Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 3949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17304
  • 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: 17304
  • 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

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • 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

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • 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: 40930
  • 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: 17304
  • 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

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • 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: 17293
  • 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: 17304
  • 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: 7705
  • 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

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • 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: 17293
  • 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: 17304
  • 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: 594
  • 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: 17304
  • 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

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • 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

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • 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

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4641
  • 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: 17304
  • 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: 17304
  • 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: 17304
  • 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). 

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4641
  • 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: 17304
  • 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: 1101
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: 7705
  • 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'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17304
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #165 on: May 21, 2019, 11:32:39 AM »
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?

We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 

And now we have Missouri's law to contend with (allowing abortions before eight weeks, essentially).  But the hyperbole continues, with many sources calling that "harsh".   Well, something like 65% of abortions happen at or before eight weeks, so it's really hard to call this a "near ban" or "extreme ban" of abortion (as several sources have done).

*  "According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country ó 65 percent ó were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks."  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

(Oh, and not every "anti-abortion" position is religious based. I am personally against abortion - though legally I agree that all women should have the choice up to a certain point - and that is not even a little bit related to any religious beliefs I have (which are few)).   

Quote
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.

"This administration" has done nothing of the kind.  This has little if anything to do with Trump.  This is a battle of legislative extremists on both sides, upping the ante.   I stand by my position that Roe (and Casey) are going nowhere.  And read what I wrote above; let's make sure we're being accurate when we refer to "heartbeat bills". 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #166 on: May 21, 2019, 11:54:28 AM »
We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 
How so? Are you familiar with what NY actually did, aside from Trump's bullshit?



Quote
And now we have Missouri's law to contend with (allowing abortions before eight weeks, essentially).  But the hyperbole continues, with many sources calling that "harsh".   Well, something like 65% of abortions happen at or before eight weeks, so it's really hard to call this a "near ban" or "extreme ban" of abortion (as several sources have done).

*  "According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country ó 65 percent ó were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks."  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
Your "eight weeks, essentially" is using the high side. The average is 6 weeks to detect a heartbeat, and 5 isn't uncommon. As I understand it, that's right around the time a woman knows she's knocked up. You're giving women 7-14 days to figure it out, decide what they want to do, and then make it happen. My hunch is that a state like Missouri probably requires a 3 day wait period, as well. Enough time to be bombarded with anti-abortion propaganda. I would suggest that a right isn't actually a right if it's only available to a lucky few.


Quote
I stand by my position that Roe (and Casey) are going nowhere.  And read what I wrote above; let's make sure we're being accurate when we refer to "heartbeat bills". 
You keep saying that, and yet you agree with my interpretation of how things are likely to unfold. If it becomes legal to prohibit abortions after 5-8 weeks, then Roe is meaningless and Casey is ashes.
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 XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4774
Re: Abortion
« Reply #167 on: May 22, 2019, 04:06:45 AM »
To add on to those good points: New York City and the surrounding suburbs have around 7-8 providers so you are probably within an hour of a provider by public transport. The entire state of Missouri has one. Alabama has the luxury of three.

https://prochoice.org/think-youre-pregnant/find-a-provider/

If you need to drive a good few hours to even get to a provider I would suggest that the (in the best case scenario) 2 weeks grace period between realizing you are late, and before a heartbeat is detected is, practically, not that useful in quite a number of cases, especially for those lower on the economic ladder who might be working most days for most hours.

In and of itself it may not technically constitute a complete ban, but it's quite clear when taking into account the other policies in place in those states (limiting providers, defunding planned parenthood, wait times and counselling for women who have made the choice to abort, making the service less accessible and more restricted as to what circumstances "justify" an abortion), it is quite clear that near eradication of the practice is certainly the end goal of the people passing these laws, and is why people are concerned by such laws and why women probably aren't too comforted by the fact that this law, statistically, will "only" make a third of abortions Illegal according to Stadler's best case scenario where the heartbeat starts at 8 weeks.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 05:11:50 AM by XJDenton »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17304
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #168 on: May 22, 2019, 08:22:48 AM »
We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 
How so? Are you familiar with what NY actually did, aside from Trump's bullshit?

I take almost* zero policy information from Trump or those immediately around him.  I feel I am as familiar as I can be without reading the actual law, using various news sources, some legit, some, perhaps, with bias (on both sides).  I can't say I have a complete infallable understanding, but enough to make the statement I did.   

* I can't think of ANY case, but I'll allow for a mistake to creep in somewhere.

Quote
Quote
And now we have Missouri's law to contend with (allowing abortions before eight weeks, essentially).  But the hyperbole continues, with many sources calling that "harsh".   Well, something like 65% of abortions happen at or before eight weeks, so it's really hard to call this a "near ban" or "extreme ban" of abortion (as several sources have done).

*  "According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country ó 65 percent ó were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks."  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/
Your "eight weeks, essentially" is using the high side. The average is 6 weeks to detect a heartbeat, and 5 isn't uncommon. As I understand it, that's right around the time a woman knows she's knocked up. You're giving women 7-14 days to figure it out, decide what they want to do, and then make it happen. My hunch is that a state like Missouri probably requires a 3 day wait period, as well. Enough time to be bombarded with anti-abortion propaganda. I would suggest that a right isn't actually a right if it's only available to a lucky few.

I'm not sure I'm ready to argue with you here, except to say that i wrote what I did in the context of the discussion about COMPROMISE.  Again, remember that something like 80% of Americans would support an abortion bill if it was limited to the first trimester (12 weeks) and had exclusions for rape, incest and imminent danger to the mother.  That's closer to Missouri than New York.   311 was - and this is my interpretation, since he didn't ACTUALLY say it - that the hard-liners were the religious freaks in the whacko states (i.e. red states, though I know 311 may not be looking at this in a partisan way), and I would argue that there is enough extremism on both sides in that 20% that isn't okay with "12 weeks/reasonable exceptions". 

Quote
Quote
I stand by my position that Roe (and Casey) are going nowhere.  And read what I wrote above; let's make sure we're being accurate when we refer to "heartbeat bills". 
You keep saying that, and yet you agree with my interpretation of how things are likely to unfold. If it becomes legal to prohibit abortions after 5-8 weeks, then Roe is meaningless and Casey is ashes.

Well, the fact is, I don't know where the line will be drawn with the heartbeat bills. I really don't, though I'm positing above a reasonable and fair outcome.   The important thing, though, is whether it's even a "fundamental right" or not.  Because we can boycott Alabama.   If the Court upholds Roe and upholds the Alabama law, then we have a problem, but it's a very different (and easier solved) problem than if the Court overturns Roe entirely.     

And I won't beat around the bush: part of this is my annoyance - profound annoyance - at the sloppiness of the arguments even from smart, knowledgeable people.   I'm less concerned about the actual line than what this debate is doing to our country.  Kirsten Gillebrand - who I generally like, but who seems to be showing her least attractive, politically, side here - isn't bothering to take even five seconds to clean up her argument, though she'd be the first to scream "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!" at Trump.   

Sidebar: if we REALLY don't like Trump's malfeasance with the truth, if we REALLY don't like his semantics games that don't amount to more than a screen door on a submarine, then we are OBLIGATED to call it out everywhere else, and I don't see even a whiff of that.  Gillebrand is making no bones about the REVERSAL of Roe (not even Casey, and she knows better there, too).   Kay Ivey is making no bones about the REVERSAL of Roe (again, Casey, and for the record, she said this: she already conceded that "her" law may not pass muster with the Supreme Court, but that it wasn't the point to have an effective, defensible law, but rather to tee up the reversal).   

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #169 on: May 22, 2019, 08:53:23 AM »
We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 
How so? Are you familiar with what NY actually did, aside from Trump's bullshit?

I take almost* zero policy information from Trump or those immediately around him.  I feel I am as familiar as I can be without reading the actual law, using various news sources, some legit, some, perhaps, with bias (on both sides).  I can't say I have a complete infallable understanding, but enough to make the statement I did.   

* I can't think of ANY case, but I'll allow for a mistake to creep in somewhere.
What NY's bill did was to decriminalize late term abortions when there was a major problem. Non-viable foetus. Risk to mother's safety. Something else that would make forcing the woman to carry it to term unconscionable. They're still prohibited in the vast majority of cases, though it's no longer a felony for the doctor who performs them. At the same time they shot down a bill by Sasse that was a political stunt. It criminalized something that was already illegal, while creating loopholes that might trip otherwise law-abiding doctors up. Infanticide is a crime in every state, has been, and will be. If a child is born with zero chance of survival it's going to get palliative care without the need for heroic measures to try and save it that the law might have required. Neither of these are extreme, in my book. And no part of either of them suggest that NY has legalized abortion after birth, like many on the right are saying thank's to one of Trump's tweets.

I gotta say, insofar as Trumpian bullshit goes, the NY abortion thing might be his masterpiece. It's absolute nonsense on a factual level, and people on the right accepted it without any real question. And as far as political stunts go, Sasse's was pretty damned good, as well. He crafted a bill that didn't really do anything but force the democrats to stand up for something that could be misconstrued the way it was.


Quote
If the Court upholds Roe and upholds the Alabama law, then we have a problem, but it's a very different (and easier solved) problem than if the Court overturns Roe entirely.
I would call it a much worse problem. If they uphold the Alabama law (which they won't) then we just recognize that the court is partisanized to the point of uselessness and get on with our lives. If it upholds a bill making abortion legal in principle but impossible in practice it continues a trend and we've greatly undermined liberty in this country as a result. "Of course you can protest a politician's rally, that's your constitutional right. You just have to follow these simple rules: remain 100 miles away, do it no less than one week before or one week after the event in question, don't speak loud enough for passersby to hear what you're saying, and if anybody sees your placard and becomes offended you'll face civil and criminal penalties. Just be glad you live in a country where the freedom to speak is a fundamental right, and have a nice day."


Quote
And I won't beat around the bush: part of this is my annoyance - profound annoyance - at the sloppiness of the arguments even from smart, knowledgeable people.   I'm less concerned about the actual line than what this debate is doing to our country.  Kirsten Gillebrand - who I generally like, but who seems to be showing her least attractive, politically, side here - isn't bothering to take even five seconds to clean up her argument, though she'd be the first to scream "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!" at Trump.   
Gillebrand knows the relevant laws, as do I. Citing Roe is simply convenient shorthand since that's what everybody knows. What percentage of people in this country would understand if you referred to Casey while discussing this? Moreover, as I keep trying to say, Casey is an integral part of Roe. You toss Casey in the waste bin and Roe no longer stands, outside of now worthless book of law. An attack on one is an attack on the other.
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 Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17304
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #170 on: May 22, 2019, 01:34:20 PM »
We don't "know".   We have cases where we can allege that happened, and certainly, in cases where there isn't an exception for the health of the mother (and to my knowledge even the so-called "extreme bans" have that exception) but we don't "know".  And even if we did, that one example is outlandish doesn't at all impact even one other example.  I do agree with your premise about voting, though (and I'll welcome your support the next time the "we should abolish the electoral college" nonsense rears it's ugly head).   But this is slightly out of context.   Abortion support is something like 80% UP TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER (that's week 12, for those who don't know/remember) and it drops off precipitously thereafter.   Alabama is a case of extremes to the right, but there are several examples of choice laws that go much further in the extreme the other direction (New York's for example). 
How so? Are you familiar with what NY actually did, aside from Trump's bullshit?

I take almost* zero policy information from Trump or those immediately around him.  I feel I am as familiar as I can be without reading the actual law, using various news sources, some legit, some, perhaps, with bias (on both sides).  I can't say I have a complete infallable understanding, but enough to make the statement I did.   

* I can't think of ANY case, but I'll allow for a mistake to creep in somewhere.
What NY's bill did was to decriminalize late term abortions when there was a major problem. Non-viable foetus. Risk to mother's safety. Something else that would make forcing the woman to carry it to term unconscionable. They're still prohibited in the vast majority of cases, though it's no longer a felony for the doctor who performs them. At the same time they shot down a bill by Sasse that was a political stunt. It criminalized something that was already illegal, while creating loopholes that might trip otherwise law-abiding doctors up. Infanticide is a crime in every state, has been, and will be. If a child is born with zero chance of survival it's going to get palliative care without the need for heroic measures to try and save it that the law might have required. Neither of these are extreme, in my book. And no part of either of them suggest that NY has legalized abortion after birth, like many on the right are saying thank's to one of Trump's tweets.

I gotta say, insofar as Trumpian bullshit goes, the NY abortion thing might be his masterpiece. It's absolute nonsense on a factual level, and people on the right accepted it without any real question. And as far as political stunts go, Sasse's was pretty damned good, as well. He crafted a bill that didn't really do anything but force the democrats to stand up for something that could be misconstrued the way it was.

Well, we can debate the "extreme-ness" of this law, but the problematic part of the NY law was that it took "harm to the mother's LIFE" and added, per Roe, "or HEALTH", though Roe didn't define "health".   Later, in another case, "Doe" (don't know if there is a relationship there), they DID define "health".  In the context of the NY law, though, what we have is a case - and the argument is akin to yours about abortion; if it's a PRACTICAL limitation (or extension), that might be enough - where abortions are allowed when a threat to mom's HEALTH, broadly defined. Will having that child create emotional harm or distress?  Yes?   Then the abortion is legal at any point AFTER 24 weeks.   

Quote
Quote
If the Court upholds Roe and upholds the Alabama law, then we have a problem, but it's a very different (and easier solved) problem than if the Court overturns Roe entirely.
I would call it a much worse problem. If they uphold the Alabama law (which they won't) then we just recognize that the court is partisanized to the point of uselessness and get on with our lives. If it upholds a bill making abortion legal in principle but impossible in practice it continues a trend and we've greatly undermined liberty in this country as a result. "Of course you can protest a politician's rally, that's your constitutional right. You just have to follow these simple rules: remain 100 miles away, do it no less than one week before or one week after the event in question, don't speak loud enough for passersby to hear what you're saying, and if anybody sees your placard and becomes offended you'll face civil and criminal penalties. Just be glad you live in a country where the freedom to speak is a fundamental right, and have a nice day."

But here's the thing; if Roe is overturned, it affects Alabama to Washington (and I mean that grammatically, geographically, and ideologically).   If the Alabama law is upheld, do you honestly think that California, and New York, and Connecticut and Oregon are going to say "wow, we fucked that up.  Need to tighten up those abortion laws!"?  Of course not; we've just tabled the fight for another day.  Ugly? Sure; but as long as there is at least ONE state that can and does allow abortion, there's a foot in the door. 

And all those other applications are ripe even now; free speech is constantly under review (right now in the States, "hate speech" is actually protected speech, and I'm sure there are a couple people here that are a) surprised at that, and b) want to see that changed yesterday).  Gun laws; there are laws now that restrict an American citizen from having a gun.  Maybe not EVERY American citizen, but some.   Imagine if abortions could be restricted if the woman sought psychological help?  Or some other action as decided by someone applying a judgmental observation?

Quote
Quote
And I won't beat around the bush: part of this is my annoyance - profound annoyance - at the sloppiness of the arguments even from smart, knowledgeable people.   I'm less concerned about the actual line than what this debate is doing to our country.  Kirsten Gillebrand - who I generally like, but who seems to be showing her least attractive, politically, side here - isn't bothering to take even five seconds to clean up her argument, though she'd be the first to scream "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!" at Trump.   
Gillebrand knows the relevant laws, as do I. Citing Roe is simply convenient shorthand since that's what everybody knows. What percentage of people in this country would understand if you referred to Casey while discussing this? Moreover, as I keep trying to say, Casey is an integral part of Roe. You toss Casey in the waste bin and Roe no longer stands, outside of now worthless book of law. An attack on one is an attack on the other.

But we lambaste Trump for this every day!  Dave - and I say this with respect, because he's usually right - calls Trump out for this at least three times a week.    I get shorthand, and I do it too, but at some point when dealing with laws that attempt to adjudicate the rights of 320 million people who all have potentially different views on the lines around those rights, we need to be more precise.  We have a whole thread on the blatant misrepresentation of the facts against a freshman representative, on the grounds that it's not accurate.   We have too many issues here that are problematic in part because of the inexactness of language (I know that just as some people hear "Laurel" and some hear "Yanni", so do some people hear "travel ban" and others hear "Muslim ban".)

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #171 on: May 22, 2019, 10:05:53 PM »
Well, we can debate the "extreme-ness" of this law, but the problematic part of the NY law was that it took "harm to the mother's LIFE" and added, per Roe, "or HEALTH", though Roe didn't define "health".   Later, in another case, "Doe" (don't know if there is a relationship there), they DID define "health".  In the context of the NY law, though, what we have is a case - and the argument is akin to yours about abortion; if it's a PRACTICAL limitation (or extension), that might be enough - where abortions are allowed when a threat to mom's HEALTH, broadly defined. Will having that child create emotional harm or distress?  Yes?   Then the abortion is legal at any point AFTER 24 weeks.   
Well, you're certainly extrapolating to the extreme, but you do make a valid point. What I will point out is that "health" is defined by the medical practitioner. Is that unreasonable or extreme? Is a woman's health better determined by politicians? And is it something that should be ignored, as it appears to have been up until the RHA? From my perspective I see this as an act that could lead to extreme scenarios. I see some of the Southern heartbeat bills as intrinsically extreme by design.

Quote
But here's the thing; if Roe is overturned, it affects Alabama to Washington (and I mean that grammatically, geographically, and ideologically).   If the Alabama law is upheld, do you honestly think that California, and New York, and Connecticut and Oregon are going to say "wow, we fucked that up.  Need to tighten up those abortion laws!"?  Of course not; we've just tabled the fight for another day.  Ugly? Sure; but as long as there is at least ONE state that can and does allow abortion, there's a foot in the door.
So your suggestion if they scrap Roe is to wait until new justices arrive and bring it back? Also, I asked this of someone else but it might have been dismissed as rhetorical. I'm asking you an honest question, if a state can restrict abortion to the point of it being a practical impossibility, is there anything to stop the US congress from doing the same? Do we now go to situation where its legality is in a constant state of flux? Changing with the various justices and congressmen both state and local, and some women will always be SOL?

Quote
And all those other applications are ripe even now; free speech is constantly under review (right now in the States, "hate speech" is actually protected speech, and I'm sure there are a couple people here that are a) surprised at that, and b) want to see that changed yesterday).  Gun laws; there are laws now that restrict an American citizen from having a gun.  Maybe not EVERY American citizen, but some.   Imagine if abortions could be restricted if the woman sought psychological help?  Or some other action as decided by someone applying a judgmental observation?
These are examples where we apply strict scrutiny in a steadfast deference to liberty. We do infringe upon speech and gun ownership and I understand that, just as I understand reasonable restrictions on abortion. You don't see me complain about those. What we're seeing here is something that effectively negates a fundamental right. You're talking about yelling fire in the proverbial theater and I'm talking about banning all political speech unless you utter it while running backwards down the wrong way of the 405. 

Quote
But we lambaste Trump for this every day!  Dave - and I say this with respect, because he's usually right - calls Trump out for this at least three times a week.    I get shorthand, and I do it too, but at some point when dealing with laws that attempt to adjudicate the rights of 320 million people who all have potentially different views on the lines around those rights, we need to be more precise.  We have a whole thread on the blatant misrepresentation of the facts against a freshman representative, on the grounds that it's not accurate.   We have too many issues here that are problematic in part because of the inexactness of language (I know that just as some people hear "Laurel" and some hear "Yanni", so do some people hear "travel ban" and others hear "Muslim ban".)
We lambaste Trump for his deceitfulness and his idiocy, not for his shorthand. I guess I don't get your problem with this. Is she being exact? No. Is that exactness necessary when summing up a point in thirty words or less for 300 million people with a superficial understanding of what she's on about? I don't think so. When she's enacting law I hope she's precise. When she's tweeting out her opinion I think shorthand works alright.
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 Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17304
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Abortion
« Reply #172 on: May 23, 2019, 09:23:44 AM »
Well, you're certainly extrapolating to the extreme, but you do make a valid point. What I will point out is that "health" is defined by the medical practitioner. Is that unreasonable or extreme? Is a woman's health better determined by politicians? And is it something that should be ignored, as it appears to have been up until the RHA? From my perspective I see this as an act that could lead to extreme scenarios. I see some of the Southern heartbeat bills as intrinsically extreme by design.

I don't think I'm extrapolating any more than anyone else.  But anytime you allow for the extreme to happen, then theoretically it can lead to extreme scenarios.  I don't argue with you that the "heartbeat bills" are more intrinsic.   I think, though, they are in part a reaction to the other bills that don't really seek to compromise - intrinsic or not - but seek to appeal to the base. 

Quote
So your suggestion if they scrap Roe is to wait until new justices arrive and bring it back? Also, I asked this of someone else but it might have been dismissed as rhetorical. I'm asking you an honest question, if a state can restrict abortion to the point of it being a practical impossibility, is there anything to stop the US congress from doing the same? Do we now go to situation where its legality is in a constant state of flux? Changing with the various justices and congressmen both state and local, and some women will always be SOL?

Well, that is one possible outcome, but it's not my "suggestion" in terms of a preferred solution.   I don't have a suitable analogy here, but the law is at it's heart a fluid thing in most cases.  Laws get passed.  Laws get passed and refined.  Laws get passed and repealed.  Laws get repealed and replaced.   Cases get decided and serve to "sharpen the pencil" in terms of precedential law for others to use as a roadmap.   Cases get decided, and legislatures - at the state and Federal level - pass laws to answer or modify those case holdings.   It happens thousands of times a session, in courts all over the country, but in this age of "Twitter" and "Right fucking now", it's all of a sudden an issue to wring hands over and lament the demise of democracy and the uprising of fascism.   I'm being hyperbolic to be funny, not antagonistic, but the point is valid. 

As for your question:   Is it possible? Yes.  What's to prevent it?  The check and balance of the court, the veto power of the President, the power of the ballot box, the strength of the relationships between the heads of the House and the Senate and their minority leadership (trashed in the wake of the ACA, but most people don't register that fact).   

Quote
These are examples where we apply strict scrutiny in a steadfast deference to liberty. We do infringe upon speech and gun ownership and I understand that, just as I understand reasonable restrictions on abortion. You don't see me complain about those. What we're seeing here is something that effectively negates a fundamental right. You're talking about yelling fire in the proverbial theater and I'm talking about banning all political speech unless you utter it while running backwards down the wrong way of the 405.

No, not necessarily; Washington DC banned ALL handguns guns, of any kind, for a period of - if memory serves - about thirty years.    Couple that with the assault rifle ban, and you have a pretty narrow window for gun ownership.  With many of the localized bans on what we euphemistically call "hate speech" (but which in practice usually most often applied to speech that isn't universally hateful, but rather individually bothersome or an expression of an unpalatable idea) and you're effectively banning any idea that doesn't comport with the majority opinion.  It might be percentage-wise less restrictive, but in the sense of the liberties of the country and the crucible of ideas in a supposedly "free" society, in my view, that's an even MORE restrictive act. 

Quote
We lambaste Trump for his deceitfulness and his idiocy, not for his shorthand. I guess I don't get your problem with this. Is she being exact? No. Is that exactness necessary when summing up a point in thirty words or less for 300 million people with a superficial understanding of what she's on about? I don't think so. When she's enacting law I hope she's precise. When she's tweeting out her opinion I think shorthand works alright.

I mean this as literally as almost anything I've said so far:  when we're talking about the restriction (or not) of fundamental rights as granted by the Constitution under a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people, then yeah, that exactness is necessary.  And I don't mean this to you, personally, but as a general comment, if "exactness" isn't necessary here, then I don't want to hear another fucking word about how Trump is a "fascist" for saying "lock her up!" about Hillary or how "I could do what I want. Grab 'em by the pussy!" is a taped confession of sexual assault against an unnamed victim.   If we can't take these people - who KNOW better - at their word, then what's the point?   Drumming up support for her bill by being purposefully vague and hyperbolic is wrong, no matter what the bill or it's import.   We keep hearing how Trump is evil because of the "dog whistle" to the white nationalists/racists/bigots, and that's bad, but this isn't?   How is it any different?

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22384
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Abortion
« Reply #173 on: May 23, 2019, 01:51:41 PM »

Well, you're certainly extrapolating to the extreme, but you do make a valid point. What I will point out is that "health" is defined by the medical practitioner. Is that unreasonable or extreme? Is a woman's health better determined by politicians? And is it something that should be ignored, as it appears to have been up until the RHA? From my perspective I see this as an act that could lead to extreme scenarios. I see some of the Southern heartbeat bills as intrinsically extreme by design.

I don't think I'm extrapolating any more than anyone else.  But anytime you allow for the extreme to happen, then theoretically it can lead to extreme scenarios.  I don't argue with you that the "heartbeat bills" are more intrinsic.   I think, though, they are in part a reaction to the other bills that don't really seek to compromise - intrinsic or not - but seek to appeal to the base.
I would suggest that the NY bill is a reasonable law, that like many others could be pushed into the extreme in certain scenarios. The Missouri bill is designed to be extreme. Its very essence is a de facto prohibition of abortions, and that's exactly what it was intended to be. And I honestly don't see the "reaction to bills that don't seek to compromise." These bills have one simple purpose, and it's the promotion of the pro-life platform to the furthest point. It's a reaction to Roe, not any of the latter bills.

Quote
Quote
So your suggestion if they scrap Roe is to wait until new justices arrive and bring it back? Also, I asked this of someone else but it might have been dismissed as rhetorical. I'm asking you an honest question, if a state can restrict abortion to the point of it being a practical impossibility, is there anything to stop the US congress from doing the same? Do we now go to situation where its legality is in a constant state of flux? Changing with the various justices and congressmen both state and local, and some women will always be SOL?

Well, that is one possible outcome, but it's not my "suggestion" in terms of a preferred solution.   I don't have a suitable analogy here, but the law is at it's heart a fluid thing in most cases.  Laws get passed.  Laws get passed and refined.  Laws get passed and repealed.  Laws get repealed and replaced.   Cases get decided and serve to "sharpen the pencil" in terms of precedential law for others to use as a roadmap.   Cases get decided, and legislatures - at the state and Federal level - pass laws to answer or modify those case holdings.   It happens thousands of times a session, in courts all over the country, but in this age of "Twitter" and "Right fucking now", it's all of a sudden an issue to wring hands over and lament the demise of democracy and the uprising of fascism.   I'm being hyperbolic to be funny, not antagonistic, but the point is valid.
The law is fluid, but isn't the Constitution, and by extension the SCOTUS a dam of sorts, or perhaps a floor? I believe justices have described their role as such. I have no idea how I'd ever find it, but in one of their decisions Scalia said something to the effect of "we set the point where you can go no lower. Everything above that point we leave matters to the states." Yes, laws can change and evolve, but only up to a certain point and as a rule that point doesn't move once it's set. Once you lower that floor to allow prohibitions to effectively ban a right you're very unlikely to move it back. As we're seeing now, raising that floor takes, essentially, an act of jury nullification at the highest level.

Quote
As for your question:   Is it possible? Yes.  What's to prevent it?  The check and balance of the court, the veto power of the President, the power of the ballot box, the strength of the relationships between the heads of the House and the Senate and their minority leadership (trashed in the wake of the ACA, but most people don't register that fact). 
Well, as I've been saying the check and balance of the court is absent at the point we're discussing. Beyond that we are creating the situation I describe, where a right exists in two year increments.


Quote
Quote
These are examples where we apply strict scrutiny in a steadfast deference to liberty. We do infringe upon speech and gun ownership and I understand that, just as I understand reasonable restrictions on abortion. You don't see me complain about those. What we're seeing here is something that effectively negates a fundamental right. You're talking about yelling fire in the proverbial theater and I'm talking about banning all political speech unless you utter it while running backwards down the wrong way of the 405.

No, not necessarily; Washington DC banned ALL handguns guns, of any kind, for a period of - if memory serves - about thirty years.    Couple that with the assault rifle ban, and you have a pretty narrow window for gun ownership.  With many of the localized bans on what we euphemistically call "hate speech" (but which in practice usually most often applied to speech that isn't universally hateful, but rather individually bothersome or an expression of an unpalatable idea) and you're effectively banning any idea that doesn't comport with the majority opinion.  It might be percentage-wise less restrictive, but in the sense of the liberties of the country and the crucible of ideas in a supposedly "free" society, in my view, that's an even MORE restrictive act. 

Interesting that you cite the DC handgun ban, because Heller was the relief you suggest for the heartbeat bills. If the court upholds a ban on most abortions, as we're discussing, in contrast to Heller which said a state can't ban most instances of gun ownership, then where is there to go? And since we're on Heller, the plaintiffs still had numerous opportunities for home defense and gun ownership. As a gun guy I'd have expected Scalia to know that the most popular gun for home defense, by a large margin, is the venerable 12 gauge pump. Another very popular choice is the AR15 platform, which was still readily available in less scary looking forms. In fact, it sure seems to me that a law that prohibits certain guns of a size small enough to be easily concealed is pert near a slam dunk under strict scrutiny, especially when compared to what we're discussing. This is why I made the comparison two weeks ago about a state trying to pull what the Southern states are up to with regards to the 2A.
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 Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4641
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #174 on: May 23, 2019, 10:51:48 PM »
And I don't mean this to you, personally, but as a general comment, if "exactness" isn't necessary here, then I don't want to hear another fucking word about how Trump is a "fascist" for saying "lock her up!" about Hillary or how "I could do what I want. Grab 'em by the pussy!" is a taped confession of sexual assault against an unnamed victim.   

I feel like I'm missing something here. 

I haven't been following the issue as closely as you and Barto have, but as far as I can tell from the course of your discussion, it seems that when you refer to this lack of 'exactness', you're talking about Gillebrand citing Roe when she should instead be citing Casey.  Is that accurate, or is there more to it?

Because I have to say, it seems to me that there's a pretty big, gaping, terrifying chasm of difference between that and getting a crowd of angry people excited about the idea of imprisoning someone in order to fire them up and channel their anger against your political opponents.  To be clear, that is my objection with his 'lock her up' stuff.  It's not that I think he's not being precise enough in his language, it's that I think he is willfully inciting hatred as a distraction tactic, and as a probably intentional side effect, he's poisoning his crowd against basic ideas like due process.  I really can't see how citing Roe when you mean Casey is remotely comparable. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa