McCarthy's House doing stuff

[Plasmodium]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

This is incorrect.   "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."  This is the direct quote from the decision.  The people could have that done via their state representatives or their Congressional representatives.  There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a federal abortion law.   You will notice they chose not to do so before their majority ended.   Who's playing politics with this and has been for years?  If they pass it, they cannot campaign and get money by scaring people about it. 

mspart

If you want to know why Roe vs Wade was a right conferred by the constitution, listen to the confirmation hearing testimony of the justices who voted to overturn it.

[Bigbrog]

11 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

If you want to know why Roe vs Wade was a right conferred by the constitution, listen to the confirmation hearing testimony of the justices who voted to overturn it.

So you don't know either...got it.  

Pretty sure Supreme Court Justices know more about the constitution than you.

[Plasmodium]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

So you don't know either...got it.  

Pretty sure Supreme Court Justices know more about the constitution than you.

Which justice? Over the course of time, more have sided on the side of abortion being a right - obviously.  Also depends upon when they are asked.  E.g. If a senator asks in a confirmation hearing it is a different answer than when an evangelical lawyer from Mississippi asks.

[Bigbrog]

So here is what gets my goat...when each side plays the extreme "what if" game, or use emotional fallacy statements by saying what could happen.  The big 2nd amendment people do the same things (although I believe in the 2nd amendment and sensible background checks) as the Roe v Wade supporters do...say some extreme thing could happen because of a change in regard to a ruling. 

As for Roe v Wade ruling, I am just glad people have stopped using the emotional fallacy statement of "The SCOTUS banned abortions!", just as I'd like to see people stop using the emotional fallacy statement that the government is coming to take all your guns away used by the 2nd Amendment or die folks.

This wasn't meant to derail the conversation but rather, come on people...stop with all the emotional fallacy statements to try and prove your point.

To me abortion is a topic I don't think most of us are equipped to have, as it is EXTREMELY complicated.  I agree with the SCOTUS that it should be left up to the State to make the legislation around it.  I am against abortion, but at the same time don't believe it is my right to say what someone else does in their unique situation.  I REALLY struggle with those who use it as a form of birth control but not sure how one can determine that based on each individual situation...so not my place to judge what is in that person's heart when they have to make that terrible decision.  Just a tough thing and not sure anyone of us have the right answer and at the same time have the right answer.
 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Which justice? Over the course of time, more have sided on the side of abortion being a right - obviously.  Also depends upon when they are asked.  E.g. If a senator asks in a confirmation hearing it is a different answer than when an evangelical lawyer from Mississippi asks.

It wasn't a decision about it "being a right"...that is the point.  It was a decision about the ruling of Roe v Wade and who, based on the laws and constitution, has the right to make legislation about abortion.

[scourge165]

16 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Or slavery, environmental decimation and many others.

Yes...Jim Crow is certainly NOT the extent of State Abusing human rights. Shit, it's not even the latest or most egregious. 

When you've got the Federal Gov't allowing for forced sterilization with the Family Planning Services Act...in which 25 up to 42% of women of child bearing ages were sterilizedand THAT went into the 1970s, I find it a little...disingenuous to act outraged like we're SO far beyond taking the rights of someone away. 

[scourge165]

16 hours ago, Nailbender said:

All my comments are here for anyone who cares to read them. They address most of that in my own words rather than the ones you think I used. I'm not treating that rant as a coherent thought. 

I'm sure we'll talk past each other again, someday. 

 

 

 

  

 

 

     

 

And we're back with another ad hominem. It was an attempt to address each point rather than speaking in vague talking points or personal attacks. Clearly, you're not capable of doing so. It's pretty clear you didn't answer some of the questions because...well...ya didn't have them.

 

Again, you've continually expressed a desire for me to "reciprocate" my sympathies for your happy, loved, well taken care of niece while inferring that I don't believe her life has "value," and when I ask for a clarification on what exactly am I supposed to be offering sympathy for...you turn into a politician caught up in their own bullshit. 

Just say "no comment at this time." It's easier and not as intellectually dishonest. Or hell, tell me I'm fake news...I don't know, same difference. A little tantrum in lieu of an actual discussion. 

 

[scourge165]

17 hours ago, mspart said:

This is incorrect.   "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."  This is the direct quote from the decision.  The people could have that done via their state representatives or their Congressional representatives.  There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a federal abortion law.   You will notice they chose not to do so before their majority ended.   Who's playing politics with this and has been for years?  If they pass it, they cannot campaign and get money by scaring people about it. 

mspart

This is just disassociated from reality. Republicans have been running for 50 years on Roe v Wade. That has been one of if not THE most significant issue since the ruling. 

There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a federal abortion law? Sure there was. Joe Manchin...who repeatedly voted against it. The filibuster. 

 

50 years of the Religious Right running on Roe v Wade and when it gets overturned and the electorate comes and turns what's supposed to be a historic red wave into a red drop, then it's Democrats "playing politics?" 

 

[mspart]

Just now, scourge165 said:

This is just disassociated from reality. Republicans have been running for 50 years on Roe v Wade. That has been one of if not THE most significant issue since the ruling. 

There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a federal abortion law? Sure there was. Joe Manchin...who repeatedly voted against it. The filibuster. 

 

50 years of the Religious Right running on Roe v Wade and when it gets overturned and the electorate comes and turns what's supposed to be a historic red wave into a red drop, then it's Democrats "playing politics?" 

 

Democrats have had majorities enough to pass a federal abortion law and never did.   That is historically true.   The bill that was before Congress would have allowed abortions in the third trimester.   Totally out of whack with what the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with. 

https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abortion-religion-health-2c569aa7934233af8e00bef4520a8fa8

The above poll from AP news shows the situation in the country. 

The Ds in Congress had a bill that did not reflect this at all.  It would allow abortion up until normal birth.  So they were completely out of step with the people of the USA.  That may be another reason the bill didn't go anywhere.   I think if they crafted the bill to allow only 1st trimester abortions, they could have passed it.   And that is in keeping with the vast majority of countries in the developed world.  But they couldn't do that because they want women to be able to legally kill their offspring up until birth, and in the case we were discussing, killing the child after a botched abortion produces a live baby.   That is historical fact and it was presented earlier on this board when it happened in the new Congress. 

mspart

 

[mspart]

11 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

50 years of the Religious Right running on Roe v Wade and when it gets overturned and the electorate comes and turns what's supposed to be a historic red wave into a red drop, then it's Democrats "playing politics?" 

 

The D's had 2 months left in their majority after the election of 2022.  The House passed a bill that was contrary to the will of the people as noted above.   They chose to be completely radical on this issue rather than reasonable and as a result, they failed to get the bill signed into law.   That is completely on them.   Do you think any D in the House right now would vote for a bill that only allowed 1st trimester abortions?  That answer is no because they didn't. 

mspart

[Nailbender]

3 hours ago, scourge165 said:

 

And we're back with another ad hominem. It was an attempt to address each point rather than speaking in vague talking points or personal attacks. Clearly, you're not capable of doing so. It's pretty clear you didn't answer some of the questions because...well...ya didn't have them.

 

Again, you've continually expressed a desire for me to "reciprocate" my sympathies for your happy, loved, well taken care of niece while inferring that I don't believe her life has "value," and when I ask for a clarification on what exactly am I supposed to be offering sympathy for...you turn into a politician caught up in their own bullshit. 

Just say "no comment at this time." It's easier and not as intellectually dishonest. Or hell, tell me I'm fake news...I don't know, same difference. A little tantrum in lieu of an actual discussion. 

 

 

 

    These last 2 posts are exactly why your opinion on this subject no longer interests me and I wanted to be done. It was a rant. It's here in all it's dysfunctional glory. This last post was good enough to pull me back in, so I guess you have that as a feather in your cap. Since you're whining about your hurt feelings over nothing, here is my less filtered take on your ramblings. I made sure to answer any question that made even a small amount of sense. 

 I didn't answer your questions earlier, because you don't read my answers. I'm also not sure if you do read them, you are even capable of understanding them. What you want is not by any stretch, a "discussion" but here ya go.

My responses are in blue

20 hours ago, scourge165 said:

I didn't suggest you vote directly on every issue. Obviously I don't believe we should throw together a quick referendum on the debt ceiling. That'd be foolish. But on issues such as abortion, marijuana. Straight yes or no issues...or close to it. 

Abortion is far from simple. Maybe for you it is but every single person I have ever spoken with about it has some issue with making all abortions legal, or all of them illegal, something always gives them pause. If you don't have any, you're not a person I'm interested in knowing.

Sure. Late term abortion is objectionable to most people. So make it simple. First trimester. 

I still don't believe it's simple. I am not surprised that you do, 

But your statement still seems like a contradiction. "We don't have to leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves." I'm not sure how you reconcile that with the statement that you don't think Politicians should be involved? Are you just talking about late term abortions? 

A law can state no abortions after the first trimester. It could ban only partial birth abortion. It could say no abortions unless the mothers health is in danger. I'm not advocating for any of these, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be abortion, "yes" or abortion "no". If there is a law that states no abortions after the first trimester. Then whether or not to have one before then would be between a woman and her doctor. This is not a hard concept. It's only a contradiction to you.

Yes. I know that. The overwhelming majority of people believe it's a women's choice.

No they don't, not even if that makes you feel better about your stupid take. If you have a serious conversation with anyone with any humanity whether a women should be able to chose to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy baby the day it's due...... for any reason she wants? You'll get a different answer from "the overwhelming majority" that you think you have all figured out. Again, abortion is not simple. Quit trying to make it so and your head would probably explode, so I get it. 

Of course not. I don't think anyone's actually "pro-abortion."

You'd be wrong, again. I could give examples but I've wasted enough of my time with you. Find them, it's not hard. There are people who are for what I just described, abortion at any time for any reason. They aren't the majority but they're out there. Some of them are even in elected office. In my opinion they might even be worse than the "no abortions ever" people. 

You're killing what could very likely become a baby. And I still don't think it's anyone else's decision to make. It's pretty simple...to me. I'm also not a King.

We have been over this. Everything is simple to you......'till it isn't.

No...it doesn't HAVE to be...but it kinda is. And implying it's not is dishonest...or "dense." Look at the story about the the 10 year old. You had Jim Jordan calling it a lie. Just...no facts, nothing. Just don't like that narrative, must be a lie. 

That girl had to go to another state to get an abortion. 10 years old. 

An example of you trying to change my answer for me. Try this next time, if it "doesn't have to be" and you agree with that, then just stop there. That way we're both right. See how easy that was? It's only hard if you're trying to be purposefully confrontational because you think you have morality cornered.

I see the horror of that girls situation. I don't know anyone who doesn't.

But ok. He looked like the asshole he's become when they arrested the rapist and the story was confirmed. Does ANYONE think it's a good idea when you REALLY think about it to use rape as an exemption? Lets take the 10 year old or the minors who can't legally consent out of it. It's agreed, they should have access.

So how about the rest? Is it incumbent upon the women to prove the rape? 6 weeks later, she didn't report it. It was a date rape...she was drugged. Or...MAYBE she wasn't. It's not like there haven't been false allegations. How do you want to prove(or disprove) the veracity of the claim?

I'd be happy, if I was king to "trust all women" as they say. No proof needed. You were raped? Just tell your doctor and you can have an abortion. I honestly hadn't thought about that and it's the one thing you have said in ALL of this that seems pretty not simple and made me think. Oh wait, I forgot, you said it's all simple, never mind. I might still think about it some more, you should try it.

 

As I said, I don't know the situation with your niece(and actually stated it's none of my business). I also didn't need sympathy. I used it as an example of a case that would be DIRECTLY impacted by THIS LAW. It was a personal anecdote that knew of that I shared. It didn't happen to me. So I wasn't looking for sympathy. This wasn't my story or my tragedy and I don't know what it feels like to go through that. It was an example of how utterly ridiculous this law is(though not surprising as most of these votes are simply performative at this point). 

Now, as for me not "reciprocating," you've resorted to ad hominem attacks a few times and now you keep coming back to this. What sympathy would you like? You have stated she's living a full and happy life, her parents love her and she's cared for.

What reciprocity would you like? That is what you call a HAPPY ending, no? 

THEY made that decision and they are happy and fulfilled. So please explain to me what you'd like me to say here? I'm sorry they chose to raise a happy, loving child with some type of disability? My deepest apologies. What an asshole I've been for not being sympathetic that person is alive...? 

    It's not about my niece, so please quit mentioning her and I'll reciprocate about your cousin. That's my fault, I should've never brought her up. I tried to give a personal story to show my compassion for your personal story that would help you see that aborted babies don't have to be aborted but I failed in that attempt.  Again, that was my fault. I shouldn't have even brought her up.

     I can understand after my interaction with you now that you will probably never care about aborted babies. It's fine. I don't value your opinion anymore anyway. There are somewhere in the neighborhood according to a quick "google", 1 million abortions in the US every year. My sympathy is for most of them. I was failing badly at pointing out that you seem to have none. I never asked personally for your sympathy and I never gave you any. I did feel genuinely bad for your cousin. 

I NEVER once said I did. In fact, I said it was none of my business. That's a recurring theme here. I don't believe it's MY(or your) business.

 So it's annoying when people put words in your mouth? Huh, I guess you're right about something else.

Yep, none of this your business. If you put it all on a woman and her doctor it's easy to keep the whole issue of abortion off your conscious. I am not an activist, I don't picket PPH. I don't donate my money. I don't even vote with abortion in mind but if the subject comes up? I'll definitely mention that the issue is complicated but I err on the side of life. Which is ALL I originally did to pull your string, so I'd have to listen to you ramble. 

Yeah, but you kinda are. You've made this inference multiple times now. And again, I read this and I wonder why you're asking for me to reciprocate sympathy? Because she wasn't born healthy? That's...genuinely awful. Because your Aunt and Uncle have made a commitment to care for her full-time? Yes, that is admirable. 

Again, please tell me more about how I don't say or believe or mean what I'm speaking in clear English. See a few paragraphs above. 

Is that a decision that should be forced on every couple?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm suggesting that we have a frame work of laws as a country and a society. We have all agreed that somethings are just not okay, even in the most free country in the world. We can include laws about abortion. I know, that's not simple enough for you or is it too simple? I really can't tell with you at this point.

 

Should a couple that gets pregnant in their 40s, they shouldn't have the same freedom your family members had?

I don't even have any idea what this means. It's gibberish really. 

Not everyone is in a position to care for a child that will need care their entire lives...and the costs can easily run up into the millions(which is most often pushed off onto the state and those are NOT often happy lives). 

This one takes the cake. You really have no idea how this sounds do you? They are too expensive and most people don't have the time? People won't care for them and they will be a burden on the state, won't be happy so we should just let their mother and doctor decide to kill them instead? I don't want to speak about my niece any more. You aren't worth it but I will say this against my better judgement. Her parents aren't rich. They have made a lot of sacrifices in time and money, my niece will never be you're burden. So you're off the hook there.

You sound like a very nice person, please let's talk more.

 

I honestly didn't even read the forum rules, so maybe I crossed a line but I'll own my timeout if so. 

[mspart]

Now that's a big response!!

mspart

[scourge165]

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

These last 2 posts are exactly why your opinion on this subject no longer interests me and I wanted to be done. It was a rant. It's here in all it's dysfunctional glory. This last post was good enough to pull me back in, so I guess you have that as a feather in your cap.

Ahh...so the things I said AFTER the post were what made you not reply to the post...after? That tracks

 

I tried to respond to each of your points(as I've done again here) without...getting too emotional. I'm sorry you were not capable of doing the same.

 

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

. Since you're whining about your hurt feelings over nothing, here is my less filtered take on your ramblings. I made sure to answer any question that made even a small amount of sense. 

LOL...and exactly where did I suggest my feelings were hurt?

Because I pointed out that you resorted to ad hominem attacks? Yeah, that doesn't hurt my feelings, it shows the level of discourse you're capable of.

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

 I didn't answer your questions earlier, because you don't read my answers. I'm also not sure if you do read them, you are even capable of understanding them. What you want is not by any stretch, a "discussion" but here ya go.

Ahh..yes. That was the problem. You were SOOO brilliant, I just couldn't understand it!

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

Abortion is far from simple. Maybe for you it is but every single person I have ever spoken with about it has some issue with making all abortions legal, or all of them illegal, something always gives them pause. If you don't have any, you're not a person I'm interested in knowing.

See...now I can see why you think I'm confused. You like to conflate issues, change the subject, attack and mis-direct. 

I never said any personal decision to have any abortion would be simple. The question of it being legal however should be. 

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I still don't believe it's simple. I am not surprised that you do,

"Fine with me."

Your answer when I suggested a referendum on the subject. Don't want politicians interfering. You agreed. Now it seems you're conflating wrestling with the decision to have one with the right to have one(or lack thereof) because you're just...so a great human being!

 

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

A law can state no abortions after the first trimester. It could ban only partial birth abortion. It could say no abortions unless the mothers health is in danger. I'm not advocating for any of these, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be abortion, "yes" or abortion "no". If there is a law that states no abortions after the first trimester. Then whether or not to have one before then would be between a woman and her doctor. This is not a hard concept. It's only a contradiction to you.

No. It doesn't "have" to be. But again, when I suggested a referendum and you said, "fine with me," you believed it'd be what? We'd have 150 million people writing their own 25 point bills in which they believe it should be legal or not?

And no, it's just a contradiction. 

Quote

I don't know exactly how this bill would handle her situation. My hope would be that it allowed her to make the horrible choice she had to make, just as she did, with her doctor, her loved ones and no interference from politicians.

How is this NOT a contradiction? You were all but too happy to say you were glad the decision was made by her, her Doctors and "no interference from politicians." 

Now you're all but too happy to list off all types of interference from Politicians.

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

No they don't, not even if that makes you feel better about your stupid take. If you have a serious conversation with anyone with any humanity whether a women should be able to chose to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy baby the day it's due...... for any reason she wants? You'll get a different answer from "the overwhelming majority" that you think you have all figured out. Again, abortion is not simple. Quit trying to make it so and your head would probably explode, so I get it. 

Weren't you babbling about red herrings? Mississippi? Who's advocating for an abortion "the day it's due?" The histrionics are strong in this one.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/blog/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-late-term-abortion

Now, back on Earth where we're talking about 1st terms(as again, we all know how you hate discussing outliers...and we don't wanna make your head explode).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

61% think it should be legal.
37% illegal.

So...seems like they kinda do think it should be legal, right? 

In KANSAS(the liberal, left leaning, progressive Kansas) they actually did vote on it. ~60/40.

https://apnews.com/article/kansas-abortion-vote-recount-e874f56806a9d63b473b24580ad7ea0c

So now given that in POLLS Kansas was 49-49, yet during an actual referendum on the subject, it was ~60/40, seems the majority DOES think it should be between a Women and her Doctor...not Jim Jordan and "Nailbender."

 

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

You'd be wrong, again. I could give examples but I've wasted enough of my time with you. Find them, it's not hard. There are people who are for what I just described, abortion at any time for any reason. They aren't the majority but they're out there. Some of them are even in elected office. In my opinion they might even be worse than the "no abortions ever" people. 

There are lots of people out there who just love abortion? Even some in elected office? 

Again...you said something about red herrings? 

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I'd be happy, if I was king to "trust all women" as they say. No proof needed. You were raped? Just tell your doctor and you can have an abortion. I honestly hadn't thought about that and it's the one thing you have said in ALL of this that seems pretty not simple and made me think. Oh wait, I forgot, you said it's all simple, never mind. I might still think about it some more, you should try it.

Well, making progress then, aren't we? You're actually thinking for yourself without yammering on about abortions on the day of...because...again, we ALL know how much you dislike the outlier. 

Hey, just glad I made you think about something. 

 

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

  It's not about my niece, so please quit mentioning her and I'll reciprocate about your cousin. That's my fault, I should've never brought her up. I tried to give a personal story to show my compassion for your personal story that would help you see that aborted babies don't have to be aborted but I failed in that attempt.  Again, that was my fault. I shouldn't have even brought her up.

You want ME to stop mentioning her? Repeatedly you chastized me for not reciprocating your sympathy.

Numerous times you brought her up. I think what you're most upset about is you realize how ridiculous your persistent pleas to "reciprocate" my "compassion" for a situation that...you again have repeatedly told me turned out very well. So you'll forgive me if I was confused what compassion or sympathy you wanted "reciprocated," for a scenario that by your account, turned out wonderfully. 

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

 I can understand after my interaction with you now that you will probably never care about aborted babies. It's fine. I don't value your opinion anymore anyway. There are somewhere in the neighborhood according to a quick "google", 1 million abortions in the US every year. My sympathy is for most of them. I was failing badly at pointing out that you seem to have none. I never asked personally for your sympathy and I never gave you any. I did feel genuinely bad for your cousin. 

I can understand after my interaction with you that you're too emotional to discuss this issue. 

I've made it pretty clear. I don't think it's the religious right, I don't think it's the politicians place...I think it's a decision that should be made by the mother. One that again, I'll stand behind and so will the majority of Americans. 

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

 So it's annoying when people put words in your mouth? Huh, I guess you're right about something else.

Yup. I believe I was. 

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

Yep, none of this your business. If you put it all on a woman and her doctor it's easy to keep the whole issue of abortion off your conscious. I am not an activist, I don't picket PPH. I don't donate my money. I don't even vote with abortion in mind but if the subject comes up? I'll definitely mention that the issue is complicated but I err on the side of life.

Sorry, you just agreed your Niece was none of my business and now you're outraged that I stated as much? You dizzy from talking in circles yet?

I don't...picket, I don't donate money, I don't even vote...yeah, I don't care. 

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I'll definitely mention that the issue is complicated but I err on the side of life. Which is ALL I originally did to pull your string, so I'd have to listen to you ramble.

I don't believe you've ever heard me talk or met me. 

But I'll err on the rights of the women. Which is ALL I originally did to pull your sting and read your contradictory incoherent ranting. 

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

Again, please tell me more about how I don't say or believe or mean what I'm speaking in clear English. See a few paragraphs above. 

Yeah, but...again, you have kinda said it;

Quote

Yet no aknowledgement or even a mention that my niece could've had her life ended before it began. That gives me the impression you don't agree my nieces life is valuable?

Ahh...ok, so this ISN'T you making an inference about how much value I place upon the life of your niece? Gotcha!

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm suggesting that we have a frame work of laws as a country and a society. We have all agreed that somethings are just not okay, even in the most free country in the world. We can include laws about abortion. I know, that's not simple enough for you or is it too simple? I really can't tell with you at this point.

I didn't say YOU in and of yourself were forcing anything on anyone. I get why you keep making this entirely about YOU after the "if I were King" comments on multiple occasions now, but I've been told we live in a Country with laws  And I'm suggesting in that framework that in the first trimester it's up to the women. 

 

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

This one takes the cake. You really have no idea how this sounds do you? They are too expensive and most people don't have the time?

I understand clearly how this sounds. Not everyone has the resources to care for a child that's going to need to be cared for their entire life. And...wait now, THIS one will shock you...the VAST majority of women who have abortions, they're not married. Meaning they don't have a Husband and they're not in a position to dedicate their life exclusively to caring for a child.

Sorry that that "takes the cake" for you, those are just the facts.

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

People won't care for them and they will be a burden on the state, won't be happy so we should just let their mother and doctor decide to kill them instead?

Yes. We should allow the mother the decision if she's going abort a pregnancy.

Again, could have sworn you said you were happy this was a decision made between the Mother and the Doctor without interference by politicians? 

Now because I've held that same position, you're full of outrage and too emotional to have a coherent discussion? Yeah, that tracks with my experience. 

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I don't want to speak about my niece any more.

I guess then my first suggestion would be...stop?

I don't know, I'm thinking outside the box here...lets just see how it works.

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

You aren't worth it but I will say this against my better judgement. Her parents aren't rich. They have made a lot of sacrifices in time and money, my niece will never be you're burden. So you're off the hook there.

That's a rather bizarre thing to say. She won't be "my burden." Now are you going to claim you didn't say this in about 3 more posts like you did when you said you didn't believe I thought she had value and then you claimed you never inferred any such thing?

 

I wasn't concerned with her becoming my "burden." I was making a point that it's not a particularly pleasant life growing up as a ward of the state and I'd imagine it's far less so if you've got a disability. 

Is that a position you'd disagree with? Yeah, I know, you won't answer because you've gotten too emotional about this, but it just a generally bizarre response. "My niece will never be your burden." 

And this was a paragraph or two AFTER you said you wanted to stop talking about your Niece? Again...I'd refer back to my previous suggestion. Then just stop?

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

You sound like a very nice person, please let's talk more.

I like to think so. 

[scourge165]

7 hours ago, mspart said:

The D's had 2 months left in their majority after the election of 2022.  The House passed a bill that was contrary to the will of the people as noted above.   They chose to be completely radical on this issue rather than reasonable and as a result, they failed to get the bill signed into law.   That is completely on them.   Do you think any D in the House right now would vote for a bill that only allowed 1st trimester abortions?  That answer is no because they didn't. 

mspart

And they still needed 60 votes in the Senate. They also tried passing just a simple law that allowed travel across state lines so as to prevent the punitive laws put in place in Texas or other states that aim to punish people who travel for medical services. They even got GOP support on that one with a handful of Republicans voting for it. Not enough to get 60 in the Senate. 

Please...spare me about which party went "radical" on this issue.

[scourge165]

9 hours ago, mspart said:

Democrats have had majorities enough to pass a federal abortion law and never did.   That is historically true.   The bill that was before Congress would have allowed abortions in the third trimester.   Totally out of whack with what the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with. 

https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abortion-religion-health-2c569aa7934233af8e00bef4520a8fa8

The above poll from AP news shows the situation in the country. 

The Ds in Congress had a bill that did not reflect this at all.  It would allow abortion up until normal birth.  So they were completely out of step with the people of the USA.  That may be another reason the bill didn't go anywhere.   I think if they crafted the bill to allow only 1st trimester abortions, they could have passed it.   And that is in keeping with the vast majority of countries in the developed world.  But they couldn't do that because they want women to be able to legally kill their offspring up until birth, and in the case we were discussing, killing the child after a botched abortion produces a live baby.   That is historical fact and it was presented earlier on this board when it happened in the new Congress. 

mspart

 

It's just the dishonesty on this that gets frustrating. 

The bill would ONLY have allowed for abortions until the fetus was viable...which is usually 22-24 weeks(the first trimester). It ALSO allowed for abortions after viability, but ONLY when "in the good-faith medical judgement of the treating health care provider, the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health." 

This abortion 'till birth messaging was bullshit.

Reading the pieces of the bill they try and talk around is often helpful. 

 

So they did try passing such a bill. Again, needed 60 votes in the Senate. 

 

And again, I'll refer you to the referendum in Kansas. Now...you tell me, do YOU believe Kansas is right of Center or Left of Center?

https://apnews.com/article/kansas-abortion-vote-recount-e874f56806a9d63b473b24580ad7ea0c

[Nailbender]

9 hours ago, scourge165 said:

It's just the dishonesty on this that gets frustrating. 

The bill would ONLY have allowed for abortions until the fetus was viable...which is usually 22-24 weeks(the first trimester). It ALSO allowed for abortions after viability, but ONLY when "in the good-faith medical judgement of the treating health care provider, the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health." 

This abortion 'till birth messaging was bullshit.

Reading the pieces of the bill they try and talk around is often helpful. 

 

So they did try passing such a bill. Again, needed 60 votes in the Senate. 

 

And again, I'll refer you to the referendum in Kansas. Now...you tell me, do YOU believe Kansas is right of Center or Left of Center?

https://apnews.com/article/kansas-abortion-vote-recount-e874f56806a9d63b473b24580ad7ea0c

 

 My statements stand on their own, as do yours. 

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

 

 My statements stand on their own, as do yours. 

"Excuse me, Mr Scourge, but you appear to have broken our nail bender."

[Nailbender]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

"Excuse me, Mr Scourge, but you appear to have broken our nail bender."

That's definitely one way to look at it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another would be that I'm not going to go back and forth with him rehashing the same shit over and over. If he wants a circle jerk, he can have one with you.

[Mike Parrish]

3 hours ago, Nailbender said:

That's definitely one way to look at it.

Another would be that I'm not going to go back and forth with him rehashing the same shit over and over. If he wants a circle jerk, he can have one with you.

Ooh, touched a nerve there.

[scourge165]

11 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

Ooh, touched a nerve there.

It's all about facts not feelings until you want to stick to the facts...then it's feelings.

What can ya do!

I do find it kinda strange he responded to a post that wasn't even directed toward him, but rather another poster. 

The following statement was made(NOT by "Nailbender);

Quote

Do you think any D in the House right now would vote for a bill that only allowed 1st trimester abortions?  That answer is no because they didn't. 

I merely responded with what was ACTUALLY in the Bill. It's true, it didn't "only" allow 1st trimester abortions. It also allowed for those cases that our "esteemed" Congressmen like Jim Jordan called a hoax, ie, when the health of the mother or child is in danger. 

Imagine how much more could be accomplished if we weren't constantly trying to take legislation, listen to one side's talking points and then just repeated those?

Edited January 21, 2023 by scourge165

[Mike Parrish]

On 1/18/2023 at 4:03 PM, Mike Parrish said:

What about gay marriage?

There it ***duck duck goose** is.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/

[scourge165]

3 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

There it ***duck duck goose** is.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/

They're gonna ban sodomy? What the hell are the Catholic school kids gonna do for their "loophole?" 

I guess this'll be exclusive to same sex, huh? I feel pretty good there'd be enough GOP support to to legalize that. 

I mean...what would happen to Linsey's little lady bugs!

[Mike Parrish]

Mothers in states with abortion bans nearly 3 times more likely to die.

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/19/mothers-anti-abortion-bans-states-die

 

[Mike Parrish]

Hmmm...

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/21/us/abortion-ban-exceptions.html

[Mike Parrish]

Sane Republicans are already tired of the circus.