KillingtonZone.com

easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 19:48

Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 10:00 At what point, if any, does the child within gain any rights?

I think this is the central question. The Planned Parenthood vs Casey case addressed it with a compromise - before the fetus is viable outside the womb, it has no rights, and the state can't restrict abortion. Once it becomes viable outside the womb, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting it, and can restrict abortion.

I tend to lean toward not having the state interfere in the private decisions of individuals. At the same time I find late term abortions to be a repulsive concept in this day and age.

Nobody finds late term abortions to be appealing - but the reality is that late term abortions are never what the far right propaganda wants you to believe. Nobody goes through that many months of pregnancy and then just decides "gee I think I just don't want to be pregnant anymore, i'm going to get an abortion tomorrow". These occur almost exclusively due to some sort of extenuating circumstance: health of the mother, fetal viability etc etc. These are people who plan to have a baby and then get the worst news they can imagine and have to make a difficult decision that should only be between them, their doctor, their partner if they have one and whatever spiritual, religious or mental health councilor they choose to confide in. The only thing worse than having to make that decision would be having government making it for you.

On another note - if you really want to see an increase in later term abortions, wait until all these backwards states start banning abortion in its entirety and it takes less privileged women that long to put together the funds to travel to a state that isn't putting government in charge of their reproductive health care.

Bingo

Many more late term abortions will happen due to economic hardship of getting to a legal provider

I'll also add, the way this Roe v Wade is going down and pushing the law to the states, you'll see plenty of examples of wealthy "conservative" politicians being total hypocrites and sending pregnant daughters across state lines to get an abortion.

Abortion will always remain accessible to the wealthy and excused.

deadheadskier wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 23:08

I'll also add, the way this Roe v Wade is going down and pushing the law to the states, you'll see plenty of examples of wealthy "conservative" politicians being total hypocrites and sending pregnant daughters across state lines to get an abortion.

Don’t forget about their mistresses as well - a red states representatives' mistress will always have access to free, save and easy abortion services.

boston_e wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 20:07 These occur almost exclusively due to some sort of extenuating circumstance: health of the mother, fetal viability etc etc. These are people who plan to have a baby and then get the worst news they can imagine and have to make a difficult decision that should only be between them, their doctor, their partner if they have one and whatever spiritual, religious or mental health councilor they choose to confide in. The only thing worse than having to make that decision would be having government making it for you.

I agree with this sentiment generally. I get that these are the most personal of decisions and I'm not sure we should be letting the government get too involved. That said, the government gets involved in some very intimate areas of our lives. For example the government can come in and take your kids away if you are neglecting or abusing them. In a typical Care and Protection case in Massachusetts, this power can be incredibly invasive, subjecting parents to psych testing, counseling, home inspections, etc.

So on that notion, I think it may make sense in some circumstances for government to regulate late term abortions. But I also think there should be exceptions for extenuating circumstances like incurable disease, health/life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 20th, '22, 10:21

boston_e wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 20:07 These occur almost exclusively due to some sort of extenuating circumstance: health of the mother, fetal viability etc etc. These are people who plan to have a baby and then get the worst news they can imagine and have to make a difficult decision that should only be between them, their doctor, their partner if they have one and whatever spiritual, religious or mental health councilor they choose to confide in. The only thing worse than having to make that decision would be having government making it for you.

So on that notion, I think it may make sense in some circumstances for government to regulate late term abortions. But I also think there should be exceptions for extenuating circumstances like incurable disease, health/life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

Right - so essentially you are looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist. Nobody is getting late term abortions when there are not extenuating circumstances.

As mentioned previously - if some of these red states start passing draconian laws in an attempt to outlaw all abortion we will see an increase in late term abortions with the extenuating circumstance being the cost, time and effort to get to a state where it is safe and legal.

How about we just mandate vasectomies on all US males at age 10. You want a kid later? Harvest the sperm and artificially inseminate.

What's that you say? You don't think it's right for the government to forcefully dictate what you do with your body? Oh

deadheadskier wrote: ↑May 20th, '22, 11:51 How about we just mandate vasectomies on all US males at age 10. You want a kid later? Harvest the sperm and artificially inseminate.

What's that you say? You don't think it's right for the government to forcefully dictate what you do with your body? Oh

Life at ejaculation? We're all f***.

throbster wrote: ↑Apr 20th, '22, 10:38

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Apr 20th, '22, 08:45 I think you're wrong about this hitting Disney's wallet. We should place a wager. If Disney's park revenue increases in 2022, you keep Biden's presidential portrait (unmodified) as your avatar for the entirety of 2023. I will do the same, but with Trump, if park revenue decreases in 2022. Agree?

I'll take that wager.

https://tampa.cbslocal.com/2022/04/19/t ... s-mount-1/

File this under "throbster could not have been more wrong"

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3871038-d ... nings-beat

Looking forward to seeing throbster post that portrait of Biden as his avatar...

There is no shortage of mouth breathers who thinks Disney World/Land is the ultimate vacation. Let's wait for the year end report.

throbster wrote: ↑Aug 11th, '22, 08:47 There is no shortage of mouth breathers who thinks Disney World/Land is the ultimate vacation. Let's wait for the year end report.

Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q1/2022 was $7.2B, compared to $3.5B in the prior-year (Q1/2021).
Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q2/2022 was $6.7B, compared to $3.2B in the prior-year (Q2/2021).
Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q3/2022 was $7.4B, compared to $4.3B in the prior-year (Q3/2021).

Revenues for the parks are up $10.3B in the first 3Q over prior year. In order for you not to lose the wager, parks would need to experience a catastrophic loss in Q4. Q4 is historically one of parks strongest quarters.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Aug 11th, '22, 10:25

throbster wrote: ↑Aug 11th, '22, 08:47 There is no shortage of mouth breathers who thinks Disney World/Land is the ultimate vacation. Let's wait for the year end report.

Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q1/2022 was $7.2B, compared to $3.5B in the prior-year (Q1/2021).
Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q2/2022 was $6.7B, compared to $3.2B in the prior-year (Q2/2021).
Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q3/2022 was $7.4B, compared to $4.3B in the prior-year (Q3/2021).

Revenues for the parks are up $10.3B in the first 3Q over prior year. In order for you not to lose the wager, parks would need to experience a catastrophic loss in Q4. Q4 is historically one of parks strongest quarters.

Proof I guess that the corporate welfare for Disney was not necessary

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Aug 11th, '22, 10:25

throbster wrote: ↑Aug 11th, '22, 08:47 There is no shortage of mouth breathers who thinks Disney World/Land is the ultimate vacation. Let's wait for the year end report.

Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q1/2022 was $7.2B, compared to $3.5B in the prior-year (Q1/2021).
Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q2/2022 was $6.7B, compared to $3.2B in the prior-year (Q2/2021).
Disney Parks, Experiences and Products segment revenue for Q3/2022 was $7.4B, compared to $4.3B in the prior-year (Q3/2021).

Revenues for the parks are up $10.3B in the first 3Q over prior year. In order for you not to lose the wager, parks would need to experience a catastrophic loss in Q4. Q4 is historically one of parks strongest quarters.

I'm too lazy to look this up, but could you compare 2019 to 2022? The figures from 2020, and 2021 are corrupted by COVID. Even the 2022 figures may be corrupted by COVID as people seemed to be wanting to get out this year in spite of ridiculous prices and delays.

$26 bil in 2019 for parks segment. They are set to blow it away by the end of the year. I agree, much of that might be pent-up demand, and 2023 might not look so great when compared to 2022.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Aug 11th, '22, 16:22 $26 bil in 2019 for parks segment. They are set to blow it away by the end of the year. I agree, much of that might be pent-up demand, and 2023 might not look so great when compared to 2022.

Thanks. I like apples to apples, and until pent up demand erodes, we apples to oranges in my opinion.

throbster wrote: ↑Aug 11th, '22, 12:01 Proof I guess that the corporate welfare for Disney was not necessary

Based on your previous comments, can we assume if Disney's profit exceeds $1B, you would strongly object to them having to pay a minimum of 15% in federal taxes as that would be inflationary? Yes?