Texas' Abortion Law Test
Plus: BTS gets conscripted, Harvard gets down with plagiarism, cruise ships ban weed, and more...
Texas' medical exemption law gets tested: Kate Cox is a 31-year-old mother of two who is 20 weeks pregnant with her third child and seeking an abortion.
The baby has trisomy 18, which means it will most likely either be stillborn or die early in infancy. Cox has been to the emergency room several times during this pregnancy, and is arguing in court that continuing the pregnancy will risk her health, thus falling under the exception to the Texas abortion law, which does not generally permit abortions but allows them if the mother's life is in danger or if an abortion would prevent the "substantial impairment of major bodily function."
Last week, a trial judge ruled that Cox could receive an abortion in the state, but Texas' Supreme Court put a hold on the trial judge's ruling this past Friday.
Then yesterday, the state Supreme Court ruled that Damla Karsan, Cox's doctor, hadn't sufficiently made the case that the medical exemption applied to her patient.
"Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment," wrote the high court. "But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires."
"Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses," continued the ruling. Now, Cox says she will go out of state to get the abortion immediately.
Cox is one of the first who has sought a court-ordered exception since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling which overturned Roe v. Wade and allows states to dictate their own abortion laws. Her case is unique, too, because she is doing so in advance of getting the abortion. Another suit, which attempts to clarify the legal limits surrounding what qualifies as a medical exemption, is being brought before the state of Texas right now as well. And, in three other states, abortion is coming before Supreme Courts this week, as plaintiffs continue to challenge laws to suss out what each state's new abortion regime permits.
Prior to abortion being made illegal in Texas, there were roughly 50,000 performed annually, down from an almost 80,000 high in 2006. In 2023, there have been 34. University of Texas at Austin researchers note that the vast majority of Texas abortion-seekers choose to get abortions out-of-state (or via securing pills from Mexico), but that Texas' restrictive laws are associated with a roughly 10 percent reduction in the number of abortions performed.
Zelenskyy's fundraising drive: Today, President Joe Biden will host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has traveled to the U.S. to hold out his hands for some funds for his country's war against Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion. "A bipartisan group of senators is struggling to finalize an agreement to tighten border security in exchange for more Ukraine funding," reports Politico, "and the chamber is scheduled to go into recess at the end of this week." It's likely that, if such a bill is drafted up at all, Biden will have to acquiesce to restrictions on asylum seekers as a condition for doling out more aid to Ukraine.
The New York Times characterizes Zelenskyy's visit as a "last-ditch pitch," which seems about right. A CNN poll from August shows how Americans have soured on supporting funding Ukraine's war effort, with roughly 55 percent saying that Congress should not authorize any additional spending and 51 percent saying the U.S. has done enough as-is. Contrast this with the 62 percent, right after Putin's invasion, who supported the U.S. doing more to help Zelenskyy.
"We refuse to allow our tuition dollars to fund apartheid." Columbia students are holding a tuition strike for the spring 2024 semester in an attempt to get their school to "refuse to invest in ethnic cleansing and genocide abroad" and for "divestment from companies profiting from or otherwise supporting Israeli apartheid and Columbia's academic ties to Israel."
They also want the school to "immediately remove Board of Trustees members whose personal investments, financial commitments, employment, or other forms of business involvement entail profit from or support for Israeli apartheid" and changes to campus policing.
They say "it's highly unlikely that students participating in the tuition strike would face disciplinary action of any kind," and that "it would be absurd for the university to suspend, expel, or punish a student for this lateness." Therein lies the problem: Students at elite universities seem to think they're untouchable, and administrators have set a mighty dangerous precedent by spending the last decade communicating to students that their every need for psychological safety from political beliefs with which they disagree can be accommodated. (More from Reason's Jacob Sullum.)
Scenes from New York: This past Friday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of New York's restrictive gun law, which denies people the right to carry in certain public places (like parks) and allows local authorities broad discretion in denying gun rights to people they deem dangerous, only permitting licenses to people "of good moral character." What this actually does is create hoops for law-abiding gun owners to jump through, while doing very little to prevent violence from criminals who own and use guns. (I wrote about Times Square's silly gun-free zone last year.)
QUICK HITS
- Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing and improperly attributing written passages over the course of her academic career.
- The Biden administration's "latest salvo" in the war against pro-lifers, writes Mike Pence at National Review, "is a proposed rule that would cut off Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to pro-life pregnancy resource centers." Cutting government funding for organizations that can surely operate privately is fine, but doing so in a way that attempts to punish politically disfavored groups is not.
- Every member of the K-pop band BTS is now doing mandatory military service.
- Inside NASA's wormy font choices.
- Google loses its antitrust battle against Epic Games.
- The government could have simply not cracked down on single room occupancy units in the first place, instead of now coughing up a bunch of money to try to incentivize landlords to fix 'em up.
- To be fair, stoned boomers would pose a threat to the economics of the all-you-can-eat buffets on cruise ships, so I can see why cruise lines are cracking down on pot.
- Lawyers for Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny say he has disappeared from prison and cannot be found.
- Ugh, no:
This is of course self-serving of me as a generalist political pundit, but I think it would probably be better for the world if we had a reasonably strong norm against beat reporters & college professors doing hot takes outside their domain of specialization.
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) December 11, 2023
- Just say no (to price controls):
"To try and control inflation, would you approve or disapprove of…"
raising interest rates (-20):
40% approve
60% disapprovegovernment price controls (+32):
66% approve
34% disapprove pic.twitter.com/wdcvLe9Nox— austerity is theft ???????? (@wideofthepost) December 10, 2023
- Truly:
My God, this take. It's magnificent. pic.twitter.com/cwcytjo9jh
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) December 12, 2023
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Matt Taibbi goes after Jeff’s sacred Cow of NewsGuard.
https://www.racket.news/p/new-feature-fact-checking-newsguard
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
asd
https://reason.com/2023/12/12/brickbat-printer-precautions/?comments=true#comment-10353591
We don’t need them anymore. He has moved on to using collective consensus guiding freedom.
I still don’t understand what that means aside from a controlled narrative from an authoritative agency. It is a bunch of nonsense to defend censorship.
It’s a call for group think. We all have to agree on certain knowledge or otherwise we can’t have a democracy. So we have to think alike on order to save democracy.
No, I get what jeff is trying to do. He knows calling for censorship directly would get him mocked, even though he is. But even worse this is a call for thinks like Lysenkoism in science.
Indoctrination trumps discussion. One of the many reasons jeff isn’t a libertarian.
I dont know why people like him even bother attacking ideas like Intelligent Design when they are the ones advocating for non competing ideas and against theories of evolution in markets and society. They literally advocate for top down designs.
Meanwhile Liz continues to impress with her call out of ENB favorite Matt Yglesias’s call for only TOP MEN to discuss certain topics. I bet that gives him a sad.
White Mike is now oorphing uncontrollably.
Where has he been? Did he get caught with his hand in the fish bucket at Sea World? I’ve missed his brilliant banter.
It appers mike was ENB’s handle she used to defend her crappy takes.
Sarc indicated that Mike told sarc he is no longer wasting his time here. A competing theory is that, due to inflation, his controllers were no longer compensating him $0.50 per post. Another theory is that after the old Liz stopped doing the Roundup, Mike was heartbroken. Theory number four is that he is transitioning and that os taking up his time. Who knows? Maybe he checked in to Sealions Anonymous.
Maybe he just wised up and stopped arguing with partisan assholes who only care about scoring points.
Maybe he just wised up and stopped arguing with partisan assholes who only care about scoring points.
Sarc admits Mike is smarter than he is.
Dlam admits to being a partisan asshole who only cares about scoring points.
*looks at the scoreboard*
Team Dee may want to caw a timeout.
Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty. That’s why someone like me loses every time.
Maybe he just wised up and stopped arguing with partisan assholes who only care about scoring points.
The guy had 90% of the commenters here muted and even did his prissy sour grapes sendoffs to the most mild of commenters like Square =Circle for the offense of not allowing him to jawbone Square into rhetorical submission.
The guy wasn’t arguing with anyone except the void.
Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty.
1. Is this your first day on the internet?
2. No one’s keeping score.
Perhaps he and Tony simply made the world a better place: They fucked off and died.
Sarc and Jeff could do the same.
All HO2 under the bridge.
Knowledge and facts will always trump civility and ignorance. You lose sarc because you argue from a base of ignorance and choose sides based on who is nice to you.
Even your comment about civility shows this. Youre one of the most uncivil people here. You’ve been given your last posts. Is hypocrisy your greatest strength?
“…Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty…”
Add hypocrisy and the lying pile of lefty shit sarc owns the title.
He Sevo. Why don’t you take your own advice?
“Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty. That’s why someone like me loses every time.”
You dink. I actually laughed out load reading that and everyone in the meeting looked at me.
This may come as a shock, but disagreeing with what you infer is not lying, while calling someone a liar for saying so is both uncivil and dishonest.
2. No one’s keeping score.
Tell that to Mary Stack aka JesseAz, and her Canadian buddy. Pretty sure their hundreds of bookmarks would disagree.
Posting your past comments word for word with links isn’t lying about you dumbfuck. You keep making this assertion and it is one of the dumbest arguments ever made.
The bookmarks are required because you lie about your past statements constantly. That’s why you hate people finally providing your word for word posts.
Because it exposes you as the most dishonest person here.
And you’re honestly too dumb to understand this.
As for your cries or civility. You are not civil. We have shown your posts over and over.
Now from an argumentation standpoint. Civility is often used as a cudgel to force an accepted base for argumentation. This is a means to alter the discussion to a basis that is advantaged to one side. Those who cry civility the most are often those with the weakest arguments. It is an a proori argumentative base meant to dismiss counter arguments at the outset of a discussion.
A link that may be of interest to you but you won’t read.
https://mises.org/library/argumentation-ethics-and-liberty-concise-guide
“Maybe he just wised up and stopped arguing with partisan assholes who only care about scoring points.”
He argued with nearly everyone, even the non-partisan, usually by calling us partisan assholes.
Posting your past comments word for word with links isn’t lying about you dumbfuck.
The lying part is the inferences you argue against.
The bookmarks are required because you lie about your past statements constantly.
You compare lousy inferences from things that were in different contexts to begin with.
Besides, why? Why can’t you just argue with what people say?
Instead you argue against something you inferred from something they said five years ago in a totally different context.
As for your cries or civility. You are not civil. We have shown your posts over and over.
Yes, you’ve posted stupid things I’ve said when I allowed you to provoke me. You don’t post the parts where you say nasty things about my family to get a reaction.
And sarc lies yet again. Most of the posts if your incivility is you introducing it, being the first in a thread. This is why links are provided when asked for.
The lying part is the inferences you argue against.
The one who tries changing what they said through altering their statement is you. An example occurred just yesterday.
My inferences are from what you post. You attempt to alter what you posted. Which is why you hate being quoted. Word. For. Word.
Your entire justification here is lying aboutbwhat you’ve said then projecting your attempts at rationalizing what you said onto others.
Here. A link to an example of you being the first uncivil person in a thread.
sarcasmic 2 years ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I look forward to when they’re critical of the sitting president during the next election, and your head explodes because they’re saying mean things about Biden while a Republican competes.
.
KABOOM!!!
.
sarcasmic 2 years ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I was going to add something about people who might be splattered by the mess, but nobody cares about your alone ass. Shit. Nobody will know you’re missed until they shut the power off and things start to smell.
https://reason.com/2021/07/16/qualified-immunity-senate-compromise-tim-scott-lindsey-graham-police-unions/?comments=true#comment-8998592
In response to a single post that had no expressions of incivility to you or others.
So again. You continue to lie about your own behaviors because you are pathalogical.
Yeah, like that.
Always arguing against what someone said some time ago, instead of what they say right now.
The fact that you consider any evolution of thought in others to equal dishonesty leads me to infer that your thoughts don’t evolve. But that’s just an inference. I could be wrong.
My inferences are from what you post. You attempt to alter what you posted. Which is why you hate being quoted. Word. For. Word.
Quite often when you do that I wonder if you are retarded, because what you claim I meant is a non sequitur.
In response to a single post that had no expressions of incivility to you or others.
He did that again the other day when no one was talking about him, but he felt that he just had to insert himself in the conversation because it obviously was about him.
https://reason.com/2023/12/10/how-a-law-no-one-understands-brought-down-florida-drug-kingpins/?comments=true#comment-10350554
It’s different when sarc does it.
“Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty. That’s why someone like me loses every time.”
Also Sarcasmic:
sarcasmic 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Mother’s Lament is the worst human being I’ve ever been unfortunate enough to communicate with in my entire life. I wouldn’t piss on his face if his teeth were on fire. So I really don’t care what he supports.
sarcasmic 22 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I didn’t say you have moose. I said you fuck moose. You. Personally.
sarcasmic 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Because annoying you is fun.
sarcasmic
November.2.2021 at 10:19 am
Chumby does. Pretty sure he’s a Mainer. But he’s got me on mute. You know, virtue signaling to Ken. Can’t listen to someone who takes people’s words to their logical conclusion. Only a progressive would do that, right?
sarcasmic
August.12.2021 at 4:45 pm
Flag Comment Mute Use
I only show up to watch the trolls and clowns duke it out while tossing in this or that provocation. Bread and circuses. This is my circus.
sarcasmic
September.10.2021 at 12:14 pm
I stir shit up. So what.
sarcasmic 2 years ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I think him and Nardz are going to go on a shooting spree someday. I really do. Storm a Democrat convention with body armor and rifles. Actually no. That would require balls. They’ll probably do something more like the DC sniper. Hide in the trunk of a car when they’re not making sweet homosexual love.
sarcasmic 3 years ago
Flag Comment Mute User
And when I say “pleasure” I mean it. They get off on this shit. Imagine them jerking off while they talk shit and you’ll never read their posts again.
sarcasmic 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I didn’t say my goal was to prevent a fight. Again you’re getting your premises wrong. I said my goal was to mock what someone wanted to say to prevent them from saying it, and maybe possible cause some self-reflection that would make them not want to ask the question again. That assumes the person is capable of learning from others, so it doesn’t apply to the folks to drop turds on all my comments.
Civility is often used as a cudgel to force an accepted base for argumentation. This is a means to alter the discussion to a basis that is advantaged to one side.
For once Jesse has a point. Civility IS used as a cudgel to force an acceptable base for argumentation. It is so the argumentation occurs from a basis of *reasoned discussion* and not puerile insults. Since that is something Jesse has a very hard time doing, that is why he rejects civility. He “wins” when he gets to throw out insults and fallacies every half-second. But there is no way he would ever win any formal debate that had rules on decorum.
So thank you Jesse for finally admitting to us all why you are such an asshole around here. It is because you are intellectually programmed that way.
“Can’t listen to someone who takes people’s words to their logical conclusion.”
Ohh, that’s damning.
Exactly my point.
Rather than engage what someone says today, you’re arguing with things said years ago.
*Googles “appeal to hypocrisy” and gets, surprise surprise, “tu quoque.”*
How the fuck do you still not know what tu quoque means?
Me insulting you when you’ve made no argument is simply me insulting you. I’m not saying you are wrong in your non argument. I’m calling you a fucking hypocrite.
Even when presented with the evidence above you still claim to be clean and pure and not at fault.
Pathalogical. You truly have issues.
You are the pathological one, Jesse.
By your own admission, you deliberately reject civility in your discussions so that you give yourself free license to act like an asshole. Why do this? Why treat people like this?
Mike Masnick has been put on notice!
Oh look here comes ML to call me a Nazi again.
I didn’t today, but thanks for the reminder, you evil Nazi fuck.
“I still don’t understand what that means aside from a controlled narrative from an authoritative agency.”
So you understand exactly what Jeff wants then.
Jeff’s entire schtick is trying to portray authoritarian measures as somehow libertarian.
Essentially, in a nutshell, Jeffy is lying and is about as libertarian as Fidel Castro.
Thats always been his shtick. Trying to wedge in leftist ideals into a thin veneer of libertarianism. He struggles more with that than he does wedging into a standard door frame.
But their not even leftist ideals anymore. They’re a weird blend of fascism with aristiocratism and the divine right of kings.
Fascism has always been a leftist argument. No matter how much they try to revision history.
That explains why Hitler sent communists to the camps.
Two leftist groups fighting amongst each other doesn’t make one of them non-leftist.
There’s no such thing as leftist Jews.
Can Jews be left-handed? What about a redhead? A Jewnger?
Stalin must’ve had Trotsky killed because he was right-wing, right sarcasmic?
Lefties have always killed each other.
Both the left and the right can pick and choose offending things done by offensive people, and use them to prove the good guy would have been them or the bad guy would have been the other. From Jesus to Lincoln to Hitler, and then some.
Your non sequitur is retarded and actually goes against your initial assertion about fascists.
How are you so fucking dumb? Yesterday you claim you ask questions to learn. Me, ML, ITL and others have given you the primary sources showing Italian fascism to be socialists. Yet you deny it. Why? Because you refuse education or admit you are pushing a leftist narrative. Again. This is why you get attacked so much. You don’t care about truth or facts.
So even when weeks of citations from the Italian fascists themselves you remain compelled to ignorance.
This is why you are attacked retard. You are incapable of education.
You know what, bookmarked because this is so fucking retarded.
Yes, “leftist ideals” like a belief in objective reality. That is not a “leftist ideal”, that is objectivism, you dolt.
a controlled narrative
Is Newton’s Law of Gravity a “controlled narrative”?
How about the First Law of Thermodynamics?
How about Maxwell’s Equations of Electricity and Magnetism?
Are they all just “controlled narratives” foisted upon the proles by elites in order to control us and keep us down?
What the fuck are you babbling about? None of those things were mandated by government elites you lazy shill.
Sorry ML, I couldn’t hear you, what with all the Nazi shouting.
I suspected that, Kemjeff.
What, are you going to defend HO2 next?
If you can’t tell the difference between Lysenko and Newton, you must be lyin’ Jeffy.
Maybe molecular formulas are a Tool of the Man to Keep Us Down. How dare they demand that we represent chemical compounds with these specific combinations of letters and numbers. It’s just the elites foisting a controlled narrative upon us, and Mike was just ahead of his time in freeing us all from the tyranny of elitism that the chemical sciences have imposed upon us by inventing his own way to represent the chemical formula of water.
Isn’t that how it works? Did I do that right? I mean, I think it’s Jesse’s crowd that is defending the post-modernist approach to reality now.
Wasn’t the argument about molecular formulas what got a bunch of the glibs to leave?
But more seriously:
Is there objective reality, or isn’t there?
If there is an objective reality, then it applies both to the reality of gravity, and the reality of the 2020 election, and the reality of climate change.
You can’t on one hand say “Newton’s Law of Gravity is the obviously correct one, the rest of you are stupid if you choose to believe something else”, and then try to defend some moron with an obviously false opinion that defies objective reality in, say, the 2020 election or climate change, because otherwise that would be “elites foisting a controlled narrative on us”.
Stating FACTS that CORRECTLY describe OBJECTIVE REALITY is not a “controlled narrative”, it is simply stating the truth.
Oh fuck off. Of course there is reality. But deciding which interpretations are objective and which are subjective is a human operation and subjective as hell.
Just fuck off. You’re an idiot, and that is my subjective opinion of your subjective opinions.
Just fuck off.
I think we have enough posts from Jeff to make it an objective opinion.
There are so many unknowns, inherent in both of those, that reasonable people can argue about them. And definitely about policy prescriptions to address them.
Reasonable people can argue about SOME parts, yes. But there are some OTHER parts that are simply beyond dispute because they are objectively true. Such as the part about the election not being stolen via voter fraud. There has been vanishingly little evidence to even hint that this may be the case. People who repeat this are not being honest. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t any problems at all with the election, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t other problems that are open to interpretation, this doesn’t mean that there was ZERO fraud. But can we at least settle on the parts that are objectively true?
“People who repeat this are not being honest.”
Correction, they are either not being honest or they are simply woefully uninformed.
I’ve repeatedly posted objective facts about 2020 and you and your tribe have ignored it every time Lying Jeffy.
That is a lie, and you are also a creepy stalker, so fuck off.
Just because we comment back on your bullshit does not make anyone here a creepy stalker.
You just lie about me, bait me, troll me, and otherwise act like a garbage human being. But you’re right, calling you a stalker is just a bridge too far!
Why do you act so terrible around here?
You, and Jesse, and R Mac, and ML, seem to delight in being rude uncivil assholes. Why? What pleasure does it give you?
Cope harder, Jeffy.
Why do you act like such an asshole? What pleasure do you get from it?
It’s really not, Lying Jeffy.
It really is, and you are still a stalker. I mean, you aren’t as bad today, only 25% or so of your posts today have been focused on me, as opposed to your usual 80%-90%, but you still stalk me and it’s just creepy.
Are you claiming I’ve never posted this article before?
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/17/judge-rules-michigan-secretary-of-state-violated-state-law-with-absentee-ballot-order/
And what kind of creepy stalker calculates what percentage of someone’s comments are in response to who?
No, I saw you post that article before.
What would you like me to say in response to that article that you posted?
You’re the stalker, you are the one who often comes into a conversation and purposefully chooses to focus the overwhelming majority of your comments on me. I am simply documenting your stalking behavior. Why do you do this?
So you admit you were lying when you said I’ve never posted any facts about 2020. Thanks.
Are you calling him a Hungry Hungry Hippocrite?
Haha, it’s funny because he admitted he’s fat. (And how does this comment effect Lying Jeffy’s ratio of my posts?)
It’s interesting that you bring up Newton when I explained this all in a reply to you yesterday. Experts spent literally hundreds of years debating whether Newton had even gotten it right. There were alternative theories about vortices and corpuscules that were broadly categorized as Cartesian physics. Over a long enough time period, support for the Newtonian model grew as more knowledge was gained, the structures were tested, and more holes and problems were found in Des Cartes’ model. Finally, Cartesian physics was buried when Einstein explained gravity with General Relativity.
Two experts, two very smart, learned men, disagreed on the fundamentals. One of them was completely and utterly wrong on basically every point. It was only over time that one model was accepted because it bore out and more accurately reflected the truth. Newtonian physics was not mandated as true by some King.
That’s right. Because Newton’s model better conformed to objective reality. Not because Newton was more popular. Not because Descartes was silenced or censored or oppressed. And we now consider it commonplace and unobjectionable to teach kids in school about Newtonian physics, and no serious person would complain that it is “indoctrinating students” or “foisting a controlled narrative”, or that schools ought to “teach both sides” or some nonsense like this.
But now suppose Descartes tried to make the argument that he was cheated out of his rightful place as the President of Physics because Newton’s people pulled dirty tricks and lied and sabotaged his best efforts. Or, Descartes tried to make the argument that he was cheated out of his rightful place because Newton was in league with Big Physics in a systematic campaign of oppression. One would hope that rational people would not be swayed by such demagogic arguments and instead would look to objective, scientific measures to judge which model works best to explain the natural world. But in our current world, many people ARE swayed by these demagogic arguments and they DON’T look at the factual evidence, or at least they don’t look at it very carefully.
This is not a big deal if people’s decisions only affected themselves, but it does matter when those decisions affect all of us via their democratic vote.
So what do we do about this, in a non-coercive, non-censorship manner?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Could it be called something other than gallop? I’m trying to come together with collective reasoning to find a truth.
Not a Gish Gallop. You can’t even use the term correctly, creepy stalker.
It’s funny you keep calling me a stalker while responding to me.
I have to refute your bullshit somehow. If you wouldn’t stalk me, there would be nothing for me to respond to, would there?
Lol, that’s exactly what I’m doing, refuting your bullshit.
Many of those who scream follow the science have a distorted idea how science works. They tend to believe in what I would describe as Act V science, i.e. the scientist, who everyone ignored, comes up with a brilliant solution in Act V that saves the day in the nick of time, just before the last commercial break. Since it doesn’t work that way, screams of follow the science are useless. Or even following the consensus of science. At one time, the consensus rejected Lister and Pasteur. At one time, the consensus rejected ulcers caused by H Pyloric bacteria. Etc. Scientific history is replete with examples of the consensus being completely wrong and in some cases (rejection of germ theory for example) even harmful.
Remember that time we all argued about gravity? Good times.
We went round and round on that.
Oh, he still needs them – how else are you going to ensure that we all have a ‘shared understanding of reality’ if you don’t have official fact-‘checkers’ telling you what the ‘facts’ are.
What the hell is “collective consensus guiding freedom”? I never used that phrase yesterday.
Yesterday I never advocated for groupthink or conformity in opinion. Only that we strive to have a more informed public so that we have a shared understanding of what the FACTS are. Actual FACTS. Not opinion, not dogma, not propaganda, but actual FACTS.
Is there such a thing as objective reality, or isn’t there? If there is, shouldn’t our collective decision-making, in a democratic context, be grounded in our understanding of our objective reality, instead of what the narratives and the dogmas that demagogues and ideologues push?
Why is this so threatening to you all?
https://reason.com/2023/12/11/struggling-artist/?comments=true#comment-10351524
chemjeff radical individualist 1 day ago (edited)
By “reasoning together collectively” I take his point to mean that we all operate under the same basic set of facts to form our opinions.
https://reason.com/2023/12/11/struggling-artist/?comments=true#comment-10351586
chemjeff radical individualist 1 day ago
How do we get to a state of shared reality so that we can make informed decisions in a democratic context?
https://reason.com/2023/12/11/struggling-artist/?comments=true#comment-10352941
chemjeff radical individualist 14 hours ago
No, that is an insanely paranoid way to interpret it.
All I am saying is that we collectively can’t have a rational discussion if we cannot even agree on basic premises or simple facts.
Congratulations. You know how to copy-paste. They all confirm what I wrote above.
And they’re all summed up nicely in a phrase HorseConch (not you) used to describe your current comments, “collective consensus guiding freedom”.
No, that is a distortion of what I wrote.
Only in the same way Biden’s father’s son’s corruption is a distortion of Biden’s corruption.
Sigh. I never demanded “collective consensus” over anyone’s opinions. It has always been about FACTS.
Me: Let’s see if we can all agree on some common basic facts, shall we?
Everyone else freaking out: STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT TO THINK! IT’S GROUPTHINK! IT’S CENSORSHIP!
FACTS are reported and judged subjectively by humans.
You are a fucking idiot.
So I’ll put you down as a post-modernist then. Good to know.
“Me: Let’s see if we can all agree on some common basic facts, shall we?
Everyone else freaking out: STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT TO THINK! IT’S GROUPTHINK! IT’S CENSORSHIP!
So I’ll put you down as a post-modernist then.”
It’s amazing how you try to lie about stuff that everyone can clearly read.
Like somehow all the original posts just disappeared and only your narrative remains.
What it confirms is that you want totalitarianism – we all have the same set of ‘facts’, arbitrated by official ‘fact-checkers’.
If there is, shouldn’t our collective decision-making, in a democratic context, be grounded in our understanding of our objective reality, instead of what the narratives and the dogmas that demagogues and ideologues push?
One man one vote means that ignorance has equal weight in voting to enlightenment.
This.
Yesterday and today you were advocating for a ‘shared understanding of reality’ and a ‘collective consensus’ when it comes to science.
How is it that in the modern era, where nearly everyone is carrying around in their pockets a source of information that is more vast than anything that any individual human being has ever had access to in the past, that there can be large groups of people who hold beliefs that are not really subject to good-faith debate or opinion or reasonable disagreement, but are just plain WRONG?
Two examples I brought up yesterday:
Climate change is the proximal source of most if not every single recent major storm or weather-related event that occurs.
The 2020 election was stolen from Trump due to voter fraud.
And yet if you look at polls, large numbers of people will agree with those statements even though they are false. Even though they have access to a huge wealth of information that can disprove it to them if they put in the effort to do so. But they don’t or won’t or can’t. Why not? How can we fix this, in a way that DOESN’T rely on censorship or coercion?
Assuming it needs to be “fixed” is begging the question. The whole point of the internet, at least in the wild west days, was to have access to information that might NOT be within the assumed conventional wisdom of the establishment. It literally democratized information-sharing, even in these modern Clown World times where global powers do their best to prevent it, often with the help of the very companies who pose as enablers of that information-sharing.
Gore’s whole complaint is centered on his frustration that some globohomo organization can’t force people to act and think the way he wants them to act and think. People having strong opinions on issues and being able to share them, even if they’re wrong, is a feature, not bug, and the inevitable result of information democratization. If these globalist retards can’t convince the masses that their authority is sacrosanct, that’s because they blew their credibility and a sizeable portion of the population doesn’t give a shit what they have to say anymore.
Gore’s whole complaint is centered on his frustration that some globohomo organization can’t force people to act and think the way he wants them to act and think.
Even if that is Gore’s complaint, that is not my complaint. I am not interested in forcing anyone to act and think in any particular way (violations of the NAP notwithstanding).
People having strong opinions on issues and being able to share them, even if they’re wrong, is a feature, not bug, and the inevitable result of information democratization.
Great! It is terrific that people are able to share their opinions! The problem arises when we try to make collective decisions in a democratic context, and those of us who have opinions based in objective reality try to have conversations with people who have opinions that are not based in objective reality. It leads to a breakdown of how we even arrive at a decision at the end.
If some moron wants to deny that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to him in his personal life, then go for it. He ought to have every right to do that. But then when that same moron then decides to vote for bullshit, because some green-energy demagogue persuaded him that the Laws of Thermodynamics don’t apply when it comes to magical solar panels so he should vote for him to hand out free solar panels to everyone, then we all suffer from the bad policies that result.
Even if that is Gore’s complaint, that is not my complaint.
No, you just rephrased it.
The problem arises when we try to make collective decisions in a democratic context,
That’s not a problem at all. That’s what happens in intensely democratic societies. Native American tribes were notably the same way, and disagreements often resulted in members of a band fucking off from the band, and starting up their own band or migrating to one that was more accepting.
Anyone talking about coming to a collective consensus misses the point that doing so requires a common culture and social paradigm. What we have now doesn’t provide that, and that’s Gore’s (and the center-right’s) biggest issue–he knows it can’t happen organically in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society, so his solution is to brute force by compelling tech companies to manipulate their algorithms to bias his preferences–just like mouthpieces such as Francis Haugen have argued for, or what Twitter was like before Musk took it over.
No, you just rephrased it.
No, I didn’t. Even if he wants to force everyone into some type of groupthink, I don’t. Feel free to believe whatever bullshit you want to believe. All I ask is that when it comes to decision-making in matters that might affect me, such as with elections, that our decisions be based on objective reality. I don’t think that is too much to ask. And I find it a little bit appalling that you all have such a hard time with it.
Anyone talking about coming to a collective consensus
*sigh* I am not talking about coming to a “collective consensus”. Only that we understand the FACTS. Beyond that, let’s disagree as much as we want to disagree.
As an example, one cannot properly understand quantum mechanics without a firm understanding of algebra, and a lot of other math. That is a pre-requisite. What you all seem to be demanding, is that we all have a spirited discussion about quantum mechanics without any common understanding of what algebra is, and then we VOTE on the quantum mechanics paradigm that we all will have to use based on that discussion. And if I complain that maybe we all should first have to properly learn some algebra before we even have a discussion about quantum mechanics, then that is just “foisting a controlled narrative” on everyone. That is ridiculous, that is madness and it is wrong.
Politics isn’t science.
Stop trying to tie them together.
“Climate change is the proximal source of most if not every single recent major storm or weather-related event that occurs.”
Only in the sense that the climate changing has ALWAYS been the cause of storms and weather-related events.
I’ve posted it before but bares repeating: on Columbus’s second (or third, don’t remember for sure) trip to NA, he spent almost the entire time stuck on an island because it was an extremely bad year for hurricanes.
There were no EVs in use at that time, hence the numerous hurricanes.
That is why I said “proximate”. Of course in any storm there is some role that climate plays. But the false statement is the one that declares that climate change, particularly man-made climate change, is THE BIGGEST REASON why a particular storm is doing what it is doing. Not even the scientific models predict that. AT MOST they predict that hurricanes get a little bit more intense or that droughts get a little bit longer. But “climate change” did not create Hurricane Idalia this year.
“The 2020 election was stolen from Trump due to voter fraud.”
That you feel obligated to include this destroys your entire argument. You realize that, right?
Umm, no it doesn’t. And stop stalking me, creep.
Lighten up, Francis. Refuting your bullshit is not stalking you.
Mocking Lying Jeffy is fun AND easy.
Except you all don’t refute what I say, you don’t argue in good faith, you just mock and insult. That’s not refuting, that is just trolling. And you all follow me around when you do it. And in R Mac’s case, he would even bring me up when I’m not even participating in the discussion. Why? What purpose does it serve other than just to be a giant asshole?
So you claim it’s an objective fact the election wasn’t stolen. Thanks.
…I’ve decided to regularly fact-check their (Newsguard) content on a scale of 0-to-4 Marks of Satan>
That is fucking hilarious!
We can’t have a shared collective reasoning when The Narrative! is fact checked.
Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy groups continue to rake in billions a year from government.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/feds-sent-nearly-2-billion-to-planned-parenthood-other-pro-abortion-groups-govt-report-finds
That money is just for health services!
University of Wisconsin turns down 800M in funding after it is tied to not increasing DEI. UW schools already spend 10s of millions a year on DEI. But because they wouldn’t be able to continue to increase the narrative state, they turned down nearly 1B.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/12/university-of-wisconsin-regents-would-rather-lose-800-million-of-funding-than-submit-to-dei-reforms/
Don’t get me wrong. Reduced government funding for education is a good thing. Especially when driving DEI. But the story shows how the primary concern of most public universities is now indoctrination, not education.
Correct.
Shows something else too.
https://twitter.com/BonifaceOption/status/1734593566276563297?t=0_Cg1RbNztxrkULpmSPYVA&s=19
The Harvard thing has shown the emergence of a new hierarchy among the elite.
I don’t know how you can watch this and not conclude that the disproportionately powerful ethnoreligious identity group that has subtly dominated postwar American culture and politics has been usurped by the gay race communism it helped to empower.
This is more or less the point that Musk agreed with that forced him to undergo a humiliation ritual, btw.
But what happens when gay race communists meet Palestinian anti-colonials? Especially if they meet on a roof?
Thumb wars. Whoever loses is on top the victim pyramid.
You know individuals don’t matter
There is one individualist with a whole lot of matter.
So much so that he’s more of a collectivist, but don’t try to tell him that.
What astonished me most about what the GOP was offering was what weak tea it was.
And a lot of that money was for raises. I guess they’re putting their money where their mouth is, at least, by eschewing the raises so that they can continue to indoctrinate.
The baby having Trisomy 18 does not endanger the health or life of the mother any more than a normal pregnancy would. That’s why the treating doctor didn’t say that it did and why it was not permitted. Making “visits to the emergency room” doesn’t mean much at all.
If I understand the medical issue…
The baby may die in the future so she wants the baby killed now.
Lets see that ‘baby’ exist anywhere besides your own hyped up imaginary propaganda….
You really are to stupid on this subject, at 20 weeks the infant can survive, at least in some cases, outside the womb, ergo your criteria of set it free actually works against your position.
The irony is abortion is a religion to him.
it strikes me that for many it’s a religion, because when you point out facts that run contrary to their narrative, i.e. performing a late term abortion is not an emergency procedure because it requires longer to perform, involves the insertion of a probe and forceps to dismember and assist in evacuating the uterus and still requires the uterine contractions (without uterine contractions, removal of the placenta would cause the mother to bleed to death for one thing) they revert to ‘you’re just trying to insert yourself into their decision’. No, I’m not, I’m just pointing out the fallacy of that argument. It’s not a judgement call.
Ya know like the FACT that it isn’t a separate entity until it is??????
Huh, TIL that having unique DNA and being in the early stages of human development doesn’t make you a separate entity.
Science!
A foundation is not a house and if you want to sell it as a house you better make sure it’s inherently livable as shelter all by itself (the very requirement of calling it a house).
The BS propaganda (repeated lies) is the only thing giving it more value than what it has. An endless cloud of fraudulent and delusional sales pitches.
…and frankly I find it somewhat disturbing that the foundation isn’t even yours but instead someone else’s or someone else’s wife or daughter’s. There’s a substantial amount of “I own your pregnancy” narration playing-out right along with the selling a foundation as a house.
That’s another horrible example. (We’ve been over my stance many a time but to repeat myself: I’m not interested in banning it, however I will continue to call you out on your asinine portrayals of human fetal development and the biological realities of conception & pregnancy).
Swing and a miss champ.
You called me out? Where? Inside your own imagination?
So set it free for F’Sakes……
Stop talking in imagination land.
Are you saying it doesn’t exist inside the mother? Or do you just have a hardon against anyone calling it a “baby”?
Baby by every non-delusional standard exists OUTSIDE the mother (born) so NO. Outside of delusional propaganda land the term ‘baby’ doesn’t fit. And the only way to put the term ‘baby’ into reality is fetal ejection.
New in stores today…. Baby food for pregnancies… F’En retarded and loaded with deception and deceit.
This is the problem with every Pro-Life activist. They imagine (<—— KEYWORD) something separate existing before any separation has occurred. It's illogical. If they want to talk about a separate entity they need to actually ACKNOWLEDGE IN REALITY a separation must exist first (not in imaginary land of their own delusions).
With
childclump of cellsAdditionally, from a medical standpoint, an abortion at 20 weeks carries almost, if not equal risk, as delivering the infant would. The whole ‘I need an abortion late in pregnancy to save my life’ simply is not supported by medical knowledge. In a truly life threatening situation, such as pre-eclampsia, delivery is quicker than late term abortions, and thus safer for the mother. It takes 48 hours on average for a late term abortion, under 24 hours for an induction and under an hour for a caesarian. If you support late term abortions say so, don’t try and make up bullshit excuses about the mothers health, it simply is not supported by the facts.
If you support late term abortions say so, don’t try and make up bullshit excuses about the mothers health, it simply is not supported by the facts.
Again, too much good faith. You assume these people are going to say, “Oh, since you used objective medical science, I’m going to reconsider my position.” No, these are people, when ENB puts up pictures of “reproductive material” that was grown without fetuses or had the fetuses removed, nod along and say “See. It’s clear from the photos that at 20 weeks the baby is invisible, so it’s OK to kill it.”
Again, ENB routinely says “The law limits abortion to 15 weeks once a fetal heartbeat has been detected, but does/doesn’t ban medicinal abortion.” like the FDA and AMA don’t already effectively and literally “ban” medicinal abortion after 10 weeks after the most recent menses.
Great… Then YOU can lobby for her to eject it and save it from her since YOU seem to think you know everything about her personal situation.
The pure over-lording arrogance that surrounds this very personal subject is infuriating. Why can’t you people believe what you want to believe without sticking your fat F’En noses into everyone else’s person life’s? Are you the sperm donor on this case or what?
I wasn’t saying one way or the other, I was pointing out the stupidity of the medical emergency fallacy. Is reading hard for you?
And also note, if delivered late term, it is, by definition viable, at least to some extent, ergo, ‘ejecting’ it, to use your overly emotional trope, by definition gives it a chance to survive and be adopted. So, your tirade isn’t even supported by the facts.
And note there have been babies born at 20 weeks that have survived.
Reference? I’m still seeing 21-weeks by Beth Hutchins 2020.
not with the list of defects this child had…. i know, i know….. that’s why you won’t go look at the actual details… then you would know how full of shit you are.
Taylor Lorenz.
Man, when you’re so far to the left that you think the NYT is right-wing, you are lost.
Shrike is TayTay?
Certainly old enough to be.
But, TayTay is too old for Shrike.
So, no masturbation for Shrike then.
Much of the Washington Post’s commentariat rags on it for being Rightwing if it publishes anything even slightly critical of Democrats. Some on The Left are so far Left they’re Right. See, for example, the antisemitism in Ivy Leag
Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing and improperly attributing written passages over the course of her academic career.
Fake it ‘till you make it.
Not important. Her job is to use Harvard to mainstream post-modern neomarixism. To that end, she is successful and will keep her job.
And notice that this pattern of repeated plagiarizing, despite being a matter of public record, was a complete unknown to everyone until Gay started becoming a liability to the cause of neo-marxism. Then, as she started allowing the rabid leftism of Harvard to become visible- only then does she suddenly come “under fire”.
Unnoticed until a threat to neomarxism, or unnoticed until a proponent of “antisemitism” in a prominent position?
Harvard says no biggie on her plagiarism. They are letting her update her thesis with proper citations.
From the headline, thought the other Liz was back doing the Roundup.
It gave me pregnant pause.
I almost aborted commenting.
A bit premature?
Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Has Matthew Yglesias fallen out of favor?
Are we sure his take isn’t in response to the Taylor Lorenz Tweet? It seems exceptionally cogent.
Old Liz swooned for Matt; New Liz disses Matt.
Every member of the K-pop band BTS is now doing mandatory military service.
The world breathes a sigh of relief.
WTF is BTS?
The biggest K-POP band.
Must be my loss as I don’t listen to K-Pop.
How would you know? I find it forgettable.
A neighbor gave me a CD of his music once. I put it in the CD player and started it, and hours later wondered why it was on. Found the CD in it and restarted it, and could not remember a single track.
That’s K-Pop.
Gagnam Style was great.
But that was the before times.
Yeah, that was an awesome tune and awesome video.
Pop music is awful because it’s current music. Once time passes, the crap is forgotten. There was just as much crap music in the 1950s as in the 1930s as in the 1800s, 1700s, and back to Ooog the caveman beating on a log.
Cavemen were into real hard rock.
Then around 3,000 BC they came up with heavy metal.
Correct. Sturgeons Law applies to music, as well as everything else.
BTS and other K-Pop fandon is basically projected nostalgia by Zennials/Zoomers who were too young to get into the late 90s-early 00s boy band/pop tart explosion.
Does this mean S Korea is now safer or less safe from N Korea?
BTS out of me.
“We refuse to allow our tuition dollars to fund apartheid.” Columbia students are holding a tuition strike for the spring 2024 semester in an attempt to get their school to “refuse to invest in ethnic cleansing and genocide abroad” and for “divestment from companies profiting from or otherwise supporting Israeli apartheid and Columbia’s academic ties to Israel.”
This isn’t a strike. It is then dropping out. Which is probably a good thing.
They say “it’s highly unlikely that students participating in the tuition strike would face disciplinary action of any kind,” and that “it would be absurd for the university to suspend, expel, or punish a student for this lateness.”
Tuition is prepaid in exchange for future classes. Who is educating these kids?
So these people want to take out loans for classes, not actually pay for those classes, them have the rest of us pay back their loans.
Totally sustainable.
If they get away with it, what is to stop students from finding something else to protest over and not pay tuition? Has no one taught them about contracts? You are receiving a service, education. You have to pay for that service, tuition. You sign a contract saying as much when you agree to accept the invitation to attend that university (note, I had four different acceptance when I graduated high school, two to universities I didn’t apply to, Notre Dame and Gonzaga, I accepted one of them, therefore I agreed to the terms of attending that university).
The essence of progressive liberalism is to find any excuse to avoid consequences and personal responsibility. To be fair, this is part of human nature, but most of us at least recognize that adult status requires accepting responsibility–or at least it used to. Liberals have made a virtue out of incompetence and poor decisions.
“Has no one taught them about contracts?” If they’ve been taught about contracts at all, it’s that they are constructs of Evil Capitalism and racist as hell.
well…. it isn’t like they are in need of further indoctrination….
Since my daughter goes to a public university, and I pay the bill, not somebody else, that would be considered quitting. Too bad she doesn’t belong to one of the protected groups, I’m getting sick of paying.
There is no apartheid in Israel, so all the students’ demands have been met. There is no legal discrimination based on “skin color.” There is no second class of citizen, all have equal rights recognized under the constitution. In fact, non-Jewish Arabs have extra protection under the law because they are not subject to conscription. But if they WANT to enlist, they’re allowed to. Which means they actually have more freedom under Israel than do native Jews.
So Columbia should just tell the strikers that they’ve won and that nobody is being funded by apartheid.
Would price controls be guided by collective consensus?
Collective reasoning. It’s the best type of reasoning. Ask the Typical Collectivist.
a reasonably strong norm against beat reporters & college professors doing hot takes outside their domain of specialization
A norm… like sandwich making?
Send that begging Bandera beggar Zely back to Kiev empty handed.
I’d actually be more sympathetic to the guy if he hadn’t acted like such an entitled, hectoring piece of shit. He clearly forgot that he’s in power at the pleasure of the State Department and CIA, and his main responsibility was to ensure the graft machine worked in the favor of Democrat politicians and globohomo hedge funds. It wasn’t to be a war commander or to make incessant, snarky demands on his benefactors.
Maybe the scales are finally falling from his eyes and he’s come to remember that he’s not the one who’s actually in charge of the country.
When you’re getting something for little or nothing, out of someone else’s good will, it’s not a good idea to complain about the quality or quantity you’re getting. The counteroffensive failed miserably and the average age of your troops is now 43 and rising (i.e. you’ve managed to eliminate a generation of young men, who have historically done most of the fighting and are now relying on middle age men and pensioners). It’s probably time to reconsider your strategy and make some pragmatic choices. Offering them more money is just putting off the inevitable and increases the chances that they buckle completely and Russia obtains it’s final goal of reconquest of Ukraine. When the average age of your fighting force is 43, you’re knocking on the door of complete failure. It’s unsustainable at this point. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, and every casualty you continue to incur is one more irretrievable step towards unavoidable collapse.
Note even if I have that number slightly wrong and instead it’s just the average age of new recruits, the analysis doesn’t change. You’re running out of bodies either way to continue to throw into the meat grinder.
Eventually, he’s going to have to sue for peace here, there’s no two ways about it.
But we said we would fight to the last Ukrainian!
I love the fact that everyone in Washington, republicans included, completely fail to mention that every penny we send over there is borrowed against future generations. I like to give to charity, personally, but for me to go into debt doing it would require something pretty important. I don’t think that any Americans truly feel that level of importance about Ukraine or almost any other waste of our money.
The problem is polling is turning against them, 55% have said we have already done enough or to much and that no more money should be sent. This really is, as CNN described it, the last chance to save Ukrainian funding. It’s a loser going into an election year, if Biden can’t cut a deal, then it’s over. The fact that he isn’t seriously negotiating is a tell he (or more likely his handlers) want this albatross off from around their neck while also wanting to blame Republicans when Ukraine collapses.
There’s also the fact that they’ve decided a secure border is no longer on the table for some reason.
Reason loves that. Average American seeing the country flooded with not the best and brightest the world wants rid of, not so much.
The tell here was that the actions of NATO and the left/center-right coalition in the US and EU didn’t match their rhetoric. Go to neocon blogs or news sites like the Dispatch or Patterico, and they were adamant that supporting Ukraine trumped any other issue, including inflation here at home. The assertion was, and continues to be that if we don’t stop Russia now, they’ll roll right into eastern Europe and start up the Warsaw Pact again (note that Poland just elected its version of Barack Obama, so even that nation isn’t safe from the globohomo menace. They are well and truly fucked now). They had fucking Hollywood shitheads feting the guy at the Oscars, that’s how deep the propaganda psyop was.
That was all bullshit because if they actually believed it, they would have committed far more to the fight than they did. We would have seen Operation Allied Force or Odyssey Dawn air interdictions, and fuller commits of special forces than what we’ve provided. Instead of running through stockpiles of our own arms, the war machine contractors would be going full blast. While it doesn’t help that our military brass are SJW politicians and not actual warriors, these people were all writing checks their mouths couldn’t cash.
The F35 fears the S400.
Participants should have followed Minsk 2 and allowed the locals in the east to decide if they wanted more autonomy from Kiev. It would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Proceeding as it has resulted in cracks in the petrodollar and dollar reserve currency monopolies. The eastern provinces and a land bridge to Transnistria are possibly the territorial demands from Moscow. Not sure how the west will feel about allowing Odessa to be ceded. Ukraine will hate it. There will be other provisions such as neutrality, shipping rights on rivers into the Black Sea, but unlikely reparations demands. Russia will need a manor victory with a breakthrough path to Kiev before western leaning Ukrainians will accept the loss. Another year of this? More seeds for sowing ground on the stone.
And the US Military fears the V-22 Osprey. How many servicemen have to die before they kill that bad project? Oh, but the US Army is going in on tilt wing too for their planned replacement for the UH-60 and AH-64
To be fair, the CV-22 hasn’t killed nearly as many Airmen as the F-104 did. When one of those crashes, it just gets more attention because it was such a controversial acquisition program to begin with.
True and the 104 was basically a het engine with what jokingly was called wings. People joke the F-4 proves that if you put a big enough engine on it you can make a rock fly, but the 104 was basically a jet engine with a cockpit.
I wonder at what point Putin’s calculus changes, if it hasn’t already. Initially, and probably even as late as this spring before the counter offensive failure, I’m pretty confident Putin would have accepted an independent eastern Ukraine and agreements that Ukraine not join NATO. Maybe a little more to make himself look good.
But at a certain point there’s going to be no reason for him to not just take the whole damn place.
Occupying western Ukraine would be an Afghanistan reset. They still talk about Stalingrad; the zinc coffins from the 1980s are fresh in their memory. I think they avoid that.
Saw reported yesterday that Britain is down to 150 tanks, France has 90 pieces of artillery remaining, and Germany has ammunition to fight for two days.
Maybe. Could an entire generation of young men already being dead change that though? He could also set up his own puppet regime and then withdraw after.
The elites got their kids non-conscript positions, non-combat military positions, or out of the country. The proletariat is there to serve their betters, up to and including ceding their lives. The videos showing military recruiters pulling boys off the streets for service highlights this. I don’t doubt that most if not all families have a dead relative or neighbor; I’m not sure their press/govt is reporting the actual death toll.
Would the elites kids really be willing to engage in a Taliban like insurgency?
Or would they more likely play the role of puppet to Putin, especially after seeing how being a puppet to the west worked put?
They will get those collectively reasoned to accept the narrative to conduct additional acts of terror. The targeting of that blogger for instance. Perhaps the bridge and maybe Daria’s assassination.
With funds drying up in the US, will he be forced to dance naked on tables in London to make it UK raine?
Nah, just play piano.
Every member of the K-pop band BTS is now doing mandatory military service.
Their fault for not being female.
But all of their fans sit when they pee.
Is Joe Biden a BTS fan?
Biden stands when he poops.
I got stationed with some KATUSA troops when I was in Korea, and they were really some of the coolest, most respectful dudes you can imagine. Most of them are just college students doing their mandatory service time before getting on with their lives, so you don’t see a lot of the bitterness that sets in with US servicemembers who are, really, mostly mercs who are there for the steady paycheck and benefits, and have been alienated by a lot of the reindeer games played by their supervisors and officers during their careers.
Yeah but weren’t you a crayon eater? I am just teasing, of course.
I was in a combat comm AF unit at the Hump. We were slumming it not being at Osan, as Humphreys was kind of a shithole back then. All the buildup at the Hump didn’t happen until well after I PCS’d, after the Army closed down Red Cloud.
Hell, my squadron doesn’t even exist anymore, they all got moved to Osan and rolled into the 607 ACOMS.
Okay, I’d make a chair force joke, but PJs and Combat Comm gets a pass. As for combat meteorologist. You’re basically goon as fuck and trained to do real goon shit. Much like I’ve been told by multiple infantry that no matter if you served with a line unit or not, medics are never POGs.
To be fair, I went from that combat comm squadron to a fixed comm one after my tour was up, so I spent the rest of my enlistment mostly sitting on my ass doing very little. My one deployment was mostly a four-month vacation where I was babysitting contract network techs, and watching movies and tv shows on sharedrives. I had a fucking blast in Korea, though–the funny thing about that tour is that you’d spend the year counting down until you left, and then you’d be itching to go back because you were always busy. Our squadron was tight as hell, too.
I have actually worked with AF special warfare guys on the civilian side, including an Air Force Cross awardee, and those dudes are legitimate pipe hitters.
For some reason I thought you had been a marine.
No, but we did get them from Okinawa sometimes for exercises at the Hump. The local business owners hated them because they were so rowdy, but believe it or not, they did have the hottest military females I saw during my enlistment. The Army females were all ratchets, and the AF girls were hit or miss. Nearly every single Marine female in those exercise visits were all legitimate hot pieces of ass for some reason.
Today, President Joe Biden will host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has traveled to the U.S. to hold out his hands for some funds for his country’s war…
Sorry, you’re what was. Today the U.S. has lowered the Ukrainian flag in deference to the Israeli or Palestinian one (depending on whose supporters whatever leader needs to pander to).
To be fair, stoned boomers would pose a threat to the economics of the all-you-can-eat buffets on cruise ships, so I can see why cruise lines are cracking down on pot.
Liz won over jeff by mentioning all you can eat.
…Biden will have to acquiesce to restrictions on asylum seekers as a condition for doling out more aid to Ukraine.
…and subsequently his own pocket.
With inflation, 10% is now only 6%.
Abortion… Yglesias…
ENB, what did you do with good liz!!
ENB would never ever ever ever criticize Yglesias like Liz just did.
Agreed. But how often will we get both abortion and matty Y in the same roundup with good liz? Had to make a joke.
This past Friday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of New York’s restrictive gun law…
They ain’t never even heard of this 2nd Amendment thing, much less the name Heller.
Constitutions are for Nazis.
Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing and improperly attributing written passages over the course of her academic career.
You mean someone else peppered their speech with phrases like “my truth” before her?
Price controls? Biden, consider spending controls.
President Joe Biden addressed voters who are worried about inflation on Monday, arguing that his domestic spending plans would help keep prices low over the next decade.
SleepyJoe thinks we can spend our way out of inflation.
Reminds me of The Simpsons when Homer thought he could dig deeper to get out of the hole he found himself in.
“We’ll dig our way out!”
And currency based on precious metal was not even an option in the survey.
What about social credit scores?
Cutting government funding for organizations that can surely operate privately is fine, but doing so in a way that attempts to punish politically disfavored groups is not.
That is, of course, the whole point.
Every member of the K-pop band BTS is now doing mandatory military service.
…in the IDF.
Is there the equivalent of Epstein Island of the coast of Korea?
Thailand?
The behavior in question is too acceptable there for blackmail?
I’ve kind of wondered how much Elvis’s induction began the movement to abolish the draft, with Vietnam putting the final nail in the coffin.
Don’t much know, but the draft (conscription) has not been a normal feature of American life. It may have simply been a desire for normalcy.
I think that by the late 50s the draft had largely become a feature of society. The draft started before WW2 and extended beyond by several months, was briefly stopped and then renewed for Korea and then wasn’t ended until 1973. So, in essence, you had three generations that grew up with the idea of conscription. Elvis just happened to fall in the middle of that time frame.
Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing and improperly attributing written passages over the course of her academic career.
So in ~30 years she’ll be able to get elected POTUS.
History first black, second Gay female President no less!
2nd black president – Bill Clinton was the first.
The Fellows of Harvard just gave President Gay a Mulligan on four failures to cite or reference material published under her name of the sort that can and do result in faculty firings or resignation.
At least he didn’t “kill himself” in prison…
…just like Jeffrey Epstein.
“HE WHO HATH NOT A UTERUS SHOULD SHUT THE ‘FUCKETH’ UP” – FALLOPIANS 13:13
“WOE THAT THE LEGION WHO ARE MANY, WHO HAVE A UTERUS, HAD SHUT THE ‘FUCKETH’ UP IN THE PLACE HENCE NOW.”
TJJ 20:00
The Roe v. Wade decision they love so much was handed down by a Supreme Court with exactly zero uterus-owners.
Maybe I should create a new series called “Liberal ‘arguments’ are actually vapid bumper sticker slogans that even liberals don’t believe, Exhibit #whatever.”
It should be more than just liberal non-belief. It needs to be obviously (like at the 4th grade level), retardedly, self-defeating/internally inconsistent.
Pro-abortion Feminists: Pants-wearers shouldn’t make decisions about women’s rights!
<Lia Thomas has entered the chat>
Maybe the decision was based on principles of Individual Liberty and Justice for all instead of [WE] mob RULES of the uterus-owners gang.
It’s collectivist thinking through and through where Individualism sacrifices for the mob. A sure way to destroy a nation.
It doesn’t lend itself to a catchy acronym, though.
If you don’t own something you don’t get to legislate on it?
Can we do this with guns, bank accounts, cars, etc.?
If you don’t own something you don’t get to legislate on it?
Can we do this with guns
I’m not even that suicidally (anti-)fascist. “The suspect may’ve/allegedly used a gun to
kill someonestop the heart beat and brainwave function of a clump of human cells.” sounds *exactly* like the sort of things 12 angry peers should look at an decide if it constitutes a fucking murder or not.Slaves
Niall Ferguson: The Treason of the Intellectuals
“Anyone who has a naive belief in the power of higher education to instill morality has not studied the history of German universities in the Third Reich.”
You don’t have to go that far back or that far afield either. Zimbardo was teaching students to abuse their authority as make believe guards in ’71. It took 5 days before an independent colleague showed up and said ‘This is unethical psychological abuse.’ before anyone involved thought it was anything other than edifying.
Its really nothing more than the substitution of the belief in absolute moral authority in a higher power, for a secularized one where having a PhD and a certainty in the inevitability of communism is a requirement.
Essential all older universities started as sectarian religious institutes, set up to further the faith. I guess they are reverting to form.
History rhymes far too often.
Dr. Josef Megele
Mao has entered the discussion.
…cruise lines are cracking down on pot.
Time for a sequel to Soul Plane.
…a reasonably strong norm against beat reporters & college professors doing hot takes outside their domain of specialization.
Yglesias is going to stay in his lane?
A reason round up where yglasias is not exalted as the greatest person in the world? Times they are a changing
To try and control inflation, would you approve or disapprove of…
I disapprove of “try and” and approve of “try to”.
This guy gets it.
Hey, language, like the Constitution, is a living thing.
You write good.
Aborto-Freaks and Moms Against Liberty say Katie Cox must carry a lifeless fetus until Gawd intervenes.
There is a state looking to enforce the death penalty for women like Katie.
Way to go, wingnuts.
Well, yeah, if she votes Democrat, she should absolutely be incentivized to abort regardless.
Are “Aborto-Freak wingnuts” the ones who want to kill viable babies and call them “lifeless”, or the ones who think that’s absolutely fucking depraved?
The baby isn’t lifeless. And she would be able to go through removal if it becomes so.
Facts are never on your side shrike.
You might want to do something atypical for you, read the entire story first.
The fifty-cents doesn’t cover self-study.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
>>must carry a lifeless fetus until Gawd intervenes.
reading. not your strong suit.
And, should we point out that it is not an abortion if the fetus is lifeless? It’s a D&C. Nah, not worth the trouble.
Besides being an evil, racist, sexist, linker of child porn, he’s also dumb as fuck.
I really wish the pro-abortion crowd would make better arguments that aren’t so easily countered by actual medical science. See Foo_dd below trying to say a late term abortion would be safer for a woman with two c-sections. Yeah dilate the cervix inducing contractions then dismembering the fetus and extracting it with forceps surely has a lower risk of complications with someone with a history of multiple C-sections. Are you a fucking idiot (that was a metaphorical you).
Fucking hilarious how the left actually thinks that the government signing off on interest rate increases isn’t a form of price control itself.
We have about half the country of Venezuela wandering around in the US right now as elegant proof that price controls are a shit way to deal with inflation.
I came here to make sorta the same comment..except that I don’t think a lot of people- left or right- realize that interest rate control is a form of price control. Just read that twitter feed, and even people who you’d expect to know better consider interest rate controls to be synonymous with “printing more/less money”.
Yeah, the whole point is to tamp down inflation because too much easy credit results in excessive liquidity, and the government does have an actual stake in ensuring we don’t become Weimar.
So many people believe it because the myth that FDR saved the country from the depression with the New Deal and price controls etc is still taught, rather than the fact that FDR actually prolonged the depression with his actions.
And that the price controls were challenged in court, A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States
Summary: FDR lost big time. This, and other loses, led to the infamous court packing scheme.
That is why they aren’t progressives, just regressives, they keep pushing the same failed plans but relabel it.
Progress!
I’ll give FDR credit for two things: 1) the US really could have blown apart during the Great Depression, as the commies were licking their chops at the prospect of the great capitalist Satan finally collapsing. FDR’s various programs gave enough people hope that they could muddle through until things got better, which neutered a lot of potential social strife; and 2) he at least recognized that the devil finds work for idle hands, and stuff like the CCC and WPA kept a lot of household breadwinners employed doing relatively productive work. That includes a lot of current parks and infrastructure that’s still used today, like airports, libraries, hospitals, and parks (my namesake, for example, was a CCC project, and look how many entertainment acts seem to treat a performance there as something to be recorded for posterity).
The bigger thing it did was provide a generation of young men with the most important skill necessary for proper military service, how to listen to commands and obey. The CCC was ran by the Army after all. This proved really useful after December 7th, 1941.
One fun fact is that a lot of CONUS military bases that were built prior to war were constructed by the WPA. FDR and Congress had cut the DoD’s budget, but allowed them to get around this restriction by using WPA dollars instead, because the local municipalities needed to kick in dollars of their own for these projects, and thus saved money on the federal side.
So you claim there’s no “War on Christmas”.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/canadian-human-rights-commission-labels-christmas-celebration-discrimination-grounded
There is no war on Christmas. It is just Fox News pants-shitting.
Merry Christmas, asshole.
Do you dress up as Santa and go to malls so that young boys will sit in your lap?
He wants to talk about the first thing that pops up.
Obviously you missed where it’s the Canadian Human Rights Commission doing this.
#FuckTrudeau
Shrike hasn’t read things that interfere with his narratives before and he’s not going to start reading things that interfere with his narratives now.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Why is there a “2” at the end of his handle?
Because he can’t count to III
As long as the official greeting is also “Happy Holidays” on MLK’s birthday, Labor Day, and any other high holy day for the left, I will consider it.
Nice of you to quote so extensively from a highly opinionated source rather than make your own case and argument.
It is natural for a nation to have national holidays that reflect the dominant religion. With ~70% of Americans currently self identifying as Christian and no other religion breaking low single digits (the other 30% are mostly the “nones”), having Christmas and Easter be national holidays just seems right, doesn’t it?
Of course, that does mean that Americans, including citizens that can trace their ancestors back many generations, that aren’t Christians don’t have the government endorsing their beliefs the way that Christians do. But so what, right? It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion! The Constitution only says the first part!
Oh wait…
Obviously reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Did you notice that it’s the Canadian Human Rights Commission? There is no such commission in the US (as of yet). I’m discussing Canada, dip.
For you and the others that think I can’t read…
You quoted most of a blog post by some guy that calls himself Tyler Durden. He opens with the usual complaints about wokeness in the U.S. before talking about this thing in Canada as a “See, the Canadians deal with it, too,” point.
The one sentence you wrote:
So you claim there’s no “War on Christmas”.
The “War on Christmas” phrase is an American invention brought up in American right-wing circles. If you are only worried about Canadian holidays, then being aggrieved that I started talking about the U.S. Constitution would make sense. On the other hand, if you live in the U.S. and are worried about how the War on Christmas is playing out here, then no is your chance to deal with it.
Of course, that does mean that Americans, including citizens that can trace their ancestors back many generations, that aren’t Christians don’t have the government endorsing their beliefs the way that Christians do. But so what, right? It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion! The Constitution only says the first part!
Great, another fucktard who can’t read. The American constitution doesn’t cover Canada, fucktard.
Why do your bosses insist on sending morons over here? I know Reason isn’t a huge publication, but it still seems like a waste of resources.
I’m sure the Canadian Human Rights Commission doesn’t see the irony in their conclusions.
Abortion rights: unfettered protection of individual freedom, legalized murder of innocent humans, or extremely useful political issue that no important people really want to solve?
Discuss.
try: issue where everyone knows most people are in agreement — it should be allowed early on and later if there is a legitimate medical reason — but that we still let the extremists on both side set the parameters to the point where we are having stupid conversations about exactly how close to dead you have to get before it is OK to abort.
Are people ever held legally responsible if they fail to put themselves at risk to help someone else? Even if the person would certainly die without that help? Maybe when we put people in jail for failing to swim into a riptide to save someone from drowning, running into a burning building to save someone trapped in the fire, we can justify telling a woman that she has to remain pregnant in order to produce a new human being. When maternal mortality in this country is 23.8 deaths for every 100,000 live births (around 1 in 4000), and has been increasing in recent years, why not just leave the decision entirely to the woman and her physicians and call it a day?
No one is ever required to do more than call for professional help when someone else is in trouble and doing more than that would entail any significant risk at all, right? Someone is bleeding to death and you worry that you might get some disease from touching their blood? IANAL, but I would guess that you won’t be held liable if you don’t put your hands on the person to try and slow the bleeding and they die before medics can get there. If I’m wrong about that, I’d be interested to see the law that says so.
^This to a T. Using gov-‘guns’ to enslave people to save/create a life.
It’s no difference than universal healthcare, armed-theft welfare and wealth distribution. Taking Liberty from some to save the ‘poor’. It’s got leftard intentions written all over it.
The problem is, really there are so few, as to be functionally zero, actual legitimate medical conditions in late pregnancy that couldn’t be dealt with by birth. Fetal demise, but then it’s not an abortion anyhow. If it’s a true medical emergency, as in time matters, the quickest, therefore safest, route of treatment would be a cesarean. Because in a true emergency time matters and a C-section take under an hour (far less) can be performed with a simple spinal block and carries about the same risk level in recovery as birth or abortions. An induced labor takes less than 24 hours on average (if longer, you generally have to go for a C-section anyhow) and a late term abortion 48-72 hours.
The problem is, really there are so few, as to be functionally zero, actual legitimate medical conditions in late pregnancy that couldn’t be dealt with by birth. Fetal demise, but then it’s not an abortion anyhow.
See Savita Halappanavar in Ireland. Or this case here.
The problem is that you want to substitute your judgement and the judgement of anti-abortion politicians of what is a “legitimate medical condition in late pregnancy that couldn’t be dealt with by birth” for that of doctors.
Uhmm, 30 years in medicine dude. It’s not the view of the vast majority of doctors, even those who perform abortions. Because it is not supported by basic medical facts. Abortions take longer, therefore in a true medical emergency, an abortion is the worst choice.
The problem is, really there are so few, as to be functionally zero, actual legitimate medical conditions in late pregnancy that couldn’t be dealt with by birth.
This woman was ~20 weeks. At twenty weeks, the fetus is about half the length and 1/10th the weight of a healthy, full term newborn. Tell me again how abortion at that point is just as difficult and risky as waiting to give birth?
Oh, and tell the family of Savita Halappanavar how there are functionally zero “legitimate” health conditions that can’t be dealt with by birth. She was 17 weeks whe she died. If that’s not what you mean by late term, then describe what your definition of late term is that makes 20 weeks late term when 17 isn’t. The reason her case became a rallying point to overturn Ireland’s ban on abortion was that the hospital refused her requests to terminate the pregnancy, despite doctors prognosis that miscarriage was inevitable, because of the abortion ban. They had to wait until it died, basically, which is not an abortion, in your words. She developed sepsis and died from it.
If it’s a true medical emergency, as in time matters, the quickest, therefore safest, route of treatment would be a cesarean.
Did you see the part of this case where the woman’s doctors were telling her that a cesarean could lead to her being unable to have more children? This was a major point in the case. Waiting for further development so that labor could occur was unnecessary added risk.
I question your medical experience, or at least whether your beliefs are clouding your judgement. None of what you claim makes sense.
“The problem is, really there are so few, as to be functionally zero, actual legitimate medical conditions in late pregnancy that couldn’t be dealt with by birth.”
is it “functionally zero” or is it the 1% of abortions that ever happened after 16weeks before we started passing stupid fucking laws like this one in Texas? cases like this woman were always what we were talking about when the term “late term abortion” was used. and the extremists would force her to suffer bodily harm, medical complications, and a best case of giving birth to a baby to watch it die within months…… because it isn’t close enough to killing her.
It’s functionally zero because medicine isn’t set in stone, and there is always an edge case scenario. What bodily harm would she suffer that she would not suffer from an abortion? Do you understand in late term abortion, you basically are inducing labor after killing the fetus, because you have to get the dead fetus out (or it would kill the mother). As for her watching it die, why can’t she give it up for adoption if that’s the problem? And watching it die is somehow worse than killing it? Oh and if she can’t eject the dead fetus, it has to be surgically removed anyhow (which does happen) e.g. you aren’t even reducing possible harm from a cesarean. From a strictly medical standpoint, there is no condition that I can think of where abortion is not as risky, and several where it is more risky than induction or cesarean. This has been pointed out by a number of leading OB-GYNs but tends to get ignored. If you support late term abortions make the case without ‘the risk of the mothers health’ scenario, because there really isn’t a case that it is better from a treatment view to kill the infant before inducing labor to expell the infant, rather than inducing labor and delivering. Either way you have to get the infant out, the difference is is it alive or dead when you do it.
“What bodily harm would she suffer that she would not suffer from an abortion?”
so, what you are saying is that you are passing judgement on the medical merits of her getting an abortion without even trying to learn or consider any of the details…. you are kind of underlining the absurdity of pretending you have any right to tell her what she can do if you can’t even be bothered to look at that before passing your judgment. she had already been to the emergency room three times with complications. and there is this, directly from the court filing: “Because Ms. Cox has had two prior cesarean surgeries (“C-sections”), continuing
the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy.”
“From a strictly medical standpoint, there is no condition that I can think of where abortion is not as risky…”
someone with two prior cesareans having severe complications WHEN the inevitable miscarriage happens is not risky in your book? (already been to ER three times in a week…..)
“Either way you have to get the infant out, the difference is is it alive or dead when you do it.”
wait… i see…. you are a fucking moron trying to play some stupid semantics game….. we are talking about a fetus that is 20weeks, with major developmental issues to the point where the mother’s body is already trying to reject it. there is no way any of this ends without the baby being dead….. sure, they effectively do a cesarean…. the baby is still fucking dead when they are done.
Prior cesareans would make abortion just as dangerous. Because in an abortion at that point, it’s the same as an induction, the process. Fuck. I’m not making any judgement. I am pointing out the medical facts. A late term abortion is just as risky as delivery. Because they are basically the same fucking thing, idiot. Learn to fucking read.
“Prior cesareans would make abortion just as dangerous.”
we are talking about the danger of continuing the pregnancy, dip-shit.
“Fuck. I’m not making any judgement.”
bull-fucking-shit. after it has been explained to you that this woman has medical conditions that complicate a problem pregnancy on the verge of miscarriage, you are still trying to pretend that FORCING her to take those risks is somehow actually safer….. a ruptured uterus while not under the care of a surgeon is not safer than an abortion.
Who is forcing? What medical condition? Trisomal abnormalities do not carry a risk factor for the mother. Her past cesareans make abortion actually more dangerous. She doesn’t have a medical condition that makes it more dangerous. The baby is not going to be born normal. If it dies in uterus, they would do the same basic thing as an abortion. A d&c is procedurally the same as an abortion, ergo, an abortion is not safer. Period.
“If it dies in uterus, they would do the same basic thing as an abortion.”
and making her wait for that to happen carries no risks? not one?
“A d&c is procedurally the same as an abortion, ergo, an abortion is not safer. Period.”
for someone claiming great medical knowledge, you seem to have a bizarre inability to see a pregnancy as something other than the final procedure to end it…. or the dangers of those things happening when you are not already in the hospital with a doctor standing over you.
No more risk than walking down the street in reality. If the risk of pregnancy was that great, placental mammals would have died out a long fucking time ago. Pregnancy is a perfectly natural occurrence that placental mammals have evolved to deal with for about a billion years. The risk of pregnancy are greatly exaggerated, with the greatest risk coming during delivery. So, no I’m not ignoring anything, I’m dealing with biology, evolution and medicine. Pray tell, what great risk would continuing a pregnancy carry? What are these risks? Surely you know them since you insist I’m ignoring them.
“The risk of pregnancy are greatly exaggerated, with the greatest risk coming during delivery.”
something i would expect a person claiming to be a nurse who has worked in labor and delivery to grasp is the fact that this is already not a “typical” pregnancy…… she has already been to the emergency room three times because her body is trying to do what you are saying she should not do. and it is not doing it on schedule. unless you think she is going to spend the next 5 months in a hospital with a surgical team on hot standby, that risk is going to be much greater.
Again, where did I state she should not do anything? And how do you know what those ER visits were for? And no, trisomal abnormalities are not an atypical pregnancy except that the fetus is not normal. Her body may be trying to miscarriage, that doesn’t make an abortion a safer option, nor does it require her to be banned from getting an abortion. What I am stating, multiple times, is that an abortion is no safer than a miscarriage and a subsequent D&C or an emergency C-section. I don’t care if she has an abortion.
What I am stating is that medically, an abortion is no better an option than the other options. That the risk factors are about the same. Even for complicated births. During early terms, yes, abortions are safer than carrying to term. Because most miscarriages in the first trimester are rarely more than a heavy period. And basically abortion in the first trimester or even midway through the second is basically a medically induced miscarriage. What I am specifically talking about, without once making a judgement on rather it should or shouldn’t be allowed is the concept that an abortion in at 20 weeks is the safest option. It isn’t. That doesn’t mean it should be banned. It just means that the idea of medically necessary abortions is a myth used to advance a position no more correct than assault weapons are weapons of war. it has nothing to do with allowing abortion. It has entirely to do with the idea that an abortion is a medically necessary treatment.
“Again, where did I state she should not do anything?”
every time you spew your BS trying to pretend having the abortion is actually more dangerous. are you really so stupid that you do not understand that advocating AGAINST her doing something is advocating FOR her to do nothing?
“And how do you know what those ER visits were for? ”
i read the court filing. unlike you, i did bother to look at actual information that was available.
“What I am stating is that medically, an abortion is no better an option than the other options. ”
based on details you either deny or refuse to look at, and time factors you fail to understand. you keep trying to frame this as her either going into labor or having an abortion at the exact same point in time…. under direct medical care at the exact moment in both cases. that isn’t the situation, and you goddamn know it. you deliberately ignore the increased risk the larger the fetus grows, and you deliberately ignore the risk of unplanned labor as the child miscarries. your entire argument, that you continue to dig in on, requires assumptions that are absolutely ludicrous.
The baby is not functionally dead, it has a lower chance of long term survival and you call me the fucking idiot. You don’t even fucking know what you’re talking about now dipshit.
i didn’t say functionally dead…. i said it will be dead when all is said and done. as you are trying to play more semantics games, stick to what i actually said.
We all are dead when all is said and done. Fuck you’re the one playing semantics. Point to one thing where I stated she should be barred from having an abortion. One fucking statement. Just one? Come on smart guy. I’m sure you can also explain procedurally how an abortion in late term would be any safer than a D&C if uterine fetal death were to occur. You claim I don’t know what I’m talking about. So educate me. How is it safer?
“We all are dead when all is said and done. Fuck you’re the one playing semantics.”
hahahahahahaha….. you can’t make this kind of stupid up.
“Point to one thing where I stated she should be barred from having an abortion.”
you are digging in pretty hard to pretend you think otherwise. if you want to play that technicality, i have not explicitly stated the opposite.
Considering I never did accuse you of doing the opposite, again, you’re arguing with statements I didn’t make. I am not digging in hard, I am pointing out the fallacy of the argument, which is an appeal to emotion. Those kinds of arguments, even when I agree with them, piss me off. Bad arguments are bad arguments. period. It has nothing to do with support or not supporting something. Anyone who has seen me post on here for the past twenty years will tell you I will argue against a bad argument. Even if it supports a position I otherwise agree with.
“I am not digging in hard, I am pointing out the fallacy of the argument, which is an appeal to emotion.”
bold faced lie, in every respect. first, there is nothing emotional about my argument at all. you have a fetus that is not going to survive, no matter what you do. you have risk to the mother that increases the longer you wait to acknowledge that fact and terminate it….. those are just cold hard facts……
and then we have your appeal to emotion that belligerently denies the conclusions of the doctors who actually reviewed her case as well as any other relevant factors that don’t fit with your desired narrative to hold to the notion that nobody ever has a “good” reason to abort under any circumstances.
“Anyone who has seen me post on here for the past twenty years will tell you I will argue against a bad argument.”
i really don’t give a fuck. in this instance, i am the one arguing against a bad argument. you are making assumptions that are fundamentally wrong, ignoring any facts that are not convenient for your narrative, and not even trying to back any of your claims with actual facts….. just a lame appeal to authority because you claim to be a nurse. (which honestly does not qualify you nearly as much as you would like to pretend….. nursing is a broad category, and not every position requires you to know all that much.)
When you’re done with that, maybe you can explain how it the human body manages the bleeding that occurs after the placenta is removed from the uterus both in abortions and in delivery. And then once you explain that mechanism you can then explain, since the mechanism is exactly the same in all three cases, how an abortion would be safer.
Oh and you could also explain how a procedure that takes up to 72 hours to complete (a late term abortion) and a minimum of 48 hours, would be the best treatment option in a true medical emergency, were seconds count.
“……a true medical emergency, were seconds count.”
you mean the one you want to force her to have at home with no doctors around?
Again, where am I trying to force anything? Point to me stating she shouldn’t be able to have an abortion. Please. Quote it. As for an emergency, no a miscarriage in late term would not be seconds count to such a degree she couldn’t seek medical help.
How the fuck do you think they perform a late term abortion? BTW it’s not by cesarean. The have to dilate the cervix, start contractions, then they introduce a probe via the cervix to dismember the infants body, and then have the uterus eject the dismembered fetus with assistance. And you are worried about complications of a miscarriage and you think the above procedure runs a lower risk? How dipshit? How the fuck would that carry a lower fucking risk? You don’t fucking have a clue. You’re a fucking imbecile who knows nothing about what he is talking about but willing to call people with far more medical knowledge and experience idiots because they point out medical facts you don’t fucking like. I did or did not argue rather it should be allowed. I simply pointed out that the idea that it is safer or better is not supported medically. Sorry if that doesn’t go with your narrative.
“BTW it’s not by cesarean.”
sometimes it is. and even when it is not, it happens in a hospital with doctors right there.
“You’re a fucking imbecile who knows nothing about what he is talking about but willing to call people with far more medical knowledge and experience idiots because they point out medical facts you don’t fucking like.”
you have not pointed out anything other than your being full of shit. you start out claiming you can make a medical judgement without knowing any of the medical details….. when those details prove your initial judgement was incorrect, you decided to dig in with bull shit semantics games where “giving birth” and letting the child languish for a few minutes before it dies is somehow more compassionate than a technical “abortion.”…. and you want to pretend that repeated events leading to ER visits and an eventual miscarriage and uterus rupture at home is somehow safer than an abortion with doctors right there.
“I did or did not argue rather it should be allowed.”
you are grasping at straws to try and pretend it isn’t at least a little reasonable to suggest that MAYBE there was valid medical justification to let this woman have the abortion…… fuck off with your lame attempt to pretend you are not taking a stand one way or the other.
What medical facta proves I was wrong in your opinion? You haven’t provided any new facts I was not aware of and already addressed. You just didn’t like the information and dismissed it.
As for knowledge, 30 years as a nurse, seven of those as labor and delivery, masters degree in biology. If she goes into labor or requires a ceaserean why wouldn’t she also be in a hospital with doctors? If she has that complicated of history? Jesus dude, you haven’t offered anything even close to discounting what I’ve posted. In fact, you haven’t even actually addressed what I’ve actually posted. You’ve basically said nuh uh, you’re wrong.
If the perform an abortion via C-section how would that be safer than birth by C-section that isn’t even a logical claim.
“As for knowledge, 30 years as a nurse, seven of those as labor and delivery, masters degree in biology. If she goes into labor or requires a ceaserean why wouldn’t she also be in a hospital with doctors?”
ok…. you are either a REALLY bad liar, or you are moving up the moron scale pretty drastically. you claim to be a nurse…. you now claim to have specifically done that in labor and delivery…… and you don’t think anything EVER happens outside the hospital? she’s already been to the ER 3 times for this, but there is NO WAY shit could ever go wrong while she is not sitting there on the table in front of thee doctors? sorry… you are either a liar, really fucking stupid, or both.
She has been to the ER three times, oh know you totally prove me wrong. That doesn’t counter anything I stated. We once had a guy bring his kids into the ER with chicken pox at 3 AM because he wanted them cured before going on vacation. I see you still fail to answer any of my questions, just assert I’m an idiot without proving how I’m wrong. You make a claim but haven’t provided any facts, yet call me the idiot. I don’t claim to be a nurse. I am a nurse. And I’ve done labor and delivery along with several other specialities. Yes, things can go wrong when she is not at the hospital, but, against as I stated, and you ignored, not so fast she couldn’t seek medical help. There is strong possibility that her trips to the ER are entirely the result of a psychosomatic reaction to the diagnosis, being as they all occurred after the chromosomal testing, and she was never admitted, ergo the problems were either manageable on an outpatient basis, or not real medical problems. I’m providing facts, you’re making appeals to emotion. She’s been to the ER three times! That means nothing. About 90% of ER visits are not real emergencies. The fact she has been to the ER says nothing other than she has been to the ER, she wasn’t admitted, therefore it was unlikely to be a true medical emergency.
I don’t care if she does get an abortion. Morally I don’t agree with abortion, but I don’t advocate for laws based on my morality and pragmatically, banning abortion is impossible. If she feels an abortion is her best choice, that’s her choice, what I object to is the unsupported idea that abortions are medically necessary, especially in late term. If you want an abortion argue for why you should have that right, don’t make a fallacious argument against it being medically necessary. It is a choice, period.
“The fact she has been to the ER says nothing other than she has been to the ER, she wasn’t admitted, therefore it was unlikely to be a true medical emergency.”
oh, so she is a hypochondriac, and the dying fetus is just a coincidence….. she was just faking it (weeks before she got the final diagnosis or anyone told her about the wrinkle with the new Texas law.)
“If you want an abortion argue for why you should have that right, don’t make a fallacious argument against it being medically necessary. It is a choice, period.”
what you want is to live in a fantasy world where those who get abortion are always evil… there can NEVER be a “good” or even reasonable reason. you try to play the semantics game by avoiding outright saying it should be banned, but you want it known that they are wrong NO MATTER WHAT.
Again, where did I say she was evil or that abortion is evil (hint, my mother had an abortion before I was born, so I doubt I would make that argument)? You keep saying stuff I never wrote.
And no, psychosomatic is not being a hypochondriac. And where does it say the fetus is dieing, it says it has a great chance of dieing that doesn’t equate to its dieing. You read a lot into stuff that isn’t actually written and then pass judgement unsupported by facts. Based upon your assumptions.
“Again, where did I say she was evil or that abortion is evil ”
every time you keep trying to pretend it is wrong under all circumstances. just because you avoided the word “evil” does not change what you have been saying.
“And no, psychosomatic is not being a hypochondriac”
potato, potato…. you said it was in her head. you said her symptoms were not real…… based on absolutely nothing but your preferred narrative.
“And where does it say the fetus is dieing, it says it has a great chance of dieing that doesn’t equate to its dieing.”
you really should read the court documents, and stop making yourself look stupid. this was not just a genetic condition…. this was not just a knee jerk reaction to her finding out about it…. she knew for weeks that this was possible, but she wanted the kid so she kept hoping for the best. in those weeks, as the fetus got bigger, it became more and more evident just how bad the abnormalities were. they kept watching and finally told her there was virtually no chance the fetus would survive until birth, and if she tried to wait any longer it could seriously impact her ability to try again in the future. (no matter how much you want to claim equal risk for an abortion at 20 weeks versus an unplanned labor at 35 to expel the dead baby.) she had already taken every step she could to try and save the child.
“You read a lot into stuff that isn’t actually written and then pass judgement unsupported by facts.”
you mean like her ER visits being imaginary, or the adamant declaration that the risks were not what her doctor said they were? oh wait….. that’s you.
^This too +10000. Everyone deserves the most basic of Individual Liberty to be total masters of their own body. C-Section (i.e. Fetal Ejection) is the only way to draw that line correctly. So one has to wonder why in the world it’s not the line being made.
it should be allowed early on and later if there is a legitimate medical reason
I hear regularly about how most developed countries limit abortion to 14 or 16 weeks or something like that unless there is medical need. I’d completely agree to that if:
– The decision about medical need is left entirely to doctors and not government lawyers.
– All women have sufficient access to health care (including abortion) that obtaining one prior to that for entirely elective reasons is not a problem.
That second one is important. We saw for decades prior to Dobbs how many red states were essentially trying to regulate abortion out of existence by making it harder and harder to operate abortion clinics at all. Multiple of those states had a single clinic for their whole population. (These were referred to as TRAP laws. Targeted restrictions on abortion providers.)
That second condition also includes basic medical care, not just that surrounding reproduction. Maternal mortality has been climbing in the U.S. mostly among minority women and those with low income.
Despite the enormous amount of money spent on health care in the U.S., access is still very uneven. We have great medical care in this country, relative to others, if you can afford it or have good insurance. That is why so many people with means in other countries come here. We have lots of top doctors and facilities for specialized care. What we don’t do well is primary care for everyone. There aren’t enough primary care doctors and other basic providers (PAs and ARNPs can do a lot of good primary care work that you don’t need to see an M.D. for), because that doesn’t pay the high cost of medical school and other training the way being a specialist does.
But addressing these real problems in a thoughtful way doesn’t motivate voters the way that saying you want to save the babies does, I guess. So we get politicians that just want to ban abortion instead and those that feel like that have to fight that instead of trying to fix more basic problems.
“– The decision about medical need is left entirely to doctors and not government lawyers.”
that is the main problem. i honestly think we would be better off if they had never passed any laws on abortion. the truth is that it is absurd to pretend there are women who don’t want to be pregnant and wait longer than 16weeks unless there is a good reason.
The best argument for medically necessary abortion in late term is that you can’t safely perform amniocentesis until around 16 weeks, and so you can’t identify chromosomal abnormalities. However, the problem with that is rarely do those abnormalities threaten the mother’s health. Instead, it is rather she choices to deal with an infant born with health problems or not. This undercuts the abortion at all costs proponents argument that it’s for the mother’s health as opposed to a choice made after new information is available. It’s really a morality call at that point, and pretending it’s a health choice is disingenuous.
“Instead, it is rather she choices to deal with an infant born with health problems or not. ”
or….. as in this case…… there is ample evidence to know the child will likely not survive at all, and her body’s reaction to try and eject the soon to be dead baby exposes her to serious medical risks.
How do you treat a miscarriage? How is that less safe than an abortion. You keep coming back to her medical history. Hint: if she miscarriages (which at 20 weeks is not a sudden thing, but provides time to seek medical assistance) has no greater risk based on her medical history, largely because it would basically require the same procedure as an abortion would at that point in her pregnancy. You keep waving her medical history as some magically talisman, but the fact is you haven’t been able to answer how that would make an abortion safer. You just insist it would.
“if she miscarriages (which at 20 weeks is not a sudden thing, but provides time to seek medical assistance) has no greater risk based on her medical history, largely because it would basically require the same procedure as an abortion would at that point in her pregnancy. )”
first of all, that is the medical assistance you want to deny her….. getting the abortion is the result of her seeking medical assistance….. that time is what you are trying to deny her. you want her to wait until there is no time left.
second, and this is why i think you are a liar, her first C-section scar could be vertical. given that both her kids were derived by cesarean, that is actually pretty likely. (won’t explain why because that might take away your opportunity to amuse me further with your ignorance.) in that case, going into normal labor does become very risky, especially with her body already trying to do it out of schedule and not while she is in the hospital. if you really had any significant experience in labor and delivery, you would know this….. and you would not be saying the stupid shit you are here.
Again where did I state I want to deny her medical assistance? Please point to me stating that. Yes, going into regular labor is dangerous for anyone with a prior history of cesareans. Never stated otherwise. So far you are arguing shit I never once contended. And yes, a vertical incision, as it cuts across the grain of the muscle, and since muscles can’t grow in post fetal mammals, results in higher scar tissue accumulation compared to a transverse incision, labor carries a risk. That would require her to seek medical help. Never argued otherwise. What I argued is that risk is anything more than the risk of an abortion. I am arguing about the fallacy that abortion is medically necessary in this case or any case. I never stated her pregnancy is not risky. I never stated she should not get an abortion. I never argued she should be banned from getting an abortion. Etc. you are putting words in my mouth on things I never once stated. Given her medical history, getting pregnant in the first place was a huge medical risk. The fact that her fetus carries a chromosomal abnormalities doesn’t make her pregnancy risky, it was risky rather or not the chromosomal a normality existed. And nowhere does it state her EE visits were for miscarriages or preterm labor. Your assuming facts not in evidence, much the same way you assumed facts not in evidence of what I said.
“Again where did I state I want to deny her medical assistance? ”
own your position. you are very clearly and very deliberately arguing the “it is wrong” position….. stop trying to play the weasel and pretend that you are not.
“What I argued is that risk is anything more than the risk of an abortion.”
and the one great big assumption that you fail to understand you are making is that everything that happens will happen while she is in the hospital with a surgical team ready to go. you are so dug in on that assumption that you have actually tried to argue that her trips to the ER were just in her head. you keep saying there is no difference in risks by pointing to the procedures and ignoring the planned versus unplanned aspect of life.
“Your assuming facts not in evidence…”
says the person making some pretty big assumptions about her visits to the ER. all i said was that she was heading towards a miscarriage…. you were the one who felt the need to make specific assumptions (all in her head.) if you are actually a nurse, you must be a shitty one.
I didn’t make any assumptions about her visits to the ER you’re the one who said they were because she was miscarriaging without the story actually saying she was. I stated the ER visits prove nothing. Because there is no information provided as to what those visits were. Since you want to debate the voices in your head as opposed to what I actually write, have fun. You’re not worth it.
Also, no she wouldn’t be in a hospital with an OR directly available because 99% of abortions, even late term, are conducted in outpatient clinics without admitting privileges and minimal emergency care and have to call the paramedics if something goes wrong. This has been well documented. In other words, she would have to do the same exact fucking thing she would if she was at home and started to miscarriage and didn’t have time to go to the hospital. Fuck, thanks for proving my point, Wilbur.
And you obviously don’t know what psychosomatic means. moron.
Hint, psychomatic are actual medical conditions, i.e. they do feel pain, they do have clinical symptoms etc with no underlying pathophysiology but is brought on by apprehension or anxiety, or other stress, or suggestions and everyone experiences them at some point. Because of the lack of physiological pathology, they are extremely difficult to treat. They are a medical condition, just one created by your state of mind as opposed to an actual illness. You don’t think someone who just was told her child is likely going to die because of a chromosomal abnormality isn’t apprehensive or anxious? I didn’t say it was psychosomatic but based on the fact that she was not admitted, given her medical history as you point out, suggests she was not miscarrying. Because no ER doctor is going to run the risk of discharging someone with that Hx actively miscarrying, and run the risk of a malpractice suit if something did go wrong.
“And you obviously don’t know what psychosomatic means”
in layman’s terms, it means in your fucking head.
“You don’t think someone who just was told her child is likely going to die because of a chromosomal abnormality isn’t apprehensive or anxious?”
you really need to stop ignoring inconvenient truths. she was not just told. she was waiting to see how it would turn out, but had known about that chromosomal abnormality for quite some time. you did not suggest it was all in her head because it makes any sense, you only suggested that because it does not fit your narrative. you are grasping to dismiss the facts that prove you are wrong. that this failing pregnancy was causing her body distress is just something you can’t admit, no matter how much evidence is placed before you. you have to ignore the facts and make up bullshit not supported by anything to do so.
You haven’t provided any facts. Period. Youve made unwarranted supposition that you claim are facts. You don’t even refute my actual point. As for ignoring facts, who was it who suggested she would be in the hospital during the abortion? Who is it who kept insisting I was trying to stop her despite never saying that? Yeah, okay whatever. If it makes you happy, you win. You’re right, I’m wrong abortion is the only safe option. Feel better? I’m done. You’re not worth the time or effort. You won’t even actually engage what I state or twist it. BTW, you’re still an idiot.
“You haven’t provided any facts. Period. Youve made unwarranted supposition that you claim are facts.”
this is a lie. i have provided numerous facts specific to this case. you are the one who has made unwarranted suppositions while deliberately refusing to accept the facts.
“As for ignoring facts, who was it who suggested she would be in the hospital during the abortion?”
what?!?!?! are you drunk, or something? are you suggesting she would get an abortion somewhere else? or is this just a drunk person confusing the act of getting an abortion with unplanned labor?
“You’re right, I’m wrong abortion is the only safe option.”
does it feel good to admit the truth behind a shield of sarcasm?
“You won’t even actually engage what I state or twist it.”
i have directly engaged your claim, and explained in excruciating detail why it, at least in this specific case, is flat out wrong. your claim deliberately ignores every available fact about this specific case. you were trying to spit out some lame talking points about thee risks of abortion and failed to recognize that the facts of this specific case make them not applicable….. and you are pissed that i called you out on it. you have been making a bad argument, and you can’t man up and admit it.
“BTW, you’re still an idiot.”
back at ya, with an added “and a pussy.” because you should know you are wrong, but are too dedicated to the narrative to admit it.
Why 14 or 16 weeks. Whatever is there is dead in reality already so why even toy with the notion of forced reproduction? There isn’t even a single case with every tool under the sun that can make a person out of what is there.
I was talking in general about abortion restrictions in other developed countries, not anything specific to this case. Really, I supported the Roe/Casey framework, but I see people that are generally anti-abortion bring up those restrictions in other countries frequently. I just wanted to point out the apples to oranges nature of those comparisons in the vain hope that they’d understand what it would mean to have the same conditions surrounding medical care for pregnant women as those places.
“extremely useful political (gov-‘guns’ access) issue that” … Virtue signalers use for their own self-important/power-mad needs instead of having to go out and *earn* it without ‘guns’ against those ‘icky’ people.
“A CNN poll from August shows how Americans have soured on supporting funding Ukraine’s war effort, with roughly 55 percent saying that Congress should not authorize any additional spending and 51 percent saying the U.S. has done enough as-is.”
Goddammit, these stupid people are doing Democracy! wrong.
Democrats enlist election denier as part of 2024 campaign.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dems-enlist-russia-hoaxer-hillary-clinton-biden-re-election-effort
Maybe the attempt is to make Biden look better with Hillary next to him?
Great point.
election denier
The one who conceded within 24 hours of that election.
Fatass Donnie is a congenital liar. I hope Rudy Guiliani loses every penny he has for his lies.
Why your account got banned denier.
Pluggo’s seen the videos of Hillary saying that the election was stolen from here and calling for #resistance dozens of times. He’s just misrepresenting things as usual.
And then she spent the next four years whining and bitching about her loss and how Trump “stole” the election.
Next, asshole?
Yeah, pluggo is an asshole!
turd lies. That’s not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
But it’s becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of “evidence” or “relevance”, the concept of “honesty” is simply beyond turd’s ken.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/
“The one who conceded within 24 hours of that election.”
This is from 2019 – https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
“Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.”
This is why I love that people don’t just ignore him: if someone were to happen by and read the thread, maybe they’d be educated by the replies.
And then spent years saying it was rigged and stolen from her by Russians.
hillary clinton stolen election
as a Google search term yields 2.1M hits.
CNN: Hillary Clinton, in an interview that aired Monday on NPR, said she “would not” rule out questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election if Russian interference is deeper than currently known.
The comment, a remarkable step for the former Democratic nominee, exemplifies Clinton’s belief that President Donald Trump and his campaign could have knowingly received help from Russian operatives in the 2016 election.
Clinton has said previously that she conceded to Trump quickly and attended his inauguration because the nation’s peaceful transfer of power is critical. But her comments to NPR signal that as the depths of Russia’s interference are revealed she could envision a time when she questions Trump’s legitimacy as president.
NPR’s Terry Gross asked Clinton directly during the interview whether she would “completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?”
“No. I would not,” Clinton said.
Gross asked: “You’re not going to rule it out?”
“No,” Clinton said. “I wouldn’t rule it out.”
Glen Caplin, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, reiterated in a statement after the interview aired that the former secretary of state “has said repeatedly the results of the election are over but we have to learn what happened.”
And her cohorts agreed…“Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.” Nancy Pelosi
Media pundits spent years trying to fabricate fantastic scenarios in which Clinton is handed her Presidency…e.g., Newsweek
“How Hillary Clinton Still Can, and Should, Become President After the Trump-Russia Investigation
Oct 16, 2017 at 4:00 PM EDT
Sure, it’s been more than 340 days since Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, but there’s still one very narrow, highly unlikely and entirely unprecedented way that Clinton could become president.
“bat phone”… heh.
Perhaps the students striking over tuition were more affected by the rotting corpses of those babies found in Al-Shifa hospital after the IDF withdrew than Liz is. Although I thought mothers loved to fucking go on about how precious children are. Notice she never actually addresses the apartheid charge lol. Shame, if only they were white.
I’ll take ‘things that didn’t happen’ for $200, Alex.
If only you had a brain cell.
Perhaps “a heroic dose” of Pancuronium bromide, potassium chloride, and midazolam would calm you down.
“We refuse to allow our tuition dollars to fund apartheid.” Columbia students are holding a tuition strike for the spring 2024 semester in an attempt to get their school to “refuse to invest in ethnic cleansing and genocide abroad” and for “divestment from companies profiting from or otherwise supporting Israeli apartheid and Columbia’s academic ties to Israel.”
These students are free to withdraw from Columbia, and find another institution more aligned with their politics. Maybe the University of Gaza (but wait for the next semester).
This is the direction to go if you want to have cleaner energy. Yes, Illinois actually did something right for a change.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_3ab3e158-9877-11ee-84a9-3f1ea3530b32.html
For the record, Illinois has the most nuclear power in the US, getting 13% of its electricity needs from nuclear power plants.
SMRs produce a large amount of low-carbon electricity
Even in doing something right they still manage to make you want to hit everyone involved in the head with a pool cue.
Windmills and Solar panels produce a small, unsteady amount of moderate-carbon electricity. EVs produce a large amount of high-carbon transportation.
What’s the customary kick-back rate for power plants in Illinois?
Mothers Lament smiles approvingly,
Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges for women who get abortions
Kacen Bayless The Kansas City Star (TNS) Dec 10, 2023
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/missouri-republicans-propose-bills-to-allow-murder-charges-for-women-who-get-abortions/article_53b406c0-95c4-11ee-a67d-9339832ec1a0.html
Again, absolutely the wrong option. They should be offering Amazon gift cards for Democrat voters who get abortions as a “flush your fetus” or “snap that spine” prize.
Did you bother to read the whole thing before posting it here (as usual)?
Par for the course; turd lies.
Republicans control both houses of of Missouri’s legislature. The fact that neither Bill has any chance of passing surely equals Republican support for these bills, right?
He’s right that I do smile about the murder charges though. They’re absolutely appropriate.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
“Mothers Lament smiles approvingly,
Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges for women who get abortions”
I certainly do, you bloodthirsty demonic freak. There’s zero difference in ripping apart the baby at 8 months, or beating it to death at eight years.
I’ll smile when the cops catch you with those kids in your basement too.
Better poll question for inflation:
Would you approve of price AND wage controls?
(And yes, still a retarded choice.)
Hey, don’t you remember how well those things worked in the 1970’s?
that racist Norman Lear & all his racist television sure was difficult to watch. Children’s Television Workshop even worse.
Talk about a plagiarist.
Well, we already have wage controls… so why not price controls too?
Cutting government funding for organizations that can surely operate privately is fine, but doing so in a way that attempts to punish politically disfavored groups is not.
It is nice to see principles espoused so succintly in the round up. So glad ENB is gone. Keep up the good work Liz.
Oh, goody, the left and center-right got another forever war for them to rub themselves off to. NYT has the hilarious details:
Some in the US military want Ukraine to pursue a “hold and build” strategy–to focus on holding the territory it has and building its ability to produce weapons over 2024…
The goal would be to create enough of a credible threat that Russia might consider engaging in meaningful negotiations at the end of next year or in 2025.
This is after WaPo revealed our moron ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, “Lipstick” Milley, jawboned the Ukrainians to conduct their spring offensive as a Desert Storm-style push through a low-lying area that happened to be a fucking minefield, and only clearing out enough of the area for small columns to pass through, turning the whole place into a damn kill zone. The Ukrainian military wanted to hit multiple points along the line, but acquiesced to General Lipstick because they didn’t want to lose their arms supply.
If you want to understand why the lines barely moved during the spring offensive–whose success multiple Pentagon sources were absolutely fucking clear was critical to pushing Russia out of the country–there you go. It’s because the top military commander of the United States, who spent far more time in the classroom, being nursed up the chain of command, and sniffing politico ass than fighting on the battlefield, directed the Ukrainian army to waddle into a killbox.
This is a tacit admission that the offensive was a complete fucking failure, that Russia isn’t anywhere near beaten and is much better at conducting defensive warfare than the US brass realized, and Ukraine’s only option right now is to conduct insurgency operations in the apparent hope that the Dems and center-right Reps sweep the 2024 elections and open the money spigot.
Average age of Ukrainian soldiers is now 43. There’s not going to be an insurgency, at least not one by Ukrainians.
The center-right and left were clearly counting on Ukraine holding out long enough for their gayops to start a color revolution and get Putin out of power. Any possibility of that ended after the Wagner Group mutiny sputtered out.
IDK, not speaking against your point exactly, but the complete lack of even passive consideration for Ukrainian citizens or Russian citizens of Ukraine in the Donbas should be noted.
Rather SNAFU that the people decrying the genocide of Hamas and calling for divesting from Israel are effectively funding the repatriation of the Russian-speaking Asov Division without regard for what any/all Russian speaking natives who would be hunted down and stabbed in the head by them might think.
If by ‘gayops’ you mean engage in a pointless lesbian clusterfuck to get Putin out of power, agreed. Otherwise, nobody anywhere had or has the first fucking clue why we were or are there.
Perhaps a kindly old German gentlemen who fought in operation Barbarossa can provide us some insight.
IDK, not speaking against your point exactly, but the complete lack of even passive consideration for Ukrainian citizens or Russian citizens of Ukraine in the Donbas should be noted.
Globalists consider ordinary human beings to be no more sentient than gear cogs. They don’t give a shit about them unless their deaths can be used as a cudgel against their enemies.
Why would it work out differently than Afghanistan?
Terrain, geography, culture, opposition, investment, etc.
But… but… Russkies stalled out on the road to Kyifff!
Isn’t Miley the morherfucker who committed treason with the Chinese?
He’s one of them
Um, yes.
Yeah, and prissed about wanting to know about “white rage.”
The hilarious part is that the very people they need to be the pipe-hitters in special warfare have no interest in signing up anymore because of perfumed princesses like him. That’s why Durbin’s trying to get illegal immigrants approved for enlistment.
When your average soldier is 43 years old, how fucking long do they expect you to hold out? Especially against a country that is ten times you population, and who the majority of their population is lower than the average age of your soldiers (nearly 58% of the population) and who has a birth rate of 9 per 1,000. There is zero way that math works out.
Soon, if it already hasn’t, each new draft class in Russia is going to be larger than the Ukrainian military. With an average age that high, it basically means the Ukrainian military can no longer replace those lost to attrition.
The US Army was considered old in 1942, with an average age of like 25, almost 26. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a functioning military with an average age >40.
“The Treason of the Intellectuals”. History Rhymes Again. (Long Read)
https://www.thefp.com/p/niall-ferguson-treason-intellectuals-third-reich
But remember, education makes for good citizens.
The fall from grace of the German universities was personified by the readiness of Martin Heidegger, the greatest German philosopher of his generation, to jump on the Nazi bandwagon, a swastika pin in his lapel. He was a member of the Nazi Party from 1933 until 1945.
Ah yes… some of my intellectual lefty friends will wax on about Heidegger.
This is how the left describes the “uncomfortable” link between Heidegger and Nazism.
From The New Yorker
So he ‘wandered in’, not with real purpose or belief, but sort of ‘found himself’ amongst ’em… then remained… but only marginally(!) until the very bitter end.
Both Marx and Hitler stated they were heavily influenced by the same German philosophical school of thought. I’m sure that’s just coincidence.
Also, remember the other day when I asked who the fuck has a favorite Nazi? I didn’t expect there would be actual examples.
Ah, that would be out very own misconstrueman. His favorite is Göring.
Okay, let me rephrase. I didn’t think there would be so many examples.
Yglesias thinks, because he’s a ‘generalist’ ‘reporter’, that its ok for *him* to pontificate on everything but others should stay in their lane.
But what he’s really saying is since he doesn’t have an area of expertise to stray out of, well, he should just shut the fuck up.
Isn’t that what a lot of people what told Yglesias over the years, shut the fuck up? Yglesias is about as self-aware as certain commenters here.
I believe he’s the same douche who was walking around NYC doxing parked cars for having out of date registrations and shit like that.
An absolute soy boy hall monitor type. He’s the worst
“Today, President Joe Biden will host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has traveled to the U.S. to hold out his hands for some funds”
I am once again asking for your financial support.
Who the fuck does he think he is, PBS?
Is he handing out totebags?
He’s on Antiques Roadshow. Biden is what he brought with him for an appraisal.
dammit put the Little Feat concert back on & I’ll throw in a fiver.
>>Now, Cox says she will go out of state to get the abortion immediately.
coulda done that last week & saved everybody the fucking trouble.
Maybe the Texas legislature could have written a law that wasn’t draconian in requiring women like her to travel hundreds of miles to get medical care. That would have saved everybody even more fucking trouble.
that’s why there’s a New Mexico.
Maybe, but that’s the feature of federalism, no? You certainly don’t have a problem with her going to New Mexico where third-trimester abortions on demand are legal. So what’s the problem?
Sure, your rights as an American depends on what state you live in. If you don’t like your state’s policies, move!
your rights as an American do not include murdering children.
Many an American have done exactly that, for this specific reason.
Yeah, if you don’t like tax policies, land use policies, the education system, etc., sure. But would you say that is the way to go for your free speech rights? Gun ownership rights? 4th Amendment rights? Parental rights?
I was specifically talking about basic rights, not general government policies. The 14th Amendment was supposed to fix the basic problem the Founders created when they had the Bill of Rights only apply to the federal government (by restricting Congress).
I don’t know if you looked around, but yes, people moved other those as well.
Should they have to?
Historically speaking, that is how people got their rights. The US and it’s preceding colonies are a perfect example.
Killing another human isn’t a “basic right”. Whether or not you agree with allowing abortions.
Except there is no other human being killed in an abortion. You can say it has human DNA, therefore it is human. You can say that well all went through that stage of development, therefore it is as human as we are. But that is still making a leap of logic and skipping steps of reasoning.
As a legal matter, a person comes into being when born. That is when a birth certificate is issued and a person is counted for purposes of every statistic, law, or procedural matter that asks whether a person existed. A fetus that is stillborn, even if it had a heartbeat an hour before delivery, did not become a person (unless doctors agree to fudge things to provide some kind of comfort to the couple that they wanted) for any of those purposes.
Historically, prior to the modern abortion political debates, harming a woman resulting in the failure of her pregnancy was not considered murder anywhere that I have ever seen. Not in Biblical times, pre-colonial America or in English common law. So why would a woman terminating her pregnancy be considered murder? Again, as far as I can tell, it wasn’t. At most, it was a crime less than murder, which inherently means that killing a fetus was not morally the same as killing human person.
Personhood laws and amendments that the anti-abortion activists have pushed for years were trying to change that. None have succeeded as far as I know.
So if you want to declare that abortion is the same as killing a baby, child, or adult human being, you have a lot of work to do to make that argument hold up.
“As a legal matter, a person comes into being when born. That is when a birth certificate is issued and a person is counted for purposes of every statistic, law, or procedural matter that asks whether a person existed.”
Oh my God! When has a legal definition ever comported with reality. At the very least you could say when a fetus can survive outside the womb, but you didn’t even do that.
And don’t forget that your whole “legal persons” argument was the same ideology used to deny human rights to slaves and women.
“You can say it has human DNA, therefore it is human. You can say that well all went through that stage of development, therefore it is as human as we are. But that is still making a leap of logic and skipping steps of reasoning.”
Such as?…
Tell us about the magical birth canal fairy that confers humanity on a clump of cells, so it doesn’t still count as a clump of cells when it’s 80 years old.
The fact of the matter is that a individual human organism becomes an individual human organism when the sperm and egg cells fuse and a blastocyst is formed. You can dance around with all sorts of legal technicalities but the biological reality stands.
The great thing is I’m perfectly willing to compromise and allow it up to 16-20 weeks as a matter of pragmatism (still think it’s morally wrong, but I also know how ridiculous the government would get if it was fully outlawed), but the abortion uber alles morons can’t help themselves but to deny science and reality in order to make their worldview seem ok.
OK Jason – when does it become a human, worthy of having rights?
In my state, I would actually have *more* protected rights if we didn’t have to bow down to the federal government.
That *your* state is a controlling shithole and you need the feds to save you is something you should take up with your state government.
How does begging the question fall within this framework?
Exactly. New York State tends to stomp all over folks 2nd Amendment rights, among others. It’s one reason people leave. Unlike getting an abortion, going to another state to buy a gun doesn’t float in NYS.
You mean like how Canadians come here for healthcare?
I’m not seeing this as an issue.
So Draconian – its literally a max of 1 day drive to get to the nearest abortion provider. Most places in Texas can be across the border, abort, and back home in the same day.
^this
She intentionally made it a court case. I’m not saying the Texas law is good or bad, but clearly she chose to push this into a public court case rather than taking a two hour drive to solve her problem.
Yeah, because people should never stand up to government overreach when they can just go out of their way to deal with it instead.
ding ding ding!!!! yeah, the argument basically is that you should no oppose unjust laws because they have not closed all the workarounds. (yet.)
TBF, Texas is fucking huge so depending on where she lives, it could be a full day to get to a state that would allow it.
Its a 15 hour drive across Texas. You’re talking 8 hours, tops, from the middle to the edge.
You could leave mid-day, be in a hotel in your abortionist’s city that evening, have a nice dinner, get your abortion the next morning, and be home before sunset.
Making people escape nosy-outsiders tyrannical delusional-minds is so cool…. /s
a word exists for filing a lawsuit you know you will not win.
yeah…. we should totally allow unjust laws to stand as long as you, personally, have the means to get around them.
“Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment,” wrote the high court. “But when she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a ‘life-threatening physical condition’ or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.”
So how much additional risk is enough? 1 woman dies from complications of pregnancy for every 4000 live births in the U.S. A figure which, by the way, was more like 1 in 6000 when I first started looking it up several years ago. And why no consideration for the fact that around 95% of the cases of trisomy 18 result in miscarriage or stillbirth, and of the remaining 5%, the median lifespan is 4 days with less than 10% living a year? And why no consideration for the other health risks to the woman, including to her ability to have more children in the future? (Which she wanted, just like she had wanted to be pregnant for her third child here.)
This is all so ridiculous. Ken Paxton, Texas AG, sent letters threatening her providers with legal action if they performed the abortion while waiting to hear from the courts. (Doctors performing abortions in violation of Texas law can end up in jail for up to a life sentence.) These people aren’t pro-life. They are just so reflexively anti-abortion or politically motivated that they just don’t care about the women facing situations like this. They want her to risk her health, face increased risk of potentially life threatening complications (the legal exemptions for saving her life are probably being interpreted as needing to be really specific and/or immediate to apply), and her future ability to have more children all so she can mostly likely give birth to a dead fetus or watch it die within days of being born. They don’t even seem to care about the suffering of any child that would survive more than a few days with that condition. This law and the Texas GOP more generally isn’t exactly jumping all over themselves to help provide support for the intense medical care such a rare, disabled, surviving child would need. There’s no compassion in this. There’s no moral belief behind it.
>>So how much additional risk is enough?
the child is the one that’s going to die.
what child?
the one doctors are saying is going to die.
Like dear old 130-year old grandpa who’s life is literally nothing but a life-support machine having a 0% chance of inherently having any life at all outside of just other machines?
No, like a viable human with their whole life ahead of them, you sociopath.
Which you don’t want to actually see happen (fetal ejection) by any other means than BS propaganda pumping used to force others to reproduce at the end of a gov-‘gun’.
Willrape be your next ‘gun’ packing agenda in getting viable humans with their whole life ahead of them into action?
They don’t even seem to care about the suffering of any child that would survive more than a few days with that condition. This law and the Texas GOP more generally isn’t exactly jumping all over themselves to help provide support for the intense medical care such a rare, disabled, surviving child would need.
As if you people are pro-choice.
Exactly. Pro-Life was founded by the Democrat Party and it shows. Why the heck Republicans are carrying water for Democrats is beyond me.
Now do oregon where it’s legal to kill the baby the day before the due date.
Is it? And if so, why would anyone want to? The point of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Delivering a child ends the pregnancy. At that point, if there is some dramatic need or desire to not be pregnant right now, they could induce labor and that would undoubtedly be safer than anything that would kill the fetus. Thus, would any doctor actually kill a fetus they could deliver alive perfectly safely for both it and the woman?
Making that illegal is pointless. The real concern you seem to have is that you don’t want any abortions at all, and so you invent some hypothetical sadistic women and doctors ready to kill a baby one day before a due date (which is an estimate, not some actual deadline anyway) as a straw man that is easier to knock down than to argue what you really want.
you don’t want any abortions at all
I said nothing on the matter.
I see, you’re just making a straw man argument that is identical to those of supporters of abortion bans because you’re just asking question or pointing out hypocrisy or whatever.
There is no additional risk here though.
There is just ‘this is pointless because the baby’s likely to die before birth so I don’t want to complete the pregnancy’.
And I don’t disagree with that reasoning – but its not enough to justify overturning that ban when she can just go across the border.
what is a generalist political pundit?
Just another asshole.
>>Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing
Brandon skated though. got a whole 35 years more out of the gig. amazing.
>>I can see why cruise lines are cracking down on pot.
last time I was on a cruise was 1990 but it was growing alongside a golf course we played in Aruba how are you supposed to not?
>>Columbia students are holding a tuition strike
we can replace them!
Just say no (to price controls):
The surest sign you are dealing with an economic ignoramus is if they support any kind of price controls.
What would be wrong with setting prices for medical procedures, with the punishment being death if even a single penny more is charged?
sarcasm i assume
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1734611887931981925?t=O0GOXLShCDJc1Jg5N2MDxw&s=19
At first you might be surprised that gay men managed to dehumanize and commodify women to an incredible degree with the enthusiastic support of feminists until you realize that is all that feminism has ever done
[Cartoon]
Feminism starts out asking for completely equal treatment of women and that we dont reduce them to sexual objects, then basically spends all of the rest of its time asking for special/different treatment than men get and reducing almost every interaction they have to some sort of rape sexual power metaphor.
Between them coming full circle basically arguing against their own initial premise, they also have really stepped in it opening the door to the trannies and dealing with their shit storm they started.
I guess its just popping the popcorn for the boring cis white males then
As a marxist-inspired ideology, post-modern feminism has always treated every interaction as a transactional one.
Incidentally, it’s also a big reason why so many men are opting out of the marriage racket, and why a lot of middle-aged women are finding it damn near impossible to find someone to settle down with after racking up a body count in their 20s. If a marriage is simply about your wallet rather than one of the heart, you’re better off maintaining your own independence rather than risk your own mental and emotional well-being to someone who doesn’t see you as anything other than an ATM machine and cheerleader.
[Frank Drebin voice]Like a woman complaining about dishonest men putting concealer on her face in the morning… [/Frank Drebin voice] Feminism starts out asking for completely equal treatment of women and that we dont reduce them to sexual objects.
They didn’t want equal treatment, they wanted to stop being the “old ball and chain” or “a side piece” and, instead, be referred to by name by everyone from the ‘the guy’ at the coffee place who makes their coffee to ‘the guy’ who does the landscaping to ‘the guy’ works the security desk at the office or pretty much any guy who just serves whatever irrelevant purpose. Except for ‘the guy’ at the strip club, with the abs, he can call her whatever he likes.
At 20-weeks this doesn’t even count as a Euthanasia case.
Course the [WE] reproduction-slave gangsters thinks any women fertilized who doesn’t want to reproduce is a murderer (imaginary closed-case crimes). F’En psychopaths that are plum full of over-lording power-mad judgements about others personal life’s and situations they’re so bigoted with BS propaganda they won’t even consider anything else within reason.
To be fair, stoned boomers would pose a threat to the economics of the all-you-can-eat buffets on cruise ships, so I can see why cruise lines are cracking down on pot.
Do cruise ships allow smoking?
New netflix movie, that Obamas consulted on.
“if the world falls apart, trust should not be dolled out easily to anyone, especially white people”
Just a daily reminder that racism against whites is the only acceptable and widely applauded racism allowed. Oh and also Obama might be the single worst thing that has ever happened for race relations in this country.
Fucking LOL, is that actually a direct quote?
Glad to know if Skynet gains self-awareness, that ethnostates will be the order of the day instead of John Connor leading a combined resistance.
And I’d argue it’s not Obama that was the worst thing, but the neomarxist politically correct ideology in academia from the 80s-90s that created the social environment in the 2000s for him to gain legitimacy.
mandatory viewings of PCU necessary.
^
I went to college during the PCU era, and that movie was a fucking documentary. Too bad the real hero of the film, Rand McPherson, was a walking strawman.
It’s likely that, if such a bill is drafted up at all, Biden will have to acquiesce to restrictions on asylum seekers as a condition for doling out more aid to Ukraine.
What should be happening here is everyone should agree to disagree on this whole thing, and place tighter border restrictions AND refuse to fund Ukraine. If the progressives blew past $15 Now! and went all the way to $20, then why is such an agreement unrealistic?
Well now, this is interesting. Who the hell would pay $3,000 for a picture of a fucking pizza?
https://twitter.com/LizCrokin/status/1734338745384530224
creepy as fuck
Hotel hallway pizza.
Buttface 2, can you confirm?
“We refuse to allow our tuition dollars to fund apartheid.” blah blah blahbidee blah blah…
The correct response is “This is our school and this is who’s running it. If you don’t like it you can go somewhere else.”
“…some funds for his country’s war against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion.”
That’s a lot of words to say “…some funds for his country’s defense against invasion.”
Is this just bad writing and copy editing or is there some attempt to obscure that yes, Ukraine is still defending itself and Russia is the aggressor?
Ugh, no:
Uh, did Liz just take Yglesias to task? Where do I donate, Reason?
She’s so wonderful… seriously.
2040 Pro-Life in a nutshell….
OMG! My wife just decided without my all-holy judgement to KILL our BABY!!!! She just flushed it down the toiled with her tampon like the baby killer she is! I could’ve saved it with my all-holy body intervention but she just said NO…. WTF!!! Murderer… /s
How BS Propaganda leads sheeple minds into power-mad delusions.
And your girlfriend is coming after you for child support…
It’s choices all the way down…
Since the 3rd party Forced-Reproduction gang is the crowd making that choice perhaps they should be the crowd paying for it.
Are you really after Justice or just forcing your own choices/beliefs onto other people and expecting them to pay for YOUR choices?
You can just not have sex.
(2) YOUR demanded personal-life choices for others doesn’t cancel each other out.
…but it sure does demonstrate the religious roots of it all.