rubato wrote:Why is it that Christians make excuses for stealing, murdering, and mass sexual exploitation of children but believe faggotry is an existential threat?
they're stupid and evil.
yrs,
rubato
Let's amend this to something approaching the truth:
Some people who call themselves Christians make excuses for stealing, murdering, and mass sexual exploitation of children and also believe faggotry is an existential threat.
These people are stupid and/or evil. What's more they aren't good Christians.
Best line so far, referring to the attention that is given to Trump's abusive and psychotic Twitter presence: "Look, I get it, it is the nature of grotesque things that you can't look away." Simultaneously slamming Trump and the media without naming either.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
When asked about New York's recent change to permit abortion after 24 weeks to protect the woman's life and health, he responded thus:
Whether he has given issues like this a lot of serious thought, and/or has just been that well prepped, answers like this will chalk up a win at any debate or any other time he is in front of a microphone.
The Orange Menace will still be thinking that calling him Alfred E. Newman is a great zinger, and will not know what the fuck hit him.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
Scooter wrote:When asked about New York's recent change to permit abortion after 24 weeks to protect the woman's life and health, he responded thus:
Whether he has given issues like this a lot of serious thought, and/or has just been that well prepped, answers like this will chalk up a win at any debate or any other time he is in front of a microphone.
The Orange Menace will still be thinking that calling him Alfred E. Newman is a great zinger, and will not know what the fuck hit him.
My wife had a patient like that in Ore. The woman had been treated for cancer years before and was in remission. She had two children already and this was a planned, desired pregnancy. Very shortly after the end of the 2nd trimester she was diagnosed with a relapse. Her choices were 1) have the child and die (leaving a widow and two-three children.} 2)Begin treatment for cancer with a decent chance of survival, the treatment would certainly kill the fetus so that an abortion would be required.
Only a complete asshole would require that she die, her husband be widowed, and her children be made motherless. Only a complete moral dwarf would insist that the potential life of a fetus should ALWAYS be more valuable than a living woman.
I think the stock answer from the Alabama Gang would be, "Well, of course we would make an exception in that case. After all, how many times would THAT happen, anyway?"
The problem is, right now that exception does not exist so the woman would have to violate the law and have the abortion. She would always live with the possibility of being charged for the 'crime' of saving her own life and being brought to trial; being forced to mount a defense to the charge(s); and eventually have her fate in the hands of "twelve good men and true". -"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
that's my understanding of the new law in Alabama, they woudl prosecute any physician or other person performing abortions, not the woman.
I would hope the USSC ends this rdiculous law, but if it doesn't, I think it is time to try and set up some sort of service to transport women from these backwards states who want abortions to one where abortion is free and legal. It's a cumbersome process, but I'd be happy to donate--maybe even help wth the transport after I retire. There's no reason a part of the country should be denied effective modern medical care, so if that's what it takes, it would be worth it.
See this article that discusses how the Georgia bill could upend a previous court ruling that the law could not be used to prosecute a woman who has an abortion, and another ruling that murder cannot be charged unless a person has been born alive.
The complete erasure, by fiat, of any distinction between born and unborn, distinctions that predate our earliest legal codes, will have repercussions throughout society. Will the idiots who threw together this piece of garbage have anything to say besides "golly gee willikers, we never done thought 'bout nuttin like dat"?
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
Excellent piece (My Rapist Apologized) in today's NYT by Michelle Alexander, who was raped at law school and became pregnant as a result. This wasn't a stranger jumping out of the bushes kind of rape, but a 'friend.' It seems that he was contrite and regretted his actions and offered to pay for the abortion: nevertheless, would he have admitted to rape - a criminal offence with huge penalties - had that been necessary to obtain an abortion? And it's clearly no use to the victim if it takes six months of legal wrangling to prove that she was raped.
To many - and I admit it, to me - the most shocking thing about the Alabama law was that it contained no exception for rape and incest. That's not the point, and those of us who want abortion to be, as HRC put it, safe, legal and rare need to focus on the availability of legal and safe abortion to those women who choose that route. If we waste our ammunition on the 'rape and incest' issue we might even win that battle but at the cost of losing the war.
I am torn between wondering if these bills were drafted by true believers trying to restrict abortion as much as possible, retaining only a fig leaf of legality to give cover to judges who will uphold it....
...or whether some restrictions were intentionally drafted as too extreme to avoid being struck down.
I can think of no other reason for the bills to say that a heartbeat makes a fetus fully human at a time when it does not yet have a heart.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
I'm convinced that they were drafted in such a way as to cause a legal challenge that they can continually appeal until it gets up to the SCOTUS in an effort to either overturn or dismantle Roe v Wade.
But then again, I'm wearing my tinfoil hat these days.
Of course they were written with the intent to overturn Roe - there’s nothing tinfoil hat about that ‘suspicion’, as many conservatives have acknowledged this publicly.
Here’s one of numerous articles that specifically address this issue:
I think eddie and BSG are right: the overall intent is to get something sent up to SCOTUS who will then overturn Roe v Wade.
My point was a secondary one: that the Alabama refusal to put rape and incest in there was a 'hairy arm*' - something put in to distract the opposition so that you get what you want. Even most opponents of abortion want it available in cases of rape and incest; so we focus on that - they (apparently) reluctantly back down on that issue, and we go away to celebrate the 'victory.'
* The original story of the 'hairy arm' which I heard some 40 plus years ago was this. A Swiss watch company commissioned a director to create a TV ad for their product. They wanted a nice boring ad which focused on the merits of the watch and how well it told time to the split second. The ad director had other ideas and wanted some gauzy arty farty ad which celebrated the connection to self and one's place in the universe and so on. So he filmed the ad he wanted but made sure that the model wearing the watch had a very hairy arm. When they showed it to the client they roared 'yes but for God's sake get rid of the hairy arm!' Net result: the director got the ad he wanted.
Don’t discount the many anti-choice folks who don’t want exceptions for rape and incest - on the theory that 1) it’s not the zygote’s fault how it came to be, and 2) most women are lying when they cry rape/incest anyway.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
