**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Shit, that one sports commentator lost his job because he called a black woman, "nappy headed," which literally means, "tightly curled hair," which I'm fairly certain applies to most black people and some non-black as well. Thing is, that "nappy headed" is used relatively interchangeably in black culture with "nigga," so any use by a non-black is deemed racist.

Are you referring to Imus? He's not strictly a sports commentator, so I'm wondering if you're thinking of someone else.

In Imus' case it wasn't just "nappy headed". He also called them "ho's". And the entire context of his comments could only be interpreted as a white man, co-opting black vernacular in an attempt to mock and denigrate a group of women because of their gender and ethnicity.

It was pretty bad.

If you listen to the exchange, Imus was clearly "joking". There wasn't any hate, or malicious intent. It was just insensitive. His usage of black phrasing seems to be similar to what's being discussed here, for example, when white people say "what's up my n...." to each other. However, it still offended people, and there's a lesson in that.

Even if you don't think you're being racist when you use that word, someone else might think you are. And with that particular word, it's likely that someone will take offense. So just don't use it.

Of course, there are contexts where white people can say it. Leo DiCaprio gets a pass for saying it in Django. Artistic authenticity (term I just made up) demanded it. Similarly, if you're a voice actor hired to record "To Kill a Mockingbird" as an audio book.....the word is gonna come up. Mostly though, even in factual, intellectually-based conversations, it's just as easy to substitute the term "n word" without hurting your argument or distracting from whatever point you're trying to make.

Kinda surprised this debate went all weekend guys. Is the horse dead yet?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah... Imus sounds right. (I'm strictly not a sports follower).

Fair point that it's impolite to call people ho's, even in jest, unless you know them personally and know they appreciate your humorous intent.

The point that he was only joking, and that his tone and meaning were not at fault, but that the specific words he chose were enough to cost him his job is crux to my understanding of this corner of America's race problems.

Even if you don't think you're being racist when you use that word, someone else might think you are. And with that particular word, it's likely that someone will take offense. So just don't use it.

Well, on the one hand, LDO - I'm not trying to get mauled.
On the other hand - WTF? The fact that this attitude is so easily espoused by so many is testament to the fact that MOST people are not racists, but just want to get along with their lives w/o unnecessary conflict.

[BananaStand]

The point that he was only joking, and that his tone and meaning were not at fault, but that the specific words he chose were enough to cost him his job is crux to my understanding of this corner of America's race problems.

Well in this example, let's not immediately connect the dot from "racist terminology" to "fired". There were quite a few intermediary dots on that one. Basically Imus was given a responsibility for the content of the airwaves. He put out content that he should have known would be controversial. Doing so, knowingly, puts the network and it's sponsors at risk. That, right there, is enough to get fired, regardless of why the particular content is controversial. The same thing would have happened if he had something positive about Pepsi and the show was sponsored by Coke.

On the other hand - WTF? The fact that this attitude is so easily espoused by so many is testament to the fact that MOST people are not racists, but just want to get along with their lives w/o unnecessary conflict.

I dont' know about that. You can be racist and also want to avoid unnecessary conflict.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I dont' know about that. You can be racist and also want to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Fair. People are confusing.

I mean... that sounds like a self-contradicting set of beliefs to hold... which describes people, so ...

Fair.

[BananaStand]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/sta...3Fy?li=BBnb7Kz

Holy shit!! I solved racism!!

The recent movie "Sing", a CGI produced film for children where all of the characters are animals, was decried as racist because most of the animals with dark fur were villains. It's also widely known that comparing black people to monkeys or gorillas in any way, is totally offsides.

Yet, in the story I linked, they show a twitter reaction where someone posted a video of a raccoon and likened it to Ms Dash.

Isn't there supposed to be outrage here? Shouldn't this comparison of a black person, to a raccoon, be considered blatantly insensitive?

It seems you can't be racially persecuted if you also embrace conservatism.

So, if we want to eliminate racism in this country, we need all black people to vote republican. That's it.!!!

Also....I was blown away to read that she's 50. Way to keep it tight Stacy!

[Savy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_...lines/38723929

That's pretty funny.

[BananaStand]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_...lines/38723929

That's pretty funny.

The funniest part, I think, is the husband. He just sits there at the beginning, like "oh, there she goes again". As if she does this all the time.

Pretty hilarious when he starts clutching his chest as the security guy comes over, like he's in some kind of distress.

And then ultimate irony is when the lady demands that the flight crew "have some respect" for her situation.

Sorry lady, the days where you could fire off abusive and derogatory slander under the cloak of PC progressivism, and then demand respect for your own problems, are over. That was Obama's america. Nowadays we have to disagree like civilized people.

[Savy]

Sorry lady, the days where you could fire off abusive and derogatory slander under the cloak of PC progressivism, and then demand respect for your own problems, are over. That was Obama's america. Nowadays we have to disagree like civilized people.

Ironically Trump is making liberals understand racism on a whole new level.

[wufwugy]

Ironically Trump is making liberals understand racism on a whole new level.

I think I'm lost on what you mean. It can't be that they realize they're the ones who dish it out whenever the opportunity arises. They haven't realized that one yet.

[wufwugy]

The funniest part, I think, is the husband. He just sits there at the beginning, like "oh, there she goes again". As if she does this all the time.

Pretty hilarious when he starts clutching his chest as the security guy comes over, like he's in some kind of distress.

And then ultimate irony is when the lady demands that the flight crew "have some respect" for her situation.

Sorry lady, the days where you could fire off abusive and derogatory slander under the cloak of PC progressivism, and then demand respect for your own problems, are over. That was Obama's america. Nowadays we have to disagree like civilized people.

hahahahhahahahahah omg that is her husband? i thought that was her fucking daughter or something. these men cuck themselves so hard. it's the only reason this bullshit behavior breeds. she's crying out for a man with balls and when she doesnt get it she turns into a princess whose supper isn't ready yet.


This was one of the things I was looking forward to after Trump getting elected: it would signal that it's no longer okay to treat people poorly due to a disagreement. We're seeing this finally begin.

[Savy]

This was one of the things I was looking forward to after Trump getting elected: it would signal that it's no longer okay to treat people poorly due to a disagreement. We're seeing this finally begin.

That type of behaviour has never been tolerated.

[wufwugy]

Would you explain? I've seen gay people describe coming out as gay as easier than coming out as a Trump supporter. You know, because it is not "tolerated." I, and millions of others, keep my opinion to myself IRL because it is not "tolerated."

[Savy]

Would you explain? I've seen gay people describe coming out as gay as easier than coming out as a Trump supporter because it is not "tolerated." I, and millions of others, keep my opinion to myself IRL because it is not "tolerated."

Abusing someone verbally whatever the reason on a plane is always going to result in you getting kicked off the plane if it hasn't taken off & has never been ok. It doesn't really matter what the reason for that abuse was.

Getting shit for your opinions, whilst not nice, is part and parcel of free speech. Unless you're all for Trump safe spaces.

[Savy]

Sometimes I wonder how killing babies became such a virtue.

It gives people incredible control and choice in their lives to which they have never had before allowing them to make much better life decisions not only for themselves but vastly on average for the unborn child as has been demonstrated by some great improvements in many social issues.

[wufwugy]

Framed as not babies. Motherhood vilified. Necessary prerequisites to defeating the power structure at greatest opposition to the state -- the family.

[Savy]

Framed as not babies. Motherhood vilified. Necessary prerequisites to defeating the power structure at greatest opposition to the state: the family.

Whether or not they are babies is irrelevant really, it's such a shit argument from both sides. That being said they aren't.

How is motherhood vilified? (genuine question) It makes it a choice. Especially in situations where this choice could otherwise be forced upon you against your will that's a pretty good thing.

I also don't see how it damages families except in the case of forcing people together for no reason other than to look after a baby which I don't see being a bad thing. This may result in less families but they weren't particularly good ones on average in that situation anyway. We can clearly see that being able to have abortions doesn't result in no one having children.

If you sleep with someone you meet on a night out and get them pregnant, neither of you know each other that well, neither of you want a child, tough shit?

There is lots of social data to show the results of this, worth looking up if you're interested.

[wufwugy]

Whether or not they are babies is irrelevant really, it's such a shit argument from both sides. That being said they aren't.

I'm not saying they are babies. I don't know what they are.

To rationalize abortion, they are framed as not babies, which is a curious frame to use given how very close to babies they are.

How is motherhood vilified? (genuine question) It makes it a choice. Especially in situations where this choice could otherwise be forced upon you against your will that's a pretty good thing.

I also don't see how it damages families except in the case of forcing people together for no reason other than to look after a baby which I don't see being a bad thing. This may result in less families but they weren't particularly good ones on average in that situation anyway. We can clearly see that being able to have abortions doesn't result in no one having children.

If you sleep with someone you meet on a night out and get them pregnant, neither of you know each other that well, neither of you want a child, tough shit?

There is lots of social data to show the results of this, worth looking up if you're interested.

It isn't that abortions themselves harm the family, but that the culture of abortion harms the family. As to why this institution has been pushed, your guess is as good as mine. From some perspectives, it keeps very strange bedfellows with the intent to harm the family.

[Jack Sawyer]

If you sleep with someone you meet on a night out and get them pregnant, neither of you know each other that well, neither of you want a child, tough shit?

You irresponsible scum, it is very clearly stated in the bible that you should not sleep with someone you meet on a night out, you deserve the burden of your child of pure sin!

[wufwugy]

Yeah that's true.

[Jack Sawyer]

First day (workday, according to previous interviews) in office

Trump just reinstated the global gag rule. It won't stop abortion, but it will make it less safe.


Thousands of women will die across the world, and millions will lose access to both safe abortion and birth control.

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1...-rule-abortion

[wufwugy]

Sometimes I wonder how killing babies became such a virtue.

[Jack Sawyer]

Sometimes I wonder how killing babies became such a virtue.

Oh wow

[OngBonga]

I'd respect Trump's pro-life stance a little more if he was in favour of abolishing the death penalty.

[wufwugy]

I'd respect Trump's pro-life stance a little more if he was in favour of abolishing the death penalty.

pro-life people aren't "pro-life", they're "pro-innocent-life". if you disagree with their stance, the death penalty approach will have no persuasive impact on them since it doesn't identify their view the way they do.

[OngBonga]

I still feel there's a level of hypocrisy there. Neither are issues that particularly bother me, since I sympathise with both sides of the debate. But for me, pro-life means pro-life without any caveats.

[wufwugy]

I still feel there's a level of hypocrisy there. Neither are issues that particularly bother me, since I sympathise with both sides of the debate. But for me, pro-life means pro-life without any caveats.

Go with the meaning of the phrase instead of a reductive revision of what the phrase would mean if taken as literally and simplistically as possible.

[OngBonga]

Go with the meaning of the phrase instead of a reductive revision of what the phrase would mean if taken as literally and simplistically as possible.

No. I can't reduce my position to anything further to distinguish it from the position of those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty. I am pro-life in the literal regard. I can't help it if hypocrites have stolen the phrase.

[wufwugy]

No. I can't reduce my position to anything further to distinguish it from the position of those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty. I am pro-life in the literal regard. I can't help it if hypocrites have stolen the phrase.

Are you trolling or are you looking for enlightenment?

[OngBonga]

Are you trolling or are you looking for enlightenment?

I'm not going to find enlightenment here.

[wufwugy]

So, trolling. And correct, no 'lightenment 'round these parts.

[wufwugy]

I don't think I agree with the lashing out from the Trump crowd against Katie Rich. I don't like policing comedy. That's what SJW's do. On the counter, it's been said that you gotta use their weapons against them. I don't know which I agree with.

Her joke is kinda funny too.

[wufwugy]

Abortion is probably the topic on which I have the fewest answers. Which is why I find the abundance of assurance on either side strange. I don't agree with the foundational intent of either side too

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[wufwugy]

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

[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

[Jack Sawyer]

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

Told ya


From our favorite fake news website that isn't breitbart news

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/po...obal-gag-rule/

[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?

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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'.

[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.

[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!!