Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Abortion thread:

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Viability is not defined by heartbeat that's why isn't called a viability law. A fetus isn't viable until it can survive outside the womb.  That isn't at 6 weeks. So if they really try to do science that won't work .

I agree, but that also means the law has no chance in the courts, even in the USSC, unless viability is overturned as the standard (which I don't think they'll do) or unless they try to define viability backwards. I think as you say this can't be done in a scientifically valid way, unless I'm missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I agree, but that also means the law has no chance in the courts, even in the USSC, unless viability is overturned as the standard (which I don't think they'll do) or unless they try to define viability backwards. I think as you say this can't be done in a scientifically valid way, unless I'm missing something.

Based on current medicine I really think viability would have to be set at 25 weeks. It's not until then that you get above a 50 percent survival rate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disgusting, on all fronts.  I have issues with both the pro-choice and pro-life stances (I am someone who thinks abortion should be legal, but have somewhat limited restrictions), but passing laws like this is nothing short of vile. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

The description that I wrote was based on a news segment I watched describing it. 

Nonetheless, I don’t think It’s nearly the massive overstatement that you claim it is. After all, how are “allegations proven to be false”? The clearest way is a non guilty verdict, obviously. The point of this law is to scare women from coming forward. I don’t think my summary was especially inaccurate. 

Your more general criticism of me not going directly to source material is not without merit. But you err in claiming that I do that in order to “fit my politics”- I do it because I am often overly eager to post the news and see what the reaction will be, and too lazy to check the accuracy. It’s a weakness of mine that I acknowledge and need to do better at, but it’s certainly not deliberate. 

Your worst error in your post in when you write that you find me “dangerous in my certainty.” Nothing could be further than the truth- I am probably the least certain guy here about nearly every issue. I would make the worst possible ideologue because I find merit in almost every reasonable argument on either side- and that includes abortion. So this is a “danger” you needn’t worry about. 

I would suggest otherwise.  First it has not passed, though you state that it has.  Second it does not kick in upon a finding of not guilty, not in any way, shape or form, though you suggest it has.  In actuality the accused then becomes the accuser and has to sustain an equally high burden in a wholly separate action which, as a criminal action, would have to pass muster by the Prosecutor who would bring the charge . (Prosecutors rarely turn on crime victims, especially when it may be Prosecutorial error or ineffectiveness which lead to a not guilty verdict)  That is not a difference of semantics or interpretation, but a massive difference.  Lastly, the attorneys fees are not automatic, but rather still a matter of discretion to the judge, again a massive difference. 

If you wanted to state that some Alabama legislators are proposing a law of no real import in changing the law since it only gathers and recodifies two existing laws, but that they are doing it for nefarious purposes, in your opinion,  that purpose being to discourage women/victims from coming forward I would have had no issue and would likely have concurred.   I might also have marveled at how they think that could rally their base or at a base which could thereby be rallied. 

Your incaution took us down a rabbit hole yet again.  Had it not been addressed any who read your post may have gone away with a massive misperception taking your inaccuracies as truth.  Whether that is intentional or not I cannot say. I do note that I judge things as accident or intentional by whether they forward an agenda.  Often folks plead accident.  Almost always the accident seems to inure to their benefit or to the benefit of their agenda.  That makes me skeptical, very much so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I would suggest otherwise.  First it has not passed, though you state that it has.  Second it does not kick in upon a finding of not guilty, not in any way, shape or form, though you suggest it has.  In actuality the accused then becomes the accuser and has to sustain an equally high burden in a wholly separate action which, as a criminal action, would have to pass muster by the Prosecutor who would bring the charge . (Prosecutors rarely turn on crime victims, especially when it may be Prosecutorial error or ineffectiveness which lead to a not guilty verdict)  That is not a difference of semantics or interpretation, but a massive difference.  Lastly, the attorneys fees are not automatic, but rather still a matter of discretion to the judge, again a massive difference. 

If you wanted to state that some Alabama legislators are proposing a law of no real import in changing the law since it only gathers and recodifies two existing laws, but that they are doing it for nefarious purposes, in your opinion,  that purpose being to discourage women/victims from coming forward I would have had no issue and would likely have concurred.   I might also have marveled at how they think that could rally their base or at a base which could thereby be rallied. 

Your incaution took us down a rabbit hole yet again.  Had it not been addressed any who read your post may have gone away with a massive misperception taking your inaccuracies as truth.  Whether that is intentional or not I cannot say. I do note that I judge things as accident or intentional by whether they forward an agenda.  Often folks plead accident.  Almost always the accident seems to inure to their benefit or to the benefit of their agenda.  That makes me skeptical, very much so.

None of these points make my original post especially inaccurate. You stated that I implied that the bill passed; I wrote “Alabama is passing”- the state House already approved it and in the state senate the majority of senators are in favor and the governor is in favor. So it’s reasonable to assume it’s going to pass. 

All of your other points regarding the difficulty of  this law ever being enforced I have already addressed in a previous post: I will acknowledge again that it is unlikely it will ever be enforced. But again the point of the law is to try and keep women from coming forward in the first place: that’s the main point that you seem to keep missing in all of your carefully detailed analysis. There is no rabbit hole, no misperception. And though I admit to being incautious on occasion, I was not on this post. 

Also, for the record, since you mentioned my “agenda”, on this particular item I had no agenda other than to express “can you believe the #### these guys are pulling in Alabama?” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 8:29 AM, Amused to Death said:

F'n ridiculous. Please tell me this can't possibly hold up in court?

Seriously. There was like this whole famous SCOTUS ruling already. I don't understand the law and how states can do this. So yes, there will be legal challenges but it has already been settled so WTH? Can they reinstate slavery next? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

Disgusting, on all fronts.  I have issues with both the pro-choice and pro-life stances (I am someone who thinks abortion should be legal, but have somewhat limited restrictions), but passing laws like this is nothing short of vile. 

It's a great way to get businesses and people to leave or stop doing business in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

None of these points make my original post especially inaccurate. You stated that I implied that the bill passed; I wrote “Alabama is passing”- the state House already approved it and in the state senate the majority of senators are in favor and the governor is in favor. So it’s reasonable to assume it’s going to pass. 

All of your other points regarding the difficulty of  this law ever being enforced I have already addressed in a previous post: I will acknowledge again that it is unlikely it will ever be enforced. But again the point of the law is to try and keep women from coming forward in the first place: that’s the main point that you seem to keep missing in all of your carefully detailed analysis. There is no rabbit hole, no misperception. And though I admit to being incautious on occasion, I was not on this post. 

Also, for the record, since you mentioned my “agenda”, on this particular item I had no agenda other than to express “can you believe the #### these guys are pulling in Alabama?” 

I will leave it for others to judge as to whether I missed your point or as to whether you misrepresented matters as it is clear that you and I will not reach consensus.  I do like how you move the goal post, as you always do.  Your original statement was not merely that it would be difficult to enforce, it was "According to the law if a woman charges a guy with rape, but the guy is found not guilty, the accuser has to pay for 100% of his legal fees."  Not guilty = has to pay.  Not ambiguous and provably false as well as misleading.  You would do better with me if you simply stated I was precipitous, wrong, incautious, and I will strive to learn.  Instead you try to defend the indefensible by sidling  away, as is so predictable that I actually made that prediction to another who posts here while you took 40 minutes to think of your first reply and your eventual, tired, tack.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

Seriously. There was like this whole famous SCOTUS ruling already. I don't understand the law and how states can do this. So yes, there will be legal challenges but it has already been settled so WTH? Can they reinstate slavery next? 

That would take a constitutional amendment. This is merely long standing but somewhat contentious precedence. The principle to which you refer is stare decisis.  It lends strength to precedence, but hardly makes it inviolate.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I will leave it for others to judge as to whether I missed your point or as to whether you misrepresented matters as it is clear that you and I will not reach consensus.  I do like how you move the goal post, as you always do.  Your original statement was not merely that it would be difficult to enforce, it was "According to the law if a woman charges a guy with rape, but the guy is found not guilty, the accuser has to pay for 100% of his legal fees."  Not guilty = has to pay.  Not ambiguous and provably false as well as misleading.  You would do better with me if you simply stated I was precipitous, wrong, incautious, and I will strive to learn.  Instead you try to defend the indefensible by sidling  away, as is so predictable that I actually made that prediction to another who posts here while you took 40 minutes to think of your first reply and your eventual, tired, tack.   

Lol it didn’t take me 40 minutes. I know people think I’m always here but I’m not. 

I didn’t move the goalposts. My original point wasn’t that inaccurate. When I’m wrong I admit I’m wrong. And I’m wrong a lot. Here I wasn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Lol it didn’t take me 40 minutes. I know people think I’m always here but I’m not. 

I didn’t move the goalposts. My original point wasn’t that inaccurate. When I’m wrong I admit I’m wrong. And I’m wrong a lot. Here I wasn’t. 

The more you post the more your credibility takes a hit and the more your intelligence comes into question.  As you know, when we are composing a reply, our name at the bottom of the thread goes to italics.  I saw yours do so, became bemused, and actually PM'd another to point it out as well as predicting your next several posts.  Claim what you will but here you were wrong, very wrong, proved wrong, and still you persist.  Keep it up.  It is amusing, if nothing else.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

The more you post the more your credibility takes a hit and the more your intelligence comes into question.  As you know, when we are composing a reply, our name at the bottom of the thread goes to italics.  I saw yours do so, became bemused, and actually PM'd another to point it out as well as predicting your next several posts.  Claim what you will but here you were wrong, very wrong, proved wrong, and still you persist.  Keep it up.  It is amusing, if nothing else.

Really? That’s your evidence? 

Maybe my phone was open to the page but I wasn’t here. I was in a long conversation at that point with my daughter. 

But whatever. You find it amusing that I persist; I find it amusing that you’re spending your time playing Hercule Poirot with some random dude on the Internet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Bender said:

Jesus let it go kids. It's the internet. 

You’re right. 

Handshake DW. I have much love for you. Hope you’re enjoying your Saturday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

Disgusting, on all fronts.  I have issues with both the pro-choice and pro-life stances (I am someone who thinks abortion should be legal, but have somewhat limited restrictions), but passing laws like this is nothing short of vile. 

I mostly agree with this.  I've long thought both sides should come together with a long term plan to greatly reduce abortions, but as long as the red states want to play this game, I think the other side should hit back with stringent, unambiguous child support laws and harsh, mandatory jail time for dead beat dads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It puts even greater stakes on the 2020 election. One name comes to mind: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She’s old, with health problems. If Trump wins can she hang on another 4 years? If she can’t. I really do believe women’s  reproductive rights are in trouble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mister CIA said:

I mostly agree with this.  I've long thought both sides should come together with a long term plan to greatly reduce abortions, but as long as the red states want to play this game, I think the other side should hit back with stringent, unambiguous child support laws and harsh, mandatory jail time for dead beat dads.

Why do you think this is "hitting back?"  Do you think that pro-lifers are opposed to child support?

Edited by IvanKaramazov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mister CIA said:

I mostly agree with this.  I've long thought both sides should come together with a long term plan to greatly reduce abortions, but as long as the red states want to play this game, I think the other side should hit back with stringent, unambiguous child support laws and harsh, mandatory jail time for dead beat dads.

I think most people that are opposed to abortions would probably jump to support child support laws and jail time for dead beat dads.  Not getting this “play”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, timschochet said:

Lol it didn’t take me 40 minutes. I know people think I’m always here but I’m not. 

I didn’t move the goalposts. My original point wasn’t that inaccurate. When I’m wrong I admit I’m wrong. And I’m wrong a lot. Here I wasn’t. 

:lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, timschochet said:

It puts even greater stakes on the 2020 election. One name comes to mind: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She’s old, with health problems. If Trump wins can she hang on another 4 years? If she can’t. I really do believe women’s  reproductive rights are in trouble. 

Dems better hope they win the Senate too, if they want to nominate a S.Ct. justice.

Edited by whoknew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shader said:

I think most people that are opposed to abortions would probably jump to support child support laws and jail time for dead beat dads.  Not getting this “play”?

 

4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Why do you think this is "hitting back?"  Do you think that pro-lifers are opposed to child support?

My hot take was half-baked..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abortion rates have gone down from over 36% in 1984 to 19% in 2015.  Link

What has been causing the downward trend?  Is it sexual education or other factors?

 

 

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Why do you think this is "hitting back?"  Do you think that pro-lifers are opposed to child support?

I know this isn't directed towards me but the vast majority of pro-lifers are republicans. The GOP likes to preach "pull yourself up by the boot straps" & "you shouldn't have so many kids if you don't support them".   Oh yeah, if you want a better life all you have to do is work harder. They also like to use the "welfare queen" boogie man.  They constantly complain about people getting "free" stuff. So I would say yes, they are opposed to child support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bradyfan said:

Abortion rates have gone down from over 36% in 1984 to 19% in 2015.

What has been causing the downward trend?  Is it sexual education or other factors?

Sex education and better access to birth control. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

Sex education and better access to birth control. 

So it would be fair to say based on most known results and studies that increased funding in education and birth control is more effective in fighting abortion that laws restricting abortion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

Sex education and better access to birth control. 

If 1 in 3 (in 80s) or 1 in 5 babies (today) get aborted then clearly some women do not have access to birth control. Like they say, prevention is the best medicine.  Women should be given the choice whether to get pregnant, not only the choice to keep the baby after they are pregnant.

Sorry for posting this on Mother’s Day.

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

I know she means well, for me she’s on the right side, and I know she made a significant difference in the #metoo fight. 

But now Alyssa Milano is making a fool of herself: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1004666

Significant others (men and women) of hardcore liberal women everywhere are crying on the inside right now...and probably adding the Tinder app to their phone. :lol: 

Edited by Ghost Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

I know this isn't directed towards me but the vast majority of pro-lifers are republicans. The GOP likes to preach "pull yourself up by the boot straps" & "you shouldn't have so many kids if you don't support them".   Oh yeah, if you want a better life all you have to do is work harder. They also like to use the "welfare queen" boogie man.  They constantly complain about people getting "free" stuff. So I would say yes, they are opposed to child support. 

Can you give some examples of prominent Republicans who oppose child support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

I know this isn't directed towards me but the vast majority of pro-lifers are republicans. The GOP likes to preach "pull yourself up by the boot straps" & "you shouldn't have so many kids if you don't support them".   Oh yeah, if you want a better life all you have to do is work harder. They also like to use the "welfare queen" boogie man.  They constantly complain about people getting "free" stuff. So I would say yes, they are opposed to child support. 

The only ones opposed to child support are the scum bags that don’t live up to their obligation to provide it to their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Why do you think this is "hitting back?"  Do you think that pro-lifers are opposed to child support?

Well he may have been off base on that but the reality an awful lot of alleged prolifers are against common sense things that would reduce abortions like expanded sex ed, more availability of contraception, universal day care, WIC, CHiP, programs to help teen moms finish school,  the list goes on. For too many it's a fetus fetish and they dont give a tinker's damn about the actual child or mom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NCCommish said:

Well he may have been off base on that but the reality an awful lot of alleged prolifers are against common sense things that would reduce abortions like expanded sex ed, more availability of contraception, universal day care, WIC, CHiP, programs to help teen moms finish school,  the list goes on. For too many it's a fetus fetish and they dont give a tinker's damn about the actual child or mom.

The Parties choose to focus on what they disagree on for political reasons,  when there is common ground that no one wants to see a high number of abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bradyfan said:

The Parties choose to focus on what they disagree on for political reasons,  when there is common ground that no one wants to see a high number of abortions.

Well is it the parties? I don't know anyone who's prochoice that doesn't want to see us reduce the number of abortions. But not by criminalizing women. But I see very few prolifers willing to even consider the things I mentioned or support politicians that would.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Well is it the parties? I don't know anyone who's prochoice that doesn't want to see us reduce the number of abortions. But not by criminalizing women. But I see very few prolifers willing to even consider the things I mentioned or support politicians that would.

Very often people agree on the goals but disagree on how to get there.  Therefore, the focus should always be on the goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bradyfan said:

Very often people agree on the goals but disagree on how to get there.  Therefore, the focus should always be on the goals.

The goals have to be realistic and compromise has to be an option though. For those on the no choice side those seem to be major stumbling blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

The goals have to be realistic and compromise has to be an option though. For those on the no choice side those seem to be major stumbling blocks.

It will benefit another country when the US is rife with internal conflicts.  Roe vs. Wade was in 1973.  Think why this is coming up again 45+ years later.  And the changes started way before Trump.

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bradyfan said:

It will benefits another country when the US is rife with internal conflicts.  Roe vs. Wade was in 1973.  Think why this is coming up again 45+ years later.  And the changes started way before Trump.

It should have never been left to Roe v Wade. Congress should've stepped up and done their job. Made a law. Set in place a framework. The Democrats had the votes more than once they just didn't have the guts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

It should have never been left to Roe v Wade. Congress should've stepped up and done their job. Made a law. Set in place a framework. The Democrats had the votes more than once they just didn't have the guts.

You can have effective government only if you have good people running it. Step #1 in world domination is to make sure your opponent does not have any smart people to help them win.

Edited by bradyfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NCCommish said:

Well he may have been off base on that but the reality an awful lot of alleged prolifers are against common sense things that would reduce abortions like expanded sex ed, more availability of contraception, universal day care, WIC, CHiP, programs to help teen moms finish school,  the list goes on. For too many it's a fetus fetish and they dont give a tinker's damn about the actual child or mom.

For the record, I'll concede that you're right about this one to some degree.  There is a large chunk of Catholic pro-lifers who are also opposed to birth control, and a lot of evangelical pro-lifers who are opposed to realistic sex ed.  I disagree with those folks on both of these topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NCCommish said:

Well is it the parties? I don't know anyone who's prochoice that doesn't want to see us reduce the number of abortions. 

I’d like to believe you but there’s certainly a reason the Democratic platform eliminated the rare part of Safe, Legal, and Rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

I’d like to believe you but there’s certainly a reason the Democratic platform eliminated the rare part of Safe, Legal, and Rare.

No one wants more abortions. I have never ever met a prochoice person who said "you know there just aren't enough abortions". Everyone I've ever met or heard speak on the subject prefers to prevent pregnancy over terminate pregnancy. Allow access? Yes. But promote them like a 2 for 1 special? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bradyfan said:

Step #1 in world domination is to make sure your opponent does not have any smart people to help them win.

Is this a a 12 step program? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2019 at 11:39 AM, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

Seriously. There was like this whole famous SCOTUS ruling already. I don't understand the law and how states can do this. So yes, there will be legal challenges but it has already been settled so WTH? Can they reinstate slavery next? 

No, we passed and ratified constitutional amendment about slavery. 

We haven’t done that for women’s rights. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Can you give some examples of prominent Republicans who oppose child support?

Not elected officials. As I previously posted I used to listen to political radio all day prior to Trump and these were alway things that were brought up by the hosts, Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Can you give some examples of prominent Republicans who oppose child support?

In general or their own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

No, we passed and ratified constitutional amendment about slavery. 

We haven’t done that for women’s rights. 

I realize this is a good talking point, but the subject at hand isn't about women's rights.  That's the whole point of challenging the law and trying to get back to SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sand said:

I realize this is a good talking point, but the subject at hand isn't about women's rights.  That's the whole point of challenging the law and trying to get back to SCOTUS.

It is.  And I get that you disagree, but that doesn't make my perspective a "talking point."

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hey, man, this isn't about women's rights.  It would be the same way for anyone who got pregnant."

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.