New York Times endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president

[Watchmen]

Every person I know who died from COVID had multiple vaccines. Hell, I had multiple vaccines! Till I got one and my head hurt for four solid days and my blood pressure has never returned to what it used to be.

Anecdotal and evidence of nothing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Pro choice people need to define what a person is as well.

I think the people who have the right to define personhood in the womb would be the victims of abortion themselves. They deserve that much.

 

[Kathryn]

Anecdotal and evidence of nothing.

So?

 

[Watchmen]

So?

Exactly.

 

[Kathryn]

And how old was she? Rather than looking at individual cases one has to look at large numbers of cases. People die for all sorts of reasons. But when we have numbers in the millions we can see whether or not vaccines are effective and those studies all support the vaccines.

With small studies it is very easy to form confirmation bias, where one takes a very small sample that agrees with one's beliefs. Using confirmation bias one can even "prove" that smoking is good for you. When you get studies up into the thousands those claims tend to fail.

She was in her sixties.

 

[Kathryn]

Unfortunately, the NYT got it wrong. Harris is not “the only choice.” There are actually third party candidates who are likely better than Harris (and, of course, Trump). Wouldn’t it be nice if a major publication came out and endorsed a third party! Send a message to the people…we don’t have to be stuck with the two options we have, both of which get more extreme with each passing year.

Bingo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She was in her sixties.

So was my coworker.

 

[Kathryn]

So was my coworker.

I'm sorry to hear this.

 

[Copernicus]

Unfortunately, the NYT got it wrong. Harris is not “the only choice.” There are actually third party candidates who are likely better than Harris (and, of course, Trump). Wouldn’t it be nice if a major publication came out and endorsed a third party! Send a message to the people…we don’t have to be stuck with the two options we have, both of which get more extreme with each passing year.

This is incorrect no matter how you try to spin it, because the number of choices you have is nearly infinite. You can write in names. Of course, third party candidates are likely to get more than one vote, so they are infinitesimally more likely to win than third party candidates, but, let's face it, not much more likely than write-ins.

If you ignore the fact that US elections are almost always binary choices between the two major parties, than pretty much the only reason to vote for a third party is to "send a message". Message-sending of this sort is also almost always nothing more than wishful fantasizing, because it never changes anything other than usually to deliver the election victory to the major party candidate least likely to have the political agenda that you favor. That's because you did not lend you support to the one you favored more. So third party votes are very rarely anything but counterproductive spoilers. Nevertheless, people get so angry at the two-party system that they just feel that "send a message" is going to actually get a "message received" response. I've lived a long time, and I've never seen it happen. Not once.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Not really. You just need to understand that a person does not have the right to use the body of another person.

How about when that person using another person's body had no say in the situation? Just because you choose to create a life doesn't mean you have the right to choose to kill it.

 

[F1fan]

My mind reading capabilities have nothing to do with this.

It's merely a matter of logic and critical thinking skills - a person who thinks for themselves contrasts with a person who can be persuaded or dissuaded, such as by an endorsement.

Do you not possess any logic and critical thinking skills?

@metis isn't a MAGA, so obviously uses logic and critical thinking skill.

No Trump supporter can offer a rational and lucid argument for why he is the superior option. Even if we ignore Trump's mental problems and erratic behavior the two agendas are exceptionally bad for the future of America and the planet.

 

[F1fan]

How about when that person using another person's body had no say in the situation? Just because you choose to create a life doesn't mean you have the right to choose to kill it.

That's why there are laws that clarify the details of what a person is (a live birth) and when a fetus is viable (about 24 weeks). This has been the framework that the USA used until a far right SCOTUS overturned the Roe decision. This was all political, and now have caused huge problems for women. Even now the far right has inconsisten ideas about what life is, and when it is a person. Some insist it's at conception, or six weeks, or 15 weeks, or other options. One thing for sure, if MAGAs get power they will eliminate abortion at every stage, and women will have to seek illegal medical access. MAGA = going backwards.

 

[fantome profane]

How about when that person using another person's body had no say in the situation?

That is exactly what I am saying, the person using another person has no right to do so, has no say as to whether or not that situation will continue.

Just because you choose to create a life doesn't mean you have the right to choose to kill it.

Oh that is such an interesting comment in so many ways. But I suspect they will all be pointless diversion. So I will just say if someone is using your body for their own purposes you have every right to choose to discontinue that arrangement.

 

[Kathryn]

This is incorrect no matter how you try to spin it, because the number of choices you have is nearly infinite. You can write in names. Of course, third party candidates are likely to get more than one vote, so they are infinitesimally more likely to win than third party candidates, but, let's face it, not much more likely than write-ins.

If you ignore the fact that US elections are almost always binary choices between the two major parties, than pretty much the only reason to vote for a third party is to "send a message". Message-sending of this sort is also almost always nothing more than wishful fantasizing, because it never changes anything other than usually to deliver the election victory to the major party candidate least likely to have the political agenda that you favor. That's because you did not lend you support to the one you favored more. So third party votes are very rarely anything but counterproductive spoilers. Nevertheless, people get so angry at the two-party system that they just feel that "send a message" is going to actually get a "message received" response. I've lived a long time, and I've never seen it happen. Not once.

I voted for a third party candidate not to send a message but so I wouldn't have either main party on my conscience.

 

[Watchmen]

This is incorrect no matter how you try to spin it, because the number of choices you have is nearly infinite. You can write in names. Of course, third party candidates are likely to get more than one vote, so they are infinitesimally more likely to win than third party candidates, but, let's face it, not much more likely than write-ins.

If you ignore the fact that US elections are almost always binary choices between the two major parties, than pretty much the only reason to vote for a third party is to "send a message". Message-sending of this sort is also almost always nothing more than wishful fantasizing, because it never changes anything other than usually to deliver the election victory to the major party candidate least likely to have the political agenda that you favor. That's because you did not lend you support to the one you favored more. So third party votes are very rarely anything but counterproductive spoilers. Nevertheless, people get so angry at the two-party system that they just feel that "send a message" is going to actually get a "message received" response. I've lived a long time, and I've never seen it happen. Not once.

Yep. It’s never happened. And if people continue thinking like you, it never will.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never said they don't work.

I tend to agree, but why is that different for abortion? Can an employer say you can't have an abortion to work here?

They can say you can't be pregnant and work here if the environment is hazardous to the pregnant person's health, for instance.

Sure, but we are talking about bodily autonomy and abortion. The problem is you want bodily autonomy for the mother who made a decision thar lead to a pregnancy, but not for the human life that made no decision to be created.

The "human life that made no decision to be created" isn't capable of contemplating anything or making any decisions. Embryos and fetuses don't have bodily autonomy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Less than 2 percent of abortions are to save the life of the mother thankfully. Like way less. So at least 98 percent of abortions are NOT to save the life of the mother.

This is about the eighth time you're trying to tell me this again. Sorry, but I find your sources/opinion to dubious.

 

[Kathryn]

This is about the eighth time you're trying to tell me this again. Sorry, but I find your sources/opinion to dubious.

Sorry you feel this way. And I'm sorry that factcheck.org isn't good enough.

The Life of the Mother - FactCheck.org

Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh falsely claimed that there wasn’t “one instance” where an abortion would be necessary to save the mother’s life. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that more than 600 women die each year due to complications from pregnancy and...

www.factcheck.org

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry you feel this way. And I'm sorry that factcheck.org isn't good enough.

The Life of the Mother - FactCheck.org

Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh falsely claimed that there wasn’t “one instance” where an abortion would be necessary to save the mother’s life. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that more than 600 women die each year due to complications from pregnancy and...

www.factcheck.org

You: 'Less than 2 percent of abortions are to save the life of the mother thankfully. Like way less. So at least 98 percent of abortions are NOT to save the life of the mother."

From the ( outdated article with outdated statistics) article you've cited:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System reported a higher number for pregnancy-related deaths for 2006-2007, the most recent statistics. It found that 1,294 deaths that occurred within a year of pregnancy termination were pregnancy-related. Why did these women die? There were several causes, including cardiovascular disease, hemorrhage, hypertension, infections and embolisms. A small percentage — 0.6 percent — died from complications related to anesthesia. And 5.6 percent died from unknown causes. That doesn’t mean that an abortion would have saved the life of the mother in those cases, but it does indicate that “modern technology and science” have not made it so women no longer risk death from pregnancy.

... Chicago’s CBS 2 TV reported that ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus develops outside the uterus, affect 64,000 women a year, a figure that comes from the American Pregnancy Association. The National Institutes of Health says that ectopic pregnancies are “life-threatening” and that the pregnancy “cannot continue to birth.” The fetus also cannot survive.

The Guttmacher Institute, a reproduction research center, did not have statistics on abortions performed to save the life of the mother. A dated 1998 study — published by the International Family Planning Perspectives journal — reported that a 1987-1988 survey found that 2.8 percent of 1,773 women who had had an abortion that year said the reason for the abortion was risk to maternal health."



Your fact check doesn't back you up.

 

[Kathryn]

You: 'Less than 2 percent of abortions are to save the life of the mother thankfully. Like way less. So at least 98 percent of abortions are NOT to save the life of the mother."

From the ( outdated article with outdated statistics) article you've cited:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System reported a higher number for pregnancy-related deaths for 2006-2007, the most recent statistics. It found that 1,294 deaths that occurred within a year of pregnancy termination were pregnancy-related. Why did these women die? There were several causes, including cardiovascular disease, hemorrhage, hypertension, infections and embolisms. A small percentage — 0.6 percent — died from complications related to anesthesia. And 5.6 percent died from unknown causes. That doesn’t mean that an abortion would have saved the life of the mother in those cases, but it does indicate that “modern technology and science” have not made it so women no longer risk death from pregnancy.

... Chicago’s CBS 2 TV reported that ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus develops outside the uterus, affect 64,000 women a year, a figure that comes from the American Pregnancy Association. The National Institutes of Health says that ectopic pregnancies are “life-threatening” and that the pregnancy “cannot continue to birth.” The fetus also cannot survive.

The Guttmacher Institute, a reproduction research center, did not have statistics on abortions performed to save the life of the mother. A dated 1998 study — published by the International Family Planning Perspectives journal — reported that a 1987-1988 survey found that 2.8 percent of 1,773 women who had had an abortion that year said the reason for the abortion was risk to maternal health."



Your fact check doesn't back you up.

That's why I quoted a more recent one. Much more recent, in fact. It wasn't hard to find. That one is from 1998 but this one is at least 14 years newer. Besides that, 2 or 2.8 - what does it really matter? And don't say "It matters to the people involved," because 1) it doesn't matter to half the people involved apparently, and also, way less that 3 percent of abortions are to save the life of the mother, regardless of whether it's 2 percent or 2.8 percent, or even less now.

And you should probably be asking yourself why these stats aren't published every year.