The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Schiff for Senate]

[DeSantis is] also an incredibly high IQ individual, which is obvious after talking to him for around five seconds.

I've actually met the guy, and I (and everyone else I know who has met him) can confirm that he is a fairly high IQ person. You don't graduate from Yale or Harvard while being a dumbass.

I thought Republicans like yourself were anti-elite, but clearly, you believe a measure of a man's intelligence is his alma mater. First of all, how is that relevant to specifically meeting DeSantis? You don't need to meet DeSantis to know he's from Yale or Harvard. Second, you don't necessarily need to be intelligent to graduate from there - or do you know absolutely nothing about George W Bush before his political career? (To enlighten you, let me explain - GWB is actually not that intelligent, but graduated from Yale and Harvard because his father was a powerful politician. GWB himself got poor grades and had to use GHWB's prestige to enter the colleges.) And even otherwise, one can enter college because they are skilled at sports (like DeSantis). DeSantis isn't automatically intelligent just because he went to Yale and Harvard. In fact, he isn't intelligent period, which can be seen without meeting him, by just looking at how he's handled COVID19.

[Schiff for Senate]

[DeSantis is] also an incredibly high IQ individual, which is obvious after talking to him for around five seconds.

I've actually met the guy, and I (and everyone else I know who has met him) can confirm that he is a fairly high IQ person. You don't graduate from Yale or Harvard while being a dumbass.

I thought Republicans like yourself were anti-elite, but clearly, you believe a measure of a man's intelligence is his alma mater. First of all, how is that relevant to specifically meeting DeSantis? You don't need to meet DeSantis to know he's from Yale or Harvard. Second, you don't necessarily need to be intelligent to graduate from there - or do you know absolutely nothing about George W Bush before his political career? (To enlighten you, let me explain - GWB is actually not that intelligent, but graduated from Yale and Harvard because his father was a powerful politician. GWB himself got poor grades and had to use GHWB's prestige to enter the colleges.) And even otherwise, one can enter college because they are skilled at sports (like DeSantis). DeSantis isn't automatically intelligent just because he went to Yale and Harvard. In fact, he isn't intelligent period, which can be seen without meeting him, by just looking at how he's handled COVID19.

Ask Jay Bhattacharya (a man I actually respect) what he thinks of DeSantis and come back to me.

Why am I not surprised you "actually respect" a man who, per Wikipedia, "has been a prominent opponent of lockdowns and mandates" and who advocated "letting the virus spread in lower-risk groups"?

If Bhattacharya has a positive opinion of DeSantis, that's not really a good testament to DeSantis's intelligence. (And by the way, this farther proves the point I made earlier - despite having 4 (!!) degrees from Stanford, Bhattacharya is an idiot when it comes to COVID19.)

[Schiff for Senate]

[DeSantis is] also an incredibly high IQ individual, which is obvious after talking to him for around five seconds.

I've actually met the guy, and I (and everyone else I know who has met him) can confirm that he is a fairly high IQ person. You don't graduate from Yale or Harvard while being a dumbass.

I thought Republicans like yourself were anti-elite, but clearly, you believe a measure of a man's intelligence is his alma mater. First of all, how is that relevant to specifically meeting DeSantis? You don't need to meet DeSantis to know he's from Yale or Harvard. Second, you don't necessarily need to be intelligent to graduate from there - or do you know absolutely nothing about George W Bush before his political career? (To enlighten you, let me explain - GWB is actually not that intelligent, but graduated from Yale and Harvard because his father was a powerful politician. GWB himself got poor grades and had to use GHWB's prestige to enter the colleges.) And even otherwise, one can enter college because they are skilled at sports (like DeSantis). DeSantis isn't automatically intelligent just because he went to Yale and Harvard. In fact, he isn't intelligent period, which can be seen without meeting him, by just looking at how he's handled COVID19.

Ask Jay Bhattacharya (a man I actually respect) what he thinks of DeSantis and come back to me.

Why am I not surprised you "actually respect" a man who, per Wikipedia, "has been a prominent opponent of lockdowns and mandates" and who advocated "letting the virus spread in lower-risk groups"?

If Bhattacharya has a positive opinion of DeSantis, that's not really a good testament to DeSantis's intelligence. (And by the way, this farther proves the point I made earlier - despite having 4 (!!) degrees from Stanford, Bhattacharya is an idiot when it comes to COVID19.)

I'm sure Dr. Bhattacharya is really upset about an Atlas user calling him an idiot.

DeSantis and Bhattacharya being called idiots by someone like you actually makes them even more intelligent in my book.

So you don't think there are possibly any faults in the reasoning of a man who favours "letting the virus spread in lower-risk groups"?! I don't care if he's got a dozen degrees from Ivy League colleges, there's something clearly very wrong with this man - and with you, too,  if you agree with him on "letting the virus spread in lower-risk groups." Because I noticed you didn't really address that, but instead focused on my calling him an "idiot" (he's quite evidently an idiot if you read the first paragraph of my previous post).

[Schiff for Senate]

mtvoter doesn't seem like a bad guy at all, and I think this post was made in good faith, but nonetheless, it must be included -

Dr. Oz is an unbeatable suburban turnout monster. Him entering the race makes it likely R now.

I think he wins by 10% versus Fetterman, touted as the “WWC populist” who inevitably does worse among that demographic than Hillary Clinton.

Fetterman gets wiped out in the suburbs.

[Schiff for Senate]

Anyway, one of the things I'd do is use the nuclear codes to bomb Pyongyang for several hours straight.

Surprisingly, not S019 this time.

I don't blame you for putting that post here...I mean, it probably is naive/ignorant to assume I could just get away with bombing it without North Korea getting wind of it and/or retribution, but there are legitimate reasons this wouldn't be a terrible idea -

I'm serious. I was reading Wikipedia pages about North Korea and its dictatorship about a week ago and I began to realize just how terrible life in North Korea must be. There are human rights abuses and life is literally a living hell - if you think our leaders are even remotely authoritarian, research North Korea and you'll realize it could be much, much, much worse (I'm not telling you specifically, I'm using it as a general term to anyone reading this post). So...yeah. And aside from that there are safety issues, since North Korea is working on nuclear weapons and successfully conducted a test a while ago. Who knows what they might do. So it's probably best to preempt them and just eliminate them and liberate millions of oppressed North Koreans (basically, like the argument George W Bush made to invade Iraq in the early 2000s, except this one is based on what is publicly known to be true and isn't covered in lies and distortions).

[Schiff for Senate]

I hope whoever leaked it gets horrible things happen to them. Leaking a document in order to pressure a justice to change their vote is an attempt at insurrection and should be punishable as such

Oh the irony...
What would make these even worse/better/more ironic would be if Matty is one of those posters who insists January 6 wasn't an insurrection or something like that (many blue avatars do try to minimize January 6, and I wouldn't be too surprised if Matty was one such blue avatar).

[Schiff for Senate]

Good. Corporations always have and always will win.

Can't blame you - the post was most certainly absurd.

My real position is this: just as employees have a right to unionize and demand higher wages or benefits or shorter hours, employers have the right to fight back against those unions. What Amazon did was harsh, but it was also, if not justified, something that's understandable and certainly something they were well within their rights to do. I was well aware that the liberal posters on here would decry this decision - and perhaps not wrongly so. I mean Amazon is within their rights to fire the employees, but it was still a bad thing. This post was mostly ironic and done partly to provoke the left-wingers on here. Pro-business though I am and as much as I know Amazon was within its rights to do this, I'm also not someone who hates the workers and the working class, or some corporate bootlicker. This post does not in reality reflect my views, obviously. Corporations don't always win and this wasn't a good move in the sense that I support it (though it is good from a strategic standpoint).

[Schiff for Senate]

Came across this outrage only today.

Can we take away bronz's ability to create threads?

Bronz's OPs are the most memorable ones I've seen on this site with very few exceptions. Banning him from creating threads would be an outrage and a travesty. I mean, Bronz is the one who created the following threads:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=492774.msg8590343#msg8590343
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=484630.msg8500108#msg8500108

This is just two of many, but these two speak volumes and are some of the funniest recent threads on here. There are a lot more such threads, but I rest my case.

[Schiff for Senate]

Based on a thread that's currently up in USGD, be it because the current Constitution is naturally replaced, or the federal government eventually fades away, or the U.S. goes the way of the USSR, or a (natural?) disaster or a (civil?) war happens that's so bad, it results in deeply structural & constitutional changes in this country... what do you think the separate countries' Constitutions would look like thereafter? How much divergence would there be in their governmental structures? Would their Bills of Rights, if existent in either document, substantively differ? Hell, what would these countries' names be?

Though really many of the posts in this thread could also get in. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the posters themselves are posting in bad faith and these are good hypotheticals to consider, but I still consider it Absurd to be constantly discussing secession. It's not healthy. We need to stop doing this. On that note, here are a couple more posts -

Whether it’s because the Federal Government eventually fades away or the United States going the way of the USSR or say a disaster or a war that is so bad, that it makes a Federal Government impractical …
What do you think would happen thereafter? How much divergence would there be culturally after 10 or 20 generations? Would they speak different languages or have a different appearance? If there is no longer a unified  “American” identity, would at least some people consider themselves “American” in the year 3000 even though there culture might be totally alien? What about those that stop considering themselves American, how would they identify as?

I've had a more superficial thought about this. If we did some form of amicable divorce, who gets the nukes? I suppose there could be a sharing situation, but the international community would probably have major issues with any form of equitable division of the nukes. I think any division of the United States would probably require a common defense treaty among the new nations.

To answer your question, I'll actually answer it later. I just wanted to say that part above. However, if there's one thing I do believe, it is that the United States as we know it will not exist in 2050.

None of these posters, like I said, posted in bad faith or anything, and the hypotheticals are interesting ones to consider, but all this secession talk is still irking me. As I said elsewhere:

My head is hurting from all these inane secession threads.
Yes, the country is bitterly polarized and deeply divided. No, we are not literally splitting ourselves into 'blue America' and 'red America' anytime soon.

[Schiff for Senate]

The problem with this question is that marijuana laws actually doing exactly what they're intended to do, which is fill up prisons.

If this is really the answer, then what's wrong with filling up prisons with gun nuts?

[Schiff for Senate]

"Republican"

Who knows? Maybe the GOP actually WANTS the worst of climate change to happen. It'd track with their actions. Because think about it. It would mean the East and the West Coasts go underwater. They've always hated and mocked the 'liberal coastal elites.' Maybe they're playing 4D chess in attempt to get rid of them once and for all. Politically speaking, washing away the coasts would help the GOP immensely in coastal states. The GOP is so vile I wouldn't put even this past them at this point.

Yeah at this point 'CentristRepublican' is just my username. I like it and I've had it for the year plus I've been here, so I'll keep it, but obviously I don't even pretend to be a Republican anymore. Have waaaay too much contempt for the party to be a part of it. And I admit one of my main justifications for being a Republican earlier - muh 'party of Lincoln' and muh 'antislavery party', as if parties can't and don't take a 180-degree turn in 150+ years - was exceptionally cringey.

That post of mine you quoted was only half-serious, by the way. They're (probably) just in it for the fossil fuel lobby's money, not for psychotic reasons like drowning a solid percentage of the country's population.

[Schiff for Senate]

Welcome to Partition, American style!

Not a very good comparison tbh. This Partition would have some justification since Red America and Blue America can see eye to eye on very little and, almost justifiably so, hate and despite each other. Whereas, Muslims and Hindus pre-partition genuinely had a lot of common ground - much more than Trump and Biden voters, I’d say - and they really could work together. The difference between them was pretty overstated. In contrast, Trump supporters and Biden supporters really are gravely divided and polarised and they genuinely have serious and fundamental differences. No use pretending we as a country are at all united. We are more divided than at any point since the Civil War and we have a lot, lot less in common than Muslims and Hindus did in 1947. They had common interests and a massive amount of common ground. Red and Blue America are the opposite right now.

Did I say anything wrong? Much as some of us may like to delude ourselves into believing we’re a united country, the truth is the two halves of the nation have very fundamental differences and hate each other. They can’t be partitioned geographically the way Muslims and Hindus could, but most Democrats despise GOPers and the GOP and vice Verda. And that’s the truth. We can’t agree on anything at all and have little in common! Much less than Muslims and Hindus did and do. They’ve been forcibly driven apart for perverse reasons, but have more in common than most people think. They certainly don’t have the serious and fundamental differences Democrats and Republicans do. They can agree on much more than Democrats and Republicans can or do. Aside from a few, they don’t despise each other the way Democrats and Republicans hate each other. Republicans and Democrats can’t be divided geographically into two halves, but fundamentally divided they are.  The situation with Hindus and Muslims was and is the total opposite.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

uh, no?

At least, you support defunding them (and giving the richest of the rich tax breaks instead).
And on the off chance that you don't - interesting, you're actually not a conservative on this issue.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

uh, no?

At least, you support defunding them (and giving the richest of the rich tax breaks instead).
And on the off chance that you don't - interesting, you're actually not a conservative on this issue.

1. once again, no. wtf are you talking about?
2. cool story

Did you hear what Blake Masters recently said? It's just one of many examples...the GOP doesn't support helping the poor (or even the middle-class - they don't even pretend to care about the poor, but no matter what they might say, their concern for the middle-class is also negligible at best) - they care only for their top donors. You might as well clarify. Do you support programs to aid the poor, things like Medicaid and free school lunches? If you do, good, but know that most conservatives don't. If you don't, you're like most conservatives, but you're proving my earlier point.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

No. This is hardly the gotcha you think it is - it’s only a very stupid and brainless comment. A fetus in its mother’s stomach and a fetus once it’s actually born are two fundamentally different things in the way that a newborn baby and even a 50 year old are not. Try to realize that and stop comparing apples and oranges.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

This fresh new post also deserves an entry all it's own here.

This thread is about absurd/ignorant posts.  Much of this is in the eye of the beholder.  Look, however, at the highlighted sentence above.  The root word for "ignorant" is "ignore".  In making that statement, CentristRepublican is ignoring the entire issue; namely the issue of whether or not the "fetus" is indeed an unborn baby and a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  If you want to not be considered "ignorant", stop IGNORING the whole reason for this controversy and honestly address it.

Fetuses are different from babies that have been born, and they have different needs and rights. Anybody who thinks they should be held to the exact same standard  (fhtagn) needs to realize basic facts about fetuses - for one thing, that they are very different when they are a part of their mother and once they are born, and therefore that abortion is not baby murder or infanticide.

[Schiff for Senate]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Yeah, and fhtagn should probably follow Fizzy’s sage words, too.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

Besides, this post is genuinely so idiotic even by your standards that it really does belong in this thread.

[Schiff for Senate]

I'm among that small minority in this poll who thinks the Dems will retain the House, with probably a small net gain of about 2-3 seats. I think anger about the Dobbs decision is going to motivate the D base almost as strongly as it was motivated 4 years ago - like about 85%-90% as motivated as then. I think, perhaps, the NPV will be 51.5% for Dems and 47% for GOP, and the ratio of seats won will be 224 to 211.

MarkD is almost certainly overestimating the impact Dobbs will have on the midterms, but contrary to what a lot of right-wing hacks believe, it will in fact play some role in the midterms, to the benefit of the Democrats. A strong majority of Americans supported Roe and its overturn will, in fact, increase support for Democrats. I doubt that even with Dobbs Democrats are able to hold the House, let alone expand their majority, but the general idea of Dobbs helping Democrats and saving them a handful of seats is very reasonable.

[Schiff for Senate]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

We'll see if that's true the next time a discussion on climate change comes up.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

No. This is hardly the gotcha you think it is - it’s only a very stupid and brainless comment. A fetus in its mother’s stomach and a fetus once it’s actually born are two fundamentally different things in the way that a newborn baby and even a 50 year old are not. Try to realize that and stop comparing apples and oranges.

1. Fetuses are never at any point in the mother's stomach during development. 
2. You still haven't provided anything that either proves your argument nor disproved mine. As mentioned previously, the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn child you're pointing out is stage of development. It's completely logical to question your feelings on already born people in different developmental stages, since that clearly matters enough to you to consider whether one is worthy of not being killed. It's not comparing apples & oranges when we are literally talking about the same thing, in this case: humans.

1. What? That's literally the opposite of true (and therefore a good representation of what all you've argued so far).
2. No. A fetus is a part of its mother and cannot survive in the world, outside its mother's stomach. It has not been born and is literally connected to its mother. In contrast, babies once born - whether five minutes old or two years old - have been born and are not parts of their mother. Any baby (post-birth) should not be killed. Fetuses (which have not been born and are a part of their mother and 100% dependant upon her) can be aborted (not "killed"). Anyway, I'm done arguing with you here.