I never thought I would say this, but we need more liberals on this forum. I have an idea how to attract them.

[forkup]

Words are defined by usage, not by dictionary writers who fear being canceled. I’m not redefining anything. I’m using the word as I have heard it used since childhood.

An unborn baby is absolutely a human and a separate human from its mother and father. Do you doubt the science of DNA? An unborn baby has unique DNA, and it is the one and only human with that DNA, unless he or she happens to have an identical twin in the womb with it.

Again, the clear plan was to keep recounting until they finally came up with a win for Biden and then demand to be sworn in immediately. That’s not what is called for in election law, as the Supreme Court explained to Team Gore. The man tried to sue his way into the White House. He acted like a baby and so did Trump.

If a student asks me, I tell them that I have a wife, who they will meet in high school. If an LGBT-Q teacher was asked if they were married, I’m sure that if they were politically correct, they would say that they have a spouse and maybe what they do for a living.

I don’t go on about our sex life, or any other aspect of my sexuality, and neither should an LGBT-Q teacher. Nor do students ask about that; not even the emotionally disturbed kids I work with in my behavior program are that uncouth.

The LGBT-Q teachers who claim that students can’t concentrate on grammar, because they are too curious about their teacher’s sexuality are flat lying, if I may speak plainly without giving offense.

They can be treated as equal, by not talking about their sexuality, which is what is expected of “straight” teachers. Neither straight, LGBT-Q, nor asexual teachers should be allowed to tell a child who goes through a typical phase of confusion and/or experimentation about their sexuality that they are transgender and then refer them to a counselor who encourages them to seek “treatement” from the transgender industry.

My explanation is that we disagree. Something that people used to be able to do without resorting to insults. But as the liberals’ positions has more and more gotten away from any basis in reality, rational arguments fail them, and they become frustrated.

I am fully aware of what the term “loaded term” means. In fact, “loaded term” is itself a loaded term, which is ironic. I disagree that “baby” and “human” are a loaded terms. If those words truly arouse negative emotions for you, that is unfortunate. I won’t stop using them correctly, but you are free not to read my posts.

A baby is a baby, so I call it a baby. A dog baby, is a puppy, a cat baby is a kitten, and a human baby is a baby.

If we were talking about pumping a woman’s stomach to rid her of bad shrimp that is making her sick, I would call what is being taken out “shrimp” or perhaps “vomitus.” If you prefer to call a baby or a shrimp that a woman wants removed “unwanted material,” or what have you, go right ahead. I won’t call it that, but I won’t spend three posts complaining about you saying it, I assure you.

This is one of the key disagreements I have with the liberal approach to debate. You seem to honestly expect that I will concede the argument before it starts by agreeing not to say that abortion ends a human life. All the science says that it does. An unborn baby has unique human DNA. After ten weeks, it is easily recognizable as human different from an unborn dog or cat. It is nearly universally socially accepted as a baby, just ask any expecting parent. Or anyone else, not currently arguing in favor of abortion.

Ask a pregnant woman if she has named the baby, and - unless she is on the way to the abortion clinic - she will not say, “what baby?”

Words are defined by usage, not by dictionary writers who fear being canceled.

Oh? You are now claiming that apparently, dictionaries are not only, not how we determine the meaning of words but that the reason those dictionaries don't agree with the meaning you put to them is because they are in fear of Liberals? Do you have any idea how preposterous that sounds?

Do you doubt the science of DNA?

Nope, I don't. I doubt that simply having separate DNA promotes a fetus to an individual.

Again, the clear plan was to keep recounting until they finally came up with a win for Biden

I think you wanted to say Gore, but I get your drift. Funny fact here though. It was BUSH who asked for a stay for a previous decision.
By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions regarding the presidential election in Florida.[15] On that date the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4–3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes.[16] On December 9, ruling in response to an emergency request by Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the recount. Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia

Bush v. Gore | Summary, Decision, Significance, & Facts

Bush v. Gore, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court’s recount order of the state’s presidential ballots in 2000. With the termination of the recount, Florida’s electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, giving him the electoral votes needed to be...

www.britannica.com

This resulted by the way, in the ONLY of those multiple court decisions BUSH won. The last one, before the Supreme court.

So are you satisfied with the history lesson, or do you persist in claiming it was GORE who was shopping for a certain ruling?

I don’t go on about our sex life, or any other aspect of my sexuality, and neither should an LGBT-Q teacher.

Do you know of an instance when they do? I don't, but please point me to one.
Also, how does banning certain math books help? Are you claiming they are sexual in nature?

They can be treated as equal, by not talking about their sexuality

The moment you tell your students about your wife. YOU are talking about your sexuality, namely heterosexuality. Wich, you find permissive.

I am fully aware of what the term “loaded term” means.

Are you? This next sentence seems to show otherwise.

If those words truly arouse negative emotions for you, that is unfortunate.

A loaded term does not require invoking negative feelings. The use of a loaded term simply needs to compel the person answering to give a compromising answer. In this case, referring to a fetus as a baby, something I dispute as a correct term for it.

I won’t stop using them correctly

This is begging the question. Yet another fallacy. Begging the Question.

but you are free not to read my posts

Why would I do that? It's fun to read the comments of someone who's a teacher but refuses the acknowledge the veracity of dictionaries. Who gets the specifics about something so wrong that it's not just destroying his premise, but actually damns it. And who feels the best way to respond when called out on logical fallacious arguments is to simply use others.

You seem to honestly expect that I will concede the argument before it starts

Not really, I expect you to be able to defend your argument when pressed.



I personally think that the reason you don't like liberals' approach to debate is that liberals actually find that a debate consists of clearly structured and supported arguments clashing.

 

[Lastamender]

I think it's easier to just offer them free crack pipes.

Here I thought it might have been stink bait.

 

[Delldude]

Reagan Democrats stormed the political scene in the late 70's, early 80's like flies on a piece of rancid meat...

What are the Blue Dog Democrats? (with pictures)

The Blue Dog Democrats are a coalition of moderate and conservative Democrats in the US House of Representatives. They focus on...

www.unitedstatesnow.org

Blue Dog Democrats are now in the Smithsonian, next to the Dinosaur Hall exhibit. Pelosi drove them into extinction.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Oh? You are now claiming that apparently, dictionaries are not only, not how we determine the meaning of words but that the reason those dictionaries don't agree with the meaning you put to them is because they are in fear of Liberals? Do you have any idea how preposterous that sounds?

Not preposterous at all, when you think of how the AMA changed the definition of "mental illness," specifically to satisfy the gay lobby that did not want a definition of mental illness that homosexuality fit into.

Nope, I don't. I doubt that simply having separate DNA promotes a fetus to an individual.

No promotion needed. The moment the egg is fertilized, it has unique DNA that is definitely human. An individual human.

Suppose a white supremacist is accused of raping a black woman. His DNA is found in her body. Can he say, "That's a part of her body. Just because the DNA is not the same as hers doesn't mean it isn't part of her body." You would accept that?'

There's some shoe on the other foot for you.

I think you wanted to say Gore, but I get your drift. Funny fact here though. It was BUSH who asked for a stay for a previous decision.
By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions regarding the presidential election in Florida.[15] On that date the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4–3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes.[16] On December 9, ruling in response to an emergency request by Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the recount. Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia

Bush v. Gore | Summary, Decision, Significance, & Facts

Bush v. Gore, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court’s recount order of the state’s presidential ballots in 2000. With the termination of the recount, Florida’s electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, giving him the electoral votes needed to be...

www.britannica.com

This resulted by the way, in the ONLY of those multiple court decisions BUSH won. The last one, before the Supreme court.

So are you satisfied with the history lesson, or do you persist in claiming it was GORE who was shopping for a certain ruling?

It was Gore who was pushing to change the result of an election that he lost so decisively that he conceded on election night.

You would seem more honest if you would just say that it was fine for Gore because you like it when Democrats win.

Do you know of an instance when they do? I don't, but please point me to one.
Also, how does banning certain math books help? Are you claiming they are sexual in nature?

I believe the objection to the math books was over use of racially charged scenarios for math word problems.

The moment you tell your students about your wife. YOU are talking about your sexuality, namely heterosexuality. Wich, you find permissive.

I'm fine if a gay male teacher talks about his husband. But that is as far as it needs to go. My example of saying "spouse," was used because liberals are so quick to chide people to use gender-neutral terms like "birthing person." Why would they use "husband" instead of "spouse?"

Maybe because not all gays are radical liberals?

Are you? This next sentence seems to show otherwise.

A loaded term does not require invoking negative feelings. The use of a loaded term simply needs to compel the person answering to give a compromising answer. In this case, referring to a fetus as a baby, something I dispute as a correct term for it.

Your dispute is ill-founded. I have heard the child inside of a pregnant woman called the "baby," since my mother was pregnant with my little sister. I was six.

This is another reason liberals annoy so many people. If you want to change the way you use a a word that has been used the traditional way for centuries, go ahead. Use it as you like. But you sound mighty foolish when you try to say others are wrong to use it in its common meaning.

It's especially annoying to people who love their babies and/or babies in general, that the purpose of trying to change the definition is to make you feel better about supporting killing those babies.

BTW, since we are talking about definitions, real quick, can you tell me your definition of the word "woman?"

This is begging the question. Yet another fallacy. Begging the Question.

If you are using that term correctly, I am impressed. It has come to be used as the exact opposite of its meaning.

Anyway, I'm not begging any question that I know of. Tell me which question you think I'm begging and I'll at least know if you are using the term correctly.

Why would I do that? It's fun to read the comments of someone who's a teacher but refuses the acknowledge the veracity of dictionaries. Who gets the specifics about something so wrong that it's not just destroying his premise, but actually damns it. And who feels the best way to respond when called out on logical fallacious arguments is to simply use others.

Ok, then I'm glad I provide entertainment.

Not really, I expect you to be able to defend your argument when pressed.

Wait, which is it?

I personally think that the reason you don't like liberals' approach to debate is that liberals actually find that a debate consists of clearly structured and supported arguments clashing.

You have tried to mix some reason and logic in with the personal insults, and attempts to forcibly change the meaning of words, I'll grant you that. That's why the debate continues. I wouldn't bother responding after a typical liberal goes on tilt as soon as reason fails them and results to insults only and gets stuck there.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Seymour Flops just gave forkup a ...

Exceptional job Seymour Flops ...

Life is good...

 

[forkup]

Not preposterous at all, when you think of how the AMA changed the definition of "mental illness," specifically to satisfy the gay lobby that did not want a definition of mental illness that homosexuality fit into.

No promotion needed. The moment the egg is fertilized, it has unique DNA that is definitely human. An individual human.

Suppose a white supremacist is accused of raping a black woman. His DNA is found in her body. Can he say, "That's a part of her body. Just because the DNA is not the same as hers doesn't mean it isn't part of her body." You would accept that?'

There's some shoe on the other foot for you.

It was Gore who was pushing to change the result of an election that he lost so decisively that he conceded on election night.

You would seem more honest if you would just say that it was fine for Gore because you like it when Democrats win.

I believe the objection to the math books was over use of racially charged scenarios for math word problems.

I'm fine if a gay male teacher talks about his husband. But that is as far as it needs to go. My example of saying "spouse," was used because liberals are so quick to chide people to use gender-neutral terms like "birthing person." Why would they use "husband" instead of "spouse?"

Maybe because not all gays are radical liberals?


Your dispute is ill-founded. I have heard the child inside of a pregnant woman called the "baby," since my mother was pregnant with my little sister. I was six.

This is another reason liberals annoy so many people. If you want to change the way you use a a word that has been used the traditional way for centuries, go ahead. Use it as you like. But you sound mighty foolish when you try to say others are wrong to use it in its common meaning.

It's especially annoying to people who love their babies and/or babies in general, that the purpose of trying to change the definition is to make you feel better about supporting killing those babies.

BTW, since we are talking about definitions, real quick, can you tell me your definition of the word "woman?"

If you are using that term correctly, I am impressed. It has come to be used as the exact opposite of its meaning.

Anyway, I'm not begging any question that I know of. Tell me which question you think I'm begging and I'll at least know if you are using the term correctly.

Ok, then I'm glad I provide entertainment.

Wait, which is it?

You have tried to mix some reason and logic in with the personal insults, and attempts to forcibly change the meaning of words, I'll grant you that. That's why the debate continues. I wouldn't bother responding after a typical liberal goes on tilt as soon as reason fails them and results to insults only and gets stuck there.

This conversation has been pretty meandering. To the point that I feel it is chasing too many different things. I would like to split this up into different replies. You can choose to which to reply and further add if you so choose. If you feel you have made a particularly good argument and feel I didn't reply restate it, please.

 

[forkup]

Not preposterous at all, when you think of how the AMA changed the definition of "mental illness," specifically to satisfy the gay lobby that did not want a definition of mental illness that homosexuality fit into.

No promotion needed. The moment the egg is fertilized, it has unique DNA that is definitely human. An individual human.

Suppose a white supremacist is accused of raping a black woman. His DNA is found in her body. Can he say, "That's a part of her body. Just because the DNA is not the same as hers doesn't mean it isn't part of her body." You would accept that?'

There's some shoe on the other foot for you.

It was Gore who was pushing to change the result of an election that he lost so decisively that he conceded on election night.

You would seem more honest if you would just say that it was fine for Gore because you like it when Democrats win.

I believe the objection to the math books was over use of racially charged scenarios for math word problems.

I'm fine if a gay male teacher talks about his husband. But that is as far as it needs to go. My example of saying "spouse," was used because liberals are so quick to chide people to use gender-neutral terms like "birthing person." Why would they use "husband" instead of "spouse?"

Maybe because not all gays are radical liberals?


Your dispute is ill-founded. I have heard the child inside of a pregnant woman called the "baby," since my mother was pregnant with my little sister. I was six.

This is another reason liberals annoy so many people. If you want to change the way you use a a word that has been used the traditional way for centuries, go ahead. Use it as you like. But you sound mighty foolish when you try to say others are wrong to use it in its common meaning.

It's especially annoying to people who love their babies and/or babies in general, that the purpose of trying to change the definition is to make you feel better about supporting killing those babies.

BTW, since we are talking about definitions, real quick, can you tell me your definition of the word "woman?"

If you are using that term correctly, I am impressed. It has come to be used as the exact opposite of its meaning.

Anyway, I'm not begging any question that I know of. Tell me which question you think I'm begging and I'll at least know if you are using the term correctly.

Ok, then I'm glad I provide entertainment.

Wait, which is it?

You have tried to mix some reason and logic in with the personal insults, and attempts to forcibly change the meaning of words, I'll grant you that. That's why the debate continues. I wouldn't bother responding after a typical liberal goes on tilt as soon as reason fails them and results to insults only and gets stuck there.

First, since it was part of your original premise and the premise of my first reply.

Debating with different people.

You and I, I think, have a different main motivation to be here.

I believe yours is to win the argument. It feeds into your ego so that you can feel superior to other people. People here, you, me, everybody are narcissists. Why else spend a considerable amount of our time talking about stuff we know the other person will disagree with.

This is also true for me. However, this is not my main motivation. My main motivation to be here is to get as close to the "truth" as I can. What I mean by that is testing myself to see how close my opinions are to reality. To learn, and hopefully become a better person. Realizing full well that I am a narcissist and as such by definition think I'm perfect.

To do this I question myself first and foremost, and when I talk to someone I follow some very basic rules for how I do it.
-I try to avoid fallacious arguments. There are many, some of them are hard to spot, and I'm not always successful, but a fallacy by definition is a bad argument. Using them doesn't invalidate the premise, but it doesn't further it. They are things you use quite a lot of the time when you can't come up with a good argument.
-I don't avoid direct questions when asked. I'm not saying I never miss one but dodging something you don't have a good reply to is cowardice in my opinion. It also gets me in trouble. Because it gives the person I talk to an easy way to derail a debate. Simply ask me questions, and pretty soon I'll be a dog chasing my tail. It's by the way also why I'm going on this tangent, and at the same time am trying to refocus the debate.
-I source what I say and check other people's sources. Something by the way I've learned over the years is an incredible way to educate yourself.
-I make an effort to look at an opponent's argument with an open mind. This is incredibly hard. Ego is a hard thing to overcome.
-I strive for intellectual honesty. Again, not always successful sometimes, again my ego gets in the way.

Type in my name in the search bar and the phrase " I stand corrected ", and you will find quite a few instances where I said that. All these instances represent a firm bruise on my ego, and at the same time are the only times I have actually learned something about myself. The most satisfying experience I had on this board was the one time I actually changed my position on something because I felt I had actually grown as a person.

 

[forkup]

Not preposterous at all, when you think of how the AMA changed the definition of "mental illness," specifically to satisfy the gay lobby that did not want a definition of mental illness that homosexuality fit into.

No promotion needed. The moment the egg is fertilized, it has unique DNA that is definitely human. An individual human.

Suppose a white supremacist is accused of raping a black woman. His DNA is found in her body. Can he say, "That's a part of her body. Just because the DNA is not the same as hers doesn't mean it isn't part of her body." You would accept that?'

There's some shoe on the other foot for you.

It was Gore who was pushing to change the result of an election that he lost so decisively that he conceded on election night.

You would seem more honest if you would just say that it was fine for Gore because you like it when Democrats win.

I believe the objection to the math books was over use of racially charged scenarios for math word problems.

I'm fine if a gay male teacher talks about his husband. But that is as far as it needs to go. My example of saying "spouse," was used because liberals are so quick to chide people to use gender-neutral terms like "birthing person." Why would they use "husband" instead of "spouse?"

Maybe because not all gays are radical liberals?


Your dispute is ill-founded. I have heard the child inside of a pregnant woman called the "baby," since my mother was pregnant with my little sister. I was six.

This is another reason liberals annoy so many people. If you want to change the way you use a a word that has been used the traditional way for centuries, go ahead. Use it as you like. But you sound mighty foolish when you try to say others are wrong to use it in its common meaning.

It's especially annoying to people who love their babies and/or babies in general, that the purpose of trying to change the definition is to make you feel better about supporting killing those babies.

BTW, since we are talking about definitions, real quick, can you tell me your definition of the word "woman?"

If you are using that term correctly, I am impressed. It has come to be used as the exact opposite of its meaning.

Anyway, I'm not begging any question that I know of. Tell me which question you think I'm begging and I'll at least know if you are using the term correctly.

Ok, then I'm glad I provide entertainment.

Wait, which is it?

You have tried to mix some reason and logic in with the personal insults, and attempts to forcibly change the meaning of words, I'll grant you that. That's why the debate continues. I wouldn't bother responding after a typical liberal goes on tilt as soon as reason fails them and results to insults only and gets stuck there.

Secondly abortion.

Suppose a white supremacist is accused of raping a black woman. His DNA is found in her body. Can he say, "That's a part of her body. Just because the DNA is not the same as hers doesn't mean it isn't part of her body." You would accept that?'

No, I wouldn't accept that. On the other hand, once the egg is fertilized you would. So I guess... thank you for defending my position is in order? Also, someone who's pro-life probably shouldn't bring the issue of rape into an abortion debate, wouldn't you say?

There's some shoe on the other foot for you.

Not really, in my opinion, only one of us has a problem with a foot. I think it's the person who just put it in his mouth.

 

[dblack]

Liberalism
Political philosophy

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. Wikipedia If this is the type of Liberal you had in mind I agree we need more like them.

That definition bears little resemblance to the modern conception of liberalism, which favors group rights (identity politics) over individual liberty, and seeks equality in society (equal outcomes) rather than equality before the law.

 

[forkup]

Not preposterous at all, when you think of how the AMA changed the definition of "mental illness," specifically to satisfy the gay lobby that did not want a definition of mental illness that homosexuality fit into.

No promotion needed. The moment the egg is fertilized, it has unique DNA that is definitely human. An individual human.

Suppose a white supremacist is accused of raping a black woman. His DNA is found in her body. Can he say, "That's a part of her body. Just because the DNA is not the same as hers doesn't mean it isn't part of her body." You would accept that?'

There's some shoe on the other foot for you.

It was Gore who was pushing to change the result of an election that he lost so decisively that he conceded on election night.

You would seem more honest if you would just say that it was fine for Gore because you like it when Democrats win.

I believe the objection to the math books was over use of racially charged scenarios for math word problems.

I'm fine if a gay male teacher talks about his husband. But that is as far as it needs to go. My example of saying "spouse," was used because liberals are so quick to chide people to use gender-neutral terms like "birthing person." Why would they use "husband" instead of "spouse?"

Maybe because not all gays are radical liberals?


Your dispute is ill-founded. I have heard the child inside of a pregnant woman called the "baby," since my mother was pregnant with my little sister. I was six.

This is another reason liberals annoy so many people. If you want to change the way you use a a word that has been used the traditional way for centuries, go ahead. Use it as you like. But you sound mighty foolish when you try to say others are wrong to use it in its common meaning.

It's especially annoying to people who love their babies and/or babies in general, that the purpose of trying to change the definition is to make you feel better about supporting killing those babies.

BTW, since we are talking about definitions, real quick, can you tell me your definition of the word "woman?"

If you are using that term correctly, I am impressed. It has come to be used as the exact opposite of its meaning.

Anyway, I'm not begging any question that I know of. Tell me which question you think I'm begging and I'll at least know if you are using the term correctly.

Ok, then I'm glad I provide entertainment.

Wait, which is it?

You have tried to mix some reason and logic in with the personal insults, and attempts to forcibly change the meaning of words, I'll grant you that. That's why the debate continues. I wouldn't bother responding after a typical liberal goes on tilt as soon as reason fails them and results to insults only and gets stuck there.

Don't say gay bill.

I'm fine if a gay male teacher talks about his husband.

That's good. The bill however isn't.

"A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels"

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/Filed/PDF

 

[forkup]

Not preposterous at all, when you think of how the AMA changed the definition of "mental illness," specifically to satisfy the gay lobby that did not want a definition of mental illness that homosexuality fit into.

No promotion needed. The moment the egg is fertilized, it has unique DNA that is definitely human. An individual human.

Suppose a white supremacist is accused of raping a black woman. His DNA is found in her body. Can he say, "That's a part of her body. Just because the DNA is not the same as hers doesn't mean it isn't part of her body." You would accept that?'

There's some shoe on the other foot for you.

It was Gore who was pushing to change the result of an election that he lost so decisively that he conceded on election night.

You would seem more honest if you would just say that it was fine for Gore because you like it when Democrats win.

I believe the objection to the math books was over use of racially charged scenarios for math word problems.

I'm fine if a gay male teacher talks about his husband. But that is as far as it needs to go. My example of saying "spouse," was used because liberals are so quick to chide people to use gender-neutral terms like "birthing person." Why would they use "husband" instead of "spouse?"

Maybe because not all gays are radical liberals?


Your dispute is ill-founded. I have heard the child inside of a pregnant woman called the "baby," since my mother was pregnant with my little sister. I was six.

This is another reason liberals annoy so many people. If you want to change the way you use a a word that has been used the traditional way for centuries, go ahead. Use it as you like. But you sound mighty foolish when you try to say others are wrong to use it in its common meaning.

It's especially annoying to people who love their babies and/or babies in general, that the purpose of trying to change the definition is to make you feel better about supporting killing those babies.

BTW, since we are talking about definitions, real quick, can you tell me your definition of the word "woman?"

If you are using that term correctly, I am impressed. It has come to be used as the exact opposite of its meaning.

Anyway, I'm not begging any question that I know of. Tell me which question you think I'm begging and I'll at least know if you are using the term correctly.

Ok, then I'm glad I provide entertainment.

Wait, which is it?

You have tried to mix some reason and logic in with the personal insults, and attempts to forcibly change the meaning of words, I'll grant you that. That's why the debate continues. I wouldn't bother responding after a typical liberal goes on tilt as soon as reason fails them and results to insults only and gets stuck there.

2000 election

It was Gore who was pushing to change the result of an election that he lost so decisively that he conceded on election night.

Decisively??? The difference after the mandatory machine recount was 327 votes. So before Gore asked anything.
The margin of votes deciding who was gonna be the next president of the United States was less than a wedding party (admittedly a huge one) I once attended.

That is decisive in your opinion? The only thing Gore asked and sued for was a manual recount of votes? Not unreasonable, considering the actual difference. What do you think?

You would seem more honest if you would just say that it was fine for Gore because you like it when Democrats win.

Ah, here we are too honest? Implying of course that you think I'm dishonest, something I, unlike you, don't find an especially egregious personal insult.

want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

You will probably find over a dozen similar comments by me. This is me recognizing the right of the loser of an election to challenge the result in a court of law.

I told you, intellectual honesty.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Type in my name in the search bar and the phrase " I stand corrected ", and you will find quite a few instances where I said that. All these instances represent a firm bruise on my ego, and at the same time are the only times I have actually learned something about myself. The most satisfying experience I had on this board was the one time I actually changed my position on something because I felt I had actually grown as a person.

I appreciate that. I have done so also, though not necessarily using that exact phrase.

Secondly abortion.

No, I wouldn't accept that. On the other hand, once the egg is fertilized you would. So I guess... thank you for defending my position is in order?

Not at all.

Once the egg is fertilized, it would be a separate and distinct human from both the woman and her rapist. If the man claimed that he had never gone near the woman and a DNA test on the child could prove that he was lying about that if he is the "father." Rapists and women who abort, I hesitate to honor with the terms "mother" and "father," but of course, from the standpoint of science, that is what they are.

If the DNA found by a rape kit matches the accused rapists DNA, he could not plausibly claim that the DNA belonged to someone else, like a cousin. Maybe a twin brother, but, barring that rarity, each set of DNA is unique to one individual, including the newly fertilized human egg.

Also, someone who's pro-life probably shouldn't brg the issue of rape into an abortion debate, wouldn't you say?

I stand corrected. The analogy was correct, but of course bringing up the word rape would be triggering, so better left out of it.

Unless you mean that a pro-lifer should not discuss rape because it reminds people that some women get pregnant though no voluntary action of their own? In that case, no. Absolutely not. I don't think rape is better left out of it. I think it must be discussed as part of the debate and pro-lifers who gloss over it, don't do their cause any service.

This is good time for a bit of an aside. Since moving from conservative to libertarian about a decade ago, I have re-examined my position on abortion. There is a divide on that issue between libertarians who believe that, of course, libertarianism means abortion rights are as absolute as free speech and self-defense. There are those who view the fetus as the littlest libertarian, whose right to life is to be protected.

The pro-choice libertarians that I know do not try to change definitions in order to avoid stating plainly what it is that they are advocating.. They understand and speak openly of the harsh reality that their position means allowing women to kill their unborn human babies, regardless of reason. If you find yourself hiding your own position from yourself, through word games, it is definitely time to re-think your position.

The pro-life libertarians I know, do not shrink from discussing the fact that their position means that women can be forced to carry a rapist's baby to term before adopting it out. It is rare. Very rare. But it needs be part of the conversation.

Recently I had, reluctantly, adopted the pro-choice libertarian position and advocated that pro-life libertarians encourage adoption and condom distribution as ways to reduce the number of abortion. If felt that we should stop beating our heads against the wall trying to eliminate something that has long been established as a right. But, like the former "right" to import slaves (which actually was enshrined in the constitution explicitly, unlike abortion), this "right" will soon not exist.

But, seeing the reaction by the pro-abortion lobby and their followers to this leaked decision made me realize that all the talk about women at risk for health problems absent abortion, or women being forced by rape to carry a baby, or women making an extremely tough choice made necessary by the evil Republicans' refusal to prove universal freebies to all, is a sham. When you have a pro-choice "journalist" saying that she would like to have unprotected sex with the leaker, so she could conceive a baby and then "joyfully abort it," and not one pro-choicer calls them out, it is plain that the movement is about wanting as many abortions to happen as possible.

I have to say that is galvanized me, which is an emotional reaction. Which is why I enjoy discussing abortion with a pro-choice person who is intellectually honest. It helps me test my own beliefs, which is what I think you like also, if I'm not mistaken.

BTW, since you were so annoyed that I would not accept a dictionary definition, here's is a dictionary definition for you. Whether you accept it or not, will be a good test of your intellectual honesty. You may know that I am a teacher. Today, we had a standardized test, and the students were given paper dictionaries (that they had no idea how to use). I decided to look up the definition of "fetus." Hm . . .

Don't say gay bill.

Can you be intellectually honest enough to say that the bill nowhere contains the words, "don't say gay," nor any proscription against saying the word, "gay?"

That's good. The bill however isn't.

"A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels"

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/Filed/PDF

When I tell my students that my wife is a teacher at the ninth grade campus, that isn't the district encouraging a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.

If Coach Cam tells his students that his husband is a lawyer, that isn't the district encouraging a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.

2000 election

Decisively??? The difference after the mandatory machine recount was 327 votes. So before Gore asked anything.
The margin of votes deciding who was gonna be the next president of the United States was less than a wedding party (admittedly a huge one) I once attended.

That is decisive in your opinion? The only thing Gore asked and sued for was a manual recount of votes? Not unreasonable, considering the actual difference. What do you think?

I said that it was so decisive that Gore conceded on election night. That's a fact.

One recount, I would have been happy with. Until I saw that the Democrats were claiming that the ballots of their own chosen design had caused people to vote incorrectly and began to try to intuit people's votes (as being for Gore). It was absurd, with the dimpled chads, hanging chads, interpreting stray marks as votes, and the other shenanigans. That's when I realized that it was an attempted steal.

 

[miketx]

I'm a former member of several heavily liberal-dominated sites.

Former because the liberals were typical in that they could not stand to have their absurdities pointed out to them with any humor whatsoever. They constantly whined about it. So, the "moderators," or the Liberal Klux Klan, as I call them, would subject me to a high-tech lynching in the form of repeated warnings for no violations, followed by a banning. That's why liberals were willing to keep posting on such sites even though they consistently lost all arguments. The bad people who bested them were sure to be sent packing by the LKK.

My idea is not for moderators to start banning non-libs who best libs in debates. Far from it. But . . . we could get delete this thread and then start several threads where we complain that the mods are all libs, they banned a perfectly decent non-lib, etc. Libs who visit for the first time no doubt look for such complaints to see if they will be happy on a forum.

As long as nobody spilled the beans, libs would keep coming. Imagine their tears when their real complaints to moderators for once do not result in banning.

We need hunt down all of you filth.

 

[forkup]

The analogy was correct

Was it? I don't remember claiming that DNA was one of the definers of individuality? If I'm not mistaken that's you? I'm also not claiming that semen by itself makes an embryo.

but of course bringing up the word rape would be triggering

No, it's not really triggering. It is a bad tactic if you are pro-choice.

libertarianism means abortion rights are as absolute as free speech and self-defense.

Oh? You are denying the right of a woman to defend herself against the dangers of pregnancy, which can be fatal? You are giving the fetus a right that no born person has. It has the right to COMPEL a person to risk their life for it according to you.

If you find yourself hiding your own position from yourself, through word games

The correct terms in this debate are not "word games." They are a way to give context to the debate. I will demonstrate by giving you my own aside.

- Roe v Wade allows for an abortion to be legal until the fetus is viable. I agree with that cut-off. Reasoning that once a fetus is viable there is no need to abort it. It is a viable human being that can exist on its own and for that reason should be allowed the opportunity to become a baby.

The pro-life libertarians I know, do not shrink from discussing the fact that their position means that women can be forced to carry a rapist's baby to term

That's commendable. So you as a libertarian feel you have a right to compel a woman to carry a baby to term, she neither wanted nor had any control in conceiving, not just leaving her traumatized by the event itself but also choosing to traumatize her more and even potentially kill her?

the reaction by the pro-abortion lobby

is a sham.

I know there is a whole lot more in the sentence but I condensed it some, keeping the premise. (hasty generalization)

When you have a pro-choice "journalist" saying that she would like to have unprotected sex with the leaker, so she could conceive a baby and then "joyfully abort it," and not one pro-choicer calls them out, it is plain that the movement is about wanting as many abortions to happen as possible.

Not only is this a hasty generalization. ( I implore you to look up the definition and really try to comprehend why this is so)
It's also incredibly ironic, considering the OP started out as a call to troll libs.

BTW, since you were so annoyed that I would not accept a dictionary definition, here's is a dictionary definition for you.

So human is correct. It's also the one I had the least problem with. Baby is what I said was the problem. Do you have the intellectual honesty to show that definition? And before you go back to "libs changed the meaning" If you claim that you have to be able to show a previous definition that was different.

Can you be intellectually honest enough to say that the bill nowhere contains the words, "don't say gay,"

Sure I can. And quite honestly it is loaded. This shouldn't be a problem for someone who believes the meaning of words is derived from their meaning but it isn't for me so I will stop referring to it as such.

nor any proscription against saying the word, "gay?"

Nope, I cannot.

If Coach Cam tells his students that his husband is a lawyer, that isn't the district encouraging a classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.

Oh really. Suppose the students of "coach Cam" all of six years old find that incredibly funny and they decide to discuss this family arrangement. Further, assume that Timmy talks to his parents about that conversation and "coach Cams" family arrangement. A savvy lawyer could make the reasonable argument that the mere mention of "Coach Cam's" husband encouraged classroom discussion. This can be done because the law does not define "classroom discussion" nor did the people who wrote the law care to do so. They were asked by the Democrats to do so and they declined.

One recount, I would have been happy with.

Ah, sadly then no recount was finished.

Until I saw that the Democrats were claiming that the ballots of their own chosen design had caused people to vote incorrectly and began to try to intuit people's votes (as being for Gore).

The Supreme Court majority opinion very much concurred that this was indeed reasonable.

For the last bit, you need to explain. Are you asserting that only the Democratic ballot workers are capable of intuiting people's votes for their chosen candidate? I would suggest you look at the proven cases of voter fraud in the Heritages database for 2020. Spoiler alert. No Democrats ONLY Republicans at the moment. I really would not appreciate you dodging this question

it was an attempted steal.

Stealing something is taking something that isn't yours. I see no actual logic that would allow you to determine that by a recount of ballots by a BIPARTISAN election board.


I wanted to keep the replies separate because it is hard to remain on topic when we are discussing 5 things at once by the way.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Was it? I don't remember claiming that DNA was one of the definers of individuality? If I'm not mistaken that's you?

Of course. In biology, for life that reproduces sexually, DNA is THE defines of individuality (except in the rare case of identical t wins.

I'm also not claiming that semen by itself makes an embryo.

Nor I.

Oh? You are denying the right of a woman to defend herself against the dangers of pregnancy, which can be fatal? You are giving the fetus a right that no born person has. It has the right to COMPEL a person to risk their life for it according to you.

It’s a tough choice, is what I’m recognizing. But, as I said, the recent actions by the pro-choice extremists tells me that it isn’t about risky pregnancies, nor poor women, nor babies with genetic challenges.

Delivering a baby to term has risks. So does having an abortion. Ironically, “pro-choice” advocates object to regulations to make abortion safer.

The correct terms in this debate are not "word games." They are a way to give context to the debate. I will demonstrate by giving you my own aside.

- Roe v Wade allows for an abortion to be legal until the fetus is viable. I agree with that cut-off. Reasoning that once a fetus is viable there is no need to abort it. It is a viable human being that can exist on its own and for that reason should be allowed the opportunity to become a baby.

So what should a doctor do when a woman with a viable baby/fetus in her womb requests an abortion that very day because she wants to fit into her bridal gown the next day in her wedding? Are. You no longer pro-choice?

That's commendable. So you as a libertarian feel you have a right to compel a woman to carry a baby to term, she neither wanted nor had any control in conceiving, not just leaving her traumatized by the event itself but also choosing to traumatize her more and even potentially kill her?

My point is that it is a tough issue that does not have easy answers. Insisting on calling a developing human, a fetus and never a baby is an attempt to make it seem easy when it is not.

This would be a good place for the sides to compromise. Banning abortion, except in the case of rape would sharply reduce the pace of the massacre.

I know there is a whole lot more in the sentence but I condensed it some, keeping the premise. (hasty generalization)

Not only is this a hasty generalization. ( I implore you to look up the definition and really try to comprehend why this is so)
It's also incredibly ironic, considering the OP started out as a call to troll libs.

Ad hominem attack ignored.

So human is correct. It's also the one I had the least problem with. Baby is what I said was the problem. Do you have the intellectual honesty to show that definition? And before you go back to "libs changed the meaning" If you claim that you have to be able to show a previous definition that was different.

Notice that I used an old-school paper dictionary? They are harder to change with the political fashion of the day. I’m out of my class today, so I don’t have the same dictionary. Luckily, I have an old-school one at home.

I don’t see unborn infants excluded from that. I know that during my wife’s five pregnancies, the unborn baby was always the youngest and smallest of our group.

Sure I can. And quite honestly it is loaded. This shouldn't be a problem for someone who believes the meaning of words is derived from their meaning but it isn't for me so I will stop referring to it as such.

Nope, I cannot.

Oh really. Suppose the students of "coach Cam" all of six years old find that incredibly funny and they decide to discuss this family arrangement. Further, assume that Timmy talks to his parents about that conversation and "coach Cams" family arrangement. A savvy lawyer could make the reasonable argument that the mere mention of "Coach Cam's" husband encouraged classroom discussion. This can be done because the law does not define "classroom discussion" nor did the people who wrote the law care to do so. They were asked by the Democrats to do so and they declined.

A savvy lawyer can make any argument that he or she wants. Since they make it in front of either juries, who often substitute what they thing “should” be the law for the actual law, or in front of judges who were once savvy lawyers themselves, crazy cases go forward.

If you want to pass a low that says no slick lawyers can make absurd claims, I’ll sign the petition. But I’m not waiting for that before I support an anti-grooming law.

Ah, sadly then no recount was finished.

Because the Dem’s lawyer had decided that no recount could be complete unless it declared Gore the winner.

For the last bit, you need to explain. Are you asserting that only the Democratic ballot workers are capable of intuiting people's votes for their chosen candidate?

No, I’m saying Democrats were in charge of the recounts. I don’t believe that anyone should have been intuiting people’s votes. If they didn’t cast their ballot correctly, too bad, whether they meant to vote for Gore, Bush, or the Libertarian, socialist, etc. also rans.

I would suggest you look at the proven cases of voter fraud in the Heritages database for 2020. Spoiler alert. No Democrats ONLY Republicans at the moment. I really would not appreciate you dodging this question

I won’t dodge it, but I won’t run off and do the research. If you present valid evidence of Republican voter fraud, I’ll say “Yep, that was Republican voter fraud, all right!” I’d do the same if. You presented Libertarians Party voter fraud. I’m not a partisan, because partisanship too often puts people on the wrong side of an argument.

Stealing something is taking something that isn't yours. I see no actual logic that would allow you to determine that by a recount of ballots by a BIPARTISAN election board.

Refresh my memory. Wan’t it two Democrats and one Republican?

I wanted to keep the replies separate because it is hard to remain on topic when we are discussing 5 things at once by the way.

Sure, I get it. I prefer this way, but you are welcome to split them, if you don’t mind me rejoining them in my reply. If you like, you or I can start separate threads for each topic we’ve been discussing. I’m a little surprised that the mods haven’t moved these posts due to being off the topic of feedback to the board.

 

[forkup]

But, as I said, the recent actions by the pro-choice extremists tells me that it isn’t about risky pregnancies, nor poor women, nor babies with genetic challenges.

And as I said it's a hasty generalization. You are inferring the motives behind the pro-choice position for everybody by the reaction of what you call "extremists", in itself, you should realize that that's not how you come to conclusions about the majority even if you'd be inclined to generalize.

Delivering a baby to term has risks. So does having an abortion. Ironically, “pro-choice” advocates object to regulations to make abortion safer.

Yes both have risks one is 1400 percent more dangerous. Care to guess which it is? The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed.

So what should a doctor do when a woman with a viable baby/fetus in her womb requests an abortion that very day because she wants to fit into her bridal gown the next day in her wedding? Are. You no longer pro-choice?

I am pro-choice. Within certain limitations, which I indicated and defended. Those that Roe v Wade insured and those that are now probably will be overturned.

My point is that it is a tough issue that does not have easy answers. Insisting on calling a developing human, a fetus and never a baby is an attempt to make it seem easy when it is not.

It's an attempt to use the correct term for the correct thing, so one can talk about it in an intelligent manner.

This would be a good place for the sides to compromise. Banning abortion, except in the case of rape would sharply reduce the pace of the massacre.

A compromise consist of 2 sides making meaningfull concessions. You made one, you expect the other side make about 200.

Ad hominem attack ignored.

I appoligize.

I don’t see unborn infants excluded from that.

Maybe because there is no such thing as an unborn infant or an unborn baby. What you did was find a synonym for baby, and put the qualifier unborn for it. Look up the word infant in your old dictionary. Chances are you will find baby somewhere in the explanation. You will not find the word fetus or any allusion it applies to fetuses. A characteristic of an infant is that it is born.

If you want to pass a low that says no slick lawyers can make absurd claim

A lawyer only can make absurd claims if the law allows for absurdity. This one does.

Because the Dem’s lawyer had decided that no recount could be complete unless it declared Gore the winner.

Please source that claim?

If you present valid evidence of Republican voter fraud

Voter Fraud Map: Election Fraud Database | The Heritage Foundation

Explore a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. The database is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed.

www.heritage.org

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2021/Voter_Fraud_Database/10_21/Robert%20Richard%20Lynn%202021%20PA%20Source%202.pdf

efresh my memory. Wan’t it two Democrats and one Republican?

Sure I'll refresh it.

Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris was ultimately responsible for oversight of the state's elections and certification of the results, even though she had served as a co-chair of the Bush campaign in Florida 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida - Wikipedia

Also, the people actually doing the recount were members of both parties.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Maybe because there is no such thing as an unborn infant or an unborn baby. What you did was find a synonym for baby, and put the qualifier unborn for it. Look up the word infant in your old dictionary. Chances are you will find baby somewhere in the explanation. You will not find the word fetus or any allusion it applies to fetuses. A characteristic of an infant is that it is born.

You agreed earlier to "human." To save further debate about word meanings, I will accept it also.

And as I said it's a hasty generalization. You are inferring the motives behind the pro-choice position for everybody by the reaction of what you call "extremists", in itself, you should realize that that's not how you come to conclusions about the majority even if you'd be inclined to generalize.

I agree that it is a generalization, if you mean that I am applying it to all humans who believe that abortion should be legal in some circumstances. But with the current newly energized debate, the media is paying attention only to the most radical elements of the pro-abortion movement. It's almost like they, and the Democrats, can't stand the thought of Democrats winning any elections in 2022 and 2024.

Many, many humans are accepting of the need for abortion in some circumstances. They are included by the pro-choicers when they claim that the majority of people support abortion rights. But the majority also favor some restrictions, and the media is treating those humans as if they were Nazis.

To me it looks like the Democrats/Media must be very ambidextrous to be able to cut their own throats while digging their own graves.

Yes both have risks one is 1400 percent more dangerous. Care to guess which it is? The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed.

Interesting. Eight more deaths per hundred thousand births than per hundred thousand abortions. So by deciding (or being required) to deliver a human instead of aborting it, the human female's probability of dying from the procedure go from .000006 to .000088. Not really a lot to hang your hat on if your aim is to justify killing one hundred thousand humans. Barring those humans who actually survive the abortion.

I'd be interested to know your take on those humans, including "Baby Roe," a human who did not survive a medical abortion, but survived her birthing person's legal effort to abort her. Several of them are known for their anti-abortion activism. Baby Roe, did not become an activist, but she is living a productive life.

What would you say to one of them, if you met them? Would you simply say coldly, "Hello, unwanted clump of cells?"**

I am pro-choice. Within certain limitations, which I indicated and defended. Those that Roe v Wade insured and those that are now probably will be overturned.

What about the scenario I offered:

So what should a doctor do when a human female with a viable baby/fetus in her womb requests an abortion that very day because she wants to fit into her bridal gown the next day in her wedding?

If you already stated that you agree with banning abortions once a human is viable, I'm sorry for being dense. That brings to mind two questions:

1) How do you define viability?

2) Will your position change as medical technology moves the viability time closer to the time of conception? For example, in 2122, one hundred years from now, A woman goes in for an abortion pill right after missing her period. The future medically certified human confirms the pregnancy, six weeks along, and offers instead to extract the human and place it in an incubator, to be adopted out as soon at it is old enough. The human says, "You don't get it. I don't want this baby. I don't want to have this baby, and I don't want to be pregnant for another minute longer than it takes to abort. I don't want to think about a baby in the world that is mine and my boyfriend's, but I don't know where it is or what it is doing. Give me the damn pill, like twenty-six out of fifty-one Justices on the Supreme Court said you have to!"

You support that choice?

A compromise consist of 2 sides making meaningfull concessions. You made one, you expect the other side make about 200.

Name one single concession that the pro-abortion politicians and activists that the media is giving seemingly unlimited air time to are willing to make.

I appoligize.

Accepted with gratitude.

A lawyer only can make absurd claims if the law allows for absurdity. This one does.

Any law allows absurd claims. As it happens, the USSC has already decided that Same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, so any lawsuit in which people to sue a teacher for mentioning his husband would be tossed out quickly.

Please source that claim?

Voter Fraud Map: Election Fraud Database | The Heritage Foundation

Explore a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. The database is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed.

www.heritage.org

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2021/Voter_Fraud_Database/10_21/Robert%20Richard%20Lynn%202021%20PA%20Source%202.pdf

Sure I'll refresh it.

Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris was ultimately responsible for oversight of the state's elections and certification of the results, even though she had served as a co-chair of the Bush campaign in Florida 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida - Wikipedia

Also, the people actually doing the recount were members of both parties.

I will now make a concession. This was 21+ years ago and my memory is not as good as it once was, and I don't care to dredge it up again. You seem knowledgeable. Agree to disagree about whether Gore et al acted badly. I admit that I am not able or willing to produce evidence.

Chalk up a win, compeer!

**A little humor to lighten up a difficult topic, I hope you took it as such.

 

[forkup]

You agreed earlier to "human." To save further debate about word meanings, I will accept it also.

Agreed.

the media is paying attention only to the most radical elements of the pro-abortion movement.

You want me to give you some articles citing that the People favor at least some restrictions to abortion. I can promise you they are rampant.

They are included by the pro-choicers when they claim that the majority of people support abortion rights.

Yes, I am one of them. I identify as a pro-choicer.

But the majority also favor some restrictions, and the media is treating them as if they were Nazis.

Again, I think you watch different media than me.

Eight more deaths per hundred thousand births than per hundred thousand abortions. So by deciding (or being required) to deliver a human instead of aborting it, the mother's probability of dying from the procedure go from .000006 to .000088.

What to you, the libertarian that finds the right to self-defense absolute is an acceptable percentage of risk of death you can compel someone else to accept?

What would you say to one of them, if you met them? Would you simply say coldly, "Hello, unwanted clump of cells?

No, since I distinguish between fetus and baby or infant, I can acknowledge that once born different rights apply and as such can simply greet them by name.

1) How do you define viability?

Like the dictionary defines it.

2) Will your position change as medical technology moves the viability time closer to the time of conception?

My position won't change, but since I accept the definition of viability the timing I would find abortion acceptable would shorten.

Name one single concession that the pro-abortion politicians and activists that the media is giving seemingly unlimited air time to are willing to make.

Sure, Roe v Wade. In this case, viability of around 21 weeks. After which a state is allowed to ban abortion if they so choose.

I will make a concession. This was 21+ years ago and my memory is not as good as it once was, and I don't care to dredge it up again. You seem knowledgeable. Agree to disagree about whether Gore et al acted badly.

Agreeing to disagreeing isn't a concession. At best it is deciding to stop a debate when there are no further arguments to be made. In this case, it is more, you understanding that your position is untenable I suspect. Considering that every argument you presented was either, fallacious, wrong, or unsupported.

I will take it I guess. Thanks.

A little humor to lighten up a difficult topic, I hope you took it as such.

It's appreciated. I hope I can draw a chuckle from you on occasion too? What you have to remember about me is that I'm not easily offended. I can dish it out but also take it.

 

[forkup]

So what should a doctor do when a human female with a viable baby/fetus in her womb requests an abortion that very day because she wants to fit into her bridal gown the next day in her wedding?

Sorry, I forgot to answer your hypothetical. It was bolded so I will, although my answer should be self-evident. The doctor should follow the law. Meaning specifically, abort, unless the state imposes a restriction that is more than the viability standard put down in Roe v Wade.

What I wish that the woman would do. Is not abort at this late stage. Both are different. ( I also find the reason for wanting the abortion silly and callous in the extreme)

 

[Seymour Flops]

Agreed.

You want me to give you some articles citing that the People favor at least some restrictions to abortion. I can promise you they are rampant.

I know that they are rampant. But most often in more thoughtful media outlets such as NPR. Here is what NPR said, that is exactly what I intended to convey:

"What it speaks to is the fact that the debate is dominated by the extreme positions on both sides," said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll, which conducted the survey. "People do see the issue as very complicated, very complex. Their positions don't fall along one side or the other. ... The debate is about the extremes, and that's not where the public is."

Poll: Majority Want To Keep Abortion Legal, But They Also Want Restrictions

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey found that three-quarters of Americans want the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade. But there is also complexity — and contradiction — in respondents' views.

www.npr.org

But if you have examples of CNN, the Licensed networks, or MSNBC talking about that, I would like to see those articles. I don't watch them much anymore. Just once in a while, I tune in to see how long it takes for them to show themselves to be political hacks. It's usually one to five minutes, depending on whether there was a commercial break in progress when I turned to them.

.What to you, the libertarian that finds the right to self-defense absolute is an acceptable percentage of risk of death you can compel someone else to accept?

Well, you got me there. I was wrong to say that self-defense is "absolute," since nothing is absolute, including that nothing is absolute.

If we are going to say that a .000088. probability of dying justifies killing a human, then we will be justifying killing humans in many, many situations that previously it would not be allowed. In Texas, we have a right to kill someone in self-defense if we believe that it is reasonably necessary. So, if a person is in our home, doing violence, even just the violence of breaking in, in the first place, we can defend ourselves. But that .000088 probability standard you propose would seem to justify shooting to kill a porch pirate on the grounds that he might kick in the door and kill us.

No, since I distinguish between fetus and baby or infant, I can acknowledge that once born different rights apply and as such can simply greet them by name.

So, you would not feel the need to let them know that you would have preferred that they had been killed in the womb, since that was the express wish of their birthing person? Maybe out of politeness, you would not bring it up, but if they asked you, would you be frank with them? If so, how would you put it?

"I have to be honest. If I had my way, and could turn back time, I would make sure that your birthing person was able to abort you."

If that is what you would say, I have one word of advice:

Like the dictionary defines it.

For example, if an unborn human would be able to survive outside the womb with no medical intervention, you would agree that he or she was viable, I take it. What if a human was developed enough that if you induced labor, it could survive, but only with out of the ordinary medical interventions, such as emergency oxygen, incubation, would that meet your definition of "viability?"

My position won't change, but since I accept the definition of viability the timing I would find abortion acceptable would shorten.

Sure, Roe v Wade. In this case, viability of around 21 weeks. After which a state is allowed to ban abortion if they so choose.

Well, no. You are forgetting (as many do) Doe v. Bolton (1973):

Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Roe v. Wade was modified by another case decided the same day: Doe v. Bolton. In Doe v. Bolton the Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion could not be limited by the state if abortion was sought for reasons of maternal health. The Court defined health as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." This health exception expanded the right to abortion for any reason through all three trimesters of pregnancy.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/upload/Summary-of-Roe-v-Wade-and-Other-Key-Abortion-Cases.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]​

The same 7–2 majority that struck down a Texas abortion law in Roe v. Wade invalidated most of the remaining restrictions of the Georgia abortion law, including the medical approval and residency requirements. The Court reiterated the protected "right to privacy," which applied to matters involving marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.[3] Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for the Court, in which he explained "the sensitive and emotional nature" of the issue and "the deep and seemingly absolute convictions" on both sides.[4] Justice Blackmun went on to conclude that as a constitutional matter, the right to privacy was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[3][4]

Together, Doe and Roe declared abortion as a constitutional right and overturned most laws against abortion in other U.S. states. Roe legalized abortion nationwide for approximately the first six months of pregnancy until the point of fetal viability.[3]

Definition of health[edit]​

The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.[1]

Doe v. Bolton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

If any doctor can provide an abortion by claiming that the abortion is necessary for the emotional or psychological health of the woman, then abortion is effectively unlimited. Which is why so many restrictions by states have been struck down.

It's a good time to say that most doctors have no interest in performing abortions. For those that do, the procedures are often the bulk of their practice. There is no requirement that a doctor with no financial interest be the one to decide whether the abortion is "necessary," so of course a professional abortion provider will rarely, if ever, turn down a woman's request for abortion.

It's appreciated. I hope I can draw a chuckle from you on occasion too? What you have to remember about me is that I'm not easily offended. I can dish it out but also take it.

I will try to be the same. Please feel free to "have me going," and then say you were pulling my leg. I won't be a snit about it.