If the baby can survive outside the womb is abortion "murder"?

[excreationist]

What’s the point in reasoning if all your premises are false?

ALL? That language doesn't seem very precise.

Hey, if they can exaggerate and get things horribly wrong, why can’t I?

When has Elon Musk asserted something inaccurately to that degree (e.g. replacing "some" with "all")? I'm used to his language being pretty precise. Maybe something he's said about sending a million people to Mars qualifies but I don't think it still would be as much an exaggeration... though you did say you could be horribly wrong...

 

[Shadowy Man]

What’s the point in reasoning if all your premises are false?

ALL? That language doesn't seem very precise.

Hey, if they can exaggerate and get things horribly wrong, why can’t I?

When has Elon Musk asserted something inaccurately to that degree (e.g. replacing "some" with "all")? I'm used to his language being pretty precise. Maybe something he's said about sending a million people to Mars qualifies but I don't think it still would be as much an exaggeration... though you did say you could be horribly wrong...

Let’s see. According to your post he said the following:

- Democrats want to allow illegal immigrants to vote especially in the six swing states.

I have known of not a single Democrat espousing non-citizens voting.

- He says that if the Democrats win the US will be a one party system like California.

I guess if Democrats win a vast majority of the seats in the government that could be true but it certainly wouldn’t be the case by simply winning the Presidency. Both houses of Congress are very nearly half-half, a very very long way from one party rule. Should we keep a minority party with views that not many want around just to avoid the “one party rule”?

Even you say “I'm not sure if his views are accurate”

If someone’s views aren’t accurate why are they worthy of discussion. I mean it’s not flat earth bad but certainly these couple of items don’t merit much reasoned discussion.

 

[Bronzeage]

That's what Elon Musk says. I tend to agree with him.

Abortion of babies which can survive outside the womb is something which doesn't actually exist. Late term abortion is necessary when the fetus cannot survive until term and will become necrotic, become gangrenous, which will kill the mother in a fairly short time.

The late term abortion controversy is a classic strawman argument.

We now have the medical technology to keep severely premature babies alive long enough for the developmental processes of the lungs and other organs which happen normally in the womb to progress in the harsh environment of Earth's atmosphere. It's not dissimilar to a Covid patient who is put into an induced coma and lives on a ventilator for three months.

This is very expensive and prompts the question, who is going to pay for neonatal intensive care? NICU services range from $3000 to $20,000 per day. The average salary in the US is a little over $60,000. NICU will quickly exhaust any healthcare insurance plan. It seems the people who are opposed to abortion at any stage of pregnancy are the same people who are reluctant to subsidize the healthcare expenses of people who can't afford it. Reverence for life is easy, if it's someone else's problem.

The crux of this issue is the "someone else's problem" school of social deterrence. The threat of pregnancy has always been the factor which deters women from behaving outside the accepted social norms. Anything which reduces the threat of an unwanted pregnancy allows women more freedom, and allows her to behave more like a man.

 

[excreationist]

Let’s see. According to your post he said the following:

- Democrats want to allow illegal immigrants to vote especially in the six swing states.

I have known of not a single Democrat espousing non-citizens voting.

- He says that if the Democrats win the US will be a one party system like California.

I guess if Democrats win a vast majority of the seats in the government that could be true but it certainly wouldn’t be the case by simply winning the Presidency. Both houses of Congress are very nearly half-half, a very very long way from one party rule. Should we keep a minority party with views that not many want around just to avoid the “one party rule”?

Sorry I didn't quote him properly. It looks like he's saying those illegal immigrants would be given green cards and then they can vote. I included part of the transcript (though it seems to have typos, etc) He said the democracy problems could happen in the next election if the Democrats win this one.


3:47
Democrat administered government
websites like where do you get this data
from the government website that is run
by democrats and there are triple digit
increases in illegals to all the swing
States and in some cases it's like 700 %
over the last 3 years now these swing
state marins are you know sometimes 10
20,000 votes so what happens if you put
you know hundreds of thousands of people
into each swing state and and and and
for the for the when somebody has
granted Asylum they are fast-tracked
they they they they get can get a green
card and then 5 years after the green
card they can get they can get
citizenship and they can fully legally
vote and when they do so they vote
overwhelmingly Democrat
and and sometimes they get this rebuttle
of like well a lot of them their social
values don't align with sort of the
far-left sort of woke ideology I said
that's true but but that's not their top
priority the their top priority is
getting their friends and family also to
the United States and the the DS also
issue all these programs these sort of
handouts essentially that make them
beholden to the Democratic party so they
vote them that's what happens so my
prediction is if there's another four
years of Administration they will
legalize so many illegals that are there
uh that the next election there won't be
any swing States and it's and will be a
single party country just like
California is a single party State it's
a super majority damn state in
California because of immigration yes
has it improved the state no it's it's
not and they they California just passed
which is shocking it's hard to believe
this even this is even real but
California just passed a law making it
illegal
to require V or ID in any election at
all in
California have they extended the same
actually what's going on right now by
the way they're proud of it they're not
hiding it it's only voting it's not
buying a gun or buying liquor or buying
pack of cigarettes or flying on an
airplane or Renning a hotel room it's
only voting that it's illegal oh if you
try to buy a gun I mean they're going to
ID you six ways a Sunday yeah they try
California is trying to make it
basically legal own it's own a gun and
and the same people that demanded
vaccine IDs for if you want want to
travel or do anything are the same ones
who say no voter ID is required is there
any reason hypocritical to pass a law
like that except to a bet voter fraud
it's it's for it's it's it's so that
fraud can never cannot be proven so it
it it enables large scale fraud and no
way to prove it because how would you
prove it it's literally impossible no no
ID you're not even allowed to show your
ID it's insane well it is insane insane
so yeah the purpose of no ID is
obviously to conduct fraud in
elections obviously there can be no
ID
other explanation I mean they come up
with some nice sounding thing people
don't have IDs could you live in this
country without an ID yeah I mean their
common rebuttal is like it's racist to
require ID and which is insane I think
it's actually race racist and
patronizing to say that people can't
figure out how to get ID obviously how
could you live here without an ID I
don't think it's even possible yeah you
can't do anything yeah need ID for
everything like the list of things you
need ID for is basically everything
except voting so so you see the rest of
the country it's total
obviously com obviously yes but that
doesn't in any way minimize the
aggression or self-righteousness they
bring to this
conversation yes it's you're a racist if
you want that right where where in

Even you say “I'm not sure if his views are accurate”

If someone’s views aren’t accurate why are they worthy of discussion.

It was relevant to the post about the relationship between Elon Musk and Trump.

I mean it’s not flat earth bad but certainly these couple of items don’t merit much reasoned discussion.

Well I think abortion is more about values rather than there being an objective Truth.

 

[Elixir]

Who cares.
It doesn’t happen enough to be any kind of social disease that needs to be addressed by a government. I agree that it sounds disgusting, immoral, unethical and like a bad thing. So much so in fact, that I have foregone any plans I ever had to engage in such a thing. How about you?

I think the inconvience of a pregnancy can seem to outweigh the issues with killing an unborn baby... even though apparently a lot of couples (or singles) are trying to adopt...

Wut??!!
Nine months in? No, sorry. If it happens it’s vanishingly rare. See Bronzeage’s post.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Let’s see. According to your post he said the following:

- Democrats want to allow illegal immigrants to vote especially in the six swing states.

I have known of not a single Democrat espousing non-citizens voting.

- He says that if the Democrats win the US will be a one party system like California.

I guess if Democrats win a vast majority of the seats in the government that could be true but it certainly wouldn’t be the case by simply winning the Presidency. Both houses of Congress are very nearly half-half, a very very long way from one party rule. Should we keep a minority party with views that not many want around just to avoid the “one party rule”?

Sorry I didn't quote him properly. It looks like he's saying those illegal immigrants would be given green cards and then they can vote. I included part of the transcript (though it seems to have typos, etc)


3:47
Democrat administered government
websites like where do you get this data
from the government website that is run
by democrats and there are triple digit
increases in illegals to all the swing
States and in some cases it's like 700 %
over the last 3 years now these swing
state marins are you know sometimes 10
20,000 votes so what happens if you put
you know hundreds of thousands of people
into each swing state and…

Ok. That was a lot to read and I will admit I am not inclined to read all of it. But it doesn’t come across so far as someone speaking from a well-researched opinion but more like the ranting of a highly opinionated person.

If there’s an objective case to be made about immigration and the plans of democrats to allegedly fast track illegals to green cards I’d rather read that.

Even you say “I'm not sure if his views are accurate”

If someone’s views aren’t accurate why are they worthy of discussion.

It was relevant to the post about the relationship between Elon Musk and Trump.

I mean it’s not flat earth bad but certainly these couple of items don’t merit much reasoned discussion.

Well I think abortion is more about values rather than there being an objective Truth.

Ok. I was referring to just those couple of items.

But Elon has lost enough credibility in my eyes that I don’t feel motivated to waste my time listening to his opinion on much.

 

[excreationist]

That's what Elon Musk says. I tend to agree with him.

Abortion of babies which can survive outside the womb is something which doesn't actually exist.

If it did exist then Elon Musk would be saying that it is unethical (and "murder"). It is like saying that skinning humans alive is unethical even if it never really happens.
BTW this says:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/01/what-is-viability/

What is fetal viability?
In medicine, it’s the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. It is generally considered to be around 23 or 24 weeks, but there’s no universal consensus and some hospitals will resuscitate and actively treat babies born in the 22nd week of pregnancy. There are rare cases in which babies born at 21 weeks have survived.

Late term abortion is necessary when the fetus cannot survive until term and will become necrotic, become gangrenous, which will kill the mother in a fairly short time.

The late term abortion controversy is a classic strawman argument.

We now have the medical technology to keep severely premature babies alive long enough for the developmental processes of the lungs and other organs which happen normally in the womb to progress in the harsh environment of Earth's atmosphere. It's not dissimilar to a Covid patient who is put into an induced coma and lives on a ventilator for three months.

This is very expensive and prompts the question, who is going to pay for neonatal intensive care? NICU services range from $3000 to $20,000 per day. The average salary in the US is a little over $60,000. NICU will quickly exhaust any healthcare insurance plan. It seems the people who are opposed to abortion at any stage of pregnancy are the same people who are reluctant to subsidize the healthcare expenses of people who can't afford it. Reverence for life is easy, if it's someone else's problem.

The crux of this issue is the "someone else's problem" school of social deterrence. The threat of pregnancy has always been the factor which deters women from behaving outside the accepted social norms. Anything which reduces the threat of an unwanted pregnancy allows women more freedom, and allows her to behave more like a man.

BTW I think in a large number of abortions the issue is just the inconvenience - e.g. the woman might want to keep working or something ("to behave more like a man")

 

[excreationist]

Who cares.
It doesn’t happen enough to be any kind of social disease that needs to be addressed by a government. I agree that it sounds disgusting, immoral, unethical and like a bad thing. So much so in fact, that I have foregone any plans I ever had to engage in such a thing. How about you?

I think the inconvience of a pregnancy can seem to outweigh the issues with killing an unborn baby... even though apparently a lot of couples (or singles) are trying to adopt...

Wut??!!
Nine months in? No, sorry. If it happens it’s vanishingly rare. See Bronzeage’s post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/01/what-is-viability/

says "the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. It is generally considered to be around 23 or 24 weeks" (i.e. can be before the 9 month mark)

 

[excreationist]

Ok. That was a lot to read and I will admit I am not inclined to read all of it. But it doesn’t come across so far as someone speaking from a well-researched opinion but more like the ranting of a highly opinionated person.

Yes it is obviously a rant of a highly opinionated person. Though he did say it was based on what a Democrat website says. I find him to be thorough with research (especially with his tech companies - apparently he gets the engineers to teach him like 70% or something of the knowledge involved)

If there’s an objective case to be made about immigration and the plans of democrats to allegedly fast track illegals to green cards I’d rather read that.

I don't see the point in me trying to investigate it (since my time is somewhat precious - I just wanted to share why Musk is supporting the Republicans). It seems Elon Musk is convinced of it though and I can now understand why he chose the Republican party this time (he said in the interview that he doesn't always side with the Republicans). In the interview he also talked about Twitter/X and how he values the freedom of speech. He also talked about the Democrats trying to shut him down due to SpaceX not hiring asylum seekers or something 14 minutes in (and that laws often contradict each other so every company would be guilty of something).

Ok. I was referring to just those couple of items.

But Elon has lost enough credibility in my eyes that I don’t feel motivated to waste my time listening to his opinion on much.

I think he gives good justifications for anything he believes in. So I'll continue to take him seriously.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Ok. That was a lot to read and I will admit I am not inclined to read all of it. But it doesn’t come across so far as someone speaking from a well-researched opinion but more like the ranting of a highly opinionated person.

Yes it is obviously a rant of a highly opinionated person. Though he did say it was based on what a Democrat website says. I find him to be thorough with research.

I, personally, do not view him as a reliable source of information so I would have to see that website citation myself.

If there’s an objective case to be made about immigration and the plans of democrats to allegedly fast track illegals to green cards I’d rather read that.

I don't see the point in me trying to investigate it (since my time is somewhat precious). It seems Elon Musk is convinced of it though

People can be “convinced” of all kinds of things, especially when presented with misleading or inaccurate information, especially especially if it conforms with their already held beliefs. Elon being convinced of something in no way makes me more likely to be convinced of something.

and I can now understand why he chose the he values the freedom of speech.

I believe his record does not bear that out (e.g., this article )

He also talked about the Democrats trying to shut him down due to SpaceX not hiring asylum seekers or something (and that laws often contradict each other so every company would be guilty of something).

Citation?

Ok. I was referring to just those couple of items.

But Elon has lost enough credibility in my eyes that I don’t feel motivated to waste my time listening to his opinion on much.

I think he gives good justifications for anything he believes in. So I'll continue to take him seriously.

Keep in mind this is the guy who built an electric car that would lie about how much range it has (e.g., this Forbes article among many others).

He’s not an ethical person.

Of course it is your prerogative to take him as seriously as you want. I choose not to.

 

[excreationist]

I, personally, do not view him as a reliable source of information so I would have to see that website citation myself.

People can be “convinced” of all kinds of things, especially when presented with misleading or inaccurate information, especially especially if it conforms with their already held beliefs. Elon being convinced of something in no way makes me more likely to be convinced of something.

It just explains partly WHY he is supporting the Republicans this time. I'm not even an American voter so I'm not highly concerned whether he is right or not. I mean it would take a while to try and hunt down that alledged government site. Unless I tried on reddit or something.

and I can now understand why he chose the he values the freedom of speech.

I believe his record does not bear that out (e.g., this article )

Ok thanks I had heard something a bit like that before. He at least likes to say he is a big supporter for free speech even if that isn't true.

He also talked about the Democrats trying to shut him down due to SpaceX not hiring asylum seekers or something (and that laws often contradict each other so every company would be guilty of something).

Citation?

Justice Department Sues SpaceX for Discriminating Against Asylees and Refugees in Hiring

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) for discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring. The lawsuit alleges that, from at least September 2018 to May 2022, SpaceX routinely discouraged asylees and refugees from applying...

www.justice.gov

Musk said that if they had the opposite approach they could still get in trouble for something as well.

Keep in mind this is the guy who built an electric car that would lie about how much range it has (e.g., this Forbes article among many others).

He’s not an ethical person.

Of course it is your prerogative to take him as seriously as you want. I choose not to.

Thanks for the example with Telsa range dishonesty. I'll be more careful about believing everything he says but I am still very interested in what he has to say. Though I don't think I claimed that Musk was necessarily correct about green cards being fast-tracked, etc.

 

[Shadowy Man]

He also talked about the Democrats trying to shut him down due to SpaceX not hiring asylum seekers or something (and that laws often contradict each other so every company would be guilty of something).

Citation?

Justice Department Sues SpaceX for Discriminating Against Asylees and Refugees in Hiring

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) for discriminating against asylees and refugees in hiring. The lawsuit alleges that, from at least September 2018 to May 2022, SpaceX routinely discouraged asylees and refugees from applying...

www.justice.gov

Musk said that if they had the opposite approach they could still get in trouble for something as well.

“…in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”

So, Musk is upset that he has to adhere to the law when hiring.

In job postings and public statements over several years, SpaceX wrongly claimed that under federal regulations known as “export control laws,” SpaceX could hire only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, sometimes referred to as “green card holders.” Export control laws impose no such hiring restrictions. Moreover, asylees’ and refugees’ permission to live and work in the United States does not expire, and they stand on equal footing with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents under export control laws. Under these laws, companies like SpaceX can hire asylees and refugees for the same positions they would hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. And once hired, asylees and refugees can access export-controlled information and materials without additional government approval, just like U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

I have worked for companies that do a lot of business with the government and there are a lot of regulations to deal with. He just doesn’t want to do that. So, he just simply lied on the job ads? Is that the right approach? How many asylees and refugees were even applying for Space-X jobs? How many would have had the qualifications to work for an aerospace company? It seems he was complaining about an imaginary problem. I don’t know.

If he doesn’t like the laws in this country he is able to stop doing business with the government, move to another country or, as is the American way, pay for enough politicians to get into office to rewrite the laws. Perhaps that’s why he is backing Republicans so much and (likely illegally) paying voters to register.

“Musk said that if they had the opposite approach they could still get in trouble for something as well.”

That’s just whining, not an actual logical argument. Yes, there are laws you have to follow even if you don’t personally want to, or think your simply smarter than those who wrote the laws.

 

[excreationist]

“Musk said that if they had the opposite approach they could still get in trouble for something as well.”

That’s just whining, not an actual logical argument.

He seemed to be claiming that the Democrats just wanted to persecute him and if he did the opposite by hiring refugees he could get in trouble too.
14 minutes in:
(sorry the transcript has typos)

very careful with who we hire we can
only hire someone if they were a
permanent resident or citizen that's
what the itar law says then there's
another law that says that you cannot
discriminate against Asylum Seekers so
we're damned if you do damned if you
don't that doj did a massive lawsuit
against space we're failing to hire
Asylum Seekers even though we are it is
il legal for us to hire ass because
under itar law this is an actual thing
that that that's that's gone on and they
can only they can only do a fairly small
number of lawsuits every year so why did
they pick this one because you yeah

 

[Shadowy Man]

“Musk said that if they had the opposite approach they could still get in trouble for something as well.”

That’s just whining, not an actual logical argument.

He seemed to be claiming that the Democrats just wanted to persecute him and if he did the opposite by hiring refugees he could get in trouble too.
14 minutes in:
(sorry the transcript has typos)

very careful with who we hire we can
only hire someone if they were a
permanent resident or citizen that's
what the itar law says then there's
another law that says that you cannot
discriminate against Asylum Seekers so
we're damned if you do damned if you
don't that doj did a massive lawsuit
against space we're failing to hire
Asylum Seekers even though we are it is
il legal for us to hire ass because
under itar law this is an actual thing
that that that's that's gone on and they
can only they can only do a fairly small
number of lawsuits every year so why did
they pick this one because you yeah

That may be what he said, but the article was quite clear about what was going on and I trust that article more than I trust him to present me with facts. He is saying it is illegal under ITAR to hire these people but the article says that it is not. The laws are public information and this can be looked up.

And a persecution complex is typical right-wing nutjob fare.

 

[excreationist]

That may be what he said, but the article was quite clear about what was going on and I trust that article more than I trust him to present me with facts. He is saying it is illegal under ITAR to hire these people but the article says that it is not. The laws are public information and this can be looked up.

And a persecution complex is typical right-wing nutjob fare.

Musks' idea that some laws contradict each other so you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't" are interesting though.
BTW this says many billionaires are supporting Trump out of greed, etc. (could apply to Elon Musk too)

 

[bilby]

Musks' idea that some laws contradict each other so you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't" are interesting though.

Be a lot more interesting if it were true.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

That thing about Harris not having been democratically elected is ridiculous, because the election isn't until 5 November. But. you can then say, what he meant is she wasn't chosen in a primary. Except that she was; she was part of the Biden/Harris team selected in a primary twice (2020 and 2024). When a member of a team drops out that doesn't mean that the other part of the team has to also drop out; normally it means that they take the senior role, as Harris did, AFTER she was approved by a large group, in an overwhelming majority, of the appropriate people.

It is not the business of the Republicans who the Democrats choose, just as Democrats had no say in who the Republicans chose. If they did they wouldn't have selected Trump, and it seems that not many Republicans got a say in the selection of Trump and Vance either.

 

[excreationist]

I finished watching that video: (I recommend it)



So it seems the main reason Elon Musk (and many billionaires) support Trump is because of greed (see video for the details). The claim that the Democrats are a danger to democracy seems somewhat plausible though - I mean it seemed convincing to me initially. It made Elon Musk seem like he was acting in the interests of the common person.

 

[pood]

I love the “That’s what Elon Musk says.” So like, “That’s what Donald Trump says, and I am inclined to agree.”

I think Elon Musk considers Trump to be the lesser of two evils or at least has some problems.

I don’t give a fuck what this fascist charlatan says about anything.

Elon Musk said that the Democrats want to allow voting without identification allowing illegal immigrants to vote especially in the six swing states.

Elon Musk is lying. There is no earthly way illegal immigrants can vote.

He says that if the Democrats win the US will be a one party system like California.

He’s wrong and, in addition, he’s a douchebag.

I'm not sure if his views are accurate

They’re not.

but at least I can understand his reasoning.

The same “reasoning” in which he claims he will send 20 million people, or whatever the exact number it is, to Mars in like ten years? LOL.

He also said that Kamala didn't really get voted in democratically and she often just reads what the teleprompter says (like a puppet might).

He’s wrong again. She was voted in as vice president of the United States. And all politicians read from teleprompters. So fucking what? “Like a puppet might,” lol. Like anyone in their right mind would give a fuck with this little fascist prick says about anything.

I'm not sure if Trump will make things better or worse and I had been quite worried about Project 2025.

If you’re not sure about that, I feel sorry for you.

 

[pood]

It made Elon Musk seem like he was acting in the interests of the common person.