Poll of the Day > President Trump issues "Born Alive" Executive Order

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/president-trump-signs-born-alive-executive-order-guaranteeing-medical-treatment-to-infants-that-survive-abortion

There was a similar bill last year which got shut down in the senate by democrats, several states already have similar legislation.
It basically states a baby who survives abortion must be given medical treatment to make sure it survives.

---

Failywire
---

Seems fair to me...

...

Just means the abortionist should make sure the job gets done correctly

---

Duckbear 2.0?
---

Wanded posted...

There was a similar bill last year which got shut down in the senate by democrats

nobody tell him

---

Mead posted...

nobody tell him

But he has to know! 2+2 is fish!

---

Mead posted...

nobody tell him

i think he should know though

---

Wanded posted...

There was a similar bill last year which got shut down in the senate by democrats, several states already have similar legislation.
It basically states a baby who survives abortion must be given medical treatment to make sure it survives.

Kinda wondering what the justification was for blocking that.

---

Zeus_LLC posted...

Kinda wondering what the justification was for blocking that.

I don't remember it, so it's hard to tell initially if it was blocked for that or for something else.

Not complaining about the order but... kind of an odd thing to issue an order for out of nowhere like this considering everything else that's going on right now.
---

Who's required to pay for it? If the mother, this seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to discourage abortions (since there will be additional costs if the procedure goes wrong). If the doctor, that's potentially reasonable, given that it was the doctor's failure to perform the procedure correctly that resulted in the need for care, but that's going to discourage doctors from offering abortions because of the potential costs. If the government, then that shouldn't affect abortions' availability, but the notion of a republican US government offering to pay for abortion-related health care seems somewhat less than plausible.

I is smart posted...

Not complaining about the order but... kind of an odd thing to issue an order for out of nowhere like this considering everything else that's going on right now.

It's an election thing. This is the sort of thing that pro-lifers will eat right up, so tossing it out there is easy brownie points from that crowd.

---

Phantom_Nook posted...

Failywire

Revelation34 posted...

Duckbear 2.0?

@Entity13 you protested against posts like these in other "things happening in the world" topics, why aren't you doing the same here? feels hypocritical.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

it's not politics, it's simply "things that happen in the world", ask @Entity13
and the ones running away were you people, since none of you addressed the actual question i posed.

---

Just like so many of his other executive orders, this one is toothless and will get shut down in the judiciary

its just another stunt to distract from the 200,000 dead and growing number of people dead under the pandemic that he bungled

---

Wanded posted...

It basically states a baby who survives abortion

This is a thing? Politics aside, this is fucking horrifying.

---

Wanded posted...

you protested against posts like these in other "things happening in the world" topics, why aren't you doing the same here? feels hypocritical.

Except it's not. Duckbear has a reputation for pairing his "reporting" (read: sharing Daily Mail or Wire like he gets a cut of pay from it) with often inappropriate questions. Look at his posts again, and you see things like calling people "heffers" or whatever else due to clear bias and poor content writing. Calling this the same thing is like protesting against the Twilight series and being called a hypocrite for at least appreciating Lost Boys.

Wanded posted...

it's not politics, it's simply "things that happen in the world", ask @Entity13
and the ones running away were you people, since none of you addressed the actual question i posed or even anything close to what the topic was about, pretty much like how most people are doing here.

Considering he's referring to how you had been heckled in the Biden's son topic before you seemingly stopped, at the time, and made this topic, I'm not so sure. You've since gone back and responded in said topic, but when the relevant post had been made, you hadn't done so. It's also nice of you to page me twice in the same post when I may or may not have seen it fine with out such a thing. This seems an inch or more close to obsessive, but more sampling on this might be needed.

---

Entity13 posted...

Except it's not. Duckbear has a reputation for pairing his "reporting" (read: sharing Daily Mail or Wire like he gets a cut of pay from it) with often inappropriate questions. Look at his posts again, and you see things like calling people "heffers" or whatever else due to clear bias and poor content writing. Calling this the same thing is like protesting against the Twilight series and being called a hypocrite for at least appreciating Lost Boys.

Considering he's referring to how you had been heckled in the Biden's son topic before you seemingly stopped, at the time, and made this topic, I'm not so sure. You've since gone back and responded in said topic, but when the relevant post had been made, you hadn't done so. It's also nice of you to page me twice in the same post when I may or may not have seen it fine with out such a thing. This seems an inch or more close to obsessive, but more sampling on this might be needed.

i'm not talking about duckbear, the rest of the potd liberal brigade open topics like this regularly, now you're being disingenuous on top of being hypocritical.

You blame zeus for his comments addressing peoples sources instead of refuting what is in them, someone did the same thing here yet you're a-okay with it, so like i said, that's hypocritical.

---

Wanded posted...

i'm not talking about duckbear, the rest of the potd liberal brigade open topics like this regularly, now you're being disingenuous on top of being hypocritical.

Except you had quoted people who had made reference to Duckbear, without context showing you meant anything else until now. Now you appear to project, throwing a word at me like "disingenuous," which is yet another tactic the Alt Right has been using for some time now, so I would advise stopping for a moment and try to make your original intent clearer before jumping to conclusions. I don't wish to think of you as a typical Alt Right enthusiast that disregards the facts or belittles anyone who dares show evidence of the contrary. As I said in another thread, reality is unbiased, but more often than not appears far to the left for anyone who is, themselves, far off to the right.

Wanded posted...

You blame zeus for his comments addressing peoples sources instead of refuting what is in them, someone did the same thing here yet you're a-okay with it, so like i said, that's hypocritical.

Finally, what you had meant. Again, there is a difference, while I am still not OK--do not assume I am OK with anyone resorting to any measure just because I have not commented on it--with the commentary on your choice of source material, I understand where they are coming from. Zeus attacks anything that contradicts him, and calls it liberal, no matter how it scores on media bias testing or accuracy in its reporting. Compare to the likes of Daily Wire, and credibility sinks when you see that it scores as far right and mixed in terms of factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/

It is not hypocritical to address a relevant issue in front of your face, most certainly not now. It is, however, a grievance upon any good sense or conversation to assume malcontent when asking the right questions will suffice. Leaving out proper details or context does not help in this endeavor.

---

any further right and it would be QAnon lol

---

Wanded posted...

@Entity13 you protested against posts like these in other "things happening in the world" topics, why aren't you doing the same here? feels hypocritical.

Post a better site than the Daily Wire then.

Daily Mail is still worse though.
---

But once it survives fuck it and the family, right? Lazy moochers leeching off hard working Americans, it's their own fault that they're poor!

---

Entity13 posted...

do not assume I am OK with anyone resorting to any measure just because I have not commented on it

isn't this exactly what you did in the other topic though with the other guy? you insinuated i am a hypocrite because you didn't see a post from me about trump, hence assumed i am okay with whatever it is you think trump is doing.

Entity13 posted...

and credibility sinks when you see that it scores as far right and mixed in terms of factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/

how do you know that site isn't lying and is leftist itself? that site is basically a failed attempt at argument from authority and i say failed because it has zero authority lol

looking at the wiki for the site:
The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[5] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.[4]

if you have a problem with the source explain what it got wrong, you can't say it's wrong because you don't like it, besides you actually think president trump didn't issue this executive order? why is this even an issue we are talking about

---

Wanded posted...

isn't this exactly what you did in the other topic though with the other guy? you insinuated i am a hypocrite because you didn't see a post from me about trump, hence assumed i am okay with whatever it is you think trump is doing.

You know, it's possible this is my sinus-infection and periodic migraines all coming at me at once talking, or maybe we're just all over the place at this point and making a mess rather than coming to a better understanding of relevant matters, but what are you talking about?

Looking at the other topic, the time I used the word "hypocrite" when responding to you was me pointing out that someone else had called you the word and then you brought the word with you into another topic to call me one. What I had said in that comment was that I found it funny that you did so without understanding the differences between matters, which was not, in itself, calling you a hypocrite.

Then I missed a context of yours in another post entirely, which was in this topic. Look up, and you'll see it.

Wanded posted...

how do you know that site isn't lying and is leftist itself? that site is basically a failed attempt at argument from authority and i say failed because it has zero authority lol

Nice of you to disregard a fact-checking site because it shows people how your source performs. That said, I have dug around on information about the site I linked and found neither bias nor foul play, only claims to it being "amateur" as if the common man or woman cannot do research or formulate a viable opinion. I can list more links from other sites, if you like?

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-wire
Says your source is on the right, and that your source even calls itself Conservative.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/daily-wire-bias-and-reliability/
Considers your source to be only just reliable, with a score of 24.39 out of 64, which 24 being the bare minimum for acceptability, and actually only 16.35 out of 42 points toward the right.
https://www.dailywire.com/about
Calls itself Conservative news and opinions, and that the infamous Ben Shapiro is involved with it.

I didn't even use Wiki for that quick search, though said site concurs with calling Daily Wire a conservative source.

---

Wanded posted...

if you have a problem with the source explain what it got wrong, you can't say it's wrong because you don't like it, besides you actually think president trump didn't issue this executive order? why is this even an issue we are talking about

What I said was that credibility is an issue. Furthermore, it is a secondary source at best--it is a report on another report--which lacks a degree of professionalism or reliability. What I did not say was that it was wrong; rather I said it remains an allegation at this time. I talk about this because it's important to understand where you get your information from--this is true of everyone, not just yourself or me--and what information is even being presented. It helps to know if you are being duped or not so you can carry on without looking like a fool in front of other people. You can say things everyone disagrees with, but having a problematic source isn't going to sway them unless that source is the bombardment of fear (a la., KGP findings and tactics during the Cold War), but let's not go there.

Also, which executive order are you referring to?

---

Entity13 posted...

What I said was that credibility is an issue. Furthermore, it is a secondary source at best--it is a report on another report--which lacks a degree of professionalism or reliability. What I did not say was that it was wrong; rather I said it remains an allegation at this time. I talk about this because it's important to understand where you get your information from--this is true of everyone, not just yourself or me--and what information is even being presented. It helps to know if you are being duped or not so you can carry on without looking like a fool in front of other people. You can say things everyone disagrees with, but having a problematic source isn't going to sway them unless that source is the bombardment of fear (a la., KGP findings and tactics during the Cold War), but let's not go there.

Also, which executive order are you referring to?

the executive order this topic is about....brah you're obviously not even trying to understand what i'm saying, it's clear you only want to refute no matter what for the sake of your ideology at this point, this is your stance from yesterday against zeus

Entity13 posted...

it's become obligatory to say Zeus will appear to make a non-defense of the situation whether by calling it a lie because rightist media says something else, or because the carefully selected sources from the moderates and liberals alike are "leftist garbage" and not to be trusted.

congratulations, your posts here outed you as zeus 2.0, the liberal version, because you're doing exactly what you bashed him for doing just from the other side, claiming the source can't be trusted because it's from conservatives

Entity13 posted...

Nice of you to disregard a fact-checking site because it shows people how your source performs

lol why shouldn't i disregard it? again, like i already said, it has ZERO say in what is actually correct, wiki says that its method is unscientific, there is an interview with its creator in which he himself states that the site might be biased because it's basically comprised of college students with no training or special qualification and he also says that a site being right or left has nothing to do with whether the facts they bring are right or false.

Even if wiki and that interview didn't prove you wrong in using that site as argument from authority (which in itself is a fallacy), you still can't rely on that site because again, who the hell are these people lol
had they pointed out something is wrong in this article then it would have been relevant

Entity13 posted...

Calls itself Conservative news and opinions, and that the infamous Ben Shapiro is involved with it.

everybody knows DW is conservative, they aren't hiding it lol
ben shapiro is only infamous with leftists and the alt right

---

Wanded posted...

the executive order this topic is about....brah you're obviously not even trying to understand what i'm saying, it's clear you only want to refute no matter what for the sake of your ideology at this point, this is your stance from yesterday against zeus

Except no, I'm legit asking which executive order you are referring to, and now you're refusing to elaborate. Actually, let's stick a pin in this point for a moment.

Wanded posted...

ben shapiro is only infamous with leftists and the alt right

He's infamous to anyone who likes to address every statement in full, regardless of their political beliefs.

Wanded posted...

congratulations, your posts here outed you as zeus 2.0, the liberal version, because you're doing exactly what you bashed him for doing just from the other side, claiming the source can't be trusted because it's from conservatives

This is another place where you are wrong. I am saying DW isn't the best source because of how far to the right it is. I am not the only person here saying you ought to consider posting from another source if you can find one. Many people here will not go to such sites due to resulting traffic and potential ad revenue, even with Ad-Block or its ilk, because why reward something that is so biased and not worth our time nor remaining sanity?

Do you assume I have zero qualms about some left media for the same-but-reverse? When there is bias as to what is shown, or how, there is always a problem. Comparing me to Zeus shows a further lack of understanding of what I am trying to convey here, but is also related to that often-idiotic trope where an antagonist tries to compare the protagonist to themselves to somehow save their hide, except you are comparing me to someone I have zero respect towards without the bare minimum comprehension of how he and I are different (something that has been explained repeatedly).

Projection is a hell of a strategy that contemporary conservatives love to use, more than I have seen from the actual liberals for that matter. You say I'm not even trying to understand, only to refute, when I asked you a question. You compared me to Zeus. Do these seem like actions from someone who actually cares about the facts, convenient or otherwise? This diversion is unbecoming. It is about on par with moving a goal post, or saying, once something has been proven, "So what? It isn't that bad."

So I ask again, since you had brought it up without specifying which order or which issue it was about: Which Executive Order are you referring to?

---

Entity13 posted...

This is another place where you are wrong. I am saying DW isn't the best source because of how far to the right it is.

which is exactly what zeus said in jens topic and you bashed him for it, according you your own site the atlantic (what jen used) is a leftist site...

zeus: "it's a leftist source"
you: "it's a conservative source"
me: "how about you refute what you disagree with"

what do you disagree with that's written there? what's factually incorrect there?

Entity13 posted...

I'm legit asking which executive order you are referring to, and now you're refusing to elaborate. Actually, let's stick a pin in this point for a moment.

the "born alive" executive order

Entity13 posted...

When there is bias as to what is shown, or how, there is always a problem.

but there is no such thing as no bias, there is no such thing as an unbiased news source, centrism is also a sort of bias and this debate has been concluded several times by now, news are decided upon and brought by human beings, there is no human being with no bias, hence all news outlets are biased.

in fact outlets who tell you their political leaning deserve more leniency than outlets who claim to be "objective" because of this, an outlet claiming to be objective already lies from the get go and you now have to be on a constant lookout for their bias because they are trying to hide it, outlets who tell you up front they are right or left can't be trying to fool you or manipulate you because they show you all their cards and who they are up front so you can deal with them properly.

---

The Atlantic isn't a leftist source. It's left center. I wouldn't call right center a right wing source.

---

Wanded posted...

what do you disagree with that's written there? what's factually incorrect there?

For starters, Zeus trashes everything to the left, and uses their sources as an excuse. Meanwhile, I point out that is source is aligned one way or another and ask if you can provide something close to the middle for argument's sake. Then you go on a tirade. At first it seemed like you were arguing, "No it isn't! How do you know your source isn't leftist?" and then you followed additional links with "Well of course it's Conservative. We all know that. There's nothing wrong with it."

Wanded posted...

the "born alive" executive order

Right, sorry. I should remind you of this sinus and migraine combo headache I'm dealing with.

Wanded posted...

but there is no such thing as no bias, there is no such thing as an unbiased news source, centrism is also a sort of bias and this debate has been concluded several times by now, news are decided upon and brought by human beings, there is no human being with no bias, hence all news outlets are biased.

Sure, bias is inherent, but we do not need to succumb to it is what I'm getting at. If we want better of our media, we must first be better ourselves, which means overcoming those obstacles in our individual, or sometimes group, perspectives.

Wanded posted...

in fact outlets who tell you their political leaning deserve more leniency than outlets who claim to be "objective" because of this, an outlet claiming to be objective already lies from the get go and you now have to be on a constant lookout for their bias because they are trying to hide it, outlets who tell you up front they are right or left can't be trying to fool you or manipulate you because they show you all their cards and who they are up front so you can deal with them properly.

I'm going to disagree with that sentiment for the reason of my aforementioned take on natural bias. There's owning up to your biases, and then there's letting it rule you and cancel out anything coming from outside your bubble. When I request you find a better source, it is not to belittle you, as a certain someone on this board does time and again, but rather to challenge you to look outside the bubble you appear to be in.

Furthermore, beware of cons who show you any number of cards, because yet more cards can be hidden. When you think you have a good hand, you might as well have deuces when they inevitably play their own hand. Could it be possible that DW shows you a sufficient number of cards to be trusted? That I'm not too sure about, but I will give them credit for not blocking me from reading a single article just because I have an ad-blocker, and a sliver more for doing some fact checking (albeit not enough for some tastes).

---

No left-leaning centrists have responded to my post because they agree with it.

---

Jen0125 posted...

The Atlantic isn't a leftist source. It's left center. I wouldn't call right center a right wing source.

Nor would I call Guitar Center a good guitar source. </badjoke>

---

Entity13 posted...

I point out that is source is aligned one way or another and ask if you can provide something close to the middle for argument's sake.

what IS the argument though?

Entity13 posted...

There's owning up to your biases, and then there's letting it rule you and cancel out anything coming from outside your bubble.

i don't think DW is doing that though, otherwise people could have just pointed to what they got wrong easily but they can't seem to do it, they are also based in Los Angeles which is as liberal as it goes so they can't be in a conservative bubble even if they wanted to

besides, in a lot of cases i can't use "less biased" sources even if i wanted to because they ignore a lot of things which don't benefit the left...which should really make you reconsider them being "close to center" to begin with because imo that's the main issue with these "objective" sources

https://www.dailywire.com/news/abc-news-pushes-false-story-about-amy-coney-barretts-catholic-group-inspiring-the-handmaids-tale
https://www.dailywire.com/news/newsweek-forced-to-issue-major-retraction-after-it-smears-amy-coney-barrett-claims-she-belongs-to-sect-that-inspired-the-handmaids-tale

these stuff for example i can't really find in non right wing sites (ask yourself why) and it's the same with a lot of similar stuff

Entity13 posted...

beware of cons who show you any number of cards, because yet more cards can be hidden.

there are just 2 types of cards though, if they are hiding right wing cards it doesn't make a difference because i already know they are solely right wing, if they are hiding left wing cards...that just cancels some of the right wing cards they are showing me hence getting them closer to the center which you would prefer

---