The Swamp

It's also why people need to chill on shitting all over "white women" for voting the wrong way... If you look at the trends, the women I keep talking about (white, fairly well off, educated) are trending in the right direction.

Nonlinear FC wrote:

mister d wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:Yeah, as pro-choice as I am, I am certainly conflicted on the issue. As an example, late-term abortion is dicey for me... At that point, needs to have a health of the mother reason to abort.

See, I'm the opposite here. If its a viable baby, how can you kill it to save an adult?

Because that's my wife. Kid might be cool, but I know 100 percent that my wife is awesome.

(I'm not saying this is any kind of basis for law or policy... It also points out how crazy difficult it is to to address the issue.)

If it were my wife, she'd kill me if I picked her over the baby.

Yeah, we never really talked about it. It's one thing when it's a hypothetical... Being in that room and then being pushed out the door while shit went sideways isn't something I'd like to relive or revisit with her.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sp ... op-stories

There have been more than 70 special elections in 2017, Dems have outperformed expectations in 74 percent of those races.

We’re still nearly a year from the 2018 midterms. That’s enough time for things to shift. Maybe Trump will grow more popular, for example. But historically, the environment doesn’t change much between this point in an election cycle and the midterms. So if you’re a Democrat, Tuesday’s Alabama result is just the latest special election sign that things are looking up heading into 2018.

Isn't that where the fetus thing gets blurry? If its inside the body, you'd kill it to save your wife. If its 10 minutes later and was born, you're not killing it. I'm all for post-viability abortion ban, but find me a pro-lifer who would chose their own / their spouse's life and I'll show you someone who is far closer to a "baby murderer" than someone terminating in week 7.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Brontoburglar wrote:And we have fairly strong evidence that abortion is not murder.

What evidence is that?

I am probably unfairly extrapolating the lack of hard evidence in favor of life begins after sex into life doesn't immediately begin after sex, so I'll mea culpa on that.

Though fetuses aren't considered citizens, so it's not like you're realistically murdering a person

Brontoburglar wrote:Though fetuses aren't considered citizens, so it's not like you're realistically murdering a person

No, what you're doing is killing something that, if left alone, would likely become a person. An inchoate person.

Regarding the life/health of the mother situation - the law isn't that someone else gets to choose to kill the fetus to protect the mother. It's that the mother gets the freedom to protect herself from a threat to her own life, versus the government deciding what happens inside her body.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Brontoburglar wrote:Though fetuses aren't considered citizens, so it's not like you're realistically murdering a person

No, what you're doing is killing something that, if left alone, would likely become a person. An inchoate person.

right! but it's not a person. so you can't be charged with murder -- even though there are lots of people who want to make that happen.

Brontoburglar wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Brontoburglar wrote:Though fetuses aren't considered citizens, so it's not like you're realistically murdering a person

No, what you're doing is killing something that, if left alone, would likely become a person. An inchoate person.

right! but it's not a person. so you can't be charged with murder -- even though there are lots of people who want to make that happen.

I don't think issue is "can you legally be charged with murder." It's more "did you do something that's morally equivalent to or comparable to murder."

I'd say the problem is the "if left alone" part. More like if allowed to leech onto the vitals and nutrition of another human for 9 months then becomes a human. It's not required that you permit that leech to use your body. Theres no question that once the fetus can live without you it's a human. The question is whether one is required to allow the leech to finish it's growth before one disattaches the leech. It should be difficult for the government to intrude on that internal bodily relationship.

Trying to judge when life starts for a fetus/baby is a tricky game to play. Do you decide it's when a baby can survive without the mom naturally (i.e. treated like any other baby when born)? Because then it's probably around 32 weeks, I think. If it's when modern medicine can keep a baby alive, it's more like 22-24 weeks. And that number will presumably get lower over time. Well, what about when the heart starts beating - a key sign of life for the rest of us? That's something like 3 weeks after gestation, which is likely before the mother even knows she's pregnant.

It's a tough line to draw, and it moves.

That's why I stopped trying to think of it that way. Instead of focusing entirely on the fetus/baby, I think you have to strongly consider the mother. What if she didn't want the baby? She thought she used birth control, she thought he pulled out, she was raped, she was really drunk/on drugs? Or what if she just didn't think it through, like many humans don't when we're in the middle of a tryst?

Should that sentence her to 9 months of pregnancy? And then another ~18 years of motherhood? Is that fair to her? Men assume almost NONE of that responsibility, yet they are equally as responsible for creating the baby. A man can decide to just leave if he finds out he got a woman pregnant (yes, he has a legally-binding financial obligation, but that's a very minor aspect of parenting).

And what about the child? Is it fair to the child and good for society to force them into existence? How many human problems and bad behavior are the result of unwanted kids who grow up with distant or resentful moms, or who are orphans or foster children?

And it's not like a baby is a one-shot thing. A woman who decides she's not ready to have a baby today will very likely decide to have a baby she wants sometime later. That wanted baby is a whole lot less likely to ever exist if she instead had to have a kid she didn't want earlier. If it's murder to abort an unwanted baby early in a pregnancy, what about the wanted kid that never even comes into existence because of the presence of the prior kid? Should we consider that?

The bottom line to me is that I'm a man. I can debate this and say what I think all I want, but at the end of the day, this is an issue women should decide. They bear about 98% of this burden, so they should make about 98% of the decision. If most women think abortions should be illegal, then fine. But I'm fairly confident that's not even close to the truth.

Shirley wrote:Trying to judge when life starts for a fetus/baby is a tricky game to play. Do you decide it's when a baby can survive without the mom naturally (i.e. treated like any other baby when born)? Because then it's probably around 32 weeks, I think. If it's when modern medicine can keep a baby alive, it's more like 22-24 weeks. And that number will presumably get lower over time. Well, what about when the heart starts beating - a key sign of life for the rest of us? That's something like 3 weeks after gestation, which is likely before the mother even knows she's pregnant.

It's a tough line to draw, and it moves.

That's why I stopped trying to think of it that way. Instead of focusing entirely on the fetus/baby, I think you have to strongly consider the mother.

Strongly agree with this, and with the remainder of the post. As to the viability point, modern medicine has made extraordinary strides in helping very premature babies survive. Which is a wonderful thing, but it complicates any abortion laws based on viability.

I also think that HaulCitgo's point is a good one about how pro-choice people can frame the morality of the debate. Obviously all societies strongly condemn killing. But no legal or ethical system that I'm aware of has ever, outside of the context of pregnancy, required one person to go to great lengths in sacrificing their health or body autonomy to keep others from dying. We certainly applaud organ donation, but would be appalled by the idea that anyone can be compelled to be a living donor. And I think that'd be true even if the potential donor were something like an older brother who introduced his younger brother to IV drug use and that's the reason why the younger brother needs a new kidney.

Holy shit. Have you guys seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I_NkJ8VTEI

Yup.

It takes that guy to lose Alabama. All for the better

Shirley wrote: If most women think abortions should be illegal, then fine. But I'm fairly confident that's not even close to the truth.

According to this 59% of women think abortion should be legal in all or most situations

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Shirley wrote:If most women think abortions should be illegal, then fine. But I'm fairly confident that's not even close to the truth.

According to this 59% of women believe abortion should be legal in all or most situations. http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

59% of 40 is 23.6.

23.6 weeks or less and you can abort.

Abortion debate solved.

Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

sancarlos wrote:Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

Sheeeeeeees baaaaaaaaack!

Johnnie wrote:59% of 40 is 23.6.

23.6 weeks or less and you can abort.

Abortion debate solved.

#mathsolveseverything Seems like as good a way to solve that issue as anything.

dem3pigs wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

Sheeeeeeees baaaaaaaaack!

Hey, welcome back and all that. But for those of us who like to bring up the Swamp from time to time at work ... it would be nice for it to not look like I'm viewing porn. Degenerasian's image is already borderline for that.

Shirley wrote:

dem3pigs wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

Sheeeeeeees baaaaaaaaack!

Hey, welcome back and all that. But for those of us who like to bring up the Swamp from time to time at work ... it would be nice for it to not look like I'm viewing porn. Degenerasian's image is already borderline for that.

I just installed the ublock Chrome extension to see if it will work to block the avatar for me. It seems to be working for me.

Shirley wrote:

dem3pigs wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

Sheeeeeeees baaaaaaaaack!

Hey, welcome back and all that. But for those of us who like to bring up the Swamp from time to time at work ... it would be nice for it to not look like I'm viewing porn. Degenerasian's image is already borderline for that.

Aren't you like the boss of Microsoft now or something? Tell all your pleebs that porn is now mandatory on all work computers.

BSF21 wrote:

Shirley wrote:

dem3pigs wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

Sheeeeeeees baaaaaaaaack!

Hey, welcome back and all that. But for those of us who like to bring up the Swamp from time to time at work ... it would be nice for it to not look like I'm viewing porn. Degenerasian's image is already borderline for that.

Aren't you like the boss of Microsoft now or something? Tell all your pleebs that porn is now mandatory on all work computers.

Yeah, it's just a little awkward when Satya drops by my executive suite to ask for advice (again!) and I have to explain why I have tits on my screen.

Shirley wrote:

BSF21 wrote:

Shirley wrote:

dem3pigs wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

Sheeeeeeees baaaaaaaaack!

Hey, welcome back and all that. But for those of us who like to bring up the Swamp from time to time at work ... it would be nice for it to not look like I'm viewing porn. Degenerasian's image is already borderline for that.

Aren't you like the boss of Microsoft now or something? Tell all your pleebs that porn is now mandatory on all work computers.

Yeah, it's just a little awkward when Satya drops by my executive suite to ask for advice (again!) and I have to explain why I have tits on my screen.

"Because I'm the boss. Now go bother Bill, I'm in the middle of something."

BSF21 wrote:

Shirley wrote:

BSF21 wrote:

Shirley wrote:

dem3pigs wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

Sheeeeeeees baaaaaaaaack!

Hey, welcome back and all that. But for those of us who like to bring up the Swamp from time to time at work ... it would be nice for it to not look like I'm viewing porn. Degenerasian's image is already borderline for that.

Aren't you like the boss of Microsoft now or something? Tell all your pleebs that porn is now mandatory on all work computers.

Yeah, it's just a little awkward when Satya drops by my executive suite to ask for advice (again!) and I have to explain why I have tits on my screen.

"Because I'm the boss. Now go bother Bill, I'm in the middle of something*."

*emailing my brother

Shirley wrote:

BSF21 wrote:

Shirley wrote:

dem3pigs wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Hey, a dem3pigs sighting! Welcome back. I miss your old avatar.

Sheeeeeeees baaaaaaaaack!

Hey, welcome back and all that. But for those of us who like to bring up the Swamp from time to time at work ... it would be nice for it to not look like I'm viewing porn. Degenerasian's image is already borderline for that.

Aren't you like the boss of Microsoft now or something? Tell all your pleebs that porn is now mandatory on all work computers.

Yeah, it's just a little awkward when Satya drops by my executive suite to ask for advice (again!) and I have to explain why I have tits on my screen.

Before long, having an image of a black woman on the screen will be more of a problem than having tits on your screen.

Nonlinear FC wrote:It's also why people need to chill on shitting all over "white women" for voting the wrong way... If you look at the trends, the women I keep talking about (white, fairly well off, educated) are trending in the right direction.

Yes yes yes yes yes. *1000

Yes, lots of republican white women in fucking Alabama voted for Moore. But there are also a lot of white republican women that didn't. Don't belittle them because people in one of the most partisan states in the US voted in some blocs along party lines. Fuck, I'm just glad no one is talking secession.

Square Rob wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:It's also why people need to chill on shitting all over "white women" for voting the wrong way... If you look at the trends, the women I keep talking about (white, fairly well off, educated) are trending in the right direction.

Yes yes yes yes yes. *1000

Yes, lots of republican white women in fucking Alabama voted for Moore. But there are also a lot of white republican women that didn't. Don't belittle them because people in one of the most partisan states in the US voted in some blocs along party lines. Fuck, I'm just glad no one is talking secession.

It's Alabama. There's always SOMEONE talking secession.

White women (non-Evangelicals) in AL: 74-21 for Jones.

White women (Evangelicals) in AL: 67-23 for Moore.

So...it's not really white women at issue there...look to the Evangelical churches, which, frankly, are pretty much a cult at this point.

if you don't know who the secessionist is in Alabama, that means you're the secessionist

But dont you need to know the ratio of "evangelicals" (whatever that means) vs. non-evangelicals. If its 75/25 evangelicals then I think we can safely blame white women.

HaulCitgo wrote:But dont you need to know the ratio of "evangelicals" (whatever that means) vs. non-evangelicals. If its 75/25 evangelicals then I think we can safely blame white women.

But white men was something like 90-10 wasn't it?

Saw on CNN that Roy Moore is going to sue over losing the election.

I really want someone to say "It was in God's Will that you lost" to his face.

Joe Trippi was on the Ezra Klein show.

“The day before the Washington Post story came out, we were behind by one point, 46 to 45,” says Joe Trippi. “And the day before the election, we were ahead in our own survey by 2 points. We ended up winning by 1.8.”

This, Trippi says, was the reality of the Alabama Senate election. It was a dead heat when it started. It was a dead heat the day it ended. And a lot of what the media thinks they know about what happened in between is wrong.

Not sure I buy that. Yes Moore was a horrible candidate but saying the allegations actually helped galvanized Moore supporters due to fake news?

degenerasian wrote:Joe Trippi was on the Ezra Klein show.

“The day before the Washington Post story came out, we were behind by one point, 46 to 45,” says Joe Trippi. “And the day before the election, we were ahead in our own survey by 2 points. We ended up winning by 1.8.”

This, Trippi says, was the reality of the Alabama Senate election. It was a dead heat when it started. It was a dead heat the day it ended. And a lot of what the media thinks they know about what happened in between is wrong.

Not sure I buy that. Yes Moore was a horrible candidate but saying the allegations actually helped galvanized Moore supporters due to fake news?

You might want to read that again.

tennbengal wrote:

degenerasian wrote:Joe Trippi was on the Ezra Klein show.

“The day before the Washington Post story came out, we were behind by one point, 46 to 45,” says Joe Trippi. “And the day before the election, we were ahead in our own survey by 2 points. We ended up winning by 1.8.”

This, Trippi says, was the reality of the Alabama Senate election. It was a dead heat when it started. It was a dead heat the day it ended. And a lot of what the media thinks they know about what happened in between is wrong.

Not sure I buy that. Yes Moore was a horrible candidate but saying the allegations actually helped galvanized Moore supporters due to fake news?

You might want to read that again.

hmmm what am i missing? I think Moore was way ahead before the allegations, it's even assumed in the first post of this thread. It couldn't have been a dead heat when it started.

degenerasian wrote:

tennbengal wrote:

degenerasian wrote:Joe Trippi was on the Ezra Klein show.

“The day before the Washington Post story came out, we were behind by one point, 46 to 45,” says Joe Trippi. “And the day before the election, we were ahead in our own survey by 2 points. We ended up winning by 1.8.”

This, Trippi says, was the reality of the Alabama Senate election. It was a dead heat when it started. It was a dead heat the day it ended. And a lot of what the media thinks they know about what happened in between is wrong.

Not sure I buy that. Yes Moore was a horrible candidate but saying the allegations actually helped galvanized Moore supporters due to fake news?

You might want to read that again.

hmmm what am i missing? I think Moore was way ahead before the allegations, it's even assumed in the first post of this thread. It couldn't have been a dead heat when it started.

that no one is saying Moore's supporters were galvanized because of the allegations

This is beautiful.

Roy Moore's Jewish lawyer voted for Doug Jones, raised money for his campaign.

He got paid by Roy Moore and donated money to Doug Jones.

Amazing.

From now on, when you look up 'side-eye', this should be the picture you see:

https://twitter.com/DerekMilman/status/ ... 1794452486