I'm unclear about the law in the most permissive states. But I will say that if Trump's lie was only regarding using a term describing a sin of commission rather than a sin of omission, it would not be a big deal in this particular case. Because if it really is true that in some states a baby born alive and healthy enough to expect a decent life if it is put into a incubator, is allowed to be deprived of that incubator at the request of the mother, then omitting the incubator would be crueler than euthanizing the baby.

It's not true. But I guess he's at least got you to think it might be. And you're supposedly one of the smart ones.

You are good at the logic I see.

It's a complete lie - that's the whole point of the thread - not abortion laws. DS - you can't just punt and say "if it really is true" to something that has been proven, in this thread, to be a complete fabrication.

Trump lies like no president in history - over things that are trivially debunked. And his supporters either believe him or don't care that he's lying. This is new and scary imo.

The statements by the Governor of Virginia initiated the issue to which the entire Republican ensemble and others, not only Trump, took issue. Governor Northam is a Pediatric Neurologist .

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/1820542...-ralph-northam

I think we are all focusing on the abortion aspect, because we realize talking about Trump isn't particularly interesting or productive anymore.

He lies all the time about everything, and at this point whether any specific person cares or not is going to depend more on emotional rationales they don't even acknowledge, much less understand, than any exercise in logic or reason.

Maybe, but watching people perform the contortions required to accept his lies or even believe them is amusing. Or it would be, if it weren't sad.

Yes I certainly can. If I say "if x is true then y" you simply disregard what I wrote regarding y if x isn't true.

I thought there was a chance that you were saying that Trump's lie was using the word "execute" and IF that was so I would have a problem with it.

I actually guessed that you WEREN"T saying that and it seems that you would agree that leaving a baby to die is pretty much the same as killing it. But just in case you were making a big deal about the word "execute" I thought I would point out that you shouldn't.

It was a quick "just in case type" post. Your implication that it behooved me to spend time in research order to avoid an "if" post is silly. Its a waste of time.

I'll attempt to give you an honest answer from a big Trump supporter. I'm someone who cares a lot about truth, perhaps more than most. But I'm near completely unconcerned about what Trump said. When I explore why I come up with the following answers:

1. I trust Trump and think he has a big heart that's in the right place.

2. His takes on things are basically true even if the details are wrong. For example, it is the hard left view that women >>> unborn child (and in fact many other creatures), to the point where a woman's whim is sufficient for infanticide. This view has actually been pushed by some as it's the logical conclusion of considering the burdens that the newly born place on women. Last trimester abortion isn't very different to infanticide

3. Trump is a salesman and has a lifetime of bluster and exaggeration. It's the warts he comes with. Real people, successful people, including those who built most of the world and what's good in it including minority rights, have these warts. The incredibly limited fake "fact checking" media/academia/career politician/focus-group-tested view of what's appropriate in politics is toxic in my view.

4. The role of an agitator and conversation maker involves exaggeration. In some ways, the modern world is less sophisticated/wise than ancient Greece when it comes to the basic philosophy and oratory needed for a maximally energetic and robust public discussion.

So in short I think it's a combination of (misplaced?) trust and a deeper wisdom that I'd humbly suggest you and others who revile Trump might not yet have learned.

Except for the "minority rights" part you sound like superduper bob. And you are both wrong. The majority of what is good in the world derives from people good in science, most of whom have no need to bluster or exaggerate.

1. why? do you have examples this is at all possibly true?
2. no it isnt, no third trimester abortion isn't infanticide by any definition.
3. so facts are toxic? sounds about right..
4. hes the president of the united states his exaggerations have massive ripples, including inciting violence, moving financial markets, and having effects that should not be caused by intentionally lying to feel better about himself.

wisdom of what? your entire post is yeah he's bad but... and then there's no reason to accept the badness. which leads to people like me thinking that i actually understand what you don't want to say..

Big heart? Like he's showing with the kids in cages? Like he's showing with Muslims? LMAO.

did obama have a big heart when he started the kids in cages program?

cite please

Trumps must have been even bigger then when he expended the program without coming up with a plan to track the detainees or to reunite them with their parents.

does not compute

You can be a big trump supporter or you can care a lot about the truth (perhaps more than most), but not both. I believe you when you say you're a big trump supporter.

What Trump describes simply doesn't happen.

One can make a philosophical argument that aborting a fetus that could be viable with the right technological support is tantamount to murder (killing by omission of tech support if you will) but that's not the same thing as what Trump described.

Derail argument about when life is conceived:

Maybe he is being literal and speculating Trump has CHF?

(hopefully this post is ok in the "a little bit of fun" category. If not, then delete it at your leisure and I will adjust my posting accordingly)

wait, you really think Trump started it?
lol

you do know this pic that circulated



was from 2014 right?

I believe he honestly thought that if he had a policy that separated kids from their parents that it would cause people to not illegally cross the border with their kids

it was a dumb idea, but i think he believed it would be a true deterrent

I'm asking for a citation on Obama's family separation policy/program that you claim he started. To possibly save some time, I'll probably follow up asking about it compares to trump's version.

There are many reasons that together make a very compelling case that he's doing what he does for the right reasons and has a big, non-racist heart.
The absurdity of "inside the mother = can be killed on a whim for no good reason and outside the mother = it's a full human with 20 years jail if you kill it" has never really been reconciled imo. It's the same entity. Human right to life doesn't depend on a displacement of 1 meter. It depends on whether you're human and have a functioning mind.
Facts are not what you think they are. Why are they stated? How do they shift focus? How do they frame the world? Choice of facts presented can and often is more biased/false than actual lies. This is part of the "wisdom" bit I'm talking about.
Facts don't present the coherent narrative about the world that humans need to be functional and moral. In fact, I would argue that facts uninformed by narrative can be highly toxic. Marxism - which ruined the lives of billions of people and killed hundreds of millions - was built as a project of a purely factual view of the world as a reaction to the counterfactual nature of religion. It was a "fact" that religion was false and that the rich/capitalists were exploiting the poor, and this fact through its repetition became central in the minds of revolutionaries, leading them to destroy billions of lives in their fact-filled folly that missed larger, long tested wisdoms. Similarly, the scientific "fact" - widely believed at the time - of scientific racism - justified awful events and tens of millions of deaths.

I detailed a bit of it above.
Yes. A nation exists by its laws and if laws are broken there must be bad consequences. That is neither fair nor compassionate, but is necessary to control chaos and the alternative is worse. It's called game theory and a poker forum should understand it. Which is why Obama put children in cages too en masse.

Here's a bit of game theory for you: the reason the children come unaccompanied in the first place, 80% of the girls getting raped on the way, some as a form of payment (nice parents by the way), is because of soft policing of laws.

A nation must also exclude people who fail to share its liberal, nonviolent philosophies. The importation of Islam, for example, has led to the left wing French president recently talking about the major problem of Muslims wanting to seccede from France since many Muslims don't share its values (Sharia law, widely loved, is not compatible with Western legal values) and have not integrated. And doesn't even want to block all Muslims, just those from countries where there is inadequate vetting and mainstream extreme ideologies. I consider the exclusion of political religious movements with a long and current history of violence and anti-women ideologies and violently anti-gay philosophies to be a basic function of a president. The question is, why don't you?

cite please

Obama did put families in cages

people who support immigration did not like it

The rational and reality is that the US immigration infrastructure is set up to process single males efficiently, not families, so when a lot of families come over it causes problems

Obama didn't do it as a deterrent and looked (and found) alternative ways to process families, Trump did it as a deterrent and did not look for alternative ways to process families

In reality it's just standard practice to take away the children when the parents are arrested for breaking laws, since they are now uncared for minors. It's done for US citizens. There's nothing more complicated than that.

If the US cares about uncared for minors, there are tens of millions of them in the world in desperate poverty. Why give special treatment and placement to the children of lawbreakers? That just encourages more law breaking. Why give better treatment to illegal immigrants with respect to keeping families together than you give to American citizens who get arrested for crimes?

Are people really so soft that they don't recognize the necessity for game theory unexploitable solutions to problems? That's all this is. The problem wouldn't even exist if the prize was taken off the table. Be harsh at the border, strongly discourage illegal immigration, then if you want to help people, take the most needy and desperate in an orderly fashion. There is no way that people with homes, families and lives in non-wartorn countries need US residency and kindness more than the many millions of people utterly desperate in permanent refugee camps.