Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

It was a strafing blow against the notion that something is 100% good, or 100% bad for the society, and that even the current best arbiter is far from ideal, for very important reasons that need to be understood. (as failure to understand those reasons, is often causal in why people hold such idealized notions, and are so willing to go "full crusader")


In respect to the original concept discussed-- abortion-- the termination of pregnancies is a very "subjective", and "emotional" item at its very outset. You cannot just blanket away the way people feel about things, or worse, wholesale discount other people's views, when ones own views are equally subjective.  (that is to say, the assertion that abortion is "baby murder!" is just as flimisly based as the assertion that "Abortion is perfectly OK, and everyone should be able to get one for any reason, any time." 

Roe vs Wade is such a controversial hotbed because it gave legal weight to one side over the other-- EG, it allowed one side to 'WIN!', by imposing a nationally enforced position.

since the only real truthful things about abortion are that it terminates pregnancies (duh), and that it does so with surgical implements that can cause permanent uterine scarring, and even when there is full familial and societal support, it frequently causes emotional upheavals in the woman who gets it (because of radical and sudden changes in hormones, if nothing else)--- we can pretty much draw a conclusion that it is at once "ultimately effective", but should be a last resort type thing, not the go-to solution, or at least that's my take-away.   

When the goal of legislation is to be the result of representative democracy, -- it kinda makes sense for laws to be representative of their demographic populations.

The population of the US is deeply divided ideologically on this issue.  Hence the need for isolated and varied legislation, instead of "CHOKE ON IT, ASSHOLES!" type legislation.  That latter is what dictators do.

[Kagus]

Any single one of those alone is just fucking not right.

Some forms of "Fucking not right" can be a fairly good way to avoid pregnancies, too.

Oh you...

As an aside, remember that Mary practiced abstinence and got pregnant anyways, so it's not 100% effective!

[Zangi]

I'm getting a muh states rights things here. 
But some people can't stand the fact that you could hop over a border to do it.

[Hanslanda]

Hey, let's not forget that a fairly significant amount of Americans think that contraception is an abhorrent tool of Satan and sex education is evil and immoral because everyone knows their child will never need to know how sex works. Making abortion rights... Kind of a secondary issue.

Abstinence, just like the war on drugs, is 'effective'.

[Dunamisdeos]

As an aside, remember that Mary practiced abstinence and got pregnant anyways, so it's not 100% effective!

This made me giggle. But anyway, we should be super careful about where this conversation is going, even though it is absolutely essential to a healthy political discussion right now. Use nice words, everyone!

That said, I am on the side of weird there, possibly for different reasons. I think abortion should never be flat-out illegal, because it is a valid if rarely necessary medical procedure that must be on the table for situations where it is needed. It's naive/willfully ignorant to think that situations don't occur that require it, or at least require the consideration thereof.

State legislature is fine with me, but also politicians are historically god-awful at medical legislature because actually asking doctors is expensive and boring. I don't know how any of this would turn out.

Spoiler: Example, bit of a wall of text (click to show/hide)

My wife and I both believe that fetus = baby in an ethical/moral sense, but regardless we had to very seriously consider the possibility of an abortion because the pregnancy was a surprise and she was not a healthy woman at the time. The doctors eventually came back and said she was healthy enough and while there was clear risk it was well within their capacity to handle without approaching any threat to life/limb. We went ahead and now we have a son. To be clear, our position on abortion remained the same before and after our experience.

At the end of the day, it would have been my wife's choice, final answer. We are Christian, and our family is predominantly Christian. Some of them were upset until I gave them the question of whether it was my wife or my son we should let die when the time came. They got real thoughtful after that. I don't think most people get to the point in their minds where they realize that this is a real choice for some women. They just hear CONSTANT UNENDING BABY MURDER or YOU JUST WANT TO ENSLAVE WOMEN FOR NO REASON and don't consider that these are real people with real unavoidable circumstances. I think it scares the shit out of people that something as wonderful as expecting a baby can out of nowhere turn into a situation where you have to choose one life over another and there's nothing you can do about it.

TL:DR: "Abortion is an extremely difficult choice, morally grey from many perspectives, and a rarely enacted medical procedure" doesn't sell papers.

[Trekkin]

The population of the US is deeply divided ideologically on this issue. 

I actually went and looked up the latest Gallup poll on abortion. If you ask people if they're pro-choice of pro-life, then yes, you get about a 50-50 split modulo the polling error. If you start asking about the actual procedure, though, it turns out that about 60% of Americans think that abortions in the first trimester should "generally" be legal -- and that's about nine-tenths of all abortions. Fortunately, these are also the cases in which mifepristone is most commonly used, and contrary to pro-life propaganda its side effects appear benign in the vast majority of cases, so it might be possible to assuage concerns over its effects on maternal health and fertility.

So while the country's deeply divided at first glance, under the hood there's majority support for the vast majority of procedures that actually happen, which suggests that it is possible to find a generally agreeable consensus here. If I had to guess, a workable compromise solution might be to make abortion in cases of rape or incest or on a physician's recommendation legal nationwide and let individual states pick a cutoff date at some point before the end of the second trimester after which voluntary abortion is illegal, operating from a default of the end of the first trimester. That way the pro-life crowd gets to have a ban on killing the most viable fetuses, pro-choice folks get their health-of-the-mother/rape-and-incest exception across the board, and they can take their fight to the states.

[Gentlefish]

I believe the real issue for pro-lifers is that abortion feels like a totally out-patient procedure that's treated like plastic surgery while pro-choicers feel like pro-lifers would rather see back-alley attempts than have it be a government-sponsored and safe medical procedure for even the most dire of situations.

[Dunamisdeos]

From my own experience, most (all actually, I think) of my family had literally had no personal interaction or education about the subject outside of what various hardline groups had been feeding them for years. As soon as my wife and I were in front of them, they had to consider it more deeply. Looking at the official positions of these groups or what's reported on the news you'd think 50/50, but almost everyone I talk to has some variation of or at least similar opinion as what we have here. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice simply do not describe people's actual beliefs.

I think the non-baby boomer generation has had better education, and therefore have more informed opinions even if they differ. Turns out withholding facts does not make for better choices, who knew.

To bring it directly back to politics, I am concerned that the new SCOTUS setup could result in a repeal-without-replace situation for Roe vs Wade. How likely do you folks think that is?

[Lord Shonus]

To bring it directly back to politics, I am concerned that the new SCOTUS setup could result in a repeal-without-replace situation for Roe vs Wade. How likely do you folks think that is?

0%


Roe didn't make abortion legal. It made banning abortion illegal. Even if a state passes a new total-ban law that makes it through the entire court system to the Supreme Court, and the court finds it legal, then 49/50 state laws would not be affected in the least. At that point, the only way for a state's abortion laws to change would be for that state's legislature (or citizen referendum) to create a new law - the "replace" would be an inherent part of the repeal.

[PTTG??]

Is it fair to judge "pro-lifers" for what they say they actually want, rather than what the vote for?

If they're voting for a total abortion ban (because the people they vote for promise that,) then what they really want (what they really really want) is a total abortion ban.

Of course, ignorance is no defense.

[Folly]

Slightly off the topic of American Politics, Brazil now has it's own Trump.

Jair Bolsonaro is frequently compared to Trump because he hates immigrants, reporters, political correctness, and homosexuals. He sexualizes every female he meets before mocking their weak feminine opinions. He favors torture and despises environmental protection and opposes gun control. And, of course, he wants to convert Brazil's democracy to a dictatorship that he can rule forever.

And sadly, last night he took 46% of the preliminary vote, compared to his primary opponent who only got 29%.

Fortunately, Brazil's voting system has a second round 20 days from now, so there is still some hope. People who voted for third-parties in the initial round will now have a chance to vote for their second choice, or just vote against the person they dislike most.

This elimination-style voting system seems like a good way to give third parties a fair chance. I kinda wish America would adopt something similar.

[WealthyRadish]

The two round system is better, but there's still distortion and strategic voting. Better still would be a ranked first round followed by a run-off, but my feeling is that long before we get there the presidency of the United States of America is more likely to be a theme park ride in Disney-Comcast-Amazon-Pepsiland that anyone can ride for 600,000 FaceBucks

[smjjames]

Or they might just either not vote or put in a blank ballot.

The US already has something similar to the two tier system in the form of the so called ‘jungle primary’ which California and a few other states (and a bunch of cities as well) have. Doesn’t seem like the two main parties in Brazil have the same stranglehold against third parties as they do here.

[Hanslanda]

... I'm going to run for president when I turn 35. I mean, Trump got elected. I have a decent chance of being president if I market myself on social media virally.

[Enemy post]

... I'm going to run for president when I turn 35. I mean, Trump got elected. I have a decent chance of being president if I market myself on social media virally.

If you win, can I be your Press Secretary?