Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".

No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.

The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.

E.ven if the reason given is 'Because Trump felt he had an antagonistic relationship with the head of the FBI, and wanted to move beyond that' - no lies, and accurately conveys part of the cause for discord - without saying which side was acting in an antagonistic fashion.

Instead... we got what we got.

After Trump is done, I don't think there will be much left of Sander's career - 'Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon, thy master, is bought and sold'

The Auld Grump - but I needed to buy a Cone of Silence for my home!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

In the US there are 9 states and DC that have no restrictions on when you can have an abortion, 3 states allow it up to 28 weeks and 26 states allow it up to 24-26 weeks.

Prestor Jon wrote:

You can abort a clump of cells within a five months of becoming pregnant but you shouldn't be able to kill a tiny human that can live independently from you simply because you think it's existence is inconvenient. Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it. It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?

The issue is not about when the fetus is or isn't able to survive by itself or when it is or isn't a body separate from another body.

Tue issue is that you cannot be forced to undergo any kind of medical treatment or procedure against your will just to keep another human body alive. The law universally agrees that the second that baby is born, the mother can decide that any kind of medical procedure involving the mother that would keep the child alive is an inconvenience and allow the child to die without any legal consequence whatsoever:

Baby lost a lot of blood during child birth and needs an emergency transfusion to keep alive and the only source of blood is the mother and if we don't transfuse right now the baby dies? The mother has no legal responsibility of any kind to allow anybody to take her blood to give to the child, and if the child dies there is no legal recourse against mom because she cannot be forced to undergo treatment. Neither mother nor dad can be forced to donate bone marrow or a kidney to their child, just because the child can live outside of the body after is is born. Even before it is born, if a ultrasound finds a birth defect that will result in the death of the child after birth, but which is 100% correctable via fetal surgery and would allow the fetus to survive birth, there is no way to force the mother to have a surgery against her will to save the life of a child. It doesn't matter if it will die without it and survive with it, she cannot be forced to have the surgery.

There is just this weird idea that the only person that loses absolute autonomy over her body is a pregnant woman from the moment of fetal viability to childbirth. The reason abortion has been found legal over and over again is the same reason nobody can just go ahead and take your kidney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is lots of talk about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. But from a legal aspect it's pretty cut and dry.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

The US.

All you need is a medical exception in most cases, and all it takes an MD's signature.

Hence D&E is still used. (where forcepts are used to dismember the limbs in utero)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is lots of talk about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. But from a legal aspect it's pretty cut and dry.

Yup... that's the crux of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".

No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.

The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.

E.ven if the reason given is 'Because Trump felt he had an antagonistic relationship with the head of the FBI, and wanted to move beyond that' - no lies, and accurately conveys part of the cause for discord - without saying which side was acting in an antagonistic fashion.

Instead... we got what we got.

After Trump is done, I don't think there will be much left of Sander's career - 'Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon, thy master, is bought and sold'

The Auld Grump - but I needed to buy a Cone of Silence for my home!

So, are we really going with that Press Secretary shouldn't lie/spin for the President? Really?

Okay.

Well... I mean... it's *not* okay. But be honest here... every Press Secretary does it.... and EVERY Press Secretary will do so in the future.

Frankly, it's turning into a gak show (long before el Trumpo) such that we might as well as go old school: Reportors submit questions in writing, and the Press Office submits answers in writing later in the day (after which being fully and properly vetted).

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

The US.

All you need is a medical exception in most cases, and all it takes an MD's signature.

Hence D&E is still used. (where forcepts are used to dismember the limbs in utero)

Yeah ok, but medical exceptions are allowed in most countries after 24 weeks, a decision that isn't lightly taken because it also poses significant risk to the woman. Regular abortion has the 24 week cutoff it seems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

In the US there are 9 states and DC that have no restrictions on when you can have an abortion, 3 states allow it up to 28 weeks and 26 states allow it up to 24-26 weeks.

This seems more like a problematic legislation issue. No restrictions doesn't mean you will find a doctor giving you an abortion in your 32th week. It mostly seems to be included for reasons of medical exceptions, a standard exceeding 24 weeks in many countries that allow abortion.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

the USA.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You can abort a clump of cells within a five months of becoming pregnant but you shouldn't be able to kill a tiny human that can live independently from you simply because you think it's existence is inconvenient. Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it. It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?

The issue is not about when the fetus is or isn't able to survive by itself or when it is or isn't a body separate from another body.

Tue issue is that you cannot be forced to undergo any kind of medical treatment or procedure against your will just to keep another human body alive. The law universally agrees that the second that baby is born, the mother can decide that any kind of medical procedure involving the mother that would keep the child alive is an inconvenience and allow the child to die without any legal consequence whatsoever:

Baby lost a lot of blood during child birth and needs an emergency transfusion to keep alive and the only source of blood is the mother and if we don't transfuse right now the baby dies? The mother has no legal responsibility of any kind to allow anybody to take her blood to give to the child, and if the child dies there is no legal recourse against mom because she cannot be forced to undergo treatment. Neither mother nor dad can be forced to donate bone marrow or a kidney to their child, just because the child can live outside of the body after is is born. Even before it is born, if a ultrasound finds a birth defect that will result in the death of the child after birth, but which is 100% correctable via fetal surgery and would allow the fetus to survive birth, there is no way to force the mother to have a surgery against her will to save the life of a child. It doesn't matter if it will die without it and survive with it, she cannot be forced to have the surgery.

There is just this weird idea that the only person that loses absolute autonomy over her body is a pregnant woman from the moment of fetal viability to childbirth. The reason abortion has been found legal over and over again is the same reason nobody can just go ahead and take your kidney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is lots of talk about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. But from a legal aspect it's pretty cut and dry.

Nebraska has banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy since 2010. If it's legal to ban abortions at 20 weeks in the US then why wouldn't it be legal to ban them after 24 weeks?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

the USA.

I should have specified abortion up to 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Many countries have the medical reasons exception. Looking at CDC statistics the amount of people in the US that have an abortion after 24 weeks is absolutely tiny.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

the USA.

I should have specified abortion up to 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Many countries have the medical reasons exception. Looking at CDC statistics the amount of people in the US that have an abortion after 24 weeks is absolutely tiny.

I am just answering the question.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Nebraska has banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy since 2010. If it's legal to ban abortions at 20 weeks in the US then why wouldn't it be legal to ban them after 24 weeks?

Giuliani walks this 'n that back over that backtrack and under that hill over there:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/04/rudy-giuliani-walks-back-statements-about-porn-star-hush-money-comey-firing.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

Part of me thinks all of this is to just obfuscate this so much, that non-political junkies would just tune out.

 whembly wrote:
Giuliani walks this 'n that back over that backtrack and under that hill over there:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/04/rudy-giuliani-walks-back-statements-about-porn-star-hush-money-comey-firing.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

You can't hold today GOP responsible for what yesterday GOP said! That's witchuntery!

Part of me thinks all of this is to just obfuscate this so much, that non-political junkies would just tune out.

Masrikova, American style.

Well, they succeeded in having so much gak out there that nobody is really talking about Scott Pruitt probably illegally skimming from his Oklahoma campaign funds, Pence's White House doctor resigning over issues with the former Trump physician, the VA running out of money, etc etc etc.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

the USA.

I should have specified abortion up to 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Many countries have the medical reasons exception. Looking at CDC statistics the amount of people in the US that have an abortion after 24 weeks is absolutely tiny.

I am just answering the question.

I know, but I guess my question was confusing because in the Netherlands when we talk about abortion we say the limit is 24 weeks by law. But that doesn't mean 24+ weeks isn't allowed without sufficient medical reason.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

the USA.

I should have specified abortion up to 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Many countries have the medical reasons exception. Looking at CDC statistics the amount of people in the US that have an abortion after 24 weeks is absolutely tiny.

I am just answering the question.

I know, but I guess my question was confusing because in the Netherlands when we talk about abortion we say the limit is 24 weeks by law. But that doesn't mean 24+ weeks isn't allowed without sufficient medical reason.

Yeah, and to be fair, the main reason why the vast majority of abortion laws are struck down in the US is because there is no exception to the ban and the most extreme argument boils down to "it doesn't matter that she's a 13 year old girl that was raped by her father, that the child has severe birth defects due to the incest, and that she is suffering severe pregnancy complications that will likely kill her. None of that is the fault of the child and she cannot be allowed to terminate. If both die, then at least we know it was God's will."

I don't know if the absolute refusal by so many people to include incest/rape/health exemptions to abortion bans is because of an absolute refusal to compromise their own ideas about life, or if it is a well calculated way to be able to continue to campaign against abortion while knowing that you will never have to actually deal with the consequences of the laws you pass because you know they will be struck down, which in turn lets you continue to campaign on the same issue for the next 20 years. By passing the extreme versions of the abortion restrictions that will be struck down, they are also able to frame it as a "they want ALL abortion to be legal" because when the extreme laws get struck down there are no sensible laws left to take their place. So it's "protect all babies" vs "kill all babies", and extreme positions are easier to campaign on in a partisan environment.

I'm guessing that quite a lot of people are in the same camp I am in: pro-choice, but let us do everything we can to create a caring and nurturing environment where women will choose life. Make sure the support systems are in place for mother and child well past the "get it out of her vagina" stage.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.

From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?

Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.

Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.

That's a false choice. Not having an abortion doesn't compel anyone to raise the child. A woman can give birth and then give the baby up for adoption.

They can. However, that point was in response to an earlier comment in the thread about sex and choice and consequences, and even with an adoption, there are costs and risks to the mother (childbirth can be fatal), costs and risks the mother alone bears.

To expand on adoption however, while great and amazing and I in no way denigrate that, it is not a cure-all. There are not enough willing parents for all potential abortions, not by an order of magnitude, and just expecting there to be an adoption for every child in need is naieve in the extreme, not only today but especially so in a world without access to abortion. Even moreso for children who have or would have major physical and developmental disabilities, which I get is a touchy subject for a lot of good reasons, but at the same time the stark truth is that almost nobody wants to adopt a kid with mental health issues or major physical debilitations, and we already massively fail to meet the needs of those who are born with such conditions as is much of the time.

I've got family members who were adopted and friends who have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to adopt children. The process you have to go through to adopt children in the US is insane considering that women who are biologicially capable of having babies can have as many babies as they want with whomever they want.

That difference is one largely constructed from liability, the state or agency has assumed responsibility for the child, and the childs proper placement and may suffer consequences from poor placement, while people who naturally have children basically dont have to deal with that issue.

Nobody is ever punished with a baby because nobody is ever forced to raise one. A fetus is typically viable outside the womb around 24 weeks and that should be the cut off for abortions.

At that age the fetus is dangerously premature and will have a high likelyhood of potentially life altering medical issues. Also, viability is relative, with access to modern medical facilities and healthcare, sure 24 weeks is doable, but even then is dangerous, and there is a 30-50% mortality rate that early IIRC. Without access to healthcare? The picture changes dramatically for the worse.

That said, I can buy this argument to a certain degree, there is a merit to it, and I grant that. There is a lot of quibbling to be done over where the line should be, and thats probably what my paragraph above basically is, but as I'm not anatomically equipped to have such a procedure myself in any event, my primary retort would be that the mother still has right to her body and what it does, as below.

Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it.

I will refer to my earlier point about personal body/property rights. If I will die without your blood or spare kidney, the state cannot compel you to give of your body to prevent my death.

It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?

That's a good argument, and I'm not sure I have a satisfying answer. My thoughts are basically that once actually removed from the mother and into a hospital, there is another layer of care and responsibility involved, the mothers body is no longer what is keeping the child alive and thus her ability to end the pregnancy based on her rights to her body is gone.

 d-usa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I am just answering the question.

I know, but I guess my question was confusing because in the Netherlands when we talk about abortion we say the limit is 24 weeks by law. But that doesn't mean 24+ weeks isn't allowed without sufficient medical reason.

Yeah, and to be fair, the main reason why the vast majority of abortion laws are struck down in the US is because there is no exception to the ban and the most extreme argument boils down to "it doesn't matter that she's a 13 year old girl that was raped by her father, that the child has severe birth defects due to the incest, and that she is suffering severe pregnancy complications that will likely kill her. None of that is the fault of the child and she cannot be allowed to terminate. If both die, then at least we know it was God's will."

I don't know if the absolute refusal by so many people to include incest/rape/health exemptions to abortion bans is because of an absolute refusal to compromise their own ideas about life, or if it is a well calculated way to be able to continue to campaign against abortion while knowing that you will never have to actually deal with the consequences of the laws you pass because you know they will be struck down, which in turn lets you continue to campaign on the same issue for the next 20 years. By passing the extreme versions of the abortion restrictions that will be struck down, they are also able to frame it as a "they want ALL abortion to be legal" because when the extreme laws get struck down there are no sensible laws left to take their place. So it's "protect all babies" vs "kill all babies", and extreme positions are easier to campaign on in a partisan environment.

I'm guessing that quite a lot of people are in the same camp I am in: pro-choice, but let us do everything we can to create a caring and nurturing environment where women will choose life. Make sure the support systems are in place for mother and child well past the "get it out of her vagina" stage.

That's a good point. Many of the standard bearers don't seem firm believers either. We have the same no rape/incest exclusion group but they are politically too small to achieve anything. Surprisingly similar to US evangelists though.

I share the camp you're in. I think around 75% of US abortions occur due to financial reasons. Solving those structural financial issues is going to be a lot easier than blanket banning abortion.

 Vaktathi wrote:

To expand on adoption however, while great and amazing and I in no way denigrate that, it is not a cure-all. There are not enough willing parents for all potential abortions, not by an order of magnitude, and just expecting there to be an adoption for every child in need is naieve in the extreme, not only today but especially so in a world without access to abortion. Even moreso for children who have or would have major physical and developmental disabilities, which I get is a touchy subject for a lot of good reasons, but at the same time the stark truth is that almost nobody wants to adopt a kid with mental health issues or major physical debilitations, and we already massively fail to meet the needs of those who are born with such conditions as is much of the time.

That is definitely an issue. There are some amazing human being out there who make the choice to adopt and provide a loving and caring home for kids with some extreme needs out there, knowing full and well that they will have to care for this child for decades and decades long after other children would be in the world on their own. As much as I think of myself as a decent human being, I don't think I could just choose to do what they are doing.

But for every person like that, there are also plenty of potential adoptive parents out there who don't have a desire to adopt a "defective" child.

Just to add, I looked up CDC statistics on abortion and Dutch statistics. Even though the US doesn't have a hard cap in some states, the amount of abortions after 21 weeks as the CDC registers is tiny.

The CDC notes that abortion after 21 weeks concerns about 1.2-1.3% of all abortions, about 6000.
The Netherlands, a country with 1/20th of the people has a 3% abortion rate after 21 weeks of about a 1000 women.
So for a country 1/20th of the sizeof the US we only have 1/6 less in abortions after 21 weeks with a abortion law cap of 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Somewhere down the line it seems you have to admit that putting an arbitrary number of weeks on it isn't helping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
But for every person like that, there are also plenty of potential adoptive parents out there who don't have a desire to adopt a "defective" child.

There are also plenty of people who don't want to adopt anything older than a baby. There are whole cottage industries geared towards producing babies for Western adoption, even while many slightly older children get left behind in the system because of their age.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.

The US.

All you need is a medical exception in most cases, and all it takes an MD's signature.

Hence D&E is still used. (where forcepts are used to dismember the limbs in utero)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is lots of talk about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. But from a legal aspect it's pretty cut and dry.

Yup... that's the crux of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".

No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.

The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.

Even if the reason given is 'Because Trump felt he had an antagonistic relationship with the head of the FBI, and wanted to move beyond that' - no lies, and accurately conveys part of the cause for discord - without saying which side was acting in an antagonistic fashion.

Instead... we got what we got.

After Trump is done, I don't think there will be much left of Sander's career - 'Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon, thy master, is bought and sold'

The Auld Grump - but I needed to buy a Cone of Silence for my home!

So, are we really going with that Press Secretary shouldn't lie/spin for the President? Really?

Okay.

Well... I mean... it's *not* okay. But be honest here... every Press Secretary does it.... and EVERY Press Secretary will do so in the future.

Frankly, it's turning into a gak show (long before el Trumpo) such that we might as well as go old school: Reporters submit questions in writing, and the Press Office submits answers in writing later in the day (after which being fully and properly vetted).

Would have been nice if you had considered what I actually wrote... but if you are a Republican at this point in time, I can understand starting off on the defensive.

The problem is that elTrumpo and Co. are not even bothering to coordinate their lies - so you end up with several different versions floating around, as well as 'alternative facts'.

Where one of his administration says he was at a meeting and Trump never said something, while Trump himself is going on the air and boasting that he had actually said it.

Not only are they liars, they aren't even very good at it.

A good Press Secretary actually doesn't lie very often - and usually complains when they have to do so. Jay Carney, for example, said that he couldn't even imagine Obama asking him to lie.

In part because Obama had enough foresight to know that lies will be uncovered, and then be highlighted.

Lies have a very bad tendency to come back to bite you in the behind - evasion and spin are much safer means.

Coming out and boasting that you had the biggest inauguration, ever, when it was among the smallest since Jimmy Carter, not so much.

Save the lies for when they will best serve your purposes, not when you just want your name in glowing letters.

So, be honest here, Sanders et ali go far beyond what 'every press secretary' does, and are trying to keep up with an erratic President that does not bother to coordinate with the people trying to work with him.

The Auld Grump - 3,000+ lies, and counting....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
So, be honest here, Sanders et ali go far beyond what 'every press secretary' does, and are trying to keep up with an erratic President that does not bother to coordinate with the people trying to work with him.

I don't even know if calling it lying covers it anymore, it just goes straight into propaganda and revisionism. Remember how SHS said the President had in no way ever promoted or encouraged violence? Even though we have minutes worth of clips of Trump doing just that?

Speaking of Pruitt:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/scott-pruitt-security/index.html

Kerry "quietly" getting the old band back together:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/05/04/kerry-quietly-seeking-salvage-iran-deal-helped-craft/2fTkGON7xvaNbO0YbHECUL/story.html

I remember that doing this was...unseemly:
https://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8182063/tom-cottons-controversial-letter-to-iran-explained
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/senate-republicans-pen-letter-to-iran-supreme-leader/387223/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/09/world/middleeast/document-the-letter-senate-republicans-addressed-to-the-leaders-of-iran.html

Difference is, Kerry is a civie now...

Saw this earlier today, these are actual words spoken by Trump at the NRA convention today.
"Your Second Amendment rights are under siege, but they will never, ever be under siege as long as I'm your president."
So, which is it?

Prestor Jon wrote:
It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue..

She signed it today. So now my state, which has been pretty moderate, now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country. My tax dollars are now going to be flushed in the toilet as they lose court challenge after court challenge defending this clearly unconstitutional law. Terrific.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue..

She signed it today. So now my state, which has been pretty moderate, now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country. My tax dollars are now going to be flushed in the toilet as they lose court challenge after court challenge defending this clearly unconstitutional law. Terrific.

Hurray! You're #1!

At least your governor didn't take the crackpot Jade Hell conspiracy seriously.

This has made me realize it was fun to laugh at Greg Abbott until we got our own Greg Abbott. There is a lesson in there.

The lesson is learn to laugh at all of it.

I mean, take a step back for a second.

The US is, and has always been, exceptionally great and mind-bendingly stupid at the same time (more so than the average huamn society, I mean). Isn't it kind of funny that we can be so much of both at the same time? At least I find that a man with one leg of an Olympic athelete and one leg of a polio victim manages to not only compete, but excel, hilarious on a certain philosophical level.

 Ouze wrote:
This has made me realize it was fun to laugh at Greg Abbott until we got our own Greg Abbott. There is a lesson in there.

Hey, it's all fun and games until you get caught trying to sell a seat in congress. No wait, that was my ex-governor Blagojevich. Why are our leaders so bad?

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, not arguing the morality, just what can happen when science advances.

Now you want to get weird, let's start talking about designer babies. Scary stuff.

Edit : daughter starts talking about CRISPR and the gak gets real man.

whats funny is designer babies is basically what got me into my future career field( admittedly the primary is elimination of many diseases.)