EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3714
| 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 | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 04 2022 13:11 Introvert wrote: Discussions of the size ans structure of the social safety net is, despite left-wing objections, a legitimate topic of debate. I know the left thinks that everyone who wants a smaller one than they do is a selfish bastard, but that's small-minded and ignorant thinking. So, typical. It was a 50-year campaign to overturn Roe that started the moment the ruling was made. You want me to think they spent that whole time legitimately debating how to support the women who lose their rights to bodily autonomy when they get what they want? What do we have to show for it? Where was Mitch McConnell letting votes through on sensible social support programs for expecting mothers? Should we just wait another 50 years, and maybe they'll have it for real? You're peeing on my leg, dude. Get the fuck outta here. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
Edit: and both states and the federal also government have aid programs to all sorts for people down on their luck already. It's not a question of going from nothing to something. Ok that's it | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
You want people to think that Republicans want to do something when they call themselves the Party of No. I honestly don't know what you expect. Faith is only good when it goes both ways. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On July 04 2022 13:44 JimmiC wrote: Lots of posts where you have still not answered how many abortions the ban will reduce, yet also saying you were "stopping them". Very confusing how you can hold these beliefs. I again reiterate that I have tried, though only with limited success, to stick to one topic today. But suffice it to say that I reject the premise you presented with your question. That being said, while it's not something I find compelling, it shouldn't be ignored. But today, I am going to ignore it  I already indulged your other questions today, that's enough for me for now. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
| ||
|
justanothertownie
16320 Posts
On July 04 2022 15:12 Introvert wrote: I didn't say that, are you implying it from something I said? I'm not dodging, I will note that I have answered a good deal of questions today and responded to most of the things said to me, including going down paths that others led is down. If I were being uncharitable I would say the questions should be for the people constantly moving from one ground to the next when their first line of inquiry proves less damning than they supposed. You answered what you thought you could answer without looking like a clueless/heartless person (and still failing at that). Jimmis question never changed. Christians questions only changed because he constantly tried to get you to clarify since you were avoiding the point time and time again while claiming "there is something written somewhere guys, trust me!" So yes, you are dodging. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On July 04 2022 15:28 justanothertownie wrote: You answered what you thought you could answer without looking like a clueless/heartless person (and still failing at that). Jimmis question never changed. Christians questions only changed because he constantly tried to get you to clarify since you were avoiding the point time and time again while claiming "there is something written somewhere guys, trust me!" So yes, you are dodging. What have I not answered? Maybe only the one about how many abortions this will stop? I've begrudgingly answered every other one I think. Christians question focused on one state in the end, and he conceded that I was right about the laws in the others. The one purportedly involving a 10 year old girl I said how I would justify it. But I emphasized that those are not good examples to start with when making policy. Also, he was right about most of this: It's interesting that Intro repeatedly focuses on ectopic pregnancies in his defense, despite none of the arguments he's responding to having brought up ectopic pregnancies. Partly I think this is because he has a good defense for the "what about ectopic pregnancies?" argument, where he doesn't seem to for the "what about this 10-year-old rape victim?" argument. But to be fair, he's also trying to respond to the whole thread (and to some extent, the larger discourse online), and ectopic pregnancies are one of the more common things for pro-choice critics to bring up. There is a problem of sheer volume and we ought to at least get the easy examples out of the way first. it's relatively easy to pove what people were saying on that topic was wrong as a legal matter, and yet it took several pages for that to be acknowleged. Disagreeing with my answers doesn't count as not answering them. Trust me, I know that for merely opposing elective abortions I'm already considered heartless. Heck, as a conservative pretty much all of my policy positions are assumed de facto cruel. edit: if you don't want to believe me about Missouri fine, but if literally no other state bans that treatment then it seems unlikely that Missouri does either. Just on a balance of probabilities. I'd say I don't want to hog more thread space on this for now but that might be considered dodging so idk. but I care about this topic and people spreading misinformation could have very bad consequences so this is one of the few times where I consider posting in this thread to have even a small amount of outside value. As I said earlier, if someone reads something here and tells a friend in a bad situation something false that could have bad consequences. The question of "how many abortions will these laws actually stop" obviously doesn't fall into that category. While issues like treatment for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, or other related things obviously do. So I guess that's how I would end this tonight, primarily with that goal in mind with a fair bit of sidetracking. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3252 Posts
What I “conceded” is that no state that I’m aware of has *explicitly* banned terminating an ectopic pregnancy. In Missouri’s case, that means the question is whether the legal system could prosecute, and if so, whether doctors are willing to take that risk and treat anyway. I linked a source earlier of a woman who was charged with manslaughter because the DA thought she had caused her own miscarriage with drug use. Did she? Almost certainly not, but she still got 4 years and a felony on her record. Other people are getting civil or criminal penalties for overdosing on fentanyl and transmitting the dose to first responders by touch - even though fentanyl can’t be transmitted by touch. My point is that “this law could be construed to say what you’re doing is illegal, but that would be an ignorant, short-sighted interpretation “ is still an extremely unsafe place to be. If hospital lawyers were advising doctors to wait until it became a true medical emergency to treat, that’s a cowardly course of action but it might have been good legal advice. The solution is to enact clear, unambiguous legal protections for this stuff that obviously shouldn’t be illegal, but first the Introverts of the world (ideally the ones in policy-making positions) have to acknowledge the existence of the problem. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26040 Posts
On July 04 2022 10:48 Introvert wrote: I just don't think the 10 year girl example is a good one for the overall abortion discussion. It's such a vanishingly small number of abortions before these bans went into effect that they aren't great for big policies. They are better discussed as exceptions to more general bans instead of working the other way through. I have sympathy for both positions and while the number of "medically necessary" abortions are very small I could see it being a serious threat to a girl that young. So that's the basis on which I could justify it. But something like 97% of abortions are not health related at all, so it's not the right case through which to make sweeping claims. + Show Spoiler + On July 04 2022 10:06 ChristianS wrote: So you're saying there *is* explicit legal protection for treating ectopic pregnancies in Missouri law that all these hospitals' lawyers missed, you just can't find a source for it? This seems like one of those "big if true" situations. If you ever do find a source I'd love to see it! I have no interest in this semantic distinction, you're welcome to define "abortion" however you like. I doubt you actually put much stock in Planned Parenthood's opinion on this matter or any other, but it sounds like we're in agreement that terminating an ectopic pregnancy is the only moral course, and the law should explicitly and unambiguously exempt doctors and patients from any legal punishment for that treatment. Good! Seems like a real shame that doctors (and their lawyers) in a number of states think they're putting themselves in legal jeopardy doing it, no? Maybe we can extend that same sentiment to people being denied medications like methotrexate because they're potential "abortifacients"? Or to people who had to travel to another state for chemotherapy for the same reason? Seems like some pro-life legislation across the country has put a lot of people in legal jeopardy for no good reason! I'm going out of my way not to bring up other issues that seem pretty flagrant (still haven't heard whether you're okay with the 10-year-old rape victim being forced to carry it to term, for instance) because you seem really eager to escape the discussion. But it sounds like we might be able to find agreement that all these people deserve stronger legal protections, and states that failed to do so should rectify that immediately? To your Missouri question, so far as I know the "confusion" comes from the fact that the 2019 law could be interpreted to ban ectopic treatment but the provision was removed. Therefore, the the recent law they passed doesn't speak to it either way, but other laws in the state specifically allow treatment for entopic pregnancies. So the confusion is from only looking at the 2019 law, basically. That of course assumes that the story is true. Ans I don't know how widespread it is either. At the very worst it will be sorted very quickly. Broadly speaking ok, I do agree that judging the merits of policies based on outliers and edge cases is not the best way to assess them. See voter ID pushes and welfare cutbacks due to fraudulent activities there. The prevalence of those is low enough, and WAY lower than the perception in some quarters that on balance my judgement is that more harm than good is done trying to completely eliminate them. That being said, if I were to directly be asked if a fraudulent vote, or welfare claim is a bad thing, I would be able to instantly answer in the affirmative there. If I had my magic wand I’d do that, I don’t (yet) but I can quite clearly state a position there. If I, on the other hand solely deflected every such question into ‘those are outliers’ without stating my vague moral position, a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to is that I don’t care about those things. It should be very, very easy to say a 10 year old rape victim should be able to get an abortion in that particular circumstance, even if it’s couched in language about keeping it very restrictive overall. I think it consistently follows that if abortion is murder, that doesn’t magically change in such cases. I would also assume that some people who hold the initial position will also follow that line of logic. How many and how influential? I don’t know. I would happily wager that a sizeable chunk the most zealous types who harass women at clinics with ‘abortion is murder’ think that child rape victims should carry to term, but it’s a moral position they refuse to own because it’s not exactly a good look. Abortion repeal is the GOP’s baby, gestating over decades. There were laws already on the books. Either they somehow failed to consider many eventualities, or at least codify them properly, or in some cases that was actually an intended consequence. They can go back and fine tune in the former case, it’s really rather simple. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
The truth is that they're more than comfortable in more women dying for no change in the number of fetus being aborted. Most of the people who went along with it had no real plan of what was going to happen when they actually got roe overturned. If they had any idea they'd have to actually deal with women dying on the er table while their doctors consulted if they could save her or not they would have updated the trigger laws to reflect a world when those trigger laws came into effect. This is the world they wanted intro. You can't forgive the ignorance of States getting what they want and seeing women die when this is exactly what people told them would happen. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28709 Posts
I mean these outlier cases aren't irrelevant or whatever, but they're not the main issue. The main issue is whether people should be permitted to decide for themselves when or if they want to have children and if they should be permitted to terminate a pregnancy if they for whatever reason don't want the responsibility of raising a child. I happen to be in a situation where I've recently become a dad, but if abortions were impossible, I'd also have a 10+ year old. My experience of becoming a dad, which is great, has made me tremendously happy that it did not happen 10+ years ago. It's all-consuming, and I wasn't ready for it back then. Now I am. Having the opportunity to use abortion as a way to negate being really unfortunate (condom broke and a pregnancy was the result) is just.. really awesome compared to the alternative (be afraid of having sex because you can never really be certain/ accept that some people will be totally shafted by bad luck). I can compromise on 'how long should you have before you should reasonably be expected to be able to make up your mind', but the basic principle of 'if a woman does not want a child, she should be able to say no fucking way', WITHOUT any sort of underlying health issue or whatever 'granting her permission to make this choice', that's not something I can compromise on. Turning the discussion into 'what about the outlier cases' makes it sound like 'okay, so if you manage to solve these outlier cases, then okay, fine', but it's not. Even if every rape victim gets the help she needs and even if there are 0 cases of women dying because their fetus killed them, the ability to use abortion to plan whether you actually want a child now, later or never, is an absolutely incredible quality of life improvement, one of the best we've come up with, and I think it's terrible that some people actually want to take this away. 'Adopt not abort' is also a point of view that seems entirely oblivious to what a pregnancy actually entails. Hypothetically offer me $100k to undergo a pregnancy to term knowing that it'll be an entirely average pregnancy with no severe complications of any sort, and I'd decline in a fetal heartbeat - and I'm not rich. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26040 Posts
The discussion has merely shifted because certain locales don’t consider it a legitimate component of family planning, and have ruled accordingly. Where that particular central discussion is, temporarily settled well it makes sense to pivot to protect the edge cases I’m not personally willing to compromise on it either, but hey it happened. It’s exceedingly rare for me to use Brexit analogies, I know, I’m not flipping on thinking that a bad idea, but having happened I’d have lent my voice to remaining in the Customs Union than not. I don’t think that necessarily detracts from the commitment to my initial view. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
| ||
