, every day). This policy has been ruinous for our nation. The Republicans have done nothing to try to fix our deficit, to fix our nation's infrastructure, to put Social Security on firmer footing (people who have paid into this fund should get their full benefit), etc.
I can't stand Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They are shills for the Republican establishment, nothing more, nothing less.
Again, I will say this. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have done a horrible job of running this country. The Clintons, the Bushes, and Obama all seem to be cut from the same cloth. They really serve their own self-interests and the interests of those who pay for their ear. Meanwhile, the country continues to founder and suffer. We are being fed lie after lie. It's refreshing to me that candidates like Trump and Sanders are exposing the establishment for what they are.
Mea culpa. I apologize for calling you a hyper-partisan liberal. What Boilermaker said earlier is true - you have become increasingly evenhanded over the last year, and I need to work at becoming moreso myself. I am not a RWNJ - certainly lean to the right, but cannot stand Ted Cruz and most of those who support him. I think, like HRC, he is a truly hypocritical politician who cares little about the well-being of our nation or our people. He will do and say anything to get elected.
I don't agree with a number of the things you say on here, but your grasp of a multitude of topics is quite impressive to me, including the discussion about entropy earlier. The way you laid your argument out was very well done. I will try to be nicer on here to you, because I have often not been.
Fair enough. Takes guts to say that so I will respond in kind with you from this point forward. No one need agree with anyone else on here to have interesting and/or enlightening conversations. I participate on here mostly to think through my own thoughts, to hear the thoughts of others, and to be honest, the off chance that someone lurking might be persuaded in a way I think is helpful on an issue here or there (although I have no belief I have the ability to do that very often). But the intellectual exercise and debate can be entertaining and productive even if no one ever changes anyone's mind on anything. And when it comes to science, I know full well I know just enough to be dangerous, and a real scientist would probably find a host of valid quibbles with things I say. But my concern with society in general is that so many can't even say that...it's a real failing to me (I'm not pointing at you, just saying in general) that science is something that most people seem uninterested in generally speaking.
In that vein, gotta disagree with the Cruz-Clinton comparison. I don't believe she's a hypocrite. Heck, I don't think Cruz is one either. I think he's batguano crazy, and dangerous, but I don't think he's a hypocrite. Hillary is not my ideal candidate. I was pro-Obama vice her in 08 for very good reasons I think. Having said that, I think while she's prone to parse and I'd prefer someone less "triangulating" and for cripes sakes she's an absolutely horrible political "candidate," I think she's highly intelligent and has the best of intentions. I'm sure there are some conservatives out there I might say the same of, even as I would never vote for them. McCain for example (not sure if he's as smart as Hillary, but smart enough and good intentions).
Cruz is highly intelligent, but I don't believe he has good intentions. I believe the fact that he immediately alienated his entire party in the Senate, and most people in his life who have ever known or spent time with him is indicative of some not good things. I'm quite surprised he's emerged as the final Trump alternative vice literally any other better option (as a human being at least) that was running this time around.
I call it the DumbAss Test. Any Dumbass know a baby when he/she sees one. It doesn't take a lawyer, scientist, Pope, etc to explain to me when a baby is a baby. With the advent of ultrasounds the issue is amazingly simple. I have a granddaughter who unfortunately got herself pregnant. When her boyfriend wanted her to get an abortion she showed him a copy of the ultrasound and said "this is a baby". There was no further discussion needed. Thank God she had the baby. Now he is a 20 pound bundle of joy. She carries a very heavy responsibility now, much more than she anticipated but has no regret, not one. I can't imagine the impact on her had she aborted the baby. All of this legal bs to define when a baby is a baby is immoral.
Qaz, so Cruz alienation of his party in Congress is verification that his intentions are bad?? He has alienated most of the people in his life.....wow! Objectivity issues, me think. Hillary... Good intentions? Really? True colors.
First of all, it's pronounced Du-Mas.
Second of all, this is the kind of simplistic silliness that makes me want to respond with some impolitic. Anytime someone tries to reduce a complex, complicated, and difficult issue into "dumbasses" and "not dumbasses", it's probably because they are a...(edited).
Have children?, grandchildren? Ever been in a delivery room when your children were born, ever seen an ultrasound after a few weeks? No Qaz, it really is that simple!!
Yes. He absolutely has alienated just about every person in the Senate. It's pretty likely that a good chunk of those people, while I find most of their politics abhorrent, are decent folks trying to do what they think is right. Yet he's almost immediately forced them to grudgingly choose to support him over Trump, and even then some are refusing. The stories about his time in college, from his roommates, people who knew him are almost universally negative.
I've never seen a candidate with so few folks willing to say something glowing about them. Heck, Bush had plenty of folks who sang his praise, no doubt fully believing those praises.
And yes, just like I think most republicans in Congress have "good intentions" I also think Hillary has "good intentions." Heck, I thought Bush mostly had "good intentions" but he made absolutely horrible decisions. But sure, I'm the one suffering from objectivity problems.
Yeah, pretty much. When a guy comes in who has zero experience and decides that "everyone's a moron except me", which is pretty much what Cruz did, and then "Compromise is for the weak!!", and then shuts down the government in a 4-year-old tantrum... yeah.
It says a lot that in the face of Donald Trump as the candidate, Ted Cruz doesn't have people lining up at his door to endorse him. Either Cruz or Trump will get crushed come November.
I'm beginning to think that the only people that really like Ted Cruz are his wife and much of the state of Utah. LOL
The Republicans in Congress and HRC may all have "good intentions", but as the old saying goes "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
In this case, I think you're being much more magnanimous with the Republican Congress (and Congress in general) and HRC than I can be. I think most of them are bought and sold by their favorite special interest groups. They do as their masters bid them do, whenever possible and/or expedient. It could be that I'm overly jaded too.
Last edited:
HRC is a weak candidate herself. If she is struggling with Bernie Sanders this much, she will also struggle mightily with Trump, because he doesn't play by the typical Republican playbook. (I think Cruz does.)
I also don't believe the current polls that say Kasich would fare best against HRC in the general election. In another poll I saw, almost 50% of those polled didn't have an opinion of him, either good or bad, because they didn't really know who he was. He might be the most qualified of the 3 Republican candidates, but he is also the least inspiring.
HRC is a weak candidate, but she'll elect well against Trump or Cruz. Trump and Cruz stand a better chance against Sanders, but that's probably not going to happen.
I find Kasich far more inspiring than either Trump or Cruz. I find them frightening, which is a different form of inspiration I suppose.
Otherwise, in the face of evidence that Kasich is the most electable, your response is to say, "I don't believe it." What is this, climate change?
I find Kasich far more inspiring than either Trump or Cruz. I find them frightening, which is a different form of inspiration I suppose.
Otherwise, in the face of evidence that Kasich is the most electable, your response is to say, "I don't believe it." What is this, climate change?
I don't agree she will struggle with Trump. Now, might she have a harder time with a better GOP candidate? Maybe, I still think the demo advantage is way too strong but goodness knows she's a horrible campaigner. But my quibbles:
1. I don't think she's struggling much at all. She's ahead by twice as much as Obama was ever ahead of her.
2. I think the Democratic Party is as prone to a two way (middle v extreme) split as the Republican Party is. Thus, there was always going to be a liberal challenger to Hillary. She, like Obama, is not liberal enough for our Latte Party? And yes, she's not a great campaigner, but she will end up ahead I predict by at least 300 pledged delegates at the end of this.
There was no one else to challenge her. O'Malley was ridiculously bland and lame. The other two were either not actual Democrats or someone I actually think may have killed someone...recently. It was Bernie or no one, and neither party is a big fan of coronations for non-sitting Presidents in primaries.
I think she'd win in a landslide against Trump. I think she'd win by about 5% against Cruz. I think she'd win a close one v Kasich (again as you say, not vetted and as I say, demographics).
I actually agree with him. When BS supporters point to GE polls that say Bernie does better, they ignore that no one has really gone after BS. Hillary hasn't because she doesn't want to offend folks she'll need. The republicans don't because they don't want to waste the energy on someone who won't win.
Same with Kasich. He's as conservative as Cruz. He's got a rep as being a bit of a hothead. He's extreme on abortion. He's fully human so that's a plus on Cruz, but other than the possibility that he can take Ohio, I don't think he's necessarily the most electable, but I won't say he isn't either. He's more than Trump for sure...I'm not sold that the results would be much different with him than Cruz though.
I agree that Kasich is a hot head. You've seen emotional, impassioned responses from him that weren't warranted. I don't agree that he's as conservative as Cruz, but he may end up as electable as Cruz. Anyway, we all know where I stood with the Republican candidates, but my cyborg was trounced in his home state...
Bernie is just downright craptastic.
Bernie is just downright craptastic.
I don't think I'm being magnanimous. First rule of judging others is assume incompetence first vice malice when someone does something wrong. I think most people in Congress are more or less trying. Same with Presidents or presidential candidates. Are there are few pure evil effers in there? Sure. Are there a few power hungry/money hungry sonsayouknowwhats? Sure. But most are just folks trying to achieve what they think right looks like. I don't think most of them are bought and sold, nor do I think they follow "masters." First of all, most of them have way too much ego to have a "master" that they follow. ANYONE who runs for President has to have a MASSIVE ego. It's a job requirement to think you can lead the largest, most important nation on the planet. That's not a knock on anyone...it's the reality...and those kind of folks don't tend to have masters.
The road to Hell is paved with intentional bad acts isn't it? Good intentions matter in my book.
Bernie is getting on my last nerve. His most recent purity attack with no evidence is designed to do nothing but take down Hillary. His purity crap is getting old, real fast.
Your cyborg just needed better programming!
I saw he released his 2014 tax return which showed he made just shy of a quarter million dollars in taxable income. If he's anything like me, his real income is up to 30% more than that. Kind of takes the shine off of his "I'm just a poor boy" routine. Certainly, he's not wealthy on the Clinton or Trump scale, but he ain't hurtin' either. I'd be interested in his net worth. I'm guessing he's pretty close to "The 1%" if he's been close to the top 5% in annual income for a while.
Cracking that "1%" isn't as big as people think...
His "I'm at the bottom end of the Senate" schtick is like saying "I'm the shortest guy on my NBA roster."
Cracking that "1%" isn't as big as people think...
His "I'm at the bottom end of the Senate" schtick is like saying "I'm the shortest guy on my NBA roster."
There's a small scandal (money) with his wife that no one talks about much. I think he's on the good side of ethical for sure, but he's not 100% pure, and not nearly pure enough for all the shade he's been throwing around.
LOL.
Didn't I explain why? Half the country doesn't even know who Kasich is and doesn't care to right now. He is not going to win the nomination.
I think Clinton will get savaged by Trump because he has a lot of dirt on her. He will take her out just like he did Jeb Bush and Rubio. Trump doesn't play by the same rules as establishment candidates and Hillary doesn't seem very adept at running an "asymmetric campaign". I've seen on MSNBC that Clinton campaign insiders are worried about running against Trump because he's unpredictable in how he runs his campaign. Kasich and Cruz are not.
Trumps unfavorables are in the 70s for the GE.
The 70s, not the decade, the number.
He's not savaging anyone. Everyone who doesn't like Hillary is already not voting for her, and that number ain't the 70s.
I would LOVE Trump to be the nominee...Dems would have a shot at taking the House, and if you'd tole me that a year ago, I'd have laughed until I cried.
Mmmmk. We'll see. Any Republican needs the moderate/independent vote in order to defeat a Democrat. Trump will not win that against Hillary. He's got a better shot against Sanders. He isn't going to insult his way into the White House against a Democrat.
And he rails about "paying their fair share and then he has a 14% effective tax rate. Kinda hypocritical, eh Bernie?
Last I saw on MSNBC Trump was in the high 60s, and HRC unfavorables were 55%. They both are highly unpopular and yet the both have substantial leads. How is this possible?
Simple math. People polled aren't just R or D. It's everybody. About 35-40% of Rs are voting Trump. Rs are about 30% of the voting age population. There are a whole lot of I and D along with that 60% of R that don't like Trump. Similar for Clinton, but there are about 20 million more D than R in this country, and she's not running around acting like a complete ass 80% of the time in her campaign, so her number is lower.
Because among dems her favs are quite high actually its just everyone else hates her. Trump benefitted from a fractured field.
No, she's running around acting like a complete bitch 80% of the time in her campaign, always talking up identity politics - black vs. white, women vs. men, gay vs. straight, Muslim vs. Christian, pro-choice vs. pro-life, etc., etc. Again tonight she gave her stump speech and touched on every one of these points. For all the tolerance the left likes to preach about, they are seemingly among the worst when it comes to practicing what they preach.
