Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is some point where one must determine that a collection of human cells is a human. I'm sure even the most hard line pro-choice people wouldn't support abortions 8 months into pregnancy with out strong medical reasons. Most pro-choice people would point to some time where brain activity can generally be detected. For someone who is pro-life to determine that the point of "humanization" is when the genetic material of two distinct humans combine is not an entirely illogical stance to have, and you'll find many that are in favor of the morning after pill as a form of contraception due to its effects occurring prior to conception (well depending on how many days one waits to take it, the intention at least is used to avoid getting pregnant rather than removing a pregnancy). There is clear and obvious reasoning for it and a difference of opinion is valid. It just gets really heated because one side sees it as killing babies and the other side sees it as losing the right to body autonomy, which are two pretty intolerable things to just accept as occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is some point where one must determine that a collection of human cells is a human. I'm sure even the most hard line pro-choice people wouldn't support abortions 8 months into pregnancy with out strong medical reasons. Most pro-choice people would point to some time where brain activity can generally be detected. For someone who is pro-life to determine that the point of "humanization" is when the genetic material of two distinct humans combine is not an entirely illogical stance to have, and you'll find many that are in favor of the morning after pill as a form of contraception due to its effects occurring prior to conception (well depending on how many days one waits to take it, the intention at least is used to avoid getting pregnant rather than removing a pregnancy). There is clear and obvious reasoning for it and a difference of opinion is valid. It just gets really heated because one side sees it as killing babies and the other side sees it as losing the right to body autonomy, which are two pretty intolerable things to just accept as occurring.

Gonna have to disagree here.  Maybe one day I'll run into a pro-life argument that's intellectually honest.  Until then, the only thing supporting that position are arguments that appeal to emotion and prioritizing the fetus above the mother, to the point where the mother's life is irrelevant.  Plus, it says nothing about the man, and it takes two to create a baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I can't imagine somebody terminating a pregnancy for a non medical, non-criminal reason with only a few weeks to go, it's really none of my business in the first place. That's not my body.

And before you throw that "what if YOU were the father" hypothetical at me, it's a pretty disgusting notion to say that the father should be allowed to force an unwanted pregnancy. If I'm hellbent on having a kid, then finding somebody willing to make that happen is my responsibility. I've ended relationships over less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

Mom needs to be alive or it doesn't.

That's... kind of a given.

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is some point where one must determine that a collection of human cells is a human. I'm sure even the most hard line pro-choice people wouldn't support abortions 8 months into pregnancy with out strong medical reasons. Most pro-choice people would point to some time where brain activity can generally be detected. For someone who is pro-life to determine that the point of "humanization" is when the genetic material of two distinct humans combine is not an entirely illogical stance to have, and you'll find many that are in favor of the morning after pill as a form of contraception due to its effects occurring prior to conception (well depending on how many days one waits to take it, the intention at least is used to avoid getting pregnant rather than removing a pregnancy). There is clear and obvious reasoning for it and a difference of opinion is valid. It just gets really heated because one side sees it as killing babies and the other side sees it as losing the right to body autonomy, which are two pretty intolerable things to just accept as occurring.

Both sides are right to an extent, but I think it ends up becoming about whose life should be prioritized. I dunno, it's just so tough talk about.

8 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

And a seed can grow into a plant. Still not the plant. They're not the same thing, and should not be treated as such.

But you'd let the seed grow, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jotari said:

Ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is some point where one must determine that a collection of human cells is a human. I'm sure even the most hard line pro-choice people wouldn't support abortions 8 months into pregnancy with out strong medical reasons. Most pro-choice people would point to some time where brain activity can generally be detected. For someone who is pro-life to determine that the point of "humanization" is when the genetic material of two distinct humans combine is not an entirely illogical stance to have, and you'll find many that are in favor of the morning after pill as a form of contraception due to its effects occurring prior to conception (well depending on how many days one waits to take it, the intention at least is used to avoid getting pregnant rather than removing a pregnancy). There is clear and obvious reasoning for it and a difference of opinion is valid. It just gets really heated because one side sees it as killing babies and the other side sees it as losing the right to body autonomy, which are two pretty intolerable things to just accept as occurring.

Considering how poor the US financial assistant is for supporting the poor, how expensive it is to give birth (easily going above $5000 without insurance) or having to go to the hospital due to any illness or any appointments due to complications due to the pregnancy, the high possibility of the women being unable to work for a long period of time because of the pregnancy, and the emotionally and expensive cost of caring for a newborn, being forced to give birth to a child can easily ruin a person's livelihood and set them massively back, which in turn will cause the newborn child to have a terrible upbringing with a high chance of resorting to crime to support themselves.

Even if the mother wanted to give up the child the moment after birth, the process can be time consuming to arrange the adoption,  something the mother made not have the time to do if they are in massive financial crunch/debt.

If the US had something like what Norway has, which has: a strong welfare system in place to aid those who need income, a 12 month maternity for parents given by the state & not by the employer, zero out-of-pocket cost for healthcare, fully pays for all expensive for the pregnancy, plus an additional lump sum of cash after giving birth to cover needed supplies to care for the baby, plus additional incoming every month to the mother until the child turns 18, then maybe I would take the pro-life side more seriously, but even if the government did do this to support mothers giving birth, I would still advocate that the mother should still be legally allowed to have an abortion if they deemed it necessary.

But knowing the republican's side and they strong dislike of having government spending money to assist the poor, we won't get a  strong social welfare system any time in my foreseeable future. 'Pro-life' may be so against killing unborn babies, but they have almost no interest in actually assisting the newborn baby & the mother. It's basically to the point in which, the unborn baby is design to be a punishment for the mother. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The most off putting thing about it is that this bill employs the citizenry as bounty hunters to harass their fellow citizens for money from the state. 

I've been envisioning this getting exploited, like accusing neighbors you don't like of witchcraft.

Make false accusations that Female Activist 3217 got an operation, despite having no evidence at all that she was ever pregnant. Unless the courts act swiftly to acquire empirical evidence that disproves that, the mounting legal costs will force the woman to cease dissidence from the reactionary status quo soon enough, even if the eventual verdict (hopefully) comes back not guilty.

And if the courts fail to uphold the truth in their verdicts b/c crazy judges appointed by bad people, then time to start making a living opening cases against a dozen random women a month. Until those at the top see how ridiculous the lawsuit profiteering is getting, and realize they want a more sane ultraconservative undemocratic world order, and so remove the no longer necessary legal vigilantism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pro-Life" politics have always been good for Republicans as long as they just talked about it in the abstract, and didn't actually do anything to make anyone feel like their rights were being threatened. Now its going to kill them.

Republicans are the barking dog that finally caught the car. And now its going to run them over.  

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

I don't see the republican base shifting their vote over abortion of all things.

The Republican base is a minority that only wins low turnout national elections, and loses when the majority of the country that ISN'T the Republican base is highly motivated to vote. 

The largest Red State in the country passing landmark anti-abortion legislation to make all abortions after 6 weeks illegal + a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court letting it stand is the kind of thing that gets the majority of the country that isn't the Republican base highly motivated to vote. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, indigoasis said:

most plants are beneficial to the environment

Depends on the context!  Mango trees are somewhat common here, but they become quite the pain in the neck when their branches interfere with the power lines.  There's also herbicides and weed whackers to deal with unwanted plants.

37 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

The Republican base is a minority that only wins low turnout national elections, and loses when the majority of the country that ISN'T the Republican base is highly motivated to vote. 

The largest Red State in the country passing landmark anti-abortion legislation to make all abortions after 6 weeks illegal + a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court letting it stand is the kind of thing that gets the majority of the country that isn't the Republican base highly motivated to vote. 

I hope you're right about this, but IMO the election that matters here are the ones held in Texas.  As much as I want to overturn that bill, my vote isn't gonna do squat in their state legislature's race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be unlikely, or who knows, but there could be hope that some Republican women will protest this, if not publicly then at the voting booths. Since it's not an "it only targets the people I don't like" thing. This affects them too.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I hope you're right about this, but IMO the election that matters here are the ones held in Texas.  As much as I want to overturn that bill, my vote isn't gonna do squat in their state legislature's race.

So something to keep in mind is that one way to fix this is to have Congress pass a bill that takes the core holding of Roe v. Wade. And makes it a federal statute. (and this is something thats being discussed right now by Democrats in Washington)

If theres a Federal Statute that says you can't ban 1st trimester abortions--its a protected civil right--then it doesn't matter whether or not you have a Supreme Court majority thats going to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. 

The federal statute is controlling over any contrary state law. (probably Bluer than what we have right now. As has been demonstrated time and time again; Joe Manchin is basically a Republican with a (D) next to his name) 

To do that you need a solidly blue House and Senate.  So thats where national elections matter, every vote counts, and you gotta vote like abortion rights are on the ballot in every state.  

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

So something to keep in mind is that one way to fix this is to have Congress pass a bill that takes the core holding of Roe v. Wade. And makes it a federal statute. (and this is something thats being discussed right now by Democrats in Washington)

If theres a Federal Statute that says you can't ban 1st trimester abortions--its a protected civil right--then it doesn't matter whether or not you have a Supreme Court majority thats going to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. 

The federal statute is controlling over any contrary state law. (probably Bluer than what we have right now. As has been demonstrated time and time again; Joe Manchin is basically a Republican with a (D) next to his name) 

To do that you need a solidly blue House and Senate.  So thats where national elections matter, every vote counts, and you gotta vote like abortion rights are on the ballot in every state.  

My state's already done its part, if you're looking for Democrats in Congress.  It's frustrating that my vote doesn't do more, but I'm happy that my state isn't red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Clear World said:

If the US had something like what Norway has, which has: a strong welfare system in place to aid those who need income, a 12 month maternity for parents given by the state & not by the employer, zero out-of-pocket cost for healthcare, fully pays for all expensive for the pregnancy,

My main concern with this where will this money come from, since you're basically asking for the federal government to provide at least a few million bucks, each month on top of the other things it pays for.

 

7 hours ago, Clear World said:

plus an additional lump sum of cash after giving birth to cover needed supplies to care for the baby, plus additional incoming every month to the mother until the child turns 18, 

I might be wrong about this, but you can get reimbursed for your kids when you file your taxes. Just don't expect a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

My main concern with this where will this money come from, since you're basically asking for the federal government to provide at least a few million bucks, each month on top of the other things it pays for.

If the rich and corporations actually paid their due of taxes (which they don't, and still ask to be taxed less), the money would easily come. Not to mention, the monstrous military budget could afford a slash or two. Specially now that the Afghanistan war is over.

It's an often repeated but sometimes ignored sometimes the Rich still try to dupe you into thinking Trickle Down was ever going to work, etc, etc, etc. And if all else fails, the "It's Communism/Socialism!" trick almost never fails. Sadly.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Armchair General said:

My main concern with this where will this money come from, since you're basically asking for the federal government to provide at least a few million bucks, each month on top of the other things it pays for.

Full employment and high taxes on everyone. So I was informed about the Scandinavian model. It's not "tax the rich heavily", it's everyone pays a lot into the system, and almost everyone needs a job to pay for the system. Employers therefore need the right to freely hire and fire employees to be competitive internationally, but if you're fired, the government will generously help you get back on your feet. And the government needs you back on your feet when it's realistically and fairly possible, so that it continues to keep its welfare solvent for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

If the rich and corporations actually paid their due of taxes (which they don't, and still ask to be taxed less), the money would easily come. Not to mention, the monstrous military budget could afford a slash or two. Specially now that the Afghanistan war is over.

It's an often repeated but sometimes ignored sometimes the Rich still try to dupe you into thinking Trickle Down was ever going to work, etc, etc, etc. And if all else fails, the "It's Communism/Socialism!" trick almost never fails. Sadly.

Yeah, it would help immensely if there was an effort to patch a few loopholes (as in start charging people for using the stock market); but it is what it is, considering that they're taking advantage of  how everything is set up.

 

20 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Full employment and high taxes on everyone. So I was informed about the Scandinavian model. It's not "tax the rich heavily", it's everyone pays a lot into the system, and almost everyone needs a job to pay for the system. Employers therefore need the right to freely hire and fire employees to be competitive internationally, but if you're fired, the government will generously help you get back on your feet. And the government needs you back on your feet when it's realistically and fairly possible, so that it continues to keep its welfare solvent for others.

This is true, but it can easily fall apart if either the population grows faster than the workforce does or the workforce suddenly shrinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not about the US, but since it's the same current topic I wanted to bring this up as a matter of contrast. Just today it was declared over here (Mexico) that penalizing abortions is unconstitutional. Doesn't actually change the individual state laws, but stablishes precedent to be changed easier, as almost all the country puts lots of conditionals to abortion (only four states so far have no restrictions other than a time limit of 12 weeks into the pregnancy, and two only came into effect just this year).

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/07/1034925270/mexico-abortion-decriminalized-supreme-court

Or I guess it could be relevant once the states bordering Texas go forth with joining the other four states.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eclipse said:

Depends on the context!  Mango trees are somewhat common here, but they become quite the pain in the neck when their branches interfere with the power lines.  There's also herbicides and weed whackers to deal with unwanted plants.

That's true. I've also learned in the past that weeds can actually act as a carbon sink, but they really aren't something that you'd want in your garden. 

Honestly, I think I'd be more interested in talking about plants than politics, seeing as how it's starting to derail from the initial topic. I can't debate to save my life, so thanks for defusing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Armchair General said:

My main concern with this where will this money come from, since you're basically asking for the federal government to provide at least a few million bucks, each month on top of the other things it pays for.

 

I might be wrong about this, but you can get reimbursed for your kids when you file your taxes. Just don't expect a lot.

Could cut like a single percent off the military budget. Not being in Afghanistan anymore is a decent excuse as ever. The whole radically against taxation yet radically pro military is one of the most baffling double thinks of the USA's republican party. Where do they think the army is getting the money to pay for that massive military?

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...