The Dobbs Decision

[dneal]

Chuck's abortion thread is (rightly) focused on the ethics of the recent SCOTUS decision, but for those interested in the decision itself, the link to it on the SCOTUS site is HERE (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf). The syllabus is 7 1/2 pages, and not a difficult read.

I got around to reading the other concurring opinions. Thomas is mainly arguing against substantive due process, how it differs from due process and was an invention of the court. Ok...

Kavanaugh writes largely a reiteration of the problems with the Roe decision and about stare decisis - but adds a paragraph on how he sees no legal problem with people traveling to another state for an abortion (i.e.: the state of residence can't pass a law to forbid it due to the interstate commerce clause) - I assume to temper some of the backlash of the decision.

Roberts seems to mumble about judicial restraint, and how the court could have left the abortion "right" of Roe in effect, but ruled Mississippi's 15 week law was not contradictory with Roe. Basically continuing the same problem Roe (and Casey) created - a set of goal posts whose position is not only ambiguous, but easily moved if a new ambiguous location needs determined.

Most disappointing though was the dissent from Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. After a brief history of Roe and how it was rightly decided, and how "...the Court struck a balance, as it often does when values and goals compete."

It continues with:

"It held that the State could prohibit abortions after fetal viability, so long as the ban contained exceptions to safeguard a woman’s life or health. It held that even before viability, the State could regulate the abortion procedure in multiple and meaningful ways. But until the viability line was crossed, the Court held, a State could not impose a “substantial obstacle” on a woman’s “right to elect the procedure” as she (not the gov- ernment) thought proper, in light of all the circumstances and complexities of her own life. Ibid.
Today, the Court discards that balance. It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of."

That lack of precision of language and/or hyperbole seems inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice. The dissent seems more like an argument a lawyer would present to a judge, and not something delivered by one. Can women no longer own property? Vote? The use of that language is lazy at best, and irresponsible at worst.

In related news, Thomas seems to be a big target over all this and the "N" word is being used liberally. I have no idea what that's all about. Celebrities and other "checkmark" people are excoriating him. Samuel Jackson, for example (comparatively mildly) says "How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!" (Loving v Virginia legalizes interracial marriage). Calls for assassinations are reportedly spreading.

[Lloyd]

Is there anything now restricting a state from taking away all intentional terminations of pregnancy? Can a state define viable as at conception? At coitus?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Did you read the syllabus? The answer is in there. It only takes a minute or two.

Get informed.

;)

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Bit of a long read, if you include the opinions, and as I am not versed in law to any extent parts of it were a bit convoluted.

My opinion is that women should be allowed the right to choose abortion prior to the point of viability. However, in many ways this could be mitigated by a woman taking the morning after pill if she and her partner had unprotected sex without the intention of having children. A process which cannot be viewed any more as an abortion than what mostly happens naturally to many fertilised ova (up to 50% of the time apparently).

And of course for medical necessity.

The issue though has ramifications for women's rights beyond abortion. Like the right to choose not to have children, and therefore the right to choose not to have unprotected sex, even in marriage.

Further, I think it was Carlin (I know, I know) who had noted that conservatives are all over the rights of the unborn but once a baby is born they want nothing more to do with them. Whether that's true or not I don't know. Perhaps all the unwanted or forced upon pregnancies should, on birth, be put up for adoption or swaddled and left at the door of a conservative?

For women in the lowest socioeconomic deciles the presence of an additional mouth to feed creates additional burdens, pushes them further into poverty, means a child will likely be raised in less than ideal environment, promotes intergenerational poverty, and more than likely leads to increases in crime at a not so future date.

So, for me the question is not just about the right to abortion, it's also about what else is being done to address the problems of removing that right.

[dneal]

7 pages of a syllabus (summary) with margins that large is a long read? You don’t have to be versed in law. It’s not written in legalese. At most, you need a basic understanding of U.S. civics.

Get informed.

-edit-

While your at it (or not), read the first sentence of the OP.

[Lloyd]

Who's paying for poor women to go to a different state for an abortion?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Disney, and Dick’s Sporting Goods, apparently.

[Lloyd]

Disney, and Dick’s Sporting Goods, apparently.
If these women work at these places only.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

Did you read the syllabus? The answer is in there. It only takes a minute or two.

Get informed.

;)
You can read 7½ page syllabus in a minute or two? 😳 Can you please give an answer to my question as it would take me far longer?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Empty_of_Clouds]

7 pages of a syllabus (summary) with margins that large is a long read? You don’t have to be versed in law. It’s not written in legalese. At most, you need a basic understanding of U.S. civics.

Get informed.

-edit-

While your at it (or not), read the first sentence of the OP.

EDIT TO ADD. I said
Bit of a long read, if you include the opinions,

I read the whole thing - it is 213 pages long.

BTW, I don't have a basic understanding of US civics. Kind of compounds my comprehension issues with the document.

Reading does not equate with getting informed. It never has.

[dneal]

I guess they’ll have to, if they want them to pay for their abortion travel.

I don’t think any of that was in the decision though.

[dneal]

Did you read the syllabus? The answer is in there. It only takes a minute or two.

Get informed.

;)
You can read 7½ page syllabus in a minute or two? 😳 Can you please give an answer to my question as it would take me far longer?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes, I can. I do read fast, but I’m certainly not a speed reader.


Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

[dneal]

Reading does not equate with getting informed. It never has

You’re moving from absurd to ridiculous. What is in a textbook, dictionary, or encyclopedia? Information.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Not at all. I've read many things and remained uninformed. Usually this is a reflection of how engaged I am with the material. It's neither absurd nor ridiculous - both of which are unnecessary judgments here.

[TSherbs]

I've read the syllabus. I am not particularly impressed with the reasoning. It smacks of the writing of a person who had already made up his mind before the case was presented and was just waiting for the opportunity to write the majority "opinion." Three judicial appointments in four years gets him that opportunity, and Dobbs is the case. Voila. Mission accomplished.

[dneal]

What do you see as the critical flaw in the reasoning? I thought you would like that the decision advocates for democracy, rather than old white men (well, one black and one female too) deciding things for women.

-edit-

Thank you for taking the time to read it first.

[Lloyd]

Did you read the syllabus? The answer is in there. It only takes a minute or two.

Get informed.

;)
You can read 7½ page syllabus in a minute or two? 😳 Can you please give an answer to my question as it would take me far longer?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes, I can. I do read fast, but I’m certainly not a speed reader.


Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
I still don't see what's prohibiting a state from banning abortion after conception.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Because nothing is doing that. It’s up to the people of each state, through their elected representatives.

[Lloyd]

Because nothing is doing that. It’s up to the people of each state, through their elected representatives.
This explains to me the opposing justices' statements.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Because nothing is doing that. It’s up to the people of each state, through their elected representatives.
This explains to me the opposing justices' statements.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Maybe, but that’s not the role of the judiciary. To strike a balance, using their words. The role of the judiciary is to apply the law. The role of the legislature is to strike a balance, through debate and persuasion of the people. That’s how permissive abortion laws were enacted everywhere but here.

[Lloyd]

... and how will this impact the societal issues tied to guns?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

... and how will this impact the societal issues tied to guns?


wha?

[Niner]

There are US states in which people are charged with murder if, for example, they shoot a pregnant woman with a gun and the shooting causes the baby (fetus, if you prefer, or foetus for that matter) to die, while in the same state elective abortion at a later state of development is legal.

[Lloyd]

There are US states in which people are charged with murder if, for example, they shoot a pregnant woman with a gun and the shooting causes the baby (fetus, if you prefer, or foetus for that matter) to die, while in the same state elective abortion at a later state of development is legal.
That's bizarre. Which states?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

There are US states in which people are charged with murder if, for example, they shoot a pregnant woman with a gun and the shooting causes the baby (fetus, if you prefer, or foetus for that matter) to die, while in the same state elective abortion at a later state of development is legal.

I believe that gestational age of that fetus matters.

[dneal]

State Fetal Homicide Laws (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx#State%20Laws)


Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization")

and


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

[Chuck Naill]

I’ve already mentioned Scott Peterson being charged in the death of his wife and unborn child.

Ted, I think your wrangling with words. Obviously, the only thing that makes a unborn a person is whether or not it’s wanted.

[TSherbs]

... Obviously, the only thing that makes a unborn a person is whether or not it’s wanted.

Not in law.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

... Obviously, the only thing that makes a unborn a person is whether or not it’s wanted.

Not in law.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Scott Peterson’s conviction shows otherwise, Ted.

[TSherbs]

... Obviously, the only thing that makes a unborn a person is whether or not it’s wanted.

Not in law.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Scott Peterson’s conviction shows otherwise, Ted.My point is that no law states the words that you wrote.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

... Obviously, the only thing that makes a unborn a person is whether or not it’s wanted.

Not in law.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Scott Peterson’s conviction shows otherwise, Ted.My point is that no law states the words that you wrote.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Oh, as I heard old people say when I was a child, "do as I say, not as I do". As much as it may be difficult for you to admit, personhood is determined by the female wanting or not wanting the child. Only an irrational person with an agenda thinks a 15 week old fetus is any less human or an individual than either me or you.

[TSherbs]

... Obviously, the only thing that makes a unborn a person is whether or not it’s wanted.

Not in law.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Scott Peterson’s conviction shows otherwise, Ted.My point is that no law states the words that you wrote.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Oh, as I heard old people say when I was a child, "do as I say, not as I do". As much as it may be difficult for you to admit, personhood is determined by the female wanting or not wanting the child. Only an irrational person with an agenda thinks a 15 week old fetus is any less human or an individual than either me or you.

Morality and law are not the same thing. Even the state laws covering fetal homicide mostly do not recognize "murder" unless the fetus is over 20 weeks gestation ("viability"). And if the mother causes the death, it is not "murder" at all (she can water-ski if she wants, or sky dive, or even commit a crime. If the fetus dies, she cannot be charged with "murder.") And all legal abortion deaths are not prosecutable as "murder." These fetal death laws are mostly about adding years of incarceration to felons (these laws apply to felony crimes only) who attack or harm mothers (or their unborn children).

My point is that the law(s) does not say the things that you do. These laws are not attempts to define when legal personhood begins, nor what "personhood" even means. And they are not making any moral definitions either, particularly since there are many exceptions or exemptions to the laws.

[Niner]

There are US states in which people are charged with murder if, for example, they shoot a pregnant woman with a gun and the shooting causes the baby (fetus, if you prefer, or foetus for that matter) to die, while in the same state elective abortion at a later state of development is legal.
That's bizarre. Which states?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I can't produce an exhaustive list off the top of my head. California for one, though.

[Chuck Naill]

... Obviously, the only thing that makes a unborn a person is whether or not it’s wanted.

Not in law.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Scott Peterson’s conviction shows otherwise, Ted.My point is that no law states the words that you wrote.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Oh, as I heard old people say when I was a child, "do as I say, not as I do". As much as it may be difficult for you to admit, personhood is determined by the female wanting or not wanting the child. Only an irrational person with an agenda thinks a 15 week old fetus is any less human or an individual than either me or you.

Morality and law are not the same thing. Even the state laws covering fetal homicide mostly do not recognize "murder" unless the fetus is over 20 weeks gestation ("viability"). And if the mother causes the death, it is not "murder" at all (she can water-ski if she wants, or sky dive, or even commit a crime. If the fetus dies, she cannot be charged with "murder.") And all legal abortion deaths are not prosecutable as "murder." These fetal death laws are mostly about adding years of incarceration to felons (these laws apply to felony crimes only) who attack or harm mothers (or their unborn children).

My point is that the law(s) does not say the things that you do. These laws are not attempts to define when legal personhood begins, nor what "personhood" even means. And they are not making any moral definitions either, particularly since there are many exceptions or exemptions to the laws.

I’m not discussing morals. Scott Peterson was convicted of his unborn child’s death that he was found to be guilty of causing.

[TSherbs]

There are US states in which people are charged with murder if, for example, they shoot a pregnant woman with a gun and the shooting causes the baby (fetus, if you prefer, or foetus for that matter) to die, while in the same state elective abortion at a later state of development is legal.
That's bizarre. Which states?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I can't produce an exhaustive list off the top of my head. California for one, though.

I looked at several states' fetal homicide laws. They each had exemptions for legal abortion. The fetal homicide laws were only to criminalize the injury or death of an unborn child during the commission of a felony.

[dneal]

I can't produce an exhaustive list off the top of my head. California for one, though.

If you will revisit post 26, you will see the exhaustive list, with link to the National Conference of State Legislatures which goes into further detail.

[Chuck Naill]

As previously stated, if you wanted the child, it’s a person.

[TSherbs]

As previously stated, if you wanted the child, it’s a person.In early stages, they are future persons, yes.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Niner]

There are US states in which people are charged with murder if, for example, they shoot a pregnant woman with a gun and the shooting causes the baby (fetus, if you prefer, or foetus for that matter) to die, while in the same state elective abortion at a later state of development is legal.
That's bizarre. Which states?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I can't produce an exhaustive list off the top of my head. California for one, though.

I looked at several states' fetal homicide laws. They each had exemptions for legal abortion. The fetal homicide laws were only to criminalize the injury or death of an unborn child during the commission of a felony.

I agree.

[Chuck Naill]

As I've previously stated.

[TFarnon]

Then call me irrational. Until a fetus passes about 22 weeks, it simply isn't viable outside of its host (the mother). It may have the potential to become a human, but it isn't one until it can at least nominally survive without being physically enmeshed with the host. And even at 24 weeks, a premature baby is so fragile once outside the womb that I have my doubts about even trying to keep it alive. Its intestines are so delicate that mere peristalsis can cause tearing or blockage due to tangling. Upsets in the gut microbiota can cause necrosis. The brain blood vessels are so fine that they can spontaneously rupture, causing brain bleeds. The lungs aren't fully mature, and artificial surfactant often has to be supplied just so those lungs don't stick to themselves and collapse. The bone marrow isn't very good at making blood cells (red, white and platelets) yet. The immune system is essentially nonexistent. The liver can barely (if even that much) keep up with the toxins that are produced simply by being alive. And that's at 24 weeks.

[TFarnon]

Potentially future persons. Roughly one in three pregnancies end in spontaneous (unintended) miscarriage. A fertilized ovum is not guaranteed to be viable, even in the womb, much less outside of it, and even with the most advanced medical care available.

[TSherbs]

Potentially future persons. Roughly one in three pregnancies end in spontaneous (unintended) miscarriage. A fertilized ovum is not guaranteed to be viable, even in the womb, much less outside of it, and even with the most advanced medical care available.Exactly. Just think how many unborn "person's" deaths need to be examined by the police, therefore, as a result of granting these early potential humans their full "personhood" at conception.

One statistician once published a paper on how many fertilized ova he estimated per year were sloughed off in menstruation (in other words, "terminated" after unprotected sex close in time to menstruation). I read it (over ten years ago) but I don't remember the number. It was high. NFP actually commits "homicide" if you get absurdly strict with these definitions of when personhood begins.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Whether you say you think the unborn is a person or not, you know enough to know that brought to term or near, a person will result.

What is dishonest is being frivolous.

[TSherbs]

Chuck, when would you say a fertilized embryo (human in the making) should legally be given some of the rights and protections of personhood?

The range of choice is from moment of conception to moment of first breath outside of the womb at birth. I pick @ 20 weeks (the safe side of viability). What is your choice?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

I think contraception is a prerequisite. A member just posted his wife got pregnant while on Acutane which has teratogenic warnings.

Would you be okay with a person aborting any age because the male was too fucking lazy to not impregnate? And if the male claims to be a physician? That’s nuts.

Stop conception and your question is moot

[Chuck Naill]

What we are really talking about is using abortion as birth control. Abortion for mothers health, rape/incest, and such as always been an option.

[TSherbs]

Chuck, when would you say a fertilized embryo (human in the making) should legally be given some of the rights and protections of personhood?

The range of choice is from moment of conception to moment of first breath outside of the womb at birth. I pick @ 20 weeks (the safe side of viability). What is your choice?

Sent from my moto g power using TapatalkI'll repeat my question.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

.....

Would you be okay with a person aborting any age ....

No. How many times do I have to say that my cutoff is 20 weeks. Prior to that: yes, abortion on demand without limitations or regulations.

[TFarnon]

Not necessarily. If by "person" you mean a living organism with the requisite number of chromosomes and the characteristic genome of a human, then I can't even begin to argue with that. If you mean a sentient being with same, then I can argue. Some of those unborn are born anencephalic. That is, they will never be sentient even if they are living, because they are missing critical parts of their brains and/or skulls. Not every fetus will make it to personhood, even with the best of care. I don't think it's fair to compel a woman to carry a terminal fetus to term. I don't think it's fair to allow that fetus to be born and spend its (hopefully) short life hooked up to machines in a neverland of pain, noise and intrusive interventions. We can't always know which fetuses have no chance of any kind of decent life, but we do know some of the time. That's the problem with blanket bans against late term abortions.

[TFarnon]

Abortion is not used as birth control in the sense conveyed in talking points. If you are male, you have never experienced an abortion. I have. While it was not traumatic, it was deeply uncomfortable during the procedure. Think something along the lines of a sigmoidoscopy with no pain relief or sedation to a vigorous rectal exam that went on for a bit too long. Or the cramping--on the order of the cramps just before explosive diarrhea when you hold it long enough to scuttle to the restroom. Now think of those cramps for 15 to 30 minutes before you can get relief.

Abortion is what some women use when their regular method of birth control (anything from abstinence to rhythm method to physical barriers to medication to surgical sterilization) fails. It's expensive enough and uncomfortable enough that it's not a monthly, probably not even an annual thing. It's not an "Oh, woopsie! I had unprotected sex! I'll just book an abortion with my provider" thing. That's not to say that every woman regrets having an abortion. I had my abortion. Then I had a grilled cheddar sandwich on honey wheat berry bread. It was the first food I was able to keep down in over a week. Nothing ever tasted so good.

[Chuck Naill]

.....

Would you be okay with a person aborting any age ....

No. How many times do I have to say that my cutoff is 20 weeks. Prior to that: yes, abortion on demand without limitations or regulations.

I have no problem with you liking the 20 week cut off. My problem is that it’s arbitrary and based on your opinions that someone be produced on week 21, or 7 more days, or 21 more days abortion is suddenly off limits.

[Chuck Naill]

I’ve always taken birth control as a responsibility as a male. I didn’t like for her to take the oral contraceptives, so I got a vasectomy when our family was complete.

I believe contraceptives or devices should be free for all and a private matter. I remember having to request a pack of condoms which were stored behind the pharmacy counter. That didn’t encourage use.

[TSherbs]

.....

Would you be okay with a person aborting any age ....

No. How many times do I have to say that my cutoff is 20 weeks. Prior to that: yes, abortion on demand without limitations or regulations.

I have no problem with you liking the 20 week cut off. My problem is that it’s arbitrary....

What cut off do you "like"? I keep asking, but you don't answer.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

.....

Would you be okay with a person aborting any age ....

No. How many times do I have to say that my cutoff is 20 weeks. Prior to that: yes, abortion on demand without limitations or regulations.

I have no problem with you liking the 20 week cut off. My problem is that it’s arbitrary....

What cut off do you "like"? I keep asking, but you don't answer.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

There is no cut off. I just would prefer honesty that abortion is what it is. Just say, I’m going to end the pregnancy. The hard luck stories of a person having a bunch of children, unmarried, and then pregnant has to be responded toward with more than sympathy. However, seen prevention is not available for no cost, she might not be able to do anything but abstain. I don’t expect humans not to have sex.

There are many reasons that are legitimate for ending a pregnancy such as has been mentioned often.

It would seem to me that I’d prevention was readily available and free, abortion would be used only in the case of medical necessity, rape, and incest.

[TSherbs]

.....

Would you be okay with a person aborting any age ....

No. How many times do I have to say that my cutoff is 20 weeks. Prior to that: yes, abortion on demand without limitations or regulations.

I have no problem with you liking the 20 week cut off. My problem is that it’s arbitrary....

What cut off do you "like"? I keep asking, but you don't answer.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

There is no cut off. I just would prefer honesty that abortion is what it is. Just say, I’m going to end the pregnancy. The hard luck stories of a person having a bunch of children, unmarried, and then pregnant has to be responded toward with more than sympathy. However, seen prevention is not available for no cost, she might not be able to do anything but abstain. I don’t expect humans not to have sex.

There are many reasons that are legitimate for ending a pregnancy such as has been mentioned often.

It would seem to me that I’d prevention was readily available and free, abortion would be used only in the case of medical necessity, rape, and incest.You are for abortion on demand regardless of fetal age?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

.....

Would you be okay with a person aborting any age ....

No. How many times do I have to say that my cutoff is 20 weeks. Prior to that: yes, abortion on demand without limitations or regulations.

I have no problem with you liking the 20 week cut off. My problem is that it’s arbitrary....

What cut off do you "like"? I keep asking, but you don't answer.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

There is no cut off. I just would prefer honesty that abortion is what it is. Just say, I’m going to end the pregnancy. The hard luck stories of a person having a bunch of children, unmarried, and then pregnant has to be responded toward with more than sympathy. However, seen prevention is not available for no cost, she might not be able to do anything but abstain. I don’t expect humans not to have sex.

There are many reasons that are legitimate for ending a pregnancy such as has been mentioned often.

It would seem to me that I’d prevention was readily available and free, abortion would be used only in the case of medical necessity, rape, and incest.You are for abortion on demand regardless of fetal age?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

No.

I’m gifting this to you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/pro-life-young-women-roe-abortion.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AACEIPuonUktbfqYhkT1UbACbIRp8_tBrDgfnBzfktgWL4I22K TjNPyaEPBIXF8k3Kf7ZiYN113yieQJUJFo4Tc8FI770VOV1xGU 7vq4GYmZ8BLmI4otm6ATlshtfGDeBptGK0YmL8Irp0yfjm7knX aGa6D6Dcg3MxNU0y98seAFKp2HYOwqnOEeRniJIpjbp6WMcMFX pXbzKKvvLoFxx7JNyHCxnW4QAyUO1eMirByZ_es_lTNVUPVi-VCS938m0-69hDOd0IPKiZLx8oecX2hbp5GXVN3jQLOLY-efOECTRJ4lGg&smid=nytcore-ios-share

[TSherbs]

You are for abortion on demand regardless of fetal age?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

No.


Do you support abortion as a legal option for women at some other more narrow and specific age of the fetus?

[Chuck Naill]

Anytime the mothers life is in danger, and abortion is the only option, it must be an option.

I have a problem putting a person in jail for choosing to abort. The SCOTUS might think it’s illegal, but that’s a narrow perspective.

Again, since sex is as human as eating, preventing is more safe and prevents the moral dilemma. And, it’s a safer option with less mental anguish.

[TSherbs]

Anytime the mothers life is in danger, and abortion is the only option, it must be an option.

I have a problem putting a person in jail for choosing to abort. The SCOTUS might think it’s illegal, but that’s a narrow perspective.

Again, since sex is as human as eating, preventing is more safe and prevents the moral dilemma. And, it’s a safer option with less mental anguish.So this means no elective abortions for anyone, right?

No abortion pill, either?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Anytime the mothers life is in danger, and abortion is the only option, it must be an option.

I have a problem putting a person in jail for choosing to abort. The SCOTUS might think it’s illegal, but that’s a narrow perspective.

Again, since sex is as human as eating, preventing is more safe and prevents the moral dilemma. And, it’s a safer option with less mental anguish.So this means no elective abortions for anyone, right?

No abortion pill, either?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

This isn't black and white or a cut off week for me. RU486 is the pill and that would probably make it physically easier for the female.

[TSherbs]

Anytime the mothers life is in danger, and abortion is the only option, it must be an option.

I have a problem putting a person in jail for choosing to abort. The SCOTUS might think it’s illegal, but that’s a narrow perspective.

Again, since sex is as human as eating, preventing is more safe and prevents the moral dilemma. And, it’s a safer option with less mental anguish.So this means no elective abortions for anyone, right?

No abortion pill, either?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

This isn't black and white or a cut off week for me. RU486 is the pill and that would probably make it physically easier for the female.So, you're not sure. That's fine. It's a complicated topic.

Why do you snipe, then, at other's positions when you don't even have a clear one yourself?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Anytime the mothers life is in danger, and abortion is the only option, it must be an option.

I have a problem putting a person in jail for choosing to abort. The SCOTUS might think it’s illegal, but that’s a narrow perspective.

Again, since sex is as human as eating, preventing is more safe and prevents the moral dilemma. And, it’s a safer option with less mental anguish.So this means no elective abortions for anyone, right?

No abortion pill, either?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

This isn't black and white or a cut off week for me. RU486 is the pill and that would probably make it physically easier for the female.So, you're not sure. That's fine. It's a complicated topic.

Why do you snipe, then, at other's positions when you don't even have a clear one yourself?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I don’t snipe. It is complicated because there is a child, that few consider or flip it off in their minds as a non person for convenience. I figure if I as minority voice cause one person to reconsider, it’s worth discussing.

[TSherbs]

I don’t snipe. It is complicated because there is a child, that few consider or flip it off in their minds as a non person for convenience.

The part that I bolded is a snipe (you label those who disagree with you as less thoughtful and as ethically inferior. You have done this several times in this thread). It's not true that "few" consider the personhood of a fetus, and that most do this out of "convenience."

[Chuck Naill]

I don’t snipe. It is complicated because there is a child, that few consider or flip it off in their minds as a non person for convenience.

The part that I bolded is a snipe (you label those who disagree with you as less thoughtful and as ethically inferior. You have done this several times in this thread). It's not true that "few" consider the personhood of a fetus, and that most do this out of "convenience."

Have if your way, Ted. I know what you've posted and how it appears and what it communicates.

[TFarnon]

I don't see any moral dilemma regarding abortion. As long as I (or any woman) am assuming the substantial risks of pregnancy, I (or any woman) should have the right to terminate that pregnancy at any point prior to birth. Men (XY men) will never know what it is to be pregnant. They will never assume the risks of pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, gestational diabetes, ectopic pregnancy, postpartum sepsis or postpartum hemorrhage. All of those are very real risks, and they are by no means all of the risks. I'd wager that only a very tiny fraction of men have seen their workday go from zero to sixty when a pregnant or recently delivered woman suddenly starts to bleed out. I've been part of that zero to sixty when the phone calls came into the blood bank, and I go from just moving briskly through my workload to looking like a pinball on crack as I race to assemble a massive transfusion pack or several. It can happen that quickly.

I didn't even mention the risks pregnant women encounter from the father of the growing fetus. Pregnancy is one of the times women are most likely to be killed by their partners. That one may be sociological rather than biological, but it's a significant risk all the same.

The only risk for men that truly comes close to pregnancy is going to war. As a woman who did go to war, as horrible as war was, I'd still rather go to war than ever be pregnant again. That was true even when I still was of childbearing age. That I was able to undergo elective sterilization a couple of years before enlisting was fortuitous chance.

[TFarnon]

I don't honestly think that any man should have a say in the matter. First of all, it isn't a child until such time that it can survive outside of the mother, and even then with severely premature infants, I believe that it is horrifically immoral to subject any living being, much less any mammal to the painful and invasive measures needed to bring that premature infant to a point where it can stably and reliably survive outside of the mother. I'm not even there in the neonatal intensive care unit. I'm just the tech who supplies blood and blood products. I only see what I read in the patient record as I try to anticipate future needs of rare, highly perishable products like CMV seronegative, irradiated compatible platelets.

A man doesn't risk his life with pregnancy. He doesn't. The mother does, and the risk is substantial.

[TSherbs]

Here's what, under the circumstances, my governor is doing:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-maine-government-and-politics-fc576e92279b258bd2ccbc1e7b6d82e8

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

I don't honestly think that any man should have a say in the matter. First of all, it isn't a child until such time that it can survive outside of the mother, and even then with severely premature infants, I believe that it is horrifically immoral to subject any living being, much less any mammal to the painful and invasive measures needed to bring that premature infant to a point where it can stably and reliably survive outside of the mother. I'm not even there in the neonatal intensive care unit. I'm just the tech who supplies blood and blood products. I only see what I read in the patient record as I try to anticipate future needs of rare, highly perishable products like CMV seronegative, irradiated compatible platelets.

A man doesn't risk his life with pregnancy. He doesn't. The mother does, and the risk is substantial.

You haven’t been keeping up with the times. Gender is just a social construct. Men can have babies now.

[TSherbs]

I don't honestly think that any man should have a say in the matter. First of all, it isn't a child until such time that it can survive outside of the mother, and even then with severely premature infants, I believe that it is horrifically immoral to subject any living being, much less any mammal to the painful and invasive measures needed to bring that premature infant to a point where it can stably and reliably survive outside of the mother. I'm not even there in the neonatal intensive care unit. I'm just the tech who supplies blood and blood products. I only see what I read in the patient record as I try to anticipate future needs of rare, highly perishable products like CMV seronegative, irradiated compatible platelets.

A man doesn't risk his life with pregnancy. He doesn't. The mother does, and the risk is substantial.

You haven’t been keeping up with the times. Gender is just a social construct. Men can have babies now.

Way to respond to a woman's sincere commentary with bullshit snark.

[Chuck Naill]

I was there in the NICU for my family and as a volunteer. It would be immoral in my opinion, and apparently most hospitals, not to attempt to save a premature child. Opinions like was expressed by a female is why all need to have a say. We can't live in a world where only a term child is considered appropriate to receive medical attention and be considered a person.

[Chuck Naill]

One thing nice about a forum is that everyone honestly shares their opinion. Even if I am shocked, I appreciate the honest opinions. Probably wouldn't get that over a beer at the pub.

[Lloyd]

I was there in the NICU for my family and as a volunteer. It would be immoral in my opinion, and apparently most hospitals, not to attempt to save a premature child. Opinions like was expressed by a female is why all need to have a say. We can't live in a world where only a term child is considered appropriate to receive medical attention and be considered a person.
No one is saying that all premies MUST be aborted, just that some should be legally aborted.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I was there in the NICU for my family and as a volunteer. It would be immoral in my opinion, and apparently most hospitals, not to attempt to save a premature child. Opinions like was expressed by a female is why all need to have a say. We can't live in a world where only a term child is considered appropriate to receive medical attention and be considered a person.
No one is saying that all premies MUST be aborted, just that some should be legally aborted.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Is that what she was saying? I didn't read it that way.

What you might consider is looking at photos of premature children before deciding if such should be legally aborted. Perhaps you have and it isn't a concern as it is with me. My concern is that some are more bothered about sea turtles, puppies, and beached whales.

[Bold2013]

Forgive my snark. My snark was to highlight the inconsistency of modern progressive ideologies.

All I am saying is that dismissing or minimizing men’s opinions regard pro or anti life is sexist and a fallacy.

[TSherbs]

Forgive my snark.

All I am saying is that dismissing or minimizing men’s opinions regard pro or anti life is sexist and a fallacy.She gave her reasons. Why don't you address them?

I gave similar reasons earlier, and no one addressed them.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I was there in the NICU for my family and as a volunteer. It would be immoral in my opinion, and apparently most hospitals, not to attempt to save a premature child. Opinions like was expressed by a female is why all need to have a say. We can't live in a world where only a term child is considered appropriate to receive medical attention and be considered a person.
No one is saying that all premies MUST be aborted, just that some should be legally aborted.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]or that the legal abortion option is at least available. This is what "choice" means, for the pregnant women.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

No one is denying anyone of any opinion on the subject. Heck, I can have any opinion I want on your faith. However, I can't restrict you from your choices. Why should men (or for that matter, anyone) determine what a woman can or can't do to protect her health?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I’m always going to side with those that have no choice in the matter. I loved being a NICU volunteer and learned much.

We all have varied experiences and those experiences color our perceptions.

[Bold2013]

No one is denying anyone of any opinion on the subject. Heck, I can have any opinion I want on your faith. However, I can't restrict you from your choices. Why should men (or for that matter, anyone) determine what a woman can or can't do to protect her health?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Because we can be the voice of the unheard.

[Lloyd]

No one is denying anyone of any opinion on the subject. Heck, I can have any opinion I want on your faith. However, I can't restrict you from your choices. Why should men (or for that matter, anyone) determine what a woman can or can't do to protect her health?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Because we can be the voice of the unheard.
It seems like you're including the mother as an unheard, too.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

It doesn't appear that anyone wants to address the specific issues being raised about the dangers to the health and welfare of women that pregnancies actually pose.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I’m always going to side with those that have no choice in the matter.

In some states, this may be teenaged women raped and impregnated by male adult household members. They will have "no choice" about whether to continue that pregnancy or not of the state enacts an extreme law outlawing all abortions.

Yeah, "no choice."

I'm proud of my governor (Maine) stating publicly and enacting provisions to protect women from "any county" and "any state" if they come to Maine seeking treatment or an abortion. For now, women can still govern their own health and bodies in Maine. Not so much in several other states.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

It doesn't appear that anyone wants to address the specific issues being raised about the dangers to the health and welfare of women that pregnancies actually pose.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Maybe but a lot of lives will be saved.

[Chuck Naill]

I’m always going to side with those that have no choice in the matter.

In some states, this may be teenaged women raped and impregnated by male adult household members. They will have "no choice" about whether to continue that pregnancy or not of the state enacts an extreme law outlawing all abortions.

Yeah, "no choice."

I'm proud of my governor (Maine) stating publicly and enacting provisions to protect women from "any county" and "any state" if they come to Maine seeking treatment or an abortion. For now, women can still govern their own health and bodies in Maine. Not so much in several other states.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Those are so rare when considering the majority of abortions. The proponents of abortion always use these events, which have always, even prior to RVW been available. Perhaps this resource will be helpful.

https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion

[TSherbs]

Here is a short piece in The Atlantic, which I agree with:

"The Misogyny Is the Point
Roe was always about power."

By Molly Jong-Fast
JULY 06, 2022

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/wait-what/62c59e61da4cea0020ef78fc/roe-overturned-misogyny-anti-abortion-bills/

I can't tell if it is behind a pay wall or not (I am not a subscriber, but I had to deke around to get a full view of the article)



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

It just supports what you want to think, Ted. Which is fine!!

When the female said the male had no place in the decision, you didn't respond. Perhaps its because that's what you think. Fact is, if it takes two, both are invested.

[TSherbs]

I’m always going to side with those that have no choice in the matter.

In some states, this may be teenaged women raped and impregnated by male adult household members. They will have "no choice" about whether to continue that pregnancy or not of the state enacts an extreme law outlawing all abortions.

Yeah, "no choice."

I'm proud of my governor (Maine) stating publicly and enacting provisions to protect women from "any county" and "any state" if they come to Maine seeking treatment or an abortion. For now, women can still govern their own health and bodies in Maine. Not so much in several other states.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Those are so rare when considering the majority of abortions. The proponents of abortion always use these events, which have always, even prior to RVW been available. Perhaps this resource will be helpful.

https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortionWho cares how "rare" it is? Is that really your answer?

What isn't "rare" is how many pregnancies will have no effect on male bodies. The answer to that one is.... billions.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

I’m always going to side with those that have no choice in the matter.

In some states, this may be teenaged women raped and impregnated by male adult household members. They will have "no choice" about whether to continue that pregnancy or not of the state enacts an extreme law outlawing all abortions.

Yeah, "no choice."

I'm proud of my governor (Maine) stating publicly and enacting provisions to protect women from "any county" and "any state" if they come to Maine seeking treatment or an abortion. For now, women can still govern their own health and bodies in Maine. Not so much in several other states.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Those are so rare when considering the majority of abortions. The proponents of abortion always use these events, which have always, even prior to RVW been available. Perhaps this resource will be helpful.

https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortionWho cares how "rare" it is? Is that really your answer?

What isn't "rare" is how many pregnancies will have no effect on male bodies. The answer to that one is.... billions.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

You should care!! If you're going to be an advocate for killing 15 week old fetuses, you should know what you are supporting. I gifted you a NYT article of young female pro life advocates. I didn't expect you would read.

[TSherbs]

When the female said the male had no place in the decision, you didn't respond.

That would be TFarnon.

My purpose here is to advocate for reproductive and abortion choice for all women for any reason with no stipulations or regulations up to (at least) 20 weeks of gestation. I have said this repeatedly. Any one who posts things generally in support of my position or pointing in that direction generally dont get comment from me beyond a "well put" or something like that or a "like". Any one who posts to the contrary gets more comment from me. That's kind of the way it works.

And again, as I said before, no one is yet willing to address the issues brought up of the dangers and burdens of pregnancies that are direct threats to the livelihood and welfare and life of women. There is a thousands of years old reason women want the full and final say over their pregnancies. To ignore this is to be a misogynist. To place more value on a pea-sized embryo (at 6 weeks) in her womb than on her own choice for her body and its future and her mental health is to practice a kind of misogyny that women know and recognize all too well. They have long been seen and expected to conform to the idea of being primarily and exclusively the vessel of male seed and then of their children. It is patriarchal primacy in its clearest shape.

So, how can we find a way in law to compromise and find balance and not ignore the need to grant women independent equal to their male counterparts?



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

When the female said the male had no place in the decision, you didn't respond.

That would be TFarnon.

My purpose here is to advocate for reproductive and abortion choice for all women for any reason with no stipulations or regulations up to (at least) 20 weeks of gestation. I have said this repeatedly. Any one who posts things generally in support of my position or pointing in that direction generally dont get comment from me beyond a "well put" or something like that or a "like". Any one who posts to the contrary gets more comment from me. That's kind of the way it works.

And again, as I said before, no one is yet willing to address the issues brought up of the dangers and burdens of pregnancies that are direct threats to the livelihood and welfare and life of women. There is a thousands of years old reason women want the full and final say over their pregnancies. To ignore this is to be a misogynist. To place more value on a pea-sized embryo (at 6 weeks) in her womb than on her own choice for her body and it's future and her mental health is to practice a kind of misogyny that women know and recognize all to well. They have long been seen and expected to confirm to the idea of being primarily and exclusively the vessel of male seed and then of their children. It is patriarchal primacy in it's clearest shape.

So, how can we find a way in law to compromise and find balance and not ignore the need to grant women independent equal to their male counterparts?

The way is to provide free contraception as I've been saying for some time.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

We now know each others purpose, and they differ. I wish that you had been so honest prior to posting, Ted.

The compromise is free contraception. In the case of incest and rape, castrate the SOB using DNA. In the case of mother's health, do all you can, but preserve the mother. It is what she would want.

[TSherbs]

When the female said the male had no place in the decision, you didn't respond.

That would be TFarnon.

My purpose here is to advocate for reproductive and abortion choice for all women for any reason with no stipulations or regulations up to (at least) 20 weeks of gestation. I have said this repeatedly. Any one who posts things generally in support of my position or pointing in that direction generally dont get comment from me beyond a "well put" or something like that or a "like". Any one who posts to the contrary gets more comment from me. That's kind of the way it works.

And again, as I said before, no one is yet willing to address the issues brought up of the dangers and burdens of pregnancies that are direct threats to the livelihood and welfare and life of women. There is a thousands of years old reason women want the full and final say over their pregnancies. To ignore this is to be a misogynist. To place more value on a pea-sized embryo (at 6 weeks) in her womb than on her own choice for her body and it's future and her mental health is to practice a kind of misogyny that women know and recognize all to well. They have long been seen and expected to confirm to the idea of being primarily and exclusively the vessel of male seed and then of their children. It is patriarchal primacy in it's clearest shape.

So, how can we find a way in law to compromise and find balance and not ignore the need to grant women independent equal to their male counterparts?



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

We now know each others purpose, and they differ. I wish that you had been so honest prior to posting, Ted.Whaaaat?

I have said the SAME THING about 5 times here and in other threads. I don't think you're paying attention.

Don't question my "honesty" on this topic, Chuck. That is the wrong route to take. I will not be "civil" if you persist with that kind of character remark.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

When the female said the male had no place in the decision, you didn't respond.

That would be TFarnon.

My purpose here is to advocate for reproductive and abortion choice for all women for any reason with no stipulations or regulations up to (at least) 20 weeks of gestation. I have said this repeatedly. Any one who posts things generally in support of my position or pointing in that direction generally dont get comment from me beyond a "well put" or something like that or a "like". Any one who posts to the contrary gets more comment from me. That's kind of the way it works.

And again, as I said before, no one is yet willing to address the issues brought up of the dangers and burdens of pregnancies that are direct threats to the livelihood and welfare and life of women. There is a thousands of years old reason women want the full and final say over their pregnancies. To ignore this is to be a misogynist. To place more value on a pea-sized embryo (at 6 weeks) in her womb than on her own choice for her body and it's future and her mental health is to practice a kind of misogyny that women know and recognize all to well. They have long been seen and expected to confirm to the idea of being primarily and exclusively the vessel of male seed and then of their children. It is patriarchal primacy in it's clearest shape.

So, how can we find a way in law to compromise and find balance and not ignore the need to grant women independent equal to their male counterparts?



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

We now know each others purpose, and they differ. I wish that you had been so honest prior to posting, Ted.Whaaaat?

I have said the SAME THING about 5 times here and in other threads. I don't think you're paying attention.

Don't question my "honesty" on this topic, Chuck. That is the wrong route to take. I will not be "civil" if you persist with that kind of character remark.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Oh no, a threat. I read your posts and respond to what you wrote, and now I am being dishonest. Go ahead and drop one of your famous "f bombs". I can take it.

[Lloyd]

When the female said the male had no place in the decision, you didn't respond.

That would be TFarnon.

My purpose here is to advocate for reproductive and abortion choice for all women for any reason with no stipulations or regulations up to (at least) 20 weeks of gestation. I have said this repeatedly. Any one who posts things generally in support of my position or pointing in that direction generally dont get comment from me beyond a "well put" or something like that or a "like". Any one who posts to the contrary gets more comment from me. That's kind of the way it works.

And again, as I said before, no one is yet willing to address the issues brought up of the dangers and burdens of pregnancies that are direct threats to the livelihood and welfare and life of women. There is a thousands of years old reason women want the full and final say over their pregnancies. To ignore this is to be a misogynist. To place more value on a pea-sized embryo (at 6 weeks) in her womb than on her own choice for her body and it's future and her mental health is to practice a kind of misogyny that women know and recognize all to well. They have long been seen and expected to confirm to the idea of being primarily and exclusively the vessel of male seed and then of their children. It is patriarchal primacy in it's clearest shape.

So, how can we find a way in law to compromise and find balance and not ignore the need to grant women independent equal to their male counterparts?

The way is to provide free contraception as I've been saying for some time.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

We now know each others purpose, and they differ. I wish that you had been so honest prior to posting, Ted.

The compromise is free contraception. In the case of incest and rape, castrate the SOB using DNA. In the case of mother's health, do all you can, but preserve the mother. It is what she would want.
Give the pregnant woman free contraception? Castrate the man after he's impregnated the woman? I think the laws of time/space imply that these approaches won't help the situation.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

I think the mother, not just any woman, should decide. I don't think the father should have any more say than to discuss the situation with his partner.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

When the female said the male had no place in the decision, you didn't respond.

That would be TFarnon.

My purpose here is to advocate for reproductive and abortion choice for all women for any reason with no stipulations or regulations up to (at least) 20 weeks of gestation. I have said this repeatedly. Any one who posts things generally in support of my position or pointing in that direction generally dont get comment from me beyond a "well put" or something like that or a "like". Any one who posts to the contrary gets more comment from me. That's kind of the way it works.

And again, as I said before, no one is yet willing to address the issues brought up of the dangers and burdens of pregnancies that are direct threats to the livelihood and welfare and life of women. There is a thousands of years old reason women want the full and final say over their pregnancies. To ignore this is to be a misogynist. To place more value on a pea-sized embryo (at 6 weeks) in her womb than on her own choice for her body and it's future and her mental health is to practice a kind of misogyny that women know and recognize all to well. They have long been seen and expected to confirm to the idea of being primarily and exclusively the vessel of male seed and then of their children. It is patriarchal primacy in it's clearest shape.

So, how can we find a way in law to compromise and find balance and not ignore the need to grant women independent equal to their male counterparts?



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

We now know each others purpose, and they differ. I wish that you had been so honest prior to posting, Ted.Whaaaat?

I have said the SAME THING about 5 times here and in other threads. I don't think you're paying attention.

Don't question my "honesty" on this topic, Chuck. That is the wrong route to take. I will not be "civil" if you persist with that kind of character remark.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Oh no, a threat. I read your posts and respond to what you wrote, and now I am being dishonest. Go ahead and drop one of your famous "f bombs". I can take it.I didn't call you "dishonest"! What could you be possibly talking about???

I have REPEATEDLY said what my position is here (elective abortion up to 20 weeks).

How have you overlooked this, leading you to suggest that I should have been more "honest" and said so earlier?

I even stated my position, and then asked for yours more than once before you answered directly (that you didn't know).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I think the mother, not just any woman, should decide. I don't think the father should have any more say than to discuss the situation with his partner.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]agreed

but she doesn't even have to tell him if she doesn't want

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

I think the mother, not just any woman, should decide. I don't think the father should have any more say than to discuss the situation with his partner.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]agreed

but she doesn't even have to tell him if she doesn't want

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Have to? It would be case dependent for me. For me, she should have to at his request but only if her own self-chosen social-support is present.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I think the mother, not just any woman, should decide. I don't think the father should have any more say than to discuss the situation with his partner.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]agreed

but she doesn't even have to tell him if she doesn't want

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Have to? It would be case dependent for me. For me, she should have to at his request but only if her own self-chosen social-support is present.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I am talking law/legal requirement for abortion. I am saying that I support abortion on demand; the pregnant woman need not speak to anyone but a doctor.

How couples (or simply the biological parents) actually conduct themselves prior to the procedure is up to them and can proceed in many different ways.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

I think the mother, not just any woman, should decide. I don't think the father should have any more say than to discuss the situation with his partner.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]agreed

but she doesn't even have to tell him if she doesn't want

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Have to? It would be case dependent for me. For me, she should have to at his request but only if her own self-chosen social-support is present.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I am talking law/legal requirement for abortion. I am saying that I support abortion on demand; the pregnant woman need not speak to anyone but a doctor.

How couples (or simply the biological parents) actually conduct themselves prior to the procedure is up to them and can proceed in many different ways.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
I don't fully agree. As an example, of the woman gets overly depressed and a "good" partner doesn't want her to act too impulsively and do something she'd regret, he should have the right to try to support her as long as she has an added support mechanism in his presence.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I think the mother, not just any woman, should decide. I don't think the father should have any more say than to discuss the situation with his partner.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]agreed

but she doesn't even have to tell him if she doesn't want

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Have to? It would be case dependent for me. For me, she should have to at his request but only if her own self-chosen social-support is present.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I am talking law/legal requirement for abortion. I am saying that I support abortion on demand; the pregnant woman need not speak to anyone but a doctor.

How couples (or simply the biological parents) actually conduct themselves prior to the procedure is up to them and can proceed in many different ways.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
I don't fully agree. As an example, of the woman gets overly depressed and a "good" partner doesn't want her to act too impulsively and do something she'd regret, he should have the right to try to support her as long as she has an added support mechanism in his presence.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean that a woman seeking an abortion legally should need the permission of the male who impregnated her?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

Saying men have no voice/choice in the matter is like saying:

You can speak against slavery unless you are a slave
For feminism unless you are female
Against lock downs unless you business is locked down
Against Putin unless you are Ukrainian

I get it. There are a lot of terrible scenarios. But we are talking about a life that is being destroyed.

I also understand the attempt to dehumanize the unborn to continue in your moral facade.

[Chuck Naill]

We agree Bold.

[TSherbs]

Saying men have no voice/choice in the matter is like saying:

You can speak against slavery unless you are a slave...

You have the audacity to state this regarding the burden of pregnancy to women?

Some of you men are astounding.

[Bold2013]

Saying men have no voice/choice in the matter is like saying:

You can speak against slavery unless you are a slave...

You have the audacity to state this regarding the burden of pregnancy to women?

SJW clutching their pearls

Some of you men are astounding.

SJW clutching their pearls

[Chuck Naill]

Maybe that’s the difference, “the burden of pregnancy “. Not all females share that opinion.
Some do. It is probably good they don’t become mothers.

Children are a blessing, but not for everyone, of course.

Too much argument from extremely dominates these discussions.

I’d rather spend time raising children than dogs, but this isn’t a universal preference.

[TSherbs]

Saying men have no voice/choice in the matter is like saying:

You can speak against slavery unless you are a slave...

You have the audacity to state this regarding the burden of pregnancy to women?

SJW clutching their pearls

Some of you men are astounding.

SJW clutching their pearls

why did you change my post

[TSherbs]

I’d rather spend time raising children than dogs, but this isn’t a universal preference.

You can't give birth to either species.

[Bold2013]

Saying men have no voice/choice in the matter is like saying:

You can speak against slavery unless you are a slave...

You have the audacity to state this regarding the burden of pregnancy to women?

SJW clutching their pearls

Some of you men are astounding.

SJW clutching their pearls

why did you change my post

Sorry it was an accident. I didn’t realize till afterwards.

[Lloyd]

I think the mother, not just any woman, should decide. I don't think the father should have any more say than to discuss the situation with his partner.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]agreed

but she doesn't even have to tell him if she doesn't want

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Have to? It would be case dependent for me. For me, she should have to at his request but only if her own self-chosen social-support is present.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I am talking law/legal requirement for abortion. I am saying that I support abortion on demand; the pregnant woman need not speak to anyone but a doctor.

How couples (or simply the biological parents) actually conduct themselves prior to the procedure is up to them and can proceed in many different ways.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
I don't fully agree. As an example, of the woman gets overly depressed and a "good" partner doesn't want her to act too impulsively and do something she'd regret, he should have the right to try to support her as long as she has an added support mechanism in his presence.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean that a woman seeking an abortion legally should need the permission of the male who impregnated her?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Not the permission. The father should get the ability to sway her decision to ensure she's not acting impulsively (e.g. out of depression, fear, scorn, etc.). She should have a social/legal group with her to ensure he doesn't force her to do anything. This is my opinion, but WTF do I know... I'm a guy who's never been involved in such matters.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I’d rather spend time raising children than dogs, but this isn’t a universal preference.

You can't give birth to either species.

That's your problem, not mine. I've never shot an AR-15, taken heroin, or been a black man in a minor traffic violation either.

Maybe only those who voted for Trump can critique.

[TSherbs]

I’d rather spend time raising children than dogs, but this isn’t a universal preference.

You can't give birth to either species.

That's your problem, not mine.

It's not my "problem," it's my point.

You keep dismissing the burden and dangers of pregnancy, especially unwanted or involuntary pregnancies, on women.

You also reply "I don't know" when I ask you to pick a gestation time after which *you* would prefer to no longer permit abortion as a legal option.

You are of course free to have any opinion you want.

My opinion is that you serve the controlling powers of patriarchy every time you refuse to acknowledge that pregnancy burdens and endangers women exponentially more than it threatens men. I have no idea why any man would not have the graciousness (and facts) to acknowledge this as a starting point.







Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TFarnon]

That's your problem, not mine. I've never shot an AR-15, taken heroin, or been a black man in a minor traffic violation either.

See, again. I am not the woman anyone assumes me to be. I have never shot an AR-15. I shot its parent product, the M-16. I've carried it in military service, in a war zone, forward of our front lines. I haven't taken heroin, but I'm not inclined to expand my experience with opiates given my propensity to projectile vomit when given any of them. I haven't been a black man in a minor traffic violation. I've been a poor-looking woman driving a beater in a poor section of town, pulled over for no reason other than Driving While (appearing to be) Poor. If I'd been driving on the freeway with all the other affluent idiots inching along in gridlock, I would never have been stopped. It's faster and shorter to take surface streets here.

But back to abortion. The anti-abortion voices here seem to assume that contraception is inexpensive, available, 100% reliable and free of risk. None of those things are true in the United States. The last true are untrue worldwide. Contraceptive methods fail on occasion in spite of the user's best efforts. That's why patients on Accutane are advised to always use two different forms of contraception, for example a hormonal method (e.g. the pill) and a barrier method (e.g. condoms). As for free of risk, hormonal methods in particular are not free of risk.

I was given high-dose Depo-Provera, then regular dose Depo-Provera not for contraceptive reasons (I'd had my tubes tied 20 years prior) but to stop my out-of-control anemia-causing menstruation. It definitely did the job. However, the risk of clotting increases with all hormonal contraceptives, and it increased spectacularly for me. I was in school for Medical Laboratory Science at the time, and two of the tests we performed on our own blood were the Clotting Time and Clot Retraction Time tests. The first is performed by using a lancet to make a small cut on the tender part of the arm, then using a timer and a round piece of filter paper to collect the drops of blood until the bleeding stops. My lab partner couldn't even get the paper to my arm for the first drop before the bleeding had stopped. That is abnormally quick. On to the Clot Retraction Time. It should take a minimum of 15 minutes for a hard clot to pull away from the walls of the test tube. People on various anticoagulants might not form such a hard clot for 24 hours. One of my classmates volunteered to take one baby aspirin daily for a week prior to performing the test so we could see the anticoagulant effect. I was happily taking 2 adult aspirin daily for joint pain at the time, so about six times the regular dose. My blood formed a hard clot in roughly 5 minutes, again indicating extremely rapid, strong clot formation. And that's with aspirin. My classmate's blood took roughly 24 hours to form a hard clot.

I was lucky. I never threw a clot. I suspect it's because Depo-Provera actually made me feel good, more energetic, and overall happier. I burned off my excess energy by walking for miles. I thought nothing of walking 5 to 7 miles a day. That's probably also what kept my bones from becoming thinner (osteopenia/osteoporosis), another risk of Depo-Provera. Weight-bearing activity can offset bone loss, and two of those miles every day were extra weight-bearing days as I traipsed to and from classes with my black hole of a book bag. Not all women respond the way I did to the medication, at least as far as feeling good and energetic. Many become acutely depressed and feel ill on it.

As for estrogen-containing birth control methods, they were a no-go for me because they made me intensely nauseous. It's important to take the medications on a tight schedule, and I did. My urge to vomit was also tightly timed. Just as I would start to gag, I realized that this urge always happened at 10 AM. I could set my watch by it.

An IUD isn't really an option for women with extremely heavy periods, even if they can otherwise deal with the pain/discomfort of insertion and removal.

Permanent sterilization is expensive, requires at least 24 hours of rest post-procedure (yeah, you can get up and do stuff, but you really don't want to), and is permanent. That's what I chose, and I've never regretted it. But it's not for everyone.

Barrier methods are subject to supply issues and have fairly high failure rates. They require meticulous attention to proper use. That's difficult when a properly filled diaphragm goes flying across the room as you try to insert it. Comical, yes. Potentially not reliable, also yes.

This all brings me back to my pro-choice position. I don't believe any man should have a say in the decision, at least not outside of a committed relationship. And even inside of a committed relationship, there will always be the question of coercion. Is the woman truly free to make such a decision? I'm not saying all men are coercive SOBs, but the question should always be at least briefly entertained. Coercion isn't always physically or overtly mentally abusive. I don't think that a fertilized ovum to fetus should be considered in any way more important than its host until such time it can at least theoretically survive (albeit with advanced medical intervention) outside of its host. A man will never bear any of the physical risks of pregnancy, which are not minor. No man will die as a result of ejaculation or the lack thereof.

I won't say that I oppose heroic measures to keep extremely premature infants alive. The parents may want to move forward with those measures. However, those measures don't always succeed. Sometimes those premature infants die anyways. And even with as little as I see of those heroic measures, I have to think that they might be incredibly painful. I may never have experienced "baby rabies", but when I see that those extremely premature infants weigh no more than a kitten, and having helped to treat ill kittens, I do have to mentally pause and wonder if the treatment is in any way humane for kitten or infant.

[Chip]

I've not weighed in because I hoped for more comment from women.

I was responsible for two abortions.

The first was an ectopic pregnancy, with the fertilized egg implanted in a Fallopian tube rather than the uterus. So it was a medical necessity.

The other was my live-in lover. We talked it over for a while. Her father had left her very young and her childhood and adolescence had been pretty excruciating. She spent a couple years in a foster home. Her mother (a rabid Christian psycho) tried to have her committed to a mental hospital, to maintain control. I testifed at a hearing to keep her free. Given her experience, the thought of having a child of her own terrified her. Having escaped a bad home situation, she wanted to finish college, find work, and do normal stuff: be independent.

We agreed on her course of action. I drove her to the clinic and back, and paid the bill. We stayed together for some time after.

I felt bad in both cases. The longterm effect was to make me really cautious about sex— I didn't want it to happen again.

[TFarnon]

Lives are also destroyed every time you use a worm to bait a hook, eat meat for dinner, pull a radish out of the ground, pull weeds, wash your hands, put bleach in your washing machine...At what point does life become so valuable that there is a taboo against ending it, and why? Granted, my first degree was in biology, but that doesn't make the question about life any less valid. Are only lives of cute things (cute megafauna as one writer put it) valuable? Are only lives of things that can't hurt us valuable? Are only multicellular things valuable? I have been known to somewhat facetiously tease people who only use natural sponges. Sponges are animals. There are vegetarians and vegans who nonetheless prefer natural sponges. Murderers! Invertebrate killers! You get the idea. But where do we draw the line, and why? I probably have a biological example for any criteria you choose to offer.

[TFarnon]

I don't know about men, and what they feel about any potential children they conceive. I just don't know because I'm not a man, now matter how much I might have wanted to be a man to enjoy the same freedoms men enjoy. As much as I have always wanted equal rights, I have also understood that I was born into an XX body, and there really wasn't any way around that for me. I identify as female, because I am female.

But I do know that I had (and have) absolutely no regrets about my abortion. I had my abortion, and then I went home and had a grilled cheese sandwich. It was the first food I'd been able to eat in a week because of the constant nausea and vomiting. Nothing has ever tasted as good as that sandwich.

As for the father of that 4.5 week old aborted fetus (counted from conception, not from last monthly period), he never knew about the pregnancy or the abortion. I didn't date him for very long, simply because he wasn't the right guy. Not bad, I suppose, but not the right guy. And I wasn't the right woman for him, either. My solution was to get my tubes tied. No regrets about that, either.

[Lloyd]

@TFarnow and @Chip: Thank you both for openly talking about such private matters in an effort to provide reasons why abortion isn't always unjust.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TFarnon]

See, I have to disagree a little bit with you. Nobody gets to declare me mentally incompetent because I live with clinical depression and PTSD. The vast majority of the time, I'm hopelessly realistic. That's one of the hallmarks of depression. "Normal, well-adjusted, optimistic" people are actually a bit deluded. The world isn't quite as nice as it looks through slightly rose-tinted glasses. The only time where I'd say I am unfit to make decisions is when I'm in the throes of a psychotic episode. And considering I know when those are going on, I defer making major decisions when the voices are clamoring and the teeth and claws are tearing at my flesh. At that point, I just concentrate on getting to the next hour and the next day.

Abortion isn't a decision you make over the course of an hour, anyways. Either you have already considered and thought things out (as I did), or you have the time to do so from your first appointment to the actual procedure. The only time where anyone would need to make a quick decision about abortion would be in circumstances like a rupturing ectopic pregnancy. Then, yeah, someone had better decide quickly.

[Lloyd]

@TFarnon- if you thought I was alluding to you being without sanity at any point, I apologize. I never meant anything I've written to be pointed at you.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

"An ectopic pregnancy can't proceed normally. The fertilized egg can't survive, and the growing tissue may cause life-threatening bleeding, if left untreated. "
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20372088

I was able to see this in the 1980's. Lots of blood loss. My daughter had an abrupted plancenta which is why the twins were born at 27 weeks.

This is not a condition that was ever illegal. People don't generally realize, but if abortion is legal or not, medical intervention has never been not provided within medical services.

[Chuck Naill]

I'll post here because I think it is germane to this topic.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-8-2022

[TSherbs]

It's no surprise to see that in the history of the conservative patriarchy of America that they have objected to the federal govt (whatever branch) granting explicit rights of independence and self-determination and freedom to people of color and to women. Both groups are the greatest threats to white patriarchy. "Originalism" is a dogwhistle for latent white supremacy.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Yeah, I’m thinking of the concept of being an originalist as irrational. Scalia was praised as one and I didn’t appreciate to concept at the time. I’m thinking it’s not a legal consideration as much as a “druther” preference.

[Chip]

Originalism is rank dishonesty. While claiming to "interpret" the wishes of the signers and founders, authoritarian judges present their own doctrines as somehow enshrined by history.

Given the premise that the Pope (and other religious leaders) claim to interpret the will of God, it's no coincidence that followers of such religions are tempted to do the same.

The facts are otherwise:

https://i.imgur.com/DwupbDB.jpg

[TSherbs]

Originalism is rank dishonesty.

Couldn't agree more. On several levels.





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

Mayflower Compact.

In ye name of God Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by ye Grace of God, of great Britaine, Franc, & Yreland, King, defender of ye Faith, &c.

Haveing undertaken, for ye Glorie of God, and advancements of ye Christian faith, and the honour of our King & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northern parts of Virginia; Doe by these presents, solemnly & mutualy, in ye presence of God, and one of another; covenant & combine ourselves together into a Civill body politick; for our better ordering, & preservation & furtherance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just & equal Lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for ye generall good of ye Colonie; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witnes wherof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cap-Codd ye 11 of November, in ye year of ye raigne of our soveraigne Lord King James, of England, France, & Yreland, ye eighteenth, and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth, Ano: Dom. 1620.

[Chip]

So- do we still accept the sovereignty of England?

Times have changed.

[Niner]

Is there anything now restricting a state from taking away all intentional terminations of pregnancy?
State constitutions?

[TSherbs]

Is there anything now restricting a state from taking away all intentional terminations of pregnancy?
State constitutions?Not many.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Mayflower Compact.

In ye name of God Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by ye Grace of God, of great Britaine, Franc, & Yreland, King, defender of ye Faith, &c.

Haveing undertaken, for ye Glorie of God, and advancements of ye Christian faith, and the honour of our King & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northern parts of Virginia; Doe by these presents, solemnly & mutualy, in ye presence of God, and one of another; covenant & combine ourselves together into a Civill body politick; for our better ordering, & preservation & furtherance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just & equal Lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for ye generall good of ye Colonie; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witnes wherof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cap-Codd ye 11 of November, in ye year of ye raigne of our soveraigne Lord King James, of England, France, & Yreland, ye eighteenth, and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth, Ano: Dom. 1620.This is a British religious document from 1620.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

It shows the Christian intent of the earliest colonists.

[TSherbs]

It shows the Christian intent of the earliest colonists.

Plunder of the property and resources already claimed by other people and their forms of government for millenia?

[Chuck Naill]

Manifest Destiny

[Lloyd]

It shows the Christian intent of the earliest colonists.
They also believed in witches. Do you?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

My forebears arrived in 1629, with their guns, germs, steel, and Christian madness.

Which led them to dissent from similar Christian madnesses then in power and leave their homes to cross an ocean and start thieving and killing.

They did what they did (alas!) and here am I.

While I can't repair their misdeeds, I can at least recognize and regret them.

[Chuck Naill]

You sound "woke".

Listening to Glenn Campbell's "Try a Little Kindness" and noticed the lyrics
If you see your brother standing by the road
With a heavy load from the seeds he sowed
And if you see your sister falling by the way
Just stop and say, "You're going the wrong way"

That could get you cancelled or shot today.

[dneal]

“Suffering people all have a horrible willingness and capacity for inventing pretexts for painful emotional feelings. They already enjoy their suspicions, their brooding over bad actions and apparent damage. They ransack the entrails of their past and present, looking for dark and dubious stories, in which they are free to feast on an agonizing suspicion and to get intoxicated on their own poisonous anger. They rip open the oldest wounds, they bleed themselves to death from long-healed scars. They turn friends, wives, children, and anyone else who is closest to them into criminals. “I am suffering. Someone or other must be to blame for that”—that how every sick sheep thinks.”

[Chip]

You sound "woke".

You sound really f*cking stupid, Bubba.

Is it so wrong to have a conscience and apply it to your own heritage?

[Chip]

“Suffering people all have a horrible willingness and capacity for inventing pretexts for painful emotional feelings. . .

What a contemptible, poisonous bunch of crap.

Naturally, your only feelings are those of superiority.

[dneal]

“Suffering people all have a horrible willingness and capacity for inventing pretexts for painful emotional feelings. . .

What a contemptible, poisonous bunch of crap.

Naturally, your only feelings are those of superiority.

Superiority? WTF are you even on about?

Sounds like an inferiority complex.

You seem like an angry person, Chip. You might get that checked out. Since you don't seem to care for Nietzsche, maybe you would prefer Buddha's thoughts on suffering. Alternatively, you could continue your self-fellation via self-flagellation if it makes you feel better about some history you were never a part of.

[Lloyd]

Instead of thinking like I know the psychology of anyone or that Nietzsche knew all about psychology, I prefer to think that there are many thousands of ancestors for every person who's on this planet since we've all descended from just a small amount of people many millennia ago. Given how people have acted in the past, and many continue to act today, I think it's highly likely that many of them did things that you would feel were heinous today. Perhaps some of our bad ancestors are closer to us in time than others, but they're all separate from us.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

“Suffering people all have a horrible willingness and capacity for inventing pretexts for painful emotional feelings. . .

What a contemptible, poisonous bunch of crap.

Naturally, your only feelings are those of superiority.

Superiority? WTF are you even on about?
.

He's identified, as several of us have, the bass note of 90% of your posts: "Look at me and my superior intellect and reading."

He's precisely identified in another of your posts what you already told us in one of your rants: that you scorn the people ("idiots," you called us) here (cf the "sheep" line above) and come to these back threads for the entertainment and "lalz" that your ego desires.

That's what he's "on about".





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Instead of thinking like I know the psychology of anyone or that Nietzsche knew all about psychology, I prefer to think that there are many thousands of ancestors for every person who's on this planet since we've all descended from just a small amount of people many millennia ago. Given how people have acted in the past, and many continue to act today, I think it's highly likely that many of them did things that you would feel were heinous today. Perhaps some of our bad ancestors are closer to us in time than others, but they're all separate from us.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Honestly, Lloyd, who gives a fuck what anyone else feels about their personal family history to the point that they would suggest that they ought to feel differently? Chip can feel whatever way he wants, and was certainly not asking for or inviting suggestions for change (or the offensive criticism from dneal).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Instead of thinking like I know the psychology of anyone or that Nietzsche knew all about psychology, I prefer to think that there are many thousands of ancestors for every person who's on this planet since we've all descended from just a small amount of people many millennia ago. Given how people have acted in the past, and many continue to act today, I think it's highly likely that many of them did things that you would feel were heinous today. Perhaps some of our bad ancestors are closer to us in time than others, but they're all separate from us.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Honestly, Lloyd, who gives a fuck what anyone else feels about their personal family history to the point that they would suggest that they ought to feel differently? Chip can feel whatever way he wants, and was certainly not asking for or inviting suggestions for change (or the offensive criticism from dneal).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Did you find my reply was offensive? If not, why are you lashing out at my generalized comment? If so, in what way is it offensive? I never said he has no right to feel however he feels, I only said that we all likely have bad (and good) ancestors.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Sorry, you slid into "you" and I took that to be a correction on both dneal and Chip (about how he felt about his family background).

My swearing is my casual parlance, not anger or anything (in this case). My mother started punishing me for it when I was eight. Didn't make a difference in the long run.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Brief swerve: In an American Indian History course at college, I partnered with a Shoshoni woman to research a massacre that took place nearby, on the Bear River in Idaho. We collected the official reports, oral history from witnesses on both sides, and then visited the site to establish a context. The big revelation was that the army commander's account of the "battle" didn't make any sense on the ground: he lied about everything. Patrick Connor commanded the troop of California Volunteers, who were diverted from the Civil War to keep an eye on the fractious Mormons in Utah (which they hated). In California, they had taken part in wholesale extermination of tribal people, to grab their land.

On January 29, 1863, the troops surrounded a camp of Shoshoni and Bannock familes in a bend of the Bear River and fired from the high banks down into the village. Some then waded the river, as the survivors fled up the opposite slope, to finish the job, killing the wounded, elderly, and lost children.

My research partner, Patti Timbimboo, was descended from those survivors. As we worked, I recalled a story about my great grandmother as a young girl, caring for the frostbitten feet of soldiers at the family farm. I'd never realized that those troops were California Volunteers who'd just perpetrated the massacre. I told Patti: it hit us both hard.

[Lloyd]

Texas woman argues unborn baby counts as passenger after fine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62124366

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Texas woman argues unborn baby counts as passenger after fine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62124366

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

The officer’s response was quick and hilarious.

[TSherbs]

Brief swerve: In an American Indian History course at college, I partnered with a Shoshoni woman to research a massacre that took place nearby, on the Bear River in Idaho. We collected the official reports, oral history from witnesses on both sides, and then visited the site to establish a context. The big revelation was that the army commander's account of the "battle" didn't make any sense on the ground: he lied about everything. Patrick Connor commanded the troop of California Volunteers, who were diverted from the Civil War to keep an eye on the fractious Mormons in Utah (which they hated). In California, they had taken part in wholesale extermination of tribal people, to grab their land.

On January 29, 1863, the troops surrounded a camp of Shoshoni and Bannock familes in a bend of the Bear River and fired from the high banks down into the village. Some then waded the river, as the survivors fled up the opposite slope, to finish the job, killing the wounded, elderly, and lost children.

My research partner, Patti Timbimboo, was descended from those survivors. As we worked, I recalled a story about my great grandmother as a young girl, caring for the frostbitten feet of soldiers at the family farm. I'd never realized that those troops were California Volunteers who'd just perpetrated the massacre. I told Patti: it hit us both hard.

wow, crazy connection

[dneal]

“Suffering people all have a horrible willingness and capacity for inventing pretexts for painful emotional feelings. . .

What a contemptible, poisonous bunch of crap.

Naturally, your only feelings are those of superiority.

Superiority? WTF are you even on about?
.

He's identified, as several of us have, the bass note of 90% of your posts: "Look at me and my superior intellect and reading."

He's precisely identified in another of your posts what you already told us in one of your rants: that you scorn the people ("idiots," you called us) here (cf the "sheep" line above) and come to these back threads for the entertainment and "lalz" that your ego desires.

That's what he's "on about".


Seriously? Is having an expectation that adults with presumably a baccalaureate level of education or life experience can converse at a commensurate level is "look at me and my superior intellect"?

FFS, look at the "critique" of originalism a page earlier. In what universe would that be accepted as demonstrating basic understanding of the concept? Would you accept that as an answer if you were teaching a course on it?

A quote from Nietzsche relevant to the ridiculousness of bemoaning or attributing some twisted original sin to something that happened 400 years ago is a rant or an insult?

If yes, then "idiots" is applicable, but that's hardly my fault.

If you want better, do better.

[TSherbs]

“Suffering people all have a horrible willingness and capacity for inventing pretexts for painful emotional feelings. . .

What a contemptible, poisonous bunch of crap.

Naturally, your only feelings are those of superiority.

Superiority? WTF are you even on about?
.

He's identified, as several of us have, the bass note of 90% of your posts: "Look at me and my superior intellect and reading."

He's precisely identified in another of your posts what you already told us in one of your rants: that you scorn the people ("idiots," you called us) here (cf the "sheep" line above) and come to these back threads for the entertainment and "lalz" that your ego desires.

That's what he's "on about".


Seriously? Is having an expectation that adults with presumably a baccalaureate level of education or life experience can converse at a commensurate level is "look at me and my superior intellect"?

FFS, look at the "critique" of originalism a page earlier. In what universe would that be accepted as demonstrating basic understanding of the concept? Would you accept that as an answer if you were teaching a course on it?

A quote from Nietzsche relevant to the ridiculousness of bemoaning or attributing some twisted original sin to something that happened 400 years ago is a rant or an insult?

If yes, then "idiots" is applicable, but that's hardly my fault.

If you want better, do better.Still haven't looked in your own mirror, I see



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

“Suffering people all have a horrible willingness and capacity for inventing pretexts for painful emotional feelings. . .

What a contemptible, poisonous bunch of crap.

Naturally, your only feelings are those of superiority.

Superiority? WTF are you even on about?
.

He's identified, as several of us have, the bass note of 90% of your posts: "Look at me and my superior intellect and reading."

He's precisely identified in another of your posts what you already told us in one of your rants: that you scorn the people ("idiots," you called us) here (cf the "sheep" line above) and come to these back threads for the entertainment and "lalz" that your ego desires.

That's what he's "on about".


Seriously? Is having an expectation that adults with presumably a baccalaureate level of education or life experience can converse at a commensurate level is "look at me and my superior intellect"?

FFS, look at the "critique" of originalism a page earlier. In what universe would that be accepted as demonstrating basic understanding of the concept? Would you accept that as an answer if you were teaching a course on it?

A quote from Nietzsche relevant to the ridiculousness of bemoaning or attributing some twisted original sin to something that happened 400 years ago is a rant or an insult?

If yes, then "idiots" is applicable, but that's hardly my fault.

If you want better, do better.Still haven't looked in your own mirror, I see



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Consider your response. Simply typical, banal dismissal. A throw-away remark that ignores the substance of the issue.

Revisit the "Definition of Christian" thread, which is pre-political insanity, and contrast Jar's and others' comments with your own.

I'm not the one that needs to look in a mirror.

[TSherbs]

I'm not the one that needs to look in a mirror.

Yes you are, if only beause it is one of your favorite requests of others. Part of your superiority complex, similar to how you frequently state that you'll behave better only if others behave better first. It's an abusive dynamic to suggest to others that you will only treat them well once their behavior conforms to a norm that you set. You've called, in general terms, the members here "idiots" whom you disrespect and treat with manipulative disdain (you've told us that you enjoy provoking members for "lalz" and you have threatened members with even greater ire that you are capable of). Then you suggest to us that you'll treat us better *if* we play nice to you first.

Fuck you. That's sick.

Like I said, every time I see that you post shit here I am going to call you out.

[TSherbs]

Texas woman argues unborn baby counts as passenger after fine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62124366

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

This is the kind of thing, and many more besides, that defining legal personhood with some rights as begining at conception will produce. There will be many more (I predict) of a more serious nature that will produce a legal quagmire for the courts (I assume that individuals will begin to seek new forms of legal remedy having to do with their relationship to this legally recognized "person" in a woman's womb or frozen in a nitrogen tank).

[dneal]

I'm not the one that needs to look in a mirror.

Yes you are, if only beause it is one of your favorite requests of others. Part of your superiority complex, similar to how you frequently state that you'll behave better only if others behave better first. It's an abusive dynamic to suggest to others that you will only treat them well once their behavior conforms to a norm that you set. You've called, in general terms, the members here "idiots" whom you disrespect and treat with manipulative disdain (you've told us that you enjoy provoking members for "lalz" and you have threatened members with even greater ire that you are capable of). Then you suggest to us that you'll treat us better *if* we play nice to you first.

Fuck you. That's sick.

Like I said, every time I see that you post shit here I am going to call you out.

This is the problem. Judgmentalism. Pronunciation of a verdict, followed by a "fuck you". No substantiation, just a straw man assertion, verdict, and expletive.

I disagree with drag queens interacting with children, for example, for many reasons, introducing unnecessary confusion being one. Were I to exhibit the judgmental behavior we frequently see from you and others, I would simply post something like "they're a bunch of fucking delusional pedophiles grooming kids. harrumph!".

That doesn't foster any sort of conversation. That abdicates reason and rationality in favor of base emotional satisfaction.

If pointing that out makes you or anyone else feel "inferior" or "idiotic", that is perhaps a result of calling out the inane comments made and the reality of their shortcomings brought to light.

Again, if you want better - do better.

[TSherbs]

I'm not the one that needs to look in a mirror.

Yes you are, if only beause it is one of your favorite requests of others. Part of your superiority complex, similar to how you frequently state that you'll behave better only if others behave better first. It's an abusive dynamic to suggest to others that you will only treat them well once their behavior conforms to a norm that you set. You've called, in general terms, the members here "idiots" whom you disrespect and treat with manipulative disdain (you've told us that you enjoy provoking members for "lalz" and you have threatened members with even greater ire that you are capable of). Then you suggest to us that you'll treat us better *if* we play nice to you first.

This is the problem. Judgmentalism. Pronunciation of a verdict, followed by a "fuck you". No substantiation, just a straw man assertion, verdict, and expletive.

I laid it out in black and white, very plain terms. I even use some quotes of your language. You're free to contradict anything I say about your past posts. You've trumpeted your honesty here, too.

[dneal]

No, you didn't use quotes of some of my language. Cite the posts and the context. It's easy. Just click the number in the top right of the post and you have a link to it in your browser's address bar. If you're going to make the assertion, then back it up with evidence.

My honesty, which you misrepresent, is simply that if you and others refuse to engage in nothing but rhetoric and virtiol then I will find a way to entertain myself in that environment - even when it's just a matter of poking and ridiculing the nonsense. Why do you suppose that I don't have these sort of exchanges with Mhosea? With ethernautrix? With Ray-Vigo? Because they don't post nonsensical bullshit, or resort to it.

[TSherbs]

No, you didn't use quotes of some of my language. Cite the posts and the context. It's easy. Just click the number in the top right of the post and you have a link to it in your browser's address bar. If you're going to make the assertion, then back it up with evidence.

My honesty, which you misrepresent, is simply that if you and others refuse to engage in nothing but rhetoric and virtiol then I will find a way to entertain myself in that environment - even when it's just a matter of poking and ridiculing the nonsense. Why do you suppose that I don't have these sort of exchanges with Mhosea? With ethernautrix? With Ray-Vigo? Because they don't post nonsensical bullshit, or resort to it.Nice dodge, Mr. Honesty.

I used a quote of exactly how you spelled "lalz." I quoted your term "idiots" exactly how you used it. I'm not going to do a research paper on your obnoxiousness. I'm not out to prove anything or win any argument. I just want to hold up that mirror (that you extoll so often) to your dickishness . Do I need to cut and paste your references to others needing to look in a "mirror", mirror man? Or the number of times you've replied to someone with the dismissive "projection"?





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

No, you didn't use quotes of some of my language. Cite the posts and the context. It's easy. Just click the number in the top right of the post and you have a link to it in your browser's address bar. If you're going to make the assertion, then back it up with evidence.

My honesty, which you misrepresent, is simply that if you and others refuse to engage in nothing but rhetoric and virtiol then I will find a way to entertain myself in that environment - even when it's just a matter of poking and ridiculing the nonsense. Why do you suppose that I don't have these sort of exchanges with Mhosea? With ethernautrix? With Ray-Vigo? Because they don't post nonsensical bullshit, or resort to it.Nice dodge, Mr. Honesty.

I used a quote of exactly how you spelled "lalz." I quoted your term "idiots" exactly how you used it. I'm not going to do a research paper on your obnoxiousness. I'm not out to prove anything or win any argument. I just want to hold up that mirror (that you extoll so often) to your dickishness . Do I need to cut and paste your references to others needing to look in a "mirror", mirror man? Or the number of times you've replied to someone with the dismissive "projection"?





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

You didn't quote me exactly, because I specifically never spelled it with an "a". I spell it with a "u". Search function confirms I've never used "lalz".

You're not "going to do a research paper" because like the "lalz" example, you're a lazy, emotional poster. You make your unsubsubstantiated assertions, throw in a "fuck you" or two; and then declare you're not going to have a conversation (not that you were to begin with). You've done this for years.

Fine. I wish it were different, but it's not. So I'll post as I like - to include for the lulz - as I see fit. No denial, misrepresentations, or mirrors needed on my end. I'm well aware of what I post and why. You? Not so much apparently.

[TSherbs]

... No denial, misrepresentations, or mirrors needed on my end.

We'll see.





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Good grief, Ted. Is this really how you want to spend your retirement? He was wrong on Trump and the pandemic. Follow your advice to me and ignore. He is a troll.

[Lloyd]

I don't think that he's a troll. I just think he's is an opposing, confident, competent member with very different values than most that are on the left. If you disassociate from your emotions and re-read his more recent posts, I think you might agree (or not)...

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Think of him as you please. I am not out to convince you otherwise. My opinion is just mine, and I ask no one to agree.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Isn't the tendency to disassociate from emotion a primary characteristic of a psychopath?

If one lacks an emotional response to what is said, why argue?

[Lloyd]

Isn't the tendency to disassociate from emotion a primary characteristic of a psychopath?

If one lacks an emotional response to what is said, why argue?
I never said to have the tendency to disassociate from emotion. However, being blinded by emotions to the point of ignoring reason can lead to many, possibly most, horrible acts which are often chalked up to psychotic behavior.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Isn't the tendency to disassociate from emotion a primary characteristic of a psychopath?

If one lacks an emotional response to what is said, why argue?
I never said to have the tendency to disassociate from emotion. However, being blinded by emotions to the point of ignoring reason can lead to many, possibly most, horrible acts which are often chalked up to psychotic behavior.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I've said this before, here. You can't say outrageous things and then criticize the outrage they produce. We call that trolling (or hypocrisy).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Good grief, Ted. Is this really how you want to spend your retirement?

Have no fear about that, Chuck. In the next few months I'm going to be a grandfather!

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Good grief, Ted. Is this really how you want to spend your retirement?

Have no fear about that, Chuck. In the next few months I'm going to be a grandfather!

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

That is wonderful. Congratulations, Ted.

[TSherbs]

I never said to have the tendency to disassociate from emotion. However, being blinded by emotions to the point of ignoring reason can lead to many, possibly most, horrible acts which are often chalked up to psychotic behavior.

emotion and reason are not separate things; this is a false dichotomy

(even this sentence I just wrote, balanced on a semicolon, has rational, emotional, ironic, and aesthetic characteristics to it)

[dneal]

I never said to have the tendency to disassociate from emotion. However, being blinded by emotions to the point of ignoring reason can lead to many, possibly most, horrible acts which are often chalked up to psychotic behavior.

emotion and reason are not separate things; this is a false dichotomy

(even this sentence I just wrote, balanced on a semicolon, has rational, emotional, ironic, and aesthetic characteristics to it)

Especially the ironic, on several levels. Rational? Not so much.

[Chuck Naill]

I never said to have the tendency to disassociate from emotion. However, being blinded by emotions to the point of ignoring reason can lead to many, possibly most, horrible acts which are often chalked up to psychotic behavior.

emotion and reason are not separate things; this is a false dichotomy

(even this sentence I just wrote, balanced on a semicolon, has rational, emotional, ironic, and aesthetic characteristics to it)

If reason and emotion are not separate, the same could be said for education and indoctrination. I think it’s true.

I know you respect the Supreme Court judge’s education. They have also been indoctrinated.

[TSherbs]

I never said to have the tendency to disassociate from emotion. However, being blinded by emotions to the point of ignoring reason can lead to many, possibly most, horrible acts which are often chalked up to psychotic behavior.

emotion and reason are not separate things; this is a false dichotomy

(even this sentence I just wrote, balanced on a semicolon, has rational, emotional, ironic, and aesthetic characteristics to it)

If reason and emotion are not separate, the same could be said for education and indoctrination.

Of course education and indoctrination overlap to a degree. I am not saying that they are *equivalent.* I am stating that they are not *separate.*

[TSherbs]

I never said to have the tendency to disassociate from emotion. However, being blinded by emotions to the point of ignoring reason can lead to many, possibly most, horrible acts which are often chalked up to psychotic behavior.

emotion and reason are not separate things; this is a false dichotomy

(even this sentence I just wrote, balanced on a semicolon, has rational, emotional, ironic, and aesthetic characteristics to it)

If reason and emotion are not separate, the same could be said for education and indoctrination.

Of course education and indoctrination overlap to a degree. I am not saying that they are *equivalent.* I am stating that they are not *separate.*

Another way to think of it is the ancient Chinese understanding of yinyang.

These attempts to devalue or dismiss "emotion" as invalid are misguided and misinformed. It's almost always someone's attempt to dismiss an area of discussion that one is not comfortable with, not interested in, or not able to be persuasive about. And it is usually (not always) a male making the dismissive remark.

[dneal]

I never said to have the tendency to disassociate from emotion. However, being blinded by emotions to the point of ignoring reason can lead to many, possibly most, horrible acts which are often chalked up to psychotic behavior.

emotion and reason are not separate things; this is a false dichotomy

(even this sentence I just wrote, balanced on a semicolon, has rational, emotional, ironic, and aesthetic characteristics to it)

If reason and emotion are not separate, the same could be said for education and indoctrination.

Of course education and indoctrination overlap to a degree. I am not saying that they are *equivalent.* I am stating that they are not *separate.*

Another way to think of it is the ancient Chinese understanding of yinyang.

These attempts to devalue or dismiss "emotion" as invalid are misguided and misinformed. It's almost always someone's attempt to dismiss an area of discussion that one is not comfortable with, not interested in, or not able to be persuasive about. And it is usually (not always) a male making the dismissive remark.

Reason - the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways.

Emotion - a conscious mental reaction (such as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body.

They clearly are distinct things, by simple definition. They have been pondered by philosophers, and described by Plato as two horses pulling in opposite directions. Marcus Aurelius' Meditations are about the relationship between them. Psychologists study them and their relationship to each other, and treat emotional problems with reason (see: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). The best literature sets up the tension and conflict between reason and emotion. The legal system recognizes it, with "crimes of passion", for instance. An "argument from emotion" is a type of logical fallacy. By virtue of calling it a dichotomy earlier, you recognize their distinction.

[Lloyd]

I never meant to imply one should be unemotional only that one shouldn't allow emotion to influence one's reason.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

I never meant to imply one should be unemotional only that one shouldn't allow emotion to influence one's reason.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You were clear. It's just easier for some folks to disregard what's communicated and argue against a nonsensical construct of their own invention for presumably disingenuous reasons. See also: strawman.

[TSherbs]

I never meant to imply one should be unemotional only that one shouldn't allow emotion to influence one's reason.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I knew exactly what you meant. My point is that "no influence" is not possible since it is based on a false dichotomy.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

I never meant to imply one should be unemotional only that one shouldn't allow emotion to influence one's reason.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I knew exactly what you meant. My point is that "no influence" is not possible since it is based on a false dichotomy.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
If you allow emotions to taint your perceptions, you can't accurately see where fact transitions into fiction.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I never meant to imply one should be unemotional only that one shouldn't allow emotion to influence one's reason.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I knew exactly what you meant. My point is that "no influence" is not possible since it is based on a false dichotomy.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
If you allow emotions to taint your perceptions, you can't accurately see where fact transitions into fiction.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

"taint" perceptions? Isn't "taint" a loaded (negative) word? Isn't your sentence even "tainted" with a bias against the effects of emotion?

People don't even agree on what colors they see in the sky.

I like that you used the word "transition." That has been my point: emotion and reason are ultimately inseparable because of the significant area of "transition" (I said "overlap") between them. Our language is not particularly adept at expressing the complexity of interrelatedness between many concepts that we like to set up as binary categories.

[TSherbs]

The Buddhists also have a central concept about the "illusion of the self," particularly as we see ourselves as separate from others (or even from the rest of the universe).

There are many people who think that the border between "me" and "not-me" is clear. But what we think we know, even as dispassionate "rational" minds, may turn out to be just another mixture of thoughts along a fiction-fact continuum that has no separation point. And, like how it is imposible to tell exactlly where teal becomes blue, so too, when using language as the medium,it is often not possible to distinguish a clear borderline between "fact" and "fiction" or "emotion" and "reason" or "you" and "me" (to push into the spiritual realm).

Rather than call the effect of emotion on reason as a form of "tainting," why not call it a form of "highlighting" or "clarifying"?

[Lloyd]

Emotion can lead to making the effort to seek truth, but it can lead to premature conclusions. I don't think anywhere above I've spoken on black and white regarding emotion and reason. My initial point had to do with members holding onto their emotions from past threads when engaged in new unrelated ones.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

One aspect of this discussion that puzzles me is why emotion is seen as opposed to reason, or at odds with it.

My emotion and reasoning tend to work most often in parallel.

[Lloyd]

One aspect of this discussion that puzzles me is why emotion is seen as opposed to reason, or at odds with it.

My emotion and reasoning tend to work most often in parallel.
How do you know you're right when emotions distort? Look at the Jan 6 group of highly emotional people. Sure, we can stereotype them all as looney, but a non-insignificant proportion of them were just highly-roused people convinced that they knew the truth.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Who said emotions "distort"? Why do you keep ascribing blindness, tainting, distortion (etc) to emotions?

Why assume, for example, that it was their *emotions* that lead Trumpites to be manipulated by him?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

One aspect of this discussion that puzzles me is why emotion is seen as opposed to reason, or at odds with it.

My emotion and reasoning tend to work most often in parallel.

agreed

[Empty_of_Clouds]

And the priestess spoke again and said: Speak to us of Reason and Passion.

And he answered, saying:

Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite.
Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.
But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.
If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.

Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;
And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.
Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows—then let your heart say in silence, “God rests in reason.”
And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky,—then let your heart say in awe, “God moves in passion.”

And since you are a breath in God’s sphere, and a leaf in God’s forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

[Lloyd]

I've heard of "Crimes of Passion" but not "Crimes of Reason".

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

you've never heard of a dispassionate murderer?

You never heard some of the "rational" arguments for letting the elderly die in the early waves of COVID (save the resources and put them toward protecting those of us with longer lives ahead of us)?

You've never read Swift's "A Modest Proposal," which satirizes the use of logic and math to solve the ethical question of who should be fed in a society of scarce resources (he argued, in satire, that Ireland should eat the children of the poor because mathematically and logically it makes the most "sense").

You've never read portions of the Unibomber's manifesto, his exercise of logic? Or any other terrorist's defense of their crimes? These are acts of logic, not passion. These are planned, calibrated, coordinated with logic and reason.

Even vengeance has a logic to it: "You did x, so now you deserve y to be done to you."





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

You must understand, right, a lack of empathy is often a dangerous warning sign? When reason operates without feeling, frightful decisions can be made with terrible consequences.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Is it reason (by which I mean is swayable if new information shows that earlier choices came from insufficient information) or emotion (which contains biases and is seldom capable of changing course) that leads to religious extremism, as well as all/most of the things you cited? To me, rational thought strives to not be locked with personal biases. It's not infallible nor distinct from emotion. Emotions are necessary in conjunction with reason however excessive emotions can shut-off one's acceptance of new information on a decision. That was why Fauci was willing to change course on masking and locking-down while Trumpers couldn't change course.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Lloyd, consider all this in the context of the Scott Adams tweet.


The Democrat [Il]-Logic Loop. With each slaying of their points they jump to a new point. Once all points have been debunked, they start over as if the discussion never happened. To infinity.

The argument started with denial that reason and emotion were even different things. You’re chasing them and the moving goalposts.

[Lloyd]

Lloyd, consider all this in the context of the Scott Adams tweet.


The Democrat [Il]-Logic Loop. With each slaying of their points they jump to a new point. Once all points have been debunked, they start over as if the discussion never happened. To infinity.

The argument started with denial that reason and emotion were even different things. You’re chasing them and the moving goalposts.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Using reason to me comes (once again) from the math notion that everything is suspect. Nothing is obvious without first full verification by one's self. When that can't happen, I do my best to seek the input from others who I feel will vet the information at a similar level.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Niner]

I know you are, but what am I?

[Lloyd]

I know you are, but what am I?
Ask your parents. At least you'll be more likely to get a positive answer.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Is it reason (by which I mean is swayable if new information shows that earlier choices came from insufficient information) or emotion (which contains biases and is seldom capable of changing course) that leads to religious extremism, as well as all/most of the things you cited? To me, rational thought strives to not be locked with personal biases. It's not infallible nor distinct from emotion. Emotions are necessary in conjunction with reason however excessive emotions can shut-off one's acceptance of new information on a decision. That was why Fauci was willing to change course on masking and locking-down while Trumpers couldn't change course.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]This statement puts us in agreement. Yes, excesses and imbalances, of whatever stripe, are not recommended.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Is it reason (by which I mean is swayable if new information shows that earlier choices came from insufficient information) or emotion (which contains biases and is seldom capable of changing course) that leads to religious extremism, as well as all/most of the things you cited? To me, rational thought strives to not be locked with personal biases. It's not infallible nor distinct from emotion. Emotions are necessary in conjunction with reason however excessive emotions can shut-off one's acceptance of new information on a decision. That was why Fauci was willing to change course on masking and locking-down while Trumpers couldn't change course.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]This statement puts us in agreement. Yes, excesses and imbalances, of whatever stripe, are not recommended.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Yes and no. I'm probably going to wean off of coming to this subforum because most here refuse the possibility that their beliefs are incorrect.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

I've heard of "Crimes of Passion" but not "Crimes of Reason".

If you recall the topic of this thread, and have read Justice Alito's opinion, you have the perfect example of a crime of reason.

[Lloyd]

I've heard of "Crimes of Passion" but not "Crimes of Reason".

If you recall the topic of this thread, and have read Justice Alito's opinion, you have the perfect example of a crime of reason.
If Alito is unswayable, it's not reason.
Obviously, this is a decision that requires emotion, each side employs it to set the relative value of embryonic life versus mother's rights.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Write him a letter, sport.

[Lloyd]

You don't think that behind his show of rationality, he wasn't steered by emotions?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Or, perhaps, behind his emotions, he was steered by his rationality?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Alito, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, simply points out that the reasoning employed to come up with Roe was flawed. Because of that, precedent is not enough to prevent reversing the decision. Abortion is not a constitutional right, so it is to be left up to the people, through the legislature(s).

Personal opinions and emotions are not relevant, much like when Scalia joined the decision in Texas v Johnson to hold that flag-burning was speech protected by the first amendment. He often remarked that he found it abhorrent, but his job was to interpret the law as it was written and not how he wanted it to be. Note that Scalia was the deciding vote in that 5-4 decision.

Steered by rationality.

[TSherbs]

Yes and no. I'm probably going to wean off of coming to this subforum because most here refuse the possibility that their beliefs are incorrect.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]

My "beliefs" may certainly be incorrect. I am not sure what you mean by this. I stated that we were in agreement because I agreed with everything you wrote and you stated that emotions and reason were "indistinct." I would prefer the phrase "not ultimately separate," but your term seemed quite similar. I don't claim that they are *identical,* of course. That would be complete overlap (which I do not "believe").

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Three quotes from David Hume:

Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

[Chip]

If you were pregnant and needed advice on whether to get an abortion, who would you ask?

Dr. Caitlin Bernard:

https://i.imgur.com/WtVtG7S.jpg

Indiana Governor, Eric Holcomb:

https://i.imgur.com/erKuqsz.jpg

Indiana Attorney General:

https://i.imgur.com/9ubIVxx.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

If you were pregnant and needed advice on whether to get an abortion, who would you ask?

Dr. Caitlin Bernard:

https://i.imgur.com/WtVtG7S.jpg

Indiana Governor, Eric Holcomb:

https://i.imgur.com/erKuqsz.jpg

Indiana Attorney General:

https://i.imgur.com/9ubIVxx.jpg

With our family, we let the babies live. It is one reason I have a bunch of grandchildren. One wonderful female is here today.

[Chip]

With our family, we let the babies live. It is one reason I have a bunch of grandchildren. One wonderful female is here today.

You had the choice. Which is being denied to a great many women today.

Welcome to the Inquisition, v.2.0.

[Chuck Naill]

With our family, we let the babies live. It is one reason I have a bunch of grandchildren. One wonderful female is here today.

You had the choice. Which is being denied to a great many women today.

Welcome to the Inquisition, v.2.0.

I agree with choice, but also "informed consent'. Do not except this from Planned Parenthood.

Don't bother me with nonsense about the inquisition. If you and your girl person are pregnant, be informed. End of comment.

I am personally very happy with many, YMMV, of course. Not everyone is suitable to have and rear children.

.

[Chip]

Not everyone is suitable to have and rear children.

I agree. They deserve to be wanted, loved, and supported.

Not forced upon unwilling mothers, in states, like Alabama, that don't provide adequate resources.

[Chip]

States With Abortion Bans Are Among Least Supportive for Mothers and Children

They tend to have the weakest social services and the worst results in several categories of health and well-being.

By Emily Badger, Margot Sanger-Katz and Claire Cain Miller
Graphics by Eve Washington
July 28, 2022

In Mississippi, which brought the abortion case that ended Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, Gov. Tate Reeves vowed that the state would now “take every step necessary to support mothers and children.”

Today, however, Mississippi fares poorly on just about any measure of that goal. Its infant and maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the nation.

State leaders have rejected the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, leaving an estimated 43,000 women of reproductive age without health insurance. They have chosen not to extend Medicaid to women for a full year after giving birth. And they have a welfare program that gives some of the country’s least generous cash assistance — a maximum of $260 a month for a poor mother raising two children.

Mississippi embodies a national pattern: States that have banned abortion, or are expected to, have among the nation’s weakest social services for women and children, and have higher rates of death for infants and mothers.

https://i.imgur.com/ubfffTd.jpg

According to a New York Times analysis, the 24 states that have banned abortion (or probably will) fare worse on a broad range of outcomes than states where abortion will probably remain legal, including child and maternal mortality, teenage birthrates and the share of women and children who are uninsured. The states likely to ban abortion either have laws predating Roe that ban abortion; have recently passed stringent restrictions; or have legislatures that are actively considering new bans.

The majority of these states have turned down the yearlong Medicaid postpartum extension. Nine have declined the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which provides health care to the poor. None offer new parents paid leave from work to care for their newborns.

“The safety net is woefully inadequate,” said Carol Burnett, who works with poor and single mothers as executive director of the Mississippi Low-Income Child Care Initiative, a nonprofit. “All of these demonstrated state-level obstacles prevent moms from getting the help they need, the health care they need, the child care they need.”

https://i.imgur.com/D2Oc1SX.jpg

Many anti-abortion activists have acknowledged that improving the health and livelihoods of mothers and young children is an important goal for their movement: “This has been my lecture to the pro-life movement for the last year,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life. “No woman stands alone in the post-Roe America.”

But in many of these states, skepticism of government aid runs as deep as opposition to abortion. And racism has played a role over generations in weakening safety nets for all poor residents, researchers and historians say.

Studies have repeatedly found that states where the safety net is less generous and harder to access tend to be those with relatively more Black residents. That has further implications for Black women, who have a maternal mortality rate nationally that is nearly three times that of white women.

https://i.imgur.com/tq4jAXh.jpg

Social spending is not the only answer to poverty and poor public health, and some in the anti-abortion movement stress that they want to help women and children — just not with more government spending. But there is a strong link between state policy choices and outcomes for mothers and children, researchers have found.

Perhaps the clearest example is health insurance. Numerous studies have tied it to improved health and financial security for poor Americans. Since 2014, states have had the option to expand their Medicaid programs to cover nearly all poor adults, with the federal government paying 90 percent or more of the cost. But nine of the states planning to ban abortion have not expanded it, citing opposition to Obamacare, which Republicans have long vowed to repeal; a disinclination to offer health benefits to poor Americans who do not work; or concerns about the 10 percent of the bill left to state governments to finance.

“Closing the Medicaid gap is the first and best option for women’s health care,” said Allison Orris, a senior fellow focused on health policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Since 2021, states have also had the choice to expand Medicaid to cover women for a full year after a birth instead of two months. Just 16 states have declined to do so or opted for a shorter period — all but three of them are also banning or seeking to ban abortion.

Women who are poor and pregnant are eligible for Medicaid across the country, and the program pays for four in 10 births nationwide. But health experts say it also matters that women are covered for an extended period after birth, and for the years leading up to pregnancy. Conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and substance abuse can lead to pregnancy complications and poor infant health. Research suggests that Medicaid expansion can reduce maternal mortality. Medicaid also pays for contraception.

Paid family leave and subsidized child care are another example. None of the states that have banned abortion (or are likely to) guarantee parents paid leave from work to care for and bond with their newborns. Just 11 states and the District of Columbia do. Paid leave has been shown to benefit infants’ health and mothers’ physical and mental health as well as their economic prospects.

In most states, there is no guaranteed child care for children until they enter kindergarten at age 5. Subsidies available to low-income families cover a small segment of eligible children, ranging from less than 4 percent in Arkansas (which now bans abortion) to more than 17 percent in Vermont (which passed abortion rights legislation).

In many states, the subsidies also present a conundrum: Parents are required to work to get them, yet they can’t find or start work without child care. Some states add other obstacles. Mississippi requires single mothers to file for child support from fathers before they can receive subsidies. Also, a job paying minimum wage — which is not higher than the federal floor of $7.25 in 20 states — doesn’t necessarily pay enough to cover even subsidized care.

Support for families is different in some states once children are 3 or 4. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia offer or have committed to offering universal preschool. Unlike with other family benefits, anti-abortion states are roughly as likely as other states to offer public preschool. Six of those 13 states ban abortion or probably will.

“This is consistent with a view that education is a public responsibility,” said Steven Barnett, senior co-director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers, while other safety-net programs “fall outside the accepted sphere of public responsibility in the conservative states.”

Poorer states may have fewer resources to fund benefits like parental leave, or state supplements to the federal earned-income tax credit. But what they choose to do with federal grants can be revealing, said Zachary Parolin, a professor of social policy at Bocconi University in Milan who has studied how states use the broad discretion given to them by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families welfare program.

“You can’t say Alabama gives very little cash assistance for low-income families with children because it can’t afford” the program, Mr. Parolin said. “It has a TANF program, and it’s primarily funded by the federal government.”

But in 2020, Alabama spent only about 8 percent of its welfare funds on direct cash assistance to families. Mississippi spent 5 percent. Instead, states often spend these grants on a wide range of other programs like pro-marriage advertising campaigns and abstinence-only sex education (in 2020, a state auditor in Mississippi found that the state misspent millions of federal welfare dollars, including on speeches that were never delivered by the former quarterback Brett Favre).

Mr. Parolin’s research has shown that states with larger Black population shares tend to spend the least on cash assistance, widening the poverty gap in America between Black and white children. The Times analysis similarly found that states likely to ban abortion devote a smaller share of welfare funds to basic assistance.

[TSherbs]

Thanks for posting all that.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

The Balkanization of America continues.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Not everyone is suitable to have and rear children.

I agree. They deserve to be wanted, loved, and supported.

Not forced upon unwilling mothers, in states, like Alabama, that don't provide adequate resources.

What are "adequate resources"?

Maybe when raising my children I should have accessed these resources.

[Bold2013]

States With Abortion Bans Are Among Least Supportive for Mothers and Children…….. really?

[TSherbs]

States With Abortion Bans Are Among Least Supportive for Mothers and Children…….. really?

see post #210

[Chip]

What are "adequate resources"?

Maybe when raising my children I should have accessed these resources.

The universe does not revolve around you. Did you look at the status of Alabama in the article?

Do you know how to read a graph?

[Chip]

More on Alabama.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/opinion/alabama-fines-fees.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE IPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DKDmwd iOMNAo6B_EGKbK5qbdI21nGVRdlMK_ohSfFpiO9DOkgnAy-Znqy5orVXaSMktdD0GWosw5PGWb1_-ja0MTbhJbs6n7a0sVfbO2TpRK3e1nA-cVxkpMMxJlCr0HFY1b6FRrAuoqR23fcgD5hwRzcBdXPK66GuU0 MiTY3AOhLM6QA2WPVbXyXTm7Of6rEDdQZUATHWXS81oDZ8uJ4H ZoRhbOuoJAUgecH-nbwbFmdsSY-rDJU3TIXf_K54QoRQCtkJclS3sGBV3cLC4A&smid=fb-share

[Chuck Naill]

What are "adequate resources"?

Maybe when raising my children I should have accessed these resources.

The universe does not revolve around you. Did you look at the status of Alabama in the article?

Do you know how to read a graph?

I did read and already knew about the information. What should I do, move?

How many poor children have you adopted? How many pregnant mothers live on your ranch? It is much easier to point a finger than actually do something. As with every topic you engage, I must remind you that we can all just do what we can do and choose to want to do.

[Bold2013]

States With Abortion Bans Are Among Least Supportive for Mothers and Children…….. really?

see post #210

Saving a child’s life is clearly more supportive than giving them insurance or free pre-k.

[TSherbs]

States With Abortion Bans Are Among Least Supportive for Mothers and Children…….. really?

see post #210

Saving a child’s life is clearly more supportive than giving them insurance or free pre-k.

I think the point is that that should not be the end of "support" from a state that is considering removing access to abortion. If you are pro-family (whatever the shape of the unit) and pro-women (their independence and well-being) and pro-life (of the baby), then a state most SHOW it, not just talk it, and that need for support doesn't end at partuition.

[TSherbs]

What are "adequate resources"?

Maybe when raising my children I should have accessed these resources.

The universe does not revolve around you. Did you look at the status of Alabama in the article?

Do you know how to read a graph?

I did read and already knew about the information. What should I do, move?

How many poor children have you adopted? How many pregnant mothers live on your ranch? It is much easier to point a finger than actually do something. As with every topic you engage, I must remind you that we can all just do what we can do and choose to want to do.

It's ok also to ask our states to step up with the making of laws and funding of services. The point here has been politics, law, and what states do. No one has criticized or questioned your adoptions or yur home. Your state's funding of services is being shown here as part of the corollary between states opposed to abortion but also stingy with money/services for children (and mothers) after they are born. Our infant mortality rates, compared to the rest of the modern world, are embarrasing and shameful (for example).

[Chuck Naill]

What are "adequate resources"?

Maybe when raising my children I should have accessed these resources.

The universe does not revolve around you. Did you look at the status of Alabama in the article?

Do you know how to read a graph?

I did read and already knew about the information. What should I do, move?

How many poor children have you adopted? How many pregnant mothers live on your ranch? It is much easier to point a finger than actually do something. As with every topic you engage, I must remind you that we can all just do what we can do and choose to want to do.

It's ok also to ask our states to step up with the making of laws and funding of services. The point here has been politics, law, and what states do. No one has criticized or questioned your adoptions or yur home. Your state's funding of services is being shown here as part of the corollary between states opposed to abortion but also stingy with money/services for children (and mothers) after they are born. Our infant mortality rates, compared to the rest of the modern world, are embarrasing and shameful (for example).


It is okay, but Alabama is controlled by the Republican Party and is probably going to stay that way. Chip's comments were not meant to inform, but to get some sort of revenge for my comments about him thinking he's the only one who cares about climate change, and you tried to come to his rescue. No one is doing all they can for any of these topics. They do what they want to do and can do. On another thread something was said about not caring for black boys. While I am more liberal that I used to be, comments that suggest the liberals care more. Well, that's not necessarily true. This is why I asked about adoptions or allowing pregnant women live with you. These are routine ways the Pro Life community is involved and has always been involved since my involvement in the late '70's.

Pro Life movements care about others. I don't know how much experience anyone here has except myself. When I read the comments that no one who cares about females or poor people because they are concerned about the unborn, it is bothersome since this is not true. It is not as if those for abortion are any more civic minded or woman or child focused, but they sure are loud when they don't get what they want.

Hopefully this provides some clarity for my comments.

[Chip]

Since when are facts considered revenge?

:crazy:

[Chip]

How many pregnant mothers live on your ranch?

So five acres, a greenhouse, and a pet dog equal a ranch? (Wonder if I can get some of the tax breaks.)

How many slaves work on your cotton plantation?

[Lloyd]

How many pregnant mothers live on your ranch?

So five acres, a greenhouse, and a pet dog equal a ranch? (Wonder if I can get some of the tax breaks.)

How many slaves work on your cotton plantation?
I thought you lived on a ranch, too.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

How many pregnant mothers live on your ranch?

I thought you lived on a ranch, too.


What? Where did you guys get this idea? You guys need to check your perceptions/assumptions while reading.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

How many pregnant mothers live on your ranch?

I thought you lived on a ranch, too.


What? Where did you guys get this idea? You guys need to check your perceptions/assumptions while reading.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
I meant that for Chip, not you. There's not many ranchers in Maine.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

How many pregnant mothers live on your ranch?

I thought you lived on a ranch, too.


What? Where did you guys get this idea? You guys need to check your perceptions/assumptions while reading.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
I meant that for Chip, not you.

I know


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

I meant that for Chip, not you. There's not many ranchers in Maine.

True.

He lives on a lobster boat.

;)

[Chip]

Stereotypes are a bitch.

I used to live and work on a ranch with about 800 pregnant mothers.

But they were cows.

[Lloyd]

Stereotypes are a bitch.

I used to live and work on a ranch with about 800 pregnant mothers.

But they were cows.
You shouldn't call fat women "cows".

Just kidding...

I hope you weren't the dad, though.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Stereotypes are a bitch.

I used to live and work on a ranch with about 800 pregnant mothers.

But they were cows.
You shouldn't call fat women "cows".

Just kidding...

I hope you weren't the dad, though.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Ok that was a good one

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Stereotypes are a bitch.

I used to live and work on a ranch with about 800 pregnant mothers.

But they were cows.
You shouldn't call fat women "cows".

Just kidding...

I hope you weren't the dad, though.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Cool, cow calf operation!!

[Chip]

You shouldn't call fat women "cows".

Just kidding...

I hope you weren't the dad, though.

Reality Bites! If you'd ever had your arm up one, trying to line up the wee hooves so the calf would slip out, while mama shits on the side of your head, you'd not regard them as sex objects.

Besides, I doubt you could manage anything more than a sheep.

[Lloyd]

You shouldn't call fat women "cows".

Just kidding...

I hope you weren't the dad, though.

Reality Bites! If you'd ever had your arm up one, trying to line up the wee hooves so the calf would slip out, while mama shits on the side of your head, you'd not regard them as sex objects.

Besides, I doubt you could manage anything more than a sheep.
This reply took you 5 days to come up with?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

What's your usual deadline?

[Chuck Naill]

You shouldn't call fat women "cows".

Just kidding...

I hope you weren't the dad, though.

Reality Bites! If you'd ever had your arm up one, trying to line up the wee hooves so the calf would slip out, while mama shits on the side of your head, you'd not regard them as sex objects.

Besides, I doubt you could manage anything more than a sheep.
This reply took you 5 days to come up with?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

The comments were not relevant. I'd ignore if I were you. Now we can wait for @tsherbs to explain to us that the comments were very relevant.

[TSherbs]

You shouldn't call fat women "cows".

Just kidding...

I hope you weren't the dad, though.

Reality Bites! If you'd ever had your arm up one, trying to line up the wee hooves so the calf would slip out, while mama shits on the side of your head, you'd not regard them as sex objects.

Besides, I doubt you could manage anything more than a sheep.
This reply took you 5 days to come up with?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

The comments were not relevant. I'd ignore if I were you. Now we can wait for @tsherbs to explain to us that the comments were very relevant.

Now you're trolling me across multiple threads, Chuck. I won't keep asking why.

[Chuck Naill]

Give it a rest, Ted. I’m only responding to your repeated rants if someone disagrees with Chip.
It’s happened often enough for me to take notice. If you’re working on your liberal merit badge, it’s working.

[TSherbs]

... If you’re working on your liberal merit badge, it’s working.

Like I said, I earned that here long before you arrived. The badge isn't yours to hand out.

[Chuck Naill]

You fixation with forum Longevity is humorous, Ted.

[Chip]

He's working hard on this:

https://i.imgur.com/obemaeP.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

The ignore option is under rated