New Clinton email controversy

[A Theist]

Wikileaks releases 25th batch of emails...

'Dump all those emails': Latest WikiLeaks tranche reveals #Podesta advice

https://www.rt.com/usa/364959-clinton-po...wikileaks/

"Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:57 PM, John Podesta <[email protected]> wrote: > On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have > to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later"

https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/41841

If elected Hillary would be the first president elect to be under a criminal investigation.

[ReptilianPeon]

Does anyone know what's going on here? I also heard Michelle Obama deleted all of her tweets related to Hilary.

https://twitter.com/zachhaller/status/79...9917824000

Screenshot evidence Obama not following Hilary:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwMWVr5XEAUC12Q.jpg

screenshot evidence Michelle not following Hilary anymore:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwMWWIQWAAAmD5b.jpg

And a second tweet:

https://twitter.com/zachhaller/status/79...6059206656

This is just a stupid prank, totally false.
https://www.google.com/search?q=snopes+m...e&ie=UTF-8

Thanks!

[ReptilianPeon]

---

Wikileaks releases 25th batch of emails...

'Dump all those emails': Latest WikiLeaks tranche reveals #Podesta advice

https://www.rt.com/usa/364959-clinton-po...wikileaks/

"Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:57 PM, John Podesta <[email protected]> wrote: > On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have > to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later"

https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/41841

If elected Hillary would be the first president elect to be under a criminal investigation.

---

One of the things that annoys me is "intent" didn't matter so much when it was Chelsea Manning of Edward Snowden. The FBI invented a new standard for Hilary. Chelsea is now languishing in solitary confinement for exposing war crimes. I think it's disgusting. Apparently Iraqi lives don't matter!

[LadyForCamus]

I guess my point is, the state doesn't typically let mentally incapacitated people make other serious decisions about their life and health (DNR's, DNI's, ect.) so why should an abortion be different?

Suicidal ideation is not the same as something like schizophrenia (with an uncle who was schizophrenic, I've a vague idea of how bad that is), and while an abortion won't get rid of the underlying medical problems the sufferer is under, the fact that the event that is causing the person to contemplate and plan a suicide event is a big help in giving the medical authorities the space and time to be able to deal with the underlying issues and hopefully cure the problem.

It's no different ethically than giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy that would kill the foetus to cure her cancer.

I see your point. But, I think ethically speaking, there wouldn't be any reason not to at least attempt treatment first if her physician recommends it, and the woman consents to that particular plan of care. Some anti-depressants/anti-anxiety meds are safe to use during pregnancy where appropriate, depending on the patient's symptoms and underlying condition.

Honestly, I can imagine scenarios where abortion is the safest, most appropriate clinical decision, as well as scenarios where taking a shot at treatment first is a better option. Either way, I agree with you 100% that such decisions should be between a woman and her clinician. NOT the government.

[LadyForCamus]

The point at which you start saying no to abortions (with the important caveat that the life of the mother is still more important than the potential life of the foetus) is at the point where there's a reasonable chance of viability outside the womb. And that is still 24 weeks or so, the cut off point under UK legislation. Anything after that should need both the wishes of the mother and a genuine medical reason (and I consider suicidal ideation as genuine).

As I said though, "genuine medical reasons" can be subjective depending on the abortionist. That's the problem. Some abortionists will do late term abortions for any reason. In some states, an 8 month pregnant woman could walk in and say she no longer wants the baby and claim mental health reasons for it, and the abortionist can consider that "genuine medical reasons" and go through with the abortion. Also as I said, late term abortions are not an immediate necessity to save a mother's life. If the pregnancy is causing life threatening problems for the mom, such as preeclampsia or eclampsia, inducing labor and C section can be done instead to get the baby out - saving the mom while still giving the baby a chance of survival. Or at least sparing him/her from what would otherwise be an extremely painful, violent death. 

Late abortions often involve cutting the baby up into pieces and crushing his/her skull so that the remains are small enough to be extracted out. They can feel pain at this point. Can you imagine the pain of being killed by having your arms and legs cut off before getting your skull crushed? This is a horrible, horrible thing. Hillary is a vehement supporter of late term abortion on the basis of "women's rights" and I cannot stand behind her partially for that reason. 

My older sister was conceived when my mom was only 19 and the father was abusive and a drug dealer. Many people in my family at that time wanted my mom to abort her, including my grandfather who tried to force my mom into an abortion. My aunt (the only religious one in the family at that time) was the only person who fought for my sister's life and supported my pregnant mom when others in the family wouldn't. My sister is now 36 years old, a feminist to boot, and extremely pro life. She laughs at the notion that abortion is a "woman's right" when she, a woman, almost had her most basic fundamental human right taken away.

There could be other medical reasons though...like birth defects or genetic abnormalities that might not be discovered until late into the pregnancy due to the mother not having access to prenatal care sooner.

[LadyForCamus]

I can actually agree that simply outlawing abortion isn't the answer, and the article I posted touched on that as well. What we need to do is work towards building a culture that recognizes the value of all human life in all its stages... so that abortion becomes unthinkable to the vast majority of people. And Trump is absolutely not the guy who promotes this kind of respect for humanity. I do think abortion should be illegal, but I think it needs to get to that point in the right way. In a way that involves a changing of attitude towards life.

Creating a culture of life is a lovely idea, as if we arent striving for that already, but do you realize people who believe that human life start at conception are not actually less likely to have an abortion? People do not chose abortion because they don't care, they chose it because they are desperate.

We currently live in a world where violence is less tolerated than at any other time before us. If that alone were the answer, we would see rates dropping in relation, but we don't. Abortion rates only drop in relation to birth control access, health care access, and education. It is still legal federally, and our rates continue to drop. Yay!

You say you agree that simply outlawing it isn't the answer, but I'm trying to explain how it is never the answer. It might succeed in punishing many people, but it would not succeed in saving the lives of unborn children.

We need to remove the causes, the desperate situations. Outlawing it does nothing to that end, it is punitive only.

This.  ^^^

[Aroura]

I would like to point out that I consider myself pro-life. It do not think women should be using abortion as a kind of birth control, if avoidable. I just realize that the best way to accomplish this is to make them legal and safe, ensure children are taught about sex in a non judgemental way, and young people have access to health care and a variety of birth control. Also, stop stigmatized sex and childbirth outside of marriage. If childbirth out of wedlock is already viewed as shameful and a mortal sin, then what has that woman got to lose by terminating her pregnancy? Dogmatic rules about sex and procreation drive abortion rates up. I'm not just saying this, I can back it up with studies and statistics if asked.

But I am also pro-choice. It is not my place, nor the government's, to say when it is ok. There are too many possible places to draw the line, and since we've seen the lowest rates are in Western Europe where they are the most accessible, excluding Ireland of course where it is illegal and also more common, then we should not draw the line, but leave it up to doctors and families.

Now don't give me any slippery slope about late term abortions turning into murdering newborns.
The few times late term does happen outside of medical emergency, it happens because the woman didn't have access to the Healthcare she needed earlier! There are only 4 docs in America that even perform them, they won't become common.

Anyway, anyone who is truly pro-life should also be pro-choice. Because the one leads to the other.

[Pat Mustard]

Suicidal ideation is not the same as something like schizophrenia (with an uncle who was schizophrenic, I've a vague idea of how bad that is), and while an abortion won't get rid of the underlying medical problems the sufferer is under, the fact that the event that is causing the person to contemplate and plan a suicide event is a big help in giving the medical authorities the space and time to be able to deal with the underlying issues and hopefully cure the problem.

It's no different ethically than giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy that would kill the foetus to cure her cancer.

I see your point.  But, I think ethically speaking, there wouldn't be any reason not to at least attempt treatment first if her physician recommends it, and the woman consents to that particular plan of care.  Some anti-depressants/anti-anxiety meds are safe to use during pregnancy where appropriate, depending on the patient's symptoms and underlying condition.  

Honestly, I can imagine scenarios where abortion is the safest, most appropriate clinical decision, as well as scenarios where taking a shot at treatment first is a better option.  Either way, I agree with you 100% that such decisions should be between a woman and her clinician.  NOT the government.  

Sometimes abortion is part of the treatment. The fact of the matter is that suicidal ideation isn't the stage where you're thinking of suicide but the stage where you're planning it out, ie you've already made your decision and are looking to implement it. In cases like that professionals have to remove the immediate danger before dealing with the underlying problems. And in a case of a woman whio's pregnant and the thought of having a baby is driving her to suicide, an abortion is a medically valid procedure (with consent naturally).

In case you're wondering I'm not an expert, but I've had some training in suicide prevention work as part of the club's social and wellbeing responsibilities (you can easily find things to criticise the GAA for, but they take their social responsibility seriously), mostly in the area of spotting issues and dealing with people who look for help.

[Mister Agenda]

Is a fetus part of a woman's body or is it a distinct organism? I think it is hard to argue that fetuses serve any necessary biological function of a woman, similar to the way spleens or lungs do. As such, fetuses are not in fact parts of pregnant women's bodies. Therefore the argument that a right abortion is grounded in the woman's ownership of her body is a complete non sequitor.

One would think that for it to be a complete non sequitor, the fetus would have to be outside of the woman's body....

[LadyForCamus]

I see your point.  But, I think ethically speaking, there wouldn't be any reason not to at least attempt treatment first if her physician recommends it, and the woman consents to that particular plan of care.  Some anti-depressants/anti-anxiety meds are safe to use during pregnancy where appropriate, depending on the patient's symptoms and underlying condition.  

Honestly, I can imagine scenarios where abortion is the safest, most appropriate clinical decision, as well as scenarios where taking a shot at treatment first is a better option.  Either way, I agree with you 100% that such decisions should be between a woman and her clinician.  NOT the government.  

Sometimes abortion is part of the treatment. The fact of the matter is that suicidal ideation isn't the stage where you're thinking of suicide but the stage where you're planning it out, ie you've already made your decision and are looking to implement it. In cases like that professionals have to remove the immediate danger before dealing with the underlying problems. And in a case of a woman whio's pregnant and the thought of having a baby is driving her to suicide, an abortion is a medically valid procedure (with consent naturally).

In case you're wondering I'm not an expert, but I've had some training in suicide prevention work as part of the club's social and wellbeing responsibilities (you can easily find things to criticise the GAA for, but they take their social responsibility seriously), mostly in the area of spotting issues and dealing with people who look for help.

Okay, so you're specifically talking about situations where the the woman's life is in IMMEDIATE danger; not just someone who is expressing feelings of depression, or admitting to having had suicidal thoughts.  I'd have to agree with you then, hard as that is for me to reconcile emotionally. It's heartbreaking to think how it ever comes to that for some people.