Trump claims presidents can declassify documents ‘even by thinking about it

[Seymour Flops]

If you are just going to lie about waht I said, why even bother to post?

The libertarian position is that the mother has the right to make the choice and it is none of the Govt's business.

This was the exchange:

Passing a law against something that we have a right to do doesn't take away that right, it infringes on that right.

I do not live in Florida you fucking moron.



Yes, run away and hide after getting your ass handed to you for the last few hours...good choice.

I'm not running away. I thought from your name and avatar that you might live in Florida, and I was concerned.

To get back to the questions that you're dodging:

At what point in the pregnancy can the state ban abortions without infringing on a woman's right to kill her baby?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Libertarians are by in large Pro-Choice.

Murder is a legal concept, an "unlawful killing". If abortion is not illegal, then it is not murder.

It's actually pretty divided, between libertarians who believe that a woman has an absolute right to make decisions about her body and libertarians who believe that an unborn child is the littlest libertarian with the right to life.

You can tell when they are fake libertarians pretty easily. If they claim that bodily autonomy is the basis of the right to abortion, but favor punishing people for not being vaccinated, or wearing a mask, they are fake libertarians. If they claim that no human has the right to kill another human, except in self-defense, but they favor the death penalty, they are fake libertarians.

Unfortunately, many purported libertarians are of the fake variety, basically conservatives who want to smoke weed, or liberals who want to engage in risky behavior and have others pick up the tab for their lifestyle.

And oddly enough in all the states that are banning it after a point, none of them are making it murder either.

I think a lot of states will end banning abortions up following something similar to the Swedish model of banning prostitution: The customers are guiltly of a crime, but not the prostitutes.

Most women who "choose" abortions are actually pushed into it by their partner, according to peer-reviewed research.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This was the exchange:

Yes, that was the exchange. And I gave you the answer. In this country that right ends when the law says it does. Why is this confusing for you?

Passing a law against something that we have a right to do doesn't take away that right, it infringes on that right.

Semantics.

To get back to the questions that you're dodging:

At what point in the pregnancy can the state ban abortions without infringing on a woman's right to kill her baby?

They will always infringe on the right to do so be it a 1 week or 9 months.

I have answered the question every time you asked, why do you keep asking?

I'm not running away. I thought from your name and avatar that you might live in Florida, and I was concerned.

I told you why I was packing.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It's actually pretty divided, between libertarians who believe that a woman has an absolute right to make decisions about her body and libertarians who believe that an unborn child is the littlest libertarian with the right to life.

Not really. The official stance of the LP is that abortion is between the mother and her doctor.

You can tell when they are fake libertarians pretty easily. If they claim that bodily autonomy is the basis of the right to abortion, but favor punishing people for not being vaccinated, or wearing a mask, they are fake libertarians.

I agree.

If they claim that no human has the right to kill another human, except in self-defense, but they favor the death penalty, they are fake libertarians.

Yep.

I think a lot of states will end banning abortions up following something similar to the Swedish model of banning prostitution: The customers are guiltly of a crime, but not the prostitutes.

Which is a total copout. The people pushing the laws to ban abortion claim there is no difference between the baby in the womb and the one outside of it. If they really believed this then the punishment would be the same for abortion as for if a mother paid someone to kill her 1 year old.

Most women who "choose" abortions are actually pushed into it by their partner, according to peer-reviewed research.

Which I am sure you have some links to to said peer-reviewed research

 

[Couchpotato]

Libertarians are by in large Pro-Choice.

Murder is a legal concept, an "unlawful killing". If abortion is not illegal, then it is not murder.

And oddly enough in all the states that are banning it after a point, none of them are making it murder either.

You can’t believe that a fetus is a living human entity and also believe that abortion isn’t murder. Not if you are being honest. If that fetus is a living human entity is has as much right to life as every other person outside the womb. Killing can’t be legal based on location.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, that was the exchange. And I gave you the answer. In this country that right ends when the law says it does. Why is this confusing for you?

You're using an incorrect definition of "rights."

Rights either exists or they don't. Laws either honor rights or they infringe on them.

Semantics.



They will always infringe on the right to do so be it a 1 week or 9 months.

I have answered the question every time you asked, why do you keep asking?

So, you believe that there is a right to kill a baby moments before its birth, even though you believe that it is a living human being.

Why all the stalling to admit that?

When I held the same position on abortion, I would answer that immediately, even though it was a tought position to take, I called it self-defense.

I got tired of defending pulling a baby out of the birth canal by the feet, to maintain the fiction that he or she is still in the womb and then poking scissors through his/her skull to suck the brains out before completing the delivery.

I told you why I was packing.

You may well have, but I don't remember you telling me that. I don't care why you're packing, as long as it isn't to get away from Hurricane Ian, and even then I only would care in that I would be concerned for you and hoping for the best.

By Allah! I thought you were Grumpy in the morning and Dopey in the evening, but it seems you can be both.

 

[Stann]

Because of the Many and vast Improvements he made to America
and for Americans.Like some Slimy leftist could comprehend.
Thanx for Confirming who and what you are.

Yes I'm a fellow American, concerned about the extreme hatred and violence that trump has fostered in our country. Never have Americans hated other Americans as much, the only difference in the equation is trump showed up on the scene and fostered that hatred and grew it to an extraordinary level. Hatred and distrust that's trump's gift to America.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're using an incorrect definition of "rights."

Rights either exists or they don't. Laws either honor rights or they infringe on them.

When someone is no longer legally allowed to own a firearm, did they lose the right or was it infringed upon?

So, you believe that there is a right to kill a baby moments before its birth, even though you believe that it is a living human being.

Why all the stalling to admit that?

Because I do not believe that. I do not personally know any pro-choice people that believe that. Very few people believe it has to be all or nothing. That is a child like view...which is why you hold it.

When I held the same position on abortion, I would answer that immediately, even though it was a tought position to take, I called it self-defense.

Good for you, but you and I are really not that alike in anything.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You can’t believe that a fetus is a living human entity and also believe that abortion isn’t murder. Not if you are being honest. If that fetus is a living human entity is has as much right to life as every other person outside the womb. Killing can’t be legal based on location.

Once again, murder is defined as an unlawful killing of a human being.

And yes, killing can be legal based on location. If you are on my porch and I kill you I am guilty murder, if you take one step in my house and I kill you then I am good to go.

So, tell me....why has not one single state that has limited abortion made it murder after said limit?

 

[San Souci]

So, do you agree all the POTUS needs to do is think about it and POOF things are declassified?

If Donald Trump does something ,that makes it Legal. He was ordained by God to save the USA.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not really. The official stance of the LP is that abortion is between the mother and her doctor.

I forgot you're a Party man first and foremost.

Which is a total copout. The people pushing the laws to ban abortion claim there is no difference between the baby in the womb and the one outside of it. If they really believed this then the punishment would be the same for abortion as for if a mother paid someone to kill her 1 year old.

Yes, it is a cop out. I politically support such a cop out as a way to save the lives of millions of what you acknowledge are living human beings. Besides murder for hire by a prolific professional killer has always had stiffer penalties than murder by a person under durress or mental disorder. Women who do not suffer from duress or mental disorder to not seek to kill their babies.

Which I am sure you have some links to to said peer-reviewed research

Happy to:

Risk of violence from the man involved in the pregnancy after receiving or being denied an abortion - BMC Medicine

Background Intimate partner violence is common among women having abortions, with between 6% and 22% reporting recent violence from an intimate partner. Concern about violence is a reason some pregnant women decide to terminate their pregnancies. Whether risk of violence decreases after having...

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

This is not an anti-abortion article. It's conclusion is basically that if women are not allowed to have abortions when their partners insist, they are more likely to experience violence.

Abstract​

Background​

Intimate partner violence is common among women having abortions, with between 6% and 22% reporting recent violence from an intimate partner. Concern about violence is a reason some pregnant women decide to terminate their pregnancies. Whether risk of violence decreases after having an abortion, remains unknown.

Methods​

Data are from the Turnaway Study, a prospective cohort study of women seeking abortions at 30 facilities across the U.S. Participants included women who: presented just prior to a facility’s gestational age limit and received abortions (Near Limit Abortion Group, n = 452), presented just beyond the gestational limit and were denied abortions (Turnaways, n = 231), and received first trimester abortions (First Trimester Abortion Group, n = 273). Mixed effects logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between receiving versus being denied abortion and subsequent violence from the man involved in the pregnancy over 2.5 years.

Results​

Physical violence decreased for Near Limits (adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 0.93 per month; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.90, 0.96), but not Turnaways who gave birth (P < .05 versus Near Limits). The decrease for First Trimesters was similar to Near Limits (P = .324). Psychological violence decreased for all groups (aOR, 0.97; CI 0.94, 1.00), with no differential change across groups.

Conclusions​

Policies restricting abortion provision may result in more women being unable to terminate unwanted pregnancies, potentially keeping them in contact with violent partners, and putting women and their children at risk.

The Role of Intimate Partners in Women's Reasons for Seeking Abortion

The literature on partners and abortion focuses on intimate partner violence (IPV) and risk for abortion, and partners' control of women's abortion de…

www.sciencedirect.com

Abstract​

Purpose​

The literature on partners and abortion focuses on intimate partner violence (IPV) and risk for abortion, and partners' control of women's abortion decisions. This paper examines how partners figure in women's abortion decisions, and identifies factors associated with identifying partner as a reason (PAR) for abortion.

Methods​

Baseline data were used from the Turnaway Study, a longitudinal study among women (n = 954) seeking abortion at 30 U.S. facilities between 2008 and 2010. Mixed methods were used. Data were analyzed using thematic coding and logistic regression.

Findings​

Nearly one third of women reported PAR for abortion. Three most common partner-related reasons were poor relationships, partners unable/unwilling to support a baby, and partner characteristics that made them undesirable to have a baby with. Eight percent who mentioned PAR identified having abusive partners as a reason for abortion. One woman in this subgroup reported being pressured by her partner to seek abortion, whereas others in this subgroup sought abortion to end abusive relationships or to avoid bringing children into abusive relationships. Factors associated with identifying PAR for seeking abortion included race, education, partner's pregnancy intentions, relationship with man involved in the pregnancy, and experience of IPV.

Conclusion​

Women make decisions to terminate pregnancies considering the quality of the relationship with and potential support they will receive from the man involved. Even women who report IPV, who may be vulnerable to coercion, report their motivation for the abortion is to end an abusive relationship, rather than coercion into abortion.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00016349709034906

Intimate partner violence, abortion, and unintended pregnancy: Results from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence

To explore how intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with unintended pregnancy and abortion in primarily low- and middle-income countries.Popu…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Couchpotato]

Once again, murder is defined as an unlawful killing of a human being.

That’s a cop out and you know it. Its never legal to kill someone because their existence is inconvenient to you.

And yes, killing can be legal based on location. If you are on my porch and I kill you I am guilty murder, if you take one step in my house and I kill you then I am good to go.

No you“re not. It depends on why and how I ended up in your house. If you invited me in you can’t legally shoot me unless I subsequently threaten you in some way. You can’t invite someone over for dinner and get tired of them being there and shoot them in the face.

So, tell me....why has not one single state that has limited abortion made it murder after said limit?

Cowardice. A state not making something illegal is not proof that it shouldn’t be illegal. Remind me how many years states werent passing laws to make slavery illegal.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I forgot you're a Party man first and foremost.

I have already told you this is an area I differ from the LP on. Why must you always be so dishonest?

This is not an anti-abortion article. It's conclusion is basically that if women are not allowed to have abortions when their partners insist, they are more likely to experience violence.

You really suck at this math thing. Hate to break it to you, but "6% to 22%" is not most. Not even close to most. Sort of the opposite of most even.

Conclusion​

Women make decisions to terminate pregnancies considering the quality of the relationship with and potential support they will receive from the man involved. Even women who report IPV, who may be vulnerable to coercion, report their motivation for the abortion is to end an abusive relationship, rather than coercion into abortion.

This one really does not support your claim either, but it was a bit closer.

Keep on with the Google, I am sure you might find one eventually.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That’s a cop out and you know it. Its never legal to kill someone because their existence is inconvenient to you.

Clearly the law does not agree with you. Not sure what to tell you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

When someone is no longer legally allowed to own a firearm, did they lose the right or was it infringed upon?

It was infringed on.

Because I do not believe that. I do not personally know any pro-choice people that believe that. Very few people believe it has to be all or nothing. That is a child like view...which is why you hold it.

Then when do you draw the line, GG?

Good for you, but you and I are really not that alike in anything.

No, becase I give straight answers.

You know why I do that? Not to make the questioner happy, but to allow my own opinions to be tested in the marketplace of ideas. If I were to hide my positions, they would not be fairly tested.

Plus a straight answer is a lot less work than all the verbal gymnastics you're doing to not answer when you draw the line.

 

[Couchpotato]

Clearly the law does not agree with you. Not sure what to tell you.

Huh that the same shit the pro slavery assholes said. How did that work out?

 

[Seymour Flops]

No you“re not. It depends on why and how I ended up in your house. If you invited me in you can’t legally shoot me unless I subsequently threaten you in some way. You can’t invite someone over for dinner and get tired of them being there and shoot them in the face.

That is an excellent analogy to oppose the claim that abortion is about self-defense.

 

[gtopa1]

Trump claims presidents can declassify documents ‘even by thinking about it’

Former President Trump in a new interview asserted presidents don’t have to go through a formal process to declassify sensitive documents and can do so “even by thinking about it.” The former president’s comments came as he has repeatedly argued that he declassified secret and top-secret...

www.yahoo.com

“There doesn’t have to be a process, as I understand it,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “If you’re the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying, ‘It’s declassified.’ Even by thinking about it.”

So, do you all agree with this? Is just the mere thought of something being declassified enough to make it so?

Proximal cause. Happens before the actual cause.

Greg

 

[Couchpotato]

Clearly the law does not agree with you. Not sure what to tell you.

You’re refusal to state your opinion on the matter and just hiding behind the “its the law“ bullshit tells me a lot. I think you know it’s wrong but your too much of a coward to say so. Thought you said you were a Marine. Show some moral fucking courage, Devil.

 

[Couchpotato]

That is an excellent analogy to oppose the claim that abortion is about self-defense.

The abortion debate isn’t about choice, though the pro abortion people loce that we’ve allowed them to frame it that way. A fetus is either a life or it isn’t. If it is abortion is murder and should not be legal at any point in the pregnancy. If it isn’t there’s no reason to restrict it in any way. The middle grounders are just cowards.