EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3637
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On May 13 2022 06:38 ChristianS wrote: I think the more important policy barometer in the near future is likely to be how you think interstate differences in policy should be handled. If someone goes to CA to get an abortion, is that a crime? “Yes” would appear to conflict with normal conservative doctrine of federalism, “no” would undermine most of the moral weight of the cause. Was all this worth it just to make people drive further to get the abortions? It would shock me if very many conservatives actually said they value the federalism part more; hardly anybody actually weights process concerns like that over getting real results on the issues. That sets up a legal standoff over jurisdictional issues. No idea how it turns out but we could get providers in blue states which make a point of guaranteeing, one way or another, that no medical information will be disclosed to other states’ law enforcement. This is what I have been thinking lately. We are getting to the point where states are so wildly different that it almost invalidates state laws. It started with weed legalization. Republicans will need to eventually decide if they actually want to stop abortions or if it is just posturing. When you can drive 30 min or take a plane to get an abortion, what’s the point in banning it in your state? Can states sue each other? Assuming not after the weed legalization stuff. 20 years in prison vs totally legal should have been where this crystallizes, so I guess nothing can be done? Federalism wins? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
On May 13 2022 07:15 JimmiC wrote: This article does not specifically say on out of state but it does make anything after the act of feralization homicide, both the mom and doctor as perpetrators. It would also include some forms of birth control as murder. My guess is they would go for out of state people and ask for extradition because that is what they would do for other murder clients, unless of course it was some rich donor then I'm sure exceptions could be made. As to doc's earlier point about it being just one out their Republican (right before he tried to say one out there Dem spoke for all Dems and also had to make up what they said to make it awful), this bill has made it through the committee with a 7-2 vote and is now in the states House of Reps for consideration. https://globalnews.ca/news/8814551/louisiana-abortion-bill-ban-fertilization/ Here are some low lights: Jimmi you should know that this is grossly unfair, a true smear to conservatives and the GOP to note things they are actively doing. Do better please. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
On May 13 2022 07:31 Mohdoo wrote: This is what I have been thinking lately. We are getting to the point where states are so wildly different that it almost invalidates state laws. It started with weed legalization. Republicans will need to eventually decide if they actually want to stop abortions or if it is just posturing. When you can drive 30 min or take a plane to get an abortion, what’s the point in banning it in your state? Can states sue each other? Assuming not after the weed legalization stuff. 20 years in prison vs totally legal should have been where this crystallizes, so I guess nothing can be done? Federalism wins? I’m unsure how it will work in the States In Northern Ireland it was get a plane/boat to the mainland, and latterly a bus to the South when they liberalised before we did, which is insane if you consider the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on social policy for so long. If you can afford it, as these things tend to work. Those are between jurisdictions and polities we have full citizenship rights for both if we fancy, I’m unsure how state jurisdictions work | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On May 13 2022 06:51 JimmiC wrote: My one point was you are being unnecessarly dickish and you managed to make that point better than I ever could so thank you. I was referencing this classic BJ sentance here " That way we can create a barometer on how much each of us hates and wants to control women". There was no need for it other than to be an asshole. And then some point later in the conversation we are likely going to hear from you about how you are victim because you are a conservative, when really it is just people putting back what you put out. For most doctors, who ultimately will make the call it is not about controlling the body but about the fetal development and to what point they feel comfortable aborting it. They base that on how they know the development of the fetus which remains consistent for most humans within a small margin of error. It has been pointed out time and time again that almost no women wait until ultra late to have an abortion there are tons of reasons for this whether it be because they are now to attached, if you were going to do it why would you put that level of stress on your body, most people do not want others to know, and so on and so on. The VAST majority of people getting late term abortions are because of medical reasons and it is fucking hard on them enough that they do not need some assholes outside of the clinic throwing paint on them or telling them they are going to hell. So for 5 pages we can talk about how Introvert and his ilk just want to control women's bodies but if I imply that banning abortion at some other point is also exerting control over a woman's body to a lesser extent then you want to cry foul? Yet I'm the one playing victim? | ||
micronesia
United States24698 Posts
On May 13 2022 07:31 Mohdoo wrote: When you can drive 30 min or take a plane to get an abortion, what’s the point in banning it in your state? I believe the answer to this question is to punish and suppress lower-income residents. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
On May 13 2022 08:36 micronesia wrote: I believe the answer to this question is to punish and suppress lower-income residents. I doubt it’s the intent, just the consequence. As I doubt (in the populace, not so much legislators) that a preference for voter ID laws doesn’t stem from a desire to fuck poor people over. I’m waiting with baited breath, if Roe vs Wade gets passed and various state laws come in its place for the first case of a pro-life legislator paying for his mistress, or as is less likely, spouse to have an abortion out of state. That’s 100% happening | ||
|
Introvert
United States4789 Posts
On May 13 2022 04:57 Liquid`Drone wrote: Introvert, I have a question. What is your ideal abortion law? Because I get that you're annoyed by the 'pro-life' movement being mis-characterized or whatever - but I haven't seen you actually cite your own opinion, besides saying that you're happy to see roe repealed. Then you're basically attacking some of the interpretations some people are citing as the possible new future (for example thinking that the life of the mother won't be a valid reason). I agree that I think most states will at least allow permissions for the life of the mother (however, I'm not equally sure about rape/incest, nor about 'serious health issue' for the mother/baby). Then I see you state that 'some states will have sane laws', that '... draws the line about where most Americans would like to see it drawn. 15ish weeks.', that 'Democrats have gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to considering a law in line with a number of European nations as a great blow against human rights'. Essentially, it sounds like you're constructing your argument like you are arguing in favor of woman's right to choose until week 15 but against late term abortions, but I had the impression your own opinion was actually quite a bit more restrictive than that. Would love to know what, in your mind, constitutes grounds for legal abortion. I was going to pull back but since you asked I'll answer. Your guess is a good one. The "ideal" law is the earliest ban date politically feasible. Once the pregnancy begins I don't see how I could consistently argue it goes from "ok" to "bad" at some point. Only bad to worse. So banning it too early could possibly cause a backlash, and that's to be avoided. I do think some pro-abortion people hold that position for terrible reasons because they are terrible people, but I think most people are just wrong. Given all that, we can hopefully voluntarily work the number of abortions down and concomitantly work them down legally as well. There's obviously danger in using a utilitarian approach but I'm not dictator of America so I don't see a choice. So, when I talk about sane laws I have in mind things like 1st trimester and later restrictions, with exceptions for risk to the mother's life. I don't see a scenario where the life of the potential mom is not considered an exception. There are arguments about how various health provisions can be used as loopholes (the infamous abortion act that Reagan signed as governor of CA had a vague health exception that caused abortion rates to skyrocket beyond what many thought). You don't have to believe me, but these exceptions for life of the mother aren't going anywhere. Just like no one is going to be prosecuted for a miscarriage or a still birth. And we can see at least one reason why that would be unlikely. Those tragedies happen to everyone, "Christian ethnofacists" or whatever are not magically immune to those things. There isn't some life experience people on the pro-life side are missing out on that would cause them to see those things as conscious decisions by moral actors. Rape and incest are thornier, because there is valid disgust at those things, and at least in the case of rape the pregnancy is not by choice. At the same time, it's not the kids fault and it seems wrong to take it out on him/her. So the case of rape is still something I think about and I don't judge anyone who thinks either way on that. So with that in mind, I don't think the moral wrong done is the same at all stages, it certainly gets worse as the fetus develops, and obviously by a certain point the child would be perfectly healthy (or even imperfectly healthy) when born even if technically early. Doing it at that stage seems to me to be simply evil. Thankfully that's rare. We could get into the weeds on things like fetal pain or whether we consider a "heartbeat" however we define it, as different stages but I don't think anyone here is arguing the extremist position that 6 months is the same as 2 months. Sincerely, I'm not dodging here, I just think there is general agreement on this point even if the particulars are debatable. I really am trying to be chartable here (though I'm certainly not perfect), as this is a complex topic with a lot of emotional and moral components. A kid is a decades long (hopefully lifelong) commitment and so for the minority of the population who would consider abortion, this has a greater influence on their lives than the marginal tax rate in their state. It's still kind of hard for me to imagine the good reason for calling a ban at 15 weeks all the things it's been called. I would hope that because of emotional weight and long term consequences we would be able to discuss this giving it the weight it deserves, but unfortunately at least in America it seems that this causes a more uncharitable response instead. So my personal position is the extreme but the position I immediately advocate for is more permissive, as I think that's ultimately going to work better and cause fewer abortions long term. Now I'm not married and I have no children, but I would not consider marrying someone who would consider getting an abortion, for instance. I'm not "banning" her from doing it, I'm just not risking a relationship with that person in the first place. I debated for a while here how to answer this question because I don't pretend to be able to properly balance all the different moral considerations here, but ultimately I thought about what I do in my own life and I guess that makes it the "ideal." | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
I mean I draw my personal line at viability, but that’s pretty fraught with issues. It essentially demarcates between abortion being fine, and not fine for the sake of waiting a week, which yeah. Not ideal. One thing I would say for a pro-life position is well, it’s consistent. A pro-choice angle is always going to have some arbitrary period drawn on the scale, and to me that’s a bit wonky. If we’re categorising what constitutes life, a pro-life position has a very clear binary equation there, pro-choice you run the gamut of all sorts of differing views on that point. I think there’s a certain blind spot as to that question in the rush to judge pro-lifers as woman haters or whatever. If you can’t definitively demarcate between life and non-life, it’s a tricky proposition. I will judge people as women haters because invariably everything they propose unduly puts any and all burdens at their door, but I don’t think the base question is inherently that. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4789 Posts
On May 13 2022 09:47 JimmiC wrote: Can you source the regan thing? I have not read about it. 15 weeks is not that far from what is currently acceptable in most clinics and hospitals here in canada. They range from 12-24 weeks partly due to hospital capabilities. I do not see any available data but in the US a very small amount is after 21 weeks and almost all of those are for medical reasons. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/07/abortion-late-term-what-pregnancy-stage I don't recall where I initially read it but quick googling found this NR article which I will post below in its entirety. I don't know where the number of 518 to over 100k comes from however, but my memory says that's correct. Although I suppose it could be argued many were unreported before it's legalization. Obv Roe was in 71 so I'm not sure how much was the CA law and how much was Roe. For the *average* to go that high it can't be all Roe. Reagan’s Darkest Hour "Therapeutic" abortion in California. As president, Ronald Reagan was an unflagging champion of unborn human life. “Today there is a wound in our national conscience,” Reagan told a joint session of Congress in his 1986 State of the Union. “America will never be whole as long as the right to life granted by our Creator is denied to the unborn.” But honest discussions of Reagan’s record on the abortion issue admit that as California governor he signed into law a liberalization of abortion that led to an explosion of abortions in the nation’s largest state. Reagan critics and supporters alike recognize this fact — one that is particularly tough to swallow for staunch pro-lifers. The full story, however, is more complicated — and worth setting straight now, 35 years after Roe v. Wade. On June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill was an ironic beginning for a man often seen as the modern father of the pro-life movement. How did this happen? When the issue surfaced in the first months of his governorship, Reagan was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue that it is today. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.” Moreover, his aides were divided on the question. Reagan began to vigorously study the issue and the Therapeutic Abortion Act. He asked his longtime adviser and Cabinet secretary Bill Clark — a devout Catholic who had contemplated the priesthood — for counsel. “Bill, I’ve got to know more — theologically, philosophically, medically,” Reagan confided. Clark loaded up the governor with a box of reading materials, which he took home and read in semi-seclusion. Edmund Morris later said that, by the time the Therapeutic Abortion Act reached his desk, “Reagan was quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas.” Years later, Reagan remarked that he did “more studying and soul searching” on the issue than any other as governor. Nonetheless, he signed the bill. Reagan and his staff calculated that if he vetoed the bill, his veto would be overridden by the state legislature. Therefore, he decided to do what he could to make the bill less harmful, arguing for the insertion of certain language that eliminated its worst features and allowed for abortion only in rare cases — such as rape or incest, or where pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother. The Therapeutic Abortion Act became law. And as would happen with nearly every abortion law in the years ahead, the mental-health provision was abused by patient and doctor alike. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon notes that even the bill’s Democratic sponsor confessed to being surprised that physicians so liberally interpreted the law. Reagan was shocked at the unintended consequences of his action. Morris said Reagan was left with an “undefinable sense of guilt” after watching abortions skyrocket. Cannon claims this was “the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation.” Clark called the incident “perhaps Reagan’s greatest disappointment in public life.” For Reagan, one good thing did come out of this disappointment. As Georgetown’s Matt Sitman notes, “It is impossible to understand his later staunchly pro-life positions without grasping the lessons he learned from this early political battle.” Reagan, says Sitman, survived the ordeal with a “profoundly intellectual understanding of the abortion issue…. It was in 1967 that his ideas concerning the beginning of human life were fully formed.” He now had a cogent understanding, politically and morally, of abortion and its implications. Reagan would later denounce abortion so strongly and so frequently from the Oval Office that Bill Clark has compiled a 45-page document of Reagan’s quotes on abortion, collected from the official Presidential Papers. Reagan even authored a small book — Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, featuring contributions from Bill Clark, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Mother Teresa — that was published by the Human Life Foundation in 1984. White House moderates wanted Reagan to delay publication until after the 1984 election, fearing it would turn off pro-choice Republicans, but Reagan refused. He would not be burned again on abortion. No more compromises. Ronald Reagan emerged from 1967 repentant, but ready for future battles. The damage was done; of course, the results were nothing compared to the travesty that a group of men in black robes in Washington were planning six years later. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
To my loose understanding, the fetus's brain takes on critical features of a born human's in the third trimester. So, abortion should be uncontroversial prior to that point. But of course you'd need to consult experts/research to establish which specific week to put the cutoff. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11540 Posts
On May 13 2022 10:38 JimmiC wrote: Thank you for posting, clearly an editorial from someone who is favor for baning abortion but a good place to start and interesting to read about Regans personal journey. With knowing the name of the act I did some more reading. As you mention it is hard to know hoe many were happening before, but clearly lots and they were dangerous based on the number of women dying before they were legal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_California And well I know that using the term pro abortion is in response to people calling you pro forced birth, i would say almost no one is pro-abortion. Most, to the point where saying all wouldnt be that far off, want as little abortions as possible. Proof of this is that most abortion clinics require some sort of counciling amd education component. Almost all believe in free amd easy access to contriception and sex education for everyone. The reality is most pro choice people are not focused on how it "should" be, but rather how it is, and they are actively trying to make society a place where there are as few unwanted pregnacies as possible. The reason for this is not just because we want less abortions but also because we believe that unwanted babies are a huge societal problem and us thinking or wanting the parents to be responsible good parents is not going to just happen. And that is not because the parents do not want to be, much is because they do not know how, lack the reasources or skills. We believe that punishing and shameing those people is inefective at solving the root problem which is unwanted pregnacies. Banning abortions and making it illegal has been proven to be terrible at stopping unwanted pregnancies, it has accomplished making abortions dangerous and in the article sourced by doc showed more happen in countries where it is legal, likely because those countries also have low education, low access to BC and people doing illegal abortions do not have the same restrictions/regulations as places where it is legal. Similar to how when I was a kid everyone knew who to buy pot from in middle school (or sooner) now that it is legal it is harder for my kid to get. They would have to take it from their parents (which they could do before) but none of the stores will sell it to them and middle school pot dealers just do not exist anymore. That does make a lot of sense. Regressives in the US have a long history of believing that harsh punishments will make something they dislike go away, and an impressive capability to ignore absolutely any evidence to the contrary, and any other strategies which might work a lot better which other countries have found. Also see war on drugs, for example. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On May 14 2022 04:16 Mohdoo wrote: So Abbott can’t order it himself, but he can probably make sure the DFS does what he wants through indirect means. Not much of a win, but it’s something I guess Yeah, I feel like he will almost certainly apply some form of soft pressure now, but I don't know how legal challenges will go | ||
| ||
