World of KJ
https://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
https://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=85906
Page 130 of 186

Author:  stuffp [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

No.

But why compare a child which can live with assistance, with a fetus that can't live with any assistance?

Author:  Jack Sparrow [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

The Abortion era: The Babies Strikes Back

Author:  Shack [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

stuffp wrote:
No.

But why compare a child which can live with assistance, with a fetus that can't live with any assistance?


How do you define assistance? Is being connected to mother's body via the womb and getting fed that way not "assistance"?

Author:  Cynosure [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

I will never understand why people are so emotionally attached to a small bunch of cells when nature itself causes a vast amount of pregnancies to end in miscarriages. In most cases abortion is just doing what nature itself does already. Hell, even lexically, "abortion" comes from the Latin verb "aboriri" which means "to miscarry".

I guess not being the paternal type at all helps.

Author:  stuffp [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Shack wrote:
stuffp wrote:
No.

But why compare a child which can live with assistance, with a fetus that can't live with any assistance?


How do you define assistance? Is being connected to mother's body via the womb and getting fed that way not "assistance"?


Yeah, I think that needs more explanation and I mean that up to a certain point the fetus is just an extension of the woman, just as much as any other part of her body. Only at which point it can survive outside of the womb I would consider a fetus to have the same rights as other humans, until before that point I consider abortion just a form of self-harm.

Author:  zwackerm [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Cynosure wrote:
I will never understand why people are so emotionally attached to a small bunch of cells when nature itself causes a vast amount of pregnancies to end in miscarriages. In most cases abortion is just doing what nature itself does already. Hell, even lexically, "abortion" comes from the Latin verb "aboriri" which means "to miscarry".

I guess not being the paternal type at all helps.


There is a difference between intentionally "miscarrying" and accidental "miscarrying"

Author:  Cynosure [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

zwackerm wrote:
Cynosure wrote:
I will never understand why people are so emotionally attached to a small bunch of cells when nature itself causes a vast amount of pregnancies to end in miscarriages. In most cases abortion is just doing what nature itself does already. Hell, even lexically, "abortion" comes from the Latin verb "aboriri" which means "to miscarry".

I guess not being the paternal type at all helps.


There is a difference between intentionally "miscarrying" and accidental "miscarrying"


I suppose so, but in terms of what is "lost", it's exactly the same thing.

Author:  zwackerm [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Cynosure wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
Cynosure wrote:
I will never understand why people are so emotionally attached to a small bunch of cells when nature itself causes a vast amount of pregnancies to end in miscarriages. In most cases abortion is just doing what nature itself does already. Hell, even lexically, "abortion" comes from the Latin verb "aboriri" which means "to miscarry".

I guess not being the paternal type at all helps.


There is a difference between intentionally "miscarrying" and accidental "miscarrying"


I suppose so, but in terms of what is "lost", it's exactly the same thing.


Losing something with no chance at life versus something with a chance at life is for sure different.

Most abortions take place after it's "no different than the other embryos that don't implant" anyway

Author:  Corpse [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

zwackerm wrote:
Spoiler: show
Corpse wrote:
Let's say you were have an unplanned pregnancy, be it rape or birth control fail. You're going to decide to carry it based on your response. So answer these questions:

This isn't a post to attack or call you out or anything of the sort. I'm genuinely curious how you'd react/respond in these situations. But don't reply if you don't want to either.

Q1: What if a doctor said your life could be at risk at any point in the pregnancy? And if not your life, the life of the baby is at risk, and will likely experience complications in life that require expensive medical care, treatments, and near constant supervision throughout most of their life? Are you in a position to drop what you're doing and take care of this child? You're in college, yes? And I think you have a job. So just let me know what you'd do.

(I know a YouTuber (TheJWittz) who had a baby this past spring. Unfortunately, their newborn had to be placed in NICU for about one week I believe. The baby survived, thankfully. However, they received an $80,000 medical bill after their insurance only covered $20,000 (or 20%) of the original $100,000 bill. They already pay $1,200 a month for this insurance because America's health care system is broken. Yes, a life is priceless. Unfortunately, such a bill is crippling to the majority of Americans due to ridiculous medical costs, and it can impact their lives for a very, very long time.)

You could argue women's lives are technically AT RISK of dying from any sort of pregnancy. I think that if a woman determines with her doctor that they must induce labor early to save the mothers life that is fine, but they should try to save the baby once its born, even if it is say only three months. I am graduated from college, I do have a job with very good health insurance where I only get $120 or so taken from my paycheck. No idea how much my insurance would cover NICU costs. Anyway I think that if medical bills are a worry for a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy she should give it up for adoption and most agencies will have the adoptive parents cover all your medical bills. If I wanted the child I would do anyhting to save it. If I did not want it I would give it up for adoption.

Corpse wrote:
Q2: What if your employer said you couldn't have maternity leave, or if you did receive it, it was for unpaid for just 6 weeks? Can you afford to give up your job, take a break from college, if you needed to for your child? You might be lucky enough to have family to help you care for a newborn, but not everyone does. (I know a woman who is only getting 6 weeks of unpaid maternity leave in a few months. She's married and the baby was planned and everything, and her husband can take care of the baby at home. But not everyone is as prepared).

Again, I think if you want a child you make it work somehow. If money is that much of an issue you can give the child up for adoption.

Corpse wrote:
Q3: You decide that you're NOT in a position to care for this child, so you decide along the way to prepare to let it go via an adoption agency or other channel. Are you really okay with giving up your child? Would you be prepared mentally? Would you be ready for one day years down the road to be contacted by this child, perhaps as late as adulthood now? It's easier than ever for relinquished children to find and contact their birth mother/parents. Check out this reddit thread if interested in this particular question: https://www.reddit.com/r/birthparents/c ... _not_want/

Obviously this question cannot be answered by anyone but the mother of the child or those that have had similar problems. It's not a position one can simply put themselves in. Sometimes a reunion between a birth mother and their relinquished child can be a healthy enough relationship. Sometimes it causes one or both to have real mental health issues all throughout their lives that can lead down a very dark path where resentment takes control. But for the sake of this question, try if you're willing to answer.


Of course I would much rather my child be raised by someone who can afford to give them a good life rather than murder it. I would probably opt for an open adoption, that has worked out beautifully for my sister, her adopted daughter's birth grandparents visit all the time.


Okay, so the answer to each question is carry it and put it up for adoption. That's fair, of course, and an option many women decide to do with an unplanned pregnancy. But not all women are in a position in life to do the same. You say if money is an issue to "make it work." Not everyone can make it work. For someone barely getting by, that can't afford to sacrifice rent, a utility bill, or hours at their job to care for themselves and their baby during a pregnancy, much less any family they may already have. Some jobs require people to stand on their feet for 7/8 hours+ a day, or to lift heavy objects, generally low-wage positions like fast food or retail. These types of jobs are also the ones that offer little/no maternal pay or leave. Many people in these jobs can't simply quit and go out and get a better paying office job somewhere.

If there was a reliable state or federal program for women in this position to go through, sure, that'd be great, but they receive little/no help whatsoever. So expecting everyone to "make it work" is unfair and unrealistic at best. This doesn't even account for any women who may have physical or mental disabilities, who are often targeted. Not everyone has all the answers, support, physical/mental capacity, or resources to make it work, unfortunately, and we need to protect them.

But even ignoring the abortion subject itself, this Texas law is disgusting and cruel.

There is a subreddit now with men discussing how they're going to go out and get girls pregnant, only to have their buddy turn the girls in if they decide to have an abortion so they can collect a paycheck. And if they don't choose to have an abortion, they'll intimidate them until they do. I'm hoping that many are just spewing their sick thoughts, but some are definitely going to act on them. And these cases will need to go to court, of course, but the fact that such behavior is becoming a thing, one that can reward it with money, is absolutely disgusting.

You're going to have people camped outside clinics just waiting for women to go inside. You'll probably even have Uber drivers and such reporting on the women they're driving to the clinics.

No one should be supporting this law just based over this terrible, inhuman system.

Author:  zwackerm [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

You missed the point of my answers. I said that you either make it work or put it up for adoption. So for the people who can't make it work financially, adoption is a perfect answer at least until there is no demand for babies, which is VERY far away.

Author:  Cynosure [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

zwackerm wrote:
Cynosure wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
Cynosure wrote:
I will never understand why people are so emotionally attached to a small bunch of cells when nature itself causes a vast amount of pregnancies to end in miscarriages. In most cases abortion is just doing what nature itself does already. Hell, even lexically, "abortion" comes from the Latin verb "aboriri" which means "to miscarry".

I guess not being the paternal type at all helps.


There is a difference between intentionally "miscarrying" and accidental "miscarrying"


I suppose so, but in terms of what is "lost", it's exactly the same thing.


Losing something with no chance at life versus something with a chance at life is for sure different.

Most abortions take place after it's "no different than the other embryos that don't implant" anyway


The vast majority of both abortions and miscarriages happen during the first trimester. For the former 66% during the first 8 weeks and 92% during the first 13 weeks according to the CDC. For the latter 80% during the first 13 weeks.

Author:  zwackerm [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Yes, but its still not for the most part a freshly fertilized embryo, the baby is pretty big by the end of the first trimester.

But regrdless, taking of human life is either always wrong or always ok. Any place along the line besides conception is arbitrary. You can argue that life isn't imherently valuable, but then anyone should be able to be killed.

Author:  Flava'd vs The World [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

If taking a life is always wrong or always ok shouldn’t republicans be on the opposite side of this issue? They sure like to fight for the rights of people to spread deadly diseases, the rights for cops to kill whomever they want whenever they want, and of course the rights of a crazy person to go into a gun store and buy anything they want without a background check or waiting period then immediately walk into a school and start murdering real children.

Author:  Jack Sparrow [ Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

The back-to-politics era: The Change-in-topic Strikes Back

Author:  Shack [ Sat Sep 04, 2021 2:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

After reading more about the details this Texas bill by working around it with civil suits, is not the right way to ban abortions and would open the door for shenanigans in other areas conservatives wouldn't want like gun laws. The Supreme Court should either overturn Roe v Wade or overturn that bill.

Author:  Darth Indiana Bond [ Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Shack wrote:
After reading more about the details this Texas bill by working around it with civil suits, is not the right way to ban abortions and would open the door for shenanigans in other areas conservatives wouldn't want like gun laws. The Supreme Court should either overturn Roe v Wade or overturn that bill.


Not sure about the other conservative Judges, but Barrett seems to put a lot of stake in how past courts have ruled despite her personal beliefs, so I don’t think she wants to overturn a past ruling like Roe v Wade

Author:  Shack [ Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Interesting implication to California recall, if Larry Elder wins he may be able to replace 88 year old Dianne Feinstein with a Republican and give them back Senate majority. However I think Newsom will win.

Author:  Corpse [ Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

It's giving some of the fence Democrats not happy with Newsom a reason to still vote No on the recall.

But even then, Feinstein, despite her age, has already filed for reelection for 2024. Obviously given her age, she could end up having health issues or even die before reelection, but she's a life politician who will be in office until she physically can't, so either close to death or dying while in office. (Far too many of these politicians, really.)

Author:  Cynosure [ Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

I'm pretty sure Dianne Feinstein is seriously looking at beating Strom Thurmond's record as the oldest person ever to die in office (100 at the time of his death in 2003).

Author:  Corpse [ Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Unfortunately, "living fossil" is becoming an occupation in Congress these days.

The average age is 60 now, and it's 63 in the Senate itself. So the average member is beyond the normal senior citizen age, and quickly approaching retirement age. Technically, the Senate's average age has already exceeded the first year people can begin to receive retirement benefits, so it's already there.

Not saying old age necessarily equals a bad thing though, especially with some of the youngest members of Congress (Cawthorn and Boebert, for example) embarrassing themselves weekly with shocking stupidity.

Author:  Shack [ Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back



Biden is being way too extreme with an approval rating that is already plummeting. I think a lot of the people that voted for him have views more like Manchin and maybe didn't realize 2008-2016 Biden is not the same as 2021 Biden. He is a born again far leftist now.

Interested to see what happens if everyone who doesn't take a booster shot is counted as unvaccinated at some point, since I think that would be a lot of people's breaking point.

Author:  Darth Indiana Bond [ Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Vaccine mandates are fairly common, far left is an historical reworking of institutions and standards that are fairly common place until the issue of vaccines became somewhat controversial in the past twenty to ten years and politicized only in the recent few years. Decisions like this are precisely why Biden got elected.

If the pandemic numbers start going down, Biden can flaunt his success here based off actually making decisions.

Which he needs after Afghanistan

Author:  Shack [ Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

You could argue like the eviction moritarum he knows it'll be ruled he doesn't have the power to do this and is just virtue signalling to the authoritarians in his base

Author:  Libs [ Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Shack wrote:


Biden is being way too extreme with an approval rating that is already plummeting. I think a lot of the people that voted for him have views more like Manchin and maybe didn't realize 2008-2016 Biden is not the same as 2021 Biden. He is a born again far leftist now.

Interested to see what happens if everyone who doesn't take a booster shot is counted as unvaccinated at some point, since I think that would be a lot of people's breaking point.


Nah, this is an incorrect read. People want decisive action on this pandemic, not twiddling your thumbs and hoping it just goes away like the Trump admin. Anyone who is already anti-vaxx or against mandates isn't a Biden voter anyway.

And I say this as a "moderate" Democrat. Always have been, despite what some in this forum might think - I would've voted for Biden over Bernie any day of the week.

Author:  Shack [ Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back

Biden: "we're going to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated"

Isn't that what the vaccine is for?

Page 130 of 186 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/