Abortion

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 2,611 comments
  • 138,160 views
Remember when, a mere three weeks ago, Republicans were saying that obviously a 10-year-old rape victim would be able to get an abortion even in states that prohibit abortions broadly, though the law did nothing to assert such a privilege? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 
I wish we had an angry emoji like Facebook but no amount of emoting will help Indiana women (and young girls apparently) if these lunatics get their way. Shining a light on them won't work if not enough people who are in a position to do something about this care enough.
 
Blitz24
Forgot the next part of the thread:

I'm sure he chose those words carefully and nobody can ever use them against him.
Click to expand...

Fitting that this worthless husk of a mother****er looks to be the literal embodiment of the Grim ****ing Reaper. **** this ****ing mother****er all the ****ing way. Absolute ****ing garbage.
 
UKMikey
But but "both sides".
Click to expand...
Dark joke but according to Republicans, Democrats are killing babies while according to Democrats (and most other sane people), Republicans want to kill women and babies.
 
Blitz24
Forgot the next part of the thread:

I'm sure he chose those words carefully and nobody can ever use them against him.
Click to expand...

I'm going to share the same response when I saw this, "Life is not guaranteed, death happens" nonsense during Covid.


Stay out of the hospital & doctor's office next time you get sick, then. Give up your tax-paid healthcare. If death comes knocking, get to packing.
 
Last edited:
Imari
I remain slightly amazed whenever one of these people turns up. How hard do you have to try to avoid learning anything at all about how general human reproduction works to be that ignorant?
Click to expand...
I'm not giving the Guardian my info just to be able to read that article.

I must say that, while I am 100% in favor of legal abortion, I am not a fan of legislation by Executive Order.
 
Duke
I'm not giving the Guardian my info just to be able to read that article.

I must say that, while I am 100% in favor of legal abortion, I am not a fan of legislation by Executive Order.
Click to expand...
What legislation are you referring to?
 
Danoff
What legislation are you referring to?
Click to expand...
The Guardian article (at least the part of it I was allowed to see before the paywall cut me off) indicated that Biden was signing his second EO concerning abortion.
 
Duke
The Guardian article (at least the part of it I was allowed to see before the paywall cut me off) indicated that Biden was signing his second EO concerning abortion.
Click to expand...
I poked around in the executive order, I'm not seeing what you're upset about. Can you be more specific about what exactly you consider to be improper legislation in the executive order?
 
Duke
The Guardian article (at least the part of it I was allowed to see before the paywall cut me off) indicated that Biden was signing his second EO concerning abortion.
Click to expand...
I think you can just click on "I'll do it later" and the article will open up.
 
Danoff
I poked around in the executive order, I'm not seeing what you're upset about. Can you be more specific about what exactly you consider to be improper legislation in the executive order?
Click to expand...
I am not saying anything in this particular order is improper. As noted in my first post, I am 100% in favor of universally legal abortion.

What I am objecting to is the ever-increasing use of EOs in place of legislation that has gone through the Consitutionally-mandated proposal / debate / ratify / sign protocol for generating new laws.

This really took a big hike during the Obama administration and was steadily ramped up by the Mango Mussolini.

Whether I approve of the outcome or not is irrelevant. The practice itself is circumventing the proper methodology. Continuing use is normalizing what should be an extraordinary event, which increases opportunities for abuse.
 
Duke
I am not saying anything in this particular order is improper. As noted in my first post, I am 100% in favor of universally legal abortion.

What I am objecting to is the ever-increasing use of EOs in place of legislation that has gone through the Consitutionally-mandated proposal / debate / ratify / sign protocol for generating new laws.

This really took a big hike during the Obama administration and was steadily ramped up by the Mango Mussolini.

Whether I approve of the outcome or not is irrelevant. The practice itself is circumventing the proper methodology. Continuing use is normalizing what should be an extraordinary event, which increases opportunities for abuse.
Click to expand...
I'm still not following. Are you saying you're against executive orders completely? Or are you saying you're against certain executive orders for certain actions? If it's the latter, I'm wondering what it is about this one that you don't like.
 
Last edited:
Jezza819
I think you can just click on "I'll do it later" and the article will open up.
Click to expand...
Hopefully that works for Independent articles too. Actually I came back later and the paywall disappeared.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
I'm still not following. Are you saying you're against executive orders completely? Or are you saying you're against certain executive orders for certain actions? If it's the latter, I'm wondering what it is about this one that you don't like.
Click to expand...
I don't know how to put this more clearly:

Executive Orders were designed to be used on a near-emergency basis in order to reduce response time for critical actions that are generally approved of. I do not have a problem with this use.

They were not designed to circumvent the full legislative process in cases where successful outcome for controversial legislation is doubtful. I DO have a problem with this use.

Over the last 20 years EOs have increasingly been used in the latter way. I do not approve of that increased use. The subject of any specific EO is not relevant to my disapproval of overuse of EOs in general.

Is that clear enough?
 
Last edited:
Duke
I don't know how to put this more clearly:

Executive Orders were designed to be used on a near-emergency basis in order to reduce response time for critical actions that are generally approved of. I do not have a problem with this use.

They were not designed to circumvent the full legislative process in cases where successful outcome for controversial legislation is doubtful. I DO have a problem with this use.

Over the last 20 years EOs have increasingly been used in the latter way. I do not approve of that increased use. The subject of any specific EO is not relevant to my disapproval of overuse of EOs in general.

Is that clear enough?
Click to expand...
Not really.

I'm not sure what you think bypasses the legislative process in the latest executive order from Biden. In fact, I went back through the history of executive orders to the obama administration and I can't seem to find exactly what you're saying. One of the closest examples I can come up with is the border wall EO from Trump.

Regardless of what you or I might think about the role of administrative law, the executive branch does have a mandate to protect the nation's borders. How exactly to do that is not something congress did, or even should, spell out. The details are left up to the particular administration, and the head of that administration is ultimately the president. So the president set forth an executive order detailing exactly how (border wall) to implement administrative law that falls under the executive (for better or worse). Is that an example of bypassing the legislative process? It was directly in opposition to both the house and senate on the subject, but it still fell within the boundaries of homeland security.

I don't see how directing the implementation of medicare is bypassing congress either. Similarly for the famous "muslim travel ban" EO. The rationale is similar to the above. If you take administrative law as a given, and I know that's a big ask, then executive orders adjusting the details for how administrative agencies implement legislative action from congress isn't bypassing congress. It's actually good leadership - it helps the agencies fill in necessarily grey areas of legislation and adapt to current conditions. In the absence of an EO, those grey areas are still being filled in, but by people that are not elected. One could argue that an EO actually brings government closer to democratic representation than it otherwise would be.

Perhaps it would help if you gave a concrete example of what exactly is "overuse" or a bypass of the legislative process.
 
Last edited:
On one hand, it's good that there's someone who is open to reviewing their decisions in light of new information.

On the other hand, that this would be new information to a 40 year old man representing his entire state is not great. I'd suggest that if your level of knowledge on a topic is this low then you probably shouldn't be voting on it. A vote is meaningless if it's made from a place of ignorance.
 

Similar threads

Igano
Mini review from a long time PD critic
Replies
12
Views
2K
pedrocor
pedrocor
Vule
Progress
Replies
4
Views
722
sartori
S
RACECAR
Gran Turismo 7 Undocumented Changes Thread (1.23)
2 3
Replies
70
Views
15K
Ohayo
Ohayo
MIE1992
My perceived fatalism of GT7, where nothing seems to matter too much - at least not just yet.
Replies
6
Views
960
wheelhp
wheelhp
RACECAR
Gran Turismo 7 Undocumented Changes Thread (Update 1.43)
2
Replies
44
Views
10K
jrbabbitt
jrbabbitt

Latest Posts

Back