posted by ptown_trojans_1
Just curious, when you say Democrats, you mean national prominent ones right? Not, your local or state ones? I see the two as completely different and that goes for both parties generally.
Yes. The DC Dems(and we all know exactly what I think about 98% of DC)
I really don't have any major problems with the localized Dems that I still vote for. Whether that might be a county commissioner or whatever. But currently I trust very few even on that level.
posted by CenterBHSFanYes. The DC Dems(and we all know exactly what I think about 98% of DC)
I really don't have any major problems with the localized Dems that I still vote for. Whether that might be a county commissioner or whatever. But currently I trust very few even on that level.
Fair. I separate the DC politicians of both parties into two groups:
Those that are there to govern and those that are there to promote/ go on tv/ online and make a name for themselves.
More and more of both parties are in the second group.
Governing is a lost art today.
posted by geeblockYes I get it. I think the original point that was made was that BR couldn't understand why the abortion topic kept getting brought up and why the dems made such a big deal about it. I think that is exactly the point. Should one persons beliefs be able to determine someone else's beliefs.
It shouldn’t be a personal belief. If science/biology says it’s a life then you can’t kill it until there is a danger or something similar going to happen to someone else (in this case the mother).
Once people realize it’s a logical scientific then a legal question and not a religious belief one we can all do that science/work/legal questions and get off the “feelings” and “your religion shouldn’t dictate my life” arguments.
posted by geeblockSo don’t get one. Pretty simple really.
But again, if it’s a life it isn’t that simple
If it’s life then that’s like saying “I think murder is wrong” and you say “well don’t murder anyone, pretty simple”
Don’t like it don’t have one is not a valid argument.
posted by BR1986FB99% may have been a high number but I'm willing to bet that the majority of the abortions aren't due to some circumstance like rape. Would bet at least 3 out of 4 cases are some couple that screwed up, got pregnant and used the abortion as an out instead of having the kid.
The last time I looked it up it was 4% are rape/incest/direct health of the mother, 96% are elective.
posted by queencitybuckeye
and many do not, so why leave that call to the woman?
What does biology say, is it a human? And when? That’s what is important.
posted by jmogIt shouldn’t be a personal belief. If science/biology says it’s a life then you can’t kill it until there is a danger or something similar going to happen to someone else (in this case the mother).
Once people realize it’s a logical scientific then a legal question and not a religious belief one we can all do that science/work/legal questions and get off the “feelings” and “your religion shouldn’t dictate my life” arguments.
You could go on up the food chain and say a sperm is a life-giving cell and thus life. If that’s the case, your tube sock is the scene of a genocide that dwarfs the holocaust.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieYou could go on up the food chain and say a sperm is a life-giving cell and thus life. If that’s the case, your tube sock is the scene of a genocide that dwarfs the holocaust.
By any scientific definition of what life is there is no one who is a biologist would say any gamete, sperm or egg, is life. It would be asinine.
I’m sure some far right religious person would, heck, Catholics say male masturbation is wrong for dumping their seed or something.
posted by jmogIt shouldn’t be a personal belief. If science/biology says it’s a life then you can’t kill it until there is a danger or something similar going to happen to someone else (in this case the mother).
Once people realize it’s a logical scientific then a legal question and not a religious belief one we can all do that science/work/legal questions and get off the “feelings” and “your religion shouldn’t dictate my life” arguments.
When there will a consensus on when life begins that will then translate to abortion?
I highly doubt between now and election day.
I get your argument, just not relevant to today, right now.
posted by ptown_trojans_1When there will a consensus on when life begins that will then translate to abortion?
I highly doubt between now and election day.
I get your argument, just not relevant to today, right now.
To be fair there is a consensus but people/scientists don’t want to touch that political atomic bomb.
I personally would like the powers that be have this conversation about abortion. There is a very big controversy that centers around a thing that different people, organizations, religions, states and politicians can't agree on.
What's more, some states make the pro-abortion argument that it's just a clump of cells and not a life from one side of their mouths. From the other side of their mouths the same people will use the murder of a pregnant woman for a double conviction of First Degree Murder. There is no tangible argument that connects their line of reasoning. People can't even make up their minds about that!
posted by jmogTo be fair there is a consensus but people/scientists don’t want to touch that political atomic bomb.
Then it is irrelevant and not applicable to the debate today.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Then it is irrelevant and not applicable to the debate today.
You said if there was a consensus then it would be relevant. Now that you know there is it is still irrelevant? Make that make sense
Here’s the paper…..if anyone wants to read the abstract.
In other news, I love how Michelle Obama, in her speech at the convention, is still bitching about "Trump's birther movement" while conveniently forgetting that Hillary Clinton was the OG Birther.
I really like her better when she speaks to the truth, like what's the weather outside like or her fashion sense for her husband's inauguration ball.
posted by CenterBHSFanIn other news, I love how Michelle Obama, in her speech at the convention, is still bitching about "Trump's birther movement" while conveniently forgetting that Hillary Clinton was the OG Birther.
I really like her better when she speaks to the truth, like what's the weather outside like or her fashion sense for her husband's inauguration ball.
That's what you got from her speech?
posted by jmogYou said if there was a consensus then it would be relevant. Now that you know there is it is still irrelevant? Make that make sense
Here’s the paper…..if anyone wants to read the abstract.
The immediate translation of this to any sort of functional policy that will impact people today is what makes it irrelevant to the 2024 race.
We can talk about in the abstract, but this is about the 2024 election and you said yourself scientists don't want to touch it, making it irrelevant to today.
posted by ptown_trojans_1The immediate translation of this to any sort of functional policy that will impact people today is what makes it irrelevant to the 2024 race.
We can talk about in the abstract, but this is about the 2024 election and you said yourself scientists don't want to touch it, making it irrelevant to today.
It is relevant to the topic of abortion, which is what we were talking about as a microcosm of the election.
posted by jmogIt is relevant to the topic of abortion, which is what we were talking about as a microcosm of the election.
Not when there is no immediate translation to actual policy or how it would impact a person today.
You again said it yourself, no scientist will touch the issue meaning there is no way for it to impact today.
If I read that right, the consensus is life begins at fertilization. Correct?
posted by ptown_trojans_1Not when there is no immediate translation to actual policy or how it would impact a person today.
You again said it yourself, no scientist will touch the issue meaning there is no way for it to impact today.
If I read that right, the consensus is life begins at fertilization. Correct?
If people start to understand what science says about life and understanding what our legal system says about protecting human life it may sway people in the middle to vote one way.
So saying it’s irrelevant is short sited. No one said this study will change Harris or Trumps agenda today. But this and other future studies might change policy over time especially if the voters in the republic, start to change their “beliefs” around the subject.
posted by jmogIf people start to understand what science says about life and understanding what our legal system says about protecting human life it may sway people in the middle to vote one way.
So saying it’s irrelevant is short sited. No one said this study will change Harris or Trumps agenda today. But this and other future studies might change policy over time especially if the voters in the republic, start to change their “beliefs” around the subject.
Perhaps in the long term. But, people and state after state have rejected your view and understand that they prefer options.
There is a very big difference from papers and real life and choices.
