- Joined
- 4 Jun 2021
- Messages
- 5,709 (4.50/day)
Brian Tyler Cohen's take on this is now out and is well worth watching, especially since he's got Glenn Kirschner as guest speaker who really knows what he's talking about.
US prosecutors have issued new charges against former President Donald Trump for his alleged attempts to interfere in the 2020 election after he lost to Joe Biden.
They are in response to a US Supreme Court ruling last month that said presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office.
The revised indictment lays out the same four criminal counts against Trump, but they now relate to his status as a political candidate rather than a sitting president.
Trump has denied the election interference allegations, though he has maintained his claim - without evidence - that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
I think it may stem from the assumption that Republicans want to restrict access to birth control, abortion, whatever. Trump isn't a traditional Republican, the establishment is left in a whirlwind and don't know what to do.I wonder why she said something so easily disproved.
The problem is that technically, his original position (and that of much of MAGA faithful) on abortion meant that the use of a fetus that was created outside the uterus for implantation (which is a form of IVF), since frequently the fetus might be disposed of if something went wrong or if the owners of them got pregnant and did and if there were other ovum that were fertilized kept. Since the radical anti-abortion stance is that those are "humans", disposing of them equated to killing an unborn child.Yeah, Michelle Obama was wrong on that one. I wonder why she said something so easily disproved. Perhaps she was confused, or Trump may have been against it previously?
There is no "assumption" there. Look at the official stance of the RNC that I mentioned above. Taken to the extreme (which we know radical segments of both parties tend to do) the statement is valid.I think it may stem from the assumption that Republicans want to restrict access to birth control, abortion, whatever.
Perhaps that's what Obama's referring to. Sounds really convoluted, crikey.The problem is that technically, his original position (and that of much of MAGA faithful) on abortion meant that the use of a fetus that was created outside the uterus for implantation (which is a form of IVF), since frequently the fetus might be disposed of if something went wrong or if the owners of them got pregnant and did and if there were other ovum that were fertilized kept. Since the radical anti-abortion stance is that those are "humans", disposing of them equated to killing an unborn child.
The 19th RNC approved a postion that gave "rights" to a fetus, establishing fetal personhood through the Constitution’s 14th Amendment in their official position documentation.
It is one of the reasons that the ever wish-washy Trump's new stance is upsetting a lot of anti-abortion activists.
Anyone who has followed Trump for any length of time knows he will say whatever it takes to sound good, even though he never means to implement it.
Not really that convoluted... once you declare a fetus at any point as being alive you start down that slippery slope.Perhaps that's what Obama's referring to. Sounds really convoluted, crikey.
Both the egg and the sperm are alive or the fertilization couldn't take place and I don't mean that in any religious way, ie they're functioning biological machines.If the fetus can exist outside the womb on its own, then it is alive. Before that that it is still only a mass of cells with the potential of life.
No, there are cells alive. There is not a viable fetus.Both the egg and the sperm are alive or the fertilization couldn't take place and I don't mean that in any religious way, ie they're functioning biological machines.
What? I'm just saying the cells have to be alive to function, not that they have any kind of consciousness at that stage.No, there are cells alive. There is not a viable fetus.
By your statement, you could never have surgery or any treatment that excises dangerous tissue as those cells are "alive".
There are different levels of "live". That is why you reference fetal viability. Until that point, it is just a mass of cells.What? I'm just saying the cells have to be alive to function, not that they have any kind of consciousness at that stage.
And yes, removing something like cancer means killing those cells. In fact, articles about treatment always talks about killing cancer cells as they're very much alive. If they're simply cut out for example, then they just go in the bin or an incinerator and die there, that's it.
I don't see what there's to disagree about here.
Yeah, it is a "thing" when talking abortion and anti-abortion unluckily.I've never heard of different levels of live, lol; it's not a thing. The cell is either live / functional or not. And tbh, I don't care what some anti-abortionist thinks of my statement anyway.
What is funny is I have been seeing more Democrat candidate yard signs in my neighborhood this year than I ever have... and this is a Republican "stronghold" in Texas.We know how reliable polls are because of what happened in that 2016 election when the honorable Puking Dog lost to Deez Nuts.
The Nostradamus of U.S. presidential elections has predicted a winner when the country goes to the polls in November.
Pollsters will no doubt swing back and forth between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump as the race comes down to the wire, but Allan Lichtman has history on his side.
The American University history professor and former quiz champion has forecast the White House winner in almost every election since 1984. The exception was in 2000, when he picked Al Gore over George W. Bush, although Lichtman did claim his model was then based on the popular vote, which Gore narrowly won.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.