glberns t1_jap6k2k wrote

You're literally saying that you want the "reasonable person" standard to define when a woman meets the criteria for the life of the mother exemption your ideal law would allow for. If that's how you want the law to read, then it will be up to the judiciary to decide where the line is. Every time a woman gets an abortion to save her life, she'll be gambling that a judge agrees with her that she's being reasonable.

How do you expect that to play out without a judge deciding whether she's being reasonable?

>So you are also against the military, schooling, and police then? Those are careers that they don't get a say as to how much risk they put themselves under.

I'm against the draft, yes. And forcing people to be police officers. People can choose to take that risk.

>When you get pregnant, you have agreed to take this risk.

Unless she didn't want to get pregnant...

And you point out that a normal risk from pregnancy is way less than 1%. So when a woman gets a condition that increases that risk to 1%, that's more risk than she wanted to take.

At the end of the day you're position is to impose your risk tolerance on others.


glberns t1_janyu3r wrote

> I never said it was only up to a judge.

Who else defines the legal standard of "reasonable person"? In practice, that standard is defined by a judge.

>I don't believe that someone else should have a legal right to a body.

But you believe that a woman should be legally forbidden from removing a fetus if she doesn't want it to use her body... You're contradicting yourself. Either you believe that she should be able to control whether the fetus uses her body, or you believe that the fetus has a legal right to her body. You can't believe both.

>Do you want to still say that risk is reasonable to kill another human being?

I believe that each person should get to define how much risk they want to take with their body. That a woman should not be legally required to take even that small risk.

I certainly don't believe that the government should define an acceptable level of risk for an individual.


glberns t1_janre5p wrote

Okay, so you're saying that you want judges to define what the line is based on the "reasonable person" standard. Thank you for (finally) defining that.

Now, do you see how inserting a judge into the decision making process is not leaving it up to the woman and her doctor? When I asked you who decides when her life is in enough risk, you said

>The doctor and woman most likely.

But now you're saying that it should be the judiciary's interpretation of what a resonable preson would do. Ultimately, you believe that whether a woman should have access to legal abortion should be up to whether a judge believes her pregnancy is risky enough.

Personally, I think a 1% chance of death is more than acceptable to allow a legal abortion -- even if you believe that it's murder.

But that belief is rooted in the idea that people have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy. Which means that if someone depends on your body to survive that you have a right to cut them off from your body at anypoint, even if it kills them. It's dissapointing (and a little disturbing) that you believe that someone else should have a legal right to your body.

And a 1-in-100 chance is very high when you're talking about death. Would you get on an airplane if 1 in 100 crash? Would you play a sport where there's a 1-in-100 chance that you'd die?


glberns t1_janc88r wrote

Let's explore the 1% risk of death situation.

A woman goes to her doctor and learns that her pregnancy may kill her with a 1% risk. She's uncomfortable taking that risk and wants to get an abortion. In this hyothetical, both the woman and the doctor believe her life is in enough jeopardy to be covered under the life of the mother exemption.

But you want that abortion to be illegal. So it's clear that you do not believe that the doctor and woman decide when her life is in enough peril to be allowed a legal abortion.

So back to my original question: Who decides when the woman's life is in enough jeopardy? Do you want the government to define the necessary risk tolerance? Should it be written into your law?


glberns t1_jamxew6 wrote

>The doctor and woman most likely. If the doctor agrees that the woman would die if she gave birth (or have say a 90% chance or higher)

Do you recognize the inherent contradiction in this statement? Do you believe that a woman should be legally allowed to have an abortion if the risk of death is too high for her risk tolerance, or what you want it to be (i.e. 90% risk of death)?


glberns t1_jammpha wrote

> Yes. Also in the rare cases of rape or insest. Considering this is less than 1% of all abortions done, I would consider that reasonable since you are killing a life to save another.

I'm glad to know that you don't want women to die. In your ideal world, who decides when the woman's life is in enough danger to allow a legal abortion?


glberns t1_j3nkvbz wrote

For the lazy, this is the fine print in the photo:

>This original survey of 1,135 parents aroudn the United States was conducted by Main Street Children's Dentistry & Orthodontics using a Google Forms Survey.

>Parents of children aged 1-17 were asked how often their children have various sugary snacks per week, including cookies, candy, donuts, pastries, ice cream, ice pops, cake, pie, and beverages such as fruit juice, chocolate milk, soft drinks, sports drinks, and energy drinks.

>The averages for each state are based on the responses of at least 20 people who have identified as parents.

The typical threshold for a statistically credible data set is 1,082. So they might be able to say something about the US population. But 20 is waaaayyyy too small to make a statistically significant finding. So you're absolutely right that this sample size is too small to conclude much about each state.

Further, this is a self reported survey given by the kid's dentist. It's likely that parents undreported.

A better study would be to ask parents to keep a daily log of what the family is eating without giving them any indication that you're interested in sugary snacks. And make sure you have more than 1,100 families in each subset you're interested in studying.


glberns t1_iycveec wrote

I don't know what kool-aid you've been drinking, but most January 6th defendants have been released on bail.

>“Of the hundreds and hundreds of folks who have been arrested in the Capitol riots, the majority of them, most of them have received some sort of bail,” Rahmani said. “But the folks that engaged in the most violent acts, they are being detained without bond.”

And this isn't full circle. This started when you insisted that the White House protests constituted sedition. They didn't. You've made no effort to show that their actions fit that crime. You've only made the bizarre insistence that because a crime was committed, it's sedition. That makes no sense.

Nice try at moving the goalposts though. It's become abundantly clear that you aren't interested in having a good faith discussion, so I'm done here.


glberns t1_iybjdzf wrote

I don't know what part you're missing.

  1. That most people at the Capitol were only charged with trespassing, assault, vandalism, etc. (I.e. not seditious conspiracy)

  2. That Rhodes and the Oath Keepers enacted a months-long plan to overthrow the government that included radio communications, weapons stockpiles, armed teams waiting to get called in, etc. You have shown none of this for the White House protests. No planning. No weapons. No organized violence. No explicit intent to overthrow the government. All of these were present on 1/6.


glberns t1_iyb572l wrote

>Like liberals don’t throw 1000x more tantrums lmao

You clearly care about one "side" more than the other.

>I just think it’s hilarious you people think and believe everything you’re told

Do you not believe that Republicans are refusing to certify elections? Do you not believe that the Oath Keepers have pled guilty and been convicted of seditious conspiracy?

>Like it’s amazing how brainwashed everyone has become to think these elections even make a difference or have any real effect on anything.

Tell that to the hungry children who were lifted out of poverty because Democrats gave their parents monthly child tax credits over Republican objections.

Tell that to the senior citizens who will save hundreds of dollars a month next year because Democrats capped their insulin costs at $35 per month over Republican objections.

Tell that to the millions of people who have health care because Democrats expanded Medicare and forbid being denied insurance to preexisting conditions over Republican objections.

Tell that to the women who get sepsis because Republicans forbid their doctors from performing a D&C.

Elections have consequences.


glberns t1_ixmfrg2 wrote

Call me crazy, but if a government doesn't have the resources to collect a tax they shouldn't collect the tax.

Local income taxes are so dumb because local governments don't have the resources to collect them. So they hire these shady, private companies to do it for them.

Just fund local governments with sales and property taxes like the rest of the country.