We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
Race, we can find common ground. Yes abortions are going to happen regardless, even if they out law it in Alabama, they will go to another state. Just like banning guns in Chicago isn't very effective, people can get guns from elsewhere.
And yes age of viability was the common ground that people came to.
And I agree on fund raising, which is crazy to me. I know many people who vote primarily because abortion, they want it illegal. Me, I don't care as much about the issue. If people want to donate to a cause that'll probably not get overturned, that's their choice.
We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
The philosophizers take issue with viability because technology moves that line backward all the time, and so the thought is that whether someone is a person or not shouldn't be a function of technology.
I myself don't get too hung up on that and think the first trimester is a good enough line to draw. We draw lines in life all the tim. This is as a good a context to draw one as any.
This is so reasonable of you and yet so un philosopher king.
It's what should have happened with this issue from the beginning. If California wants to make abortion legal they should have the ability to do so. And if the voters of Alabama want to outlaw abortion they should have ability to do so.
Georgia wants to prosecute women who return to the state having had an abortion. I don't know what Alabama's bill says.
What other medical procedures should we criminalize, Alabama? Vasectomies?
One of the sure signs you're dealing with a gas bag, is when they lie about easily proven facts.
No, Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill Won’t Imprison Women Who Have Abortions
Your opinion piece is referring to a case in which prosecutors did prosecute a pregnant woman for shooting herself. And it was the Georgia Court of Appeals who said they couldn't. Not the state's highest court and not the statute itself. This "proven fact" could change tomorrow.
We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
Race, we can find common ground.
Hondo I stopped reading at this point.
Hell will freeze, I will root for Cuog! and the Miami/Washington '91 debate will be settled once and for all b4 you and Racebannon find mutual respect.
We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
Race, we can find common ground.
Hondo I stopped reading at this point.
Hell will freeze, I will root for Cuog! and the Miami/Washington '91 debate will be settled once and for all b4 you and Racebannon find mutual respect.
Trust me.
That's the most true thing ever said on HH today. Maybe even this year.
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.
Inconsistent with what?
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent.
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.
Inconsistent with what?
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent.
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?
The risk of not contracting the disease.
Big pharma and government forcing injections. What could go wrong?
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.
Inconsistent with what?
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent.
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?
The risk of not contracting the disease.
Big pharma and government forcing injections. What could go wrong?
This recall is considered precautionary as the batch associated with the recall was subject to a “mechanical intervention executed during the aseptic filling operations, which is not supported by validation data.”
What is the risk of getting cancer from one of these drugs?
The FDA says it is very small. The amount of NDMA found in the recalled valsartan drugs exceeds acceptable levels. Records from drug manufacturers show the impurity may have been in the valsartan products for up to 4 years. The FDA estimates that if 8,000 people took the highest valsartan dose, which is 320 milligrams, from recalled batches every day for 4 years, there would likely only be one additional case of cancer over the life of those 8,000 people.
For context, 1 in 3 people in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime.
Recalls happen every day on all kinds of things, including safety and health related products.
It's an imperfect world out here, but by all measures a safer one than before vaccines and things like seat belts, air bags and smoke detectors, etc.
If you can't handle the ups and downs of risk management, you might want to find another world to live in.
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.
Inconsistent with what?
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent.
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?
The risk of not contracting the disease.
Big pharma and government forcing injections. What could go wrong?
This recall is considered precautionary as the batch associated with the recall was subject to a “mechanical intervention executed during the aseptic filling operations, which is not supported by validation data.”
What is the risk of getting cancer from one of these drugs?
The FDA says it is very small. The amount of NDMA found in the recalled valsartan drugs exceeds acceptable levels. Records from drug manufacturers show the impurity may have been in the valsartan products for up to 4 years. The FDA estimates that if 8,000 people took the highest valsartan dose, which is 320 milligrams, from recalled batches every day for 4 years, there would likely only be one additional case of cancer over the life of those 8,000 people.
For context, 1 in 3 people in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime.
Recalls happen every day on all kinds of things, including safety and health related products.
It's an imperfect world out here, but by all measures a safer one than before vaccines and things like seat belts, air bags and smoke detectors, etc.
If you can't handle the ups and downs of risk management, you might want to find another world to live in.
The "risk" is China supplying nearly all binding agents for prescription meds. Or allowing China (or any 3rd world) countries to make medications. These should be considered strategic industry by the US government and protected.
The "risk" is China supplying nearly all binding agents for prescription meds. Or allowing China (or any 3rd world) countries to make medications. These should be considered strategic industry by the US government and protected.
Hey old timer, I know you struggle in may ways, but could please use the HH interface correctly?
Sven has a Poasting 101 class, every other Friday. Check it out.
We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
Race, we can find common ground. Yes abortions are going to happen regardless, even if they out law it in Alabama, they will go to another state. Just like banning guns in Chicago isn't very effective, people can get guns from elsewhere.
And yes age of viability was the common ground that people came to.
And I agree on fund raising, which is crazy to me. I know many people who vote primarily because abortion, they want it illegal. Me, I don't care as much about the issue. If people want to donate to a cause that'll probably not get overturned, that's their choice.
Since murders will happen regardless lets just make murder legal!
I like to complain about people not getting vaccinations while opening the border to people who don't have vaccinations
I'm a democrat
You do and you are? Where the fuck have I stated any of the above.
The fuckhead Russians and Ukranies in the Couv are anti- vax and that's what caused the issue there.
Instead of reading and thinking, you intentionally derail the discussion by oversimplifying, misstating facts, ad hominem attacks and obfuscation. It's your shtick, over and over again. Thread after thread. Day after day. Year after year. Painstakingly boring, but it must give you some joy. Congrats.
I like to complain about people not getting vaccinations while opening the border to people who don't have vaccinations
I'm a democrat
You do and you are? Where the fuck have I stated any of the above.
The fuckhead Russians and Ukranies in the Couv are anti- vax and that's what caused the issue there.
Instead of reading and thinking, you intentionally derail the discussion by oversimplifying, misstating facts, ad hominem attacks and obfuscation. It's your shtick, over and over again. Thread after thread. Day after day. Year after year. Painstakingly boring, but it must give you some joy. Congrats.
Calm down
Those hoards at the border are not vaccinated benny. And the democrats welcome them in. I don't really care about your opinion.
I was driving down 5th avenue in Seattle several years ago smoking a cigarette not wearing a seat belt and talking on my cell phone
“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.
Inconsistent with what?
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent.
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?
The risk of not contracting the disease.
Big pharma and government forcing injections. What could go wrong?
This recall is considered precautionary as the batch associated with the recall was subject to a “mechanical intervention executed during the aseptic filling operations, which is not supported by validation data.”
What is the risk of getting cancer from one of these drugs?
The FDA says it is very small. The amount of NDMA found in the recalled valsartan drugs exceeds acceptable levels. Records from drug manufacturers show the impurity may have been in the valsartan products for up to 4 years. The FDA estimates that if 8,000 people took the highest valsartan dose, which is 320 milligrams, from recalled batches every day for 4 years, there would likely only be one additional case of cancer over the life of those 8,000 people.
For context, 1 in 3 people in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime.
Recalls happen every day on all kinds of things, including safety and health related products.
It's an imperfect world out here, but by all measures a safer one than before vaccines and things like seat belts, air bags and smoke detectors, etc.
If you can't handle the ups and downs of risk management, you might want to find another world to live in.
So there are risks that an individual should weigh. Thanks for agreeing.
Comments
And yes age of viability was the common ground that people came to.
And I agree on fund raising, which is crazy to me. I know many people who vote primarily because abortion, they want it illegal. Me, I don't care as much about the issue. If people want to donate to a cause that'll probably not get overturned, that's their choice.
Hell will freeze, I will root for Cuog! and the Miami/Washington '91 debate will be settled once and for all b4 you and Racebannon find mutual respect.
Trust me.
https://www.empr.com/uncategorized/recall-announced-for-meningitis-vaccine/
https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/novartis-recalls-liquid-version-its-anemia-drug-promacta-over-risk-contamination-from
https://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/valsartan-losatran-bp-med-recalls-2018-19
It's an imperfect world out here, but by all measures a safer one than before vaccines and things like seat belts, air bags and smoke detectors, etc.
If you can't handle the ups and downs of risk management, you might want to find another world to live in.
Where's the freedom, man?
The "risk" is China supplying nearly all binding agents for prescription meds. Or allowing China (or any 3rd world) countries to make medications. These should be considered strategic industry by the US government and protected.
I'm a democrat
Sven has a Poasting 101 class, every other Friday. Check it out.
The fuckhead Russians and Ukranies in the Couv are anti- vax and that's what caused the issue there.
Instead of reading and thinking, you intentionally derail the discussion by oversimplifying, misstating facts, ad hominem attacks and obfuscation. It's your shtick, over and over again. Thread after thread. Day after day. Year after year. Painstakingly boring, but it must give you some joy. Congrats.
Calm down
Those hoards at the border are not vaccinated benny. And the democrats welcome them in. I don't really care about your opinion.
I was driving down 5th avenue in Seattle several years ago smoking a cigarette not wearing a seat belt and talking on my cell phone
The man gave me a ticket