**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

Definitely not endearing in real life, let alone caricatures. But that is always the number one argument, because bible.

I may be the only person on this board who has living family who thinks this way. Yet, today, it's a caricature.

I don't get these people who want a "smaller government"yet are constantly trying to meddle in female wombs. Why do they care about abortion that much? Why do they care so much about what a woman does or doesn't do with her pussy?

They believe that once post-conception, it's a human life. Their philosophy in defending this is more consistent with constitutional freedoms than the other side.

Fucking "family values" asshole hypocrites, who cheat at first chance anyway

Decouple the idea from a person who claims to espouse the idea.

[Jack Sawyer]

I may be the only person on this board who has living family who thinks this way. Yet, today, it's a caricature.

I think you are underestimating a bit there, and every single one is one too many

They believe that once post-conception, it's a human life. Their philosophy in defending this is more consistent with constitutional freedoms than the other side.

They care for the baby until it is out of the womb. Nice to believe in "smaller government" while giving a shit about what happens inside an individual woman's baby place

Decouple the idea from a person who claims to espouse the idea.

I would, if these exact people would stop claiming to be anti abortion and therefore being completely hypocritical, but sadly this isn't the case

[wufwugy]

For the most part, abortion has to be framed as a last resort or something people aren't supposed to feel good about. Even the most ardently pro-abortion mainstream narrative involves claiming how regretful it is and how much those who engage in it suffer.

If it's not a baby, why is this? Shouldn't a visit to the abortion clinic weigh no more heavily on the patient than a visit to the dermatologist?

Cognitive dissonance.

[wufwugy]

I think you are underestimating a bit there, and every single one is one too many

That's the kind of statement that would get you labeled a bigot if it were about any group other than Christians.

They care for the baby until it is out of the womb. Nice to believe in "smaller government" while giving a shit about what happens inside an individual woman's baby place

The argument is dumb. I used to use it back when I was dumb. It equates the idea of trying to stop what is perceived to be murder with big government. Dump the argument.

I would, if these exact people would stop claiming to be anti abortion and therefore being completely hypocritical, but sadly this isn't the case

Be better than them. Base your opinion on the goodness of an idea instead of a person.

[Jack Sawyer]

It IS the last resort wuf.

But first, have you seen the lengths through which anti-abortion people go to stop clinics who help in planning families? Planned parenthood isn't only all about abortion by a longshot, but it's firmly in the crosshairs of these crusaders.

From how you state your views, an abortion is like the easiest thing in the world. An afterthought. But it's not like you go to McDonald's and order a sundae; obviously it is a last resort. Have you heard about that woman that got weekly abortions for 3 years? That's right, me neither.

This global gag rule also has the side effect of reducing woman's access to and knowledge of contraception. And coat-hangers are deadly yo. From the article

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.


The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Facts, man, facts. YOUR poor decisions affects the entire world.


And this should not be an affair which a government should meddle in ever. How, exactly, do the same people who never want any kind of economic meddling and interventions of any kind on e.g. their businesses (or guns) meddle and intervene in woman's affairs of family planning? I guess that THAT is the definition of cognitive dissonance, isn't it?



You're better than this wuf.

[Savy]

For the most part, abortion has to be framed as a last resort or something people aren't supposed to feel good about. Even the most ardently pro-abortion mainstream narrative involves claiming how regretful it is and how much those who engage in it suffer.

If it's not a baby, why is this? Shouldn't a visit to the abortion clinic weigh no more heavily on the patient than a visit to the dermatologist?

Cognitive dissonance.

Bold isn't true. There are people who have absolutely no regret, no suffering involved. Best decision they've ever made would repeat it a million times over. The only reason it isn't widely accepted is because of religious people who think it is sinful, the same lot who believe loads of backwards shit with regards to sex, masturbation & puberty, and when the argument of god doesn't like it falls flat they need something to cling onto and with abortion they thankfully can say it's baby murdering. They'd have much more chance selling masturbation as evil if they could assign some of the same mental imagery.

It's also not uncommon for people to be worried about unrealistic scenarios, social stigmas, etc which all play a role.

[Jack Sawyer]

That's the kind of statement that would get you labeled a bigot if it were about any group other than Christians.

Bigot? By stating exactly what their beliefs are? Countless times countless religious leaders on the record stating that exact same thing? The God-damned pope being a "radical" because of his abortion comments? Next you will tell me that the Christians are the persecuted minority, that the crusades "read: slaughter in the name of GOD" never happened etc. etc. You are scaring me my man

The argument is dumb. I used to use it back when I was dumb. It equates the idea of trying to stop what is perceived to be murder with big government. Dump the argument.

And now you are enlightened apparently. You've seen the light. But the one thing you haven't seen is Trump's tax returns to know exactly how his conflicts of interests will affect everyone else aboard that train.


C'mon, you have to admit that whole small government thing is at least a little bit hypocritical. Just a teeny, tiny bit.

Be better than them. Base your opinion on the goodness of an idea instead of a person.

Dude, I'm Dutch. You can't even begin to comprehend how dumb the whole anti-abortion rhetoric sounds to me

[Savy]

It's also a last resort because it's so much more effort than every other way of not having a baby.

[Savy]

So I was reading about how Trump is going to stop American jobs being taken away by making sure that any company that removes jobs from the US but wants to sell it's product in the country would have to pay much larger taxes.

Surely that type of shit boils your blood Wuf?

[wufwugy]

So I was reading about how Trump is going to stop American jobs being taken away by making sure that any company that removes jobs from the US but wants to sell it's product in the country would have to pay much larger taxes.

Surely that type of shit boils your blood Wuf?

Why would it?

[wufwugy]

Bold isn't true. There are people who have absolutely no regret, no suffering involved. Best decision they've ever made would repeat it a million times over. The only reason it isn't widely accepted is because of religious people who think it is sinful, the same lot who believe loads of backwards shit with regards to sex, masturbation & puberty, and when the argument of god doesn't like it falls flat they need something to cling onto and with abortion they thankfully can say it's baby murdering. They'd have much more chance selling masturbation as evil if they could assign some of the same mental imagery.

It's also not uncommon for people to be worried about unrealistic scenarios, social stigmas, etc which all play a role.

There are some exactly like you said, but the mainstream very-pro-abortion public views on this are not like that. They still must frame it as if the actual abortion itself is regretful.

[wufwugy]

Jack I don't get the impression it matters what I say.

[OngBonga]

Dude, I'm Dutch. You can't even begin to comprehend how dumb the whole anti-abortion rhetoric sounds to me

It is dumb. It's hysterical, in fact. I personally am anti-abortion. However, I consider that a very private opinion that I have absolutely no right to enforce on others. It's way too complex and personal an issue for my opinion to be relevant to anyone except perhaps a partner who I get pregnant. Even then, I'd express my opinion and leave the decision to the lady in question. If she aborted, it would probably mean the end of the relationship. That's the extent of my feelings towards this matter.

I fucking hate moral crusaders. These people make other people feel bad for moral choices in an effort to make themselves feel like they are good people. These people think their morals should apply universally. It's arrogance of the highest level.

[BananaStand]

I personally am anti-abortion. However, I consider that a very private opinion that I have absolutely no right to enforce on others. It's way too complex and personal an issue for my opinion to be relevant to anyone ...

What strikes me as ironic.....actually, flat out crazy.....is that the vast majority of 'pro-lifers' feel exactly the same way you do. I don't have a link, but I do recall seeing a statistic once that said 89% of people support a woman's right to choose, even though they themselves would choose life. It's amazing to me that an issue can have a 9 to 1 majority opinion, and still be one of the most divisive issues in history.

I fucking hate moral crusaders. These people make other people feel bad for moral choices in an effort to make themselves feel like they are good people. These people think their morals should apply universally. It's arrogance of the highest level.

Well, I think, from their point of view, their "morals" in this case simply state that killing is wrong. they believe that abortion is murder. It's universally accepted that it's wrong to shoot a person on the street, they are just applying the same standard.


It seems pretty obvious that all this hooplah over abortion is in regards to money. The evangelical conservative base weilds huge power in the form of campaign financing. They fund a significant portion of the GOP, and hence can demand certain legislative priorities. if a lawmaker supports expanded abortion access......they lose their golden ticket.

I actually have no problem with this. It's obvious that a significant portion of the country doesn't want their tax dollars put towards things they find morally reprehensible. And while this population is not a majority, it's certainly large enough to matter. Completely ignoring the beliefs of a major fraction of the country is part of the reason why the liberal agenda has failed.

While I support a pro-choice agenda, I don't think it's unreasonable for the other side to demand some reasonable limitations. I mean, and 8.5 month old fetus is definitely a viable human being. Terminating that life seems inhumane on some level. So I don't really have a problem with drawing a line at say, 5 or 6 months and assuming from there that the organism in the womb, is a human being. Obviously from there, you have to make exceptions for situations where the mother's health is threatened. However, as we saw in the Gosnell case, those exceptions can be perverted.

Where I really shake my head at the GOP is when they try to pass restrictions on abortions that are clearly meant to shut down the practice altogether, or at least make it insanely difficult. When they do that, it allows the other side to paint even the reasonable measures, as oppressive.

For example, there was legislation proposed recently, at the state level (not sure which one) where women who had abortions, were allowed to sue their doctors afterward, and hold them responsible for depression or emotional distress or regret that the woman might feel afterward. Any time afterward, even years. That's obviously ridiculous and only meant to scare doctors into simply not offering abortions.

When they try and pull shit like that, it's really hard to respect their motives when they propose totally reasonable measures, for example, a bill requiring abortion clinics to meet the same cleanliness standards as a dentist office. That seems like a measure to protect patients from exploitative doctors. However, it gets blasted because the groups proposing it have proven to have murky intentions.

[JKDS]

You mean like defunding planned parenthood

[OngBonga]

It's obvious that a significant portion of the country doesn't want their tax dollars put towards things they find morally reprehensible.

It's a shame the bulk of them support American imperialism, oblivious to their hypocrisy.

While I support a pro-choice agenda, I don't think it's unreasonable for the other side to demand some reasonable limitations.

Sure, and this is the case here in the UK where we have what I would say are appropriate laws in regard to this matter. Ireland and the Isle of Man are still contentious, but in Ireland's case they are mostly Catholics, so it's no surprise it's so divisive an issue there.

We set the bar at 24 weeks, and indeed we do allow for exemptions where there are serious complications. I think these laws are fair enough. I'd say 24 weeks is a bit high personally, but again I don't feel like my opinion is remotely relevant on this matter.

The idea that women can sue their doctor for emotional distress is absurd. By that measure, one should be able to sue the government for allowing it by law.

[wufwugy]

I don't think the issue will ever be solved, and I think it probably shouldn't. It's a clash between two worldviews that, in order to keep the health of civilization, neither can win nor can they settle.

A short comment on the Vox article: the claims are not nearly as close to revealing of reality as the author thinks. I'll only explain why if anybody cares.

One thing is for certain, if the content was not framed in the disingenuous ways it is, things would be much more clear. Many of the attacks so far are "jumping around the issue" type that don't matter. Frame it as a baby or not a baby and then deduce when it is appropriate to terminate based on that. Period. Jumping around this just makes intents look dishonest and guilty.

[Savy]

Tbf abortion becomes much more of a non-issue when you give women access to contraception and information regarding the issue. Unfortunately the right want neither.

You should really be able to frame it as more of an economic problem wuf and realise how sub optimal it is as a solution.

[wufwugy]

You should really be able to frame it as more of an economic problem wuf and realise how sub optimal it is as a solution.

I would agree except that I think the available information is a small fraction of the whole.

The abortion issue is symptomatic of the mostly not understood principles of what engenders healthy civilization. Nobody has much of any clue of the real answers here. As far as I can tell, the best guesses involve that if a civilization goes too far towards certain morals (this can be in either direction), the civilization falls apart. This crumbling lasts centuries, which is one reason it happens -- nobody notices.

I'm not a fan of going extreme in either direction. My study of history suggests that healthy civilization has a constant battle between liberalism (not leftism) and conservatism. In the social arena in the West of the last couple decades, I see a very worrying rush in the liberal direction. Conservatism is the old growth of the tree and liberalism is the new growth. Too much new growth and the tree bows and breaks. Contemporary feminism is, I think, the clearest example of intense new growth that is bending and breaking society.

[wufwugy]

You should really be able to frame it as more of an economic problem wuf and realise how sub optimal it is as a solution.

In case my point on this wasn't clear: I think we could easily show how it makes great economic sense to institute certain policies, yet because of a lack of information, those policies could be the type that undermine civilization itself (and thus be terrible economics).

Think of it this way: exactly how much do we want to disincentivize having babies? Contraception does that. Abortion does that. Feminism does that. There's a whole bunch of other stuff that does that. How far do we wanna go? Because, you know, if we go far enough, civilization crumbles.

I have no idea how far is too far. I'm already cautious that we've gone too far when it comes to some lower tier civilization calamities. For example, I think feminism has created and is still creating a generation of very unhappy women. The chickens haven't yet come home to roost, but they will come.

[wufwugy]

Even so, I don't take any of that into account when it comes to whether or not I support an idea. I'm generally very liberal on this stuff regardless of whether or not I think the idea is good or bad. People should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. Unless, of course, it's baby murder.

When is it baby murder? I don't know. And I don't think any sizable enough group of people to make a majority would be happy with any specific answer.

[Jack Sawyer]

Where I really shake my head at the GOP is when they try to pass restrictions on abortions that are clearly meant to shut down the practice altogether, or at least make it insanely difficult. When they do that, it allows the other side to paint even the reasonable measures, as oppressive.


For example, there was legislation proposed recently, at the state level (not sure which one) where women who had abortions, were allowed to sue their doctors afterward, and hold them responsible for depression or emotional distress or regret that the woman might feel afterward. Any time afterward, even years. That's obviously ridiculous and only meant to scare doctors into simply not offering abortions.


When they try and pull shit like that, it's really hard to respect their motives when they propose totally reasonable measures, for example, a bill requiring abortion clinics to meet the same cleanliness standards as a dentist office. That seems like a measure to protect patients from exploitative doctors. However, it gets blasted because the groups proposing it have proven to have murky intentions.

Yes, and with Orwellian double-speak of “protecting women’s safety” with TRAP laws.


Passing “Women’s Rights” bills.


And defunding planned parenthood willy nilly.


People, being ignorant as always, vote on things with fancy names not knowing what’s in it. Those with agendas get paid to rubber stamp these decisions. Simply do what your donor wants you to do, now the actual person who voted to get you in your current position. And then those who put their poison pills in will claim “but you voted for it”


It’s disgusting, frankly. And ironic, because as I will keep pointing out, these same people who invade women’s vagina and their right to choose to do what the fuck they want with their body want “small” government.


I THINK IT’S WRONG BECAUSE MY SKYGOD WROTE IT IN THE BIHBLE AND YOU SHOULD OBEY MY SKYGOD, THEREFORE I WILL MAKE IT THE LAW AND STRIKE THEE SINNER DOWN WITH LIGHTNING AND THUNDER!

Contemporary feminism is, I think, the clearest example of intense new growth that is bending and breaking society.

Finally we agree on something wuf. Feminism is definitely stupid

[wufwugy]

I THINK IT’S WRONG BECAUSE MY SKYGOD WROTE IT IN THE BIHBLE AND YOU SHOULD OBEY MY SKYGOD, THEREFORE I WILL MAKE IT THE LAW AND STRIKE THEE SINNER DOWN WITH LIGHTNING AND THUNDER!

You'll convince nobody with caricatures, particularly ones like this that are factually incorrect.

Opposition to abortion has nothing to do with the Bible and only has to do with their god in a particular way (one that I would be surprised if >1% of pro-abortion people can identify).

Opposition to abortion is because they believe it is human life and that human life is special. They believe that aborting a human life is murder.

[JKDS]

Hey wuf, when is abortion ok. Is it ever?

[Savy]

Think of it this way: exactly how much do we want to disincentivize having babies? Contraception does that. Abortion does that. Feminism does that. There's a whole bunch of other stuff that does that. How far do we wanna go? Because, you know, if we go far enough, civilization crumbles.

No wuf those things give people power to make choices about having babies. They do nothing to disincentivize having a baby. It allows people to weigh up the +'s and -'s and make a decision. They work as a mechanism to give people freedom and choice.

[wufwugy]

No wuf those things give people power to make choices about having babies. They do nothing to disincentivize having a baby. It allows people to weigh up the +'s and -'s and make a decision. They work as a mechanism to give people freedom and choice.

They do both. The degree to which they're a disincentive, nobody knows. What we do know is that we have seen the incentives on having babies change drastically in the western world.

[wufwugy]

Hey wuf, when is abortion ok. Is it ever?

When it's not a baby. I don't know when that is. I'm open to all sorts of ideas on this, like at certain stages of development.

When it is a baby, then when the abortion is to save the life of the mother.

Where it gets really tricky and I have no answer for is when the fetus has a deformity. According to the ideas on murder, that shouldn't matter, but I have a real hard time saying it shouldn't matter. Not aborting a fetus with a serious deformity seems wrong. I'm not sure there's an answer here.

The law should probably be that the fetus can be aborted for any reason up to a point (three-five months or something), and then after that point only to save the mother. Even though this isn't perfect, it's the most sensible thing I can think of.

[Savy]

They do both. The degree to which they're a disincentive, nobody knows. What we do know is that we have seen the incentives on having babies change drastically in the western world.

No they don't do both all they do is make it their choice. I don't get how you can believe in free markets where forcing the hand of business to do things is a negative but when you apply the exact same thing to women the logic goes out of the window because family.

When it's not a baby. I don't know when that is. I'm open to all sorts of ideas on this, like at certain stages of development.

When it is a baby, then when the abortion is to save the life of the mother.

Where it gets really tricky and I have no answer for is when the fetus has a deformity. According to the ideas on murder, that shouldn't matter, but I have a real hard time saying it shouldn't matter. Not aborting a fetus with a serious deformity seems wrong. I'm not sure there's an answer here.

The law should probably be that the fetus can be aborted for any reason up to a point (three-five months or something), and then after that point only to save the mother. Even though this isn't perfect, it's the most sensible thing I can think of.

Why to save the mother? Always find that a bit of a weird argument. It's also never anywhere near as clear cut as you make out.

Why when a baby has birth defects? Are you saying we should massacre the disabled? You sick fuck.

[JKDS]

When it's not a baby. I don't know when that is. I'm open to all sorts of ideas on this, like at certain stages of development. When it is a baby, then when the abortion is to save the life of the mother. Where it gets really tricky and I have no answer for is when the fetus has a deformity. According to the ideas on murder, that shouldn't matter, but I have a real hard time saying it shouldn't matter. Not aborting a fetus with a serious deformity seems wrong. I'm not sure there's an answer here. The law should probably be that the fetus can be aborted for any reason up to a point (three-five months or something), and then after that point only to save the mother. Even though this isn't perfect, it's the most sensible thing I can think of.

What conservatives are asking for is to make abortion illegal in almost every instance. The left rarely says abortion is okay after 6 months.

[BananaStand]

What conservatives are asking for is to make abortion illegal in almost every instance.

Not even close.

What you're describing there is the extreme fringe of conservatives. And it's only coincidence that they are predominantly politically conservative. Really their motivation is religious.

As I cited earlier, some 90% of the country (conservatives included) supports a woman's right to choose, even if they themselves would always choose life.

What conservatives have a problem with, is an over-reaching national policy that forces taxpayer dollars towards such a divisive issue. They see it as a symptom of an oppressive totalitarian government.

There is a myth going around that if the supreme court overturns Roe v Wade, then abortion will become illegal. That's monumentally untrue.

What would happen in that instance, is that the determination of legality would fall on the states. Conservatism embraces the idea that the role of the federal government is limited to things like national security and infrastructure. They believe all other determinations of law fall on the individual communities of people who must live with those laws.

Ironically, it's the "conservatives" who are really the ones who want the gov't out of women's vaginas.

They believe that despite a nationwide pro-choice majority, if 99% of people in Missouri believe that abortion is murder, then they should be allowed to operate their community according to their beliefs. They may even still support an individual woman's right to choose, while at the same time, refusing to allow facilities that perform this procedure, into their community. Or, if they are allowed, the community as a whole can decide how much taxpayer funding to provide to them, rather than have that directed by a federal government that does not necessarily represent that particular community.

Even though I am ardently pro-choice, I would prefer a system where individual states are allowed to govern themselves according to the will of their citizens. And if that means abortions are illegal in Iowa, then that's ok. If you don't like it, don't live in Iowa.

[wufwugy]

No they don't do both all they do is make it their choice.

Choice changes the incentives.

I don't get how you can believe in free markets where forcing the hand of business to do things is a negative but when you apply the exact same thing to women the logic goes out of the window because family.

Good news, I'm not doing this.

I have observed effects on the family, yet I do not propose any policy based on that. The policy I propose is exclusively based on the established rationale and norms regarding murder. Determine when the fetus is a human baby and move on from there. My free market ideals are fully consistent with this, as they include protecting humans from the initiation of violence.

Why to save the mother? Always find that a bit of a weird argument. It's also never anywhere near as clear cut as you make out.

This is one reason why I think we'll never find an answer. While it is probably possible to develop policies that are consistent with the value that killing innocent human life is wrong, this is its own unique situation. I think that in the case of the mother's life in danger, the mother's life takes precedence. The logic here is somewhat practical, but also theoretical in that the mother is a more fully autonomous person than the fetus. Regardless, this is one of those conundrums that go back to ancient times that has never been answered.

Why when a baby has birth defects? Are you saying we should massacre the disabled? You sick fuck.

I didn't make that claim within the context that the fetus is assumed to be a baby. Even so, I do think there is merit to the idea due to the complexity and the uniqueness of what a fetus is.


I have no answers. My intention is to establish that at some point the fetus is a human baby. The most vocal pro-abortion crowd doesn't acknowledge this even though the vast majority of people believe it. This is probably due to hardliners being the loudest, so you end up having a bunch of Democrat politicians who have a very hard time pushing back against what looks very close to murder. Even at 8.5 months, the hardliners still say "my baby my body," though by that point it is most likely murder, and Democrats can't go against it and get reelected that easily.

[wufwugy]

What conservatives are asking for is to make abortion illegal in almost every instance. The left rarely says abortion is okay after 6 months.

Yeah most people are on the five-six month wagon. But those who care the most are not. One side says life begins at conception, the other says only after delivery.

I am more sympathetic towards the right-wing one because it is less ridiculous and less evil. But I don't support either when it comes to policy.

[Savy]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone support abortion anywhere near as late as you are implying.

Even though I am ardently pro-choice, I would prefer a system where individual states are allowed to govern themselves according to the will of their citizens. And if that means abortions are illegal in Iowa, then that's ok. If you don't like it, don't live in Iowa.

If people want to group together and not pay taxes for something then that's their choice. I don't see how you can get behind abortion being illegal period. Telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies is ridiculous, not wanting to pay for it isn't.

[wufwugy]

Here's part of the logic regarding abortion when deformed: I believe euthanasia should be a right. People should be allowed to choose to die, at least when there is demonstrable and unsolvable suffering. But a baby can't choose. The parents should be able to choose. If there is enough predicted suffering in the future life of a fetus due to a deformity, it is probably right to abort. This is totally consistent with nature too.

But, this is also something I don't see people coming to an agreement on.

[BananaStand]

Regardless, this is one of those conundrums that go back to ancient times that has never been answered

I think you just inadvertently enlightened yourself. Especially when we go back to 'ancient times', it's easy to see that this issue has been debated, and policies have been set, for the most part, by people without wombs.

I think that in the case of the mother's life in danger, the mother's life takes precedence. The logic here is somewhat practical, but also theoretical in that the mother is a more fully autonomous person than the fetus.

So that sounds like a nice compromise when you cite "the life of the mother". The problem is, that can be interpreted an infinite number of ways. Hillary's position was pretty much the same as yours. Decide early, but we'll allow a late one if it impacts the health of the mother.

The health of the mother could be anything. Maybe she broke up with her boyfriend at 8.5 months and now decides that raising his child would be an emotional burden, a source of depression, or some other touchy-feely thing that can't really be substantiated. It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 doctors think that's crazy....she only needs one to perform the abortion.

So the solution here really has to come from the medical community and NOT the legislature. The government really has no dog in this fight, so I don't know why it's even a political issue. Those 99 doctors need to make sure that 1 doctor ends up with a severe competitive disadvantage if he chooses to do procedures that the majority of doctors would consider unethical, or even insane.

There are countless professional organizations that give accreditations, licenses, and ratings to Doctors. Those things can easily be used to justify varying rates of medical malpractice insurance. Those organizations could easily get together and use their expert knowledge to define what they consider ethical and non-ethical abortions. They could inform the public, and let the free market (the ultimate judge of right and wrong) take over.

Instead, the politicians have made this such a hot button issue, I don't blame the medical community for not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole.

[BananaStand]

If people want to group together and not pay taxes for something then that's their choice. I don't see how you can get behind abortion being illegal period. Telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies is ridiculous, not wanting to pay for it isn't.

While I agree with the bolded statement, it remains an opinion. It isn't any more factual just because it's a very popular opinion.

I simply choose to acknowledge that there are some people who espouse an opposite opinion. And I acknowledge that it's plausible that lots of those people might living within a single municipality. I respect their right to govern themselves according to their own values. I don't have to like it, but I respect democracy.

There's a town not too far from me where people seem to wish it was the 1800's. That opinion is so popular in that town that they have enacted ordinances that require business to only have carved or painted wooden signs. No neon, nothing that lights up at night, nothing with interchangeable letters, just old fashioned wood.

I don't really agree with the government telling business what they can and can't have on their own private property, or how they can and can't market their business in a public forum. But I totally respect the authority of a democratically elected representative government.

[Savy]

But that logic breaks down because you can just keep getting smaller and smaller groups. What if there was a little part in the state that said they wanted abortions so that little part kept them but in that little part there was a little part who...

[BananaStand]

But that logic breaks down because you can just keep getting smaller and smaller groups.

No you don't. We start with the country, it has a constitution which spells out what powers the federal government does and doesn't have.

After that, we have states. They all have constitutions, and they all spell out what is and isn't under the state government purview.

After that we have counties, and eventually towns. All of these things have legislative bodies, and mandates on what is and isn't within their power. Individual neighborhoods, boroughs, or districts don't. So that's where it stops.

[Savy]

No you don't. We start with the country, it has a constitution which spells out what powers the federal government does and doesn't have.

After that, we have states. They all have constitutions, and they all spell out what is and isn't under the state government purview.

After that we have counties, and eventually towns. All of these things have legislative bodies, and mandates on what is and isn't within their power. Individual neighborhoods, boroughs, or districts don't. So that's where it stops.

So it's completely arbitrary.

Are we saying new legislative bodies should now never be created and their power should never be altered?

[BananaStand]

So it's completely arbitrary.

Are we saying new legislative bodies should now never be created and their power should never be altered?

How is it arbitrary? There exists layers of government, all with their own constitutions and charters that outline their powers and responsibilities. Of course these things can be changed. But changing them is anything but arbitrary. There are checks and balances across all three branches of government that must be satisfied for changes to be enacted.

It's a robust system of government that I think has shown to be the best in the world for over 200 years.

What's arbitrary about it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

200 years is a nothingth of time in human history.

Anthropological finds and various dating methods place the human genome back something like 492,000 years.
Genetically modern humans are old hat.

The first cities (or precursors to cities) are about 12,000 years old.

***
Saying that the thing you do is the best thing ever is so passe'.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How is it arbitrary? There exists layers of government, all with their own constitutions and charters that outline their powers and responsibilities. Of course these things can be changed. But changing them is anything but arbitrary. There are checks and balances across all three branches of government that must be satisfied for changes to be enacted.

It's a robust system of government that I think has shown to be the best in the world for over 200 years.

What's arbitrary about it?

The number and scale of layers is arbitrary.

The system of checks and balances within each layer is a separate issue, I think, but still arbitrary

[BananaStand]

200 years is a nothingth of time in human history.

Anthropological finds and various dating methods place the human genome back something like 492,000 years.
Genetically modern humans are old hat.

The first cities (or precursors to cities) are about 12,000 years old.

So? Recent history >>> Ancient history

It's like if we were talking about who the best QB of all time is. You're nuts if you don't automatically throw out everyone who played before 1980.

Saying that the thing you do is the best thing ever is so passe'.

The truth does get old sometimes.

The number and scale of layers is arbitrary.

No it isn't. Each level of government represents a defined, not arbitrary, population of people. And their scope of powers is limited by clearly defined geographic boundaries. Why are we still using the word "arbitrary"? I mean, it's not like groups of people are sprouting up and saying "We're claiming this land, and we're gonna make our own laws".

The system of checks and balances within each layer is a separate issue, I think, but still arbitrary

Each of the three branches has the power to overrule the other two. It's like rock paper scissors, each is equally powerful and equally vulnerable. Those powers and vulnerabilities were carefully thought out to ensure democracy.

What is "arbitrary" about it? Why are we insisting on using that word? That seems to be the only arbitrary thing in this whole discussion.

[CoccoBill]

They are arbitrary, since there isn't any underlying clearly defined logic, formula or system behind them. They've just been "decided". Also, I'm sure you've heard of gerrymandering.

[wufwugy]

I think you just inadvertently enlightened yourself. Especially when we go back to 'ancient times', it's easy to see that this issue has been debated, and policies have been set, for the most part, by people without wombs.

I was referring to the age old question "do you kill one to save two?"

Regarding abortion as an ancient question, I don't think it was that big of a deal. Modern times seem to have made it a bigger deal, partly due to religion and partly due to science. Also probably because in times of great abundance, there is not nearly as great of reason to abort.

[wufwugy]

I think you just inadvertently enlightened yourself. Especially when we go back to 'ancient times', it's easy to see that this issue has been debated, and policies have been set, for the most part, by people without wombs.

I meant to add that the idea that people who don't have wombs should not have as much of an opinion about wombs is not a persuasive argument to me. Reason is reason, regardless of where it comes from. The idea that a demographic has a better say on policy due to being in that demographic is a logical fallacy, and I think the idea has contributed to problems in other areas.

Besides, if we go down that route, then guess what, the only person who should have a say is the baby. That game can be played however one cherry picks.

[BananaStand]

I meant to add that the idea that people who don't have wombs should not have as much of an opinion about wombs is not a persuasive argument to me. Reason is reason, regardless of where it comes from. The idea that a demographic has a better say on policy due to being in that demographic is a logical fallacy, and I think the idea has contributed to problems in other areas.

The number of men, throughout the entirety of history, who know what it's like to have a person growing inside of you and make a monumental decision over it's life or death, is exactly zero. Not one. So the idea that you can empathize based on "reason" is a very ignorant point of view. It's not just a matter of reason. It's an emotional and spiritual decision as well. And on those fronts, if you're not a woman, you have no friggen idea what you're talking about.

Besides, if we go down that route, then guess what, the only person who should have a say is the baby.

What baby? I thought you and I were in agreement about drawing a line on when it's a baby, and when it's not. If we're before that line, there is no baby. Just a woman with a womb who probably doesn't want direction, or even advice, from a man with a dick.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So? Recent history >>> Ancient history

I don't accept the argument to ignore 99% of the history of humans when considering the success of any system of governance.

What I understand is that various forms of governance have different strengths and weaknesses. Each varies in how it performs as the size of the governed population changes.

It's like if we were talking about who the best QB of all time is. You're nuts if you don't automatically throw out everyone who played before 1980.

This ad hominem is not compelling me to see reason in your point.

The truth does get old sometimes.

I admire your confidence.

No it isn't. Each level of government represents a defined, not arbitrary, population of people. And their scope of powers is limited by clearly defined geographic boundaries. Why are we still using the word "arbitrary"?

All of these definitions are made up by nations (people), who had to bully, bribe, and coerce other nations (people) to agree. There is no objective reason that the lines on the map are where they are. It's just the current result of the path of political greed.

The current set of governed people are, by and large, people who happen to have been born in that place. It is quite arbitrary who is governed by each nation.

I mean, it's not like groups of people are sprouting up and saying "We're claiming this land, and we're gonna make our own laws".

Ummm... how do you think nations/states/counties/cities are formed?

Each of the three branches has the power to overrule the other two. It's like rock paper scissors, each is equally powerful and equally vulnerable. Those powers and vulnerabilities were carefully thought out to ensure democracy.

What is "arbitrary" about it? Why are we insisting on using that word? That seems to be the only arbitrary thing in this whole discussion.

What's not arbitrary about the number 3?
Why not 5? Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock is a perfectly balanced game, too, where each choice is equally strong and vulnerable. Any odd number will do.

USA is not a democracy, anyway. It's a democratic republic. You're talking about the republic aspects.
If not for the representative system, is there a need for a system of checks and balances?
I don't know how it works in practice on a national scale.

[BananaStand]

I don't accept the argument to ignore 99% of the history of humans when considering the success of any system of governance.....

Ummm... how do you think nations/states/counties/cities are formed?

You're conflating things quite a bit. There is quite a difference between arbitrarily staking out land and people, and creating governments within them. It's an entirely different thing to have a mature nation, with long established boundaries and robust governmental procedures.

The original question here was in regards to who should be making laws about abortions. The options are to allow individual states make laws that reflect the culture of their constituents, or to have the federal government make over-reaching, one-size-fits-all, regulations that often stand in stark contrast to the values of large groups of people.

It's pretty glib to just say "aaaahhh, those state lines were drawn arbitrarily centuries ago, so their sovereignty is invalid now"

You could use that argument to strip the states of any power at all, and you'll end up with one big super government running everything and telling everyone what to do.

[JKDS]

Why should one culture be able to tell the other, equally large culture, that they can't get an abortion?

[BananaStand]

Why should one culture be able to tell the other, equally large culture, that they can't get an abortion? anything

Fixed your post. Yeah states' rights!!

[wufwugy]

The number of men, throughout the entirety of history, who know what it's like to have a person growing inside of you and make a monumental decision over it's life or death, is exactly zero. Not one. So the idea that you can empathize based on "reason" is a very ignorant point of view. It's not just a matter of reason. It's an emotional and spiritual decision as well. And on those fronts, if you're not a woman, you have no friggen idea what you're talking about.

Good news, empathy is irrelevant. Knowing what it's like to be pregnant or not doesn't change whether or not aborting a fetus is murder.

What baby? I thought you and I were in agreement about drawing a line on when it's a baby, and when it's not. If we're before that line, there is no baby. Just a woman with a womb who probably doesn't want direction, or even advice, from a man with a dick.

You're changing the terms on me. My comment was in the context of the mother or baby dilemma.

[wufwugy]

I tend to think the states' rights argument is misapplied here. If we're dealing with things that are not initiation of violence, then yeah, states' rights away. But if we're dealing with initiation of violence -- something murder falls under -- then it is probably right to use force to stop it.

However, since it isn't clear at what point a fetus is a baby, it should be left up to smaller bodies to institute policy. Granted, this raises the question of what happens when a powerful body "determines" that fetus=baby at a certain point and then marches in with swords to stop other bodies from murdering babies.

I'm left in a spot, again, where I just don't know.

[BananaStand]

Good news, empathy is irrelevant.

Not even close to true. If hard black and white logic were able to be used in every debate, legislation, or litigation of law, then there would be no such thing as juries.

[wufwugy]

Not even close to true. If hard black and white logic were able to be used in every debate, legislation, or litigation of law, then there would be no such thing as juries.

You're right. If enough parents think killing their five year olds isn't murder, they're right.

[BananaStand]

But if we're dealing with initiation of violence -- something murder falls under -- then it is probably right to use force to stop it.

Using words like "murder" and "violence" here imply something you know you don't mean. We're talking about a medical procedure, administered privately, by a licensed professional, after careful consideration and a weighing of all options. The way you're talking, landscapers shouldn't be pulling weeds out of the ground. The way you seem to be defining it, that's murder too.

Granted, this raises the question of what happens when a powerful body "determines" that fetus=baby at a certain point and then marches in with swords to stop other bodies from murdering babies.

What do you mean, 'what happens'? It's in the constitution. First of all, that big powerful body is actually made up of representatives from the individual smaller bodies. So there are safeguards that keep the big body's agenda from deviating too much from any one of those smaller bodies. However, when it does, it does. And the constitution clearly spells out what the powers of the federal government are, and where they stop. All three branches of government have the ability to challenge the interpretations of the other. And if all three agree that the fed has precedence over the states on any single issue, then the states lose. Boo hoo.

In regards to this issue, the current situation is so very much the opposite of what you're hypothesizing, that your hypothesis seems totally irrelevant, and disconnected from reality. One side of the argument says "the fed should make sure abortions stay legal nationwide". The other side says "it's none of the fed's business". That's the debate. There's only a tiny minority who support a nationwide ban.

[wufwugy]

Using words like "murder" and "violence" here imply something you know you don't mean. We're talking about a medical procedure, administered privately, by a licensed professional, after careful consideration and a weighing of all options. The way you're talking, landscapers shouldn't be pulling weeds out of the ground. The way you seem to be defining it, that's murder too.

Clearly the context is initiation of violence against people.

What do you mean, 'what happens'? It's in the constitution. First of all, that big powerful body is actually made up of representatives from the individual smaller bodies. So there are safeguards that keep the big body's agenda from deviating too much from any one of those smaller bodies. However, when it does, it does. And the constitution clearly spells out what the powers of the federal government are, and where they stop. All three branches of government have the ability to challenge the interpretations of the other. And if all three agree that the fed has precedence over the states on any single issue, then the states lose. Boo hoo.

In regards to this issue, the current situation is so very much the opposite of what you're hypothesizing, that your hypothesis seems totally irrelevant, and disconnected from reality. One side of the argument says "the fed should make sure abortions stay legal nationwide". The other side says "it's none of the fed's business". That's the debate. There's only a tiny minority who support a nationwide ban.

I'm talking core philosophy here.

[BananaStand]

You're right. If enough parents think killing their five year olds isn't murder, they're right.

Once again, you're choosing to support your argument with a nonsense hypothesis that has no basis in reality.

[BananaStand]

I'm talking core philosophy here.

We have a core philosophy. It says there are three branches of government with limited powers, and they all have the ability to challenge each other on the usage or definition of those powers.

When they all agree, the fed rules. When they don't, it falls on the states.

[wufwugy]

Once again, you're choosing to support your argument with a nonsense hypothesis that has no basis in reality.

I get it, analogies are not persuasive. Neither is logic.

Many people, the smartest people, say that women are not better at determining when a fetus is a baby than men are. Believe me.

[BananaStand]

Many people, the smartest people, say that women are not better at determining when a fetus is a baby than men are. Believe me.

It's not a matter of being "better". Someone who has had a fetus physically attached to their insides, certainly has a different perspective and experience than someone who hasn't. Surely you agree that perspective is unique and valuable.

And if you do agree, then you must also agree that historically that perspective has been largely shut out of policy making decisions.

[wufwugy]

It's not a matter of being "better". Someone who has had a fetus physically attached to their insides, certainly has a different perspective and experience than someone who hasn't. Surely you agree that perspective is unique and valuable.

If the topic was something other than determining when a fetus is a baby, it might matter.

And if you do agree, then you must also agree that historically that perspective has been largely shut out of policy making decisions.

I don't agree with this narrative. It has been pushed by radical feminists and adopted by millions of well meaning men and women alike. Women held a tremendous amount of behind the scenes power in the past. One could argue that women used to be more powerful than they are today. Feminism has been stripping them of their most effective power roles.

[BananaStand]

One could argue that women used to be more powerful than they are today.

Hold on....getting popcorn
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok go....

[wufwugy]

Hold on....getting popcorn
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok go....

Wives tend to control the majority of household cash flows. Given that most expenditures in the economy are filtered through the household, this is women having a more profound effect on the economy than men in this significant regard. Wives also tend to have far greater control of the home and the family than husbands. Even though husbands do play an integral role in the upbringing of children, the upbringing is still mostly formed by wives. Wives design the future more than husbands do, when put in this context.

Feminism has denied all this. It attempts to turn women into men. It pulls women out of the roles they're good at and tells them to compete with men in what men are good at. It doesn't work. Results include there being far fewer wives today and women have less say over the economy and the future generations than they used to.

When it comes to something like policymaking, I think that women end up having more of a say when the policymakers are mostly men than when they are not. The reason is that these men all have wives (and most have daughters). Their wives have an incredible amount of influence over what the husbands believe. Indeed, a man simply being a husband and father tends to change the way he views the world. Nothing new is being brought to the table by making more policymakers women. In fact, it's probably harmful since it pits women against men in an arena where women tend to not excel and men tend to excel.

None of this is to say that policy should be that men and women can't play certain roles. People should be free to do what they want. That's different than what I see as a narrative that pushes women to do things they don't actually want.

[wufwugy]

I know a good deal of men whose opinions are basically their wives opinions. And they don't realize it.

[wufwugy]

Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%.



Even if they realize he's setting a trap for them, they have no choice but to jump in.

[BananaStand]

Wives tend to control the majority of household cash flows.

This sounds like conjecture. Source?

I'll help you out. Here's one
http://www.businessinsider.com/infog...america-2012-2

The article definitely seems a little "spun" considering they cite sources like "she-conomics" and "girlpowermarketing.com". But wouldn't debate the fact that women manage more than 50% of the day to day household spending. I'll stipulate for now.

Though I will say that I flat out don't believe 68% of car purchases are decided by women. I'm not sure a man turning to his wife saying "you ok with this honey" and her nodding out of indifference makes her the "decider".

Given that most expenditures in the economy are filtered through the household, this is women having a more profound effect on the economy than men in this significant regard.

This is where we disagree. A woman buying groceries, taking the kids for haircuts, and buying little Jimmy new soccer cleats is not enough to make up "most expenditures" in the economy. Women spending is certainly more prevalent on the arena of day to day retail, but I don't believe that represents "most of the economy"

When it comes to major financial decisions like estate planning, taxes, and investing, men rule. Companies get their money for hiring, expansion, and innovation through investments. Those expenditures dominate the economy, and they are handily dominated by men.

http://www.fa-mag.com/news/study--wo...ead-25347.html

As for the rest of your post....jesus man.....have you ever met a girl?

[BananaStand]

Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%.

it blows my mind that this was ever in doubt. Any thinking person knew that Mexico wasn't just gonna hand over a suitcase full of cash marked "wall". We always knew that NAFTA and the trade deficit would be re-negotiated in a way that sends enough money back to our side to pay for the wall.

Folks who insisted that mexico had to physically write a check for this explicit purpose were just trying to embarass, discredit, and de-legitimize Trump

[wufwugy]

This sounds like conjecture. Source?

I'll help you out. Here's one
http://www.businessinsider.com/infog...america-2012-2

The article definitely seems a little "spun" considering they cite sources like "she-conomics" and "girlpowermarketing.com". But wouldn't debate the fact that women manage more than 50% of the day to day household spending. I'll stipulate for now.

Though I will say that I flat out don't believe 68% of car purchases are decided by women. I'm not sure a man turning to his wife saying "you ok with this honey" and her nodding out of indifference makes her the "decider".


This is where we disagree. A woman buying groceries, taking the kids for haircuts, and buying little Jimmy new soccer cleats is not enough to make up "most expenditures" in the economy. Women spending is certainly more prevalent on the arena of day to day retail, but I don't believe that represents "most of the economy"

When it comes to major financial decisions like estate planning, taxes, and investing, men rule. Companies get their money for hiring, expansion, and innovation through investments. Those expenditures dominate the economy, and they are handily dominated by men.

http://www.fa-mag.com/news/study--wo...ead-25347.html

This is true when it's not filtered through the household.

As for the rest of your post....jesus man.....have you ever met a girl?

I know many women better than they know themselves. At least that's what they tell me.

[wufwugy]

it blows my mind that this was ever in doubt. Any thinking person knew that Mexico wasn't just gonna hand over a suitcase full of cash marked "wall". We always knew that NAFTA and the trade deficit would be re-negotiated in a way that sends enough money back to our side to pay for the wall.

Folks who insisted that mexico had to physically write a check for this explicit purpose were just trying to embarass, discredit, and de-legitimize Trump

Still, we might actually get a check. It's crazy.

Trump holds all the cards. A ton of Democrats want out of NAFTA. Trump can say "pay for the wall or you're out of renegotiations." And Mexico would write the check. And I would die from loling so hard.

[BananaStand]

I know many women better than they know themselves. At least that's what they tell me.

Bitchez lie

[wufwugy]

That they do.

[Poopadoop]

I love how a couple of tweets from Trump is all the proof you guys need that Mexico is going to pay for the Wall. Why limit yourselves to alternative facts when you can also have alternative concrete evidence...

[wufwugy]

I love how a couple of tweets from Trump is all the proof you guys need that Mexico is going to pay for the Wall. Why limit yourselves to alternative facts when you can also have alternative concrete evidence...

It's fun how Trump's adversaries are the ones who keep getting surprised by him.

[wufwugy]

Best thing I've seen in a long time -- paraphrasing Nassim Taleb: A real IQ test is one where an ancient Greek peasant and Voltaire would pass, and Paul Krugman would fail.

Delicious. Spot on.