Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abortion, Anti-Science and Donald Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    There is a lot of presumption of religion here!

    And what is with the racist anti Neanderthal stuff too?! Some of us have Neanderthal blood so knock it off.
    Last edited by surfgun; 03 Mar 20,, 12:26.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by surfgun View Post
      There is a lot of presumption of religion here!
      You misspelled "empirical evidence" :-)

      Originally posted by surfgun View Post
      And what is with the racist anti Neanderthal stuff too?! Some of use have Neanderthal blood so knock it off.
      Oh put it back in the deck ;-)
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
        I have always found it amazing that the most adamant against abortion, and birth control to some extent, are men. Frankly, to me, it points out that they still believe they have total control over a women's body and a women's decisions.
        I am Polish so almost by definition a good Catholic (change a 'w' to a 'v' in my family name and become Orthodox I may as well be Ukrainian - some of my family have done this in the past) so in principle I do believe in the sanctity of life and oppose abortion. But then I have never been pregnant following being raped or some of the other terrible instances one hears of (incest etc). I cannot say how I might feel if such a thing happened to me but as I see it the sin is that of the rapist not his victim who deserves consideration and care. Forcing her against her will to bear the child of her rapist seems a further restriction of her free will against her will akin to a second rape. If she wishes to bear the child fair enough but hell I could not myself force a victim against their will to a further degradation as that to me akin to the first offence.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
          I have always found it amazing that the most adamant against abortion, and birth control to some extent, are men. Frankly, to me, it points out that they still believe they have total control over a women's body and a women's decisions. So much for enlightenment in this day and age. I guess for many they have not left the 19th Century and from the sounds of it want us all to go back to it. Ergo the one here.
          I remember having this argument with a cousin of mine who is a doctor. She advocated abortion to term i was only ok up to the first three months. I thought she was a horrible person to advocate to term because that was murder plain & simple.

          That is until there was this case of an Indian dentist in Ireland who could not bear without risk to herself. Well, the laws of Ireland are ambiguous on the subject of abortion. The doctor performing the procedure may or may not go to jail for 14 years. That was the conclusion despite the law stating if proof of harm to the mother could be shown then the abortion could be performed.

          The result was no abortion was performed and the dentist died. Had abortions been allowed to term she would still be alive today. It was very hard for her family to accept because had she been in India this restriction would not even be there.

          How could this happen in a western country !!!

          There have since been some changes to laws in Ireland as a result in the last five years.

          Every time supreme court judge appointments come up in the US i see this anxiety that Roe vs Wade will be overturned. Well, think about that Indian dentist in Ireland.

          According to the Guttmacher Institute, there are currently 26 regions around the world where abortion is completely outlawed, with no exceptions.

          These regions include Egypt, Madagascar, Iraq and the Philippines.

          “From Argentina to Poland, restrictive abortion laws punish and endanger girls, women and pregnant people,” Watson writes.

          “Still, Northern Ireland’s abortion law predates the lightbulb.

          “In your memory, and towards our liberation, we continue the fight for reproductive justice."
          Source

          Emma Watson's letter
          Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Mar 20,, 15:02.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by snapper View Post
            I am Polish so almost by definition a good Catholic (change a 'w' to a 'v' in my family name and become Orthodox I may as well be Ukrainian - some of my family have done this in the past) so in principle I do believe in the sanctity of life and oppose abortion. But then I have never been pregnant following being raped or some of the other terrible instances one hears of (incest etc). I cannot say how I might feel if such a thing happened to me but as I see it the sin is that of the rapist not his victim who deserves consideration and care. Forcing her against her will to bear the child of her rapist seems a further restriction of her free will against her will akin to a second rape. If she wishes to bear the child fair enough but hell I could not myself force a victim against their will to a further degradation as that to me akin to the first offence.
            Gee, and I am a good old boy Irish Catholic. Well I was till around 9th grade (1967) in Catholic high school where I saw the Church for the hypocrites that they were. That is where I came to the conclusion that much what the Church talks about is in a way pushing their beliefs onto others who don't want their beliefs. Now another religion, or two, wants to do the same to others who don't want their beliefs. I don't need no stinkin religion as I have my strong personal beliefs in what is right and what is wrong thank you very much.

            Comment


            • #21
              I am sad to hear of your loss of faith in the Holy Church. I am no Priest and will not condemn you for it or try to make you believe again. Take your own path if you chose but all end at the same place.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by snapper View Post
                I am sad to hear of your loss of faith in the Holy Church. I am no Priest and will not condemn you for it or try to make you believe again. Take your own path if you chose but all end at the same place.
                That's true in the same ground sooner or later...

                Comment


                • #23
                  I see the thread title and the same was said about Bush and at least he was a real Republican.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    I see the thread title and the same was said about Bush and at least he was a real Republican.
                    Best I could come up with given the variety of topics in the former thread.

                    Also, Bush actually cared about something other than himself.
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                      Best I could come up with given the variety of topics in the former thread.

                      Also, Bush actually cared about something other than himself.
                      It's good. Wanted to point out the same pattern being repeated as it was back in 2005 when questions were being raised about Roe vs Wade

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        When the moderator moved some posts to this thread, my comment of "Perhaps, or perhaps not" was removed from proper context and was placed in what I see as a very different context, and in doing so has distorted the meaning of my comment.

                        As shown below, my comment only applied to tbm3fan's post regarding whether or not Trump had some understanding of the executive order that he was signing on the subject of EMP vulnerabilities. It was not a response to comments about Trump's anti-science actions, or whatever his beliefs may or may not be about science.

                        Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                        Beyond some "incredibly bad pulses of some kind" he probably has absolutely no clue as to what he has put his name to.
                        Originally posted by JRT View Post
                        Perhaps, or perhaps not.

                        I expect that he was briefed on what he was signing, and he likely has some personal memories of experiencing several significant blackouts affecting NYC in his lifetime, so would have some grasp of effects of a much larger and very much lengthier blackout affecting a very much broader set of systems beyond just the power grid, affecting distribution of water, food, fuel, electricity, communications, public safety services, vehicles and transportation systems, etc.

                        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        There is no "perhaps" about it. The man is a barely-functioning illiterate. He thinks that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer.

                        The briefing was likely just a few minutes in length and consisted of "This will help prevent blackouts and you'll look really good if you sign this"
                        Last edited by JRT; 04 Mar 20,, 17:02.
                        .
                        .
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                          The man is a barely-functioning illiterate.
                          I don't like Trump, but whatever he is or isn't, he did receive a BS in Economics in 1968 from the Wharton School at UPenn, and Wharton is no joke, now or then.
                          Last edited by JRT; 04 Mar 20,, 18:53.
                          .
                          .
                          .

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JRT View Post
                            I don't like Trump, but whatever he is or isn't, he did receive a BS in Economics in 1968 from the Wharton School at UPenn, and Wharton is no joke, now or then.
                            That is utterly meaningless for several reasons:

                            Anything - anything - can be bought, fudged, or covered up. You'll notice his grades are buried under more layers than his taxes.

                            He also received a deferment for "bone spurs" to dodge the draft. Yet another advantage that be bought.

                            Finally, but most important, is his current cognitive, speaking and comprehension level is declining rapidly. He's exhibiting signs of early-onset dementia (like his father before him) left and right, and getting worse every day. The same thing happened to Ronald Reagan in his final years in the White House, but Reagan's case is nearly a complete polar opposite to Trump's. For one thing, Reagan's decline wasn't on public display every single day like Trump's is.

                            Whatever Trump (debatably) had back in 1968 is long gone. He's more like a occasionally-clever child now than anything else.
                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JRT View Post
                              I don't like Trump, but whatever he is or isn't, he did receive a BS in Economics in 1968 from the Wharton School at UPenn, and Wharton is no joke, now or then.
                              I don't really care what degree he supposedly got. I would counter that with a few facts. First, he is a selfless promoter of himself. Two, he should be selflessly promoting his academic record, But guess what we get to three where he absolutely refuses to show those records and forbids anyone, under threat of a lawsuit I am sure, to talk about his records. So for a guy who claims he is smarter than any expert in any field, and should play it up big time, he refuses to show us. Lesson to be learned: he is lying about his school record, knows it is crap, and stayed in school because of Daddy's money which is quite easy to do.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                                Anti science, DNC talking point.
                                The same DNC that is life deniers. The science is clear, but the DNC loves Margaret Sangers butchers.
                                Got sources?

                                Is Donald Trump Anti-Science? The Data Says Yes
                                Pursuit, Jan 19, 2020
                                https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/artic...-data-says-yes

                                This one gets a link, because it is a scienctific analysis proving the point.
                                If you don't believe any of the ones down below, copy and paste in your favorite browser.



                                Trump administration's war on science has hit 'crisis point', experts warn
                                Nonpartisan taskforce of ex-government officials reports ‘almost weekly violations’ of norms meant to safeguard objective research
                                The Guardian, Oct 3, 2019

                                Trump’s 2021 budget drowns science agencies in red ink, again
                                Science Magazine, Feb 10, 2020

                                Trump’s coronavirus conflict: Science vs. politics
                                Politico, Feb 26, 2020

                                The Trump Administration Is Just Flat-Out Lying About Climate Change
                                Vanity Fair, March 2, 2020

                                Trump administration's 'scientific oppression' threatens US safety and innovation
                                USA Today, Dec 15, 2019

                                The Trump Administration Has Attacked Science 100 Times ... and Counting
                                Scientific American, May 29, 2019

                                Trump’s Shadow War on Climate Science
                                Foreign Policy, July 31, 2019

                                Donald Trump Called Climate Change a Hoax. Now He’s Awkwardly Boasting About Fighting It
                                Time, July 8, 2019

                                Donald trump’s War on Science
                                The Nation, March 2, 2017
                                Trust me?
                                I'm an economist!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X