3 3
JerryBaumchen

One Gutsy Girl

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Are you a true believer in "life beginning at conception"? Or are you one of those fake believers who would make exceptions for cases of rape and incest?

Great question! I am absolutely one of those "true believers." I would endorse abortion of a viable pregnancy under any circumstances, but I can certainly compromise my position regarding legislation. I consider compromises surrounding rape, incest, life of the mother, and such to be quite drastic, but I would be willing to make them out of a sense of fair play. So much for the "extremist" allegations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ryoder said:

You know the rules:

The GOP is all about preserving life, right up to the moment of birth;

After that it's every man for himself.

Not even close to true. No party or political entity is stronger in its support for viable and responsible social programs designed to get people back on their feet and self-reliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, rcdrury said:

Basic biology and geneology says different.

No, it doesn't.  The biological term for a child before it is born is a fetus.  So biology (and medical science in general) explicitly state that a fetus is not a child before it's born.

Geneology?  Did you mean genealogy, the graphing of lines of descent for a family of related people?  Sorry, again, genealogy explicitly does NOT record aborted fetuses - whether they abort naturally or artificially.  Check one out for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, billvon said:

And yet the ~40% of "living human children" that are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body are just  . . . ignored.  Like they never existed.

It's almost as if you have two sets of standards!

No; they're just not relevant to the discussion. Prolifers are absolutely for prenatal and fetal health, but some simply don't make it. It's an unfortunate reality. But nice try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

You can't really tell by the examples you give. But you can tell by the fact that once the children are born, the GOP doesn't really give a shit anymore.

  • Universal healthcare: nope
  • Subsidized daycare: nope
  • Education: only decent if you can pay for it
  • Food security: don't be so damn lazy
  • etc. etc.

They claim to care about children, but they really stop caring once a child is born. That is how you know this is really only about controlling women. The American Right is no different from any of the Muslim extremist regimes: control through religion.

 

They don't give a shit? Incorrect; they care greatly, they just realize that some things are not rightly within the government purview, and that some things that sound good simply aren't.

Universal healthcare:  I am a behavioral economist who deals with healthcare funding issues for the bulk of my work week. Univeral healthcare is only viable where it exists because it is effectively subsidized by the American medical community that has been at least partially responsible for every major medical advancement over the last century; and by the American people who rely on and support that system.  The moment health care is "free" in the US, it ceases to be viable anywhere on the planet.

With the exception of education, each of the items you named, including health care, is a simply a consumer good; nothing more. Conservatives are strong advocates of a viable, responsible safety net for all of them; however, we do not endorse counterproductive handouts that make people unnecessarily dependent upon the state. As for education, the left has completely taken over. They own all of those problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
25 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

The moment health care is "free" in the US, it ceases to be viable anywhere on the planet.

lol, ok.

 

25 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

Incorrect; they care greatly, they just realize that some things are not rightly within the government purview, and that some things that sound good simply aren't.

So you feel it is in the government's purview to force every unwanted child to be born, but not in the government's purview to provide any care for said unwanted child. You believe this to be a great system, cause you care about children so much?

Edited by SkyDekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, billvon said:

No, it doesn't.  The biological term for a child before it is born is a fetus.  So biology (and medical science in general) explicitly state that a fetus is not a child before it's born.

Geneology?  Did you mean genealogy, the graphing of lines of descent for a family of related people?  Sorry, again, genealogy explicitly does NOT record aborted fetuses - whether they abort naturally or artificially.  Check one out for yourself.

So, is that how you're going to attempt to discredit my arguments; spelling and semantic errors? 

Your first statement contradicts itself. It states that "the biological term for a CHILD before it is born is a fetus." You then go on to state that biology "explicitly state[s] that a fetus is not a child before it's born. No, it doesn't; it simply refers to a term describing the prenatal stages of development. There is no specific denial of its status as a child, and certainly not as a human being.

I guess you can suggest that genealogy's emphasis is more historical than genetic, but then you're again just grabbing at straws to change the subject. Let's go with "genetics." Now, feel free to give that one your best shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

lol, ok.

 

So you feel it is in the government's purview to force every unwanted child to be born, but not in the government's purview to provide any care for said unwanted child. You believe this to be a great system, cause you care about children so much?

Not remotely close to my statement. You're reading in a lot. I've already stated conservatives' strong support for effective social programs.

Edited by rcdrury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, billvon said:

So aborted fetuses are not relevant to a discussion about abortion.

Bless your heart.

No; this discussion is about intentionally aborted fetuses. Other than proper prenatal care, we have no control over miscarriages. Please don't play stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rcdrury said:

I've already stated conservatives' strong support for effective social programs.

The US military isn't that good at caring for babies.

If the US really cared about children, the infant mortality rate wouldn't be among the worst of the western world. Infant mortality is at its worst in red states. It is that bad because Republicans really don't care that much about people, they care about control and the votes delivered by appealing to faithful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

Other than proper prenatal care, we have no control over miscarriages. Please don't play stupid.

That is a rather stupid statement. Social-economical status is a rather large indicator for infant mortality and miscarriage. Thinking you have no control other than proper prenatal care is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

....Universal healthcare:  I am a behavioral economist who deals with healthcare funding issues for the bulk of my work week. Univeral healthcare is only viable where it exists because it is effectively subsidized by the American medical community that has been at least partially responsible for every major medical advancement over the last century; and by the American people who rely on and support that system.  The moment health care is "free" in the US, it ceases to be viable anywhere on the planet....

I thought you were a NSA spy?... In any event you're wrong as usual.

"Results. The United States accounted for 42% of prescription drug spending and 40% of the total GDP among innovator countries and was responsible for the development of 43.7% of the NMEs. The United Kingdom, Switzerland, and a few other countries innovated proportionally more than their contribution to GDP or prescription drug spending, whereas Japan, South Korea, and a few other countries innovated less.

Conclusions. Higher prescription drug spending in the United States does not disproportionately privilege domestic innovation, and many countries with drug price regulation were significant contributors to pharmaceutical innovation."

 

38 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

They don't give a shit? ; however, we do not endorse counterproductive handouts that make people unnecessarily dependent upon the state. As for education, the left has completely taken over. They own all of those problems.

You call excess profits that arise from political lobbying, handouts.

"From 2000 to 2018, the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies was significantly greater than other large, public companies, but the difference was less pronounced when considering company size, year, or research and development expense. Data on the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies may be relevant to formulating evidence-based policies to make medicines more affordable."

So the industry is more profitable and innovates no more that other countries with universal healthcare. Instead paying shareholders the excess profits that a captive US market generates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

I thought you were a NSA spy?... In any event you're wrong as usual.

"Results. The United States accounted for 42% of prescription drug spending and 40% of the total GDP among innovator countries and was responsible for the development of 43.7% of the NMEs. The United Kingdom, Switzerland, and a few other countries innovated proportionally more than their contribution to GDP or prescription drug spending, whereas Japan, South Korea, and a few other countries innovated less.

Conclusions. Higher prescription drug spending in the United States does not disproportionately privilege domestic innovation, and many countries with drug price regulation were significant contributors to pharmaceutical innovation."

 

You call excess profits that arise from political lobbying, handouts.

"From 2000 to 2018, the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies was significantly greater than other large, public companies, but the difference was less pronounced when considering company size, year, or research and development expense. Data on the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies may be relevant to formulating evidence-based policies to make medicines more affordable."

So the industry is more profitable and innovates no more that other countries with universal healthcare. Instead paying shareholders the excess profits that a captive US market generates.

Hi Phil,

Re:  you're wrong as usual.

The crux of his arguments.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rcdrury said:

Not even close to true. No party or political entity is stronger in its support for viable and responsible social programs designed to get people back on their feet and self-reliant.

What's it like living in Cloud-Cuckoo Land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

I totally agree; but again, this discussion isn't about HER body.

Ah!  Then that's fine.  Remove the fetus from her body.  Then, since it's a living child, you can raise it.  Problem solved!

spelling and semantic errors? 

Not at all.  But since you could not spell your argument I had to reconstruct what you were talking about.

Other than proper prenatal care, we have no control over miscarriages.

Funny.  Abortions are "innocent children" to you, but miscarriages are not.  Even though they are the same clump of cells with the same potential for life.  Odd how you do not use incendiary leading language like "innocent child" when referring to miscarriages; you reserve that to make your political points.

Quote

Your first statement contradicts itself. It states that "the biological term for a CHILD before it is born is a fetus."

Nope.  You understand tenses, do you not?  Before a child is born, the thing in the mother's womb is called a fetus.  After it is born it is called a child.  It is not called a child before that point, it is called a fetus. 

Let's try a different example; see if this will make more sense to you.  Let's say you find a dead body in the woods.  Before the person died, it would be safe to say it was a living person.  But that does not mean that a living person is the same as a dead body.  Trying to make that silly semantic argument - that every dead body is therefore a living person - would leave you looking pretty foolish, right?

Quote

No, it doesn't; it simply refers to a term describing the prenatal stages of development. 

The biological term for a fetus is a fetus, not a child.  A blastocyst is not a child either.  A fertilized egg cell isn't a child either.  Neither are sperm or egg cells, even though they have the POTENTIAL (important word there) to become a child in the future.

Quote

Let's go with "genetics." Now, feel free to give that one your best shot.

Ah, so you misspelled "genetics."  OK.

Every cell in your body has DNA that is unique to you, and all the DNA is similar (not identical) to each other.  Gametes have half the normal complement of DNA; they are called haploid for that reason.   Once an egg is fertilized, that egg then contains a recombined copy of both parent's DNA.  True of the egg cell, true of the fetus, true of the child.

Again, there is nothing in that to claim that therefore a fertilized egg cell is a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

Not remotely close to my statement. You're reading in a lot. I've already stated conservatives' strong support for effective social programs.

That's great!

But the fact remains that there are several proven ways to reduce abortion:

1) Make it legal.  Countries with legal abortions have lower abortion rates than countries who prohibit it.  
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

2) Support birth control programs and sex education.  Both of these significantly reduce abortion rates - and are coincidentally programs that conservatives strongly oppose.
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/
https://nwcitizen.com/entry/sex-education-sends-republicans-into-panic
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/system-failure/the-trump-administrations-war-on-birth-control/

3) Vote Democratic.  Abortions go down far more quickly under democratic presidents.
https://qz.com/857273/the-sharpest-drops-in-abortion-rates-in-america-have-been-under-democratic-presidents/

If you just want to play politics, then try to outlaw abortions, cut sex ed, make birth control harder to get, and vote for republicans.  Abortions will increase, but you will have exercised your power over women, so you "win."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, billvon said:

Trying to make that silly semantic argument - that every dead body is therefore a living person - would leave you looking pretty foolish, right?

It sure would, but what's you're point. Are you suggesting that a "fetus" is not a living human organism? Even an abortionist MD would not agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3