Another clever use of words by the left: abortion bans
For quite some time, the left has labeled a limit of any sort on abortion-at-will to be an abortion ban. It’s a way to mislead by using a word in a different way than is customary.
For example, see this from factcheck.org (an article which actually does some halfway decent fact-checking on Harris and Walz):
Walz claimed Trump “said he’d ban abortion across this country.” Trump once supported legislation that included a federal 20-week ban on abortions, with some exceptions. But Trump now says it is entirely a state issue, and that he does not support a national abortion ban and would veto such a bill.
A ban on abortions after 20 weeks is not what the vast majority of people would think of as an abortion ban minus the qualifier about the time frame. To give some perspective, a baby delivered at 24 weeks is able to survive between 60 and 70 percent of the time, and the youngest preemie to ever survive was 21 weeks old. And so a “ban” of abortions past 20 weeks is actually a very liberal abortion law. But the use of the word “ban” to describe such a law is to purposely and knowingly mislead people.
And of course Trump doesn’t even advocate that anymore; he says states can decide.
They’ve also been screeching that schools are “banning” books when they move them from, say, the elementary shelves to the middle school section.
Another dishonest use of words that particularly bugs me is to complain about opposition from the “far right” to “immigration,” without specifying that the issue is ILLEGAL immigration.
I operated on a 1 pound 10 ounce baby in 1969. She survived and thrived. I did not write it up. Too busy. Two guys in FL operated on a 2 pound 2 ounce baby the next year and got credit for youngest to survive.
The abortion issue is all Kamala has. It worked in 2022 but we will have to see this year.
without specifying that the issue is ILLEGAL immigration.
==
By all means do whatever you can to suppress illegal immigration. However, we would benefit from an overhaul of our legal and administrative regime regarding legal immigration.
It’s really just Common Sense Baby-Safety ™ regulation.
How can anyone be against keeping viable babies safe by just having a one-week waiting period between abortion and a potential viable-baby delivery date?
Mike+K:
Jolly good for you! It is our moral duty as docs to try, try, try.
As a young internist in a small town with a 9 bed hospital (!) many years ago, I worked my butt off trying to keep an elderly woman on warfarin, who forgot, took ASA, and had severe UGI bleeding, alive.
She had many other active problems, like congestive heart failure, but I got here thru the weekend, converting her room into a mini-ICU. I signed off to my older partner Monday AM, and asked after her as our evening rounds began. He replied, “Oh, she died”. That was it. I guess my problem was that I never learned to quit trying, to just surrender. Death was NOT my friend!
By this standard, one could say that Roe was a 24-week (or six month) abortion ban.
Re: Abortion and Dodd.
The basic holding of Dodd was that the power to regulate abortion was not a power granted to the Fed Gov, and so, was one reserved to the individual States.
The RINO side of the Rs, particularly McConnell and a few slimeballs in the House gifted the issue of abortion to the Dems for the midterms by announcing their intent to do exactly what the Supreme Court said that they lacked the power to do, enact a Federal law regulating abortion.
Had the R Federal platform been “not within the scope of Federal power” it would never have been a viable election issue.
The left lies about words like “ban”… “apartheid”, and “genocide”, and many others as the need arises.
There are two goals; one is to fool the gullible. The other is to keep those who know better tied up in a dishonest argument about actual definitions.
There is an implicit understanding in arguments, mostly, that the one who brings out the truth will “win” in the sense that the other party will accept it. So we keep at it, but that agreement is not in effect. They lie, shift, twist, and tie up the right in useless arguments. Useless, because the left is lying, knows they lie and aren’t going to stop just because somebody tried to “correct” their position.
Don’t waste time on them. Instead, prove to their potential audience what the truth is.
@ Richard > “There is an implicit understanding in arguments, mostly, that the one who brings out the truth will “win” in the sense that the other party will accept it. So we keep at it, but that agreement is not in effect.”
Absolutely correct.
How many times have we seen the Democrats and their Regime Media repeat over and over again allegations that have been proven false, over and over again?
That’s like playing a football game against opponents who get to take the ball back to the center of the field every time we score against them, and never record our touchdowns.
Richard and AesopFan,
“There is an implicit understanding in arguments, mostly, that the one who brings out the truth will “win” in the sense that the other party will accept it.”
I used to believe that, but I no longer do. I operate that way, and I imagine most of the folks here do also, but the majority of people argue for stature, not truth.
“What are the standards of the tribe or in-group I wish to be a member of?”
@Rufus:but the majority of people argue for stature, not truth. “What are the standards of the tribe or in-group I wish to be a member of?”
With the following consequence:
In various discussion groups where McMinn County is famously accused of “banning” Maus, I correct the record and provide search terms for independent checking.
The same for numerous other issues.
Not worth arguing with the liars.