Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 24. 2019

Sorry, Sweethearts: America’s most popular Valentine’s Day candy won’t be on shelves this year - Necco’s business woes cut off supply, but candy hearts may be back in 2020

Count me as a fan of everything Necco makes. The wafers are great, esp. the black ones.

A date, gone wrong quickly

Guy dodged a bullet

How My Toddler Taught Me to Accept My Post-cancer Body

How Muscles Age, and How Exercise Can Slow It. Researchers untangle the multifarious nature of muscle aging. So far, the only reliable treatment is exercise.

That is, weights exercises

Feminists protest algos

Warren on decluttering: If it doesn't bring joy, get rid of it

Fake science, on nutrition

The field of nutrition is full of BS

Heavy European Snow Caused By You Driving A Fossil Fueled Vehicle

New York State celebrates abortion bill that legalizes abortion up to the moment of birth

Don’t Believe Ilhan Omar - She knew what she was doing.

Envy and politics

Envy is soul-corroding. I know because I often have to resist it.

Bookworm: An evening with Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin. Jordan Peterson continues to delight for he eschews trite pop culture and politics and, instead, speaks about deep truths that go to the human condition.

Z-man:

In the post-national world, that old definition of citizen no longer works. In a world where foreign people can just move in, claim the benefits and protections from the government, citizenship loses all value. At the same time, the state is increasingly alien to the people over whom it rules. In the European Union, the people are no longer ruled by their national governments, as all of the big decision are made in Brussels. In America, political offices are increasingly being filled by exotic weirdos with no connection to the natives.

The question then is what does it mean to be a citizen in a democratic empire?

Taki:

...the roar of racist rage from the great and good directed at an innocent Kentucky boy is all about implementing the Democrats’ grand strategy, which is to assemble a coalition of the margins of American society: immigrants, welfare mothers, tech billionaires, transgenders, hedge-fund guys, black church ladies, gays, Jews, the unmarried, movie stars, felons, and so forth and so on.

In contrast, the more similar you are to a Minuteman of 1776, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP appeals to Core Americans, the Democrats to Fringe Americans.

Mass immigration offers the Democrats good reason to hope to overwhelm their foes in the long run...

Which mainstream ideas pose the greatest threat to traditionalism?

Thought crimes, media abuse and those Catholic high school boys from Covington

Diocese of Covington Walking Back Condemnation of MAGA Kids

Libels of and threats to Covington Kids will face Kentucky justice

The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story, And the damage to their credibility will be lasting.

There was no "story." And media doesn't fact-check things that fit The Narrative

Democrats are now the ‘No Deal’ party

The Resistance means "Whatever it is, I'm against it."

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:00 | Comments (95) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

New York State celebrates abortion bill that legalizes abortion up to the moment of birth

New York did not legalize elective late-term abortions, but only when "there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health." The law essentially codifies the protections in Roe v. Wade.

#1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 08:57 (Reply)

Really, because according to LifeSite News:
"The bill legalizes abortion in most circumstances all the way to birth, ambiguously stating that unborn babies may be killed “within 24 weeks of the start of a pregnancy, or at any time when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.” Non-physicians are now enabled to perform abortions, and persons who cause a woman to lose an unborn child are shielded from prosecution."

The fetal viability has no bearing. To protect a WOMAN'S life or health; AKA just like currently when all a woman has to claim is "I don't want it".

Nice try.

#1.1 Pax78 on 2019-01-24 09:12 (Reply)

Pax78: "The bill legalizes abortion in most circumstances all the way to birth, ambiguously stating that unborn babies may be killed “within 24 weeks of the start of a pregnancy, or at any time when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.”

We quoted the actual law, which is largely what you just stated. The first 24 weeks are elective, and after that, there are exceptions for non-elective abortions to protect the woman's life or health or if the fetus is not viable.

Pax78: The fetal viability has no bearing.

We quoted the actual law.

Pax78: To protect a WOMAN'S life or health; AKA just like currently when all a woman has to claim is "I don't want it".

The Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade has already said that the law must allow for exceptions to protect the woman's life and health. The New York statute brings the law into compliance with that ruling. Saying "I don't want it" would not represent a valid health exception.

#1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 10:11 (Reply)

Everyone is aware that the health exception is a loophole. Any woman can thereby claim that the pregnancy is detrimental to her "mental" health (I'm stressed, I'm depressed, I have anxiety attacks) and a doctor can sign off and kill the baby.

#1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-24 10:19 (Reply)

Rusty: Everyone is aware that the health exception is a loophole.

Late-term abortions are rare, about 1% of all abortions. It is generally safer to carry to term, so late-term abortions are nearly always done for a non-viable fetus or due to a severe health complication.

#1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 10:30 (Reply)

Degenerate says: "Don't worry, only 600,000 late term babies have had their living brains sucked out."

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-24 11:00 (Reply)

Rusty: Degenerate says: "Don't worry, only 600,000 late term babies have had their living brains sucked out."

So you are against abortion even to save the life or prevent severe physical health risks to the mother, or when the fetus is non-viable?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 11:36 (Reply)

Re: Kermit Gosnell, kiddiez.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-24 11:48 (Reply)

Changing goal posts yet again?

I'm seeing a pattern...

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Rusty on 2019-01-24 12:46 (Reply)

Rusty: Changing goal posts yet again?

No. The goalposts are right where they were. The New York statute didn't change the law, but codified court precedent.

But you didn't answer. Are against abortion even to save the life or prevent severe physical health risks to the mother, or when the fetus is non-viable?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 13:17 (Reply)

You ignored the original goalpost of the health exclusion loophole.

My opinion about LTA is irrelevant.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-24 13:41 (Reply)

Rusty: You ignored the original goalpost of the health exclusion loophole.

Actually, we responded directly to your point by noting that the majority of late-term abortions are not done for mental health reasons, but to save the life or physical health of the mother, or because the fetus is non-viable.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 17:36 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Apr 12, 2013 · One former employee described hearing a baby screaming after it was delivered during an abortion procedure. "I can't describe it. It sounded like a little alien," she testified.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-24 18:33 (Reply)

Utterly incomprehensible, this staggering inhumanity. But of course, it's what we're known for and what powers our spectacular denials about ourselves, this utter depravity.

How this goes without further comment is simply mind-blowing yet it shall pass without comment because there are political agendas to honor. It makes you gasp in horror.

Tearing our living tiny beings apart limb from limb. Alive.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-25 07:26 (Reply)

Actually, we responded directly to your point by noting that the majority of late-term abortions are not done for mental health reasons, but to save the life or physical health of the mother, or because the fetus is non-viable.

You didn't respond to the exclusion loophole. You hand waved it away.

And just as predictably, you are simply wrong about that too.

"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

Foster and Kimport, 2013.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 Rusty on 2019-01-24 21:18 (Reply)

Rusty: Foster and Kimport, 2013.

Hey! You actually tried to respond to the point! It's much appreciated.

Foster and Kimport concerns pregnancies from 20 weeks (representing about 15,000 abortions annually) in situations when elective abortions are available, but the question you raise is whether doctors will abort viable fetuses on tenuous mental health grounds. The study suggests that some women may want to do so, but not that practitioners would break or bend the law rather than advise the mother to carry to term.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-25 10:14 (Reply)

Re: Kermit Gosnell

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-25 12:17 (Reply)

"The study suggests that some women may want to do so...

Actually the study suggests that you were lying.

If most late abortions are not done for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment, what is the real reason?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-25 12:45 (Reply)

Rusty: If most late abortions are not done for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment, what is the real reason?

The study indicated that elective abortions 20 weeks or after, "Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous." However, that doesn't address abortion once the fetus becomes viable, which was your original point concerning the "loophole", and which the study doesn't directly address.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-25 15:37 (Reply)

You didn't answer my question, so I'll rephrase it more directly.

Now that you have been exposed as a degenerate liar, what do you think the actual reason for late term abortions is?

(This presumes that you are willing to change your opinion in the face of contrary facts - a dubious presumption on my part)

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-25 15:59 (Reply)

Rusty: what do you think the actual reason for late term abortions is?

We noted the reasons from Foster and Kimport, which concerns late, but pre-viable abortions, which are elective in most states. We also noted some of these reasons may apply to why some women may want post-viable abortions, but these are legally restricted in most states to medically indicated protection of the health and life of the mother.

Our original point was that New York codified the law to comport with the relevant court precedent. You brought up reasons for late second trimester abortions, but not for third trimester abortions, which would be what is relevant for the so-called health "loophole". Pre-viable abortions are elective under Roe v. Wade, so there is no "health exclusion loophole".

If you want to argue against second trimester or even all abortions, that is your privilege, but that doesn't support your concern about the "loophole" and post-viable abortions or your statistics.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-25 16:32 (Reply)

You didn't answer my question for the third time.

I didn't ask for a list of "profiles". I asked for the reason for late-term abortions, since you claimed to know.

One more time... what is the reason for late term abortions?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-25 17:13 (Reply)

The pattern once again repeats itself!

As always, we begin with a simple statement which is obviously true, then watch as Zachriel goes full retard.

R: The health exception is a loophole.
Z: So what? Most late abortions are done to protect the mom's life or remove a non-viable baby anyway.
R: Really? Because research shows that you have that completely ass-backward wrong.
Z: So what. Let's go back to your original assertion.
R: Ok. Would you like to revise your argument?
Z: No.
R: You're sticking with your argument that was just shown to be utter bullshit?
Z: Mom told me never to quit. Quitters are losers.
R: Ok, but shouldn't your argument be based in truth?
Z: You just lost. Mom says I'm a champion.
R: Are you by any chance that kid from "My 600Lb. Life" who eats Crisco with an ice cream scoop?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-25 21:07 (Reply)

Rusty: Z: So what? Most late abortions are done to protect the mom's life {health} or remove a non-viable baby anyway.

We were clearly referring to third trimester abortions, while your cited study concerns second trimester abortions. We already pointed that out, but you persist in your confusion.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-26 09:22 (Reply)

"We were clearly referring to third trimester abortions"

Now you're just lying. You clearly said "late term" (which is not the same as 3rd trimester), and you also made reference to "24 weeks" which is clearly second trimester.

You are truly a sad specimen. As I said earlier, a degenerate liar.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-26 13:33 (Reply)

Rusty: You clearly said "late term" (which is not the same as 3rd trimester),

Late-term does not have a single definition. Medical articles use various definitions. It was clear from context, we were referring to post-viable abortions, and if for some reason you misunderstood, we made our meaning explicit.

Rusty: and you also made reference to "24 weeks" which is clearly second trimester.

Yes. The New York law sets restrictions at 24 weeks, which about the time of viability.

Rusty: As I said earlier, a degenerate liar.

You don't have to be a degenerate liar. It's a choice you make.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-27 10:26 (Reply)

Before: "We were clearly referring to third trimester abortions"

After: "It was clear from context, we were referring to post-viable abortions"

Moving goalposts is really meaningless to you, isn't it?

It's almost as if you have no integrity at all.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-28 10:16 (Reply)

Rusty: Before: "We were clearly referring to third trimester abortions"

After: "It was clear from context, we were referring to post-viable abortions"

Moving goalposts is really meaningless to you, isn't it?

The goalposts are right where they were. The third trimester is considered to be roughly the point of fetal viability, which was the basis of Roe v. Wade—as already explained above.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 10:26 (Reply)

24 weeks is not "3rd trimester".

More lies.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-28 11:33 (Reply)

Rusty: I didn't ask for a list of "profiles". I asked for the reason for late-term abortions, since you claimed to know.

The profiles provided by the study are profiles of reasons women choose abortion at 20 weeks or after, but before viability. After viability, most states only allow abortion to protect the life and health of the mother, or due to severe fetal abnormality, so those are the reasons post-viability.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-26 09:18 (Reply)

"The profiles provided by the study are profiles of reasons women choose abortion at 20 weeks or after, but before viability."

More lies. In fact, the research article recounts the stories of several women who aborted their viable babies.

You are a liar. And you probably didn't even read the paper which you are lying about.

Sad.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Rusty on 2019-01-26 13:59 (Reply)

Rusty: In fact, the research article recounts the stories of several women who aborted their viable babies.

We only note one woman in the study who had an unambiguously post-viable abortion. A few were at 24 weeks, so viability would depend on the specific development of the fetus. The study indicated that researchers didn't have enough statistical evidence to reach conclusions about why women chose abortions for subsets of 20+ week abortions, or how this played into abortion restrictions.

Rusty: You are a liar.

You are a liar. That's a choice, though, and you can change if you want.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-27 10:35 (Reply)

Before you said the study only concerned non-viable babies.

Now you suddenly remember that the study had viable babies.

Why do you lie, zachriel?

Is it because dismembering viable babies is so important to you?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-28 10:27 (Reply)

Rusty: Before you said the study only concerned non-viable babies.

Now you suddenly remember that the study had viable babies.

As already noted, the study does not provide statistics for subsets of abortions at 20 weeks or later.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 11:45 (Reply)

As already noted, you lied about the study, you lied about late term abortions, you lied about viability, and you lied about the law.

Dismembering babies must be very, very important to you.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-28 12:11 (Reply)

Rusty: [i]As already noted, you lied about the study, you lied about late term abortions, you lied about viability, and you lied about the law.[/i

As already noted, you lied about the study, you lied about late term abortions, you lied about viability, and you lied about the law.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-28 16:46 (Reply)

Ahh, the "I know you are but what am I" defense.

Brilliant.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-29 10:45 (Reply)

Bullshit, Gasbot. And yet again, why is it that the glorious hope of all the left's Utopias calls for its trademarked mendacity? Seems that goodness doesn't flow from a barrel of falsehoods any more than it could from the barrel of a gun.

Just to be clear, this time you hid your shape-shifting behind the profitable practice of dismembering living humans.

You think we're stupid and don't notice?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-24 15:57 (Reply)

My reading of the law seems to decriminalize anything to do with abortion and there is nothing that requires that the fetus be non viable. Nor does it require a doctor to perform it - only a health care practitioner defined in title VIII of the education law has regulations things such as Professional midwifery, nurses, pharmacists, etc.

So the law allows someone with no particular training to perform an abortion in any setting any time before the child is actually born for basically any reason the pregnant person (I won't say "mother") states will affect her health.

So if you can abort a viable baby at nine months so why not just kill it after it is born? Is that great or what?!

Why not give the baby up for adoption?

#1.1.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2019-01-24 13:25 (Reply)

mudbug: My reading of the law seems to decriminalize anything to do with abortion and there is nothing that requires that the fetus be non viable.

QUOTE:

42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.

So there are three conditions:
1. within 24 weeks; or
2. absence of fetal viability; or
3. necessary to protect the woman's life or health.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 17:41 (Reply)

Gasbot: The law essentially codifies the protections in Roe v. Wade.
Pax78: By effectively not criminalizing basically any abortion, Gasbot.
Gasbot: We'll now handwave you away from that critical point, human people person.
Rusty: So in other words, there is no effective criminal component, which is the obvious point.
Gasbot: We'll now handwave our flimsy pragmatist's card and see if you notice.
Rusty: I noticed.
Gasbot: Why do you hate women, Rusty?
Zzzatemypuppy: Sorry, Gasbot. Here's a case in point. See: Humanism utterly inverted. Why do you hate humanism, Gasbot?
Rusty: I see you're changing goals again, Gasbot. Run yourself down another blind alley?
Gasbot: We shall now double-down on our original bullshit and raise it to the second power by handwaving again. See? Done.
Rusty: Noted, goalpost-racer.
Gasbot: We shall repeat ourselves yet again. WE ARE NOT MOVING THE GOALPOSTS, RUSTY HUMAN PEOPLE PERSON.
Meh: Whay does the left's Utopia require so much lying?
Mudbug: [Issues lengthy take-down of Gasbottery showing that there is indeed no crime in dismembering living infants, the point of the thread. Human people persons note as such, question Gasbot's twisted trajectory as it pushes the goalposts down the street, around the corner, and into a bordello.]
Gasbot: [Some faint, pedantic, and utterly transparent diversion.]
Meh: Why do you hate reason so much, Gasbot?

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-24 18:07 (Reply)

Z: 3. necessary to protect the woman's life or health.

How is the threat to the woman's health determined? By the "health care practitioner? And what constitutes a threat to her health? Is it physical health? No! It's just "health." It could be her "mental health" and that could mean that she says she would become depressed or have anxiety because she delivered a baby.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 mudbug on 2019-01-24 19:02 (Reply)

mudbug: How is the threat to the woman's health determined? By the "health care practitioner? And what constitutes a threat to her health? Is it physical health?

The Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton said that "medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age-relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." Medical judgment is subject to standards set by the medical community. The New York statute brings the state law into conformity with the courts.

Perhaps you disagree with this long-standing precedent, but our point was that the New York law didn't actually change anything with regards to abortion access.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-25 10:25 (Reply)

Your "point" was so self-contradictory that all but a robot could see it, ClownShow. The first reply to your bullshit noted as much.

Why is mendacity - and the casually discarded lives if unheard screaming infants - such a prevalent component of leftist utopianism?

#1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-25 10:49 (Reply)

He didn't say the word "elective", you disingenuous little shit.

#1.2 Rusty on 2019-01-24 10:09 (Reply)

Rusty: He didn't say the word "elective"

No. Under Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court already "legalizes abortion up to the moment of birth" when the life or health of the mother is threatened, or when the fetus is not viable. New York's statute made its law consistent with court precedent, but didn't actually change the application of the law in this regard.

#1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 10:15 (Reply)

Actually, he didn't say the word "elective". You did.

#1.2.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-24 10:26 (Reply)

Rusty: Actually, he didn't say the word "elective". You did.

That's right. We addressed a possible ambiguity. Keep in mind that the New York statute doesn't change the practice of law regarding abortion, as the pre-existing law was overruled by the precedent set in Roe v. Wade.

#1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 10:33 (Reply)

So no one said the word "elective", but you felt the need to "address" the "possibility" that there might be some "ambiguity" surrounding that particular term which nobody said.

C.S. Lewis wrote a book about you. You should check it out.

#1.2.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2019-01-24 11:12 (Reply)

Rusty: So no one said the word "elective", but you felt the need to "address" the "possibility" that there might be some "ambiguity" surrounding that particular term which nobody said.

Yup. The linked article talks about a "radical" abortion bill, but the bill merely updates statutes to what has been settled law in the U.S. since the 1970s.

#1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 11:35 (Reply)

Semantics (along with race) are the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel who has lost the argument...

#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-24 12:01 (Reply)

Changing goal posts again?

I'm seeing a pattern...

#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Rusty on 2019-01-24 12:47 (Reply)

Rusty: Changing goal posts again?

The goalposts are right where they were. We addressed a possible ambiguity in the article. The ambiguity arises because it incorrectly claims that the New York statute changes the application of law, it claims the statute is radical even though it merely brings the law into conformity with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, and leaves the incorrect impression that the statute does not limit late-term abortions. Perhaps you were not confused, in which case you can simply ignore our comments.

#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 18:03 (Reply)

Gasbot: We addressed a possible ambiguity in the article.
Real Human People Person: Sure did, as completely pointless and irrelevant as "a possibly ambiguity" could be while us actual humans note the infinitely broader fucking context, which happens to determine if tiny wordless defenseless humans - of the precise kind and type we're made from, as it happens - are allowed to retain their limbs and other even more vital bits or if they'll be turned into a stew rivaled only by your latest concoction of chunky pedantry.

Human reason. Catch the wave.

#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-24 18:16 (Reply)

Zzz: The goalposts are right where they were.

Right there next to the strawman.

#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-24 19:38 (Reply)

C.S. Lewis wrote a book about you.

Exactly right - threadwinner. Makes you wonder what conscientiouslessness feels like.

#1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-24 16:04 (Reply)

Rather, consciencelessness (if either are words).

#1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Meh on 2019-01-24 16:16 (Reply)

There is a part of me that is willing to accept abortion but only early in the pregnancy. I like the idea of trying to make is safe and infrequent and only in the first trimester. I'm not "for it", I still feel that it is pretty disgusting, i.e. killing babies. But as a compromise to reality and real issues that would be my position. But abortion past the first trimester is a bridge too far and partial birth abortion should require serious felony charges for everyone involved.

Having said that I add that all of this is separate from the issue of "is abortion a constitutional right?" It was a terrible mistake by the Supreme Court to find that it was a protected constitutional right and a serious indicator of the courts going too far and outside of their purview. They knew when they made that decision that they were dead wrong and did it anyway. At that time in our history the states were independently deciding the abortion issue and constitutionally that was the ONLY legal venue that could have made this decision. The Supreme Court f-ed up and congress should have dressed them down immediately. That too was a mistake and a missed opportunity for congress to address the issue of the courts legislating and usurping power.

#1.3 GoneWithTheWind on 2019-01-24 10:49 (Reply)

Oh look, Windtard's opined that he thinks dismembering living infants is pretty disgusting.

#1.3.1 Meh on 2019-01-24 16:02 (Reply)

From a commenter: "I’m now trying to imagine what it would be like to be on a date with someone who prattles about “coloniality” and “white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy.”

"I mean, how long would you have to stay before asking for the bill, and a cab, for one?"

#2 Texan99 on 2019-01-24 09:37 (Reply)

Might make for some amusing banter, but not for any relationship.

#2.1 Bird Dog on 2019-01-24 09:54 (Reply)

Also from the comments: a couple with a chance despite date disaster https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/05/woman-rescued-fire-brigade-trying-retrieve-poo-date-mishap/

#2.2 Karen on 2019-01-24 10:42 (Reply)

When encountering a full fledged crazy that identifies as female do not make the mistake of under estimating their ability to cause you pain and suffering. You may think you can tell them that they are crazy and just leave but that is like throwing down the gauntlet to a crazy and they will plot and plan your misery even making false claims of verbal or physical abuse if it serves their purpose. Be careful! Be very careful. Law and tradition are stacked against you. They will be believed and you will not simply because of your gender. Be nice, be polite, make a believable excuse and be gone. And when you are safely away and no one is following thank your lucky stars that: 1. She exposed her true self early and 2.That your escape was early fast and complete.

#2.3 OneGuy on 2019-01-24 11:01 (Reply)

The guy got lucky...it didn't even cost him the dates meal or maybe movie ticket. Winning.

#2.4 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-24 13:44 (Reply)

Climate freaks 20 years ago: "Snow will soon be a thing of the past!"

Climate freaks today: "Global warming makes snow!"

#3 Rusty on 2019-01-24 10:03 (Reply)

I want to know what a "native elder" is exactly.
Is it an official function in a tribe like an Elder in a church?
Does Nathan Phillips hold a position of leadership in his tribe?
Is it what the media calls an old Indian to make him seem serious?

Also, I want to know about his chant.
Does it mean anything at all or is it just gibberish?
Can it be translated into English?

At a RTL march many years ago I had a guy come stand in front of me just like Phillips did to the Covington kid. He yelled, shouted and talked at me obviously trying to goad me into something. I smiled at him the whole time, exactly like the kid did to Phillips.

#4 FRP on 2019-01-24 10:04 (Reply)

There is at least some dispute about his relationship with that tribe. Information from an article first published in 2000.

Back in Nebraska, Omaha tribal Chairman Elmer Blackbird did not return calls seeking comment about Phillips' vigil.

Privately, another tribal leader said Phillips is regarded back in Nebraska as a well-intentioned brother struggling to cope with a troubled childhood. The leader said the Omaha Tribe generally avoids the type of activism Phillips prefers.

"He's just trying to find his way," the leader said. "Let him find it."

https://www.omaha.com/news/nation/who-is-nathan-phillips-years-ago-omaha-tribe-member-said/article_6cc049c4-d6d8-5e3c-8ee6-939a203682af.html

#4.1 Christopher B on 2019-01-24 10:11 (Reply)

FRP: Also, I want to know about his chant. Does it mean anything at all or is it just gibberish? Can it be translated into English?

QUOTE:

Together we should be strong.
The seventh fire has been lit by them.
We have to all speak Anishinaabemowin {the words of the people, the Ojibwe language}.
We are living well!
We are living well!

The song is one of prayer and unity.

#4.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 10:50 (Reply)

On the video I hear different lyrics. It sounded like:

You white people,

Go back to Europe where you came from.

We've been here millions of fucking years.

So stay the fuck out of my face with your shit.

I dunno. It seems to lose some of it's native charm in the translation.

#4.2.1 Rusty on 2019-01-24 11:31 (Reply)

Rusty: On the video I hear different lyrics.

That's probably your racial bias showing.

#4.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 11:38 (Reply)

The Race Card Is the Last Refuge for a Liberal Scoundrel

#4.2.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-24 11:52 (Reply)

Actually, those are pretty much the exact words.

#4.2.1.1.2 Rusty on 2019-01-24 12:02 (Reply)

No bias, the words Rusty quotes are spoken, you can hear them clearly on the video. The words though are not spoken by Phillips to Sandmann, rather it is the other guy (native american) with Phillips who says them to the Covington kid standing behind Sandmann.

If Phillips is saying what you claim, in another language, then he is acting as a provocateur, not a victim or revered and respected "elder". That kid has no idea what is being said to him so he misses the "song of prayer and unity" part and has to interpret the intentions of Phillips by only his actions. Actions which are confrontational and hostile.

#4.2.1.1.3 steve walsh on 2019-01-24 12:28 (Reply)

steve walsh: No bias, the words Rusty quotes are spoken, you can hear them clearly on the video.

Yes, but they are not the lyrics being sung by Phillips, which was FRP's question.

steve walsh: If Phillips is saying what you claim, in another language, then he is acting as a provocateur, not a victim or revered and respected "elder".

If a Catholic says a prayer for unity in Latin, and you don't understand, you will then claim he is acting as a provocateur. Yes, languages can divide, but most people can still recognize the non-aggressive nature of the song.

steve walsh: Actions which are confrontational and hostile.

From the full video, Phillips puts himself between the Black Hebrews and the students. From his point of view, the song can be seen as an attempt to deescalate the situation.

#4.2.1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 13:05 (Reply)

WTF, kiddiez? The goal post thingy again.
Just keep making shit up shall we?

#4.2.1.1.3.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-24 13:15 (Reply)

Funny that the "elder" didn't get in the face of one of the black miscreants.
Or not.

#4.2.1.1.3.1.2 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-24 13:28 (Reply)

Speaking loudly in an unknown language while banging a drum and approaching an unknown person to within a few inches of his face, are the actions of a person trying to incite a confrontation, not defuse one.

Phillips is the bad guy in this episode. It appears to me that he created this confrontation in the hopes that Sandmann would act out toward him physically. Kudos to Sandmann for not taking the bait.

#4.2.1.1.3.1.3 steve walsh on 2019-01-24 13:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Phillips keeps walking into the group, they make room for him, and then—the smiling boy. One of the videos shows him doing something unusual. At one point he turns away from Phillips, stops smiling, and locks eyes with another kid, shaking his head, seeming to say the word no. This is consistent with the long, harrowing statement that the smiling boy would release at the end of the weekend, in which he offered an explanation for his actions that is consistent with the video footage that has so far emerged, and revealed what happened to him in the 48 hours after Americans set to work doxing him and threatening his family with violence. As of this writing, it seems that the smiling boy, Nick Sandmann, is the one person who tried to be respectful of Phillips and who encouraged the other boys to do the same. And for this, he has been by far the most harshly treated of any of the people involved in the afternoon’s mess at the Lincoln Memorial. "

---an Althouse commentor

FO kiddiez!

#4.2.1.1.3.1.3.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-24 13:48 (Reply)

I too saw him turn to one kid and kind of make the cut it out gesture. Most teenagers would not have been able to stay so well behaved when accosted by the black group and then the native American drum beaters. If you would have beat that drum that close to my face I probably wold have swatted it away as I hate loud noise and confrontation. I was impressed with the kids and not the so called adults that attacked them after the event.

#4.2.1.1.3.1.3.1.1 JC on 2019-01-24 15:23 (Reply)

steve walsh: Phillips is the bad guy in this episode.

From the full video, it looks like he interposed between the two groups, then sang a song of unity. That doesn't seem like the actions of a "bad guy".

#4.2.1.1.3.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 17:34 (Reply)

Had he found his way to some middle distance between the two groups I could agree with you, but he didn't, he walks directly to the Covington students and gets in the face of one of them. That's why I can't believe he was trying to deescalate the situation.

#4.2.1.1.3.1.3.2.1 steve walsh on 2019-01-24 19:08 (Reply)

So lying through this thread about killing infants you still somehow feel legitimate grounds to accuse a stranger of bigotry, Gasbot?

You've outdone yourself in spectacular fashion here today.

#4.2.1.1.4 Meh on 2019-01-24 16:07 (Reply)

Nope. Phillips is an Omaha from Nebraska. He would have no idea how to speak Ojibwe and certainly wouldn't be chanting in another language.

#4.2.2 FRP on 2019-01-24 11:42 (Reply)

FRP: Phillips is an Omaha from Nebraska. He would have no idea how to speak Ojibwe and certainly wouldn't be chanting in another language.

The song is associated with the American Indian Movement, and is sung by native peoples throughout North America.

#4.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-24 11:55 (Reply)

That's easy! A native elder is anyone, even with 1024th Indian blood, who disagrees with Trump. Whereas anyone who agrees with Trump even a black person or a full blooded Indian is a racist, sexist, homophobe who should be doxed and fed into a wood chipper. Hope that clears it up.

#4.3 Anon on 2019-01-24 10:53 (Reply)

I guess I should have checked first. According to the Omaha tribe, an elder is just what the name implies am older, wise tribal member. Certainly, Nathan Phillips is then NOT a "Native Elder" in any sense as he is under 50, has a history of trouble with the law, 3 times AWOL in the Marines, and is an alcoholic. He lives on the grounds because he has no job or income and can't afford to live anywhere else. Since he's a "protester" the Park Service lets him stay.

#4.4 FRP on 2019-01-24 11:55 (Reply)

Heavy European Snow Caused By You Driving A Fossil Fueled Vehicle

Six months...er...weeks....er....hours ago, driving such a vehicle caused snow to vanish, so the ice caps, glaciers and ski areas were all going to disappear!

Anthropomorphic Climate changers = Lying Liars!!

#5 Old Codger on 2019-01-24 10:49 (Reply)

So is a plant based diet the healthiest diet? It isn't just coincidence that the only evidence that this is true comes from people and groups that are openly biased against meat or for vegetarianism. There is only one known study that was large enough and long enough to actually shed any light on this subject and that is the NHANES study. It was believed that a plant based diet would prevent or even mitigate cancer but the result was that no diet, no dietary changes seemed to have any statistically significant effect on cancer. Ditto for heart disease.

There is one truth about diet and it's effects on humans and that simple and obvious truth is that all humans are different and all diets affect these different humans differently. There is simply no one diet that is the right one. There is also no "bad" food. What there is, is a widespread superstition that underlies all of the food biases that borders on witchcraft in it's claims and terminology.

#6 OneGuy on 2019-01-24 12:26 (Reply)

Given that there are over seven hundred studies - including the largest ever undertaken in history - that refute your biased little accusation, one wonders how you can accuse others of prejudice while at the same time getting your facts so terribly wrong.

Or are you a member of the rare strain of ape that evolved directly from eating leaves and shoots to at least a daily meal of industrial cattle? No, are you?

#6.1 Meh on 2019-01-24 16:11 (Reply)

I agree. Food theories are mostly superstition. The "research," such as it is, consists of population studies that conflate correlation with causation. There's precious little controlled double-blind research and therefore very little reliable data.

Until practically an eye-blink ago, natural selection favored people who could thrive on a variety of diets and frequently tolerate severe scarcity. We haven't had time to adapt to the incredible plenty that's now available to us. Our bodies think starvation, not obesity, is the most important danger.

#6.2 Texan99 on 2019-01-24 21:38 (Reply)

Re envy and politics.
"Helmut Schoeck, Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior. I can’t believe I never came across this book before now. It is stupendously good."
I agree. Mr. Schoeck explains that egalitarianism is a manifestation of envy, it is vice masquerading as virtue. All those SJWs are full of envy.

#7 Ray on 2019-01-24 12:56 (Reply)

Democrats the no deal party...furlough ALL the public servants and then rehire only the useful 10%. Replace all of TSA with private contractors.

#8 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-24 13:59 (Reply)

Feminists protest algos: Algos protest feminists (algos are SEXXXXXXXXXIST).

#9 Sam L. on 2019-01-24 14:04 (Reply)

"Count me as a fan of everything Necco makes. The wafers are great, esp. the black ones. "

Ugh. When I was a kid I would always throw out the black ones. They turn your mouth black for Pete's sake!

#10 citizen49a on 2019-01-25 11:48 (Reply)

#11 Rusty on 2019-01-26 13:58 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 24. 2019

Thursday morning links