EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7405
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 26 2017 23:29 maybenexttime wrote: Point taken. Doesn't invalidate the fact that discussing morality of abortion is very relevant. I'd argue that being harmful to the society makes it immoral. Either way, morality has a place when discussing the legality of an action. As pointed out by Acrofales, sometimes things are made illegal for pragmatic reasons. Doesn't change the fact that many are illegal for moral reasons, which could very well include speeding and trespassing. I also never claimed that an action being immoral should necessarily mean that it should be illegal. It's still an important factor that cannot be dismissed, especially when dealing with one's right to live. Then by that theory, outlawing abortion is immoral because it is harmful to society. Outlawing it would have a disproportionally negative impact the poor and poorly educated. It would also lead to black market abortions and other issues we have historically seen countries where abortion is illegal. Outlawing abortion has no positive for collective society. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On April 26 2017 23:32 pmh wrote: Lol,this bashing is getting ridiculous now. like wth? https://www.yahoo.com/news/giant-rabbit-dies-united-airlines-flight-united-states-101229322--finance.html I really don't understand how such minor airline stories become national news (even before the United passenger fiasco). And even that fiasco itself. I guess people get really frustrated with air travel. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 26 2017 23:43 Plansix wrote: Then by that theory, outlawing abortion is immoral because it is harmful to society. Outlawing it would have a disproportionally negative impact the poor and poorly educated. It would also lead to black market abortions and other issues we have historically seen countries where abortion is illegal. Outlawing abortion has no positive for collective society. You might as well not put it in a hypothetical (by that theory). You know you fully support the idea that it's immoral/unconscionable. You might as well about-face and admit the morality of full availability and the morality of possible restrictions absolutely have a place in a US politics thread. It's the principal issue of disagreement and you don't have to surrender the other considerations in play. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 26 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote: You might as well not put it in a hypothetical (by that theory). You know you fully support the idea that it's immoral/unconscionable. You might as well about-face and admit the morality of full availability and the morality of possible restrictions absolutely have a place in a US politics thread. It's the principal issue of disagreement and you don't have to surrender the other considerations in play. A discussion on abortion limited to only morality has no place in a politics thread. Personal morality by nature is subjective. A discussion about the laws related to abortion, the reasons behind them does have a place. Collective and cultural morality can be one of those reasons for the laws. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35156 Posts
On April 26 2017 23:35 Mohdoo wrote: lol THIS MAN HAD A FUTURE!! :'( The fact that it's a rabbit that died on the way to O'Hare is a cruel coincidence. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Mr. Comey’s plan was to tell Congress that the F.B.I. had received new evidence and was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton, the presidential front-runner. The move would violate the policies of an agency that does not reveal its investigations or do anything that may influence an election. But Mr. Comey had declared the case closed, and he believed he was obligated to tell Congress that had changed. [...] The Justice Department knew a criminal investigation was underway, but officials said they were being technically accurate about the nature of the referral. Some at the F.B.I. suspected that Democratic appointees were playing semantic games to help Mrs. Clinton, who immediately seized on the statement to play down the issue. “It is not a criminal investigation,” she said, incorrectly. “It is a security review.” [...] At the meeting, everyone agreed that Mr. Comey should not reveal details about the Clinton investigation. But Ms. Lynch told him to be even more circumspect: Do not even call it an investigation, she said, according to three people who attended the meeting. Call it a “matter.” [...] At the meeting, everyone agreed that Mr. Comey should not reveal details about the Clinton investigation. But Ms. Lynch told him to be even more circumspect: Do not even call it an investigation, she said, according to three people who attended the meeting. Call it a “matter.” [...] During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention. The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document. [...] The script had been edited and revised several times, former officials said. Mr. Strzok, Mr. Steinbach, lawyers and others debated every phrase. Speaking so openly about a closed case is rare, and the decision to do so was not unanimous, officials said. But the team ultimately agreed that there was an obligation to inform American voters. “We didn’t want anyone to say, ‘If I just knew that, I wouldn’t have voted that way,’” Mr. Steinbach said. “You can argue that’s not the F.B.I.’s job, but there was no playbook for this. This is somebody who’s going to be president of the United States.” Mr. Comey’s criticism — his description of her carelessness — was the most controversial part of the speech. Agents and prosecutors have been reprimanded for injecting their legal conclusions with personal opinions. But those close to Mr. Comey say he has no regrets. By scolding Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Comey was speaking not only to voters but to his own agents. While they agreed that Mrs. Clinton should not face charges, many viewed her conduct as inexcusable. Mr. Comey’s remarks made clear that the F.B.I. did not approve. Former agents and others close to Mr. Comey acknowledge that his reproach was also intended to insulate the F.B.I. from Republican criticism that it was too lenient toward a Democrat. New York Times It's a long article, so I've only quoted some paragraphs to whet the reader's appetite to read it all in context. The New York Times interviewed more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional and other government officials in the making of the report. It reveals the deep clash between Comey and Lynch, a document that complicated future accusations of partisanship, and Comey's internal struggles at the FBI. In my view, his handling or failure to handle the investigation into Clinton's misbehavior while Secretary of State was always a bigger story than Russia. The article also brings into context how Trump's investigation was handled differently, so go read "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election." "Should you consider what you’re about to do may help elect Donald Trump president?" - FBI agent "If we ever start considering who might be affected, and in what way, by what we do, we’re done" -James Comey | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:14 LegalLord wrote: Regardless of where you folk actually stand on the abortion issue, can we all agree that the Democratic party apparatus is stupid for crucifying their candidate over a mildly anti-abortion bill from eight years ago in a deeply red state? I can moderately agree with that. To win more I think the dems need to try to accept such things to get more Democrats in very red states. I don't know if the party cohesion will be able to manage tho, that's a hard thing to assess and measure, as both parties have been getting less tolerant of variation for a long time now. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:12 Plansix wrote: A discussion on abortion limited to only morality has no place in a politics thread. Personal morality by nature is subjective. A discussion about the laws related to abortion, the reasons behind them does have a place. Collective and cultural morality can be one of those reasons for the laws. If you've indeed transitioned from "morality has no place" to "it shouldn't be limited to morality," I've gained my point and salute you. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5602 Posts
On April 26 2017 22:00 Acrofales wrote: Absolutely. Actions have consequences. So lets consider the actions, and the potential consequences in the case of abortion. In fact, lets consider the (for my standpoint) worst case scenario: a mature woman has completely unprotected sex and actually wants a child. 6 months and a completely normal pregnancy later, she comes to the insight that she actually doesn't want a child after all. I think this is reprehensible. Nevertheless, I think she has the right to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of what that does to the fetus. Because the intention of the act is not to kill a person. It is an unfortunate consequence of the act because that person is incapable of sustaining life on its own. If that is your problem with the situation, then lets go with another thought experiment. Your opinion is noted. I disagree. I think it is both reprehensible and should not be allowed. I don't think the intention of the act is relevant here. Some consequences are inseparably tied. E.g., if I set a building on fire because I want to admire the sight, does that absolve me from killing the people that were inside, simply because that wasn't my intention? You also ignore the fact that abortion in practice is done by actually killing the fetus, not by simply letting it die. Do you acknowledge the difference between the two? You agreed that actions have consequences. Can you also explicitly agree that certain actions can lead one to forfeit some of one's liberty, as is the case with killing in self-defense? A building has collapsed, and I am trapped by a block of concrete crushing my leg. The rescue workers are on their way and will be there in 5 minutes. There is a wall that is slowly collapsing, and you are the only thing holding it from crushing my skull. You know that if you hold on for 5 minutes longer, we will both be rescued, and furthermore, you know you are fully capable of holding on for those 5 minutes, probably without much damage to your own health, but there is a small chance of debilitating injury or even death. Are you obliged to stop that wall from crushing me? And what if you were responsible (throug a stupid mistake like leaving the gas open) for the building collapsing? My position is that there can be certain circumstances when abortion can be permissible. One of such instances is the risk of the mother losing her life (as determined by the doctor). Nobody is required to risk one's life for another person, despite this being a noble course of action. As for being responsible for the building collapsing, you'd have to be aware of the fact that your action could have such consequences. So while the analogy is quite close, it's not exactly correct to compare the two. Whatever the chance is, it doesn't really matter. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies aren't for the reasons above. They are mistakes. Possibly stupid ones, and possibly unforeseeable ones (e.g. the condom tore, or that 1 in a few thousand chance that the contraceptive pill fails to do its job). Mostly for pragmatic reasons, we shouldn't really care: writing up a complex code that is mostly unverifiable for when abortions are permitted to try to distinguish shitty luck, stupid mistakes or despiccable choices is simply not going to work: we can't read peoples' minds, and the 5th amendment explicitly protects them from having to incriminate themselves. I agree. Which is why I think it's so important to determine whether we're dealing with a person. Without that it's hard to consider what type of legislation would be the lesser evil. That said, I do agree with you that at some point, the mother (and father) enter a social contract with the child and commit to care for it. I feel, in fact, that there are two contracts. The first is with the parents, and the second with society as a whole. As society, we should take care of our vulnerable members, and who is more vulnerable than an unwanted child. Thus if the parents do not take their responsiblity, we should step in. Orphanages, foster homes and the adoption system should be made to function as well as we can. But parents also have a very clear responsibility of care. And in most cases, that works just fine. In the cases where the parents clearly do not want the baby, they should be able to cede that responsibility to society, possibly at a cost. And that cost should clearly depend on the actions so far. Putting restrictions or a fine on late-term abortions is something we can discuss. The same for post-birth giving it up for adoption. But there doesn't seem to be much point in forcing a mother (parents) to care for a child they don't want and are possibly even incapable of caring for. And that starts with pregnancy,. I agree regarding the social contracts, except that in my opinion it is reasonable to expect from the mother to carry the pregnancy to term, unless there was no agency on her part (rape), the child has a fatal defect or the woman's health or life is at risk. I don't think assisted suicide is murder. But in any case, the fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its life, the mother has the right to revoke permission to use her body. I wouldn't classify that as murder. As kwark's example of being a bone marrow donor: if kwark had revoked his permission to harvest bone marrow (I think? his exact words were stem cells) at the last moment he would effectively have killed the recepient. Nevertheless, that would not be classified as murder. As the law stands right now, not preventing the wall in the thought experiment above from collapsing would also not be murder (unless they could somehow prove that your intention was explicitly to kill me, and not to prevent harm to yourself). That said, I think that certain restrictions on abortion are completely okay. But those restrictions should not be imposed to erect some kind of artificial barrier on having an abortion. But because abortion is (can be) a particularly traumatic experience, and we need to be sure that the woman asking for an abortion is fully aware and has thought it through: it is a deliberated choice. It has the consequence of ending a human life, and that choice should be given the gravitas it deserves. I don't think assisted suicide is murder either. Murder means killing someone against their will, I thought that was implied. You also dodged the fact that abortion in practice isn't merely revoking permission. It's done through actually killing the fetus. It's active, not passive. I also argue that the mother, through her actions, forfeited some of her liberty. Do you think the mother should be able to simply choose not to forfeit her right to bodily autonomy? What about killing in self-defense then? Do you think it's reasonable for the court to charge me with manslaughter/murder if you tried to kill me, while shouting "I do not forfeit my right to live", and I killed you as a result? Would the court determine that, while you indeed tried to kill me, you chose not to forfeit your right to live, and it was therefore not okay for me to kill you? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:13 Gahlo wrote: The fact that it's a rabbit that died on the way to O'Hare is a cruel coincidence. Forgive my stupid OT comment: I was recently doing a pub trivia thing and a question was about major airports. We voted for O'Hare because we had no idea what the answer was, but Bucky was awesome. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:14 LegalLord wrote: Regardless of where you folk actually stand on the abortion issue, can we all agree that the Democratic party apparatus is stupid for crucifying their candidate over a mildly anti-abortion bill from eight years ago in a deeply red state? They can’t ignore it. They are better off putting him on blast themselves and addressing it up front than acting like they didn’t know or care. Control the message, rather than let it just explode all on its own. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:23 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/857177434210304001 lol is trump expected to be there for the hearing? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:25 Mohdoo wrote: lol is trump expected to be there for the hearing? I like the part where he thinks the Supreme Court is even required to hear his challenge to the ruling. They could just say “nope, that is good as is.” | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:15 Danglars wrote: New York Times It's a long article, so I've only quoted some paragraphs to whet the reader's appetite to read it all in context. The New York Times interviewed more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional and other government officials in the making of the report. It reveals the deep clash between Comey and Lynch, a document that complicated future accusations of partisanship, and Comey's internal struggles at the FBI. In my view, his handling or failure to handle the investigation into Clinton's misbehavior while Secretary of State was always a bigger story than Russia. The article also brings into context how Trump's investigation was handled differently, so go read "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election." "Should you consider what you’re about to do may help elect Donald Trump president?" - FBI agent "If we ever start considering who might be affected, and in what way, by what we do, we’re done" -James Comey Trump got very, very lucky to win. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5602 Posts
On April 26 2017 23:43 Plansix wrote: Then by that theory, outlawing abortion is immoral because it is harmful to society. Outlawing it would have a disproportionally negative impact the poor and poorly educated. It would also lead to black market abortions and other issues we have historically seen countries where abortion is illegal. Outlawing abortion has no positive for collective society. It's a valid proposition and should be considered carefully. It doesn't necessarily mean that being harmful to the society outweighs potentially killing a person. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:14 LegalLord wrote: Regardless of where you folk actually stand on the abortion issue, can we all agree that the Democratic party apparatus is stupid for crucifying their candidate over a mildly anti-abortion bill from eight years ago in a deeply red state? I think there's no going back from the 2016 Democratic Party platform. Any hint of opposition to a core women's health issue is going to be hounded by PP-related groups.
U.S. abortion law (which permits abortion for any reason until viability, about 22 to 23 weeks) already makes many progressive countries in Europe (which set their threshold for abortion at 12 to 13 weeks) look like pro-life radicals. Now the Democratic platform pushes the party to roll back even the very modest abortion regulations currently on the books. Sixty-four Democrats voted for the antiabortion Stupak amendment to the Affordable Care Act; 88% of those seats went to Republicans after Democrats were tied to the assertion that Obamacare funded abortion. Former Democratic Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who lost his bid for reelection, noted that antiabortion voters didn’t stop sending people to Congress: “They just stopped sending Democrats.” LA Times (Op-Ed) Back to the broader topic, if you phrase the objections differently: the right to choose abortion should be celebrated. You need the hardcore supporters that believe that in your party, and that bill is old but isn't in keeping with that thought. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:15 Danglars wrote: "Should you consider what you’re about to do may help elect Donald Trump president?" - FBI agent "If we ever start considering who might be affected, and in what way, by what we do, we’re done" -James Comey Great quote. | ||
| ||
