Senate Election Thread (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Saintamaniac said:
    I've been reading these last series of post and I noticed that the words "viable fetus" became a focus. I believe that a woman should be able to control her own body and medical decisions that relate to her body and her health. A viable fetus is defined as having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. To me, this sounds like a medical definition no different than a medical definition of brain death. If that's the case then if a doctor determines by medical science that a fetus has reached viability, then that doctor should be able to determine that the baby needs to be delivered rather than aborted.

    My wife picked the delivery date for my daughter. If a woman decides she no longer wants a pregnancy and a medically qualified doctor determines that the fetus is viable, then the woman and the doctor should be able to decide to birth that child as soon as it is judged viable. If the state wants to step in and make medical decisions for women, then the state can take over custody and all financial responsibility for the viable fetus once it leaves the womb. This would be no different than giving up a child for adoption.

    Maybe the next man diagnosed with prostate cancer should be denied radiation or chemo because doing so would destroy any "potential children" in his sack. That's no different than a fetus that hasn't reached viability. In both cases, the "potential child" cannot survive outside the womb.
    Click to expand...

    I'm with you. Again, a woman has the right to withdraw consent at any time. That's her part of the deal. "I'm done with this, I no longer accept the risks and don't want to be pregnant anymore." Ok, now exactly how we achieve that end is where the doctor comes in. Are we doing an abortion or are we delivering a baby?
     
    MT15 said:
    The problem is in setting those ground rules you are taking away the decision from the doctor. Especially if criminal charges are involved. I don’t think it’s possible to set realistic rules that won’t have unintended bad consequences.
    Click to expand...
    That's simply not true. There are all kinds of laws on the books that set ground rules that aren't always obvious. Doctors are bound by numerous rules and regulations for how they administer care. And abortion rules are no exception. The laws can and should be based on doctors' and medical professional recommendations, and they can cover exceptions where the life of the mother and/or baby are concerned as well as the ethical issues surrounding medical decisions related to abortion and health care.

    And these have to be defined, not just for private care, but also for federally funded services. Federal dollar spending have legal guidance and requirements attached to those dollars and if it goes to abortion, there have to be rules to allow for those dollars to be spent properly. The same applies to state funding as well.

    There are already rules in many states governing that in place and those aren't going away. The question is where and how those rules and laws apply.
     
    DaveXA said:
    We agree on the basic stuff. I just disagree that there isn't a legal aspect to pregnancy. For example, I do think someone who intentionally kills the late term fetus along with the mother, the killer should be charged with a double murder. They can't can't legally do that without legal definitions. I do think legal definitions should be guided by medical professionals though, rather than politicians.

    Basically there should be some sort of ground rules for a variety of scenarios when involving a pregnant mother, to protect not only the mother, but her baby as well.
    Click to expand...

    There's no need for that to be charged as a double murder. The killer can just be charged with murder with an aggravating circumstance (the fact that the woman was pregnant) that can carry steeper penalties, similar to a hate crime. Same thing with assaults.
     
    GrandAdmiral said:
    Can this stuff go in the Dobbs thread? It's completely off course now.
    Click to expand...
    I’m most at fault for derailing the thread because I raised 2 issues that I think are causing democrats to lose votes, and one was to say that there should be abortion restrictions in the 3rd trimester. The other one is about global inflation and that the economy is actually good, except for inflation. I only got responses to the abortion comment, and off we went.

    How about that global inflation actually worse in most places and our good economy?
     
    Lapaz said:
    I’m most at fault for derailing the thread because I raised 2 issues that I think are causing democrats to lose votes, and one was to say that there should be abortion restrictions in the 3rd trimester. The other one is about global inflation and that the economy is actually good, except for inflation. I only got responses to the abortion comment, and off we went.

    How about that global inflation actually worse in most places and our good economy?
    Click to expand...

    Hell, how about selling inflation as the natural consequence of having beaten Covid?

    "We knew this was coming, folks. We knew that as people went back to work, started traveling and shopping again that inflation would happen. It sucks, but we're managing it. It took two years to build that pent up demand, it'll take a while to ease it down. In the meantime, would you rather have inflation or lockdowns again?"
     
    I don’t think this is going to go well for Oz as a position, lol. He has to be the most awkward candidate ever.

     
    MT15 said:
    I don’t think this is going to go well for Oz as a position, lol. He has to be the most awkward candidate ever.

    Click to expand...

    Oz’s answer on abortion was bad, but I didn’t think Oz seemed awkward at all. To me he came across impressively, but I do realize that he has a lot of practice in front of the camera. Aside from that abortion answer, I think he helped himself. He even took centrist positions on most things, except supporting Trump again, which is a deal breaker, so I would still vote for Fetterman. I think Oz has flipped some of his positions, which may also hurt him after fact checks.

    With that said, even aside from Fetterman’s obvious health difficulties, there were problems with his answers. He didn’t answer why he seemed to change his position on fracking, abortion, and the impact of raising the minimum wage. That’s 3 that I remember off of the top of my head. I think he could’ve easily answered all 3 in a manner that wouldn’t have hurt him and been authentic, but he refused to answer them. That hurts his authenticity credibility.

    Beyond that, I’ll need to check the fact checks, because Oz and Fetterman had different facts on many other things. I’m very concerned that it may not be good for Fetterman, because his authenticity makes him seem honest, so that needs to hold up to scrutiny.
     
    Oz is a huckster, he has no morals, no shame, he still votes in Turkey, he doesn’t actually live in PA. He shouldn’t be on the ticket, actually.

    I think he’s an awkward person, I see right through that thin veneer. He made another snarky comment about Fetterman’s stroke last night. I read that he wouldn’t allow some changes in format that were needed to allow Fetterman a better chance to get his answers out there. When a stroke victim is asked about a policy inconsistency and then is given a 60 second time limit to answer you can see why Fetterman couldn’t respond properly.

    Oz is a horrible candidate and person.
     
    MT15 said:
    Oz is a huckster, he has no morals, no shame, he still votes in Turkey, he doesn’t actually live in PA. He shouldn’t be on the ticket, actually.

    I think he’s an awkward person, I see right through that thin veneer. He made another snarky comment about Fetterman’s stroke last night. I read that he wouldn’t allow some changes in format that were needed to allow Fetterman a better chance to get his answers out there. When a stroke victim is asked about a policy inconsistency and then is given a 60 second time limit to answer you can see why Fetterman couldn’t respond properly.

    Oz is a horrible candidate and person.
    Click to expand...
    You’re probably right about Oz. There is something that seams sleazy about him. I can’t blame him for stacking the odds in his favor in the debate. He wanted to make sure Fetterman’s disability was evident. Oz also spoke very fast, which makes it hard to capture the info on close caption. In reality, it is impressive for anyone to debate using close caption. The thing is that Fetterman could’ve held out and put his terms in public. His terms could’ve been the same terms that any deaf person would use, since he is practically deaf in the way he has to operate. He could’ve made Oz look bad for not accommodating him. The other thing is that once he recovers, this experience should make him stronger. The question is will voters take that into account? Do they just judge his capacity off of that debate? I think some will, and it will help Oz.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom