The Glade 4.0

There is a great graphic in this article that shows some of the genetic variation involved: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... rmination/

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

Your characterizations of the President's voter based are skewed at best, outright delusional at worst.

I know many people who voted for Trump who don't give a **** what gender you want to assign to yourself, nor do they care if you have a homosexual relationship. What they do want and do give a **** about is they are tired of having the left push their ideology on others. Most of them believe "live and let live, just do it in your own space and don't force me to think of it as natural." None of them have reacted violently to anything the left has done or said. Most of us just shake our heads because we find it hard to believe people can be that stupid and / or hypocritical.

I find it laughable that you believe the SC will act on something because someone was harassed. Until the First and Second Amendments are overturned, which ain't happening, harassment is just that, harassment. Just because a prominent figure doesn't like the way they're treated is not the basis of our form of government or laws.

Your generally sweeping pronouncements about those who voted for Trump are tiresome.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

It's not "others", it's conservatives that they target.

That there's the hypocrisy - Clinton makes a joke that "they all look alike" and crickets from the media, but had a conservative said the same thing, it would have caused a brouhaha on the evening news. Where's the sanctimonious lectures? Where's the calls of "racism"?

crickets

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I stand corrected, you're quite right. And the hypocrisy extends to anyone on the left; Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, Diane Feinstein, and their poster girls Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

The problem I have with these arguments is they are treating genetic or congenital aberrations as evidence that our species evolved as a spectrum of genders, which is kinda ridiculous. People with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, for example, will make less of some hormones which affects the development of sexual characteristics. These people go on to have biological impairments as a result of the hormone imbalances that result, not to mention more difficulty procreating. That we can call that normal seems contrary to the evolution and fitness of our species. And yeah, historically, it has sucked that somebody with CAH could be born and have their sex misjudged based on phenotype. But now we can test for fetal genotype in maternal blood and we can know what their genes say they are.

The folks with Klinefelter's or Turner's would seem to have a legitimate claim that their genes take them out of the male/female genotype binary. But I haven't gotten the sense those populations are the ones wanting their sex determined as "intersex."

_________________
The Dude abides.

So far as I understand it (and admittedly I don't know for sure), the protections for religion were put in place to prevent compelling people to have to violate their conscience. Catholic hospitals don't permit the OB/GYN service to do abortions because it violates their conscience telling them it is murder of the unborn, except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. They provide referrals to providers who will perform this service, though. Similarly for businesses with insurance, except employees can opt to purchase different insurance that does cover what the employee wants.

Transgender people who have not undergone the surgery are making a claim they are something when physically they are not. And in both cases, male or female, those are already protected classes. So now we're arguing over discrimination against a behavior (not outlawed) or discrimination based on sex (sexist discrimination is already illegal). It seems to me, if the leftists really want to pursue this, they should amend the law (or make a new one) to make the behavior of transgenderism (without the surgery) protected.

Edit: Sorry - took me a while to get settled. Only my first week here in Indiana and the rotation and life here have just been an absolute crap-show for me.

_________________
The Dude abides.

This is where I part ways with so many progressive opinions... Make a law. Change a law. Unfortunately they seek to use the judicial or the court of public opinion when they should be using the legislative branch to further their causes.

I hear progressives say that it takes too long, or that it’s the tyranny of the masses, etc, to make changes as excuses to bypass that critical step. A stroke of a pen or a ruling in any court other than the USSC then deals them a setback. Go figure.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I have seen the Democratic vision of the future and I gotta say, I think this topic is another where over-reach is going to result in severe changes. They’ve gone on record as wanting to allow the murder of babies mere moments before birth, not only to save the mother’s life, but to protect her health... and they somehow rationalize any risk to future earnings as pertaining to the mothers health without anything other than the statistical possibility, and they want to allow midwives to be able to perform the abortions...determine health issues without being a doctor.. and removed any criminal codes from being considered because of abortion.

In the rush to abandon the sanctity of life, they’ve embraced death. I’d have been accused of a slippery slope argument had I suggested they would do what they’re doing. Go figure.

The progressives created the environment that put Trump in office, and now they’ve created an environment that will ensure that the now conservative Supreme Court will be forced to hear a case arguing that the point where a clump of cells becomes a person begins at ... when? Conception? Whatever is decided, it’ll push back the clock on the progressive agenda and afford babies with their constitutional rights. NY and other can make all the laws they want, but when a baby has equal rights recognized by the highest court in the land, they’ll be forced to change.

You’ve only yourselves to blame, and I thank you. AND BONUS! Quite possibly, you’ve ensured Trump’s re-election.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I can't think of a single medical problem where the mother's health is in imminent danger requiring termination of pregnancy AND requires the additional steps to kill the baby. I separately asked the OB's I was with on rotations (4 women, 1 man) this question and their answer was that they never encountered a situation that required killing the baby to save mom. A reasonable attempt could always be made to save both, though gestational age would have a large hand in success for the baby.


I don't disagree. We've gone form "safe, legal, and rare" to babies magically being alive only when woman deems to grant them life. It blows my mind how quickly Leftists are shifting to further extremes.

I've been on my NICU rotation and have been in a lot of C-sections involving preterm neonates. I've seen my share of miraculous saves. There was one baby boy born at 900g at 26 weeks. He had APGARS of 1 and 1 for 1 and 5 minutes, so he was pretty much dead in the OR when they pulled him out of his drug-addicted mother. Despite all odds, and thanks to amazing doctors and nurses, this little guy is now at 35 weeks with really only some retinopathy at the very edges of his retinas. He's doubled his weights. He coos, he grunts, he cries, and he's just the cutest little thing. So small, even for a 35-week preemie. I look at him and worry about a potential future that doesn't allow for miracles like him.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Hydranencephaly, where the fetus is non-viable. Life of the mother is not necessarily an issue but her ability to have later children can be damaged.
Ectopic pregnancy is often cited.
Locations with spotty medical care, my mother is an on/gyn and on medical mission trips in locations where there would be no care after she departed or when she arrived late in the pregnancy. I know of at least one story where the fetus had terminated in utero late in the pregnancy but the mother still carried it for another several weeks because her body hadn’t figured it out.

If people are this anti-abortion: are they also anti-death penalty?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I only agree with the death penalty in capital murder cases, and only after due process has been observed. I'm OK with retributive justice.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

K, thank you.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

1. Hydrancephaly is effectively a fetus without most of its brain but no other abnormalities. It is already brain-dead, for which we already allow the withdrawal of life-support, so to speak. What exactly about it are you saying impacts mom's ability to have further children? Genuinely curious here. I went back and re-read up on it and don't see terminating it in the womb would
2. Medical science doesn't have any ability to save an ectopic pregnancy. I guess technically this case proves my statement wrong, but this isn't a case anyone is arguing against nor do any laws currently restrict it.
3. This case you've stated the baby is already dead, so not sure why you feel this answers me. Even spotty care with a live baby doesn't justify it since all we're saying is something might be bad.

And here's the thing. I'll even compromise on cases where medicine has no hope of saving the child. In good faith, I may be willing to grant cases of rape. But these fringe cases are strawmen. We could create laws specific for those. But instead we're seeing laws that justify the slaughter of fully-formed, healthy babies for any reason. That people will argue a birthed term baby was not alive 1 second before it was delivered is quite frankly sickening.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Well, this is a thread specifically about abortion. We can create a capital punishment thread if you like. But the comparison of abortion to the death penalty is a problem for leftists to argue as justification since it grants the babies status as alive in the comparison. But hell, I would gladly abolish capital punishment laws if it means eliminating abortion.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I can understand where darksiege is coming from - I strongly emphasized the sanctity of life as the guiding principle of my position and he’s understandably curious how I resolve that position with capital punishment.

All I can say is, there needs to be a reckoning. Folks that don’t value life, that aren’t adverse to taking lives for arbitrary reasons, need to be stopped from doing so. I just feel capital punishment is more humane than incarceration because I feel that a lifetime of imprisonment is more cruel than a trip to the gas chamber.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

And that’s where your argument falls apart. How about a lifetime emprisoned in a body that doesn’t work? A life of corrective surgeries and death before the age of 5? There are more prisons than those with walls.

Yes.

_________________

This is my argument - "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." My argument requires due process be observed before a persons life is taken. How has that fallen apart?

I have beliefs, and I recognize known facts. Those are separate categories and there's no connection between them. I believe in the sanctity of life and I believe in right and wrong. I know factually that life is a continuum, and I know that biologically we all begin as a zygote, so I know human life begins at conception.

Our disagreement comes to this crux - "when is a human a person?". I believe that it begins at conception, while it seem to me that you believe it begins ... at some further point in the continuum.

So, when you decide when a human becomes a person, do you know that's when it begins, or do you believe that is when it begins?

Now, ask yourself - what kind of person is OK with denying equal protection because of beliefs and not facts?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I see no meaningful relationship between the two. I can see how people might, but I don't see them as related, and my general experience is that when people ask this question (and based on your response to Taskiss I am not including you in this group) solely in order to dishonestly oversimplify the debate into "lol yer ok with killin sometimes but not otherz". Yes, I am. I'm also okay with bombing the **** out of ISIS. Killing is not universally ok or not ok - killings specifically targeting the unborn are in the category of not ok most of the time. I'm williing to allow that it might be necessary to maintain some level of legal abortion for the same reasons that I'm ok with babies occasionally getting blown up along with terrorists. Perfection isn't a reasonable standard.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If that were the real concern, people wouldn't be floating bills to allow abortions 5 minutes prior to birth for the mother's "mental health" - i.e. any reason she can find any arbitrary doctor to agree to. It's a smoke screen for the real issue: "We hate religious people and Donald Trump, therefore we need the absolute extreme of abortion permissiveness to show that progressives always get their way". It has nothing to do with abortion; it has to do with your irrational hatred of your opponents, and the screaming irrational panic that's overtaken the left when it realized that it could not simply dictate the outcome of the political process via CNN.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Pretty much this. The laws being proposed aren't to protect women in fringe cases of mom's life being in jeopardy or congenital/genetic diseases with a definite mortality. These new laws don't even make pretense for the sanctity of life, except in the case of the mother. People said slippery slope arguments weren't worthy of discussion because things would never progress that far. Here we are at the end of the slope where laws are being passed that do not protect the baby's life as it's exiting the birth canal. The next step will be allowing the murder of a live-born infant while mother decides after birth if she wants to keep it.

I respect a woman's right to choose her reproductive and sexual course. Nobody's looking to enforce The Handmaid's Tale despite all the demagoguery of Mike Pence. Use contraceptives all you want. Use every hole in your body for intercourse. Get your genitals mutilated so it looks like male genitals. Get a boob job, bigger or smaller. Get a tubal ligation, hysterectomy, or oophorectomy. Go to a sperm-bank and get artificially knocked up for all I care. The minute you become pregnant though, the discussion of the woman's right to choose is now at odds with the baby's right to life.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Thank you

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Thank you

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Thank you

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut