Print

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

[Hanslanda]

I had a big thing but I'll simply say I see it differently and agree to disagree. I'm not particularly invested in arguing this point.

[smjjames]

Something like 80% is due to the administrations screwups, the rest is due to preexisting problems in PR, and yeah I’ve been seeing those popping up that the actual death toll is something in the range of 4,600. Meanwhile, the island is still having problems.

[Reelya]

You know, there's a real risk with the Trump appointee to the SC, and the passage of state-level abortion laws. If they manage to trigger a challenge to Roe vs Wade you might have a real problem, in that state-level bans won't  be blocked any more.

Europe does have restrictions on the number of weeks into a pregnancy that an abortion can occur, and it's possible that pro-life groups would be weakened if such restrictions existed in America. Here in Australia, support for first trimester abortions is >60%, but that drops to 12% for second-trimester abortions and near-zero for third-trimester abortions.

One of the risks is that the USA lacks any federal-level protections other than Roe vs Wade. A compromise position rather than an all-or-nothing might help protect rights going into the future. For example, a federal law that guaranteed legal for-choice abortion up to 16 weeks (and full-term if medically necessary) would appease the vast majority of people who are uneasy about late-term abortions, while also protecting the rights of 95% of women who currently have abortions. Then, you make it that prosecution only happens at the state level and not for any federally-protected abortions. Thus, states could choose to be less-restrictive than the federal rules, but not more-restrictive. However, 16 weeks would in fact be perfectly sufficient for almost all cases. It might be a better compromise to impose limitations from your side, than just crossing fingers that the other side never manages to get 5 SC people on their side to hear a case overturning Roe vs Wade. A 16 week limitation would eviscerate most of their most compelling arguments for needing the change.

[Dunamisdeos]

I do feel that outright overturning Roe. v. Wade as a goal in and of itself would be terrible. Abortion is, however rarely it might be, a necessary medical procedure.

There are vocal subsets of pro-lifers that just want abortion to be off the table legally under all circumstances. I am not on board with that, and I would be perfectly happy to vote for a candidate that offered that sort of logical compromise.

EDIT: I think maybe previous posters were right, perhaps we should veer away from this topic? What about that Blagojevich guy maybe getting a pardon? That sucks.

Hang on, he also wants to pardon Martha Stewart? What message is he even trying to send with these?

[Trekkin]

I do feel that outright overturning Roe. v. Wade as a goal in and of itself would be terrible. Abortion is, however rarely it might be, a necessary medical procedure.

There are vocal subsets of pro-lifers that just want abortion to be off the table legally under all circumstances. I am not on board with that, and I would be perfectly happy to vote for a candidate that offered that sort of logical compromise.

That vocal subset being only 16% of all US adults polled in 2017, per Pew. From the same study, it looks like white evangelical Protestants are by far the most unified of the groups polled in their opposition to abortion being always or mostly legal, and the number of white evangelical Protestants in the US is dropping, so candidates for national office driven by consensus opinion may increasingly disagree with you about what a logical compromise might be.

[smjjames]

I think he just meant that he’s not on board with the hardcore no-compromise stance rather than any specific logical compromise.

Probably should veer away from the abortion topic, yeah, though it’s been perfectly civil so far.

Oh Trump thinking of pardoning Martha Stewart and Blagojevich, he’s sending a signal to witnesses and defendants in the Mueller investigation, even Roger Stone said as such.

[Dunamisdeos]

Oh Trump thinking of pardoning Martha Stewart and Blagojevich, he’s sending a signal to witnesses and defendants in the Mueller investigation, even Roger Stone said as such.

What is he trying to say, people clearly convicted of highly illegal corruption will escape consequence?

[Reelya]

Those numbers cannot be extrapolated too far. 16% is the support level for an 100% ban. CBS published a poll on the intermediate support however.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-of-americans-support-20-week-abortion-ban/

From what I understand, it's fully legal up to 24 weeks in the USA due to Roe vs Wade, as that was determined to be the point at which the baby is "viable". However, the public support for the current 24 week limit is only 27% of the polling numbers, while a 20 week would attract 56% support. The risk here is that the 73% of people who aren't happy with the 24 week limit might actually support someone who is pushing a more restrictive limit than 20 weeks, merely because they don't like the existing 24 week limit, so they're willing to support a lower limit in general, but if given a 20 week limit they might not support a further change.

This change would be the logical compromise I was talking about, it would cut into support for further pro-life changes quite a bit, and it would affect a minimal number of existing abortions. Medically-necessary abortions would be exempt, as they already are. Greater than 20 weeks only accounts for 1.3% of current abortions, and most of those are medically-necessary if they're happening so late. So that one change would effectively defuse the popularity for further restrictions, while having next to zero actual impact on women's access to medicine. So, yeah, I'd suggest pro-choice people to actually support a modest restriction to 20 weeks for strategic reasons.

[Trekkin]

Oh Trump thinking of pardoning Martha Stewart and Blagojevich, he’s sending a signal to witnesses and defendants in the Mueller investigation, even Roger Stone said as such.

What is he trying to say, people clearly convicted of highly illegal corruption will escape consequence?

I think it's a more general reminder that their chances in his favor are better than they'll fare anywhere else; it's how he's operated for decades and he can't shift now.

[Reelya]

Ah I worked it out Trekkin, I'm using e.g. where I should be writing i.e. good catch.

[Starver]

QED

[Trekkin]

Ah I worked it out Trekkin, I'm using e.g. where I should be writing i.e. good catch.

Yep! You've started indicating your edits too, and your posts are consequently vastly more comprehensible. Well done!

[Dunamisdeos]

This is very upsetting to read but I think it's important to know that this is the kind of people that feel empowered in America these days. It's also important to know for anyone living in VA like what I am.

Spoiler: For reals though, this is upsetting (click to show/hide)

This open pedophile and rapist is running for congress in VA.

[redwallzyl]

This is very upsetting to read but I think it's important to know that this is the kind of people that feel empowered in America these days. It's also important to know for anyone living in VA like what I am.

Spoiler: For reals though, this is upsetting (click to show/hide)

This open pedophile and rapist is running for congress in VA.

Goddamn it Virginia.

Asked whether there was a “grain of truth” in his essay about father-daughter incest and another about raping his ex-wife repeatedly, he said yes,

Everything about this is horrifying. Not just that bit the whole thing. It gets worse. That's the tame bit. I gets so, so much worse.

[Trekkin]

But her emails...