I leave that up to science consensus to determine and not theologians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guessing pro-life groups will be all over Abbott in regards to this statement, right? I mean it's about the babies.

INBOX: ⁦@GovAbbott⁩ slams ⁦@JoeBiden⁩ ⁦@POTUS⁩ for providing baby formula to undocumented immigrants during a national shortage #txlege #tx2022 pic.twitter.com/OGhLYVl1Q5

— Evan Smith (@evanasmith) May 12, 2022

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

Yeah that would be insane to provide potentially life saving baby formula to baby’s.

Another turn in the pretzel coming from some people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How Christian of him.

dola- I unplugged about 3 weeks ago. I actually got kicked off twitter for the horrible offense of telling someone they are an idiot. since then I haven't started a burner account or anything. I have also stopped listening to POTUS on Sirius XM and no cable news. I read an occasional article and see what people here post.

I realize ignorance is bliss but I have been so much happier since. I was wasting way to much time doom scrolling through comments. Instead I started the gunslinger on audio books.

Actually this is about the Federal government giving something to illegal immigrants that Americans are having trouble finding on their store shelves.

In the same vein of uncaring that R's typify.....why should I care when they can just make their own? That's how God made them isn't it? If they can't provide for their baby they shouldn't have them? Maybe it's all part of God's plan to have babies suffer (because he it super into that)? Modern advances in food and medicine shouldn't play a part in what they can do with their bodies.



and yes, I'm being sarcastic, but in that totally obvious way that R's don't do, because they actually mean it when they say stupid shit like that.

Is there a skin pigment clause in the pro-life movement? Why would they care which baby is saved? I mean it is about preserving life, right?

The argument falls apart when you argue regulation of womens bodies due to the sanctity of life....

but the baby's know that they're here illegally so yeah, F em and let them die!!! Cuz we're not really about ALL baby's lives...just ours.

I don't get this argument.

I did this on FB last September and it is great. But I'm still on Twitter. Rather than totally unplug I might just cull my timeline. It's so much easier on Twitter because it's chronological so I can unfollow as I go as opposed to trying to unfriend people FB makes me see or objecting to the ads which run every third post. But I'm close to getting off Twitter too. Problem is I use it for instant news and entertainment. Not sure I have a good alternative.

What isn't to get? We must protect life at all costs unless it is brown babies from south of the border, then fuck em they can starve....

That's a hell of a strawman you built there.

I think this can be quite healthy, good for you. Obsessing over realities that we can't change is often not helpful. As long as we're doing what we can (voting etc) the average citizen isn't going to gain much from a constant drumbeat of politics.

How is it a straw man?

Overturning Roe is about saving babies lives… how is this different?

It isn’t except…. Oh yeah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because I believe abortion is immoral doesn't mean I feel the US is responsible for feeding everyone in the world.

I followed all of my area's subreddits on Reddit, and it was 100% political bickering. I feel a lot better for unfollowing and getting out of these echo chambers. Nobody is listening anyways, it's just people trying to talk over each other. And as much arguing as you get in some of these groups on FOFC, it's still a million times better here.

I don't have issues with Twitter because I don't follow anything really negative. I read about comic books, music, wrestling and video games. The most controversial thing is that I follow Dave Meltzer in wrestling. If you know wrestling you understand that one.

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

That is just incredible.

It’s not immoral to starve babies to death though?

🤦‍♂️


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Immoral to abort a fetus, moral to starve a baby.

It's almost like this has nothing to do with babies and all about controlling women.

Getting 'off' Twitter seems practically impossible these days when the best & worst of it will get force fed to you from just about any other site. I don't really 'use' Twitter, but I still seems to be reading it all the time.

I'm responsible for starving babies now?

It's not so much following negative people as much as unplugging from ANY of the political talk/news and stuff like that. It's mostly doomscrolling the same topics from a variety of people who generally cover or talk about those topics. It just so happens there's a ton of negative stuff out there.

I still like Twitter for the comedy/entertainment/sports and for true breaking news-type stuff. But I think I need to start culling all the political stuff. I want to be in the know, but the more I know, the more overwhelmed I get by all the negative crap.

You’re not responsible for abortions either but it doesn’t mean you’re not involved in the debate AND exhibiting a very weird moral split to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW, my position is women should have right to choose up to a certain point in time. I don't really know the cutoff point, right now viability is at 24 weeks or so (read with advancements it could be 22 weeks) and that is as good as any but I can also see argument limiting abortions at 15 weeks. However, I do not believe a 1 month fetus is truly "alive".

There is a point in time when an unborn fetus is "alive" and late term abortion should be illegal unless mother's life is at risk. Late term abortion is not well defined but wiki says maybe after week 21-24 and is between 1-1.5% of all abortions.

Reasons for late term abortion are below. I did not find any more detail breakdowns but to me, late term abortions for "raising children alone ... conflict with male partner ... or were young etc." is not moral.

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

So to summarize, yes a woman should be able to choose, but also yes, definitely have a cut-off point unless mother's life is in danger.

For those pointing out inconsistencies on the anti-abortion stance (some fair, some a stretch), my question to you is:

Do you believe a woman should be able to abort a fetus up to birth? Do you have a cut-off point where you believe a woman should not be able to undergo the procedure?

I'm so sick of seeing this question. It is honestly below your intellect and the collective intellect of this board and serves no purpose except to generate outrage because there is no correct answer and far to much gray area.

Answer yes and the right paints it as people aborting perfectly viable pregnancies days before birth willt-nilly. Answer no and it validates their beliefs that all pregnancies regardless of health of the mother or baby should be completed regardless of the consequences.

He is literally saying we shouldn't give formula to babies. How is it a strawman? Are we responsible for every hungry baby in the world, of course not. Are we responsible for those seeking asylum on our border? Absolutely. Lets also maybe have some humanity? The right loves to project themselves as good Christians. I'm sure Jesus would totally be on board with the whole "fuck the brown babies" train.

My personal stance doesn't matter. Viability is the correct legal standard.

This is not a trick question. This is just to understand where you stand.

I'm truly surprised you do not believe this is a fair question. Regardless of how the right or left paints you, answer how you believe and don't worry about how other people think about you.

Equivocate or caveat as much as you want to provide context to your answer (I did).

It’s not a fair question because there are a myriad of variables. It’s like saying the giants have it 4th and one. Should they go for it?

Thanks for your answer (vs Lathum's non-answer for whatever reason).

Many of the discussion topics we have here have a myriad of variables (e.g. racism, what does BLM stand for, police brutalities etc.).

Giants have it 4th and one, I would add context/assumptions - how much time is left, what is the score, who is injured, how successful have they been during the game etc. and then answer the question.

And that’s my point. There is an endless number of variables so it should be between and woman and her health care provider. Not some government mandated line in the sand that doesn’t allow for any gray area or context.

I believe there can be fair restrictions on abortion. The exact line is a debate that I wish we (I mean as a country, not a message board) could have. Unfortunately there is little reasoning with either side of the extremes on this issue, and they are the ones that control the debate.
Personally, something like "viability +". Abortions restricted at viability, but with life of the mother or other reasonable exemptions. In the end, you are talking about the a very small number of abortions, most of which are done because of medical complications.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I wrote the following 12 years ago:


Going back through old threads on the topic, I also found two things of note:

1. It's the same arguments we're having now, and have been having throughout. Some different faces, though.

2. A number of folks on both the left & right felt confident enough to say that Roe would not be overturned in their lifetime. It may have taken over a decade, but it turns out my concerns weren't the shrill fearmongering some suggested they were.

Good thing Biden's move to give baby formula to people the United States has incarcerated does no such thing.


Quite.

From what I've read, it's not even a decision - it's law. Apparently Trump was pissed he had to comply with the law but did. This is just some cynical GOPers who know the truth but see a cheap political score and have completely flipped the script on the narrative. To the point where people on this board are arguing over points that don't matter, because by law we have to provide for these people.

I don't know what the true genesis of the shortage is, but you can fault Biden for not anticipating it and trying to do something about it. But stocking food for immigrant children in our custody is legally required.

So letting babies starve isn't immoral?

That wasn't the question. Is it immoral to let babies starve?

Biden isn't at fault here. Nor really any politician directly. It's the free market. And companies have found it is better to use their money to buy back stock than to institute safety measures or stockpile for emergencies. People have screamed about the free market being able to solve every problem and then scream about how a politician is at fault when it doesn't.

As for the cause, Abbott chose to not replace failing drying machines because they thought it would be too expensive (they did find money for nearly $6 billion in stock buybacks). Those failed machines led to rare bacteria growing in their formula which has made countless infants sick and killed some. They had to do a massive recall and shut down the factories. Since they control an incredibly large percent of the market, there is a massive shortage.

Also if the pro-life crowd would like to go after Abbott, who through willful negligence, has killed babies, that would be cool too.

I just don't see why women who can't produce breast milk should ever be allowed to have children. It's just not God's way. You can either take care of your child or you're an unfit mother. There is no other argument.

My reading of Genesis clearly indicates that life begins when one is able to draw breath (or, more specifically, God breathes life into the body), so clearly life begins at birth.

I think their stance would line up with forcing women to produce breast milk to feed the babies.

I've never had a Twitter account. The only time I see a tweet is when someone embeds it in other content.

To me, abortion and 2A arguments are flip sides of the same coin. Most people seem to want to preserve their right to kill someone else when they deem it appropriate while depriving others of the right to do the same.

Where they differ is in what constitutes a reasonably intolerable threshold of threat/inconvenience/ego that makes the action justifiable.

double post

As others have said though, it is both immoral and illegal to not feed people we are detaining. Not giving away formula to other countries when we don't have enough? Sure. But if we're going to detain them, we have to feed them.