Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 8:50 am

your "argument" only solidifies what I said. You have no room for other opinions. Your no room for other feelings shows the problem. It is not as cut and dry as you want it to be. Give your personal feelings, give court rulings but leaving no room for any feelings or opinions other than your own shows you are being stubborn. As far as Gun rights, uhhh, we all (in a generic sense... certainly some are infertile) can take part in a pregnancy at some stage in our lives so yes, it certainly is a good example.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Mar 2017, 9:04 am

I'm sure there are some good arguments against what I said...come up with some.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Mar 2017, 9:18 am

My goodness, Freeman! What else could a woman want to make it "full equality" in this issue? She gets the choice of contraception, she get the choice of termination, she gets to have support of the child, she can almost certainly remove a father's even seeing the child.

What else could there possibly be that would make it "full equality"?

I have always put the responsibility on both parents for having sex. When that is a choice that is made (please don't bring rape into this as it does not apply to my point), the responsibility lies with both, and the rights should also apply thereof.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 9:55 am

rickyp wrote:tom
Killing a living being can be considered murder.


So when is a fetus living? A fetus can't survive outside the womb until at least 24 weeks and then only rarely till about 29 weeks... And then with significant medical assistance for some time.

Until a fetus can survive outside the womb it is considered part of the woman. It is the only reasonable argument to discern when "life" or the "potential to be alive" could be recognized.

The argument that life begins at conception seems odd when you consider that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term (spontaneously abort) (38 to 42 weeks) .


I'm pro choice up to about 20 weeks, but one does have to be humble and marvel that a fetus is a choice one month, and then the next moth is something that most parents would willingly sacrifice their own lives for.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 11:05 am

I have not given my personal opinion, I simply suggest that this certainly is a very personal opinion as to when life begins. To simply rely on your own opinion or that of a court and rule out any and all others that disagree with you makes one stubborn to say the least. Freeman said himself he finds it hard to see any reasonable argument against his view. Any who disagree with him (on a VERY personal issue) is flat out wrong.

Then he states that one half of the population gets to decide on a law that they have no part of is just further ignorant. Murder will not likely affect me in my life (I hope) but gee, we make laws on that. The death penalty certainly is similar now isn't it? People make many many laws for things they may never face themselves! The gay rights laws are another example he simply brushes aside. It's a "rights issue" yet very few of us (statistically) are gay. These laws would not affect the majority of us. Of course we set up laws for minorities. To some we should be protecting unborn children as well. Simply because your personal opinion is different doesn't make you right. The law is on your side and I understand that but to have no understanding of any other opinion is a bit ...dumb. What about before Roe vs wade? I guess YOUR opinion was wrong then and any who dismissed your opinion as being "unreasonable" were completely in the right? Hey, that's using your own logic now isn't it?

All this and I have not said my position, you see, I understand we have many many different views on this subject. I do not agree with all but i certainly understand the difference of opinions.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 12:34 pm

GMTom wrote:That's it, when the polling data YOU supply doesn't work for you, search for something else that does...


I have not seen any evidence that there has been any kind of major shift towards overturning RvW.

And this is all I can find that goes back to the 1970s in polling terms, which shows that the opinions on abortion had not really changed between 1975 and 2013:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... em/283226/

The Atlantic wrote:Take a question that Gallup has asked more than 50 times since 1975: Should abortion be legal in certain circumstances? That year, 54 percent said yes. When CNN’s pollsters asked the same question in May 2013, 54 percent gave that response, with 20 to 25 percent at the extremes.


The bulk of the "debate" regarding the question on this thread is pointless (as was the "racism" debate, and several of the other diversions from the topic at the top of the page). Various polls may show variations, and people will cling to the ones that they think suit their case best. But overall it is tough to make a case that there has been a swing toward overturning Roe v Wade, or that there has been a swing toward keeping it in place. If anything, the main recent change has been an uptick in those who are uncertain. But of course those who are "certain" are the loudest voices.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 1:37 pm

since you are quoting me...

I never said an overturn of Roe V Wade was due, should be made, should be considered, etc.
I simply discussed Freeman's stance that those who do not agree with his views are stubborn and not allowing him any leeway whatsover.
I also discussed the polls that Ricky himself provided and in those polls there was a pretty significant shift of people claiming to be Pro Life, a BIG jump over the years where just about half now consider themselves pro life.

and for the record, while I am against abortion on a personal level, I do support it on a legal level with some basic requirements (no late term abortions, etc) I am not the raving Conservative you want to assume I am
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10738
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 2:06 pm

Tom
What about before Roe vs wade?

Abortion laws in the US changed because women were dieing and being hideously injured from illegal abortions.
Note: Men did not suffer physically from illegal abortions. So legalizing abortion had nothing to do with men. It had to do with womens health.

The Supreme Court did not "invent" legal abortion, much less abortion itself, when it handed down its historic Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Abortion, both legal and illegal, had long been part of life in America. Indeed, the legal status of abortion has passed through several distinct phases in American history. Generally permitted at the nation's founding and for several decades thereafter, the procedure was made illegal under most circumstances in most states beginning in the mid-1800s. In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life (see box).
But regardless of the legal status of abortion, its fundamental underlying cause—unintended pregnancy—has been a continuing reality for American women. In the 1960s, researchers from Princeton University estimated that almost one in three Americans (32%) who wanted no more children were likely to have at least one unintended pregnancy before the end of their childbearing years; more than six in 10 Americans (62%) wanting children at some point in the future were likely to have experienced at least one unintended pregnancy.
While the problem of unintended pregnancy spanned all strata of society, the choices available to women varied before Roe. At best, these choices could be demeaning and humiliating, and at worst, they could lead to injury and death. Women with financial means had some, albeit very limited, recourse to a legal abortion; less affluent women, who disproportionately were young and members of minority groups, had few options aside from a dangerous illegal procedure.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.
One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/ ... e-prologue
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10738
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Mar 2017, 2:13 pm

tom
I also discussed the polls that Ricky himself provided and in those polls there was a pretty significant shift of people claiming to be Pro Life, a BIG jump over the years where just about half now consider themselves pro life.

Your the only one who seems to interpret that poll the way you do Tom.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 06 Mar 2017, 7:58 am

Ricky, you are the king of taking what you want from a poll and turning it into what suits your personal agenda, you should have zero problem with what I gathered from the poll you provided. You said peoples feelings have not changed in the forty years this has been a law yet very clearly those who considered themselves pro-life went up to damn near half the people in our country. You want to claim I am the only one reading this but I prefer to be the one who is pointing out how wrong you were in your statement. You don't much like it but hey, it was YOUR poll information and it certainly does prove your position as incorrect. So what do you do? Dismiss the facts you do not like and concentrate on what you do like, anyone who reads anything differently than you simply must be wrong.
That may work for you but it certainly does not suddenly make your position correct now does it?

and my statement about "what about before Roe v Wade" was in response to Freeman stating the law was on his side. Others be damned on whatever they thought, the law was on his side. I simply pointed out that the law was against him at one time, he would have been wrong and the legality go unchallenged. But (as you pointed out) that's not how we do things, laws are always in flux. Simply because i"t's the law" does not make him right to a degree where he can dismiss any and all who have a difference of opinion. Thanks for pointing out how our laws change though, it helped prove my point thanks.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 May 2017, 12:32 pm

Can anyone tell me if the orangeman coined the phrase "fake news?" I'm curious to learn if it was indeed Trump that brought this concept to the fore or if others had already been using it.

Thanks to whoever responds.

dh
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 May 2017, 12:36 pm

Also,

Hats off by the way to ONE AMERICA NEWS for simply reporting the news with the best facts they can muster sans diatribal, vitriolic, tomical, hyper emotional, hysterical "perspective."

What a breath of fresh air.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 May 2017, 4:57 pm

The term itself has been around since the 1890s but the precise meaning with which it is generally being used now may be due to Trump.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -news/amp/
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 487
Joined: 26 Sep 2006, 10:19 am

Post 24 May 2017, 10:19 am

The orange one didn't coin fake news. I first heard it used to describe a flood of articles, primarily on the internet, that were fake. I don't remember the exact timeline, but I do remember reports of large amounts of fake news as the election went on.

In particular, I can remember Breitbart being referred to as fake news, and I can remember being annoyed at Trump coopting the phrase and throwing it around like crazy.

Trump just uses it to refer to people he disagrees with. But the term has a real meaning, it means news which is factually incorrect. And that meaning was in use before Trump tried to destroy it.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 27 Jun 2017, 9:21 am

Wasn't sure whether to post this article here or under the "Maybe Trump is Right" thread. It seems more appropriate here.

The CNN "resignations" are too few and 18 months too late.

Everyone of these networks should clean house and simply start over.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/cnn-retracts-story-supposed-russian-175206933.html

And what a class act Scaramucci is in the way he handled the situation. And how absolutely unfair to him and his reputation as an American citizen and civil servant.

If only the New York Times would fire or "resign" their entire editorial board I might consider subscribing again.