US Politics : Biden 100 days edition

[Kieppie]

I don't recall, and what was decided?

Go search then. Konfab mentioned it

Neither will a foetus if removed from the mother...

This is silly. It will grow until it runs out of nutrients and then start to die. The same with a baby in a crib if not fed.
Also the viability age is being reduced as medicine improves.

 

[C4Cat]

Why is a father stuck with the bill for decades?

So many absent fathers who pay nothing for their children's welfare says otherwise

 

[Kieppie]

I have bookmarked that post of his, so when it gets overturned his reverse justification that he always held the view that it would get overturned will be on display.

Remember to also bookmark the post where I said I won't mind being proved wrong. Since it is a horrible legal case irrespective of the moral impacts.

 

[scudsucker]

I don't see any of those here though do you?

I do. Indeed, I do Kieps.

 

[greg0205]

It is, but it's acceptable since there is no hope for recovery. We had the brain activity argument over a week ago already remember?

No a sperm is only alive as in it is biological, same for the eggs. They wont develop or change on their own.

A embryo has no guarantee of viability, but whatever.

 

[Kieppie]

I do. Indeed, I do Kieps.

May I suggest glasses then?

 

[C4Cat]

The reason though, why birth control is focused on woman is simply a numbers game. Block the functionality of a handful of eggs vs literally trillions of sperm. I know this is difficult for a progressive to understand, but men and woman are actually different.

This is actually a good point.
A woman using birth control could prevent 1 birth in a year - if she doesn't use contraception and is extremely promiscuous, the worst that can happen is she has a child that year (maybe 2 if its twins), irrespective of how many times she has sex and with how many people.
A man using birth control could prevent 365 births a year - if he doesn't use contraception and is extremely promiscuous the worst that can happen is he fathers hundreds of children.

Clearly birth control should be focused on the man, rather than the woman

 

[Kieppie]

A embryo has no guarantee of viability, but whatever.

Did I say it does? Nature is quite well adapted to determine this.
It's not for external actors to decide though.

 

[scudsucker]

A embryo has no guarantee of viability, but whatever.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding, and I think it is linked to science denialism (notwithstanding Kieps claims to be a "scientist")

The majority of miscarriages are MURDER, except "we" can only blame "god" for those, and he's not so easily shamed as a woman who terminates a pregnancy.

A miscarriage is, after all a possible beautiful baby, just one where the genetic code ****ed up a bit and it died. A bit like a full-term microcephelac baby.

Or no end of foetal abnormalities that will not result in a beautiful healthy baby - no doubt, blonde and male in Kiep's fantasy.

Sorry, Kieps, your arguement holds no water. Possibly some amniotic fluid, but many "babies" don't even get that.

 

[greg0205]

This is actually a good point.
A woman using birth control could prevent 1 birth in a year - if she doesn't use contraception and is extremely promiscuous, the worst that can happen is she has a child that year (maybe 2 if its twins), irrespective of how many times she has sex and with how many people.
A man using birth control could prevent 365 births a year - if he doesn't use contraception and is extremely promiscuous the worst that can happen is he fathers hundreds of children.

Clearly birth control should be focused on the man, rather than the woman

 

[konfab]

This is actually a good point.
A woman using birth control could prevent 1 birth in a year - if she doesn't use contraception and is extremely promiscuous, the worst that can happen is she has a child that year (maybe 2 if its twins), irrespective of how many times she has sex and with how many people.
A man using birth control could prevent 365 births a year - if he doesn't use contraception and is extremely promiscuous the worst that can happen is he fathers hundreds of children.

Clearly birth control should be focused on the man, rather than the woman

Not with your beloved abortion laws. It would be about 12.

Still the argument stands that male birth control would be a very useful addition in the fight to rid the world of abortion. And it would also drastically reduce the evil games that woman play by deliberately getting pregnant such that they can get child support gibs.

Unfortunately, I don't see a viable male birth control anytime soon. The numbers that are involved with sperm make it very difficult.

 

[konfab]

A embryo has no guarantee of viability, but whatever.

Deal with probabilities if you want to be address this correctly.

They have a reasonably good chance of viability, lets say more than 70%. Elsewise abortions wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Kieppie]

This is the fundamental misunderstanding, and I think it is linked to science denialism (notwithstanding Kieps claims to be a "scientist")

The majority of miscarriages are MURDER, except "we" can only blame "god" for those, and he's not so easily shamed as a woman who terminates a pregnancy.

A miscarriage is, after all a possible beautiful baby, just one where the genetic code ****ed up a bit and it died. A bit like a full-term microcephelac baby.

Or no end of foetal abnormalities that will not result in a beautiful healthy baby - no doubt, blonde and male in Kiep's fantasy.

Sorry, Kieps, your arguement holds no water. Possibly some amniotic fluid, but many "babies" don't even get that.

Talk about a strawman...

No one calls a miscarriage murder.
Well, no one except people like you it seems. Perhaps look into your own misunderstanding of science?

Also stop with your childish trolling. Remember sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
Then again if that's all you have.. condolences to you and your family.

 

[scudsucker]

Deal with probabilities if you want to be address this correctly.

They have a reasonably good chance of viability, lets say more than 70%. Elsewise abortions wouldn't be a problem.

Requires evidence supporting your "probabilities", please.

 

[scudsucker]

Talk about a strawman...

Ok Kieps.

 

[Kieppie]

Requires evidence supporting your "probabilities", please.

 

[greg0205]

Did I say it does? Nature is quite well adapted to determine this.
It's not for external actors to decide though.

In SB8, if there are embryonic abnormalities that make the pregnancy nonviable but there is cardiac activity, the doctor can be sued for doing the procedure.

That's just nature deciding for ya, ain't it?

 

[scudsucker]

...

Asking for evidence to support a fairly contentious claim is not sea-lioning.

(Although I will admit to have been unfailingly polite.)



Later edit: that pinneped is a seal, not a sea lion. You are welcome.

 

[Kieppie]

In SB8, if there are embryonic abnormalities that make the pregnancy nonviable but there is cardiac activity, the doctor can be sued for doing the procedure.

That's just nature deciding for ya, ain't it?

And the odds of that happening are?
Strange that proportions of such individuals aren't much higher then.

Anyway the medical emergencies exception could cater for those situation, but lets not pretend that you really care what the bill entails except that it exists.

 

[konfab]

Requires evidence supporting your "probabilities", please.

I don't mind getting it, but would it really change your point of view?