If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"   (hotair.com) divider line 355
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, illegal operation, global dimming, Mr. Roboto, blah blah, Robert Duvall, abortions, DNC  
•       •       •

6717 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Aug 2012 at 9:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



355 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-24 08:47:14 AM
Heisenberg-Romney principle makes it impossible to say exactly what his position is at any specific time.
 
2012-08-24 08:53:20 AM
*punches self in face*
 
2012-08-24 08:53:56 AM
That's exactly the kind of actual interviewing a member of the liberal media would do.
 
2012-08-24 08:56:19 AM
Isn't Romney on record holding different views on rape/incest exceptions?
 
2012-08-24 08:57:52 AM
Ann Coulter book pop up. FU

Never a HotAir link again.
 
2012-08-24 08:58:41 AM
 
2012-08-24 09:00:27 AM
"Romney thinks abortion doctors should be executed."

This is currently not Mitt Romney's position, but it will be at some point in this campaign. We're just planning ahead.
 
2012-08-24 09:04:27 AM
I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.
 
2012-08-24 09:05:07 AM
Anderson is a stand up kinda guy.

I really like him.
 
2012-08-24 09:05:57 AM
Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?
 
2012-08-24 09:16:04 AM
Glad someone is finally using Rmoney's tactics against him. Why the hell not? He lies about everything: welfare to work, you didn't build that, taxes, trade agreements, you name it.
 
2012-08-24 09:16:28 AM
AC: You miss quoted the LA TImes for your own political agenda.

DWS: It doesn't matter...

Nice.
 
2012-08-24 09:16:41 AM

Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.


its actually brought me to the "contact" pages of CNN to let them know. I don't know how much good that will do, but I do like it.
 
2012-08-24 09:26:52 AM
DWS is a bit of a twunt.
 
2012-08-24 09:29:05 AM

cman: Anderson is a stand up kinda guy.

I really like him.


Too bad he's a robot.

Nobody can work as hard as he does, have as many shows and travel as much as he does, and still look as good as he does. The gay thing is just there for a cover up, since people will think "Oh, he's gay. He takes care of himself"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-24 09:29:31 AM

Vodka Zombie: "Romney thinks abortion doctors should be executed."

This is currently not Mitt Romney's position, but it will be at some point in this campaign. We're just planning ahead.


It takes a while to get your message out, so you kind of have to lead them.
Sort of like shooting at a moving target.
 
2012-08-24 09:36:54 AM
Glad to see him doing real interviews instead of making catty remarks about reality show twunts.

Watching her go back to the canned talking point over and over again was pathetic.
 
2012-08-24 09:45:25 AM

Party Boy: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

its actually brought me to the "contact" pages of CNN to let them know. I don't know how much good that will do, but I do like it.


Excellent idea. I did the same.
 
2012-08-24 09:48:38 AM

Vodka Zombie: "Romney thinks abortion doctors should be executed."

This is currently not Mitt Romney's position, but it will be at some point in this campaign. We're just planning ahead.


Or, you know, retroactively.
 
2012-08-24 09:49:11 AM

vpb: Vodka Zombie: "Romney thinks abortion doctors should be executed."

This is currently not Mitt Romney's position, but it will be at some point in this campaign. We're just planning ahead.

It takes a while to get your message out, so you kind of have to lead them.
Sort of like shooting surveying at a moving target.


ftfy
 
2012-08-24 09:49:25 AM
images.politico.com
 
2012-08-24 09:51:22 AM
Wow, a TV host made a politician look bad because he called them out on a campaign tactic that's been around since the beginning of time.

"Caveman Todd bad. Caveman Mitt is friend with Caveman Todd. Caveman Mitt is like Caveman Todd."
 
2012-08-24 09:51:29 AM
But if the party platform doesn't matter and has no real affect on policy, why do they bother to create one?
 
2012-08-24 09:52:08 AM
The GOP 2012 platform is Romney's platform. Everything they agree to means Mitt agrees to it. He is in charge of the party, nothing gets approved without his agreement
 
2012-08-24 09:53:02 AM

vpb: Heisenberg-Romney principle makes it impossible to say exactly what his position is at any specific time.


Actually you can know his position at any specific time. It is if you do know this, you do not know where he is going with it. And conversly you can know where is is going but not know what his position is.
 
2012-08-24 09:54:03 AM
He's staked out every position on it, impossible to tell what he "believes" today.

I do know that he picked a running mate that thinks pregnancy means you like rape though.
 
2012-08-24 09:54:32 AM

urbangirl: But if the party platform doesn't matter and has no real affect on policy, why do they bother to create one?


btw, comment should not be seen as a defense of nit-wit talking heads like dws.
 
2012-08-24 09:54:32 AM
So now the GOP is arguing that they don't have to follow or believe in their own platform?
 
2012-08-24 09:55:12 AM
lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2012-08-24 09:55:42 AM
Let's be fair, Wasserman-Schultz is kinda a turd. I've seen her on TV a lot and she's wrong about factual statements too often for my liking (as a liberal myself) and she comes off like a douche.
 
2012-08-24 09:56:04 AM

PreMortem: Ann Coulter book pop up. FU

Never a HotAir link again.


I help myself to remember that by using adblock to block the image for sites I don't want to visit.
 
2012-08-24 09:56:07 AM
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is a vile attack poodle.

The Democratic leadership should tell her to keep her mouth shut. She doesn't offer any insights and only gives Democrats a bad name no matter who she supports.
 
2012-08-24 09:57:01 AM

urbangirl: But if the party platform doesn't matter and has no real affect on policy, why do they bother to create one?


Tradition. Party platforms have been largely ignored since the early 1900s. If not earlier. Hell, in 1864 McClellan disowned his party's platform.

Antimatter: So now the GOP is arguing that they don't have to follow or believe in their own platform?


Nobody pays attention to their platform. See above.
 
2012-08-24 09:57:08 AM
I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?
 
2012-08-24 09:57:25 AM

PreMortem: Ann Coulter book pop up. FU

Never a HotAir link again.


ditto, WTF?
 
2012-08-24 09:57:34 AM
Anderson Cooper: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Are you an Asshat?
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: Anderson, Anderson....you are missing the point. I do not wear hats!
 
2012-08-24 09:58:35 AM

burndtdan: Let's be fair, Wasserman-Schultz is kinda a turd. I've seen her on TV a lot and she's wrong about factual statements too often for my liking (as a liberal myself) and she comes off like a douche.


If she didn't have such soaring ambitions she'd be a cheerleader somewhere for a local semi-pro team. She doesn't care about facts, she's going to support the team no matter what.
 
2012-08-24 09:59:26 AM

whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?


Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.
 
2012-08-24 09:59:39 AM

Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.



When all else fails, try actually interviewing and reporting the news.  Still won't save the network.  But at least they will go out like they came in...with some integrity. 
 
2012-08-24 09:59:46 AM
whatsupchuck

I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?



Gary Johnson
 
2012-08-24 10:00:26 AM
I'm sure if Anderson gets a chance to interview Romney, he'll ask him if he supports the abortion plank of the GOP platform, right?
 
2012-08-24 10:00:47 AM

Sgt Otter: Watching her go back to the canned talking point over and over again was pathetic.


That's all she was there for, more air-time to spout the party line. Common tactic, ignore the question asked, answer the question you wanted asked.
 
2012-08-24 10:01:06 AM

keithgabryelski: Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is a vile attack poodle.

The Democratic leadership should tell her to keep her mouth shut. She doesn't offer any insights and only gives Democrats a bad name no matter who she supports.


"Vile Attack Poodle" is now going to be the new name for my band.
 
2012-08-24 10:01:07 AM
Cooper: You're know you're misrepresenting Romney by using an out of context quote, right?
Schultz: I know NOTHING!
gallery.trupela.com
 
2012-08-24 10:01:27 AM
If Mitt has proven one thing in this campaign, it's that his personal convictions and viewpoints are meaningless. If he governs like he's campaigned, he'll be enacting the GOP's agenda, not his own.

So... what does the GOP's platform say about abortion?
 
2012-08-24 10:01:42 AM
 
2012-08-24 10:02:00 AM
Both sides are Romney, so vote Republican.
 
2012-08-24 10:02:05 AM

Dinki: I'm sure if Anderson gets a chance to interview Romney, he'll ask him if he supports the abortion plank of the GOP platform, right?



I think he would.  But unlike the broad brush (heh, broad) being applied by one party to the other, I don't feel I have to agree with the GOP, Democrats, or any specific candidate 100% of the time, and I don't think they should be held to that standard either.  Of course, I'm not a member of the silent majority, liberal conspiracy, or a boy band either...so who cares what I think? :)
 
2012-08-24 10:03:21 AM
FTA: Wolf Blitzer doggedly reminding her that Paul Ryan's Medicare plan would not, in fact, target senior citizens

Does Wolf Blitzer think people never age? Medicare targets senior citizens. How does Ryan's Medicare plan *not* target senior citizens? If you mean that it doesn't target "current senior citizens" then you are right. It targets today's 40 year olds who will become senior citizens in about 20 years. Does Wolf think those 40 year olds will never turn 65?
 
2012-08-24 10:04:26 AM
Anderson in the Pooper? No way. He thinks he's in a personal cotillion.

/Nothing like a log cabin pretty boy to liven things up.
//And that full-size pop-up ad for the Coulterbeast's new book, "Raped" was to die for.
 
2012-08-24 10:04:49 AM

I_C_Weener: When all else fails, try actually interviewing and reporting the news. Still won't save the network. But at least they will go out like they came in...with some integrity.


Unlikely unless they first fire the suits that thought turning CNN into an entertainment network would generate ratings.
 
2012-08-24 10:04:51 AM
Romney has been on both sides of this issue. He has said he supports Roe v Wade and he has said he would gladly pass a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions. Romney also waited 36 hours before calling for Todd Akins to drop out of his Senate race, waiting until everybody else in the GOP had weighed in. The man is a spineless flip flopper.
 
2012-08-24 10:05:06 AM

Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.


See, now you're just shiating all over the Wasserman-Schultz slam fest here by presenting Romneys own words supporting what she said. You know you can't do that here.
 
2012-08-24 10:05:19 AM
Debbie?
AAAAAAAAAAAnderson!
Debbie?
AAAAAAAAAAAnderson!
Debbie?
AAAAAAAAAAAnderson!

// Lisa needs braces
 
2012-08-24 10:06:28 AM

Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.



Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.
 
2012-08-24 10:06:43 AM
The interview looked like a textbook case of being wrong while being right.
 
2012-08-24 10:06:59 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Anderson in the Pooper? No way. He thinks he's in a personal cotillion.

/Nothing like a log cabin pretty boy to liven things up.
//And that full-size pop-up ad for the Coulterbeast's new book, "Raped" was to die for.


Anderson is a Log Cabin Republican?
 
2012-08-24 10:08:09 AM

Muta: Does Wolf think those 40 year olds will never turn 65?


ZOMG Death Panels!
 
2012-08-24 10:08:49 AM

Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.


Wasserman-Shultz was correct in saying Romney support the Republican position on rape and abortion.
 
2012-08-24 10:09:26 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.


Your point?


I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.
 
2012-08-24 10:09:56 AM

Galloping Galoshes: I_C_Weener: When all else fails, try actually interviewing and reporting the news. Still won't save the network. But at least they will go out like they came in...with some integrity.

Unlikely unless they first fire the suits that thought turning CNN into an entertainment network would generate ratings.



Nancy Grace!!!!  That's like hiring The View and claiming integrity.
 
2012-08-24 10:11:24 AM
It's a shame seeing Debbie W-S getting tied in knots over this. Cooper is right and he's picking up the Rmoney of the Assachusettes days. RoboRmoney will jump right on board the fundie conservatard train at first opportunity. And Pooper citing the LATimes like it's the bible. Hilarious.
We know who Pooper will be voting for.
 
2012-08-24 10:17:28 AM
It's impossible to lie about R-Money's views on abortion, since he's endorsed everything from protecting abortion rights to completely banning it (personhood amendment). It all depends on when he's asked and who is doing the asking.

If Debbie W-S can't or won't articulate that, she is failing horribly at her job.
 
2012-08-24 10:18:55 AM
Favorite line from the article: hey, politics ain't beanbag.

Bad Lip Reading assist.
 
2012-08-24 10:19:06 AM

NateGrey: [images.politico.com image 605x328]


That's confusing. Wouldn't check marks instead of ex's had made more sense.
 
2012-08-24 10:20:01 AM

I_C_Weener: Galloping Galoshes: I_C_Weener: When all else fails, try actually interviewing and reporting the news. Still won't save the network. But at least they will go out like they came in...with some integrity.

Unlikely unless they first fire the suits that thought turning CNN into an entertainment network would generate ratings.


Nancy Grace!!!!  That's like hiring The View and claiming integrity.

Please don't mention that name anywhere ever. She's nothing but a continually exploding fragmentation grenade. No good done whatever.
 
2012-08-24 10:20:32 AM

red5ish: Romney has been on both sides of this issue. He has said he supports Roe v Wade and he has said he would gladly pass a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions. Romney also waited 36 hours before calling for Todd Akins to drop out of his Senate race, waiting until everybody else in the GOP had weighed in. The man is a spineless flip flopper.


He's a consistent flip flopper. He sticks to his guns.
 
2012-08-24 10:21:53 AM

HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.


Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.
 
2012-08-24 10:22:03 AM
It's the War on Women, stupid.
 
2012-08-24 10:22:19 AM
1) DWS is an intellectually dishonest dumbass.
2) Regardless, Romney has NOT been consistent in his stated opinions on abortion.
3) This is the liberal media the right is complaining about?
 
2012-08-24 10:25:29 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.


Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.


My point is that Wasserman-Schultz correctly described Romney's position.
 
2012-08-24 10:25:49 AM
DWS's spin: Because Romney's the nominee and his people kinda sorta get to write the platform - which isn't binding on him or anyone else - we should ignore his stated position

I'm sure the good folks at Hot Air will not go apeshiat against Obama if the Democratic platform contains a controversial position that differs from Obama's stated position.
 
2012-08-24 10:27:20 AM

Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.


bearsrepeating.jpg
 
2012-08-24 10:28:52 AM

Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.


The right's position on the amendment is the same as the platform: it doesn't matter, an amendment will never be ratified, it will never have the force of law, and a platform doesn't trump (he he) a candidate's personal position on a subject.

Gee, I wonder why they bother then?
 
2012-08-24 10:30:47 AM

Muta: FTA: Wolf Blitzer doggedly reminding her that Paul Ryan's Medicare plan would not, in fact, target senior citizens

Does Wolf Blitzer think people never age? Medicare targets senior citizens. How does Ryan's Medicare plan *not* target senior citizens? If you mean that it doesn't target "current senior citizens" then you are right. It targets today's 40 year olds who will become senior citizens in about 20 years. Does Wolf think those 40 year olds will never turn 65?


To be fair, you can't be a senior citizen if you're dead. Do enough damage to Medicare and more senior citizens could die sooner. Those that didn't would be more likely to have enough cash/assets to not need Medicare, so its removal would be less damaging.

/Pedantic arguments are my only arguments.
 
2012-08-24 10:30:50 AM
You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie?

Which one?
 
2012-08-24 10:31:56 AM
Mitt Romney: Not in favor of doing away with all abortions such as in cases of rape or incest, but would in no way, shape or form prevent it from becoming law if it landed on his desk.

For further information, please see Paul Ryan, Romney VP Pick.
 
2012-08-24 10:32:08 AM

Antimatter: So now the GOP is arguing that they don't have to follow or believe in their own platform?


No, just that the voters shouldn't pay attention to it because it doesn't really mean anything (unless you agree with it; then it means everything). When Congressional Republicans start drafting laws based on it, why, that's just coincidence.
 
2012-08-24 10:32:47 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.


The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with horrific ramifications for everyone.
 
2012-08-24 10:33:24 AM

Cythraul: keithgabryelski: Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is a vile attack poodle.

The Democratic leadership should tell her to keep her mouth shut. She doesn't offer any insights and only gives Democrats a bad name no matter who she supports.

"Vile Attack Poodle" is now going to be the new name for my band.


i2.cdn.turner.com
i.ehow.co.uk 

What a vile attack poodle may look like.
 
2012-08-24 10:33:33 AM

Aarontology: cman: Anderson is a stand up kinda guy.

I really like him.

Too bad he's a robot.

Nobody can work as hard as he does, have as many shows and travel as much as he does, and still look as good as he does. The gay thing is just there for a cover up, since people will think "Oh, he's gay. He takes care of himself"


Have you ever actually done any hard work ?
 
2012-08-24 10:35:00 AM

lilbjorn: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie?



Mitt Romney does, too. "I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU, ALRIGHT?!"
 
2012-08-24 10:35:43 AM

sprawl15: The interview looked like a textbook case of being wrong while being right.


Agreed. Debbie's not an intellectual heavyweight, and could have framed the argument thusly: "Anderson- look at who Romney surrounds himself with. He might not have overtly supported banning all abortions, but he won't think twice about doing it if somehow an amendment were brought forth that stated exactly that."
 
2012-08-24 10:36:07 AM
I can't stand that yenta.
 
2012-08-24 10:39:01 AM
Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.
 
2012-08-24 10:41:17 AM

McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.


I call bullshiat. Nobody on either side of the aisle is smarter from an Anderbilt piece.
 
2012-08-24 10:42:34 AM
That woman is an idiot. The DNC needs to pitch her overboard and find someone with some substance.

I have seen her do the same thing so many times I started wondering why she keeps doing it. So far I am torn between "delusional" and "just plain dumb".

This is a typical exchange:

Reporter: (the thing you are saying) is factually incorrect. Do you want to explain or back up your statements?

DWS: That is not true. (blinks)

Reporter: Here are sources refuting your claims.

DWS: No, that is not right (blinks)

Reporter : You are being dishonest by repeating these statements.

DWS: (blinks) That does not matter.
 
2012-08-24 10:45:31 AM
Can it be that Romney represents a different variation of the Heisenberg quantum dynamics? One that REVERTS to super-position when you momentarily stop observing it?
 
2012-08-24 10:45:56 AM

HeartBurnKid: If Mitt has proven one thing in this campaign, it's that his personal convictions and viewpoints are meaningless. If he governs like he's campaigned, he'll be enacting the GOP's agenda, not his own.

So... what does the GOP's platform say about abortion?


It is like liberals haven't noticed the vast stances of Obama that have changed since becoming president. Rendition, drone strikes, continued war, support of wall street, etc. Obama has not governed as 2008 campaign Obama, many in the fark left have even called him a republican. Is this really the path you want to go down, comparing.changed views?
 
2012-08-24 10:46:55 AM

stevetherobot: I'm sure the good folks at Hot Air will not go apeshiat against Obama if the Democratic platform contains a controversial position that differs from Obama's stated position.


I am pretty sure there a few of those. Reason looked back at the 2008 platform and compared it what the Administration has done over the last few years. There were more than a few glaring inconsistencies.
 
2012-08-24 10:47:32 AM

red5ish: Romney has been on both sides of this issue. He has said he supports Roe v Wade and he has said he would gladly pass a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions. Romney also waited 36 hours before calling for Todd Akins to drop out of his Senate race, waiting until everybody else in the GOP had weighed in. The man is a spineless flip flopper.


Wow. Is all you can do is lie? Romney has always touted.the rape and incest exceptions and talked about akin within 24 hours.
 
2012-08-24 10:48:51 AM

EyeballKid: McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.

I call bullshiat. Nobody on either side of the aisle is smarter from an Anderbilt piece.


I see your point and agree but I think the smarter came from me...not from CNN.

/Wolf Blitzer DIAF
 
2012-08-24 10:49:42 AM

Aarontology: cman: Anderson is a stand up kinda guy.

I really like him.

Too bad he's a robot.

Nobody can work as hard as he does, have as many shows and travel as much as he does, and still look as good as he does. The gay thing is just there for a cover up, since people will think "Oh, he's gay. He takes care of himself"


I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
 
2012-08-24 10:52:31 AM

HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.


Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.


That is YOUR assumption of the amendment. Most conservatives agree with rape.and incest exceptions. You are using your own biased view to write an amendment you haven't seen in order to attack it. Liberals are kings of doing this. Tax policy center finally admitted they wrote their own assumptions.into the analysis of romneys tax plan and admit there are ways to make it deficit neutral without raising.taxes on the middle class. Liberals are very fond of idealizing what they think gop plans are before written and then attacking those plans and not the actual plans. One of the most annoying aspects of liberalism. Haidt has shown liberals can't understand conservative ideals, and liberals keep proving this assertion right.
 
2012-08-24 10:52:39 AM
Anyone who claims Mitt Romney has A position on abortion is lying.
 
2012-08-24 10:53:41 AM

MyRandomName: red5ish: Romney has been on both sides of this issue. He has said he supports Roe v Wade and he has said he would gladly pass a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions. Romney also waited 36 hours before calling for Todd Akins to drop out of his Senate race, waiting until everybody else in the GOP had weighed in. The man is a spineless flip flopper.

Wow. Is all you can do is lie? Romney has always touted.the rape and incest exceptions and talked about akin within 24 hours.


Does "always" in your world only encompass the current campaign?
 
2012-08-24 10:53:46 AM

MyRandomName: Romney has always touted.the rape and incest exceptions


And how does the "rape and incest exceptions" fit in with his support for an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception? You do realize those are two diametrically opposite positions, right? You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?
 
2012-08-24 10:54:32 AM

PreMortem: Ann Coulter book pop up. FU

Never a HotAir link again.


I got Dinesh D'erpa
 
2012-08-24 10:55:23 AM

Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?


Why?
 
2012-08-24 10:55:28 AM

magusdevil: Anyone who claims Mitt Romney has A position on abortion is lying.


Hell the same could be said for Romneys position on Anything.
 
2012-08-24 10:57:00 AM

McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.


...and yet, they only do "real journalism" when they're interviewing Democrats. Probably because they know they can get away with it.

Calling Palin, Bachmann, etc. out on a lie: "Stop beating up on the poor woman! She doesn't know anything!"
Calling DWS, Pelosi, Clinton, etc. out on a lie: "Well, the coont probably had it coming, she should be back in the kitchen!"
 
2012-08-24 10:57:32 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?


Unless you want to try the fetus for invading the woman's privacy and give it the death penalty I am pretty sure it would be considered murder since it's a person and all.
 
2012-08-24 10:58:32 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?


Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.
 
2012-08-24 10:59:18 AM

Saiga410: vpb: Heisenberg-Romney principle makes it impossible to say exactly what his position is at any specific time.

Actually you can know his position at any specific time. It is if you do know this, you do not know where he is going with it. And conversly you can know where is is going but not know what his position is.


Heisenberg says that you cannot simultaneously know an objects position and velocity (rate of change in the position). Now, Mitt being Mitt, we can take it as a given that the position is changing, and at this point in time, almost certainly towards the right. Therefore, with the velocity (mostly) known, we cannot know his current position.

But Karac, you says, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle only applies to objects on a quantum scale. Well, says I, who here doubts that Romney's CPU is a positronic brain?
 
2012-08-24 10:59:38 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?


Because it's then murder. There are 3 positions in this debate.
1. Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.
2. Abortion is murder because the fetus is a person.
3. Abortion is murder, because the fetus is a person, but it's somehow magically ok for us to murder a person if they were conceived in rape or incest.

Two of these positions are morally consistent.
 
2012-08-24 10:59:56 AM

Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.


Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.
 
2012-08-24 11:03:47 AM
i51.tinypic.comi56.tinypic.com 

/God bless her heart
//Democrats please don't let her go!
 
2012-08-24 11:04:59 AM

coeyagi: sprawl15: The interview looked like a textbook case of being wrong while being right.

Agreed. Debbie's not an intellectual heavyweight, and could have framed the argument thusly: "Anderson- look at who Romney surrounds himself with. He might not have overtly supported banning all abortions, but he won't think twice about doing it if somehow an amendment were brought forth that stated exactly that."


I'd have gotten in a jab at Ryan by saying that he's known for two things: the Ryan budget that eliminates Medicare and being the strongest anti-abortion member of the house...and Romney apparently doesn't want him for the budget.
 
2012-08-24 11:06:29 AM

soy_bomb: [i51.tinypic.com image 320x213][i56.tinypic.com image 284x213] 

/God bless her heart
//Democrats please don't let her go!


weknowmemes.com
Lookout....
 
2012-08-24 11:07:56 AM
As Mark Twain once wrote, "A lie is half way around the world before the truth gets it's shoes on."
 
And who but Samuel Clemens would know better?
 
2012-08-24 11:09:22 AM

I_C_Weener: As Mark Twain once wrote, "A lie is half way around the world before the truth gets it's shoes on."
 
And who but Samuel Clemens would know better?


Wait a minute... I've never seen Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain at the same time. You don't suppose...
 
2012-08-24 11:11:06 AM

Dr Dreidel: Galloping Galoshes: Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.

The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with horrific ramifications for everyone.


All laws may be amended. Your second statement is but one side of the argument. Of course, since the other side disagrees with your position and assumptions, they are either stupid, evil, or both.
 
2012-08-24 11:11:33 AM

Dinki: Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.


Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?
 
2012-08-24 11:11:57 AM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?

Because it's then murder. There are 3 positions in this debate.
1. Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.
2. Abortion is murder because the fetus is a person.
3. Abortion is murder, because the fetus is a person, but it's somehow magically ok for us to murder a person if they were conceived in rape or incest.

Two of these positions are morally consistent.


Pretty much.
 
2012-08-24 11:12:40 AM

sprawl15: coeyagi: sprawl15: The interview looked like a textbook case of being wrong while being right.

Agreed. Debbie's not an intellectual heavyweight, and could have framed the argument thusly: "Anderson- look at who Romney surrounds himself with. He might not have overtly supported banning all abortions, but he won't think twice about doing it if somehow an amendment were brought forth that stated exactly that."

I'd have gotten in a jab at Ryan by saying that he's known for two things: the Ryan budget that eliminates Medicare and being the strongest anti-abortion member of the house...and Romney apparently doesn't want him for the budget.


Yeah, even better.

Or just go back to... "Anderson, just what in the name of Zeus' butthole does Romney stand for? He could stand for the sodomizing of kittens for all we know. And if we were to have evidence of that he believe this, what assurances would we have that he'd believe it tomorrow? And what assurances would we have that he wouldn't later down the road retroactively retract his switched stance on sodomizing felines? Anderson, Romney has spent decades and millions of dollars obfuscating the real Romney, if such a thing exists. Don't question me what he believes. Question him. Get him to spell it out, write out a god damn list of things he believes. Hold him to that and if he budges, ask him to explain in FULL DETAIL why. Do your job for once, man."
 
2012-08-24 11:13:12 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?


So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?
 
2012-08-24 11:13:43 AM

Dinki: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?

Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.


At least in Florida, a woman would have the option to kill that unborn baby if she felt like she might be harmed in the birthing process.
 
2012-08-24 11:14:11 AM
 
2012-08-24 11:14:29 AM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?

Because it's then murder. There are 3 positions in this debate.
1. Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.
2. Abortion is murder because the fetus is a person.
3. Abortion is murder, because the fetus is a person, but it's somehow magically ok for us to murder a person if they were conceived in rape or incest.

Two of these positions are morally consistent.


Question:

At what point do you believe that a "fetus" becomes a person that should be protected from things like Late Term Abortion?
 
2012-08-24 11:15:37 AM

HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.

Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.


Yup, but supporting the amendment while claiming he favors some exceptions allows him wiggle room for the shills.
 
2012-08-24 11:16:20 AM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?

So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?


So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?
 
2012-08-24 11:17:17 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?

So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?

So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?


Also, did I not just say, and you quoted, that not all fetuses are humans? Fetus != Human
 
2012-08-24 11:17:36 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?

Because it's then murder. There are 3 positions in this debate.
1. Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.
2. Abortion is murder because the fetus is a person.
3. Abortion is murder, because the fetus is a person, but it's somehow magically ok for us to murder a person if they were conceived in rape or incest.

Two of these positions are morally consistent.

Question:

At what point do you believe that a "fetus" becomes a person that should be protected from things like Late Term Abortion?


I'm with Will Rogers when it comes to determining when life begins. 
www.garbervilletheatre.com
 
2012-08-24 11:19:02 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?


When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.
 
2012-08-24 11:19:08 AM

kronicfeld: Isn't Romney on record holding different views on rape/incest exceptions? everything


Fixed that for ya.

Seriously, the thing that scares me most about Romney is that I have no clue what his position will be. In the 90's he tried to pass himself off as more liberal than Ted Kennedy. In the GOP primary debates he tried to pass himself off as more conservative than everyone else.
 
2012-08-24 11:19:58 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.


So late term abortions should be legal.
 
2012-08-24 11:20:08 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?

So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?

So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?


So you're OK with forcing women to go to term once they become pregnant regardless of circumstances. Gotcha.
 
2012-08-24 11:20:19 AM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?

So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?



Rape fetusies are gollem
 
2012-08-24 11:21:03 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?


I'm okay with giving a woman control over her own body. Scientifically, a fetus isn't a person until they are born and have a birth certificate. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
 
2012-08-24 11:21:28 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.

So late term abortions should be legal.


Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?
 
2012-08-24 11:21:41 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.

So late term abortions should be legal.


Sure.
 
2012-08-24 11:21:42 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, did I not just say, and you quoted, that not all fetuses are humans? Fetus != Human


Well, unless you're some kind of goddamn idiot, we're not talking about babboon abortions, here.
 
2012-08-24 11:21:50 AM
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a terrible representative of the Democratic Party. Why do they always get the worst possible people to run the national committees of both parties?
 
2012-08-24 11:21:54 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?



The whole purpose of the personhood amendment is to define the fetus as human and confer on that 'human' all the rights and protections that the constitution proclaims. Otherwise, why bother even going through the process? If the sole purpose of the personhood amendment was to simply change the nomenclature but not actually change any rights or protections, do you really think the anti-abortionists would be backing it?

And no, you can't define a fetus as human and simultaneously define exceptions that would take away fundamental rights from that human. Again, that really is the sole purpose of this amendment.
 
2012-08-24 11:21:56 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.

So late term abortions should be legal.


Yes they should be legal.
 
2012-08-24 11:23:22 AM
That is why they interview folks like DWS, Allen West and Trump, they want them to say stupid things.
 
2012-08-24 11:23:23 AM

Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.


I have experienced a number of appalling right-wing Republican presidents in my adult lifetime, beginning with Richard Nixon, who have worked hard to destroy America and its people. I keep hoping we can elect a series of liberal Democratic presidents and a similarly-controlled Congress who might be able to dig this country out of the shiat-pit the conservatives have dragged it into.
 
2012-08-24 11:23:25 AM

I_C_Weener: Rape fetusies are gollem


"Fetusies," the fantasy fetish you pick up when dressing up like a giant baby is too mainstream.
 
2012-08-24 11:23:30 AM

Krymson Tyde: Did you miss Soledad O'brien's interview of John Sununu?


My bad, I meant that as a reply to this:

IlGreven: McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.

...and yet, they only do "real journalism" when they're interviewing Democrats. Probably because they know they can get away with it.

Calling Palin, Bachmann, etc. out on a lie: "Stop beating up on the poor woman! She doesn't know anything!"
Calling DWS, Pelosi, Clinton, etc. out on a lie: "Well, the coont probably had it coming, she should be back in the kitchen!"

 
2012-08-24 11:23:55 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?


I enjoy how you phrase that like it's some sort of gotcha question. Isn't it obvious that's what he meant?
 
2012-08-24 11:24:00 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?


Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.
 
2012-08-24 11:24:17 AM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?

I'm okay with giving a woman control over her own body. Scientifically, a fetus isn't a person until they are born and have a birth certificate. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.


So you would have no problem with someone aborting a fetus at say......day 265?
 
2012-08-24 11:24:28 AM

vpb: Heisenberg-Romney principle makes it impossible to say exactly what his position is at any specific time.


exactly. he is at once all and nothing. the alpha and omega
 
2012-08-24 11:25:04 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.

Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?


A fetus would not be born no, but it would be a person. And the constitution does not limit it's protections to just citizens. That's why if the police arrest a Japanese citizen traveling in the states they still have to read him his rights. A human fetus would be a person, and murder laws would have to consider the death of that person to be a crime the same as the death of anybody else.

And sure, a personhood amendment could be written to contain exceptions, but why would it? The whole point of a personhood amendment is to get rid of those exceptions.
 
2012-08-24 11:25:23 AM

cman: Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?


You really don't think that Romney has held every single stance on the abortion issue at one time?
 
2012-08-24 11:25:37 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.


Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.
 
2012-08-24 11:25:43 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.

So late term abortions should be legal.

Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?


upload.wikimedia.org
The left has been pretty consistent and forthcoming with this. It's not the gotcha question you think it is.
 
2012-08-24 11:25:54 AM

Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.

Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.

Yup, but supporting the amendment while claiming he favors some exceptions allows him wiggle room for the shills.


Is "allows him wiggle" a euphemism for "pisses off his fundie base"?
 
2012-08-24 11:26:09 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.


He's quickly trying to change the subject away from the whole point of the Personhood Amendment.
 
2012-08-24 11:26:31 AM

DarwiOdrade: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a terrible representative of the Democratic Party. Why do they always get the worst possible people to run the national committees of both parties?


To have them overshadow their actual party leaders' comments (not that Obama has a huge problem with foot-in-mouth disease)?
 
2012-08-24 11:27:21 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.
 
2012-08-24 11:27:33 AM
If republicans cared as much about children as they do fetuses this country would be a much better place.
 
2012-08-24 11:28:33 AM

Vodka Zombie: "Romney thinks abortion doctors should be executed."

This is currently not Mitt Romney's position, but it will be at some point in this campaign. We're just planning ahead.


If your position is that abortion is murder, women who have them and their doctors are guilty of 1st degree murder, the penalty for which is execution in most states.
 
2012-08-24 11:29:31 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: At what point do you believe that a "fetus" becomes a person that should be protected from murder from things like Late Term Abortion?


He was saying murder. So I corrected your question. If I can answer, I'll say birth.

Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.
 
2012-08-24 11:29:41 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


And the Derp shines through.
 
2012-08-24 11:29:52 AM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.


"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
 
2012-08-24 11:30:56 AM
Between what's going on at the state and federal level...

www.guttmacher.org 

and the fact that Romney, was asked within the last year if he would support a constitutional personhood amendment said "Absolutely"...

and the fact that Ryan co-sponsered a bill with Todd Akin that split hairs between rape and so-called "forceable rape" to justify a ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother...

and the fact that the GOP just made "no exceptions" part of the party platform...

and the fact that Romney can't be trusted to hold steady on anything he says about any policy position...

means that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is totally justified.
 
2012-08-24 11:31:03 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


Until what age do you approve of the murder of children who were conceived in rape or incest? Is there any age limit or can they be terminated at any point in their lives?
 
2012-08-24 11:31:53 AM

mrshowrules: Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.


And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.
 
2012-08-24 11:32:17 AM

karmaceutical: At least in Florida, a woman would have the option to kill that unborn baby if she felt like she might be harmed in the birthing process.


You magnificent bastard
 
2012-08-24 11:32:44 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I do know that he picked a running mate that thinks pregnancy means you like rape though.


Okay, here's the thing, Paul Ryan's bill with Akin uses the term forcible rape - yes. But it's a LEGAL term that was used out of context by Akin in his quote, not in the bill. To review what forcible rape is according to the FBI:

"Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded."

Forcible rape is actually defined that way to separate from statutory rape, other consensual sex offenses. The bill which Ryan and Akin co-authored was to prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of forcible rape.

Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.

Welcome to the 2012 campaign.
 
2012-08-24 11:33:09 AM
Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"

Why yes, yes subby. Both sides are equally robotic and bad. I think I will vote Republican.
 
2012-08-24 11:34:33 AM

Notabunny: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.

Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.

Yup, but supporting the amendment while claiming he favors some exceptions allows him wiggle room for the shills.

Is "allows him wiggle" a euphemism for "pisses off his fundie base"?


He can direct the fundies to the Personhood Amendment and tell everyone else he favors some exceptions. It's classic Romney!
 
2012-08-24 11:36:48 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."


Which is why he supports an amendment because those really keep the government out of the equation.
 
2012-08-24 11:37:02 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


If life starts at conception is the drinking age now 20 years and 3 months?
 
2012-08-24 11:37:47 AM

mksmith: Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.

I have experienced a number of appalling right-wing Republican presidents in my adult lifetime, beginning with Richard Nixon, who have worked hard to destroy America and its people. I keep hoping we can elect a series of liberal Democratic presidents and a similarly-controlled Congress who might be able to dig this country out of the shiat-pit the conservatives have dragged it into.


Nixon, right-wing? Paranoid, sleazy, ok, but right-wing? He created the EPA, OSHA, imposed price controls, proposed health care for all employees and the poor, supported the ERA and proposed the first federal affirmative action program, reached out to China, actively supported integration...
Not even close to what would be considered today a right-wing president.
 
2012-08-24 11:38:21 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: mrshowrules: Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.

And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.


You want to reduce/eliminate late term abortion, the solution is not criminlization of it. It is sex education, birth control, socialized health care and supported organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Look at the stats of the US versus the rest of the world. They are all doing a better job eliminating this as an elective procedure. I'd rather a late term fetus be aborted than be another unwanted child with serious medical problems and disabilities for life.
 
2012-08-24 11:39:56 AM

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Which is why he supports an amendment because those really keep the government out of the equation.


I wasn't aware that Romney was a Libertarian as I am.
 
2012-08-24 11:39:57 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: mrshowrules: Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.

And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.


"we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

one of these statements is BS
 
2012-08-24 11:40:25 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish.


No, I'll read into your near plagiarism of the relevant Wiki sentence and sudden change in tone whatever I wish.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You're the one that has no problem with killing children.


Really? Please state where I said this.
 
2012-08-24 11:40:46 AM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: mrshowrules: Late term abortion can/should be reduced/nearly eliminated from society but it is never murder. There is never should never be a criminal aspect to it IMHO.

And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.

"we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

one of these statements is BS


Do you believe 100% with everything in your party's platform?
 
2012-08-24 11:40:54 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.

Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?


If we changed that to "conceived," then the GOP could complain about anchor-farking.

/as long is it's not legitimate rape, of course.
 
2012-08-24 11:41:20 AM

lennavan: Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"

Why yes, yes subby. Both sides are equally robotic and bad. I think I will vote Republican.


Subby must misunderstand the robot metaphor, since I don't think anyone would accuse Wasserman-Schultz of being unemotional.
 
2012-08-24 11:41:26 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Dr Dreidel: Galloping Galoshes: Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.

The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with horrific ramifications for everyone.

All laws may be amended. Your second statement is but one side of the argument. Of course, since the other side disagrees with your position and assumptions, they are either stupid, evil, or both.


In this case, the amending would be done to the Constitution, but theoretically, yes - it could be done. Won't be, but the door's open. Good luck, and I'm sure the next Republican majority will be ALL over making abortion illegal at the federal level. Just like that last time they- oh, wait.

At the state level is where you're having success, but don't look at a list of unplanned pregnancies by state or abortions per state or out-of-wedlock births per state. You may find that women in those states high on each of those lists are the ones that want (need?) the services more, and that doesn't spell good things for the women in those states.

If you don't like the second half of the statement, how about I change the tense? "The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with that has historically had horrific ramifications for everyone.

Unless you like large families as a rule (with increasing mortality rates for both the women and their later offspring), abortion-seeking women turning to dangerously unhealthy alternatives (possibly killing/hurting themselves and causing grief for everyone they love), and, if you're one of the "Plan B is abortion is murder" types (or worse, "contraception is murder", but I'll credit you with not being that crazy), families not having any options to limit the number of kids they have while also retaining the freedom to bone as they please.

The reasons it should stay legal are:
1) Until someone can logically and scientifically equate a clump of undifferentiated cells implanted (or almost-implanted) in a uterine wall with an infant child, they are different things. We can treat them differently, as we do with under-18 and over-18 (I realize this is orders of magnitude above allowing them to buy cigarrettes).
2) So long as SCOTUS says abortion's legal, it's legal (federally speaking). Stop fighting this battle - you've lost (and the GOP won't help you, same as they haven't since 1973. You've helped them get elected plenty, but have they made abortion illegal yet?). Keep fighting in the states, if you please, but realize that you're only hurting the people, not helping.
3) Your religion does not get to tell me how I live. If my religion says that I must stone adultresses (and assuming you're a Muslim, Jew or Christian, it does), why keep me from carrying out what my religion demands? If my faith says that your giving blood is akin to murder, can I ban you from giving blood?
4) Because people who don't believe abortion is murder have rights, too. They want safe access to legal medical procedures. If we make appendectomies illegal, only outlaws will get appendectomies, but more importantly, only outlaws will perform them.
 
2012-08-24 11:41:48 AM

Galloping Galoshes: mksmith: Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.

I have experienced a number of appalling right-wing Republican presidents in my adult lifetime, beginning with Richard Nixon, who have worked hard to destroy America and its people. I keep hoping we can elect a series of liberal Democratic presidents and a similarly-controlled Congress who might be able to dig this country out of the shiat-pit the conservatives have dragged it into.

Nixon, right-wing? Paranoid, sleazy, ok, but right-wing? He created the EPA, OSHA, imposed price controls, proposed health care for all employees and the poor, supported the ERA and proposed the first federal affirmative action program, reached out to China, actively supported integration...
Not even close to what would be considered today a right-wing president.


By today's standards Reagan would be considered a moderate to liberal President.
 
2012-08-24 11:41:52 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And yet there are those that say that it is a person once it can live outside of the womb. If a person, is it not murder if it can live outside the womb?

And I'm sorry, but if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it.


My philosophical difficulty with that position is that, as medical science advances, the point when a child can survive outside the womb continues to be earlier and earlier. So, can a fetus at a particular point of development not be a person in 2012 but be a person in 2020? What happens when the artificial womb is developed, and all fetuses can safely be born with all development occuring outside the womb?
 
2012-08-24 11:42:43 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish.

No, I'll read into your near plagiarism of the relevant Wiki sentence and sudden change in tone whatever I wish.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Really? Please state where I said this.


This just in: stating scientific facts is "near plagiarism" of a wiki page.

And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable. Since every fetus is different, you have to set a baseline. You are ok with killing a child that could be viable simply because it is before the cut off date for late term abortions.
 
2012-08-24 11:43:02 AM

skilbride: Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.


According to your post, he does think some rape is okay, because he wanted to make abortion by statutory rape or incest illegal. Why would you do that?
 
2012-08-24 11:44:36 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable. Since every fetus is different, you have to set a baseline. You are ok with killing a child that could be viable simply because it is before the cut off date for late term abortions.


Also, viable with or without medical assistance.

For instance, it's possible for a baby to barely be formed and put it in an incubator and survive.

So once we can play god and keep a baby alive with machines outside a womans womb - is that illegal? Or should it be when a baby can survive without machines?
 
2012-08-24 11:44:47 AM

cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.

According to your post, he does think some rape is okay, because he wanted to make abortion by statutory rape or incest illegal. Why would you do that?


We could just call the rape-caused fetuses "illegal aliens" and the GOP would stick an AR-15 up every victim's coochie.
 
2012-08-24 11:45:06 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.


Again, state where I have said this.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Since every fetus is different, you have to set a baseline.


wtfamireading.jpg
 
2012-08-24 11:45:18 AM
www.pleated-jeans.com
I Saper wrmans rhite to chuse
 
2012-08-24 11:45:46 AM

Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.


There's a candidate who's had more than 4 years of experience as president?
 
2012-08-24 11:46:04 AM

magusdevil: soy_bomb: [i51.tinypic.com image 320x213][i56.tinypic.com image 284x213] 

/God bless her heart
//Democrats please don't let her go!

[weknowmemes.com image 543x351]
Lookout....


www.investors.com

Whoa!
 
2012-08-24 11:47:01 AM

skilbride: HotWingConspiracy: I do know that he picked a running mate that thinks pregnancy means you like rape though.

Forcible rape is actually defined that way to separate from statutory rape, other consensual sex offenses. The bill which Ryan and Akin co-authored was to prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of forcible rape.

Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.

Welcome to the 2012 campaign.


Consensual sex offenses are not rape. Statutory rape exists as a concept because minors can not legally consent to sex.

Nobody who matters is saying that Ryan thinks some rape is OK. Nobody who matters is saying that Ryan believes that women who are raped can prevent conception.

People are correctly saying that Ryan and Romney and the GOP - and Todd Akin are on the same page: no exceptions for incest, rape, or the health of the mother. No amount of Romney/Ryan flip flopping can change that.
 
2012-08-24 11:47:05 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.

Again, state where I have said this.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Since every fetus is different, you have to set a baseline.

wtfamireading.jpg


Are you going to personally determine if each fetus is viable? If not, then you have to set a baseline at which "most" will be. Some will be viable before that cutoff where abortion is determined to not be ok. You are fine with aborting those viable fetuses as long as they are before the cutoff.
 
2012-08-24 11:48:52 AM

Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.


There are precisely four people on the planet right now who have more experience as President of the United States than Obama, and two of them are ineligible to run again.
 
2012-08-24 11:49:17 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If not, then you have to set a baseline at which "most" will be.


Why do "you" have to do anything? Why can't we let the actual doctors decide? Oh wait, we do that already. Go away now.
 
2012-08-24 11:50:13 AM

cameroncrazy1984: According to your post, he does think some rape is okay, because he wanted to make abortion by statutory rape or incest illegal. Why would you do that?


Now you're getting into the legalese of the mess. Here's how it rolls out:

Statutory rape is actually forcible rape no matter how you work is because they aren't considered adults in the eyes of the law and therefore can not make their own decisions.

In instances where a father rapes his teenage daughter, it's statutory and incest.

If a father rapes his 18 year old daughter by drugging her, it's forcible and incest.

The only people really blocked by using federal funding by the bill would have been people over the age of 18 who banged family members.

At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.
 
2012-08-24 11:50:25 AM

skilbride: HotWingConspiracy: I do know that he picked a running mate that thinks pregnancy means you like rape though.

Okay, here's the thing, Paul Ryan's bill with Akin uses the term forcible rape - yes. But it's a LEGAL term that was used out of context by Akin in his quote, not in the bill. To review what forcible rape is according to the FBI:

"Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded."

Forcible rape is actually defined that way to separate from statutory rape, other consensual sex offenses. The bill which Ryan and Akin co-authored was to prohibit federal funding of abortions except in instances of forcible rape.

Paul Ryan is unapologetically pro-life - and everyone knows that. But the assertion that he thinks some rape is okay because of his proximity to Todd Akin on an abortion bill is irresponsible, untrue and frankly, disgusting.

Welcome to the 2012 campaign.


The FBI's UCR? Heavens to Betsy, that undoes all the criticism of Todd Akin!

Or, if you bothered understanding the acronym, the FBI differentiates between forcible rapes and "non-"forcible rapes for the purposes of statistical record-keeping. Both are still illegal and both are "legitimate" crimes and both are still rape, and - crucially - both are treated the same on an enforcement level.

What the FBI does is separate forcible from non-forcible into two statistical categories for reporting purposes. What Akin/Ryan's bill would have done is only allowed federal funding for an abortion if a woman can prove assault with her rape. Still think there's no difference?
 
2012-08-24 11:50:39 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Are you going to personally determine if each fetus is viable?


No, I'm not a doctor. Nor would it be sensible to have me personally wander the nation checking pregnancies of fetuses.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If not, then you have to set a baseline at which "most" will be.


No, you don't.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.


Again, state where I have said this.
 
2012-08-24 11:51:25 AM

Fart_Machine: Notabunny: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.

Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.

Yup, but supporting the amendment while claiming he favors some exceptions allows him wiggle room for the shills.

Is "allows him wiggle" a euphemism for "pisses off his fundie base"?

He can direct the fundies to the Personhood Amendment and tell everyone else he favors some exceptions. It's classic Romney!


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-24 11:52:12 AM

skilbride: At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.


So, it did something that is already prohibited under the Hyde Amendment? What's the point of that?
 
2012-08-24 11:52:36 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.

Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.

Actually it's your side that believes that fetuses are children, but has no problem killing them in the cases of rape or incest.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Which is why he supports an amendment because those really keep the government out of the equation.

I wasn't aware that Romney was a Libertarian as I am.


So you agree that such an amendment would be overreaching then and make any exceptions illegal.
 
2012-08-24 11:53:34 AM

cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.

So, it did something that is already prohibited under the Hyde Amendment? What's the point of that?


Because congress is totally inefficient and full of a bunch of narcissistic assholes? :)

/ I think we can all agree on that?
 
2012-08-24 11:54:58 AM

skilbride: cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.

So, it did something that is already prohibited under the Hyde Amendment? What's the point of that?

Because congress is totally inefficient and full of a bunch of narcissistic assholes? :)

/ I think we can all agree on that?


And by Congress, you mean the current Vice Presidential candidate from the Republican party. You don't see Democrats putting forth bills making something illegal that already is illegal.
 
2012-08-24 11:56:11 AM
Political mouthpieces stretch the truth to gain points for their party. Film at never because it's not farking newsworthy
 
2012-08-24 11:57:12 AM

Dr Dreidel: Galloping Galoshes: Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.

The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with horrific ramifications for everyone.


Aaaaand what SCOTUS established in Roe v. Wade is almost exactly what was the accepted standard under English common law for somewhere around 800 years.

Broadly accepted compromises that allow a society to function: how do they work?
 
2012-08-24 11:57:52 AM

Dr Dreidel: that has historically had horrific ramifications for everyone.


Your absolutism is misplaced and incorrect.

Dr Dreidel: families not having any options to limit the number of kids they have while also retaining the freedom to bone as they please.


Abortion as contraception I disagree with. Take some responsibility for your actions.

Dr Dreidel: 1) Until someone can logically and scientifically equate a clump of undifferentiated cells implanted (or almost-implanted) in a uterine wall with an infant child, they are different things. We can treat them differently, as we do with under-18 and over-18 (I realize this is orders of magnitude above allowing them to buy cigarrettes).


Until science can tell us when a fetus is a child, I would go the other way.

Dr Dreidel: So long as SCOTUS says abortion's legal, it's legal (federally speaking). Stop fighting this battle - you've lost


"So long as" implies that change is possible, so people won't stop fighting. Also, they won't stop just because their opponents tell them to.

Dr Dreidel: Your religion does not get to tell me how I live. If my religion says that I must stone adultresses (and assuming you're a Muslim, Jew or Christian, it does), why keep me from carrying out what my religion demands? If my faith says that your giving blood is akin to murder, can I ban you from giving blood?


I don't get your point.

Dr Dreidel: Because people who don't believe abortion is murder have rights, too.


Everyone has rights, and they frequently conflict. I understand your arguments (well, all but the one) and I don't claim they aren't valid. Some woman carrying a baby, that she doesn't want, to term is not good for her, and probably not for the child either. In the case of a rape, the pregnancy will be a horrible reminder of what happened. However, I see the child as an innocent who shouldn't lose his/her life over the bad act of someone else. There are options other than abortion. So between the two options, I err on the side of life for the child. I see it a bit like capital punishment. Yes, the criminal that's killed will never commit a crime again, but what about the innocent man? And our criminal justice system is so good at convicting the innocent that I just can't support capital punishment right now.
 
2012-08-24 11:58:30 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Are you going to personally determine if each fetus is viable?

No, I'm not a doctor. Nor would it be sensible to have me personally wander the nation checking pregnancies of fetuses.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If not, then you have to set a baseline at which "most" will be.

No, you don't.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.

Again, state where I have said this.


Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.
 
2012-08-24 11:59:06 AM

HeartBurnKid: There are precisely four people on the planet right now who have more experience as President of the United States than Obama, and two of them are ineligible to run again.


So? I know several people who are the only ones with experience at a particular job, and they should be replaced. Tenure does not imply competence.
 
2012-08-24 11:59:07 AM

HeartBurnKid: There are precisely four people on the planet right now who have more experience as President of the United States than Obama, and two of them are ineligible to run again.



Oh, don't kid yourself.  Carter is ineligible too.
 
2012-08-24 11:59:32 AM

cameroncrazy1984: And by Congress, you mean the current Vice Presidential candidate from the Republican party. You don't see Democrats putting forth bills making something illegal that already is illegal.


Except they are:

Introducing, the fight (again) (for the 3rd time) fair pay for women:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76688.html

Ridiculous, apparently Lilly Ledbetter and the Paycheck Fairness Act weren't enough.... and this is a woman saying it.
 
2012-08-24 12:00:08 PM
skilbride

cameroncrazy1984: According to your post, he does think some rape is okay, because he wanted to make abortion by statutory rape or incest illegal. Why would you do that?

Now you're getting into the legalese of the mess. Here's how it rolls out:

Statutory rape is actually forcible rape no matter how you work is because they aren't considered adults in the eyes of the law and therefore can not make their own decisions.

In instances where a father rapes his teenage daughter, it's statutory and incest.

If a father rapes his 18 year old daughter by drugging her, it's forcible and incest.

The only people really blocked by using federal funding by the bill would have been people over the age of 18 who banged family members.

At the end of the day, the only thing the bill did was block federal funding to abortions which didn't fall under the forcible / statutory rape.



You're taking all the wind out of cameroncrazy1984 sails - and all the fun out of his Friday nights.
 
2012-08-24 12:00:36 PM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And you stated it when you said that you had no problem aborting fetuses that could be viable.

Again, state where I have said this.


For some reason I wouldn't have guessed you're pro-life sprawl15. No bigs, just found it interesting.
 
2012-08-24 12:00:45 PM

skilbride: Ridiculous, apparently Lilly Ledbetter and the Paycheck Fairness Act weren't enough.... and this is a woman saying it.


Uh, point of order: do women have fair pay now? No? Then this act is likely necessary.

Do federal funds go to abortions? No? Then you don't need an act banning it again.

See the difference?
 
2012-08-24 12:00:49 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Abortion as contraception I disagree with.


Most people would disagree with it. The question, however, is legality.

Galloping Galoshes: Until science can tell us when a fetus is a child, I would go the other way.


You really think there's going to be a scientific quorum on when a fetus gains a soul? What the fark is wrong with you?
 
2012-08-24 12:01:34 PM

sprawl15: Again, state where I have said this.


I'm sorry, did you not state that you were fine with abortions "until the fetus is viable outside of the womb without assistance...?"

But you betrayed yourself when you then said that late term abortions should be legal.

So, according to you, a fetus becomes a person when it can survive outside the womb without assistance (preemies apparently are not people yet), but that abortions of those people are ok if they have not yet seen the light of day?
 
2012-08-24 12:01:37 PM

karnal: You're taking all the wind out of cameroncrazy1984 sails - and all the fun out of his Friday nights.


Read my next post, sparky.
 
2012-08-24 12:01:41 PM

lennavan: For some reason I wouldn't have guessed you're pro-life sprawl15.


I'm pro-life, but have no problem with abortions being legal.

Just like how I'm for gay marriage but don't want dicks in my ass.
 
2012-08-24 12:02:49 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Dr Dreidel: Your religion does not get to tell me how I live. If my religion says that I must stone adultresses (and assuming you're a Muslim, Jew or Christian, it does), why keep me from carrying out what my religion demands? If my faith says that your giving blood is akin to murder, can I ban you from giving blood?

I don't get your point.


I think I do now. You object to my imposing my religious tenets on you. However, my position on abortion does not spring from my religion. Frankly, I'm not even sure what my religion's position is on the subject, or if it has a single position. So this argument falls from a faulty assumption.
 
2012-08-24 12:03:29 PM

Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.


No, it's really not. That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?
 
2012-08-24 12:03:39 PM

Fart_Machine: happen with such infrequency


[Citation Needed]

The CDC does not keep records of gestational age for abortions, so the number of abortions performed on viable fetuses is not known.
 
2012-08-24 12:04:27 PM

sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: Abortion as contraception I disagree with.

Most people would disagree with it. The question, however, is legality.

Galloping Galoshes: Until science can tell us when a fetus is a child, I would go the other way.

You really think there's going to be a scientific quorum on when a fetus gains a soul? What the fark is wrong with you?


No, I don't. That doesn't affect my argument. Unless one can say with certainty when a fetus becomes a person, I would err on the side of assuming at conception. Type 1 error vs type 2 error.
 
2012-08-24 12:05:05 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Uh, point of order: do women have fair pay now? No? Then this act is likely necessary.

Do federal funds go to abortions? No? Then you don't need an act banning it again.

See the difference?


Women do have fair pay now. In fact, statistics show that when all factors are considered -- experience, education, time on the job, etc. -- women make more money than their male counterparts. (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html) The problem is that women as a whole earning about 80% of what men are making. But that goes into why women stay at home to raise children, why women take part time jobs, But even when you look at women in the workforce, women are also more likely to pursue 'fulfilling' career paths, rather than one that will land them in a high-paying job. For instance, women dominate the interior design field, and the average pay is less than $40,000 a year. Compare that to electrical engineering, where nine out of ten people with a degree in the field are male, and the average salary jumps to almost $80,000.

I'm a woman in project management, my boyfriend has 3+ years experience on me and I make the same as him. But keep enacting a redundant law based on bad math and justify it.
 
2012-08-24 12:06:17 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm sorry, did you not state that you were fine with abortions "until the fetus is viable outside of the womb without assistance...?"

But you betrayed yourself when you then said that late term abortions should be legal.


"Late term" and "viability" are not independent states. There can be non-viable late-term fetuses. Say, a fetus that grew with lungs outside its body but otherwise is perfectly fine can survive the full gestation...but would never survive outside the body. It never becomes a viable fetus.

Again, you have no idea what the terms you're using mean. Go back to Wikipedia.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So, according to you,


You have no farking idea what I'm talking about. At all. You're just throwing up strawmen as fast as you can beat them down. Take some Naproxen, go for a walk, and when you're not bursting blood vessels you could try asking questions instead of making a total fool of yourself.
 
2012-08-24 12:06:30 PM

sprawl15: lennavan: For some reason I wouldn't have guessed you're pro-life sprawl15.

I'm pro-life, but have no problem with abortions being legal.

Just like how I'm for gay marriage but don't want dicks in my ass.


Not possible my friend. Either you're against gay marriage or you want a big penis wriggling around in your excrement. There is no middle ground.

And actually I don't get how you're okay with abortion being legal but are pro-life. That makes you pro-choice. No one is actually pro-abortion. But admittedly arguing about the label is stupid so whatevs.
 
2012-08-24 12:06:33 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-24 12:06:34 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: Again, state where I have said this.

I'm sorry, did you not state that you were fine with abortions "until the fetus is viable outside of the womb without assistance...?"

But you betrayed yourself when you then said that late term abortions should be legal.

So, according to you, a fetus becomes a person when it can survive outside the womb without assistance (preemies apparently are not people yet), but that abortions of those people are ok if they have not yet seen the light of day?


Again not all late term abortions are viable and it's regulated on a state by state basis. In fact "viable" is a slippery-slope term since its assumed that every fetus after 20 weeks could be "viable".
 
2012-08-24 12:06:36 PM

sprawl15: You really think there's going to be a scientific quorum on when a fetus gains a soul? What the fark is wrong with you?


I mean, really? sprawl has already told you that a fetus is a person when it is viable outside the womb without assistance. Why does SCIENCE need to say anything? Sprawl has it covered. Preemie and in NICU? Too bad, aborted.
 
2012-08-24 12:07:26 PM

skilbride: cameroncrazy1984: And by Congress, you mean the current Vice Presidential candidate from the Republican party. You don't see Democrats putting forth bills making something illegal that already is illegal.

Except they are:

Introducing, the fight (again) (for the 3rd time) fair pay for women:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76688.html

Ridiculous, apparently Lilly Ledbetter and the Paycheck Fairness Act weren't enough.... and this is a woman saying it.


The paycheck fairness act was filibustered by the Republicans and didn't pass. And do you even know what what the LL act did?
 
2012-08-24 12:07:57 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Unless one can say with certainty when a fetus becomes a person


Which is a nonsense question without a static definition of 'person'. Provide one, and science can tell you. The problem is people come up with bullshiat questions like that without a quantifiable goal and then are shocked when science doesn't take their silly concern trolling seriously.
 
2012-08-24 12:09:18 PM

skilbride: I'm a woman in project management, my boyfriend has 3+ years experience on me and I make the same as him. But keep enacting a redundant law based on bad math and justify it.


So "Math you don't agree with" is "bad math" now? And your idiotic anecdote is supposed to matter how?
 
2012-08-24 12:09:49 PM

sprawl15: "Late term" and "viability" are not independent states. There can be non-viable late-term fetuses. Say, a fetus that grew with lungs outside its body but otherwise is perfectly fine can survive the full gestation...but would never survive outside the body. It never becomes a viable fetus.

Again, you have no idea what the terms you're using mean. Go back to Wikipedia.


Seriously, there should be a vocab test required before people get to voice opinions on abortion. Add fetus and embryo to that list.

Galloping Galoshes: No, I don't. That doesn't affect my argument. Unless one can say with certainty when a fetus becomes a person, I would err on the side of assuming at conception. Type 1 error vs type 2 error.


Add person to that list. Problem is society gets to define a person however they want. We can even define groups as fractions of people! Personally, I use viability as my key definer of personhood.
 
2012-08-24 12:09:58 PM

LasersHurt: And your idiotic anecdote is supposed to matter how?


The singular of 'anecdotes' is 'data'.
 
2012-08-24 12:10:13 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: happen with such infrequency

[Citation Needed]

The CDC does not keep records of gestational age for abortions, so the number of abortions performed on viable fetuses is not known.


The best estimates are less than 1%. If you have something that says differently then by all means show your work.
 
2012-08-24 12:10:40 PM

Fart_Machine: In fact "viable" is a slippery-slope term since its assumed that every fetus after 20 weeks could be "viable".


And yet sprawl believes that this is when a fetus becomes a person. But it's still ok to abort them.

sprawl15: You have no farking idea what I'm talking about.


Then perhaps you can explain it without contradicting yourself.

You believe the following:

1) That a fetus is a person when it can survive outside of the womb without assistance.
2) Late term abortions should be legal.
 
2012-08-24 12:11:06 PM

LasersHurt: So "Math you don't agree with" is "bad math" now? And your idiotic anecdote is supposed to matter how?


It's not just math I don't agree with. You want to talk paycheck fairness, you compare people in the same job, with the same education, and same experience, and see if they get the same compensation. You don't say as, "Women as a whole are making 20% less than men" and ignore the fact that they are working 20% less than men or taking jobs that on average pay 20% less than men. That's bad math, misleading statistics, and bunk.
 
2012-08-24 12:11:39 PM
This biatch reminded me of this biatch... Link

You get told but you are so concerned (or stupid) to acknowledge what you hear and just continue on with your agenda because it's what you're supposed to do.

/RIP Patrice
 
2012-08-24 12:11:47 PM

skilbride: LasersHurt: So "Math you don't agree with" is "bad math" now? And your idiotic anecdote is supposed to matter how?

It's not just math I don't agree with. You want to talk paycheck fairness, you compare people in the same job, with the same education, and same experience, and see if they get the same compensation. You don't say as, "Women as a whole are making 20% less than men" and ignore the fact that they are working 20% less than men or taking jobs that on average pay 20% less than men. That's bad math, misleading statistics, and bunk.


It's funny because that's not how the data is calculated at all.
 
2012-08-24 12:11:48 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You believe the following:

1) That a fetus is a person when it can survive outside of the womb without assistance.
2) Late term abortions should be legal.


Yes.

What's confusing about that?
 
2012-08-24 12:11:59 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: You really think there's going to be a scientific quorum on when a fetus gains a soul? What the fark is wrong with you?

I mean, really? sprawl has already told you that a fetus is a person when it is viable outside the womb without assistance. Why does SCIENCE need to say anything? Sprawl has it covered. Preemie and in NICU? Too bad, aborted.


What the fark do you think science is going to say on the matter? The whole goddamn debate is about what constitutes a person. There is no universal scientific truth to what personhood is. You can't run a series of experiments to figure out what the real definition of person is, dipshiat.
 
2012-08-24 12:12:25 PM

skilbride: 'm a woman in project management, my boyfriend has 3+ years experience on me and I make the same as him.


Cool story sis.
 
2012-08-24 12:12:33 PM

lennavan: Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

No, it's really not. That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?


So how does this not make it an emotion based appeal? If you're using loaded term like "killing children" then we've already fallen into that territory. B
 
2012-08-24 12:13:08 PM

LasersHurt: It's funny because that's not how the data is calculated at all.


You want to provide a study that proves that? Because I'm 100% positive you're wrong. (Especially since I provided a link to prove I was right.)
 
2012-08-24 12:13:11 PM
Unfortunately, even for those of us who support the Dems, campaigning is still a typical political (ie: dishonest) exercise at the end of the day. That means half-wits like DWS will still be sent out on the trail to spout whatever rhetoric their people think will garner votes.

I hate it when the RNC does it, and I hate it when the DNC does it. Since it's inevitable, we need to learn to just tune all that crap out and try and gather the facts without the spin. Easier said than done, but worth it.
 
2012-08-24 12:13:20 PM
Strike that B. My phone needed to cough up a character.
 
2012-08-24 12:13:31 PM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You believe the following:

1) That a fetus is a person when it can survive outside of the womb without assistance.
2) Some Late term abortions should be legal.

Yes.

What's confusing about that?


Well, some late term abortions should be legal. There are plenty of late term fetuses that fit your definition of person.
 
2012-08-24 12:14:45 PM

skilbride: LasersHurt: It's funny because that's not how the data is calculated at all.

You want to provide a study that proves that? Because I'm 100% positive you're wrong. (Especially since I provided a link to prove I was right.)


... no you didn't. Unless you mean you posted it long before we were discussing the issue.
 
2012-08-24 12:14:47 PM

lennavan: Add person to that list. Problem is society gets to define a person however they want. We can even define groups as fractions of people! Personally, I use viability as my key definer of personhood.


I hear you, but "viability" is not a static measure. What was not viable 20 years ago is viable now. What is not viable now may be in 20 years. I have trouble with defining a person differently based on the state of medical science.
 
2012-08-24 12:16:35 PM
We can solve this debate.  Ask Republicans if they knew...absolutely knew...that their fetus was going to grow up to be a Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, would they still favor an absolute ban on abortion?
 
2012-08-24 12:16:35 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: In fact "viable" is a slippery-slope term since its assumed that every fetus after 20 weeks could be "viable".

And yet sprawl believes that this is when a fetus becomes a person. But it's still ok to abort them.

sprawl15: You have no farking idea what I'm talking about.

Then perhaps you can explain it without contradicting yourself.

You believe the following:

1) That a fetus is a person when it can survive outside of the womb without assistance.
2) Late term abortions should be legal.


Except that what is technically viable (arbitrarily decided at 21 weeks and even then that's debated) is very different that what will actually survive unassisted.
 
2012-08-24 12:17:18 PM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You believe the following:

1) That a fetus is a person when it can survive outside of the womb without assistance.
2) Late term abortions should be legal.

Yes.

What's confusing about that?


What is confusing is your inability to admit that you condone the killing of a viable person. Also, I can think of a few preemies that wouldn't be alive today if your beliefs were law. I'd like to think that they appreciate that they couldn't aborted post delivery since, according to you, they were not yet a person.
 
2012-08-24 12:17:21 PM

Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: There are precisely four people on the planet right now who have more experience as President of the United States than Obama, and two of them are ineligible to run again.

So? I know several people who are the only ones with experience at a particular job, and they should be replaced. Tenure does not imply competence.


No, but you didn't say the choice was between hope and competence (if you did, I'd laugh you out of the thread for implying that Mitt Romney is competent at anything but looting companies). You said the choice was between hope and experience. Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.

/not sorry
 
2012-08-24 12:17:51 PM

skilbride: LasersHurt: So "Math you don't agree with" is "bad math" now? And your idiotic anecdote is supposed to matter how?

It's not just math I don't agree with. You want to talk paycheck fairness, you compare people in the same job, with the same education, and same experience, and see if they get the same compensation. You don't say as, "Women as a whole are making 20% less than men" and ignore the fact that they are working 20% less than men or taking jobs that on average pay 20% less than men. That's bad math, misleading statistics, and bunk.


Taking jobs that pay less than men... why would they do that? Its almost as if they are being offered jobs that pay less than men.
 
2012-08-24 12:17:55 PM

skilbride: cameroncrazy1984: And by Congress, you mean the current Vice Presidential candidate from the Republican party. You don't see Democrats putting forth bills making something illegal that already is illegal.

Except they are:

Introducing, the fight (again) (for the 3rd time) fair pay for women:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76688.html

Ridiculous, apparently Lilly Ledbetter and the Paycheck Fairness Act weren't enough.... and this is a woman saying it.


Beyond the point I made earlier - that the Paycheck Fairness Act was never passed - I have to say, it's impressive that both you and your boyfriend are in 'project management.'

That's like one gay lion tamer meeting another gay lion tamer. What are the odds??

/RIP Greg
 
2012-08-24 12:19:23 PM

lennavan: Well, some late term abortions should be legal. There are plenty of late term fetuses that fit your definition of person.


Ed Zachary.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: What is confusing is your inability to admit that you condone the killing of a viable person.


Again, state where I've said that. So far, you've just managed to look like a retard trying to hump a doorknob by not knowing what "words" mean.
 
2012-08-24 12:19:46 PM

sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: Unless one can say with certainty when a fetus becomes a person

Which is a nonsense question without a static definition of 'person'. Provide one, and science can tell you. The problem is people come up with bullshiat questions like that without a quantifiable goal and then are shocked when science doesn't take their silly concern trolling seriously.


Science is concerned with things that can be measured. Perhaps this is not a measurable thing. That doesn't necessarily make it bullshiat. Frustrating, yes, but not necessarily bullshiat. Science can generally tell when a fetus is viable. But is viability the measure of a human being? Is what is a human being based on the current state of medicine? Or where the mother is? Is a fetus in, say, third world Africa not a human being, but the same fetus, if it were in Seattle, is a human being because in Africa the fetus is not viable but in Seattle it is because of the availability of modern medicine?
 
2012-08-24 12:20:33 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You believe the following:

1) That a fetus is a person when it can survive outside of the womb without assistance.
2) Late term abortions should be legal.

Yes.

What's confusing about that?

What is confusing is your inability to admit that you condone the killing of a viable person. Also, I can think of a few preemies that wouldn't be alive today if your beliefs were law. I'd like to think that they appreciate that they couldn't aborted post delivery since, according to you, they were not yet a person.


So where do you think personhood begins? You seem to avoid establishing what you, personally, believe.
 
2012-08-24 12:21:12 PM

sprawl15: lennavan: Well, some late term abortions should be legal. There are plenty of late term fetuses that fit your definition of person.

Ed Zachary.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: What is confusing is your inability to admit that you condone the killing of a viable person.

Again, state where I've said that. So far, you've just managed to look like a retard trying to hump a doorknob by not knowing what "words" mean.


I'm sorry, did you not just say that you are ok with late term abortions?
 
2012-08-24 12:21:49 PM

magusdevil: So where do you think personhood begins? You seem to avoid establishing what you, personally, believe.


Impossible to quantify. But I'm not the one trying to do so.
 
2012-08-24 12:22:25 PM

HeartBurnKid: Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.


Sure they can. They did with both Carter and Bush I. Obama's prior experience before becoming President was very thin, yet he was picked over McCain. Romney has executive experience. My evaluation of Obama is that he has done a very poor job, and the future does not look any better.
 
2012-08-24 12:23:29 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: lennavan: Well, some late term abortions should be legal. There are plenty of late term fetuses that fit your definition of person.

Ed Zachary.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: What is confusing is your inability to admit that you condone the killing of a viable person.

Again, state where I've said that. So far, you've just managed to look like a retard trying to hump a doorknob by not knowing what "words" mean.

I'm sorry, did you not just say that you are ok with late term abortions?


What do YOU believe, so far all we know is that you don't agree with your own party on abortion, and that "if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it." Do you have any actual position that could be articulated with, you know, words?
 
2012-08-24 12:24:27 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: So where do you think personhood begins? You seem to avoid establishing what you, personally, believe.

Impossible to quantify. But I'm not the one trying to do so.


Impossible to quantify, however you believe that "if a woman has an elective abortion late term when the child could survive outside the womb, there should absolutely be a criminal aspect to it." It seems like you are trying to do so.
 
2012-08-24 12:24:45 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Science is concerned with things that can be measured. Perhaps this is not a measurable thing.


It can very easily become a measurable thing. That burden is, however, on the person asking the question.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm sorry, did you not just say that you are ok with late term abortions?


Yes.

Now tell me where I said that I "condone the killing of a viable person." You know, the thing you've been vomiting into the thread for about a dozen posts now.
 
2012-08-24 12:25:13 PM

skilbride: LasersHurt: It's funny because that's not how the data is calculated at all.

You want to provide a study that proves that? Because I'm 100% positive you're wrong. (Especially since I provided a link to prove I was right.)


Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.
 
2012-08-24 12:26:09 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: So where do you think personhood begins? You seem to avoid establishing what you, personally, believe.

Impossible to quantify. But I'm not the one trying to do so.


If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?
 
2012-08-24 12:26:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: LasersHurt: It's funny because that's not how the data is calculated at all.

You want to provide a study that proves that? Because I'm 100% positive you're wrong. (Especially since I provided a link to prove I was right.)

Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.


If that was a legitimate pay gap women would have a way of shutting the whole thing down.
 
2012-08-24 12:26:51 PM

sprawl15: Now tell me where I said that I "condone the killing of a viable person." You know, the thing you've been vomiting into the thread for about a dozen posts now.


Most "late term" abortions, by definition, done on viable fetuses. Fetuses that you say are people.
 
2012-08-24 12:27:45 PM

Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Add person to that list. Problem is society gets to define a person however they want. We can even define groups as fractions of people! Personally, I use viability as my key definer of personhood.

I hear you, but "viability" is not a static measure. What was not viable 20 years ago is viable now. What is not viable now may be in 20 years. I have trouble with defining a person differently based on the state of medical science.


The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.
 
2012-08-24 12:28:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?


Where did I say I wanted to ban them?
 
2012-08-24 12:28:55 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?


He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?
 
2012-08-24 12:29:50 PM

Fart_Machine: lennavan: Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

No, it's really not. That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?

So how does this not make it an emotion based appeal? If you're using loaded term like "killing children" then we've already fallen into that territory. B


I didn't use the term "killing children." I accept your apology and request you re-address the point I made.
 
2012-08-24 12:31:13 PM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?


Elective late term abortions? Absolutely.

But how does that equate to "all?"
 
2012-08-24 12:31:39 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: Now tell me where I said that I "condone the killing of a viable person." You know, the thing you've been vomiting into the thread for about a dozen posts now.

Most "late term" abortions, by definition, done on viable fetuses. Fetuses that you say are people.


This post just reminded me of how much I love to completely make shiat up to support my point when I'm on the internet. I always hope no one notices and just accepts the bullshiat I pulled out of my ass as truth.
 
2012-08-24 12:31:39 PM

sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: Science is concerned with things that can be measured. Perhaps this is not a measurable thing.

It can very easily become a measurable thing. That burden is, however, on the person asking the question.

When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person. If you have some other measure, please introduce and defend it.

 
2012-08-24 12:31:56 PM

Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.

Sure they can. They did with both Carter and Bush I. Obama's prior experience before becoming President was very thin, yet he was picked over McCain.


See, back then, in 2008, an executive experience argument might have worked. Now, it's an entirely different ball game.

Romney has executive experience.

He has experience running a vulture capital firm, which I don't think would translate well to running the country. You can't just close America and go somewhere else with a hefty management fee in your pocket, after all.

He also has experience as governor of a state which, at present, is polling for Obama in a landslide. I think it's telling that the people who know his leadership best don't want him in charge of the country.

My evaluation of Obama is that he has done a very poor job, and the future does not look any better.

My evaluation of Obama is that he has done an exceptional job with foreign policy, he has done the best job he can domestically when faced with a legislature that is completely and utterly dysfunctional, and the future is getting better. It's rather slow at getting better, and there's a lot more I'd like to see, but again, dysfunctional legislature. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll need more than "experience", because I know exactly what that experience is worth.
 
2012-08-24 12:32:12 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?


You already stated that late term abortions were killing children. So are we to assume that you're in favor of killing children?
 
2012-08-24 12:33:21 PM

lennavan: Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Add person to that list. Problem is society gets to define a person however they want. We can even define groups as fractions of people! Personally, I use viability as my key definer of personhood.

I hear you, but "viability" is not a static measure. What was not viable 20 years ago is viable now. What is not viable now may be in 20 years. I have trouble with defining a person differently based on the state of medical science.

The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.


Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?
 
2012-08-24 12:33:36 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Most "late term" abortions, by definition, done on viable fetuses.


No, they're not. "Late term" has no specified definition of time - people tend to draw their line anywhere between 20 and 28 weeks. It generally refers the the area where viability is a grey area, where viability cannot be certain. Roe v. Wade drew the line at 28 weeks for this reason - most fetuses beyond this point are viable.

"By definition", late term abortions have little relation to viability rate - if you want to really dig into the numbers, you're likely to find that more late term abortions would occur earlier in this time period than later, that more abortions were performed on non-viable fetuses than viable ones, and other aspects that would skew the results away from your conclusion.

But your continued inability to know what the hell you're talking about doesn't make your rambling at all relevant to what we're talking about.

Try to keep up, sparky.
 
2012-08-24 12:33:52 PM

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

You already stated that late term abortions were killing children. So are we to assume that you're in favor of killing children?


I said abortions of viable fetuses was killing children. Please do get on the same page here.
 
2012-08-24 12:34:17 PM

lennavan: Fart_Machine: lennavan: Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

No, it's really not. That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?

So how does this not make it an emotion based appeal? If you're using loaded term like "killing children" then we've already fallen into that territory. B

I didn't use the term "killing children." I accept your apology and request you re-address the point I made.


The person who initially brought up the argument on late term abortions stated they were killing children. Lighten up Francis.
 
2012-08-24 12:35:17 PM

Galloping Galoshes: When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person.


Then be consistent. If a woman has a miscarriage at three weeks, treat it exactly like she let her four year old kid die. Bring the cops over, investigate her for negligence, and charge her if she took risky behavior that may have contributed to the death of her child.
 
2012-08-24 12:36:48 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

You already stated that late term abortions were killing children. So are we to assume that you're in favor of killing children?

I said abortions of viable fetuses was killing children. Please do get on the same page here.


You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable. So are you trolling or don't understand your own argument.
 
2012-08-24 12:38:37 PM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Most "late term" abortions, by definition, done on viable fetuses.

No, they're not. "Late term" has no specified definition of time - people tend to draw their line anywhere between 20 and 28 weeks. It generally refers the the area where viability is a grey area, where viability cannot be certain. Roe v. Wade drew the line at 28 weeks for this reason - most fetuses beyond this point are viable.

"By definition", late term abortions have little relation to viability rate - if you want to really dig into the numbers, you're likely to find that more late term abortions would occur earlier in this time period than later, that more abortions were performed on non-viable fetuses than viable ones, and other aspects that would skew the results away from your conclusion.

But your continued inability to know what the hell you're talking about doesn't make your rambling at all relevant to what we're talking about.

Try to keep up, sparky.


So late term is somewhere between 20-28 weeks, but has no "specified definition of time." Ok, got it.

Whatever you need to say to keep your child killing heart warm at night.
 
2012-08-24 12:38:47 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?

Elective late term abortions? Absolutely.

But how does that equate to "all?"


So some late term abortions are ok and some should be illegal, but you're not the one trying to quantify when personhood begins... got it.
 
2012-08-24 12:39:39 PM

Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.


Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.
 
2012-08-24 12:40:35 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Whatever you need to say to keep your child killing heart warm at night.


Yep, trolling.
 
2012-08-24 12:40:42 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.


How could anyone be 100% aware of your position? I don't even think you're 100% aware of your position.
 
2012-08-24 12:41:13 PM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?

Elective late term abortions? Absolutely.

But how does that equate to "all?"

So some late term abortions are ok and some should be illegal, but you're not the one trying to quantify when personhood begins... got it.


Um, to paraphrase, "what is so confusing about that?"

I can't quantify personhood to a measurable. Yet I do not believe that elective late term abortions should be permitted.
 
2012-08-24 12:42:57 PM

Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.

Sure they can. They did with both Carter and Bush I. Obama's prior experience before becoming President was very thin, yet he was picked over McCain. Romney has executive experience. My evaluation of Obama is that he has done a very poor job, and the future does not look any better.


I am curious as to what 'executive experience' means to you.
 
2012-08-24 12:43:13 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.


You mean like when you accused Sprawl of supporting the "killing of children" because he supports Late term abortions? Are you trolling or being obtuse?
 
2012-08-24 12:43:27 PM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.

How could anyone be 100% aware of your position? I don't even think you're 100% aware of your position.


I've stated it no fewer than twice in this thread. That people continue to distort it is not my failing.
 
2012-08-24 12:43:59 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: If it's impossible to quantify, why do you want to ban all late-term abortions?

Where did I say I wanted to ban them?

He just wants to criminalize them. There's a difference?

Elective late term abortions? Absolutely.

But how does that equate to "all?"

So some late term abortions are ok and some should be illegal, but you're not the one trying to quantify when personhood begins... got it.

Um, to paraphrase, "what is so confusing about that?"

I can't quantify personhood to a measurable. Yet I do not believe that elective late term abortions should be permitted.


So you're just randomly choosing "late term" without any consideration at all. I can't measure when a fetus becomes a person, so I'm just randomly drawing a line? That's your actual stated position. Good luck winning anyone over with that well considered position.
 
2012-08-24 12:44:04 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So late term is somewhere between 20-28 weeks, but has no "specified definition of time."


Yes. You really have problems with words, don't you? A trimester has a specific definition, a very clearly defined threshold of time. 'Late term' does not. The phrase 'late term' does not refer to a commonly agreed upon threshold. Someone may use 'late term' to mean 'after 20 weeks', while another person may use the term to mean 'after 28 weeks'. A 24 week abortion would be late term only to the former.

I'm kind of shocked by how stupid you are.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Whatever you need to say to keep your child killing heart warm at night.


Again, you have no farking idea what I'm talking about. At all. You're just throwing up strawmen as fast as you can beat them down. Take some Naproxen, go for a walk, and when you're not bursting blood vessels you could try asking questions instead of making a total fool of yourself.
 
2012-08-24 12:44:35 PM

HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Experience arguments don't work against an incumbent. Sorry.

Sure they can. They did with both Carter and Bush I. Obama's prior experience before becoming President was very thin, yet he was picked over McCain.

See, back then, in 2008, an executive experience argument might have worked. Now, it's an entirely different ball game.

Romney has executive experience.

He has experience running a vulture capital firm, which I don't think would translate well to running the country. You can't just close America and go somewhere else with a hefty management fee in your pocket, after all.

He also has experience as governor of a state which, at present, is polling for Obama in a landslide. I think it's telling that the people who know his leadership best don't want him in charge of the country.

My evaluation of Obama is that he has done a very poor job, and the future does not look any better.

My evaluation of Obama is that he has done an exceptional job with foreign policy, he has done the best job he can domestically when faced with a legislature that is completely and utterly dysfunctional, and the future is getting better. It's rather slow at getting better, and there's a lot more I'd like to see, but again, dysfunctional legislature. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll need more than "experience", because I know exactly what that experience is worth.


I don't expect to convince you. Our assumptions are too different.
 
2012-08-24 12:44:47 PM

Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Add person to that list. Problem is society gets to define a person however they want. We can even define groups as fractions of people! Personally, I use viability as my key definer of personhood.

I hear you, but "viability" is not a static measure. What was not viable 20 years ago is viable now. What is not viable now may be in 20 years. I have trouble with defining a person differently based on the state of medical science.

The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?


Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.
 
2012-08-24 12:45:10 PM

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.

You mean like when you accused Sprawl of supporting the "killing of children" because he supports Late term abortions? Are you trolling or being obtuse?


You mean when I asked him no fewer than twice to clarify his position and he still states that he is ok with aborting viable fetuses after declaring that they are people?

How is that an accusation when those are his words?
 
2012-08-24 12:45:53 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You mean when I asked him no fewer than twice to clarify his position


You haven't asked me a damn thing. You've just kept trying to tell me what I believe and getting it wrong.
 
2012-08-24 12:46:01 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.

How could anyone be 100% aware of your position? I don't even think you're 100% aware of your position.

I've stated it no fewer than twice in this thread. That people continue to distort it is not my failing.


Right your position is "I don't have any idea when a fetus becomes a person so I am picking a point out of thin air as to when it should become criminal to have an abortion. "
 
2012-08-24 12:46:32 PM

Fart_Machine: The person who initially brought up the argument on late term abortions stated they were killing children. Lighten up Francis.


The person was a retard. That doesn't make the argument itself retarded. Read it again without associating me with the killing babies tard:

That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?
 
2012-08-24 12:47:20 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: You've already established that you consider all fetuses over 20 weeks as viable.

Where?

Please be careful when using words like "all" to describe someone's position that you are not 100% aware of.

You mean like when you accused Sprawl of supporting the "killing of children" because he supports Late term abortions? Are you trolling or being obtuse?

You mean when I asked him no fewer than twice to clarify his position and he still states that he is ok with aborting viable fetuses after declaring that they are people?

How is that an accusation when those are his words?


Obtuse it is.
 
2012-08-24 12:47:24 PM

sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person.

Then be consistent. If a woman has a miscarriage at three weeks, treat it exactly like she let her four year old kid die. Bring the cops over, investigate her for negligence, and charge her if she took risky behavior that may have contributed to the death of her child.


Straw-man argument. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. Further, we were discussing deliberate abortions, rather than accidental. Back on topic, please.
 
2012-08-24 12:48:52 PM

Galloping Galoshes: sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person.

Then be consistent. If a woman has a miscarriage at three weeks, treat it exactly like she let her four year old kid die. Bring the cops over, investigate her for negligence, and charge her if she took risky behavior that may have contributed to the death of her child.

Straw-man argument. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. Further, we were discussing deliberate abortions, rather than accidental. Back on topic, please.


Spontaneous child deaths occur all the time, we shouldn't investigate them?
 
2012-08-24 12:49:46 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Straw-man argument. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. Further, we were discussing deliberate abortions, rather than accidental. Back on topic, please.


Why does one have to be treated differently or separately from the other?
 
2012-08-24 12:50:01 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Straw-man argument.


No, it's not. Because if a fetus is a person, and must be treated like such, then society must be consistent in treating it that way. If deliberately killing a 12 week old fetus must be banned because it could be a person, then accidentally killing a 12 week old fetus must be investigated as an accidental death because it could be a person.

Either it's considered a person or it's not. What you're advocating is a weird pseudo-person state where a case of abortion is the only situation where it's considered a separate biological entity.
 
2012-08-24 12:50:25 PM

magusdevil: Galloping Galoshes: sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: When does a fetus become a person? I don't know, so I assume the earliest possible point, to avoid killing a person.

Then be consistent. If a woman has a miscarriage at three weeks, treat it exactly like she let her four year old kid die. Bring the cops over, investigate her for negligence, and charge her if she took risky behavior that may have contributed to the death of her child.

Straw-man argument. Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. Further, we were discussing deliberate abortions, rather than accidental. Back on topic, please.

Spontaneous child deaths occur all the time, we shouldn't investigate them?


People drown every day. So I don't see any reason why anyone should look into the drowning death of my frickin crazy ass lunatic ex-girlfriend.
 
2012-08-24 12:50:44 PM

lennavan: The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?

Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.


Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.
 
2012-08-24 12:51:20 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.


ITS NOT REPEATABLE IF YOU HAVE TO REPEAT IT

AND FURTHERMORE
 
2012-08-24 12:51:50 PM

Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?

Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.

Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.


And?

You're right, so I would never draw any retarded farking conclusions like "all 25 week old fetuses are viable." What exactly did you think you are saying here?
 
2012-08-24 12:52:50 PM

lennavan: Fart_Machine: The person who initially brought up the argument on late term abortions stated they were killing children. Lighten up Francis.

The person was a retard. That doesn't make the argument itself retarded. Read it again without associating me with the killing babies tard:

That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?


I didn't associate you personally. I was using the term "you're" as a collective term for anyone who uses the "baby killing" arguments.

As to your comments I already answered them. Beliefs are subjective and subject to emotion which is why this debate will never have a satisfactory answer for some people.
 
2012-08-24 12:54:00 PM

Lando Lincoln: cman: Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?

You really don't think that Romney has held every single stance on the abortion issue at one time?


I farking hate Romney
 
2012-08-24 12:55:56 PM

cman: Lando Lincoln: cman: Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?

You really don't think that Romney has held every single stance on the abortion issue at one time?

I farking hate Romney


Well he hates your poor broke ass, too.
 
2012-08-24 12:58:53 PM

Fart_Machine: As to your comments I already answered them. Beliefs are subjective and subject to emotion which is why this debate will never have a satisfactory answer for some people.


Your original point was:

Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

I'm telling you bringing up late term abortions gets at the logic behind your beliefs because these beliefs are rooted not just in emotion but also in logic. I even gave you the example of the logic "it's her body, her choice." That's not emotional, that's logical. Sure you cannot separate out the emotions but to simply dismiss that entire line of argumentation as solely emotion-based and dishonest is lazy and dishonest yourself.
 
2012-08-24 12:59:01 PM

PreMortem: Ann Coulter book pop up. FU

Never a HotAir link again.


This story wouldn't have been greenlit if it didn't have an Approved Source.
 
2012-08-24 01:10:13 PM

skilbride: LasersHurt: So "Math you don't agree with" is "bad math" now? And your idiotic anecdote is supposed to matter how?

It's not just math I don't agree with. You want to talk paycheck fairness, you compare people in the same job, with the same education, and same experience, and see if they get the same compensation. You don't say as, "Women as a whole are making 20% less than men" and ignore the fact that they are working 20% less than men or taking jobs that on average pay 20% less than men. That's bad math, misleading statistics, and bunk.


...oddly enough, that has indeed occured to the researchers.
 
2012-08-24 01:11:04 PM

Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.


This, it's a nice change.
 
2012-08-24 01:11:55 PM

magusdevil:

Spontaneous child deaths occur all the time, we shouldn't investigate them?

cameroncrazy1984: Why does one have to be treated differently or separately from the other?


sprawl15: Either it's considered a person or it's not. What you're advocating is a weird pseudo-person state where a case of abortion is the only situation where it's considered a separate biological entity.


I am advocating nothing on this aspect of the issue. I see your point, but I don't believe it is necessary to deal with it before dealing with the first part. If a fetus is or is not a human, and when, must be settled before the implications of that decision are clear. Otherwise, you're arguing backward from the desired outcome and trying to make your princples fit your solution.

Also, we do investigate some fetus deaths currently, and in some jurisdictions a crime can be charged against someone for injuring a fetus separately from the injury to the mother, so there already is precedent for that position. And we could certainly deal with each fetus death as we do other deaths: the circumstances surrounding the death determine the resources devoted to investigating it. You may not have much experience with death, but in most cases, there's no police involvement at all.
 
2012-08-24 01:14:44 PM

Galloping Galoshes: see your point, but I don't believe it is necessary to deal with it before dealing with the first part. If a fetus is or is not a human


Just so you know, before you can deal with anything you have to deal with your terminology. This is one of the few discussions where words are very NOT interchangable. Word choice matters because words have meaning and very specific meaning is critical to the discussion.

Why did you choose the word human there? Because that's fundamentally different than the word person.
 
2012-08-24 01:14:49 PM

lennavan: Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?

Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.

Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.

And?

You're right, so I would never draw any retarded farking conclusions like "all 25 week old fetuses are viable." What exactly did you think you are saying here?


That's what the Supreme Court did.
You're reaching for the earliest date of viability, right? The only way to determine that is to find the latest date that a fetus is not viable.
 
2012-08-24 01:15:32 PM

lennavan: Why did you choose the word human there? Because that's fundamentally different than the word person.


Lack of precision.
 
2012-08-24 01:15:52 PM
Let me summarize this debate.

tabbycatmusicarchives.com

Take religion out of it and make it about respecting unborn life, women's health and reproductive rights and you might have a better chance of fixing the problem like the rest of the industrialized world.
 
2012-08-24 01:17:03 PM

McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.


Soledad O'Brien had a really good grill session the other day with Spicer. Maybe things are heading in the right direction for journalism finally.
 
2012-08-24 01:19:28 PM

Galloping Galoshes: If a fetus is or is not a human, and when, must be settled before the implications of that decision are clear.


I agree.

The point, though is that at any given point where abortion is outlawed because the fetus is considered a person, all protections need apply. If one says people can't abort a 20 week fetus because there's a chance of viability and thus we're considering it a person, then a miscarriage of a 20 week fetus should be investigated as an accidental death.

Galloping Galoshes: I am advocating nothing on this aspect of the issue.


You are, as long as you have a separate standard for abortion as other cases.

Galloping Galoshes: You may not have much experience with death, but in most cases, there's no police involvement at all.


In the case of fetal death, potential negligence of the mother plays a very important role. A woman can't accidentally kill her four year old child by herself riding a rollercoaster, yet she could kill her 20 week fetus by doing the same. The physical connection implies a much stronger responsibility.
 
2012-08-24 01:20:09 PM

Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: Galloping Galoshes: lennavan: The way to solve it is experimentally. If it is unclear, your abortion method is c-section. If the current medical science can save it, then it was viable and hurray. If current medical science cannot save it, then whatevs, it is functionally equivalent to an abortion.

Is viability dependent on the availability of technology? How frequently must we do this experiment, to take into account advances in medicine? Do we redefine "person" ever 10 years?

Every single fetus because it will always be fetus dependent. One 24 week old fetus might make it while another 24 week old fetus might now. We never change the definition, we simply say a fetus becomes a person when they are viable physically separated from the mother.

Your experiment is not repeatable if you have to test each and every fetus.

And?

You're right, so I would never draw any retarded farking conclusions like "all 25 week old fetuses are viable." What exactly did you think you are saying here?

That's what the Supreme Court did.


And? The SCOTUS is not always right. See: Citizen's United.

Galloping Galoshes: You're reaching for the earliest date of viability, right? The only way to determine that is to find the latest date that a fetus is not viable.


And I'm telling you the earliest date of viability for each individual fetus is unknownable without testing it. You can know the earliest AVERAGE date of viability. But average is not good enough. You can know the earliest date of viability within 99.9% confidence. But that's not good enough. The fundamental belief here is viability means you're a person and so aborting a person is murder. There is no acceptable non-zero murder rate. You think I'm trying to define a specific fetal age, I'm not. Shiat, if nothing else given how inaccurate the age measurements are, that'd be really stupid. I'm telling you I would say the only legal form of abortion after 20 weeks is c-section and a 20+ week c-section abortion would be the doctor c-sectioning the fetus out and turning it over to the hospital. If it lives, it was viable, if it dies, it was not. That way you get 100% of the fetuses.
 
2012-08-24 01:20:37 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Dr Dreidel: that has historically had horrific ramifications for everyone.

Your absolutism is misplaced and incorrect.


Wait, what? I don't mean that every single person in the world was worse off for it, I mean that there was probably not a single person more than 3 hops removed from someone affected by the abortion bans - women being slaves to biology, or who had their insides torn up by a med student with good intentions and a scalpel, or who risked life and uterus to have the 13th kid at age 43.

Dr Dreidel: families not having any options to limit the number of kids they have while also retaining the freedom to bone as they please.

Abortion as contraception I disagree with. Take some responsibility for your actions.


Good thing that doesn't really happen (unless you count RU486 or Plan B as "abortion as contraception") with any significant frequency. Oh, and also, do you mean "multiple abortions rather than take the pill" or "I didn't want to be pregnant and I can't get Plan B from the Catholic-owned CVS down the block, so now I have to ask you for a D&E"?

Dr Dreidel: 1) Until someone can logically and scientifically equate a clump of undifferentiated cells implanted (or almost-implanted) in a uterine wall with an infant child, they are different things. We can treat them differently, as we do with under-18 and over-18 (I realize this is orders of magnitude above allowing them to buy cigarrettes).

Until science can tell us when a fetus is a child, I would go the other way.


They look different, they act different, and one has differentiated cells whereas the other does not. Ball's in your court to prove similarity now. (DNA isn't good enough, as you can't tell age, and dead people still have some living DNA for a while.)

Dr Dreidel: So long as SCOTUS says abortion's legal, it's legal (federally speaking). Stop fighting this battle - you've lost

"So long as" implies that change is possible, so people won't stop fighting. Also, they won't stop just because their opponents tell them to.


SCOTUS isn't liable to reverse themselves, and your GOP allies don't seem to care enough to do anything to make abortion illegal when they pull the levers of power. Keep fighting the battle if you like, but it's Quixotic. You're not likely to win at the federal level.

Better?

Dr Dreidel: Your religion does not get to tell me how I live. If my religion says that I must stone adultresses (and assuming you're a Muslim, Jew or Christian, it does), why keep me from carrying out what my religion demands? If my faith says that your giving blood is akin to murder, can I ban you from giving blood?

You object to my imposing my religious tenets on you. However, my position on abortion does not spring from my religion. Frankly, I'm not even sure what my religion's position is on the subject, or if it has a single position. So this argument falls from a faulty assumption.


If your religion says abortion is murder or is wrong, don't get one. If your belief that abortion should be illegal stems from your religion's teachings, my country's laws would like a word. If your belief that abortion is wrong/should be illegal are not based in religion...I r confuze. It's rare to meet a "pro-lifer" who isn't basing their attitude on some alleged word of god.

Dr Dreidel: Because people who don't believe abortion is murder have rights, too.

Everyone has rights, and they frequently conflict. I understand your arguments (well, all but the one) and I don't claim they aren't valid. Some woman carrying a baby, that she doesn't want, to term is not good for her, and probably not for the child either. In the case of a rape, the pregnancy will be a horrible reminder of what happened. However, I see the child as an innocent who shouldn't lose his/her life over the bad act of someone else. There are options other than abortion. So between the two options, I err on the side of life for the child. I see it a bit like capital punishment. Yes, the criminal that's killed will never commit a crime again, but what about the innocent man? And our criminal justice system is so good at convicting the innocent that I just can't support capital punishment right now.


She is not carrying a "baby", she's carrying a "fetus". Words mean things. I realize that they're similar (to you, identical?), but in point of fact, they are not. One needs connections to another's body just to keep growing, the other does not.

Often, the fetus she is carrying, when she decides to abort, has no developed nervous system. Even more often than that, the fetus is dependent on mom for oxygen and food - you're compelling mom to keep the kid alive (including all the health care costs she's on the hook for), abstain from alcohol/smoking (legal, even for pregnant folks - as horrible as they are to fetal development) and the physical misery of pregnancy. What other labor are we allowed to compel from people whose actions we deem legal? Can we force the men who knock up women to turn over part of their paychecks for fetal support? Do we make such womens' prenatal care free (after all, we wouldn't want a "child" to die of neglect, would we)? How long after the kid is born does this stop - immediately? Do we give the kid healthcare and food and such until they're 18? (Are you some kind of socialist?)

There are options other than abortion, but none that remove the risks and damages from a mother's body/life. I am pro-choice simply because leaving these decisions in the hands of women and the doctors they see is the only option that makes any sense for a free country.
 
2012-08-24 01:26:38 PM

Dr Dreidel: There are options other than abortion, but none that remove the risks and damages from a mother's body/life. I am pro-choice simply because leaving these decisions in the hands of women and the doctors they see is the only option that makes any sense for a free country.


I'm pro-choice up until a point for a very similar reason. Your explanation has left out consideration for the rights of the fetus. This is where you use the 39 week old fetus example - are you okay with a woman aborting a fetus that as far as all medical science can tell is perfectly healthy? I'm not, therefore I'm pro-choice up until a point.
 
2012-08-24 01:27:00 PM
Here is another Debbie Wasserman Shultz gem.

CNN will get more viewing from me if they keep up calling policical types out on their BS like this. That is what the media is supposed to do, not just give out free airtime.
 
2012-08-24 01:31:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.


You still didn't prove me wrong. That number doesn't account for education and experience. It's unadjusted - which you skipped over at the top of your same link.

Women who choose the same education and career path as men make the same as men - in fact, sometimes even more.

Again, for those of you who failed to read it the first time.
 
2012-08-24 01:32:47 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: ...oddly enough, that has indeed occured to the researchers.


Yes - it did occur to the researchers, which is why you have adjusted and unadjusted numbers. The problem is most people are using the unadjusted numbers to justify their cause - and the majority of people are drinking the koolaide too much to research further into it.
 
2012-08-24 01:33:12 PM

Dr Dreidel: Can we force the men who knock up women to turn over part of their paychecks for fetal support? Do we make such womens' prenatal care free (after all, we wouldn't want a "child" to die of neglect, would we)? How long after the kid is born does this stop - immediately? Do we give the kid healthcare and food and such until they're 18? (Are you some kind of socialist?)


Pretty sure that most, if not all, of these already happen.
 
2012-08-24 01:36:23 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Beyond the point I made earlier - that the Paycheck Fairness Act was never passed - I have to say, it's impressive that both you and your boyfriend are in 'project management.'

That's like one gay lion tamer meeting another gay lion tamer. What are the odds??

/RIP Greg


Sorry - that was a misspeak on my part, I meant the equal pay that Lyndon Johnson put in effect and the LL Act.

Listen, I'm against redundant laws in all forms - for instance the ERA. I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me. I hate women who constantly bring it up.

Also, project management is subjective when your company is only 60 people big. Really, we're development and resource ranglers and business analysts. We all have technical experience in development as well.
 
2012-08-24 01:38:00 PM

skilbride: I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me.


Is that you Ainsley Hayes?
 
2012-08-24 01:38:56 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: skilbride: I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me.

Is that you Ainsley Hayes?


????
 
2012-08-24 01:41:00 PM

skilbride: The_Six_Fingered_Man: skilbride: I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me.

Is that you Ainsley Hayes?

????


"Ainsley: It's humiliating. A new ammendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man. I am mortified to discover there is reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country, I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old white men. The same article fourteen that protects you protects me and I went to law school just to make sure."
 
2012-08-24 01:41:22 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Is that you Ainsley Hayes?


I live outside Washington DC - you wouldn't believe how many times you're at a bar and the subject of the Equal Rights Amendment comes up and have a travesty it was that it never got passed.

Apparently people here like beating a dead horse. It was a novel idea in 1920 or whatever, but right now it's just useless.
 
2012-08-24 01:42:30 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: "Ainsley: It's humiliating. A new ammendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man. I am mortified to discover there is reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country, I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old white men. The same article fourteen that protects you protects me and I went to law school just to make sure."


LOL My personal hero! :)

(Although, she does ignore that when it was proposed it did kinda make sense because we didn't have equal rights... lol)
 
2012-08-24 01:47:03 PM

Galloping Galoshes: I am advocating nothing on this aspect of the issue. I see your point, but I don't believe it is necessary to deal with it before dealing with the first part. If a fetus is or is not a human, and when, must be settled before the implications of that decision are clear. Otherwise, you're arguing backward from the desired outcome and trying to make your princples fit your solution.


This part is meaningless because the moment you declare that the entity a person, the implications that sprawl15 mentioned are immediately clear - in fact, they're the conclusions that must be reached if you actually intend to treat them as persons are treated.

This "We'll just do the 'person' part first and figure out the rest later" approach can't work without some deliberately imposed disconnect from conventional jurisprudence, as well as moral and ethical reasoning.
 
2012-08-24 01:52:35 PM

urbangirl: But if the party platform doesn't matter and has no real affect on policy, why do they bother to create one?


So uneducated voters will see the platform, agree with it and vote straight ticket without bothering to learn about the candidates.
 
2012-08-24 01:59:07 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dr Dreidel: Can we force the men who knock up women to turn over part of their paychecks for fetal support? Do we make such womens' prenatal care free (after all, we wouldn't want a "child" to die of neglect, would we)? How long after the kid is born does this stop - immediately? Do we give the kid healthcare and food and such until they're 18? (Are you some kind of socialist?)

Pretty sure that most, if not all, of these already happen.


Really? Garnishing a soon-to-be father's wages for prenatal care is compelled (I realize I asked about the possibility, but now that I give it serious thought, it should be compelled. She's compelled to carry the kid to term, whether she wants to or not, so similarly, he must pay whether he wants to or not)? Pregnant women get free healthcare, or are you thinking specifically of POOR pregnant women? Ditto kids - I know Medicaid covers them, but why should rich people have to pay when poor people don't? Is this an entitlement, or are we affirming the value of life here? We subsidize kids' (beyond just the poors) healthcare and nutrition?

Because that's what I mean. If ALL kids must be brought to term, it seems unimaginably cruel to not be sure that all of them are provided for.

// I guess I can go along with unsubsidized care for rich folks, but so long as Chester Worthington IV's eldest daughter will always find a "sympathetic doctor" who can handle her case of "mono" discreetly, we won't have to worry
 
2012-08-24 02:01:25 PM

skilbride: God Is My Co-Pirate: ...oddly enough, that has indeed occured to the researchers.

Yes - it did occur to the researchers, which is why you have adjusted and unadjusted numbers. The problem is most people are using the unadjusted numbers to justify their cause - and the majority of people are drinking the koolaide too much to research further into it.


It would also be nice if newspapers employed more proper science journalists, who know what studies are really saying. Nonetheless, the sexism is real, and I'm getting sick of it.
 
2012-08-24 02:02:47 PM
Cooper is one of the two people left on CNN who isn't appallingly stupid. DWS does a disservice to those who share her viewpoint by being mentally unprepared to discuss it, as even a modicum of preparation would have provide her with the exact facts she needed to support what she was trying and failing to say.
 
2012-08-24 02:07:42 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Whatever you need to say to keep your child killing heart warm at night.



Shiat like this is always helpful to the discussion...

/But he started it!
 
2012-08-24 02:14:13 PM

skilbride: cameroncrazy1984: Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.

You still didn't prove me wrong. That number doesn't account for education and experience. It's unadjusted - which you skipped over at the top of your same link.

Women who choose the same education and career path as men make the same as men - in fact, sometimes even more.

Again, for those of you who failed to read it the first time.


From your link:

"Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women - even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area - are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide. "

Oops. Looks like you need to read more carefully.
 
2012-08-24 02:18:05 PM

Russky: McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.

Soledad O'Brien had a really good grill session the other day with Spicer. Maybe things are heading in the right direction for journalism finally.


Just don't watch the Situation Room. That piece of crap should be stripped off the air. Wolf Blitzer and that jackass Cafertty make my skin crawl. I want to punch them both in the throat...hard. Blitzer is the definition of softball interview. And Cafertty reminds me of a young Andy Rooney only less topical and more annoying.
 
2012-08-24 02:22:40 PM

Galloping Galoshes: sprawl15: Galloping Galoshes: Abortion as contraception I disagree with.

Most people would disagree with it. The question, however, is legality.

Galloping Galoshes: Until science can tell us when a fetus is a child, I would go the other way.

You really think there's going to be a scientific quorum on when a fetus gains a soul? What the fark is wrong with you?

No, I don't. That doesn't affect my argument. Unless one can say with certainty when a fetus becomes a person, I would err on the side of assuming at conception. Type 1 error vs type 2 error.


AH, so unless one can say for certain that a cow doesn't have a soul, you would assume what regarding McDonald's business practices?
 
2012-08-24 02:26:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skilbride: cameroncrazy1984: Maybe you could start here

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.

You still didn't prove me wrong. That number doesn't account for education and experience. It's unadjusted - which you skipped over at the top of your same link.

Women who choose the same education and career path as men make the same as men - in fact, sometimes even more.

Again, for those of you who failed to read it the first time.

From your link:

"Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women - even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area - are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide. "

Oops. Looks like you need to read more carefully.


During 2010, median weekly earnings for female full-time workers were $669, compared with $824 per week for men, a gender wage ratio of 81.2 percent (Table 1; or a gender wage gap of 18.8 percent). Women's median earnings are lower than men's in nearly all occupations, whether they work in occupations predominantly done by women, occupations predominantly done by men, or occupations with a more even mix of men and women. Four of ten women (41.1 percent) work in traditionally female occupations, and close to five of ten male workers (49.3 percent) work in traditionally male occupations.1
Typically, male dominated occupations pay more than female dominated occupations at similar skill levels (Hegewisch et al. 2010). PDF Warning
 
2012-08-24 02:29:18 PM

skilbride: Salt Lick Steady: Beyond the point I made earlier - that the Paycheck Fairness Act was never passed - I have to say, it's impressive that both you and your boyfriend are in 'project management.'

That's like one gay lion tamer meeting another gay lion tamer. What are the odds??

/RIP Greg

Sorry - that was a misspeak on my part, I meant the equal pay that Lyndon Johnson put in effect and the LL Act.

Listen, I'm against redundant laws in all forms - for instance the ERA. I had the ERA. I wasn't aware the other amendments don't cover me. I hate women who constantly bring it up.

Also, project management is subjective when your company is only 60 people big. Really, we're development and resource ranglers and business analysts. We all have technical experience in development as well.


First, I don't care what you do qua project manager. I think you failed to see the joke.

Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act would not be redundant to the Equal Pay Act. The very reason it's necessary is due to interpretation of the EPA by federal judges that essentially make the Act irrelevant and ineffective for many women.
 
2012-08-24 02:35:11 PM

Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.


I agree completely. Thank you!
 
2012-08-24 02:43:49 PM

Cythraul: HotIgneous Intruder: Anderson in the Pooper? No way. He thinks he's in a personal cotillion.

/Nothing like a log cabin pretty boy to liven things up.
//And that full-size pop-up ad for the Coulterbeast's new book, "Raped" was to die for.

Anderson is a Log Cabin Republican?


and a pretty boy?
 
2012-08-24 03:37:53 PM

lennavan: Fart_Machine: As to your comments I already answered them. Beliefs are subjective and subject to emotion which is why this debate will never have a satisfactory answer for some people.

Your original point was:

Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

I'm telling you bringing up late term abortions gets at the logic behind your beliefs because these beliefs are rooted not just in emotion but also in logic. I even gave you the example of the logic "it's her body, her choice." That's not emotional, that's logical. Sure you cannot separate out the emotions but to simply dismiss that entire line of argumentation as solely emotion-based and dishonest is lazy and dishonest yourself.


Where is the logical response as to when life begins? And do you want to claim that late term abortions are the dominant form of abortion? Bringing this up is meant to provoke an emotional response and is a bogus argument.
 
2012-08-24 03:47:03 PM
How about we say viable embryo's can't be aborted as long as they have a sponser. You can't abort the child if someone is willing to adopt it upon birth.

I'd love to see how many people who are against abortion would actually step up to be affected by the law.

I'm betting a lot of abortions would be approved if the alternative is you have to take the child.
 
2012-08-24 04:02:11 PM
Here they go dragging out this issue again... must be election year because all the tards on all sides come out hooting and hollaring about an issue that isn't changing.

Let's discuss their hairstyles... that would at least be more interesting.
 
2012-08-24 04:11:13 PM

rdalton: How about we say viable embryo's can't be aborted as long as they have a sponser. You can't abort the child if someone is willing to adopt it upon birth.

I'd love to see how many people who are against abortion would actually step up to be affected by the law.

I'm betting a lot of abortions would be approved if the alternative is you have to take the child.


Throw in that they have to pay for all prenatal care and financially support the biological mother during the pregnancy, too.
 
2012-08-24 04:11:17 PM

red5ish: He has said he supports Roe v Wade and he has said he would gladly pass a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions.


I'm as liberal as they get, but this isn't actually a contradiction of any kind. He supports Roe vs. Wade in that he believes that it was a correct and valid interpretation of the constitution as it applied in that case, but he also doesn't like the outcome and wants to change the constitution to fit his desired result.

In fact, this is probably the most valid, nuanced, and reasonable stand one could take on the issue if you disagree with abortions. You acknowledge that by current law they should be legal while working to change the current law. How is this flip-flopping?
 
2012-08-24 08:39:03 PM

Russky: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

This, it's a nice change.

Overfiend: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

I agree completely. Thank you!


You folks, and anyone else that agrees should take a few minutes, head over to the CNN contact page, abd drop them a quick email to let them know that you appreciate it.
 
2012-08-24 08:50:57 PM

Krymson Tyde: Russky: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

This, it's a nice change.
Overfiend: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

I agree completely. Thank you!

You folks, and anyone else that agrees should take a few minutes, head over to the CNN contact page, abd drop them a quick email to let them know that you appreciate it.


I actually did right after I posted that.
 
2012-08-24 09:24:20 PM

Overfiend: Krymson Tyde: Russky: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

This, it's a nice change.
Overfiend: Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.

I agree completely. Thank you!

You folks, and anyone else that agrees should take a few minutes, head over to the CNN contact page, abd drop them a quick email to let them know that you appreciate it.

I actually did right after I posted that.


They've gotten at least 3 emails from Farkers today, whatever that's worth.
 
2012-08-24 11:39:35 PM

cman: Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?


You see anyone in the thread defending her? I'm not. Shiatty journalism is shiatty journalism. We don't need that associated with us.
 
Ehh
2012-08-25 12:31:56 AM

Krymson Tyde: I like this semi trend of the holding of feet to the fire CNN is showing lately. I hope they continue.


I heard Romney snubbed the American press at the Olympics in London. Piers Morgan lobbing cotton balls and that was it. Maybe the American press is actually going to get some payback. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
 
2012-08-25 12:57:06 AM
Romney flip-flop and lies on abortion

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/22/americ a n-bridge-21st-century/pac-ad-sketches-romney-abortion-flip-flopper
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/29/mitt_romneys_flip_flop_flip_on_aborti o n
http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/did-romney-lie- a bout-cardinal-omalley-to-the-nation-during-the-wednesday-debate
http://prolifeprofiles.com/mitt-romney-abortion
 
2012-08-25 05:46:41 AM
I would like someone to forcibly rape this thread.

And then abort it.
 
2012-08-25 09:30:04 AM

Bucky Katt: Romney flip-flop and lies on abortion

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/22/americ a n-bridge-21st-century/pac-ad-sketches-romney-abortion-flip-flopper
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/29/mitt_romneys_flip_flop_flip_on_aborti o n
http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/did-romney-lie- a bout-cardinal-omalley-to-the-nation-during-the-wednesday-debate
http://prolifeprofiles.com/mitt-romney-abortion



A politician not staying consistent with his views to keep the people on his side..?

www.myfacewhen.net
 
2012-08-25 11:51:44 AM

Fart_Machine: lennavan: Fart_Machine: As to your comments I already answered them. Beliefs are subjective and subject to emotion which is why this debate will never have a satisfactory answer for some people.

Your original point was:

Fart_Machine: Late term abortions are already regulated at the state level and happen with such infrequency that his entire argument is an emotion-based canard.

I'm telling you bringing up late term abortions gets at the logic behind your beliefs because these beliefs are rooted not just in emotion but also in logic. I even gave you the example of the logic "it's her body, her choice." That's not emotional, that's logical. Sure you cannot separate out the emotions but to simply dismiss that entire line of argumentation as solely emotion-based and dishonest is lazy and dishonest yourself.

Where is the logical response as to when life begins? And do you want to claim that late term abortions are the dominant form of abortion? Bringing this up is meant to provoke an emotional response and is a bogus argument.


This is the second time now you've completely made something up. Last time I let you go, you claimed your reply to me was recollecting someone else who posted in the thread yet you were not associating it with me in any way. Which is odd given you posted it in reply to me. Now you are saying I'm claiming late term abortions are the dominant form?

I've been trying post after post to get you to reply to the first thing I posted to you. Here it is again. I have bolded the relevant part where I actually directly tell you late term abortions are infrequent. I actually used the farking word infrequent you dipshiat.

No, it's really not. That argument gets fundamentally at your beliefs. That it is already regulated in a way everyone accepts and is so infrequent should make it a significantly easier one to have. Yet it's not because it forces people to see their own cognitive dissonance.

Why are you pro-choice? What is your reason? Some people say it's because it's a woman's body a woman's choice and that's that. Except they don't actually believe that. As you said, late term abortions are already regulated and we're cool with that because pretty much everyone is against late term abortions. So they don't really believe in that woman's body woman's choice thing. So why are they pro-choice?


Here's what's happening here. You yourself get emotional about the subject of abortion. You're totally sure about your beliefs and positions but you're terrified to defend them because you know your beliefs must be true, they just have to be. But in defending them, you might realize they are wrong, which simply cannot be. So you're just gonna refuse to discuss or argue your beliefs and instead project your own emotional issues onto the rest of us. This conversation is going to go nowhere because that's exactly where you want it to go.

No one's forcing you to be a dick. Why do you choose to be?
 
2012-08-25 08:02:13 PM

keithgabryelski: The Democratic leadership should tell her to keep her mouth shut.


That would be helpful if she werent the head of the DNC and by all accounts, the mouthpiece of the party.
 
Displayed 355 of 355 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report