1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

The Coming GOP Apocalypse

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by GTRambler, Jun 4, 2019.

  1. IEEEWreck

    IEEEWreck Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    528
    Let's talk about fairy tales.

    The idea of a third trimester abortion of convenience is a fairy tale. It does not happen. Specifically, in Virginia, three physicians must agree that it is medically necessary. That only happens in profoundly deformed and other non-viable fetuses. Exactly the situation I am talking about.

    As to stillbirths and infants born unable to live more than hours or days, well, I guess I am shocked that a person could be so sheltered as to think such a thing is a fairytale.

    Here's what Northam, a pediatric neurologist by the bye, actually said: "When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."

    Northam's bill would make it so that only one physician needs to decide on medical necessity and to remove the requirement that the medical harm to the mother be permanent.

    See, I guess to me describing a terrible family tragedy as an act of selfish convenience that does not and can not happen is what you call a lie.

    Mandating that infants live out as much suffering as possible and that mothers endure horrible pain because modern surgery and medication has turned what used to be a fatal tragedy for mother and infant into something fatal for the infant but fixable for the mother with years of physical therapy... well, personally I find that monstrous.

    I can, however, confidently say I know which biblical figure is a big fan of lies and suffering.
     
  2. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    Blah blah blah blah. I wasn’t talking about still births and making babies suffer and whatever other side detours you were making. I’m talking about when someone wants to have an abortion and the baby survives. I’m going from memory, but something like 95% of abortions are elective. So go on about your fairy tale business.
     
  3. Lotta Juice

    Lotta Juice Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    359
    Ok. And for those "95% abortions" that are elective how many are in the 3rd trimester? How many of 1st and 2nd trimester abortions have a fetus that survives?
     
  4. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    There are 10,000 3rd trimester abortions a year. You can google what you seek. The vast vast majority of all abortions are elective. Nobody is trying to make women carry a baby without a brain and stuff like that. Those are the puny fractional minority corner cases people use to justify their creepy bloodlust.
     
  5. Lotta Juice

    Lotta Juice Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    359
    In the world? Yeah, there's a lot of people out there. And that lines up with the numbers that about 1% of all abortions take place after 21 weeks. That's way less actually.

    Neither side here is hoping the number of abortions increases year to year. Everyone would like to minimize these, noone thinks they are pleasant. And you know what? Abortions are at a lower level than they have been since the 70's. Access to birth control, sex ed, better family units and values, education in general, all contribute to lowering that number. But when one is unfortunately put in that position it is better to have safe access than ban it and have people doing it themselves. I'd hardly call that murder.
     
  6. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    No, in the United States.

    Nobody is “put in a position”. You don’t magically get pregnant. Saying people would just kill the baby anyway if you ban it is a pathetic defense with all due respect. I mean seriously. You gotta come up with something else.
     
  7. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,372
    3% of late term abortions are due to medical risks to mother. 18% are due to fetal abnormalities (% significant is anyone’s guess).

    79% are elective, mother decides she does not want a baby. These are gruesome procedures and anyone supporting it either does not know what they’re talking about or leaves something to be desired as a human being.

    Take money that doesn’t belong to you and squander it, increase risk and danger in our communities, permit all kinds of aberrant behavior, etc. Sure you want to be Liberal and your rights are more important than anyone else’s and you know better. But when you support heinous acts that are just inhuman, well I really don’t know what to say to you people other than I’d hate to be in your shoes when you meet your maker.
     
    Technut1990 and bwelbo like this.
  8. Lotta Juice

    Lotta Juice Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    359
    IEEEWreck's post is all about people being put in a postion. But you want to stick to the narrative that the "other side" is a bunch of murderers and you are noble and right. Tribalism at its worst.
     
  9. Lotta Juice

    Lotta Juice Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    359
    Where are you getting these numbers from?

    99% of all abortions take place prior to 21 weeks and in the vast amount of states (including that wacky place called California) it is currently illegal for late term elective abortions. Are the 79% elective you reference coming from the remaining states like Alaska and New Hampshire?

    Again, abortions are at historic lows. Yet Republicans want to paint the left as selling abortions at drive thrus. Democrats push back against 6 week abortion bans and then get called "inhuman" and "murderers". Nonsense. Dishonest arguments.
     
  10. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,218
    Link to cases / articles? Because I’ve seen incidents similar to what you describe end in arrest and prosecution of the shooter.
     
  11. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,218
    http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/hearing-may-unveil-drejka-s-defense-plans

    7-11 case. Being prosecuted...and this report indicates the accused isn’t seeking immunity from the stand your ground law.

    Both subjects violated law. One died the other is being tried. And will probably get convicted.

    If you actually link to cases you refer to it’s a lot easier to evaluate the facts rather than your emotional reactions to whatever facts you have.
     
    Animal02 likes this.
  12. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,372
    Real analysis not the media or politically packaged stuff you guy forage on.

    So if 35% of people murdered deserved it that would be ok with Liberals? I see a lot of back & forth on different topics this forum where you guys have one philsopohy to fit one scenario and then a completely different philosophy to fit a similar but slightly different scenario. I can never understand how you can take opposing views with yourself so regularly. Tells me people have not through their personal beliefs well enough & if you ask me that’s what’s wrong with this country. We have a fast food approach to life. Pull up to the window and order whatever immediate thing we want. That’s not how life works in the big picture.

    Take on stand your ground for instance. A bunch of those people had it coming yet you think the murderer not the murdered is culpable, but when it comes to an unborn child all of a sudden it’s the child not the mother. Your guys logic evades me.

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/late_term_abortion_usa.html
     
  13. Lotta Juice

    Lotta Juice Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    359
    Oh. So the same place I got my numbers. And now I see what you did. You took the reporting numbers from one state (Arizona) and passed that along as if it were fact nationally. You didn't want to use Utah's numbers in the very next sentence (2% are elective) because that doesn't fit your narrative of Democrats advocating for murder. And that's really the whole point. There's certainly some discussion to be had about legality and access to elective abortions and when they shouldn't be legal but you're just providing dishonest arguments and name calling. And even in Arizona the numbers you cited were for terminations after 20 weeks. It's illegal in Arizona to have an abortion after 24 weeks. So all of the numbers you cited still wouldn't apply to 3rd trimester.

    And seriously, do you even read what you write before you hit post?

    I can never understand how you can take opposing views with yourself so regularly.
     
  14. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    But that wasn’t what the thread was about. Both of you are being insulted about things nobody is saying. Literally nobody is saying that if the baby is essentially dead or if the mothers health is at risk so what.
     
  15. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,372
    No I took the aggregate national numbers. The data is clear and the trend is clear. If you read the document, the whole document, what is going on is clear except for states that try to mask or hide the unsavory statistics. The real numbers are certainly higher. There’s a very high percentage of elective late term abortions and that’s even counting fetal issues like cleft palate it cited as a terminal birth defect. Now maybe you consider low grade medical inconveniences, race and wrong gender defects, but I do not. There’s an increasingly higher amount of these type of decisions and to me it’s sick we’d even consider birthing a baby half way, drilling a hole in its head and sucking the brains out as a humane procedure. You keep going though because you feel strongly that there’s nothing wrong with it. Makes me sick.
     
  16. IEEEWreck

    IEEEWreck Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    528
    Come on, surely you can see the mathematical fallacy of your conclusion, right? It's the basic conclusion of Bayesian probability. The probability of x given y is not the same as the probability of x.

    Here, let's see if this helps: There are 18,000 in state Georgia Tech students each year. The vast majority of Georgia residents are nad lickers. Therefore the majority of Georgia Tech students are U(sic)gA fans.

    And here's the thing- I know you don't think you're talking about children born dead or on death's door. But the problem is, that is what Ralph Northam and the Virginia bill were talking about. And despite how Northam's words were misrepresented to you, the reality of them remains.
     
  17. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,276
    That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

    There is data out that shows 79% of late term abortions are elective. It has been referenced here before. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/late_term_abortion_usa.html And that's with many states refusing to report data (for obvious reasons).

    Furthermore, the only reasons we talk about 3rd trimester is because its so obvious they are humans - they can survive outside the mother. But the only reason we're limited to that is by our own technology. A few enhancements in a couple areas, and babies beyond 15 weeks could survive. With the slick 3D ultrasounds and other technology we have now, its getting more and more difficult to deny these are unborn humans. But meanwhile, you tamper with unborn eagle or turtle eggs and your *** is grass.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  18. MWBATL

    MWBATL Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,361
    Not sure if this stuff is accurate or not, but take it for what it is worth:

    The late infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller would sign off on girls getting abortions for “mental health reasons,” such as not being able to find a babysitter, or desiring to attend prom or a rock concert.

    Statistics show that most late-term abortions don’t actually occur for health reasons, and they’re also often repeat abortions. The Guttmacher Institute reported that abortions sought for fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority” abortions in the late-term, and abortions committed to save a mother’s life are even smaller.

    Diana Greene Foster, professor at the UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, authored a 2013 Guttmacher Institute study on late-term abortions. FactCheck.org reports: “She said based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortions,’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize.”

    This fact has been backed up by former Planned Parenthood director turned pro-life activist Abby Johnson and former abortion workers. The documentary “After Tiller” also notes that third trimester abortions were committed on babies who were healthy.

    If one thinks that abortionists don’t take full advantage of aborting babies up until the moment of birth, think again. Colorado abortionist Warren Hern does so, and he has committed abortions for reasons beyond health.

    and from a different website:
    Abby Johnson on Late-Term Abortions

    According to Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic, late term abortions are usually done for elective, rather than medical reasons.

    “…it is false to say the women who choose late term abortion do so because of medical reasons. We refered hundreds of women to abort their babies after 24 weeks…not ONE was for medical reasons.”

     
    LibertyTurns and Whiskey_Clear like this.
  19. Technut1990

    Technut1990 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,591
    You are totally wrong on the legal system. Your thoughts that you should be prosecuted simply for killing someone leaves out the exact requirement for a murder charge, MALICE. That's the entire reason these laws are getting passed, because people like you are completely willing to lock someone up based on the death of another even if that death was a result of self defense. The average time to trial on a murder case is about a year and a half, yet you propose that a completely innocent person should potentially sit in jail waiting to be declared innocent. So if a clerk kills an armed robber do we lock them up ? what about an abusive husband being killed by his wife during an attack ? a teen killing a rapist ? It is not a crime to defend yourself, you are correct on that. So with that said your thought that someone has to go to trial to be found innocent implies that they have to be arrested. Defending yourself is exactly the opposite of willful intent to commit malice murder. So long as people think you should automatically go through the justice system in any homicide then there is a need for stand your ground laws because otherwise you would arrest innocent people on purpose. You propose the victim go to jail and prove innocence, seems you forgot its the states obligation to prove guilt. if the state has reason to believe you were defending yourself then they are violating your rights by arresting you -- if its truly legal to defend yourself.

    like its been posted, 2 of the very cases you cite resulted in prosecutions and guilty verdicts so apparently the government felt they could prove it wasn't self defense.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  20. TampaBuzz

    TampaBuzz Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    393
    We seem to be talking past each other. Let me see if I can make myself clear. Here is how the legal system for manslaughter/murder charges used to work in Florida:
    • Person A kills Person B (maybe in self-defense, maybe not) The "castle" doctrine was in full force to allow for self-protection in the home.
    • Police arrest person A and charges that person based on the circumstances at the time of arrest. The prosecutor makes a preliminary review of the evidence and determines what charges apply. Charges may be dropped here.
    • Person A goes in front of the judge to determine if bail is warranted - for instances you describe - it would be granted, so nobody is sitting in jail needlessly.
    • The prosecutor completes a detailed investigation of the evidence and determines if he/she can make a case. If clearly self-defense, the charges are dropped.
    • If the prosecutor believes he/she can make a case - it is off to trial for the jury to decide if self-defense is warranted.
    Hmmm....multiple check points where charges could be dropped if self-defense is real.

    Here is how it works now:
    • Person A kills Person B (maybe in self-defense, maybe not) The "castle" doctrine is greatly expanded to basically anywhere a person feels threatened (Stand your Ground).
    • Police arrest person A and charges that person based on the circumstances at the time of arrest. The prosecutor makes a preliminary review of the evidence and determines what charges apply. Charges may be dropped here.
    • Person A goes in front of the judge to determine if bail is warranted - for instances you describe - it would be granted
    • The prosecutor completes a detailed investigation of the evidence and determines if he/she can make a case. If clearly self-defense, the charges are dropped.
    • If the prosecutor believes he/she can make a case - it is off to a pre-trial hearing to determine if Stand your Ground applies. Initially Stand your Ground did not apply if Person A started the confrontation and/or could not demonstrate that they were threatened. After a few cases where judges decided that Stand your Ground did not apply (think skateboard example), the legislature changed the rules so that the prosecutor has to prove that Person A did not FEEL threatened (this is the pending appeal in the movie theater case).
    • If the prosecutor can somehow prove that Person A did not FEEL threatened and wins the pre-trial hearing and all the subsequent appeals, it is off to trial for the jury to decide if self-defense is warranted.
    So what has happened is that the extra steps associated with the pre-trial hearing(s) and subsequent appeals have add multiple layers of cost and years to the process for both defendants and prosecutors, in the pursuit of justice for manslaughter/murder charges. Hence the 5 years of waiting for the movie theater shooter (he's on bail) and the widow and children of the dead guy who all want a conclusion to the nightmare. The result of all the extra steps is that prosecutors may decide that Person A, who maybe should be put on trial, won't be, because of economic and time considerations. Where is the justice in that?

    Maybe I am blind, but I don't see the justice in the system as currently configured. I have always believed that the legal system should move quickly and decisively. I have always had great deal of respect for prosecutors and trusted them to only try the cases that need to be tried. Apparently, the Florida legislature does not have the same level of trust in state prosecutors. Or, given the amount of lobbyist money flying around Tallahassee, was paid a great deal of money to gum up the legal system. My opinion is that "Stand your Ground" was/is a solution for a problem that did not exist. As a fiscal conservative, I find it appalling that our precious tax dollars are being wasted with this kind of crap in the legal system.
     

Share This Page