Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 2127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #140 on: May 16, 2019, 09:33:52 AM »
Note to self: never step foot in the state of Alabama again.

What a freaking joke.

Well Kev......our State is fixing to pass our own version of the Ďheartbeatí bill.

I can't imagine it will be anything close to as reprehensible as the one Alabama just passed.
What's the difference? The practical upshot is the same either way. The only real difference I can see is that the other Southern/Midwestern states are trying to be subtle about it, and Bama is being blunt and obvious about its intent.

I guess time will tell, but I am not blowing smoke when I say that this kind of BS has me ready to vote for Democrats across the board in every election for the foreseeable future.  I hate the rhetoric from the left about this topic as well, but passing these laws is deplorable (happy, Stadler? :P ).

Do what you will, but that's a dangerous way to make the decision, since neither side is immune to that strategy of "passing stuff to see what sticks".   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #141 on: May 16, 2019, 09:38:59 AM »
You're overlooking another possibility. There are other "less restrictive" bans already winding through he courts. It's possible that by the time Bama's case reaches the SCOTUS, and we know that it will, it will be rendered moot one way or the other.

And the why now should concern you. It's happening now because a great number of republicans think that Trump's SCOTUS appointments means that they can pass any ultra-conservative legislation they please. This shows both a fundamental lack of understanding in the nature of the court, and a great deal of faith that Trump is essentially a tyrant.

Totally agree with the first paragraph; it will be interesting to watch the hamster race (though that goes to my point of most people not being well versed in civics).  Kind of agree with the first half of the second paragraph. 

But I don't get the second half of the second paragraph, especially about the "tyrant".   There's literally NOTHING about the Trump Administration that REALLY says "tyrant".  Sure, he's pushing boundaries on the three-branch check and balance, but if the check and balance REALLY works (and it does) that will even out.  I think this rhetoric from Nadler and Schiff about a "monarchy" has to stop, because it shows a marked lack of awareness on their part.  Trump is a target, there's no two ways about that, and while I nominally agree with the "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about", Trump is, in a very real sense, that black guy "Quentin" ("that's not my name!" "That's not his name!") in the video you and I watched the other day.   Yeah, he should nominally cooperate, but I don't think it's unreasonable to except him not to walk willingly into his own firing squad. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21938
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #142 on: May 16, 2019, 09:44:34 AM »
This was from the election 2020 thread, but I'm moving it here where it's OT.

1.  Is there a compelling state interest?  This is the key here; how does this get framed?  We're talking "life", in some form or fashion, and that's really going to be where this stands or falls.
2.  Is the law narrowly tailored to address the state interest?  Again, if you're talking about "life", and whether it can be taken or not, this isn't a very broad (pardon the pun) question.
3.  The law must be the least restrictive for achieving the state interest.  Here's where there's room to move.  Are there other ways of achieving the goal?  I don't know myself, but depending on how 1. is framed, this is where the law will survive or fail.

I've been pondering this a lot since you posted it. (Yeah, I do that too.) Regarding 1, the cornerstone, is it the place of the state to address that which is by its very nature unknowable? We're talking about something that at its essence has been a philosophical question for as long as man has been philosophizing. Why should a thoughtful conservative think that the government should be enacting law based on it's own philosophical interpretation of an unanswerable question, as opposed to leaving it in the rightful purview of the individual? If we're to accept that elected officials can enact law based on their own philosophical interpretations of spiritual matters, couldn't a law mandating baptism be viewed as a compelling state interest, as well? It's looking out for the well being of children incapable of looking after themselves.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21938
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #143 on: May 16, 2019, 09:47:19 AM »
You're overlooking another possibility. There are other "less restrictive" bans already winding through he courts. It's possible that by the time Bama's case reaches the SCOTUS, and we know that it will, it will be rendered moot one way or the other.

And the why now should concern you. It's happening now because a great number of republicans think that Trump's SCOTUS appointments means that they can pass any ultra-conservative legislation they please. This shows both a fundamental lack of understanding in the nature of the court, and a great deal of faith that Trump is essentially a tyrant.

Totally agree with the first paragraph; it will be interesting to watch the hamster race (though that goes to my point of most people not being well versed in civics).  Kind of agree with the first half of the second paragraph. 

But I don't get the second half of the second paragraph, especially about the "tyrant".   There's literally NOTHING about the Trump Administration that REALLY says "tyrant".  Sure, he's pushing boundaries on the three-branch check and balance, but if the check and balance REALLY works (and it does) that will even out.  I think this rhetoric from Nadler and Schiff about a "monarchy" has to stop, because it shows a marked lack of awareness on their part.  Trump is a target, there's no two ways about that, and while I nominally agree with the "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about", Trump is, in a very real sense, that black guy "Quentin" ("that's not my name!" "That's not his name!") in the video you and I watched the other day.   Yeah, he should nominally cooperate, but I don't think it's unreasonable to except him not to walk willingly into his own firing squad.
From the perspective of people who rushed to push through a bill that is facially unconstitutional, they're relying on the fact that Trump has appointed people who will do what he wants them to do regardless of whether the law supports it. To them he is a benevolent tyrant.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40858
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Abortion
« Reply #144 on: May 16, 2019, 09:52:16 AM »
^Agreed^
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #145 on: May 16, 2019, 12:27:50 PM »
I think they are overstating the degree to which those people - judges - are going to "do what he says".   

Not the people here, and I fully mean that sincerely, but generally, people are all over the map on Trump, and fatally.  He's so dumb that he can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but at the same time he's so smart that he's been able to manipulate not only our government (in effect and purring like a kitten for 243 years) but implement what would by far be the most comprehensive act of treason in the history of the planet.  And I don't mean this as a non sequitor; one of the basic, cornerstone premises of the "check and balance" is that judges AREN'T elected, and DON'T have terms.  The idea here is that judges are free from tactical political considerations, and can both rely on and be part of a body of law that transcends the other two branches.   Are there corrupt judges?  Sure.  The sun rises every day, so of course there will be at least one bad judge here and there.   But generally, you don't get to that level of jurisprudence without some eye to the bigger picture.  You're seeing that now with Chief Justice Roberts, once claimed (by liberals) to the harbinger of the end of Roe/Casey, and now looked at as a likely "swing voter" and (in my view, anyway) likely NOT a proponent of demolishing the precedent. 

TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21938
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #146 on: May 16, 2019, 12:36:55 PM »
I think they are overstating the degree to which those people - judges - are going to "do what he says".   
That's my point.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 17154
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Abortion
« Reply #147 on: May 18, 2019, 04:39:55 PM »


TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

I completely agree, but unfortunately the long view will do nothing towards the rift that is getting ripped through our country.
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #148 on: May 18, 2019, 09:35:19 PM »


TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

I completely agree, but unfortunately the long view will do nothing towards the rift that is getting ripped through our country.

No doubt, but I don't see that as the responsibility of the judicial branch.  That's the responsibility of ELECTED officials, to represent their ENTIRE constituency, not just the one's from the party that voted for them, not just the "non-deplorable" ones, not just the ones with donation money, not just the ones with lobby group ID cards...

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7344
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Abortion
« Reply #149 on: May 18, 2019, 10:30:24 PM »
Thinking out loud here for a sec... bear with me. Was reading an article (sorry was at work and didn't save the link) that said where we could ultimately end up is (simplified) abortion is legal in "blue" states and illegal in "red" ones. I don't feel this is ideal for a nation to best function if different regions, in this case states, have different laws. We are supposed to be the UNITED States, after all. But we already have this in place in various forms. So it got me thinking, would that really be a terrible end game? Alyssa Milano goes on a Sex Strike because of a law in a state she would likely never visit in her life. Can we not function as a country happily if NY says its ok for docs to kill newborns after they've been delivered at full term while AL sends docs to Old Sparky if they perform an abortion on a gal who gets pregnant after being raped by her brother?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21938
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #150 on: May 19, 2019, 12:42:24 AM »
Thinking out loud here for a sec... bear with me. Was reading an article (sorry was at work and didn't save the link) that said where we could ultimately end up is (simplified) abortion is legal in "blue" states and illegal in "red" ones. I don't feel this is ideal for a nation to best function if different regions, in this case states, have different laws. We are supposed to be the UNITED States, after all. But we already have this in place in various forms. So it got me thinking, would that really be a terrible end game? Alyssa Milano goes on a Sex Strike because of a law in a state she would likely never visit in her life. Can we not function as a country happily if NY says its ok for docs to kill newborns after they've been delivered at full term while AL sends docs to Old Sparky if they perform an abortion on a gal who gets pregnant after being raped by her brother?
If the supreme court decides that Alabama can criminalize all abortions, what's to stop congress from passing a national law once they get a conservative majority?

Also, it's probably best not to get legal interpretations from Donald Trump. The dude's got issues with the truth.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 17154
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Abortion
« Reply #151 on: May 19, 2019, 10:49:16 AM »


TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

I completely agree, but unfortunately the long view will do nothing towards the rift that is getting ripped through our country.

No doubt, but I don't see that as the responsibility of the judicial branch.  That's the responsibility of ELECTED officials, to represent their ENTIRE constituency, not just the one's from the party that voted for them, not just the "non-deplorable" ones, not just the ones with donation money, not just the ones with lobby group ID cards...

Again, completely agree. Twice in as many days...what the fuck is happening?
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #152 on: May 19, 2019, 11:53:34 AM »


TL;DR, I have way more faith in our judicial branch to take a long view, and maintain the strength of precedent.

I completely agree, but unfortunately the long view will do nothing towards the rift that is getting ripped through our country.

No doubt, but I don't see that as the responsibility of the judicial branch.  That's the responsibility of ELECTED officials, to represent their ENTIRE constituency, not just the one's from the party that voted for them, not just the "non-deplorable" ones, not just the ones with donation money, not just the ones with lobby group ID cards...

Again, completely agree. Twice in as many days...what the fuck is happening?

HAHA! 

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 550
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #153 on: May 19, 2019, 11:58:26 AM »
Itís not that I disagree per se,  but Iím not sure itís possible to do that.  An official gets elected by telling the population what he or she believes in and what they intend to do.  Thereís no objective standard for what is good for the biggest number of people, a whole electorate could never agree on that. 

edit: for example In this case one person may think access to legal abortion everywhere in america is whatís best for everyone but obviously a lot of people disagree.  Doesnít mean that shouldnít be the goal.  Iím sure thereís arguments on both sides but I donít believe thereís an objective answer that will satisfy everyone. 
« Last Edit: May 19, 2019, 12:04:27 PM by XeRocks81 »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #154 on: May 19, 2019, 12:47:33 PM »
Thinking out loud here for a sec... bear with me. Was reading an article (sorry was at work and didn't save the link) that said where we could ultimately end up is (simplified) abortion is legal in "blue" states and illegal in "red" ones. I don't feel this is ideal for a nation to best function if different regions, in this case states, have different laws. We are supposed to be the UNITED States, after all. But we already have this in place in various forms. So it got me thinking, would that really be a terrible end game? Alyssa Milano goes on a Sex Strike because of a law in a state she would likely never visit in her life. Can we not function as a country happily if NY says its ok for docs to kill newborns after they've been delivered at full term while AL sends docs to Old Sparky if they perform an abortion on a gal who gets pregnant after being raped by her brother?
If the supreme court decides that Alabama can criminalize all abortions, what's to stop congress from passing a national law once they get a conservative majority?

Also, it's probably best not to get legal interpretations from Donald Trump. The dude's got issues with the truth.

But all this can happen independently; one is not necessarily a trigger for the other.   I also think that's a part of the concern for a justice like Roberts.  I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Cool Chris isn't wrong; I used to drive to New York to buy booze.  Driver's licenses, property taxes, healthcare (generally, if you're in the state program, specifically, because of the interstate commerce restrictions of the insurance regulation), free speech, guns, marriage (gay or otherwise)... there are many, many issues, even "fundamental rights" issues, that differ state to state.  I live in Connecticut, and I'm not convinced I could RENEW (not get new) my pistol license because of the state of the laws, yet I visit Florida, and I hit the pawn shops (to look for guitars) and there more guns there than socket wrenches. 

I think the "who's to stop..." is something I've been harping on for months now.  This is part and parcel to the "scorched earth" partisan politics we've been seeing for some time now.  When Mitch McConnell takes the easy way out, or Harry Reid unilaterally invokes the nuclear option because it works for him, we get circumstances like this, where it becomes a group-think policy to elevate YOUR personal issue, YOUR personal agenda to the level of "sledgehammer".  Here, there is little difference between "abortion" and, say, something like the ACA.     

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21938
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #155 on: May 19, 2019, 12:54:40 PM »
Itís not that I disagree per se,  but Iím not sure itís possible to do that.  An official gets elected by telling the population what he or she believes in and what they intend to do.  Thereís no objective standard for what is good for the biggest number of people, a whole electorate could never agree on that. 

edit: for example In this case one person may think access to legal abortion everywhere in america is whatís best for everyone but obviously a lot of people disagree.  Doesnít mean that shouldnít be the goal.  Iím sure thereís arguments on both sides but I donít believe thereís an objective answer that will satisfy everyone.
It's really not that simple, though. What you say is of course correct in a broad sense, but once you get into the details politicians vote against the wishes of their constituents all the time. If you call every household in Texas and ask if they support ACA, 66% of them are going to say no with varying amounts of profanity and references to Lenin. Go on to ask them about covering pre-existing conditions: "Of course we should. That's only reasonable." Being able to insure you kids up to 25? "Oh, man, that's helped me out a great deal." Should policies have meet minimum standards of coverage? "Of course. Otherwise insurers would be selling junk policies just built to exploit people." Yet every representative in our state voted to axe ACA with no replacement in sight to safeguard these things.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21938
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #156 on: May 19, 2019, 12:58:11 PM »
Thinking out loud here for a sec... bear with me. Was reading an article (sorry was at work and didn't save the link) that said where we could ultimately end up is (simplified) abortion is legal in "blue" states and illegal in "red" ones. I don't feel this is ideal for a nation to best function if different regions, in this case states, have different laws. We are supposed to be the UNITED States, after all. But we already have this in place in various forms. So it got me thinking, would that really be a terrible end game? Alyssa Milano goes on a Sex Strike because of a law in a state she would likely never visit in her life. Can we not function as a country happily if NY says its ok for docs to kill newborns after they've been delivered at full term while AL sends docs to Old Sparky if they perform an abortion on a gal who gets pregnant after being raped by her brother?
If the supreme court decides that Alabama can criminalize all abortions, what's to stop congress from passing a national law once they get a conservative majority?

Also, it's probably best not to get legal interpretations from Donald Trump. The dude's got issues with the truth.

But all this can happen independently; one is not necessarily a trigger for the other.   I also think that's a part of the concern for a justice like Roberts.  I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Cool Chris isn't wrong; I used to drive to New York to buy booze.  Driver's licenses, property taxes, healthcare (generally, if you're in the state program, specifically, because of the interstate commerce restrictions of the insurance regulation), free speech, guns, marriage (gay or otherwise)... there are many, many issues, even "fundamental rights" issues, that differ state to state.  I live in Connecticut, and I'm not convinced I could RENEW (not get new) my pistol license because of the state of the laws, yet I visit Florida, and I hit the pawn shops (to look for guitars) and there more guns there than socket wrenches. 

I think the "who's to stop..." is something I've been harping on for months now.  This is part and parcel to the "scorched earth" partisan politics we've been seeing for some time now.  When Mitch McConnell takes the easy way out, or Harry Reid unilaterally invokes the nuclear option because it works for him, we get circumstances like this, where it becomes a group-think policy to elevate YOUR personal issue, YOUR personal agenda to the level of "sledgehammer".  Here, there is little difference between "abortion" and, say, something like the ACA.     
Do all citizens have the same opportunity to do these things? On the surface, sure. In practice, not a chance.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4632
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #157 on: May 19, 2019, 01:06:54 PM »
I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Is there, though?

I mean, obviously there is a ton of room between those two extremes.  But compromise relies on the idea of both sides being willing to sacrifice and settle.  If two parties disagree over who owns an acre of land, with each of them thinking they own the whole acre, it's easy to say that they can split the acre in half and each take 50% as a compromise.  But if both sides are thoroughly convinced that they deserve the whole acre, is there any real room for compromise? 

The problem with an issue like abortion is that so many people believe they need the full acre.  I'm making up numbers here for ease of discussion, but imagine that 30% of people believe absolutely no abortions should be allowed whatsoever, and 30% of people believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.  That means that absolutely any compromise we come up with, no matter how hard we try to work together, no matter how much each side concedes, is going to enrage at least 60% of the country. 

I want to believe that there's room for compromise on an issue like this, but a cynical part of me is fairly convinced that there isn't, really.  That we'll just be arguing about this issue until the end of time. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #158 on: May 19, 2019, 01:08:56 PM »
Itís not that I disagree per se,  but Iím not sure itís possible to do that.  An official gets elected by telling the population what he or she believes in and what they intend to do.  Thereís no objective standard for what is good for the biggest number of people, a whole electorate could never agree on that. 

edit: for example In this case one person may think access to legal abortion everywhere in america is whatís best for everyone but obviously a lot of people disagree.  Doesnít mean that shouldnít be the goal.  Iím sure thereís arguments on both sides but I donít believe thereís an objective answer that will satisfy everyone.

Isn't that, though, the unspoken (and in my view, forgotten) beauty of a representative democracy?   Isn't it supposed to be implicit in the "I will fight for meaningful healthcare for all" or "I will fight for a woman's access to abortion" that it be "in such a way that those that oppose can see some benefit, since I have to represent my ENTIRE constituency, not just those that voted for me". 

This is why, for me, some of Trump's rhetoric, and "deplorable", and Ocasio-Cortez, who "will be damned" about taking a middle of the road approach, is ultimately harmful, even if, in the moment, it feels right and necessary.   Long before Trump, we've betrayed the trust that says "I'm going to advocate for my cause, but in a way that is respectful and understanding that the tide may change someday, and you're not going to f--- me in return."

Now?  No such luck. Every moment is a "Spartacus" moment.  Pfffft. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #159 on: May 19, 2019, 01:12:45 PM »
Itís not that I disagree per se,  but Iím not sure itís possible to do that.  An official gets elected by telling the population what he or she believes in and what they intend to do.  Thereís no objective standard for what is good for the biggest number of people, a whole electorate could never agree on that. 

edit: for example In this case one person may think access to legal abortion everywhere in america is whatís best for everyone but obviously a lot of people disagree.  Doesnít mean that shouldnít be the goal.  Iím sure thereís arguments on both sides but I donít believe thereís an objective answer that will satisfy everyone.
It's really not that simple, though. What you say is of course correct in a broad sense, but once you get into the details politicians vote against the wishes of their constituents all the time. If you call every household in Texas and ask if they support ACA, 66% of them are going to say no with varying amounts of profanity and references to Lenin. Go on to ask them about covering pre-existing conditions: "Of course we should. That's only reasonable." Being able to insure you kids up to 25? "Oh, man, that's helped me out a great deal." Should policies have meet minimum standards of coverage? "Of course. Otherwise insurers would be selling junk policies just built to exploit people." Yet every representative in our state voted to axe ACA with no replacement in sight to safeguard these things.

Well, I'm guilty too, for using the ACA as an example, but it's a poor one.  I'm nominally for those things you individually list out - except for the minimum coverages - but I'm very much against the ACA, and while I didn't actually read the entire ACA (as I did with Mueller and the GND) it's more the "how" than the "what".   Those are all good things, but the ACA is not the best - not even a good, not even an ACCEPTABLE, to me - way of going about it.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #160 on: May 19, 2019, 01:28:31 PM »
I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Is there, though?

I mean, obviously there is a ton of room between those two extremes.  But compromise relies on the idea of both sides being willing to sacrifice and settle.  If two parties disagree over who owns an acre of land, with each of them thinking they own the whole acre, it's easy to say that they can split the acre in half and each take 50% as a compromise.  But if both sides are thoroughly convinced that they deserve the whole acre, is there any real room for compromise? 

The problem with an issue like abortion is that so many people believe they need the full acre.  I'm making up numbers here for ease of discussion, but imagine that 30% of people believe absolutely no abortions should be allowed whatsoever, and 30% of people believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.  That means that absolutely any compromise we come up with, no matter how hard we try to work together, no matter how much each side concedes, is going to enrage at least 60% of the country. 

I want to believe that there's room for compromise on an issue like this, but a cynical part of me is fairly convinced that there isn't, really.  That we'll just be arguing about this issue until the end of time.

But abortion isn't the same as the acre.  There's incentive - for reasonable people - with the acre.   You can be a dick and hold out for the whole shooting match, but you're as likely to get nothing as you are to get your moral victory.   And that assumes, of course, that there aren't other, suitable, acres to share.  It also depends on how you get there, and there are clear rules for how a court would adjudicate that dispute depending on how you did get there. 

Abortion - and guns, if you want to - are in a different boat. My beef with abortion (guns) has almost nothing to do with the subject matter.  Personally?  I don't own a gun (not worth the risk in my situation), and I personally would have very limited circumstances where I would opt for an abortion (and before you respond, I very much in agreement that as a male, I am never, ever in the position to be making that decision).  For me it's all about autonomy.   I care for my child up to the age of 18 in thousands of ways that are life and death, and so I don't understand why for some it's all of a sudden paramount for the state to interject their interpretation into the mix).

I think there is a compromise for those that are willing to accept that others may have a different view.   That's a real problem in America today (and a cornerstone of my criticism of the left moralizing their platform).  POINT BLANK: In America today, you are NOT ALLOWED to have certain beliefs.  Not actions, BELIEFS.   If you're a god-fearing Christian family, and you adhere to your abstinance, and only have intercourse for conception, abortion need never cross your doorstep.  The legality of "abortion" in another state is not your concern.  Yet, it is.  Just like that guy in Michigan or Tennessee, if they THINK that homosexuality is a sin, it does not impact Rob Halford in his bedroom one bit.  (There are likely far more people that think he sucks as a vocalist now as are bugged by his sexual preferences). 

Online Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4632
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #161 on: May 19, 2019, 02:27:01 PM »
I have zero belief that extremes will not be accommodated; the heartbeat law isn't going to stay, and that nonsense where Democrats were accused of wanting to kill live babies isn't going to happen.   But there's room for compromise in between.

Is there, though?

I mean, obviously there is a ton of room between those two extremes.  But compromise relies on the idea of both sides being willing to sacrifice and settle.  If two parties disagree over who owns an acre of land, with each of them thinking they own the whole acre, it's easy to say that they can split the acre in half and each take 50% as a compromise.  But if both sides are thoroughly convinced that they deserve the whole acre, is there any real room for compromise? 

The problem with an issue like abortion is that so many people believe they need the full acre.  I'm making up numbers here for ease of discussion, but imagine that 30% of people believe absolutely no abortions should be allowed whatsoever, and 30% of people believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.  That means that absolutely any compromise we come up with, no matter how hard we try to work together, no matter how much each side concedes, is going to enrage at least 60% of the country. 

I want to believe that there's room for compromise on an issue like this, but a cynical part of me is fairly convinced that there isn't, really.  That we'll just be arguing about this issue until the end of time.

But abortion isn't the same as the acre.  There's incentive - for reasonable people - with the acre.   You can be a dick and hold out for the whole shooting match, but you're as likely to get nothing as you are to get your moral victory.   And that assumes, of course, that there aren't other, suitable, acres to share.  It also depends on how you get there, and there are clear rules for how a court would adjudicate that dispute depending on how you did get there. 

Abortion - and guns, if you want to - are in a different boat. My beef with abortion (guns) has almost nothing to do with the subject matter.  Personally?  I don't own a gun (not worth the risk in my situation), and I personally would have very limited circumstances where I would opt for an abortion (and before you respond, I very much in agreement that as a male, I am never, ever in the position to be making that decision).  For me it's all about autonomy.   I care for my child up to the age of 18 in thousands of ways that are life and death, and so I don't understand why for some it's all of a sudden paramount for the state to interject their interpretation into the mix).

I think there is a compromise for those that are willing to accept that others may have a different view.   That's a real problem in America today (and a cornerstone of my criticism of the left moralizing their platform).  POINT BLANK: In America today, you are NOT ALLOWED to have certain beliefs.  Not actions, BELIEFS.   If you're a god-fearing Christian family, and you adhere to your abstinance, and only have intercourse for conception, abortion need never cross your doorstep.  The legality of "abortion" in another state is not your concern.  Yet, it is.  Just like that guy in Michigan or Tennessee, if they THINK that homosexuality is a sin, it does not impact Rob Halford in his bedroom one bit.  (There are likely far more people that think he sucks as a vocalist now as are bugged by his sexual preferences).

First of all, let me admit that I'm not fully certain I understand the intended nuances of this post.  So if my response fails to address your point, please let me know.  I may need clarification. 

That being said, I feel like you are dismissing the intensity of people's beliefs. 

If you're a God-fearing Christian family, you might want America to be a God-fearing Christian country.  You might believe that the nation as a whole is doomed if we cannot enforce Christian values.  For the record, I don't believe this - in fact, I strenuously disagree with this belief.  But it's there. 

You say there is a compromise for those of us who are willing to accept that others may hold a different view, and I agree.  But on these deeply divisive issues, a lot of people - and here I would honestly argue that it might be a majority of people - feel that different views must be held as unacceptable. 

Is there any room for compromise between two viewpoints which each indicate that the other viewpoint is totally unacceptable?
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16163
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #162 on: May 19, 2019, 07:16:43 PM »
I understand your point.  I think "dismiss" is a harsh word; I think it's not "dismiss", but at some point, when EVERYONE'S belief is reaching a level of intensity that is untenable, when everyone's opinion is now accepted as fact, or at least is the standard for these opinions (the identity politics movement has abandoned "tolerance" and jumped to "acceptance") it's not just religious fervor we're talking about.

But I understand what you're saying, and that is in part a function of leadership, and part of what we need from our politicians.  There has always been that sector of society that wasn't interested in compromise, but rather than that being the platform, that was the "Bernie Effect", whereby it served not as the position itself, but a fulcrum to move others, or at least provide an anchor. 

(I know you know this, but) compromise isn't "everyone agrees", it's drawing circle that maximizes the number of people that can fit inside it.  There will always be people that don't fit, but we can fit as many as possible.   This is the role of politicians, especially representative politicians.   There was a time - before politics became about "lanes", and popularity, where this is what politicians did.   In an odd way, Trump does get this.  He doesn't get there the right way, and in some cases, doesn't get there at all, but every RESISTER! that criticized Trump for supposedly waffling on his wall is part of the problem here.  That whole government shutdown, if in the hands of real politicians not those hacks Schumer and (especially) McConnell, and we would not have had a shutdown, we would have had a barrier akin to the Security Fence Act of 2006, and we would have had Schumer and Trump claiming victory like jackasses.   

But when you have Kirsten Gillebrand making this an absolute issue, as a mainstream candidate for President (there is no mainstream candidate for President right now that is actively advocating the "Alabama Doctrine" (my words)) this isn't about "God-fearing country".  Roe survived - handily, and without serious threat - the Moral Majority.    There is a point of compromise, it's up to the politicians to broker it.   "Spartacus" is not the person we need to do that.   

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1026
Re: Abortion
« Reply #163 on: May 19, 2019, 09:01:34 PM »
But, again, we know that when abortion is made illegal women do die. Abortion doesn't go away, it's just done in back alleys with coat hangers. Why should she favor a position that includes in the circle people who have no skin in the game and statistically has been proven to endanger women? Especially when a position is based on religious views, the US should NOT be trying to meet the other side in the middle just because it exists.

This is a crude example, forgive me, but for a thought experiment go with it. Alabama does away with all ages of consent. 7 years old and say yes? That's enough. Passed with flying colors. State's rights, they should be allowed to pass that legislation. Should the US compromise and meet them half way? Or at some point realize that this is going to wreck a lot of lives of people laws should be protecting?

Less crude example that is still relevant - Alabama votes 4,999,999 - 1 to kill the richest man in the state and spread his wealth. That circle is virtually everyone. Shouldn't the one guy standing up saying "Hold up, this will literally kill me" have some weight behind his words rather than just being dwarfed by the 4,999,999? Should he go along with a deal where we meet in the middle and still make fillets out of him but only take half his wealth, his family can keep the other half?


I know I'm gonna get push back for these examples being outlandish, but are they really when we are talking about something we KNOW will result in women's deaths? When we're trying to paint Gillibrand as a shrieking partisan hack for saying so?

Also, for years and years all my conservative friends (you included, and 2 of my 4 closest friends in 'the real world') have told me that abortion is a non issue. That one shouldn't listen to any GOP politician when they talk about rolling back Roe, that it's just empty talk. This administration has shown that just wasn't true. If Roe is settled law but only technically in a legal sense, whereas these 'heartbeat bills' are able to stand, everyone who has ever used abortion as a voting issue, or Gillibrand using it as a campaign issue has been proven completely correct.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2019, 09:16:42 PM by portnoy311 »

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7344
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Abortion
« Reply #164 on: May 19, 2019, 09:26:52 PM »
Less crude example that is still relevant - Alabama votes 4,999,999 - 1 to kill the richest man in the state and spread his wealth.

Don't give Ocasio-Cortez any ideas.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'