It is currently Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:12 am



Reply to topic  [ 2197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
 A Corrierino Awareness Thread 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The issue here is not race.

No, no. It's all about polished shoes.

I don't really give a fuck about Northam one way or another, but I do find the media focus on this (Meet The Press spent half the show on Northam yesterday, and exactly no mention of the INF treaty or Trump's reported "willful ignorance" on intelligence matters) to be more about 'blood in the water' (especially tasty when it's Dem blood) than an issue worth such a consequential focus. It's a nice valve from examining yet another "worst week" for this president. But more than that, I'd feel less cynical about the coverage if it were equally applied to the recent proud cases of Republican neo-confederates like Steve King, Kris Kobach, Corey Stewart. Maybe extend this focus to administration officials, like the CFPB official who said that racial discrimination claims are hoaxes, the VA secretary who lied about giving speeches to white supremacists about "the lost cause", or that one deputy of his that was forced to remove a portrait of the first Grand Wizard of the KKK from his government office. Or maybe even FOX news, with their cries of "dirty immigrants" and "masssive demographic changes". I wonder where these attitudes are incubating? Like Megan Kelly. I don't care whether she was fired for comments on blackface. I care whether she was hired in the first place for promoting Obama conspiracy theories, denouncing thugs like Trayvon Martin and Freddie Grey, and denying black people the right to have their own fat man holiday.

There's a lot of shame to go around.


Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:25 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Go Rams!

I appreciate your concern, Ergill.

How do you feeeel about Dylan becoming a rust-piss swill-shill?


Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:28 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I appreciate your concern, Ergill.

How do you feeeel about Dylan becoming a rust-piss swill-shill?

Blechhhhh.

I like to believe the music industry husked him out and are sockpuppetting his fleshbody for profit.


Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:46 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Blechhhhh.

I like to believe the music industry husked him out and are sockpuppetting his fleshbody for profit.

I once heard that he made Masked and Anonymous because of debts he owed to the Russian mafia. That almost makes sense.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:05 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I once heard that he made Masked and Anonymous because of debts he owed to the Russian mafia. That almost makes sense.

Never saw it. Heard bad things. If his performance in Billy the Kid is any indication, I trust the word of mouth.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:33 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
No, no. It's all about polished shoes.


No, it is about infanticide and the DNC push for an unrestricted right to abort at any time for any reason.

It's about their clumsiness and desperate willingness to eat their own to change the direction of a narrative.

Virginia is a battle ground state. And the Dems throw their Democrat governor under the bus? They essentialize his character as being insufficient for public office because of the 35-year-old picture that has been a matter of public record for 35 years?

I don't care about the disingenuous moral outrage of Republicans (that's expected). I do care that Democrats are eating their own to change the tune. Moreover, I suspect that if Republicans really were all that hot and heavy on abortion and infanticide they wouldn't be participating in this side show about this yearbook photo.

Jinnistan wrote:
I don't really give a fuck about Northam one way or another, but I do find the media focus on this (Meet The Press spent half the show on Northam yesterday, and exactly no mention of the INF treaty or Trump's reported "willful ignorance" on intelligence matters) to be more about 'blood in the water' (especially tasty when it's Dem blood) than an issue worth such a consequential focus.


CNN doesn't like Trump. The DNC doesn't like Trump. And yet the mainstream media and ranking Democrats have jumped into the feeding frenzy. It's not that it's "tasty", but that it is necessary to take the stink off the abortion rights debate.

Jinnistan wrote:
It's a nice valve from examining yet another "worst week" for this president. But more than that, I'd feel less cynical about the coverage if it were equally applied to the recent proud cases of Republican neo-confederates like Steve King, Kris Kobach, Corey Stewart. Maybe extend this focus to administration officials, like the CFPB official who said that racial discrimination claims are hoaxes, the VA secretary who lied about giving speeches to white supremacists about "the lost cause", or that one deputy of his that was forced to remove a portrait of the first Grand Wizard of the KKK from his government office. Or maybe even FOX news, with their cries of "dirty immigrants" and "masssive demographic changes". I wonder where these attitudes are incubating? Like Megan Kelly. I don't care whether she was fired for comments on blackface. I care whether she was hired in the first place for promoting Obama conspiracy theories, denouncing thugs like Trayvon Martin and Freddie Grey, and denying black people the right to have their own fat man holiday.

There's a lot of shame to go around.


There is a lot of shame to go around, but that doesn't change the point.

Republican or Democrat, I don't think that a politically incorrect costume party choice from 35 years ago should kill a career.

Remember when a Prince of England raised some eyebrows for dressing like a Nazi at a costume party?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... utfit.html

It didn't cost him his place in the royal family. It blew over. That what happens in a normal world.

The moral reign of terror needs to stop. Republicans don't take responsibility for anything (although they are happy to crucify anyone from the other side) and Democrats demand blood sacrifices for the smallest infractions. It's madness at both ends.

As much as I dislike Northam for that pick-up truck scaremongering advertisement (remember the one where the Trump supporter was apparently going to run down children of color?) and as much as I find calmly entertaining infanticide as a clarification/justification of an expansive abortion rights bill to be unconscionable, it is traitorous, disloyal, and dishonest for fellow Democrats to demand his resignation for a politically incorrect choice made 35-years-ago.

We just effectively watched the character assassination of the governor of a state and neither political party and no member of the press is calling foul.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:40 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
No, it is about infanticide and the DNC push for an unrestricted right to abort at any time for any reason.

Are you under the impression that people get late-term abortions on a whim? These less-then-one-percent of abortions are wanted pregnancies facing tragic complications. Calling it "infanticide" is a slap in the face of the people who've dealt with this. When did you turn into the horrendous grandpa on Facebook?


Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:29 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Are you under the impression that people get late-term abortions on a whim? These less-then-one-percent of abortions are wanted pregnancies facing tragic complications. Calling it "infanticide" is a slap in the face of the people who've deal with this. When did you turn into the horrendous grandpa on Facebook?


https://www.justfactsdaily.com/most-lat ... l-reasons/

A HuffPo piece lists an old survey (1988) indicating that in the majority of cases the reason is "71% — Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation" or "48% — Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-w ... 10821.html

We're not talking risking death or aborting the rape baby here.

Indeed (from the same source), "2% — A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy" which means that yes, 98% of later abortions are on a "whim" to the extent that they are not done out of health concerns for mother or fetus, but rather social concerns or financial concerns, etc.

Below is a direct quotation from Northam in the interview that got him in trouble. And yes, it is describing infanticide as being a direct implication of the Virginia bill.

I can tell you exactly what
40:07
would happen the infant would be
40:10
delivered the infant would be kept
40:12
comfortable the infant would be
40:14
resuscitated if that's what the mother
40:17
and the family desired and then a
40:19
discussion would ensue between the
40:21
physicians and the mother

The baby. Born. Possibly resuscitated (mom's choice). If resuscitated (i.e., alive out of the womb and no longer make a claim to the property of anyone else's body) a discussion would ensue between mother and doctor (dads need not apply, it seems) and then an action would be taken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6WD_3H0wKU

Did he misspeak? Did he misrepresent the bill? Did he, as a pediatrician, reveal a little too much?

Until those comments are clarified, according to him as a witness (both politician and pediatrician) this is "exactly what would happen." Thus, by his own testimony, infanticide is on the table. That's count 1, sanchez.

Unfortunately, we're not getting clarification of the issue because we're hung up on a yearbook photo.

The slap in the face is the lie that the debate was ever really about viability, or personhood. That argument is gone. You don't get to retreat to it under these bills. We're in your brave new world, friendo. You have to defend the "medical" decision of one (just one opinion is fine) doctor that it would be in either the physical or mental health interests of the mother to abort at ANY time prior to delivery. And this is the second sense in which infanticide is on the table. Because this legislation in no way shape or form respects the rights of a fully formed baby moments before delivery (by the letter of the law), this means that if if a baby is indeed a baby five minutes, five hours, or five days before delivery, then it is legal to kill a baby under this legislation. That's count 2.

Your only response available is to just say that "Well, we should just trust people to do the right thing" and "How dare you question a woman and her doctor's decision!" If so, however, then why legislate against any crime? Why don't then lefties trust citizens with their guns? 99% of gun owners are law abiding citizens and it is only a small fraction of them who get murdery? How dare we suggest that they should face any restrictions in use and ownership!

Indeed, if we can so absolutely trust the medical opinion of one attending physician and the unimpeachable certitude of the mother why not allow them to make the same decision a week after delivery? Shouldn't we trust them? Shouldn't we piously defer to such a private and personal decision?

When did you become so lost that you cannot see that legalizing the termination of a fully formed human being moments from delivery is the legalization of murder (regardless of whether we can trust people not to unwarrantedly exercise their newfound right to kill under the law)? This isn't the "clump of cells" debate.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Lemme see if I have this straight....

The Dems are pushing a radical infanticide agenda under the guise of last minute abortion rights and they decided to throw a Dem governor under the bus by floating a racist yearbook picture that everyone already knew about because that governor.....publicly defended this agenda.

And yet you, Melvin, who is strongly opposed to this radical agenda is yet defending the governor who defended infanticide because his character was assassinated because of an actual photo he once submitted to his yearbook? Or was this some kind of deep fake? Like Obama's birth certificate perhaps? I guess they didn't think that an old VHS of him moonwalking would be sufficient to cause his resignation?

This all makes sense.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:43 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oh, hey! It's all bullshit! Based on a selectively edited viral video. Who'd a thunk?

Sarah Jones wrote:
Tran’s bill wasn’t as salacious as its detractors insist. It would have reduced the number of doctors required to sign off on a third-term abortion from three to one, and it would have allowed that physician to approve a late-term abortion for any medical reason, including harm to a woman’s mental health. This provision would have altered the state’s existing statute, which currently allows a team of three physicians to approve third-term abortions for women whose health would be “substantially and irredeemably” harmed by continuing their pregnancies. The bill would have also allowed second-term abortions to be performed outside licensed hospitals, in facilities like clinics. A House subcommittee rejected the bill, but if it had become law it would not have licensed Virginia physicians to perform abortions as a fetus enters the birth canal. Tran’s bill resembles New York’s Reproductive Health Act in that it expands access to later-term abortions, but partial-birth abortion, or “born-alive abortion,” as GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called it in a tweet, is already illegal. RHA didn’t legalize it, and neither would Tran’s bill.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:56 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Lemme see if I have this straight....


Do try.

Jinnistan wrote:
The Dems are pushing a radical infanticide agenda


They are pushing for a women's rights agenda. They would not characterize it as an infanticide agenda. It's just that (IMO) they would rather err on the side of the occasional infanticide rather than threaten a woman's right to choose at any stage of pregnancy.

This agenda is indeed radical as compared to public opinion (see Gallup and Pew references upthread).

They are pushing this at the state level out of fear of losing the Supreme Court (how many days since we've seen RBG now?).

Jinnistan wrote:
and they decided to throw a Dem governor under the bus by floating a racist yearbook picture that everyone already knew about because that governor.....publicly defended this agenda.


I don't know who floated the picture. Big League Politics ran the story, but they allegedly got the photo from a "concerned citizen." It is anyone's guess as to where the photo actually came from.

What is clear is that the Democrat response to that picture has been to use it as a way to pivot away from his infanticide comments as regards the ramifications of Kathy Tran's legislation before the Virginia house.

Jinnistan wrote:
And yet you, Melvin, who is strongly opposed to this radical agenda is yet defending the governor who defended infanticide because his character was assassinated because of an actual photo he once submitted to his yearbook?


I don't think anyone's career should end because they did something politically incorrect 35 years ago. I don't agree with the guy, but I deplore how he has been thrown under the bus.

Jinnistan wrote:
Or was this some kind of deep fake? Like Obama's birth certificate perhaps? I guess they didn't think that an old VHS of him moonwalking would be sufficient to cause his resignation?


These days research into one's own candidates and those of the opposition are a matter of due diligence. That photo has been a matter of public record since 1984. It's not something that was just revealed through a leak. It has been in every copy of that book for anyone to see.

I have not said the picture is fake.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:01 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It is anyone's guess as to where the photo actually came from.

I hope it didn't come from one of those crazy conservatives pushing this infanticide bullshit.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:13 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Oh, hey! It's all bullshit! Based on a selectively edited viral video. Who'd a thunk?



All of this is established in Tran's testimony. It is the testimony of the governor which alleged that the baby would be birthed, resuscitated, and then potentially killed.

Also, we should note 2 big changes. First, only one doctor needs to sign off (you can always find a doctor who will ruberstamp approvals). Second, this legislation holds that the baby can be killed, moments before birth, on grounds of the "mental health of the mother." If a fully formed human baby is killed (i.e., we ditch the viability and personhood debate) we're already in the realm of green-lighting infanticide.

Here is Tran's testimony for context.



You watch that and you tell me what you think that describes.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:22 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I hope it didn't come from one of those crazy conservatives pushing this infanticide bullshit.


It's not crazy and it does NOT matter who submitted it. What matters is how the DNC and mainstream media ran with it (changing of the tune).

Two counts of alleged infanticide await your refutation.

Have at it.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:24 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
You watch that and you tell me what you think that describes.

It looks like a woman who claimed to have misspoke, as her bill does not legalize partial-birth abortion.

Do you have the language of the bill in front of you to show where it legalizes partial-birth abortion, which has been federally banned since 2003?


Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:34 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin?

Here. I have the language of the bill.

HB2491 wrote:
It shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester, provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

2. The physician certifies and so enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in the physician's medical opinion, based upon the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.


If the baby is viable at the time of dilation, it shall be put on life support.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:57 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
It looks like a woman who claimed to have misspoke, as her bill does not legalize partial-birth abortion.

Do you have the language of the bill in front of you to show where it legalizes partial-birth abortion, which has been federally banned since 2003?


Partial-birth is a technique, not a timeframe.

From the 2003 legislation it is,

(1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

Tran's legislation allows for abortion at any time before birth on the say so of one physician.

From the motherfucking source you cited, we get this,

The Cut wrote:
Tran’s bill wasn’t as salacious as its detractors insist. It would have reduced the number of doctors required to sign off on a third-term abortion from three to one, and it would have allowed that physician to approve a late-term abortion for any medical reason, including harm to a woman’s mental health.


That's what people object to, Janson. They object to killing a baby on the say so of one physician that the mother needs it on the grounds of mental health. Would we let a mother kill a two-day-old baby on the grounds of mental health? If not, why would we allow this in the case of a two-days-before-birth baby?


So a particular technique to kill is not allowed? So what? What matters is that killing is allowed at any time before delivery.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:50 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Melvin?

Here. I have the language of the bill.



If the baby is viable at the time of dilation, it shall be put on life support.


Whoopdefucking do! Hurrah! If they accidentally don't succeed in killing the baby and the head breaks the plane of the goal, it's a touchdown for team baby! Oh happy day! If they botch your abortion before you make it partially out of the womb, you get to live! Technically. Great.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:53 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Whoopdefucking do! Hurrah! If they accidentally don't succeed in killing the baby and the head breaks the plane of the goal, it's a touchdown for team baby! Oh happy day! If they botch your abortion before you make it partially out of the womb, you get to live! Technically. Great.

In other words, the bill does not allow for partial-birth abortion, which would require reversing extant federal law. But other than the bill not doing the thing that you've gotten your hair on fire about ("birthed, resuscitated, and then potentially killed") in literally the post prior to this one. I guess, what was your point? Oh yeah. The Dems conspiring to character assassinate a man for pointing out a public thing he once did because he publicly supported the very thing they're trying to accomplish, which is obviously mass infanticide.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
What matters is that killing is allowed at any time before delivery.

What matters is that you are pro-life, using pro-life media to push a pro-life world view that I am not obligated to support.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:02 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
In other words, the bill does not allow for partial-birth abortion, which would require reversing extant federal law.


You've got your laws mixed up. The relevant law would be the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. This would be the extant federal law which would (or so it would seem) prevent the procedure that Northam describes as "exactly what would happen" under the Virginia law. As I said before, Northam may have been mistaken or misspoken or may have said a little too much about actual abortion practices (de facto if not de jure). This is count one of infanticide. My claim was that people were pissed because what he described (correctly or incorrectly) was indeed infanticide (and it would be).

The controversy, however, started with Tran's testimony before the Virginia house and NOTHING you have cited has contradicted my characterization of her testimony. It has, rather, confirmed it. And at that point that we stop to consider the personhood of the developing baby in the third trimester, we have to confront count 2 of infanticide (the bit that Tran is responsible for).

Jinnistan wrote:
But other than the bill not doing the thing that you've gotten your hair on fire about in literally the post prior to this one.


Seeing as how we're literally talking about killing kids, yeah. Go figure.

Jinnistan wrote:
I guess, what was your point? Oh yeah. The Dems conspiring to character assassinate a man for pointing out a public thing he once did because he publicly supported the very thing they're trying to accomplish, which is obviously mass infanticide.


The abortion narrative spun out of their control. He was supposed to put the fire out, but accidentally poured gasoline on it (however, it was an honest mistake), and they repaid him by jumping on the hate train over a yearbook picture from 1984. It is what it is, Janson. The man has had his character assassinated for the crime of inarticulately defending the DNC legislative strategy for abortion rights.

How else do you describe throwing the chief executive of a state under the bus? They did not necessarily conspire to leak the picture (we may never know who floated this image which has been available to the public for decades), but they sure as hell hustled to shift the narrative from abortion (an issue where they're pushing against public opinion) to racism (a debate they can win).

Jinnistan wrote:
What matters is that you are pro-life,


Genetic fallacy much?

No what matters is what the actual policy would entail.

What matters is that we're living during a moral reign of terror in which no one is safe. Any tweet, any smirk, any joke, anything that can be pulled out of context can and will be used against you in a court of public opinion.

What matters is not my personal position (who cares) but whether viable human beings will be legally killed under laws like this when just one physician alleges (at any stage of pregnancy) that abortion is needed for the mental health of the mother.

Jinnistan wrote:
using pro-life media


Gallup and Pew and HuffPo are prolife media?

Really?

You're in love with the genetic fallacy, it seems.

Jinnistan wrote:
to push a pro-life world view that I am not obligated to support.


You can be pro-choice and not be absolute about it.

Our choice is not simply that of no abortion at all or unlimited abortion for all at any time.

24 hours after fertilization? Fine, let's be pro-choice. First trimester, getting harder, but we can certainly make the case.

Third trimester with a viable fully formed baby ready to emerge which does not threaten the physical health of the mother? That's not pro-choice, that's murder.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:35 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/most-lat ... l-reasons/

A HuffPo piece lists an old survey (1988) indicating that in the majority of cases the reason is "71% — Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation" or "48% — Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-w ... 10821.html

We're not talking risking death or aborting the rape baby here.

Indeed (from the same source), "2% — A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy" which means that yes, 98% of later abortions are on a "whim" to the extent that they are not done out of health concerns for mother or fetus, but rather social concerns or financial concerns, etc.

This hinges on people’s ambiguous use of the term “late” when discussing abortion. In terms of weeks, some have used it to designate 16 or 20 (early to middle of the 2nd trimester) or 27 weeks (3rd trimester). I’m addressing the latter, and for a decent reason. That’s primarily what the law in question is — and what its most controversial parts are — affecting. That's also what you're talking about in your last post. (I don’t see you complaining about them extending the kinds of facilities where people can have second trimester abortions.)

For comparison, your sources jump between a number of different standards—the first guy talking about 20 to 24 weeks, the Guttmacher survey from the eighties talking about 16 weeks on. Then it mixes in claims about the incidence of partial-birth abortion, a separate issue. Then it tosses in a newer Guttmacher survey of reasons for all abortions, not taking into account that the abortions at issue are a small slice. Not exactly apples to apples.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Below is a direct quotation from Northam in the interview that got him in trouble. And yes, it is describing infanticide as being a direct implication of the Virginia bill.

I can tell you exactly what
40:07
would happen the infant would be
40:10
delivered the infant would be kept
40:12
comfortable the infant would be
40:14
resuscitated if that's what the mother
40:17
and the family desired and then a
40:19
discussion would ensue between the
40:21
physicians and the mother

The baby. Born. Possibly resuscitated (mom's choice). If resuscitated (i.e., alive out of the womb and no longer make a claim to the property of anyone else's body) a discussion would ensue between mother and doctor (dads need not apply, it seems) and then an action would be taken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6WD_3H0wKU

Did he misspeak? Did he misrepresent the bill? Did he, as a pediatrician, reveal a little too much?

I think he misspoke. As did Tran, per Janson’s link. Anti-abortion advocates are smart to latch onto these gaffes and stretch them out as much as they can, because they’re viral material and there’s a lot fuel to be had from them, but I don’t think it amounts to a substantive conversation about the real scope and consequences of the laws we’re talking about. I’m also not convinced it hits on all the underlying assumptions and reservations you have. Just consider my point about trimesters. It speaks to how the current conversation from your angle is trying to pump ambiguities to work its concerns into areas it doesn’t seem viable (errrr). But even if that’s the case, it won’t address those concerns.

If you want to work out your feelings on second or even first trimester abortions, then let’s just lay it on the table and dissect it. Would you support making first trimester abortions more available to deter late-term abortions? Would you support policies encouraging contraception? Would you support extended sex education? One of the problems that women cite for late-term abortions (of many social pressures affecting them) is the difficulty imposed by harsh state sanctions imposed in hopes of stopping all abortion. Would you oppose those to avoid the cases that upset you here?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Until those comments are clarified, according to him as a witness (both politician and pediatrician) this is "exactly what would happen." Thus, by his own testimony, infanticide is on the table. That's count 1, sanchez.

*lowers tiny gun from infant’s head*

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Unfortunately, we're not getting clarification of the issue because we're hung up on a yearbook photo.

*moonwalks*

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The slap in the face is the lie that the debate was ever really about viability, or personhood. That argument is gone. You don't get to retreat to it under these bills. We're in your brave new world, friendo. You have to defend the "medical" decision of one (just one opinion is fine) doctor that it would be in either the physical or mental health interests of the mother to abort at ANY time prior to delivery. And this is the second sense in which infanticide is on the table. Because this legislation in no way shape or form respects the rights of a fully formed baby moments before delivery (by the letter of the law), this means that if if a baby is indeed a baby five minutes, five hours, or five days before delivery, then it is legal to kill a baby under this legislation. That's count 2.

I’m not convinced this is legitimately on the table.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Your only response available is to just say that "Well, we should just trust people to do the right thing" and "How dare you question a woman and her doctor's decision!" If so, however, then why legislate against any crime? Why don't then lefties trust citizens with their guns? 99% of gun owners are law abiding citizens and it is only a small fraction of them who get murdery? How dare we suggest that they should face any restrictions in use and ownership!

My only response? I haven’t even responded. I honestly don’t have some line in the sand on where, why and when. But we can give fetuses guns if necessary.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Indeed, if we can so absolutely trust the medical opinion of one attending physician and the unimpeachable certitude of the mother why not allow them to make the same decision a week after delivery? Shouldn't we trust them? Shouldn't we piously defer to such a private and personal decision?

I don’t think the problem of the heap has quite led us there, professor Singer.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:53 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
As I said before, Northam may have been mistaken or misspoken or may have said a little too much about actual abortion practices (de facto if not de jure). This is count one of infanticide. My claim was that people were pissed because what he described (correctly or incorrectly) was indeed infanticide (and it would be).

Gee, if only there was some kind of way we can determine whether Northam misrepresented the bill, like, possibly, reading the bill itself for a comparison? And what if the bill itself does not allow for what you've described as infanticide ("birthed, resuscitated, and then potentially killed"), could that mean that your description (correctly or incorrectly) was indeed full of shit (as indeed it is)?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The controversy, however, started with Tran's testimony before the Virginia house and NOTHING you have cited has contradicted my characterization of her testimony.

You're right, except for the language of the bill itself. Other than that minor detail of the actual law under discussion....

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Seeing as how we're literally talking about killing kids, yeah. Go figure.

Oh, I thought we were literally talking about killing fetuses. Depending on how literal we're supposed to take this.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
they repaid him by jumping on the hate train over a yearbook picture from 1984. It is what it is, Janson. The man has had his character assassinated for the crime of inarticulately defending the DNC legislative strategy for abortion rights.

Do you plan on going on the record with some evidence to support any of this at some point?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
How else do you describe throwing the chief executive of a state under the bus?

I'd describe the shoe polish and klan robe, I guess. That's what I'm looking at.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
they sure as hell hustled to shift the narrative from abortion (an issue where they're pushing against public opinion) to racism (a debate they can win).

To what end? To remove a governor from office who is supportive of this so-called Dem agenda? I'm not seeing the "win" here.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
No what matters is what the actual policy would entail.

Well, I guess that'll remain a mystery. They should start writing these bills down.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
What matters is not my personal position (who cares) but whether viable human beings will be legally killed under laws like this when just one physician alleges (at any stage of pregnancy) that abortion is needed for the mental health of the mother.

The bill also includes a requirement for the physician to write a report explaining each individual decision and a process for these decisions to be reviewed by an interdisciplinary board. This is not as unaccountable or as arbitrary as you're making it seem.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Gallup and Pew and HuffPo are prolife media?

I haven't seen a single source for this infanticide argument from a mainstream source. This is definitely being pushed hard by pro-life right-wing media.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Our choice is not simply that of no abortion at all or unlimited abortion for all at any time.

You're right. Taking into consideration the medical reasons for third-term abortions doesn't qualify as "unlimited". It is limited to the medical reasons which must be documented and reviewed. That certainly isn't as absolute as prohibiting abortion "at any time before delivery".


Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:16 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
This hinges on people’s ambiguous use of the term “late” when discussing abortion.

How does this signal a disadvantage for my side of the case, sanchez? The legislation asserts a plenary right to abortion. Thus, any rejection to “late term” abortion, whatever that means in the mind of the respondent, is by logical necessity a voice of objection to this legislation. The ambiguity does not hurt myside of the case as I am not the one asserting an absolute right.

Ergill wrote:
For comparison, your sources jump between a number of different standards—the first guy talking about 20 to 24 weeks, the Guttmacher survey from the eighties talking about 16 weeks on. Then it mixes in claims about the incidence of partial-birth abortion, a separate issue.

It is defect that a technique of abortion is identified rather than a timeline, but as these are the sources presently introduced, and as they do meet minimal standards for polling research, they are the best evidence we have, which means that the presumption of my claim (most Americans do not support an absolute right to abortion through 40 weeks) still stands.
Ergill wrote:
Then it tosses in a newer Guttmacher survey of reasons for all abortions, not taking into account that the abortions at issue are a small slice.

What a perverse little piece of rationalization. Suppose infanticide were legal, but only the merest slice of citizens elected to kill a 3 week old baby under that right. Would you still stand on the legality of that right to kill merely because very few people did it? Suppose that only the merest fraction of people were killed by rifles. Let’s say that by FBI statistics more people were killed by knives and clubs every year than by rifles of any variety in the United States. From this would it follow that we should have no restrictions on rifles whatsoever? Or suppose that murder in the U.S. were as infrequent as late term abortions (although it is an open question as to one is a subset of the other). Would you, on grounds of infrequency, justify the legality of murder?

The frequency of late term abortions is NOT the question. The question is whether a baby days away from being born has any right to life when balanced against the alleged “mental health” of the mother as determined by the medical opinion of one physician. That is the question. Answer it honestly and this legislation is suspect, at best.
Ergill wrote:
I think he misspoke.

But in misspeaking did he describe what would be a clear-cut case of infanticide? If so, is it worth objecting to that description in such case that pediatrician and Governor of a state was both familiar with the legislation and medical practice such that he really could tell us “exactly how it would happen”? The answer is “Yes” which means that a WTF? was totally in order here.

I think he lost support of the media and his party for misspeaking on this point. I think the Yearbook nonsense is a sideshow. I think it is unfair that he would be torpedoed for either reason. The moral reign of terror needs to stop. I wasn’t sure that Franken really should have retired. Sure, he’s taking one for the team and showing commitment to core values, but it’s also a commitment to eliminate people for even the smallest of infractions. It feeds the irrational moral mob.
Ergill wrote:
As did Tran, per Janson’s link.

Uh, no.
The only sense in which Tran might have misspoke was when she entertained a question about a dilating mother and proceeded to describe what could be construed as a partial birth abortion.
I do NOT. I repeat, I do NOT object to this aspect of her testimony. What I object to is what was confirmed by Janson’s source:
1, An absolute right of in terms of temporality – full 40 week accessibility.
2. Lowering the bar for expertise. Only the approval of one doctor is needed instead of three.
3. Lowering the threshold by which the absolute temporal right may be exercised (mental health and not just physical health).
These three conditions are unconscionable and effectively make a case murder of the nearly born as a legal right. And it is this which we object to.
Ergill wrote:
If you want to work out your feelings on second or even first trimester abortions, then let’s just lay it on the table and dissect it.

Fine, let’s go to the lightning round.
To be clear allow me to establish that I prefer to err on the side of caution (e.g., when it is unclear whether we have a person in a borderline case, I prefer the “not possibly murder” option).
Also, there are guidelines I believe should inform the debate. One is viability. At the point that “it” can survive outside the womb, and at the point that it will take a major procedure to remove it anyhow, and to the extent that we’re not burdened with the doctrine of double-effect (the life of the mother is not threated by an early delivery procedure), I side with a right to life (in such case as additional minimal thresholds for pain sensitivity, physical development, etc. are passed). And modern medical science has made viability an earlier and earlier proposition. The success of medical science means that the window for a right to abortion shrinks with each passing year.
Another principle is that of pianism. Are we dealing with a human creature capable of feeling pain? If so, I stand by a right to life.
Finally, there are scientific criteria that should be explored to determine other developmental criteria. Once these thresholds are passed and in cases where we’re not burdened by the doctrine of double effect there is a right to life.
So, let’s move on to the lightning round.
Ergill wrote:
Would you support making first trimester abortions more available to deter late-term abortions?

I would prefer that these would be safe, rare, and legal. At the point that side opposition has a legit “just a clump of cells claim” then I would absolutely rather have what is probably a clump of cells eliminated rather than what is certainly an unborn baby at 39 weeks.
Ergill wrote:
Would you support policies encouraging contraception?

Yes.
Ergill wrote:
Would you support extended sex education?

Sure. Descriptive education that lays out the cold facts of reproduction, but not normative programming for any preferred form of sexuality.
Ergill wrote:
One of the problems that women cite for late-term abortions (of many social pressures affecting them) is the difficulty imposed by harsh state sanctions imposed in hopes of stopping all abortion.

One of the difficulties of being an unborn African American baby in New York is that you are more likely to be aborted than born. Difficulties present themselves everywhere it seems.
Your difficulties in life don’t give you a right to kill. Sorry.
Ergill wrote:
Would you oppose those to avoid the cases that upset you here?

To the extent that difficulty of access to abortion (clump of cells) results in later term abortions (uh, I am pretty sure that’s a baby people!), it must be recognized as an instrumental harm to human life.
I would prefer a depolarization of the dispute. It is terrifying to see both sides invoking the nuclear option. I stand neither for an absolute right to abortion nor do I absolutely oppose abortion. Reasonable folks are drowned out by fundamentalists and people thinking that A Handmaid’s Tale is a documentary.
These state-by-state laws, however, are over the line, and I oppose them for that reason.


Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:02 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
How does this signal a disadvantage for my side of the case, sanchez? The legislation asserts a plenary right to abortion. Thus, any rejection to “late term” abortion, whatever that means in the mind of the respondent, is by logical necessity a voice of objection to this legislation. The ambiguity does not hurt my side of the case as I am not the one asserting an absolute right.

I haven’t seen where this legislation extends second trimester abortion rights, save where you can get them. It extends rights for the third trimester, and that’s what all the controversy has addressed. That’s also what you’ve explicitly mentioned in your posts. Your link and statistics, however, lump second and third trimester data together and just trust that the results don’t get washed out.

I couldn’t find any recent figures slicing out the third trimester, but I did find this estimate quoted from a Guttmacher survey back in ’92 (behind a paywall, but an image-search brought it up):

Weeks / Abortions
21-22 / 10,340
23-24 / 4,940
25-26 / 850
>26 / 320

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/a ... act/187908

That sets third trimester at roughly 2% of abortions at 21 weeks or more. Several of your sources cite reasons for termination at 16/20 weeks or more—that 2% can fall anywhere in there. Your other source cites reasons for all abortions at one point—that dramatically shrinks the slice to well under 1%, which lowers the chances of this data accurately characterizing it even further. This isn’t about what you should or shouldn’t find significant, but of what the data says or doesn’t say, and it doesn’t say that the third trimester abortions affected by this legislation are whims. These are extremely involved, expensive operations.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It is defect that a technique of abortion is identified rather than a timeline, but as these are the sources presently introduced, and as they do meet minimal standards for polling research, they are the best evidence we have, which means that the presumption of my claim (most Americans do not support an absolute right to abortion through 40 weeks) still stands.

You’re jumping in between different claims. Most Americans don’t support late-term abortion, but we know that because—other polls. This could be true whether or not it was proved to a certainty that the reason for termination for all late-term abortions was that the doctor had proved the fetuses were, in fact, literally Hitler.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The frequency of late term abortions is NOT the question. The question is whether a baby days away from being born has any right to life when balanced against the alleged “mental health” of the mother as determined by the medical opinion of one physician. That is the question. Answer it honestly and this legislation is suspect, at best.

The frequency is only the question when you’re making arguments based on frequency (see above). As for the hypothetical, I'm fine granting that we should take late-term abortions more seriously than early. Janson already clarified that these decisions still have to be documented and forwarded for review, that it isn't simply whimsical women consulting whimsical doctors. I’m severely skeptical that people have been or will be getting abortion mere days away from pregnancy on (as your quotes imply) frivolous mental health claims. If you want to argue for more explicit and careful qualification of that provision to address this, by all means. Don’t accuse people of intentionally pursuing infanticide while simultaneously claiming moral mobs should slow their roll.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
But in misspeaking did he describe what would be a clear-cut case of infanticide? If so, is it worth objecting to that description in such case that pediatrician and Governor of a state was both familiar with the legislation and medical practice such that he really could tell us “exactly how it would happen”? The answer is “Yes” which means that a WTF? was totally in order here.

I think he lost support of the media and his party for misspeaking on this point. I think the Yearbook nonsense is a sideshow. I think it is unfair that he would be torpedoed for either reason. The moral reign of terror needs to stop. I wasn’t sure that Franken really should have retired. Sure, he’s taking one for the team and showing commitment to core values, but it’s also a commitment to eliminate people for even the smallest of infractions. It feeds the irrational moral mob.

This runs against the grain of your post. You’re arguing under the assumption that this legislation is clearly paving the way for infanticide and you’ve marshaled his statement to hammer the point home. If the legislation does this and he’s endorsed it doing this, why do you think the moral mob should be giving him a mulligan?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Uh, no.
The only sense in which Tran might have misspoke was when she entertained a question about a dilating mother and proceeded to describe what could be construed as a partial birth abortion.
I do NOT. I repeat, I do NOT object to this aspect of her testimony. What I object to is what was confirmed by Janson’s source:
1, An absolute right of in terms of temporality – full 40 week accessibility.
2. Lowering the bar for expertise. Only the approval of one doctor is needed instead of three.
3. Lowering the threshold by which the absolute temporal right may be exercised (mental health and not just physical health).
These three conditions are unconscionable and effectively make a case murder of the nearly born as a legal right. And it is this which we object to.

I think Janson has answered these questions well enough.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fine, let’s go to the lightning round.
To be clear allow me to establish that I prefer to err on the side of caution (e.g., when it is unclear whether we have a person in a borderline case, I prefer the “not possibly murder” option).

So late-second-term, I take it?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Also, there are guidelines I believe should inform the debate. One is viability. At the point that “it” can survive outside the womb, and at the point that it will take a major procedure to remove it anyhow, and to the extent that we’re not burdened with the doctrine of double-effect (the life of the mother is not threated by an early delivery procedure), I side with a right to life (in such case as additional minimal thresholds for pain sensitivity, physical development, etc. are passed). And modern medical science has made viability an earlier and earlier proposition. The success of medical science means that the window for a right to abortion shrinks with each passing year.
Another principle is that of pianism. Are we dealing with a human creature capable of feeling pain? If so, I stand by a right to life.

Viability is always going to play a role in the conversation, but there are diminishing returns on viability, variable uses of it based on the circumstances and technology available, and persistent concerns about severe disability the further back we go. A decent discussion of the issues:

https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/campa ... re-babies/

As for pain, it seems unlikely that fetuses have the ability to experience pain before the third term:

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal ... hesia.html

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
So, let’s move on to the lightning round.

Would you support making first trimester abortions more available to deter late-term abortions?

I would prefer that these would be safe, rare, and legal. At the point that side opposition has a legit “just a clump of cells claim” then I would absolutely rather have what is probably a clump of cells eliminated rather than what is certainly an unborn baby at 39 weeks.

I trust that also means “accessible”.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Would you support policies encouraging contraception?
Yes.

Swell.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Would you support extended sex education?

Sure. Descriptive education that lays out the cold facts of reproduction, but not normative programming for any preferred form of sexuality.

I can imagine plenty of knotty disputes down the line on “normative programming”, but all the same, OK.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
One of the problems that women cite for late-term abortions (of many social pressures affecting them) is the difficulty imposed by harsh state sanctions imposed in hopes of stopping all abortion.

One of the difficulties of being an unborn African American baby in New York is that you are more likely to be aborted than born. Difficulties present themselves everywhere it seems.
Your difficulties in life don’t give you a right to kill. Sorry.

Interesting that you’d suddenly veer off course here. The question isn’t, what justifies a late-term abortion? The question is, between the less objectionable clump of cells and the more objectionable imminent birth, do pro-life attempts to stop abortions as such contribute to more of the latter and can we help limit them? You can try to shock us out of addressing that by shifting black NYC abortions and a non-sequitur about murder, but I’ll just ask it again. That said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ap/380251/

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
To the extent that difficulty of access to abortion (clump of cells) results in later term abortions (uh, I am pretty sure that’s a baby people!), it must be recognized as an instrumental harm to human life.

Phew.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I would prefer a depolarization of the dispute. It is terrifying to see both sides invoking the nuclear option. I stand neither for an absolute right to abortion nor do I absolutely oppose abortion. Reasonable folks are drowned out by fundamentalists and people thinking that A Handmaid’s Tale is a documentary.
These state-by-state laws, however, are over the line, and I oppose them for that reason.

I can stand behind that, even if I don’t think all your tactics in here have contributed to depolarization.


Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:27 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

does anyone think Trump taking a shot at "socialism" at the SotU at all was notable? like, as a small Overton window shift


Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Just a couple of extra points then:

"Partial-birth is a technique, not a timeframe."

This is especially disingenuous considering how the technique of partial-birth abortion is pretty exclusively applied during a very specific timeframe (dilation), so the two things are not exactly distinct from one another in this context (ala "killing kids")

Kathy Tran just might be a moron, and if the above video proves anything, it's that she's unaware of her own legislation. It could very well be that she's pushing model legislation, seeing as it's essentially identical to the recent bill in New York state, without reading it carefully. What is clear is that any legislation that requires any number of physicians to approve the procedure is not, by definition, an "absolute right" to abortion.

Even if we consider some of the aspects in the bill as debatable (number of physicians required, examples of mental health criteria, questions of viability), let's step back to what the original charge was - Northam's alleged charge of promoting infanticide, or the termination of a post-partum resuscitated infant. A breakdown of the incomplete Northam quotes from above on the bill.

So, with no evidence of an infanticide agenda, no identifiable establishment of an "absolute" right to abortion, and a wildly inaccurate right-wing distortion of these issues, we're still left with a completely unsupported (likely unsupportable) allegation that Northam's blackface scandal is actually the result of a Democratic/media character assassination surreptitiously designed to punish Northam for being too honest about infanticide in comments that he didn't even make.


Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:23 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

In more intriguing news, Buzzfeed released a batch of documents (contracts, letters, emails, texts) that outline the discusssions concerning the Trump Moscow project. The back and forth between Michael Cohen and Felix Sater show that
Buzzfeeed wrote:
The fixers believed they needed Putin’s support to pull off the lucrative deal, and they planned to use Trump’s public praise for him to help secure it. At the same time, they plotted to persuade Putin to openly declare his support for Trump’s candidacy. '"If he says it we own this election", Sater wrote to Cohen.


So, rather than calling the Trump Moscow project a back-up business opportunity for if Trump failed to win the presidency, it was calculated that Putin's support would be enough to guarantee his victory. Win-win. Coincidentally, the GRU began hacking and releasing the opposition's emails and funneling cash to Trump's largest campaign supporter, the NRA. And for some reason, indebted oligarch stooge, Paul Manafort, chooses to try to run the first campaign of his career for free while offering inside info to Russian intelligence. But other than all that....


Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:40 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
does anyone think Trump taking a shot at "socialism" at the SotU at all was notable? like, as a small Overton window shift

In what way, do you think? It was a pretty typical Republican stance. Most Democrats are still wary of term too, even if they're also wary of the antisocialist fearmongering that's been leveled at them for generations.


Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:11 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
It was a pretty typical Republican stance.


yeah, that's true. maybe the inclusion of it in a SotU address not during the Cold War felt notable to me. like, are they that spooked by the idea of public healthcare?


Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:05 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I'm not 100% confident with how realistic this proposal is. but if it starts to move the conversation of What To Do About Climate Change beyond half-measures meant to mollify the fossil fuel industry, I guess it can't be all bad.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline

I know Bernie Sanders has also proposed a lot of legislation that ended up being more of a public statement than anything that could realistically "work" in the current political environment. but then he also changed the public conversation in many ways and sometimes politics is like that.


Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:22 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I think, at this point, I'd rather see a realistic plan for a generation ship and viable terraforming technology, because even if the U.S. shifts course on climate change, China and India absolutely will not. I think it's realistic to assume that the Earth is fucked no matter what the West does.

_________________


Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:43 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Bandy Greensacks wrote:
I think, at this point, I'd rather see a realistic plan for a generation ship and viable terraforming technology, because even if the U.S. shifts course on climate change, China and India absolutely will not. I think it's realistic to assume that the Earth is fucked no matter what the West does.
China is already taking action, though, and India is doing even better. The USA is not. At all.

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Guess I gotta be grudgingly grateful to CNN for posting this AOC corruption takedown:



:heart:

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:53 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

for five minutes I could feel my icy cynicism start to melt.

I'm glad she's doing things like that but dammit, we need more like her.


Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:29 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

First, Gov. Northam learned that it is not a good idea to try to moonwalk your way out of a blackface scandal. I give him a certain amount of (unintentional) comedic points for trying.

So I was hoping that someone, maybe his wife, could be there for him to advise him on other potential faux pas moments. Like, random example, maybe when being interviewed on TV, by a black woman, to defend yourself against your blackface scandal, possibly try not to call slaves "indentured servants". "Slaves", you'll find, is much easier to say, monosyllabic and slides right off the labiodental fricative. Try not to look like you're trying to make this harder for anyone to take you seriously.


Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:08 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

...on the other hand, if Northam is purposefully trying to demonstrate the worst way to diminish a scandal, he's putting on a masterclass. Maybe he's 3 steps ahead of us all.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:09 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
I haven’t seen where this legislation extends second trimester abortion rights, save where you can get them. It extends rights for the third trimester, and that’s what all the controversy has addressed. That’s also what you’ve explicitly mentioned in your posts. Your link and statistics, however, lump second and third trimester data together and just trust that the results don’t get washed out.

Again, you are missing my analysis here. Your vagueness objection does NOT get purchase. We’re not quibbling support for 1st vs 2nd term or 2nd vs 3rd term or splitting hairs about at what point in the 2nd or 3rd trimester limits kick in. Since the proposed legislation expands the right to abort at ANY time, it must, by logical necessity also be expanding into the terrain of “late term” abortion too.

Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose and/or want strong restrictions on late term abortions. Tran’s legislation substantively diminishes restrictions on 3rd term abortions on two fronts. It lowers the bar for medical certification needed for the procedure in terms of the number of physicians signing off on the procedure and it offers an additional category (mental health) which is vague and much more difficult to assess on an objective basis.

Ergill wrote:
I couldn’t find any recent figures slicing out the third trimester, but I did find this estimate quoted from a Guttmacher survey back in ’92 (behind a paywall, but an image-search brought it up):

Weeks / Abortions
21-22 / 10,340
23-24 / 4,940
25-26 / 850
>26 / 320

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/a ... act/187908

That sets third trimester at roughly 2% of abortions at 21 weeks or more.

Suppose that we extended abortion rights into infanticide way back in 1992. Let’s run the counterfactual. Say the chart were as follows.
Weeks / Abortions
21-22 / 10,340
23-24 / 4,940
25-26 / 850
26-40 /320
>40 / 26 (post-birth termination)

What would we make of this? Would we crow that infanticide is very rare compared traditional abortion options? Moreover, let’s suppose that the post-40 week procedure were very costly and involved.

Would this make such a “procedure” acceptable in your eyes? Would we say “Trust women! Trust doctors!” in such case that only 26 birthed children were killed after delivery?

Would we pat ourselves on the back that the procedure was infrequently used? “Well, we are killing an infant, but the infant killing procedure is expensive and involves so not too many people will be inclined to kill an infant.”

Suppose that the actual number were “zero.” Would you allow for a legal right for a parent to kill a child (a person) because you were confident that they would not exercise this right?

Ergill wrote:
You’re jumping in between different claims. Most Americans don’t support late-term abortion, but we know that because—other polls. This could be true whether or not it was proved to a certainty that the reason for termination for all late-term abortions was that the doctor had proved the fetuses were, in fact, literally Hitler.

“Current abortion attitudes, from Gallup's May 1-10 Values and Beliefs poll, are similar to the prior update, in 2012, as well as to Gallup's first measure of this question, in 1996.”

See below for link

Polling research is never going to be perfect. However, they are a measure and they are solid enough to put the burden of proof on the one who would contest the results.

The link below only shows 13% support for third trimester abortion as “generally legal” among Americans.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/tri ... views.aspx

Do you think that this is a false finding? CNBC characterizes the results of this report as establishing that “just a tenth of Americans consistently suppose abortion in the third trimester.”

https://pub.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/late-te ... -2020.html

Did CNBC get it wrong?

Ergill wrote:
The frequency is only the question when you’re making arguments based on frequency (see above).

But I am not making arguments based on frequency. I would not decide whether or not allow rape as “legal act” just so long as it was rare and cumbersome and expensive (the cost of “roofies” these days!). With a frequency of “Zero” in most years I would still hold that rape should be held to be a crime. On the other hand, if no one ever engaged in drinking and driving, I would not think to legislate against it. You have a right to drink. You have a right to drive. You do not have a right to rape or rob or kill (however frequently).

I am concerned with categories like “viability” and “personhood” and how ambitious Democrat legislation chucks these concerns out the window in favor of the right to choose. Rights considerations are not “frequency” considerations. Frequency is relative to purely utilitarian concerns and utilitarianism can be used to justify anything (e.g., The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas).

The only sense in which “frequency” comes into it is in support of my separate claim that this legislation as “radical” in the sense that it oversteps the bounds of what Americans presently support. I would, however, still be opposed to this sort of legislation even if 95% of Americans supported it.

Ergill wrote:
As for the hypothetical, I'm fine granting that we should take late-term abortions more seriously than early.

And what does that entail? When do you respect the rights of children to live? At what point do you say “No further!” with regard to how we may treat or dispose of a living human organism? At what point does the child have a clear and compelling right to life which must be taken into consideration as a matter of law? Because if you draw that line anywhere before delivery, you must oppose this legislation. And if you don’t, you really need to explain what is substantially different about a baby 5 hours before birth and 5 hours after delivery, such that only the latter has human rights.
Ergill wrote:
Janson already clarified that these decisions still have to be documented and forwarded for review, that it isn't simply whimsical women consulting whimsical doctors.

Abby Johnson was 2008 employee of the year for Planned Parenthood. She tells a different story.

Even if she did not paint a different picture, NO ONE (whimsical or not), has a right to kill another person. Full stop. It does not matter that you spent a lot of money to kill your baby. It does not matter if it was really inconvenient to kill your baby. It does not matter if you only very rarely kill your baby. What matters is if you are killing a person and whether or not you had exceedingly good cause to do so.

If it isn’t a person, who cares? Great. Take the “Win” on the “clump of cells” argument. Fine. Abortion absolutism is out of it. But when in the hell are you actually going to stand up for the rights children not to be killed? To answer that, we must return to those knotty old questions of “viability” and “personhood.”

There were very somber, relatable, seemingly humane eugenicists who advocated for all sorts of unconscionable solutions (e.g., lobotomizing people like Rose Kennedy, sterilizing the poor, the brown, and the diseased, the “Racial Integrity Act”). Eugenicists were not whimsical either. They thought they had the moral high ground.

Ergill wrote:
I’m severely skeptical that people have been or will be getting abortion mere days away from pregnancy on (as your quotes imply) frivolous mental health claims.

I could cite evidence, but you would reject the sources. Since the sources would be people you disagree with, from books, organizations and websites you disagree with, making claims that are a right-angle to your politics, you would poison the well and rule the evidence out of court. Abortion is an essentially contested issue. There are no purely disinterested sources to turn to.

More important, however, is that such empirics (which would be argued until the end of time) are not necessary. I am willing to grant that a straight up infanticide bill (such as the one that Governor Natham accidentally, or so it seems, described in defense of Tran) would have very few mothers who would want to exercise the right to kill an infant already delivered. But that is not the point. The point is should ANY one have a legal right to kill a child, regardless of how confident we can be that it would be rare? That’s the question.

Ergill wrote:
If you want to argue for more explicit and careful qualification of that provision to address this, by all means.

No, my meaning is clear and I am not backing up one inch.

If you want to argue for a right to choose which functions independent of considerations of viability and personhood, go for it. You might be on the right side of (recent) history, but you will be on the wrong side of eternity.
Ergill wrote:
Don’t accuse people of intentionally pursuing infanticide while simultaneously claiming moral mobs should slow their roll.

No, my position shall remain unaltered. If you want a relatively clear path to abortion through 40 weeks, then you’re off the map.

Ergill wrote:
This runs against the grain of your post. You’re arguing under the assumption that this legislation is clearly paving the way for infanticide and you’ve marshaled his statement to hammer the point home. If the legislation does this and he’s endorsed it doing this, why do you think the moral mob should be giving him a mulligan?

It does not cut against the grain of my post. I can stand against the DNC state push for expanded abortion rights through to delivery without also wanting to end a person’s career for making an honest mistake.

To be clear, I oppose what Nathan accidentally said (obviously infanticide is bad), but I also recognize that people can misspeak and he has a right to clarify his meaning. Thus, while I oppose what he actually said, I also respect his right to clarify what he actually meant. And he should only be held responsible for what he meant (unless he spoke negligently). It just so happens that I oppose what he meant too. Ditto for Tran. What I oppose is ANY legislation that discards considerations of “viability” and “personhood” as firewalls to unrestricted choice. Fetal viability at earlier stages of pregnancy is getting better all the time, so the viability argument no longer favors pro-choicers. And the personhood argument is the elephant sitting in the middle of the room which cannot be dismissed with fear appeals to back alley abortions or moralizing about women and doctors making careful choices, or dismissals based on mere frequency.

I don’t want to crucify Natham for doing his best to support his party. I want the whole DNC to be held to task for this end-run around human rights.

Ergill wrote:
I think Janson has answered these questions well enough.

And I think he has not.

Ergill wrote:
So late-second-term, I take it?

I am not sure. But until the DNC side of the argument acknowledges that this is a legitimate consideration, it does not matter. I sure as hell know that I am not in favor of abortion in week 40 and I know the DNC is pushing for abortion all the way through.

Ergill wrote:
I trust that also means “accessible”.

A lot depends on what that means, but I’ll offer a qualified yes, with qualifications to be parsed later.

Ergill wrote:
Swell.

You asked…

Ergill wrote:
Interesting that you’d suddenly veer off course here. The question isn’t, what justifies a late-term abortion? The question is, between the less objectionable clump of cells and the more objectionable imminent birth, do pro-life attempts to stop abortions as such contribute to more of the latter and can we help limit them? You can try to shock us out of addressing that by shifting black NYC abortions and a non-sequitur about murder, but I’ll just ask it again.

We all deserve to be shocked that a genocide is occurring before our eyes, but that we don’t care because it is a voluntary one. We should be disturbed that sex-selective abortion around the world has resulted in tens of millions of missing women (who is anti-woman?). Ideas have consequences. Own it.

And as to whether it is murder, that entirely centers on the question of personhood. You beg the question entirely in characterizing it as a non-sequitur! Good God. I can imagine the argument between the abolitionist and the slaver.

Abolitionist: The fugitive slave law forces free states to return human being to bondage!

Slaver: This is a non-sequitur, we just want our property back.

Ergill wrote:
I can stand behind that, even if I don’t think all your tactics in here have contributed to depolarization.


This is a small parlor. I am not out on the street as an advocate here.


Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:13 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

With crumbsroom as my witness, I have always hated Ryan Adams so very very much.


Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Again, you are missing my analysis here. Your vagueness objection does NOT get purchase. We’re not quibbling support for 1st vs 2nd term or 2nd vs 3rd term or splitting hairs about at what point in the 2nd or 3rd trimester limits kick in. Since the proposed legislation expands the right to abort at ANY time, it must, by logical necessity also be expanding into the terrain of “late term” abortion too.

This is just wrong. It doesn’t loosen restrictions on all abortion—only on the third term. It allows women to go to more facilities in the second, but that’s not what you and critics are contesting. That status quo would’ve remained otherwise. That said, when I claimed that women got abortions in the third term for substantive reasons, you tried to marshal statistics to contradict that. They didn’t. These are, again, exceedingly invasive, expensive procedures. If you think there are women out there spending 10,000 to 20,000 dollars on a whim, you're wrong:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... nald-trump

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose and/or want strong restrictions on late term abortions. Tran’s legislation substantively diminishes restrictions on 3rd term abortions on two fronts. It lowers the bar for medical certification needed for the procedure in terms of the number of physicians signing off on the procedure and it offers an additional category (mental health) which is vague and much more difficult to assess on an objective basis.

You’re free to contest those. If two more doctor certifications will keep the barbarians at the gates without terrible consequences of its own, make that case. If you think the mental health qualification isn't clear enough to capture the exceptions they intend, make that case. I don’t think this should entail accusing Tran and Northam or whomever of promoting infanticide or genocide or whatever.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Suppose that we extended abortion rights into infanticide way back in 1992. Let’s run the counterfactual. Say the chart were as follows.
Weeks / Abortions
21-22 / 10,340
23-24 / 4,940
25-26 / 850
26-40 /320
>40 / 26 (post-birth termination)

What would we make of this? Would we crow that infanticide is very rare compared traditional abortion options? Moreover, let’s suppose that the post-40 week procedure were very costly and involved.

We already live in that world. As shitty as he was at contextualizing it, the case Northam was talking about was a baby born non-viable. The infant is actually delivered, but isn’t expected to survive. Doctors do what they can to stabilize the baby, and ultimately have the put the question to the parents. Do they pursue resuscitation at all costs or do they choose not to resuscitate? This is a position that people are put in for loved ones of all ages when it doesn’t look like resuscitation will permanently take.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The link below only shows 13% support for third trimester abortion as “generally legal” among Americans.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/tri ... views.aspx

Do you think that this is a false finding? CNBC characterizes the results of this report as establishing that “just a tenth of Americans consistently suppose abortion in the third trimester.”

https://pub.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/late-te ... -2020.html

Did CNBC get it wrong?

Ummm, I literally said that most Americans don’t support third-term abortion. Why are you so bad at reading?

Your Gallup provides interesting context though. 13% of people say that third term abortions shouldn’t be legal flatly, but 75% say they should be legal when the woman’s life is in danger, 52% when the child is the product of rape or incest, 48% when the child would be born with a life-threatening illness, 35% when the child was mentally disabled, 29% when the child has Downs and 20% for any reason. The last is pretty weird next to the first, as if the very mention of reasons provides a bump. This leads to a common point about polls generally and these polls in particular. On the one hand, answers are sensitive to questions. It’s been shown that there are even some phrasings that can cause contradictory results. On the other hand, these answers suggest that people take third-term abortions very seriously, but are aware of them as a rare necessity with varyingly defensible reasons.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And what does that entail? When do you respect the rights of children to live? At what point do you say “No further!” with regard to how we may treat or dispose of a living human organism? At what point does the child have a clear and compelling right to life which must be taken into consideration as a matter of law? Because if you draw that line anywhere before delivery, you must oppose this legislation. And if you don’t, you really need to explain what is substantially different about a baby 5 hours before birth and 5 hours after delivery, such that only the latter has human rights.

I'm for greater restrictions after 20 weeks, increasing after 28. I think that Tran's changes to the legislation are about as effective as they were ever likely to pass and would've ever resulted in infanticide. As in, not. I don't think the present legislation is all that effectively worded either.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Janson already clarified that these decisions still have to be documented and forwarded for review, that it isn't simply whimsical women consulting whimsical doctors.

Abby Johnson was 2008 employee of the year for Planned Parenthood. She tells a different story.

I’ve looked her up, but I’m not seeing what part of her testimony is relevant to this law and what I said above.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I could cite evidence, but you would reject the sources. Since the sources would be people you disagree with, from books, organizations and websites you disagree with, making claims that are a right-angle to your politics, you would poison the well and rule the evidence out of court. Abortion is an essentially contested issue. There are no purely disinterested sources to turn to.

This is really inconvenient. Or convenient, depending on how you squint. You’ve already cited an anti-abortion source and I didn’t attack it for bias.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It does not cut against the grain of my post. I can stand against the DNC state push for expanded abortion rights through to delivery without also wanting to end a person’s career for making an honest mistake.

To be clear, I oppose what Nathan accidentally said (obviously infanticide is bad), but I also recognize that people can misspeak and he has a right to clarify his meaning. Thus, while I oppose what he actually said, I also respect his right to clarify what he actually meant. And he should only be held responsible for what he meant (unless he spoke negligently). It just so happens that I oppose what he meant too. Ditto for Tran.

You oppose what Northam accidentally said, support his right to clarify his meaning, and oppose his actual meaning. What did you think his actual meaning was? Take note that he wasn’t voicing support for the bill. He said he preferred that multiple doctors approve the procedure. He was just shittily clarifying what would happen if complications happened at the point of birth. Your trying to paint this as some monolithic conspiracy by “the DNC” with Northam getting scapegoated for carrying their water is nonsense on every front.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
What I oppose is ANY legislation that discards considerations of “viability” and “personhood” as firewalls to unrestricted choice. Fetal viability at earlier stages of pregnancy is getting better all the time, so the viability argument no longer favors pro-choicers. And the personhood argument is the elephant sitting in the middle of the room which cannot be dismissed with fear appeals to back alley abortions or moralizing about women and doctors making careful choices, or dismissals based on mere frequency.

Personhood isn’t a firewall at any point right now. At this point, it’s philosophy, not law. As for viability, even in the unmodified VA law, it’s a very limited firewall for third-term abortions, mainly protecting “the product of the abortion” if the infant is viable. Anti-abortion activists are suddenly science uber-optimists when it comes to viability, but as the article I linked earlier attests, the facts of the matter are much more complicated that that.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
We all deserve to be shocked that a genocide is occurring before our eyes, but that we don’t care because it is a voluntary one. We should be disturbed that sex-selective abortion around the world has resulted in tens of millions of missing women (who is anti-woman?). Ideas have consequences. Own it.

And as to whether it is murder, that entirely centers on the question of personhood. You beg the question entirely in characterizing it as a non-sequitur! Good God. I can imagine the argument between the abolitionist and the slaver.

Abolitionist: The fugitive slave law forces free states to return human being to bondage!

Slaver: This is a non-sequitur, we just want our property back.

On the contrary, “genocide” begs the question with gusto. The majority of abortions are early in pregnancy, much closer to the clump of cells you’ve already let slide. You can’t mean them unless you’re using third-term abortions as a wedge to creep the concept. If you mean black New Yorkers, no. Their birth rate is 12.1 per 1,000 while the national is 12.4:

https://nypost.com/2017/05/21/new-yorke ... ss-babies/

That they had more abortions is because they have more unintended pregnancies, which is typical among underserved communities. They'd otherwise have been intended contraceptions. Cut back family planning services and that number surely would’ve been higher. As for sex-selective abortions, I haven’t read much on the subject and I’m not clear how they bear on this VA law, let alone how it answers my concern (the one it was responding to) that limiting access to early abortions increases the number later abortions. It's like you don't know what a non-sequitur is.


Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:52 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
This is just wrong. It doesn’t loosen restrictions on all abortion—only on the third term.

Seeing as how women have a relatively unrestricted right to abortion through term one and term two, the contentious term is that of the third term. You can’t really expand rights where rights are unrestricted (unless you want to shift the conversation to speak of the right as an entitlement which must be provided rather than allowed), so we’re obviously not speaking of expanding rights in terms one and two.

The point of “ANY” is not to say “OMG, this legislation allows for abortions after a few weeks!”, but to indicate the territory that is being expanded into.

We cannot establish a plenary right to abort without, by logical necessity, also extending that right into the third trimester. Being able to abort at “any” time for reasons that do not fall under the doctrine of double effect, amount to having a right to murder, under the law.
Ergill wrote:
when I claimed that women got abortions in the third term for substantive reasons, you tried to marshal statistics to contradict that. They didn’t.

I offered statistics that are available. The statistics I offered do not establish closure on the question of “why,” but they are probative and establish a presumption that “Yes!” there are elective abortions occurring at later stages of pregnancy.

You claim that women get abortions in the third term for substantive reasons. We’ll visit the notion of “substantive” in a moment, but let’s bracket that for now and note that

(a) if even one woman does not get an abortion in the third trimester for a substantive reason, and

(b) if we are indeed talking about a “person” in the later stage of pregnancy (and if we’re NOT, then the argument of Peter Singer in favor of infanticide deserve our consideration as we push our debate into weeks of development after delivery), then

(c) were are talking about a legal right to murder which has been exercised under United States law.

And that is unacceptable.

My primary concern is that we cannot grant a legal right to kill children, even if that right would (allegedly) never be exercised. Frequency does not matter when it comes to the matter of principle, so your protestations are moot.

You say,
Ergill wrote:
These are, again, exceedingly invasive, expensive procedures. If you think there are women out there spending 10,000 to 20,000 dollars on a whim, you're wrong:
Are any of these cases covered under insurance? Are any of these procedures performed for women of means? Might a person who considers the cost of raising a child (hundreds of thousands of dollars), consider a cost of $10,000 to $20,000 a relative bargain?

The key word here is “whim,” which brings us back to the question of “substantive” which we must now consider. In such case as we are speaking of a healthy human person, the only justifiable reason to kill that person is to do so as an unintentional side-effect of saving the life of one or more other persons. If we are speaking of an unhealthy person, we’re now going down the rabbit hole. Are we speaking of people with Down Syndrome, cleft palate, autism?

With regard to Down Syndrome, people like Frank Stephens have argued that they would (pretty please) like to live and not be terminated in the womb, that they are human beings, and that they have lives that a worth living.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcAbt_MjhIA

What say you Sanchez? May a mother end Frank’s life in the womb in the third term because she learns he has Down Syndrome? Is that a “substantive” reason for you? And if so, why may we not simply shoot kids with Down Syndrome in the face or euthanize them at age four when they impinge on the “mental health” of their parents?

By my lights, “substantive” only refers to cases where there is a real (and not just possible) overwhelming threat to the life of the mother and cases of deformity so monstrous that the fetus has no significant chance of life at all post delivery. That’s my definition. And under that definition, do women ever get an abortion on a “whim” (i.e., an elective procedure not needed to save the life of the mother or which is more humane in not causing greater pain and suffering to a fetus which will certainly die after delivery)?

The answer does not really matter, because it shouldn’t be written into the law a “right” to begin with, but consider this testimony from various interviews.
 
Below is a cut-and-paste from http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/09/ ... -done.html

secularprolifeblog wrote:
In a 2013 interview for The Hairpin, Dr. Robinson explained the women who come to her because they hadn't realized earlier that they were pregnant:
They think they just got pregnant. They have no idea they’re in their 24th week. So they make an appointment for an abortion, and it takes a few weeks, and they have their ultrasound and find out that they’re at 27 weeks, which is too far for an abortion anywhere. So then what happens? They either give up or have a baby, or they go on the Internet and they find us.

Also in 2013, Dr. Sella was interviewed by The Irish Times, which reported:

The women Sella treats fall into two categories: those who discover foetal abnormalities; and those with healthy, viable babies whose maternal circumstances mean they could not cope with the baby.

In 2015, a Colorado-based paper called The Daily Camera interviewed Dr. Hern:

He doesn't share his clinic's statistics and rarely speaks of individual cases, but Hern has said he also performs late abortions for women who are not facing any grave medical outcome.

This information doesn't indicate what proportion of third trimester abortions are for non-medical reasons. In general, at later gestations a higher proportion of abortions are done for medical reasons.

Even so, many people insist no one ever gets an elective (read: non-medical) abortion as late as the third trimester. The doctors providing third trimester abortions would disagree.


There you go. Three interviews. Three quotations. Three doctors. All affirm that non-medically necessary third-term abortions DO occur. Tell me again how it never happens.

Ergill wrote:
If two more doctor certifications will keep the barbarians at the gates without terrible consequences of its own, make that case. If you think the mental health qualification isn't clear enough to capture the exceptions they intend, make that case. I don’t think this should entail accusing Tran and Northam or whomever of promoting infanticide or genocide or whatever.

I’ve already made the case, so now it is up to you to refute it. Don’t play coy, as if the arguments aren’t already on the table.

A person’s mental instability is NOT grounds to kill a person. If mom is having post-partum depression, we don’t allow for infanticide. When toddlers drive parents insane we don’t allow for killing.

The mental health qualification allowing for killing what is a person is already beyond the pale. We’re already there.

It is up to you to tell me that I am wrong in my repeated assertion that personhood begins at some point after conception, but also at some point before birth. Legislation, therefore, that allows for termination at ANY point of pregnancy on a warrant as thin a “mental health” is legalized murder.

As I have repeatedly asserted, what concerns me is NOT the misspeaking of Tran or Northam, but rather what the bill itself contains, including “clarifications” which establish that my objections are indeed active in this case.

Ergill wrote:
We already live in that world. As shitty as he was at contextualizing it, the case Northam was talking about was a baby born non-viable. The infant is actually delivered, but isn’t expected to survive.

This is that Northam said. I will quote with emphasis added from the YouTube record of the interview which I posted upthread.

Governor Northam wrote:
it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable so in this particular example if a mother is in labor I can tell you exactly what would happen

That there “may” be medical deformities in cases means that there may NOT be medical deformities in these cases. That the fetus “may” be non-viable in these cases means that the fetus may be viable. Northam does not specify an actual counter-factual particular (i.e., a narrow set of circumstances) when he clarifies “exactly what would happen” in the case of a third-term abortion. Tran was being cross-examined about a week 40 abortion, so if Northam is defending anything in particular, it is a week 40 abortion. The only particular example we have is that of a dilating mother in week 40.

Northam’s response only tells us that what would exactly happen in a week 40 abortion for a baby that may or may not have severe deformities or may or may not be viable. In short, he is speaking of a world in which a healthy child without severe deformity (and what severe deformity would warrant the killing of a person my eugenically dubious friends?)

Do you want to say that Northam intended to say something else? OK, but don’t tell me that he was specifically referring to a restricted set of cases there, because he wasn’t. He was tacking on “may” as a value-added consideration in some cases which are part of the general class which would presumably have a strong warrant, but he was defending the whole class.

Also, answer the damned question. There is no legal right to infanticide. I was speaking of a world where there was (e.g., on grounds such as mental health of the mother and other warrants for killing a healthy “birthus” such as provided by Dr. Singer). What would we make of this? Would we crow that infanticide is very rare compared traditional abortion options? Moreover, let’s suppose that the post-40 week procedure were very costly and involved.

Ergill wrote:
Ummm, I literally said that most Americans don’t support third-term abortion.

And this literally means that this desperate patchwork of state legislation to do an end run around the perceived collapse of the Roe hegemony is indeed “radical” when compared to public opinion.

Ergill wrote:
Your Gallup provides interesting context though. 13% of people say that third term abortions shouldn’t be legal flatly, but 75% say they should be legal when the woman’s life is in danger,

In this case, 75% of people are right. Tran’s legislation (not Northam’s or Tran’s misspeaking about it) involves legalization in cases where there is NO threat to the mother’s life.

Ergill wrote:
52% when the child is the product of rape or incest,

In this case, 52% of people are wrong. If we have another person in the equation, however tragic the circumstances of their parentage, then we must consider their rights as human beings.

Ergill wrote:
48% when the child would be born with a life-threatening illness,

This is a minority and A LOT depends on what is meant by “life-threatening.” There are many life-threatening illnesses which people deal with in leading long, productive, and healthy lives.

Ergill wrote:
35% when the child was mentally disabled, 29% when the child has Downs

These people are in the minority and they are wrong.

Ergill wrote:
and 20% for any reason.

These people are not just wrong, but hold a monstrous opinion about the sanctity of human life.

Ergill wrote:
The last is pretty weird next to the first, as if the very mention of reasons provides a bump. This leads to a common point about polls generally and these polls in particular. On the one hand, answers are sensitive to questions. It’s been shown that there are even some phrasings that can cause contradictory results. On the other hand, these answers suggest that people take third-term abortions very seriously, but are aware of them as a rare necessity with varyingly defensible reasons.

So, do you want to have your cake and eat it too? Do you want stand on this study? Do you wish to repudiate it?

Again, when do you respect the rights of children to live? At what point do you say “No further!” with regard to how we may treat or dispose of a living human organism? At what point does the child have a clear and compelling right to life which must be taken into consideration as a matter of law? Because if you draw that line anywhere before delivery, you must oppose this legislation. And if you don’t, you really need to explain what is substantially different about a baby 5 hours before birth and 5 hours after delivery, such that only the latter has human rights.

Ergill wrote:
I'm for greater restrictions after 20 weeks, increasing after 28.

Answer the question. When are we dealing with a little person with rights? When do we regulate not on grounds that only speak to the needs and wants of mothers, but begin to regulate on grounds of the right of children to live?

Does personhood, in your estimation, unambiguously begin before or after delivery? And why?

Ergill wrote:
I’ve looked her up, but I’m not seeing what part of her testimony is relevant to this law and what I said above.

She describes instances of infanticide. She describes instances of on-demand (elective) abortions in the third-term. In short, her narrative includes circumstances that include “whimsy” in the sense of procedures that were not medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

Ergill wrote:
This is really inconvenient. Or convenient, depending on how you squint. You’ve already cited an anti-abortion source and I didn’t attack it for bias.

No, but you’ve pissed and moaned about apples and oranges and this and that. There are so many nits to pick, aren’t there? It is almost impossible to find statistics from mutually acceptable sources on an essentially contested, deeply polarizing issue. It is quite difficult to collect statistical data directly, because people who are in the industry have a paycheck and an ideology to protect. They have a clear motivation to fudge (“We’ll call this a ‘medical’ reason”), obscure (“Let’s talk about the mother’s reason vaguely here under such and such a heading”), and withhold (“We don’t need to report this. It’s not anyone else’s business”). And it is always possible to nitpick a survey.

Ergill wrote:
You oppose what Northam accidentally said,

Correct.

Ergill wrote:
support his right to clarify his meaning,

Correct.

Ergill wrote:
What did you think his actual meaning was?

In that context, I took his meaning to be that of general support of the proposed legislation. In that interview, he did speak in favor of the decision properly being that of the people immediately involved in the procedure (e.g., the mother and the doctor). He states,

Northam wrote:
We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the the mothers and their providers.

That is, his position is that it is no one else’s business. This sort of position would not be acceptable in such case as “a discussion ensuing” as to whether to kill a four-year-old child (e.g., “Terminating the life of your four-year-old is a painful, private, and costly decision with delicate medical procedural concerns, so everyone else should butt out of it!”), so it is quite baffling that Northam thinks that it is binding here. Also, he wants men to stay out of it, because apparently they’re bad and it’s none of their business. This is enough for me to tell Northam to get stuffed.

No, I want the decision to be made under the rule of law and not at the election of private parties hermetically sealed from the regulations of society for a scruple about privacy and cost and delicacy, etc.

He also takes it to be the case that in stating, that opposition was “blown out of proportion” that he takes the legislation to be close the to status quo which he supports.

Ergill wrote:
Take note that he wasn’t voicing support for the bill.

He was offering support for Tran (this was blown out of proportion!), for the exclusive right of women and doctors to independently decide (stay out of it you male law makers!), and for the sort of thing he thought was implied by the legislation (I can tell you exactly what would happen). And I take this to be general support of the legislation.

I think he was acting in good faith. I think he was trying to support his party and representative Tran as best he could.

Ergill wrote:
He said he preferred that multiple doctors approve the procedure.

Yes, he did. But he did not say whether his preference should have the force of law. He did not say that this was a reason that he didn’t support the legislation. Rather, he said,

Governor Northam wrote:
Well I think it's always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision

He did NOT say that he opposed the legislation for that reason, but rather that he would prefer this be the case.

What matters most, however, is whether this bill and bills like it should be passed. Supposing I were wrong about Northam’s “general support” for the legislation, my opposition to the Bill (as clarified) would still stand.

Ergill wrote:
He was just shittily clarifying what would happen if complications happened at the point of birth. Your trying to paint this as some monolithic conspiracy by “the DNC” with
Northam getting scapegoated for carrying their water is nonsense on every front.

Was this a “monolithic conspiracy”? Would the DNC do such a thing? Would WikiLeaks reveal to us that on behalf of Hillary Clinton the DNC would purposely rig the process against Sanders? No one ever said that what WikiLeaks published was false. They just complained that it was unfair that the Russians allegedly had something to do with disclosing the inconvenient truth. Are you saying that the DNC hasn’t already been caught in recent conspiracies? Are you implying that I am the one off my nut for suggesting that politics is dirty, underhanded, and deceitful?
Let me put it this way. If it turned out that the picture was sent to Big League Politics by a DNC operative it would not surprise me in the least, because changing the tune from abortion to racism is to change the tune to a debate they can win (“Racism is bad! Don’t listen to racist Northam! He must resign! We are sooooo offended!).

On the other hand, there is that old adage that one should never let a crisis go to waste. No conspiracy needed. Tran’s testimony went viral. Northam went on the radio and attempted to put out the fire, but accidentally spread the fire. Some right wing website sensed weakness and decided to see if they could get dirt on Northam. This is equally plausible.
What follow in either case is the same. Everyone disavows Northam. The media demands he resign. Republicans demand he resign. His own party demands he resign. And with that the tune is changed. We’re no longer talking about abortion, but racism and it is easy to disavow racism.

What is fucking hilarious, however, is how far this has spilled out of control. The #metoo of Lt. Governor Fairfax. The “Oops, I did blackface too!” of the Attorney General Herring.

Ergill wrote:
Personhood isn’t a firewall at any point right now.

It is in the case of infanticide. If a 3-week old baby is killed, that’s homicide.

The question is “Why isn’t it a firewall?” The only circumstance where it would not properly be a firewall would be in such case as one maintains that the unborn at no stage of pregnancy are “babies.”

This is a massive problem. Tran’s legislation only makes things worse (in practice) by making it easier to run roughshod over the question of personhood.

Ergill wrote:
At this point, it’s philosophy, not law. As for viability, even in the unmodified VA law, it’s a very limited firewall for third-term abortions, mainly protecting “the product of the abortion” if the infant is viable. Anti-abortion activists are suddenly science uber-optimists


Science gets gamed by both sides.

Ultimately, however, the question is not simply scientific, but rather how philosophical judgment informed by science should be used to make policy. Science doesn’t tell you what you should do, just what is nomologically possible.

Ergill wrote:
On the contrary, “genocide” begs the question with gusto.

Really?
Wikipedia wrote:
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word γένος ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".

Does abortion in New York destroy the black population there in whole or in part? Well, if you’re more likely to be aborted than to be birthed, what do you think that the answer is?

So, condition one is met. Abortion is destroying a racial group in substantive part.

Our next condition is that of intentionality. Is this policy intentional? Do pro-choicers commonly advocate for a right to abort on grounds of economics? Yes. It is commonly argued that we must allow poor women the right to abort to keep families from being trapped in poverty.

Seeing as how people feel comfortable calling policies “racist” when they impact the poor (and thereby disproportionately people of color), by extension, there is justification in calling for decreasing number of the poor via a medical procedure that kills a growing human organism “racist.”

Begging the question or finally talking about the elephant in the middle of the room. That we are not even talking about this fact suggests an unconscionable sin of omission, regardless of how we characterize this trend.

Ergill wrote:
The majority of abortions are early in pregnancy, much closer to the clump of cells you’ve already let slide. You can’t mean them unless you’re using third-term abortions as a wedge to creep the concept.

If you’re more likely to be aborted than to be born as a black baby, that isn’t necessarily murder, but it is travesty. And to the extent that these policies are justified on curbing population among the poor and to the extent that purposefully impacting the poor can be said to be racist, this policy (“Let’s lower the number of poor people with abortion!”) can be said to be genocidal.

Ergill wrote:
If you mean black New Yorkers, no. Their birth rate is 12.1 per 1,000 while the national is 12.4:

Oh, so it isn’t a concern so long as these policies are keeping “negroes in their place”? How fucking magnanimous of you! So long as the black population is ever so slightly behind the live births of the rest of the population and the African American constricts in size, everything is fine. But it isn’t. The African American population should be growing. It should not be standing still. It should not be shrinking. It should be growing in New York.

Where is the “safe, rare, and legal” in this example? If you’re more likely to be aborted than born, this is NOT rare.

And if this policy is designed/intended to keep populations of “underserved communities” in check (i.e., brown people), then this genocidal.

Ergill wrote:
As for sex-selective abortions, I haven’t read much on the subject

In that case, you need to read up on it. There are tens of millions of missing women around the world. Where this practice is present in societies where female children are considered a cost rather than a benefit (e.g., the economic weight of dowry), the gender ratio in the population is out of what and gang rapes have increased dramatically.

This is “gendercide” and feminists are conspicuously silent on the issue.

Ergill wrote:
and I’m not clear how they bear on this VA law,

Simple. If you allow for a thin provision of concern for “mental health of the mother” to be a determining factor assessed by ONE attending physician, it is much easier to mask what is truly an elective choice as a medical reason. One such elective choice is gender selection. Another is to abort the genetically imperfect child because it would be inconvenient or a disappointment.


Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:38 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I offered statistics that are available. The statistics I offered do not establish closure on the question of “why,” but they are probative and establish a presumption that “Yes!” there are elective abortions occurring at later stages of pregnancy.

You mean, the Guttmacher survey of abortions at 16 weeks and later, of which third-term abortions, per the other Guttmacher survey, are less than 1%? Huh.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
My primary concern is that we cannot grant a legal right to kill children, even if that right would (allegedly) never be exercised. Frequency does not matter when it comes to the matter of principle, so your protestations are moot.

Then don’t try to argue frequency, as you clearly did. I know you’re a compulsive arguer, but if it really, really, really doesn’t matter to your argument, then don’t shit your pants arguing it when the fundamental issue for you doesn’t touch it at all.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Are any of these cases covered under insurance?

Oh my sweet summer unaborted child.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Are any of these procedures performed for women of means? Might a person who considers the cost of raising a child (hundreds of thousands of dollars), consider a cost of $10,000 to $20,000 a relative bargain?

You show me the women who get a late-term abortion and for whom dropping up to $20,000 is an easy choice, and we’ll talk.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
If we are speaking of an unhealthy person, we’re now going down the rabbit hole. Are we speaking of people with Down Syndrome, cleft palate, autism?

The rabbit hole will exist regardless. Downs, cleft palate and autism are things we’d be less inclined to allow as reasons for third-term abortion, but there are countless conditions and circumstances in between that that our laws can at best vaguely cover. As I’ve already mentioned, we allow discretion for doctors regarding resuscitation. Of course, we don’t have to. We could write restrictive and heavily qualified laws to cover every given circumstance that occurs to us in the middle of a very important argument on a message board, but ahhhhhhhhhhhh, well. Anti-abortion activists have, in fact, been successful in passing laws that override the DNR orders and living wills of mothers in favor of the fetus, essentially codifying women as state-sanctioned incubators. Does your fear of authoritarianism stop short of that? Are those situations pre-term for fascism?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
By my lights, “substantive” only refers to cases where there is a real (and not just possible) overwhelming threat to the life of the mother and cases of deformity so monstrous that the fetus has no significant chance of life at all post delivery. That’s my definition. And under that definition, do women ever get an abortion on a “whim” (i.e., an elective procedure not needed to save the life of the mother or which is more humane in not causing greater pain and suffering to a fetus which will certainly die after delivery)?

There are also cases of fetuses with conditions such that their lives would at best be a couple of years characterized by intense pain and hardship. The problem of the heap creeps everywhere ultimately.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Even so, many people insist no one ever gets an elective (read: non-medical) abortion as late as the third trimester. The doctors providing third trimester abortions would disagree.

There you go. Three interviews. Three quotations. Three doctors. All affirm that non-medically necessary third-term abortions DO occur. Tell me again how it never happens.

Then I willingly concede they happen.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Do you want to say that Northam intended to say something else? OK, but don’t tell me that he was specifically referring to a restricted set of cases there, because he wasn’t. He was tacking on “may” as a value-added consideration in some cases which are part of the general class which would presumably have a strong warrant, but he was defending the whole class.

Yes, I’m sure you want to pump his “may” with all the effort of a Derrida, but from context and clarification, he’s talking about cases in which a child is born with serious defects leaving the doctors and parents to make bitter decisions about resuscitation. You don’t have to pump this for your underlying argument. Of course, I don’t think you care about what you have to do. When you’re beating the Bernie drum in an argument about abortion, it’s clear you’ve reached the Defcon YARN part of the conversation where you’re splashing out helter skelter in whatever direction your whims take you.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Also, answer the damned question. There is no legal right to infanticide. I was speaking of a world where there was (e.g., on grounds such as mental health of the mother and other warrants for killing a healthy “birthus” such as provided by Dr. Singer). What would we make of this? Would we crow that infanticide is very rare compared traditional abortion options? Moreover, let’s suppose that the post-40 week procedure were very costly and involved.

I honestly and sincerely don’t know what our society would make of infanticide.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

And this literally means that this desperate patchwork of state legislation to do an end run around the perceived collapse of the Roe hegemony is indeed “radical” when compared to public opinion.

The “Roe hegemony” huh? Pretty obvious that your focus on third-term term abortions and your claims about leeway for first-term abortions is less tha honest. You’re positively salivating for the Supreme Court to overturn.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
So, do you want to have your cake and eat it too? Do you want stand on this study? Do you wish to repudiate it?

The fuck are you talking about? I took the study at face value.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Answer the question. When are we dealing with a little person with rights? When do we regulate not on grounds that only speak to the needs and wants of mothers, but begin to regulate on grounds of the right of children to live?

Does personhood, in your estimation, unambiguously begin before or after delivery? And why?

I believe that personhood begins at 31 weeks 4 days. When do you?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
She describes instances of infanticide. She describes instances of on-demand (elective) abortions in the third-term. In short, her narrative includes circumstances that include “whimsy” in the sense of procedures that were not medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

For instance?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
No, but you’ve pissed and moaned about apples and oranges and this and that.

Learn basic statistics and get back to me.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
There are so many nits to pick, aren’t there? It is almost impossible to find statistics from mutually acceptable sources on an essentially contested, deeply polarizing issue. It is quite difficult to collect statistical data directly, because people who are in the industry have a paycheck and an ideology to protect. They have a clear motivation to fudge (“We’ll call this a ‘medical’ reason”), obscure (“Let’s talk about the mother’s reason vaguely here under such and such a heading”), and withhold (“We don’t need to report this. It’s not anyone else’s business”). And it is always possible to nitpick a survey.

I haven’t dismissed any of your sources out of hand. Looks like you, on the other hand, are itching to do so.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
He said he preferred that multiple doctors approve the procedure.

Yes, he did. But he did not say whether his preference should have the force of law. He did not say that this was a reason that he didn’t support the legislation. Rather, he said,

Well I think it's always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision

He did NOT say that he opposed the legislation for that reason, but rather that he would prefer this be the case.

You, who respect Northam’s right to clarify his meaning, but are obviously very eager to read the opposite of his meaning into his meaning.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Was this a “monolithic conspiracy”? Would the DNC do such a thing? Would WikiLeaks reveal to us that on behalf of Hillary Clinton the DNC would purposely rig the process against Sanders? No one ever said that what WikiLeaks published was false. They just complained that it was unfair that the Russians allegedly had something to do with disclosing the inconvenient truth. Are you saying that the DNC hasn’t already been caught in recent conspiracies? Are you implying that I am the one off my nut for suggesting that politics is dirty, underhanded, and deceitful?
Let me put it this way. If it turned out that the picture was sent to Big League Politics by a DNC operative it would not surprise me in the least, because changing the tune from abortion to racism is to change the tune to a debate they can win (“Racism is bad! Don’t listen to racist Northam! He must resign! We are sooooo offended!).

On the other hand, there is that old adage that one should never let a crisis go to waste. No conspiracy needed. Tran’s testimony went viral. Northam went on the radio and attempted to put out the fire, but accidentally spread the fire. Some right wing website sensed weakness and decided to see if they could get dirt on Northam. This is equally plausible.
What follow in either case is the same. Everyone disavows Northam. The media demands he resign. Republicans demand he resign. His own party demands he resign. And with that the tune is changed. We’re no longer talking about abortion, but racism and it is easy to disavow racism.

I’m having concerns that I’ve been arguing with a mentally ill person for years.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Personhood isn’t a firewall at any point right now.

It is in the case of infanticide. If a 3-week old baby is killed, that’s homicide.

The question is “Why isn’t it a firewall?” The only circumstance where it would not properly be a firewall would be in such case as one maintains that the unborn at no stage of pregnancy are “babies.”

This is a massive problem. Tran’s legislation only makes things worse (in practice) by making it easier to run roughshod over the question of personhood.

In present VA law, personhood is a firewall for the newly born, not the nearly-born. The status quo and the law already is already insufficient for your standards.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
On the contrary, “genocide” begs the question with gusto.

Really?

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word γένος ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.

Does abortion in New York destroy the black population there in whole or in part? Well, if you’re more likely to be aborted than to be birthed, what do you think that the answer is?

So, condition one is met. Abortion is destroying a racial group in substantive part.

I already know you go into pretty insane territory in response to this, but it bears repeating. Black New Yorkers have almost an identical birth rate to the rest of the nation. They aren’t by any standard being systematically exterminated.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The majority of abortions are early in pregnancy, much closer to the clump of cells you’ve already let slide. You can’t mean them unless you’re using third-term abortions as a wedge to creep the concept.

If you’re more likely to be aborted than to be born as a black baby, that isn’t necessarily murder, but it is travesty. And to the extent that these policies are justified on curbing population among the poor and to the extent that purposefully impacting the poor can be said to be racist, this policy (“Let’s lower the number of poor people with abortion!”) can be said to be genocidal.

Now you’re calling the clump of cells a baby and claiming genocide, in which case, you’re again showing your hand. Once more, you wave the flag of a moderate before dashing to the extreme.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
If you mean black New Yorkers, no. Their birth rate is 12.1 per 1,000 while the national is 12.4:

Oh, so it isn’t a concern so long as these policies are keeping “negroes in their place”?

Wow.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And if this policy is designed/intended to keep populations of “underserved communities” in check (i.e., brown people), then this genocidal.

Woweewowow.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
How fucking magnanimous of you! So long as the black population is ever so slightly behind the live births of the rest of the population and the African American constricts in size, everything is fine. But it isn’t. The African American population should be growing. It should not be standing still. It should not be shrinking. It should be growing in New York.

You got me. The fact that I consider the black birth-rate in NYC being 0.3 children per 1,000 behind the national average means that I think they should be kept in their place, with their place being on the tracks to Auschwitz. Just imagine me as a giant Louis Armstrong playing Cronus, gobbling up their undermensch.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
As for sex-selective abortions, I haven’t read much on the subject

In that case, you need to read up on it. There are tens of millions of missing women around the world. Where this practice is present in societies where female children are considered a cost rather than a benefit (e.g., the economic weight of dowry), the gender ratio in the population is out of what and gang rapes have increased dramatically.

I might but arguing yet another subject with you would be literally genocide.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
and I’m not clear how they bear on this VA law,

Simple. If you allow for a thin provision of concern for “mental health of the mother” to be a determining factor assessed by ONE attending physician, it is much easier to mask what is truly an elective choice as a medical reason. One such elective choice is gender selection. Another is to abort the genetically imperfect child because it would be inconvenient or a disappointment.

Do the Chinese only have to see one physician? Do most of them get their abortions in the third term? Would they still not be able to pursue sex-selective abortion before the third term? Are you saying that blacks are aborting their babies by and large because they consider their children genetically imperfect? How far through do you think any given thing you say?


Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:54 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Also, he wants men to stay out of it, because apparently they’re bad and it’s none of their business. This is enough for me to tell Northam to get stuffed.

Ralph Northam, from the exact same interview: "I would tell you one, first thing I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved."

Also, I assume that at least some of the physicians involved are men.

Ergill wrote:
Woweewowow.

To be as generous as I possibly can, I'm going to assume that he misread that as "undeserved communities". But still....


Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:00 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
You mean, the Guttmacher survey of abortions at 16 weeks and later, of which third-term abortions, per the other Guttmacher survey, are less than 1%? Huh.


Huh, what?

Why do you think that this is scoring some huge point for your side?

If only 1% of legal acts fall into the category of child-killing, that is still a problem.

Ergill wrote:
Then don’t try to argue frequency, as you clearly did.


Arguments frequently have more than one stasis. We might adjudicate on grounds of principle. We might also adjudicate on grounds of practicality. My preferred stasis is that of the morally principled, which gets purchase regardless of frequency counts. Another stasis is that of the practical (Does this really even happen, you know, only 1% and super-duper expensive). I can challenge your claims relative to your preferred stasis without committing to it as my orienting frame or "value term." Specifically, I can argue that legal murder is bad (categorically) and that statistical evidence also suggests that there are more elective late term abortions than you care to admit. There is no pain of contradiction here, Sanchez.

It pretty simple. I am operating in a value hierarchy in which the moral principle (don't kill) comes first and is paramount, and in which "practicality" is a secondary and subordinate question.

Ergill wrote:
I know you’re a compulsive arguer,


Said the pot to the kettle.

Ergill wrote:
but if it really, really, really doesn’t matter to your argument, then don’t shit your pants arguing it when the fundamental issue for you doesn’t touch it at all.


I can argue from my preferred stasis and challenge your positions relative to your own preferred stasis. It's not pants-shitting. It's you not tracking the flow of argument. Get your glasses checked.

Ergill wrote:
You show me the women who get a late-term abortion and for whom dropping up to $20,000 is an easy choice, and we’ll talk.


Infanticide (clear unambiguous killing of an infant post-delivery) occurs in China and other nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_in ... na#Current

I am willing to bet that it is not an easy choice for these parents either. On the contrary, I am sure that it is quite painful and wrought with guilt and uncertainty. But it is still murder.

The question is not one of "ease" the question is whether it is permissible on principle (the highest value which should guide our discussion) and whether or not it does, in fact, happen.

Ergill wrote:
Downs, cleft palate and autism are things we’d be less inclined to allow as reasons for third-term abortion,


How very "Ralph Northam" of you. "We'd be less inclined?" What a bulwark for human life you are! You see, the fetus may or may not be viable and may or may not have a disease and we would be less inclined to allow the killing of a child with Down Syndrome. What is your angle on inclination on questions? Would you be more or less inclined to use a full scale preempting nuclear strike on a foreign nation?

You're so worried about maintaining your side of the argument that you're not willing to stand up and declare that at least SOME practices are definitely off the map.

Ergill wrote:
but there are countless conditions and circumstances in between that that our laws can at best vaguely cover. As I’ve already mentioned, we allow discretion for doctors regarding resuscitation. Of course, we don’t have to. We could write restrictive and heavily qualified laws to cover every given circumstance that occurs to us in the middle of a very important argument on a message board, but ahhhhhhhhhhhh, well. Anti-abortion activists have, in fact, been successful in passing laws that override the DNR orders and living wills of mothers in favor of the fetus, essentially codifying women as state-sanctioned incubators. Does your fear of authoritarianism stop short of that? Are those situations pre-term for fascism?


What we need to do is to reintroduce the consideration of personhood into the debate. You say it no longer exists as a firewall and from what I can see from recent legislation, I am forced to agree that for some parties to the dispute, it has fallen out of consideration. However, we adjudicate touch calls and borderline cases, we should do so with an towards personhood. That is, unless you wish to maintain that the question is irrelevant prior to birth, in which case I would put pressure on you to offer an account of personhood and when rights begin.

Ergill wrote:
There are also cases of fetuses with conditions such that their lives would at best be a couple of years characterized by intense pain and hardship. The problem of the heap creeps everywhere ultimately.


And we must confront the heap. We must do so in questions of civil killing in self-defense and when it is really justified, killing in war, killing at the end of life. The abortion debate is unique in that it is the only debate where we so consistently fail to factor in the personhood of the party being killed. We confront the heap elsewhere. We must confront it here too.

Ergill wrote:
Then I willingly concede they happen.


And that brings us right back to the issue of personhood on your preferred stasis and what for me is a secondary stasis--the practical question of whether purely elective does happen--because a purely elective procedure to end the life of a person is murder. Categorically, that it is even legal is enough for us to say "No!", but that we have evidence that it does happen undermines your preferred stasis, which denies that such murders occur.

Thus, the only ground which you are left with, if you are to maintain your position is to deny personhood through all 40 weeks. And if you do this you are, by necessity, forced to either defend an arbitrary criterion (i.e., in-the-womb = not-a-person and out-of-womb = a person) of personhood or accept that you needs must take of the case for infanticide with Dr. Singer.

Ergill wrote:
Yes, I’m sure you want to pump his “may” with all the effort of a Derrida,


That's unfair. It's only true that I "may" wish to do so.

Ergill wrote:
but from context and clarification, he’s talking about cases in which a child is born with serious defects leaving the doctors and parents to make bitter decisions about resuscitation.


His meaning is, at best, vague.

Ergill wrote:
I honestly and sincerely don’t know what our society would make of infanticide.


I know what a healthy society would argue for. In the future, I think we may be debating that status of the "birthus." Change is not always progress.

I am also curious to see where you stand, since you only have infanticide or an arbitrary criterion as you preferred ground, unless you relent and repudiate the right to abort which does not factor in questions of mutual personhood in late stages of pregnancy.

Ergill wrote:
The “Roe hegemony” huh? Pretty obvious that your focus on third-term term abortions and your claims about leeway for first-term abortions is less tha honest. You’re positively salivating for the Supreme Court to overturn.


It is the uniform law of the land, is it not?

At any rate, I cannot salivate for that which I do not anticipate. Roe has been law for going on a half-century. I don't think it is going anywhere.

Finally, since you appear to have put on your potato-chip Hand Maid's Tale cap, I should make my position clear. See below.

I think the only argument that can be made for personhood at conception is a religious one. Religious reasons cannot be binding warrants for public policy in secular society. The metaphysics of alleged "ensoulment" at conception or a "quickening" cannot serve as a criterion for public policy. Our best scientific evidence indicates that at the earliest stages of pregnancy a fetus is indeed "a clump of cells" which does not meet objective criteria for personhood. I cannot, therefore, argue that a woman does not have a right to abort in stages of pregnancy where criteria for personhood are not met. To be clear, in such stages the right to abort is absolute and completely elective. In this sense, I am strongly committed to the pro-choice position.

Ergill wrote:
I believe that personhood begins at 31 weeks 4 days. When do you?


Cute. However, this is just the sort of answer that Singer argues is ridiculous (i.e., the belief that personhood occurs in one moment at conception or right at birth). Your answer, which mocks one of two positions left you, pushes you (by implication) further in the direction of criteria of continua and therefore into the direction of supporting infanticide. You have refused, again and again, opportunities to argue for continua of pre-birth personhood, but have refused. You mock the notion of a singular discrete criterion, so the only thing left are continua of personhood for children who have been birthed (or as Singer insists so that we don't beg the question against him, the "birthus").

Ergill wrote:
Learn basic statistics and get back to me.


Get back to me when you're done with these lazy dismissals.

Ergill wrote:
You, who respect Northam’s right to clarify his meaning, but are obviously very eager to read the opposite of his meaning into his meaning.


Show me where Northam clarified his meaning on this particular point after this statement and I will accept his clarification.

Show me where he takes a definite stand and I will salute him.

Ergill wrote:
I’m having concerns that I’ve been arguing with a mentally ill person for years.


Even if you have been, there is the old problem of genetic fallacy. What matters is not whether I am healthy, but whether my arguments stand independently. Ad hominems can be fun, but they're only relevant in such case as the probable truth of claim depends on the character of claimant. Seeing as how I am functioning as advocate and not witness, we're not in that territory.

There is a book called "What Happened to Bernie Sander" bu Jared Beck (the lawyer for Benie in this case) which details these events.
In the last decade we were given inconvenient truths from people with names like Snowden, Manning, and Assange. It's not a "conspiracy theory" that Bernie was sabotaged by his own party. It is an admitted part of the historical record. Moreover, we're no longer living in a period of history where we can dismiss conspiracies as mere rantings of the insane.

Ergill wrote:
In present VA law, personhood is a firewall for the newly born, not the nearly-born. The status quo and the law already is already insufficient for your standards.


Then whither the status quo. My only hope is that the present controversy will bring this essential question back into the discussion.

Ergill wrote:
I already know you go into pretty insane territory in response to this, but it bears repeating. Black New Yorkers have almost an identical birth rate to the rest of the nation. They aren’t by any standard being systematically exterminated.


In terms of "opportunity cost" they are. If I could be earning $110,000 per year, but I only earn $55,000 instead because of "choices" which limited my horizon of opportunity, then my potential earning are indeed harmed, even the the median income in the United States is about $56,000 per year.

What bears greater repeating is that a black fetus is more likely to be aborted than born in New York. That's not murder, per se, but it ain't right either.

Ergill wrote:
Now you’re calling the clump of cells a baby and claiming genocide, in which case, you’re again showing your hand.


It fits the Wikipedia definition of the term.

Ergill wrote:
Wow.


Wow indeed. African Americans get the short of the stick from Republicans who fear them and paternalistic Democrats who wish to manage their population (and votes). It bears discussion. African Americans are not served well by our society.

Ergill wrote:
You got me.


More than you know. What was supposed to be safe, rare, and legal turns out be a way to control populations of the poor (i.e., brown) folk. I say again, an African American fetus is more likely to be aborted than born in New York. I say again, this is a travesty.

Ergill wrote:
The fact that I consider the black birth-rate in NYC being 0.3 children per 1,000 behind the national average means that I think they should be kept in their place, with their place being on the tracks to Auschwitz. Just imagine me as a giant Louis Armstrong playing Cronus, gobbling up their undermensch.


No Sanchez. It is that you don't care that African Americans are encouraged to abort for financial reasons, when we should be screaming about the financial straights that makes them abort in the first place. So long as the overall numbers are close to the national average, you apparently don't give a shit. That is tremendously sad.


Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:31 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Meanwhile President Trump continues to teach his master class in "Executive Overreach."


Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:13 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

at least now the next president could declare a national emergency on climate change


Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
at least now the next president could declare a national emergency on climate change


Next president. lol.


Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:49 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I would declare a national emergency on education.

Everyone with a MAGA hat gets a free ride to "Summer Camp"!

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:55 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Deschain13 and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.