• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Face, meet leopard. Leopard, meet face.

Emily's Cat said:
Most countries don't have it.

The intent of the 14th amendment was to extend full and uncontestable citizenship to the children of legal immigrants, especially the children of former slaves. In the time since then, however, it has been used by illegal immigrants as well as people on travel visas as a means to gain citizenship for their children and to bypass the immigration process for themselves.
Click to expand...
As I already pointed out to you in another thread, it also extended to the children of slaves who were brought to the US illegally. It was never predicated on the idea that their parents were here legally.

Also, a person born here isn't an immigrant of any sort.

Wanting to alter that in order to close a loophole that allows exploitation isn't left leaning, but it's not right leaning either.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The whole thing is a racist dog whistle, including the whole "anchor baby" narrative. Its only function is to punish disliked outgroups. Outgroups that the right wants the law to bind but not protect. And here you are, a "left-leaning moderate", trying to normalize it.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
"I don't want to go to jail for illegally amputating a healthy limb, therefore I refuse to amputate your gangrenous limb."
Click to expand...
So close. :rolleyes: Here...

"I don't want to go to jail for amputating a black person's gangrenous limb because amputation is illegal. Therefore I hesitate to amputate a white person's gangrenous limb because amputation is illegal."
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sure, sure. Because hyper-zealous progressives hollering to everyone "oh tnoes, this means that doctors will go to jail if they terminate an ectopic pregnancy, this means no abortions for anyone ever or everyone goes to jail!!111!!" can't possibly have had an effect at all. Clearly progressives are out there trying to make sure that all citizens and doctors fully understand that when the mother's life or health is at risk, it's perfectly legal and appropriate to intervene. Yep.
Click to expand...
Reported in 2022 in El Salvador. This is where the US is headed, and Florida has essentially the same laws now.

El Salvador's abortion ban: 'I was sent to prison for suffering a miscarriage'​

As its reach grows, so too does its political clout, with evangelical values and views increasingly present inside parliament.
Guillermo Gallegos, one of the vice presidents of the national assembly, is staunchly anti-abortion.
He insists decriminalisation would never pass the first legislative hurdle, "even where the mother's life is at risk".
"In any case where that little creature still has life," he tells me, "then I lean towards saving it over saving the mother".
In a national address on the anniversary of his third year in office, President Bukele applauded a plan, led by his wife, to make childbirth safer in El Salvador's public hospitals.

Abortion, though, remains strictly off limits, even in cases of incest or rape - an entrenched view now bolstered by the ruling of the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
 
Emily's Cat said:
WTAF? This doesn't bear any remote resemblance to my post.
Click to expand...
Or you don't want it to. Your post missed the point that the rich white woman in the OP got her abortion because of priviledge, not a medical emergency. I asked you if a poor black woman in the same situation would have been given an abortion. The answer in Florida is very likely no. So the legal position for those doctors depended not on medical decisions but political positions re race and priviledge. And that is a guessing game when it comes to where the doctors are legally. They risked prosecution and jail depending on whether some crap law and over-zealous religious-minded litigator was going to arrest them or not if they did the procedure. Rolling the dice with their careers.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Most countries don't have it.

The intent of the 14th amendment was to extend full and uncontestable citizenship to the children of legal immigrants, especially the children of former slaves. In the time since then, however, it has been used by illegal immigrants as well as people on travel visas as a means to gain citizenship for their children and to bypass the immigration process for themselves.

Wanting to alter that in order to close a loophole that allows exploitation isn't left leaning, but it's not right leaning either. It's rational, and it would bring the US into alignment with all most other developed nations.
Click to expand...

Ah, you need this.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Only if you describe socialism as a political ideology to the right of Mussolini.
Click to expand...

To be honest, my scale is completely off.

I believe in the taxation of billionaires, the provision of public health services for all, a strong social safety net and a program of massive limitations on the power of corporations.

Which puts me firmly on the far, far, far left as far as most people are concerned. The US 'middle', to me, is not.
 
Norman Alexander said:
This is where the US is headed, and Florida has essentially the same laws now.
Click to expand...
That is NOT essentially the same as FL's laws right now.

Look - I do not approve of FL's law, I think it's egregious. But what YOU are doing right here, this is fearmongering. You are misrepresenting what the law actually says, and you're doing it in order to increase hostility and to make people angry and scared. I fully support taking steps to repeal and challenge FL's law, take it to the voting public, and advocate for a change - 100%, absolutely on board. But I am NOT at all okay with spreading disinformation about it in order to built resentment, fear, and anger.

What you're doing is propaganda. And it's the approach that YOU are using right here that is causing doctors to be so afraid to take action that people's lives end up at risk. YOU are driving doctors to be afraid to treat situations where the mother's life is at risk, even though it is absolutely legal for them to do so.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Or you don't want it to. Your post missed the point that the rich white woman in the OP got her abortion because of priviledge, not a medical emergency.
Click to expand...
The mother didn't get a goddamned abortion in the first place. They got treated for an ectopic pregnancy that put their life at risk!And it absolutely was a medical emergency

Norman Alexander said:
I asked you if a poor black woman in the same situation would have been given an abortion. The answer in Florida is very likely no.
Click to expand...
Speculation, driven by your own ideological beliefs and a willingness to ascribe malicious intent to an entire state in order to push your narrative.
Norman Alexander said:
So the legal position for those doctors depended not on medical decisions but political positions re race and priviledge. And that is a guessing game when it comes to where the doctors are legally. They risked prosecution and jail depending on whether some crap law and over-zealous religious-minded litigator was going to arrest them or not if they did the procedure. Rolling the dice with their careers.
Click to expand...
.This is propaganda from you.
 
It's kind of pointless to invoke the "original intention" of Amendments, and has been for a while.
The "original intention" of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that state militias were adequately armed when Congress took control of them when needed, since there was no standing army at the time, e.g. Washington leading the militias that put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Look how that one's evolved.
 
Armitage72 said:
It's kind of pointless to invoke the "original intention" of Amendments, and has been for a while.
The "original intention" of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that state militias were adequately armed when Congress took control of them when needed, since there was no standing army at the time, e.g. Washington leading the militias that put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Look how that one's evolved.
Click to expand...
And I don't hear many Republicans pushing for Trump to revoke the 2nd Amendment via Executive Order because people are using the arms they bear illegally and nefariously. But anchor babies are seemingly out of control and a bane of our existence.
 
Armitage72 said:
It's kind of pointless to invoke the "original intention" of Amendments, and has been for a while.
The "original intention" of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that state militias were adequately armed when Congress took control of them when needed, since there was no standing army at the time, e.g. Washington leading the militias that put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Look how that one's evolved.
Click to expand...
No. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the new national goverment - not make it more powerful. Any other reading is erroneous.
 


Cut out the bickering about each other .

I moved some posts to AAH

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob
 
Emily's Cat said:
That is NOT essentially the same as FL's laws right now.

Look - I do not approve of FL's law, I think it's egregious. But what YOU are doing right here, this is fearmongering. You are misrepresenting what the law actually says, and you're doing it in order to increase hostility and to make people angry and scared. I fully support taking steps to repeal and challenge FL's law, take it to the voting public, and advocate for a change - 100%, absolutely on board. But I am NOT at all okay with spreading disinformation about it in order to built resentment, fear, and anger.

What you're doing is propaganda. And it's the approach that YOU are using right here that is causing doctors to be so afraid to take action that people's lives end up at risk. YOU are driving doctors to be afraid to treat situations where the mother's life is at risk, even though it is absolutely legal for them to do so.
Click to expand...
I'm hardly the one fear-mongering. It matters not one iota to me what Florida's abortion laws are, good or bad. I'm not even American let alone a Floridian female of child-bearing age.

So here is what the conservative commentator in the Miami Herald had to say on the matter. See if it jibes with any of what people have been telling you about this case.
At five weeks pregnant, Cammack had to convince doctors to give her medication to end the unviable pregnancy. She was met with resistance from doctors and nurses because they feared prosecution under Florida’s six-week abortion ban. The hesitation could have put Cammack’s life in danger. Florida’s law prohibits abortions after six weeks and has limited exemptions that aren’t fully defined. That can leave medical workers in legal gray areas. When healthcare providers face potential felony charges for making split-second medical decisions, caution becomes a matter of self-preservation, not politics.
Her experience could’ve sparked an honest discussion about of the dangers of government overreach into women’s bodies. I’m politically conservative but I think government should stay out of people’s personal lives.
Her providers weren’t reacting to headlines. They were navigating serious legal risk. Violating the Florida abortion law can mean up to five years in prison, fines of up to $5,000 and loss of medical licenses for healthcare providers.

While Cammack received life-saving treatment, other Florida women may not be so fortunate. She survived because of her resources and her ability to navigate legal ambiguity that would be overwhelming for many women without her resources. Cammack lived to tell her story. Many other women may not have the same fortune. That is a commentary on the privilege of power and a cautionary tale of what happens when we selectively apply limited government principles.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
I was struck by this; "Violating the Florida abortion law can mean up to five years in prison, fines of up to $5,000 and loss of medical licenses for healthcare providers". The fine, of up to a few thousand bucks, seems like a ridiculously futile extra little slap on the wrist, compared to the huge threat of 5 years jail and being struck off from your profession. Weird disproprtion, like "the sentence of the court is loss of parking privileges... and death".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom