This made me kinda sad today...

[Ron Mexico]

One can argue that bias exists in what stories get picked up. For example, I would read Breitbart back in 2016 to see what they're up to. And they would have a ton of stories about violence against the police. They saw that as a counter to all the stories about police abuse that we see in mainstream media.

Ideological leaning affects what people see as newsworthy.

Those do exist. There can be that based on who is assigning stories.

All of the presidential elections in my life the winner has had more positive and more overall articles written about them. Generally news publishes what people are interested in reading. The more popular candidate usually wins. People definitely point to a liberal bias when a democrat wins the presidency but ignore the fact that news had a conservative bias the years a republican candidate won.

Bias's definitely exist. But acting like its a huge conspiracy and countering that with garbage news with an agenda like fox news and breitbart is just silly.

 

[The Thriller]

Lulz at Hack disparaging the west and east coasts. The irony.

His disparaging the urban coasts (where most Americans live) as irresponsible and lazy drug dealers is EXACTLY why I say rural America needs to get back in touch with “Real America.” Contrary to what Palin and other right wingers claim, “real America” is best described as where most Americans live and where most of their values are. It’s not some vacant plot of land in North Dakota or Wyoming.

90 percent of America’s social and political problems could be resolved if rural America would get back in touch with the rest of us. Most Americans support women’s rights, believe in science, and value multiculturalism.

 

[Hotdog]

At the Clippers game.

Look for me.

 

[Gameface]

 

[Hotdog]

 

[infection]

I'm not surprised you opposed abortions to save the mother's life/health, and that you insist mothers carry dead fetuses around inside them, which are the types of abortions the New York law allows after 24 weeks.

There are a number of things I’ve been wanting to respond to from a few pages back that I’d like to get back to, but wanted to respond to this. Did you actually read what you wrote? How do you abort a dead fetus? In any case, aborting a baby in the third trimester is putting the woman’s life in danger because that child still has to be delivered whether vaginally or cesarean. Performing an abortion and delivering is adding more risk.

 

[One Brow]

How do you abort a dead fetus?

By removing it from the uterus before uterine contractions begin.

In any case, aborting a baby in the third trimester is putting the woman’s life in danger because that child still has to be delivered whether vaginally or cesarean. Performing an abortion and delivering is adding more risk.

I'm am sure you are bright enough to understand that there are comparative risks to continuing a pregnancy versus terminating it, and sometimes the former risks are larger.

 

[infection]

By removing it from the uterus before uterine contractions begin.

You’re still not understanding what you wrote. You said:

you insist mothers carry dead fetuses around inside them, which are the types of abortions the New York law allows after 24 weeks.

Dead fetuses are dead. How do you abort them?

I'm am sure you are bright enough to understand that there are comparative risks to continuing a pregnancy versus terminating it, and sometimes the former risks are larger.

I’m not certain you know much about comparative risks in pregnancy. When you reach the third trimester, you’re delivering a child — one way or another. Performing an abortion before delivering that child adds more risk. There are many situations that call for induction of delivery — none of those are made safer by termination of pregnancy followed by induction/c-section.

The right has a fantasy scenario of needing armor-piercing ammunition in the event that a government is seizing upon them. They feel legislation should allow this because this fantasy scenario is an everyday occurrence. This is the left’s fantasy scenario because it doesn’t really exist.

 

[fishonjazz]

You’re still not understanding what you wrote. You said:



Dead fetuses are dead. How do you abort them?


I’m not certain you know much about comparative risks in pregnancy. When you reach the third trimester, you’re delivering a child — one way or another. Performing an abortion before delivering that child adds more risk. There are many situations that call for induction of delivery — none of those are made safer by termination of pregnancy followed by induction/c-section.

The right has a fantasy scenario of needing armor-piercing ammunition in the event that a government is seizing upon them. They feel legislation should allow this because this fantasy scenario is an everyday occurrence. This is the left’s fantasy scenario because it doesn’t really exist.

Why do they say that this bill will allow an abortion in the case of risk of death to the mother if the abortion makes the risk to the mother greater then?
Why would they need the bill to include that? No one would choose the more expensive and more dangerous option.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[infection]

Why do they say that this bill will allow an abortion in the case of risk of death to the mother if the abortion makes the risk to the mother greater then?
Why would they need the bill to include that? No one would choose the more expensive and more dangerous option.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

It’s a good question. But lots of laws don’t make sense and are passed by people who aren’t really knowledgeable in the subjects with which they legislate. If you have doubts about that, I can refer you to any piece of recent Trump legislation that you think doesn’t make sense.

 

[fishonjazz]

It’s a good question. But lots of laws don’t make sense and are passed by people who aren’t really knowledgeable in the subjects with which they legislate. If you have doubts about that, I can refer you to any piece of recent Trump legislation that you think doesn’t make sense.

So then the anti abortion crowd shouldn't care about that aspect of the bill since no one would ever take advantage of it then right?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[infection]

Why do they say that this bill will allow an abortion in the case of risk of death to the mother if the abortion makes the risk to the mother greater then?
Why would they need the bill to include that? No one would choose the more expensive and more dangerous option.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

But to more specifically answer that question, let’s make a true statement about at least one scenario:

It is safer for the mother to have an abortion than to continue her pregnancy if she has eclampsia.

If that sounds like a slam dunk, you’ve got to know what you’re comparing. It’s safer to terminate the pregnancy via abortion than to keep going, but it is absolutely not safer than inducing and delivering.

 

[infection]

So then the anti abortion crowd shouldn't care about that aspect of the bill since no one would ever take advantage of it then right?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

To my knowledge, the bill is about the “health” of the mother, and not the life. “Health” means many things, and when something is that open to interpretation it’s hard to say what that means. See the term disability. A lot of people are on disability who are not disabled, and it is not an insignificant percentage — but the idea of disability is out there as being compassionate — and the original premise of disability isn’t meant to be how it’s played out to be.

 

[Zombie]

My understanding is that abortions after 24 weeks are really only done due to severe abnormalities of the fetus. I can't imagine the heartbreak involved in making a decision like that which is why I believe it's a decision best made by the mother and her doctor.

 

[infection]

My understanding is that abortions after 24 weeks are really only done due to severe abnormalities of the fetus. I can't imagine the heartbreak involved in making a decision like that which is why I believe it's a decision best made by the mother and her doctor.

But that wasn’t the provision of the legislation:

§ 2599-BB. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI- FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH- IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s240?ez_cid=CLIENT_ID(AMP_ECID_EZOIC)

If that’s the reason to pass the legislation, it would have been important to actually have that be the legislation, no? Instead we have a provision for protecting the “patient’s life or health.”

 

[Zombie]

But that wasn’t the provision of the legislation:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s240?ez_cid=CLIENT_ID(AMP_ECID_EZOIC)

If that’s the reason to pass the legislation, it would have been important to actually have that be the legislation, no? Instead we have a provision for protecting the “patient’s life or health.”

Pretty sure it mentions absence of fetal viability.

 

[infection]

Pretty sure it mentions absence of fetal viability.

You said “severe abnormalities.” Do you limit that definition to non-viability?

 

[infection]

Also, in the third trimester, delivering a non-viable fetus is always safer than aborting and then delivering the non-viable fetus.

 

[fishonjazz]

To my knowledge, the bill is about the “health” of the mother, and not the life. “Health” means many things, and when something is that open to interpretation it’s hard to say what that means. See the term disability. A lot of people are on disability who are not disabled, and it is not an insignificant percentage — but the idea of disability is out there as being compassionate — and the original premise of disability isn’t meant to be how it’s played out to be.

Thank you for that very informative and thought out explanation. Makes sense

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Zombie]

You said “severe abnormalities.” Do you limit that definition to non-viability?

I'm not entirely sure tbh. I've read accounts of parents having to make the call to spare their child's life when viability is slim, and if born the baby's life is sure to be short and painful. I've also read accounts of mothers carrying twins, and one of the fetuses developing with severe abnormalities that may jeopardize the successful birth of the other. I think abortion should be on the table in these circumstances.