Print

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

[martinuzz]

Over here everyone has an ID and no one sees a problem with it. It's nice to have a document with which you are able to prove that you are indeed you.

However, over here it is accessible (just go to your local city/town/village hall with a mugshot and order one, you'll get it within 3 work days) and affordable (64,03 euros for basic ID, 74,77 euros for a passport that allows for travel outside the EU, cheaper for children). People on welfare get it refunded (unless they sloppy and lose it or purposedly destroy it, then they will need to pay for a replacement).

I just don't get why people in the USA are so averse of the concept of IDs for everyone. I can get the anger at it being used to suppress certain voter groups by making it unavailable or unaffordable though.

[nenjin]

I think you have to break it down into several groups:

-Illegal immigrants can't get IDs, obviously.
-Semi-legal immigrants are afraid of revealing themselves to the government to get an ID. Trump made this even worse by trying to deport legal but not natural citizens.
-Segments of the poor African American community do not do things like: register their car. Get license plates. Have current IDs. Why? Many reasons. Money primarily, but also a sense of rebellion since they believe (in many cases rightly so) that the system is against them, so why should they bother? Would you pay into a system that you believe is actively hostile toward you, just out of a sense of civic duty? And still others beyond that.
-Segments of the elderly population struggle to have current IDs due to mobility, mental health issues, etc... because if you're not a wealthy retired elderly person, the US largely does not care if you live or die.
-Lastly you have the paranoid demographic, who believe that anything the government can use to identify you will be used against you at some point. They pay with cash, don't use credit or debit cards and do not have bank accounts. My anecdotal belief is that this is largely a white demographic of anti-government conspiracy theorists.

[Dunamisdeos]

If it's going to work, it basically needs to be made accessible to everyone qualified for an ID, that being everyone who is not here illegally. Not technically accessible, actually accessible. As in, you walk in, you get an ID, you walk out.

In the US there are corporations and special for-profit interest groups involved in every single level of government. This prevents anything being made easy to do. Not a joke.

[Lidku]

sense of rebellion since they believe (in many cases rightly so) that the system is against them, so why should they bother?

It has nothing to do about a "sense of rebellion" at all, or at least isn't the primary factor posited. The phenomenon of a portion of the Black community not having IDs mostly and basically stems in the deep south; because in all my life in the US, I've never seen or heard of local black people not having ID at all.

The deep south being entirely GOP aligned, makes it hard for black people to acquire IDs to further retain their party base there; due in part within the reason that black people primarily vote Democrat. And remember, black people when they were first enfranchised to vote after the end of slavery, were all primarily Republican at first; but of course, things gradually changed after the 60s with the south now being Republican among most southern whites, and Democrat among southern blacks.

With the majority of the black population living in the south, if the southern GOP whites played things up fair (no voter suppression, no ludicrous redistricting with maps that look like Freddy Kruger took a swipe at it, etc.), they'd lose the much of their party stronghold in the region. 

[wierd]

It's basically what happens when "I DONT WANT TO PAY! WHAAA!" happens in a govt official.

For that, I DO VERY MUCH NEED to qualify WHAT I mean by that, very precisely:

1) Because conservative governments tend to want to be both top-heavy, AND systemically under-funded (because, GOD FORBID that the wealthy actually pay for anything! ESPECIALLY things the POORS use! /s) there is a massive drive to virtue-signal, AND to actually cut costs.  However,  that cost cutting is always done in such a fashion that it shuts out their competitors, while bolstering their own demographic base.

This results in such things as "We cut the number of people getting unemployment from 5000 a year, to 300 a year! Isn't that GREAT!!!? We did it through requiring people give itemized proof of job seeking! There is NO NEED whatsoever to increase unemployment benefits, regardless of how starving people are! Doing OUR PART to keep YOUR TAXES low!" (But if you challenge me on it, I will either waffle about how people "did not fill out the forms right", and then, if you REALLY corner me on it, I will deny that I was responsible, while claiming to acknowledge the problem of purposeful roadblocks., while simultaneously 'FURTHER CUTTING COSTS!' by downsizing the actual infrastructure needed to process claims, and doubletalking about requirements for eligability.)

Thus, when I say "cost cutting", I mean that with the hugest possible, most dripping with sarcasm, and perverse incentives implied scare quotes.

(Yes, I just beat the shit out of DeSantis there, but he deserves it, and is a fucking poster child for this shit.)


This then leads to--

2)  DMV offices are maintained at "Minimum levels necessary to JUST BARELY get rich people their IDs, while excluding or at least heavily inconveniencing everyone else."  This results in several HOURS long wait times to get your ID refreshed when it is near expiration-- (which people trying to work multiple jobs--- a situation commonly faced by the people most hit by economic adversity have to resort to, because their employers do not want to pay them either, and do not want to give them employment benefits, like INSURANCE-- SIMPLY CANNOT ENDURE, because they MUST be working, TO BUY FOOD, AND PAY BILLS.)

3) Getting records from the state dept of vital statistics, should your ID expire-- or you need to get the ID initially, is a multi-month long process. Because of such costcutting.

etc.

When the individuals do not speak English as their primary language, these issues get a whole other dimension of obstruction, and this is INTENTIONAL--



As I tritely put it earlier, this is done on purpose, for the express purpose of gentrifying the electorate.  Specifically, Gentrifying it in favor of wealthy, english speaking, white voters.

[Rolan7]

If someone wants to terminate a pregnancy happening in their own body, that is a bodily autonomy issue that is entirely up to them.

(And this isn't an accusation that weird supports the GOP - which they don't)

[wierd]

^ Agree!

The issue, is why is there a pregnancy there in the first place.

The number of purchases I floated is not some arbitrary number. It is based on the statistical liklihood that such a pregnancy is the result of an unwanted sexual encounter, that will go unreported otherwise.  When such encounters go unreported, they tend to happen to other people in the sometimes YEARS before the person who received them self-reports.

The goal is to prevent that, by catching it.

That is why the annoying question needs to be asked.

[Starver]

(PPE: This was originally a response/caveat to Rolan7 - not disagreeing but to highlight where the disagreements arise, if it isn't already so bloody obvious - that then ballooned out over the next 1˝hrs+(? is the forum time DST-shifted or not? post-Post Edit - no it isn't, phew, so it was 'only' more than half an hour of writing!) of editing and nuancing to become an 'it takes all sorts to make a world!' thing. And I'm not sure it properly responds to Rolan any more, never mind anything useful to follow-up ninja!weird's intermediate reply.)

There is the direct response that, at a certain point betwixt conception and birth[1] it becomes not merely unilateral autonomy but requires a balance against the autonomy of another individual[2][3]. The question firmly being at which point this is, with all but the most sure viewpoints being themselves a personal compromise comprising of (at least) the carefully considered but dissimilar moral and practical cut-off points.

Extra marks to the score of difficulty if you further allow surrounding circumstances to sway your (moral) balance of decision. Issues of foetus health or non-consent by the woman extending the deadline, perhaps; Lax and careless disregard for initial contraception/avoidance or active 'contractual duties' of one debatable kind or another (marriage, surrogacy, etc) freely gone into could be considered to enhance the earlier rights of the more 'innocent' party. Have fun (not literally!) with resolving the fallout of relatively moving moralities from the likes of uncoerced sibling incest arising from wider family issues.


That's the mess we're discussing. And I'd probably put my personal moral break-point (at which the mother loses basic primacy over an otherwise uncomplicated situation) later than where I'd put the practical cut-off, to the latter of which I then feel I have to defer. The lawmaking situation above seems to be made of an opinion with a moral point (their own version) very much below the same practical point (which they probably don't agree with), so much so that they don't seem to realise/have a care that they're aiming below the lower limit that defines an actual floating window of practicality.


And the truth is, very few people are going to end up in complete personal agreement with the legislative threshold (though I fear there's far too few who are annoyed at this 'liberal' policy of thirty days to consider this even a tenuously balanced compromise of equal-dislike) and even those lucky individuals may find, the first time the issue becomes personal instead of general, that some quirk of their own scenario is unfortunately insufficiently accounted for or actively counted against in some cruel twist of fate.


[1] Or, for the more extreme positions of both flavours, including slightly beyond one or other of these endpoints too.

[2] And that's not counting the father, which I overwhelmingly do not (for either polarity of paternal wishes) but can certainly outline theoretical edge-cases where there might be a viable reason to take account of him. And could definitely give you RL situations where it has (controversially) been judged important - again, in both polarities of desire.

[3] And it should go without saying that once you start to include the state (whether a country or federal subunit, or defacto state by way of a religion/etc) as imposing further case-by-case pressures, especially with an ethnic bias, you most certainly go beyond the pale in diluting/negating the choice owed to the woman. But it's easier to single out those with pre-hoc and post-hoc absolute policies that are just generally dubious beyond mere national enforcement of pregnancy-control (whether the One Child Policy of China or the Five Child Policy of Romania) and drifts further into inducement/suppression practices (like sterilisation, willful indoctrination, whatever) or interfering with aboriginal/minority family units 'for their own good'.

[Starver]

And I'd probably put my personal moral break-point (at which the mother loses basic primacy over an otherwise uncomplicated situation) later than where I'd put the practical cut-off, to the latter[**] of which I then feel I have to defer.

On re-reading my own convoluted drivel...
[**] To clarify: i.e. the second as mentioned, though this be chronologically earlier, which I see is perhaps confusing.

I would probably give a basic maternal right to termination, on personal moral grounds, pretty late in the day. But for practical and procedural reasons I'd have to consider an earlier base limit (still with plenty of time to not rush into a decision) as necessary, except where the complexities around the decision themselves don't arise until much later than might be expected.

(No, I don't have exact durations in mind to my respective points of commitment, before you ask, I'm comparing mostly to other general opinions whether more strict than me, somewhat more libertarian or 'generally in the right sort of area' as a baseline position from where you need to have the inbuilt legislative ability to adapt so that hard cases don't beget harder laws.)

[Frumple]

There is the direct response that, at a certain point betwixt conception and birth[1] it becomes not merely unilateral autonomy but requires a balance against the autonomy of another individual[2][3]. The question firmly being at which point this is, with all but the most sure viewpoints being themselves a personal compromise comprising of (at least) the carefully considered but dissimilar moral and practical cut-off points.

Like, the issue with this is we treat literally no other medical condition or concern like that. There's no balance of autonomy with organ donation, plasma transfusions, blood donations and the like, even in cases where, say, the need is due to the actions of the potential donor. There's not even the hint of potential coercion if there's a need to hook two folks together for whatever reason (which is rare, but happens occasionally with medical conditions), the choice is always and pretty damn inviolably with whoever the one not in need is, with violations of that (as in the case of forced organ transplants with prisoners or whatever, which comes up occasionally) seen as extremely unethical.

Pretty much only with women's reproductive rights does a "balance of autonomy" come up with regards to medical decisions... the which is another way of saying that framing is pretty horseshit in the real world, because functionally no one gives a damn about that, they care about controlling women's bodies in particular.

So, like. If we're not going to apply that sort of reasoning to anything else (and there is negative movement in that direction in medical ethics or popular opinions thereof), maybe we just don't apply it at all, y'know?

[Rolan7]

Exactly.  I take the somewhat "extreme" but simple view that a person should not be forced to host a 9-month old infant within their body.  Much less the half-formed things we're actually discussing.  Just like I am not required to donate a kidney even though an unequivocally human life would be pretty-much saved by my doing so.

Pregnancy does not necessarily cause permanent harm (after the first), but it is otherwise analogous.  It is an incredible drain on energy, health, and independence.  It must be something people do willingly.

And from a state policy standpoint, we can address any resulting demographic changes by being less stingy with immigration.  The human race isn't declining, just """us""".  Whatever that means.  The answer isn't to harass people into gestating.

[Starver]

But the argument is different to excising a kidney[1], say. And, no, I'm not one to suggest a super-early point whereby a fully developed sense of self (let alone the mythic 'soul') makes anything post-gamete a person who needs to be protected from the sins of the parents.

As the only claim that I shall give about my own qualification to pontificate, I know at least one individual who is around today who, back in the days before 'he' really existed was subject to a decision (that I was invited to weigh in on[2]) that could have led to the other oplutcome. I don't know if he knows that the decision was considered (possibly) or that I was a drawn into it (probably not with any certainty). He grew up well enough and pursued a worthy and worthwhile career, from information gleaned from the last time I had a conversation directly referencing him, although I also know he has also stood for election under the umbrella of a political party I particularly disagree with![3]

Still (or maybe thusly) I am far from the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice. I say only that somewhere in the lead up to the point of natural (or physiologically precipitated) birth, there's a switch in balance where they are no longer to be pulled like a bad tooth if nothing other than the potential capriciousness of the mother has changed (if I can use such loaded language, which I honestly believe is rarely actually apt). It is not the point of conception, nor is it the point of delivery. And I've already said that once you get so far through the term, I consider that the practicalities (and needs, and latest medical status) outweigh even the Morality Event-Horizon so it probably no longer even matters on morality alone.

To others, the MEH is far earlier, and they don't care about the Practicality EH (or the greatest amount of Do No Harm possible) because that lies absolutely beyond their chosen cut-off and the only useful take from it is as any available ammo they can produce from it to 'support' their far earlier MEH-inspired target. And handily ignore all the counter-pressures invalidating it.

That's what I was on about. I'm not dictating my own ideal, just reiterating the underlying substance of other 'ideals', from those far more focussed on (and in position to be) remaking legislation to their own prefered ends.


Because this is a Hot Topic that will run and run, and I see no need to trickle through the arguments when we know there is a Heavy Aquifer full of far more, ready to be unleashed if we don't take note of the warnings. I am suggesting it could just be blocked up, smooth the walls, funnel it off-map and we probably won't even  gain benefit from floodgating it for future use. It's just more trouble than it's worth, if it's directly threatening our socialising zones.

((To clarify, Rolan, I'm tending towards a point well beyond the 'half-formed' of your discussion-point. The others we're talking about think the formation concerned is a lot earlier, and/or by a diferent metric. By definition, there must be a middle-ground, 0<=x<=1, but there'll never be an acceptance of where that actually is.))


[1] If we're talking organ/tissue donation, then we aren't really comparing like-for-like until some sort of in-vivo or in-vitro recipient 'vessel' can receive and (for the sake of argument) 'benefit' from the gift. At the moment, it's more like a (possibly optional) appendectomy or the removal of cancerous tissue, destined for no more noble cause than a sample jar.

[2] I was a friend of the father-yet-to-be, and by extension also the mother in an amicable but naturally less strong bond. Neither had planned this, and it was 'awkward' for a number of reasons I won't expound upon. It was very very early on when I was made a part of the 'discussion' and (pre-PlanB) was still relatively trivial in the contemporary sense of what could be done - which I obviously now realise wasn't actually trivial. I do now feel it was mostly an embarassing involvement on my part in hindesight, as 'ally' of the father, who was far more convinced than the mother that the 'problem' for the couple could be solved. I was dragged into the issue that arose, from a far more mature relationship than they each were individually, as a supporter of his. In the end she decided otherwise, they made the relationship more solid, if not officially official. Eventually she said Yes to the latest suggestion of his that they marry as well, by which time they had someone old enough to be a page-boy without pestering their slightly less immediate families...

[3] And failed. Which, from my perspective, could be better than the alternate timeline where the 'next best' candidate had the opportunity to try, in his existential absence, and succeeded. 

[Dunamisdeos]

I don't.... quite agree with Rolan, though the analogy certainly applies to cases of rape or medical danger.
 
I got ninja'd by Starver, but I think they've put it quite well. How the fuck do we measure something like self-awareness on a scale of morality? Human society is barely prepared to measure the worth of a grown-ass human being, let alone THAT.

My own position is that a human life is a human life, even before birth. But I have to also acknowledge that 2 cells does not a person make. Where IS that "moral event horizon"? I'm not qualified, and I think humanity isn't going to be fully qualified for... probably generations. I certainly have reasons for my own beliefs, but I don't hold pretentions to all the answers.

Because of this I heavily support as much education as possible, and the easiest access to as much and as varied contraception as possible. I also support welfare/services for parents who need it.

[Rolan7]

That's actually why I jumped to the 9-months-of-pregnancy stance.  We can talk about the stages between 2 cells and an infant with a brain and memories, but there is no real answer to "When does it become a person?".  There's no moment where it goes from a potential human to a real one.

It doesn't matter.  By forcing *anyone* to carry unwanted pregnancies, we establish a terrifying precedent.  What would it mean if we applied that precedent in a less blatantly sexist way?  Surely if we force women to carry children, we can require men to donate blood.  It's dramatically less invasive and directly saves human lives.  It doesn't have any long-term impacts like organ donation.  Why don't we require periodic blood donation?

The only answer I see is that we respect bodily autonomy... except in this one circumstance.

And for what?  If the state really must encourage child BIRTH, then it can subsidize it (and does).  It also subsidizes parenting, which I think is much more ethical and important (more funding should go here).  The answer is not to force women to bear unwanted children and foist them into an underfunded foster care system.  That does not EVEN serve the state's interests, and is morally repugnant.

[Dunamisdeos]

Those things do not correlate.

It's not the same as a kidney donation, or blood donation. Nobody is asking you to give up or cripple part of your body, or forcibly take something from you to save someone, somewhere, that you hold no responsibility for. TWO people in this scenario chose to have unprotected sex with the full knowledge that this can very likely result in a baby. Sex is not a necessity, it is a choice. You have plenty and more time to consider it beforehand. I'd like to again stress that this logic clearly does not apply to cases of rape or medical danger to the mother or child, because really I can't stress that enough.

This is why I always assert that the true core of the debate regarding abortion isn't bodily autonomy, or rights, though those things absolutely matter and are indeed inextricable from the subject at hand. It's whether or not an unborn child intrinsically constitutes a human life.

If true, then someone deliberately sought sexual activity, knew it could result in another human life being created in the full knowledge that they would be responsible for it, chose not to take precautions, and then decided to end another human life. If false, then the point is moot. I think it's a far more dangerous precedent to normalize that a human life only becomes valuable at a certain point in it's development, especially an effectively arbitrary one born from a lack of understanding. We have no benchmark for this sort of thing.