ASTRO has gone full woke

[medgator]

I don’t think garland was handled right either

I think that's what has set off a chain reaction ever since and it absolutely would not shock me in the least if the Dems respond in kind next year should match Mitch and co jam the nominee through and 45 isn't re-elected. They really need to think this through.

GOP should be as worried about DC and PR statehood imo... House already seems like an uphill battle but retaking senate would be impossible should that happen.

Anyways bringing it back on topic. Kendi seems like a flawed speaker but relevant to what is going on now societally

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[temujim]

You have taken the baseline view that abortion, gay marriage etc, are not being imposed half the country who disagrees with the current supreme court rulings. Seems to me such rulings are not based on the reading of the constitution (as opposed to say guns, death penalty, eg). Therefore such legislation should properly be reserved to the states to decide... 9th amendment and all. And then if you love the current legal regime you can move to say California, etc, and if you don't, can move to say Texas.

Unless you're a rad onc. Then you're stuck wherever you can get a job.

Of course I do understand your and KHE's views and respect them. If I don't respect your views then I cannot expect you to respect those of mine/medgator/etc. All I'm saying is that half the country is more than welcome to keep their disapproving views on abortion, gay marriage, etc but it's not appropriate to mandate the whole country to follow those views. I hate guns but on a matter of principle am forced to concede that the government shouldn't tell competent people to own/not own guns. And if one looks from a broad perspective, abortion and gay marriage are no different. Just as I (on the left) dislike guns, I believe in the individual rights and sovereignty of each person, and so too should those on the right understand that about other issues like abortion and gay marriage. Democracy means for and by the people, so it by definition has to represent everyone.

(Sorry mods for the political discussion, though it's a respectful one from both sides)

 

[deleted605854]

You have taken the baseline view that abortion, gay marriage etc, are not being imposed half the country who disagrees with the current supreme court rulings. Seems to me such rulings are not based on the reading of the constitution (as opposed to say guns, death penalty, eg). Therefore such legislation should properly be reserved to the states to decide... 9th amendment and all. And then if you love the current legal regime you can move to say California, etc, and if you don't, can move to say Texas.

Unless you're a rad onc. Then you're stuck wherever you can get a job.

I understand your point of view and reiterate my complete and utter apathy at politics hence being apolitical

But I ask that question again: what happens if ACA is overturned? Do things get even worse for rad Onc ? It's battered enough as it is with everything that's been going on

I might be apolitical but I'm still interested in self preservation. I am only human

 

[deleted480308]

The difference, being that the liberal candidate has won the popular presidential vote in 6 of the last 7 elections, is that packing the court might create one more in line with the country's political views as a whole. Otoh, this confirmation and packing the court are very much the same as they're both allowed, and elections have consequences.

The popular vote is irrelevant to presidential elections

 

[deleted480308]

I think that's what has set off a chain reaction ever since and it absolutely would not shock me in the least if the Dems respond in kind next year should match Mitch and co jam the nominee through and 45 isn't re-elected. They really need to think this through.

GOP should be as worried about DC and PR statehood imo... House already seems like an uphill battle but retaking senate would be impossible should that happen.

Anyways bringing it back on topic. Kendi seems like a flawed speaker but relevant to what is going on now societally

PR should be a state or be independent. DC should stay as is, senate makeup shouldn’t be part of the consideration for either but alas people are flawed

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

The popular vote is irrelevant to presidential elections

It's irrelevant to understanding the political ideology of the majority of Americans? As I predict your answer will be "yes," I wonder what a better gauge would be.

 

[FrostyHammer]

You have taken the baseline view that abortion, gay marriage etc, are not being imposed half the country who disagrees with the current supreme court rulings. Seems to me such rulings are not based on the reading of the constitution (as opposed to say guns, death penalty, eg). Therefore such legislation should properly be reserved to the states to decide... 9th amendment and all. And then if you love the current legal regime you can move to say California, etc, and if you don't, can move to say Texas.

Unless you're a rad onc. Then you're stuck wherever you can get a job.

Leaving it to the states is not a bad idea either. Unfortunately half the country wants to completely eliminate abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, etc. Completely eliminate from all 50 states and territories. That was the point of my post above. If you want to restrict it and make half the country happy, I can't say that's un-democratic. But don't subject the whole country uniformly to it, because that is indeed un-democratic.

 

[Lamount]

You have taken the baseline view that abortion, gay marriage etc, are not being imposed half the country who disagrees with the current supreme court rulings. Seems to me such rulings are not based on the reading of the constitution (as opposed to say guns, death penalty, eg). Therefore such legislation should properly be reserved to the states to decide... 9th amendment and all. And then if you love the current legal regime you can move to say California, etc, and if you don't, can move to say Texas.

Unless you're a rad onc. Then you're stuck wherever you can get a job.

I think this is a fascinating argument. How have same sex marriage and access to abortion services been “imposed” on anyone? Were you forced to partake in either?

 

[temujim]

Yes half the country wants to eliminate these things. But then they would have to work through the political democratic process to make it so. And that is the way it should be done. Frankly, it was bad enough to get amendment 18 (prohibition) when such a thing went through a democratic and constitutional process. Having 9 people in black robes making these decisions for us is even worse.

Leaving it to the states is not a bad idea either. Unfortunately half the country wants to completely eliminate abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, etc. Completely eliminate from all 50 states and territories. That was the point of my post above. If you want to restrict it and make half the country happy, I can't say that's un-democratic. But don't subject the whole country uniformly to it, because that is indeed un-democratic.

 

[deleted480308]

I think this is a fascinating argument. How have same sex marriage and access to abortion services been “imposed” on anyone? Were you forced to partake in either?

Bakers (and i think a pizza shop)were forced, nuns and amish were sued by the govt to provide coverage, there is a lot of pressure that doctors should have to refer, wedding venues forced, the ACA was passed on a lie to those voting for it that abortion would stay out....

you know stuff like that

 

[thecarbonionangle]

Democrats need to do the following and grow some balls: would be funny to see the fake outrage

1) make PR and DC states. These places have more americans who don’t have representation and have more people than wyoming or dakota territories.
2) pack the SCOTUS

similarly our field needs to grow some balls and do what it needs do:

1) close down all bad places
2) significantly increase case load and requirements closing down even more places

let people cry. Thats what people do, cry.

 

[deleted480308]

It's irrelevant to understanding the political ideology of the majority of Americans? As I predict your answer will be "yes," I wonder what a better gauge would be.

It seems I misunderstood your point, apologies.

 

[Lamount]

Yes half the country wants to eliminate these things.

The data do not support you assertion. An NBC poll found 77% support upholding roe v wade, with 61% saying there should be no more restrictions than are currently imposed.

Additionally, a Gallup poll found that 67% believe same sex marriages should be recognized as valid under the law.

 

[medgator]

It's irrelevant to understanding the political ideology of the majority of Americans? As I predict your answer will be "yes," I wonder what a better gauge would be.

With the way demographics and state migration patterns are going, i think the EC will become less relevant as time goes on. There's only so much juice left to squeeze....

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

With the way demographics and state migration patterns are going, i think the EC will become less relevant as time goes on. There's only so much juice left to squeeze....

While I do hate the electoral college, and recognize it will affect turnout, it seems like the consistent popular vote loss by the Republican candidate would suggest the country is center-left. If this is the case, stacking the court seems like the right thing to do as it's in-line with the country's philosophy and allowed.

My hope is that barrett is quickly confirmed, and we move on. Hipsters who think they gotta vote for bernie or nobody are ultimately responsible for this (I recognize this a little hyperbolic). Our bumper sticker culture needs to get over the idealism, recognize this is a two party system, vote for the party in line with their views and then get on with their lives. As much as I disagree with the present administration, this system has worked thus far, and other than hypocrisy, the Republican senate is doing right by their constituents and personal ideologies. My hope is the Dems accept they have no choice in this matter given how powerless the voters made them. Good or bad, what's happening is the result of voter's decisions, antiquated electoral college notwithstanding.

 

[scarbrtj]

It sounds like he's speaking negatively about Obama and his mom. You can also deploy the same line of logic to disparage interracial marriage.

 

[OTN]

In the history of our republic, of the 10 times a Supreme Court justice died in the last year of a president’s term and the senate was held by the opposing party, only twice were they confirmed. In the 19 times when the senate was held by the same party as the president, they were confirmed 17 times.

Confirming judge Barrett would actually be more or less the norm over our country’s history. The problem is that the GOP lied a few years ago, rather than being honest with what they’re doing, so now both parties are rank with hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. GOP should’ve been honest with Garland and just said they wanted to wait in case Trump won.

Dems should never have gotten rid of the senate filibuster in 2013- really came back to bite them, like they were told it would.

 

[Lamount]

Bakers (and i think a pizza shop)were forced, nuns and amish were sued by the govt to provide coverage, there is a lot of pressure that doctors should have to refer, wedding venues forced, the ACA was passed on a lie to those voting for it that abortion would stay out....

you know stuff like that

The baker was forced into a same sex marriage?... or was implored to treat gay couples the same as he would interracial couples, under the CRA.

though I am not unsympathetic to the argument that you shouldn’t have to pay for a service that you find morally objectionable, I will point out that Jews and Muslims have never claimed that paying taxes that go to the government subsidizing pig farmers violates their religious freedom.

Shame on any doctor who refuses to REFER a woman who wants any abortion

Having freedom to practice your relgion as you please does NOT mean you are free to impose it on others... and most Americans agree (see above)

 

[Lamount]

In the history of our republic, of the 10 times a Supreme Court justice died in the last year of a president’s term and the senate was held by the opposing party, only twice were they confirmed. In the 19 times when the senate was held by the same party as the president, they were confirmed 17 times.

Confirming judge Barrett would actually be more or less the norm over our country’s history. The problem is that the GOP lied a few years ago, rather than being honest with what they’re doing, so now both parties are rank with hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. GOP should’ve been honest with Garland and just said they wanted to wait in case Trump won.

Dems should never have gotten rid of the senate filibuster in 2013- really came back to bite them, like they were told it would.

In the history of the republic, no nominee to a federal bench (SCOTUS or otherwise) was denied a vote on since 1866. As I point out above, the precedent for adding justices is more recent than this... thus that would appear to be a reasonable consideration for Democrats should they win the senate.

 

[deleted480308]

The baker was forced into a same sex marriage?... or was implored to treat gay couples the same as he would interracial couples, under the CRA.

though I am not unsympathetic to the argument that you shouldn’t have to pay for a service that you find morally objectionable, I will point out that Jews and Muslims have never claimed that paying taxes that go to the government subsidizing pig farmers violates their religious freedom.

Shame on any doctor who refuses to REFER a woman who wants any abortion

Having freedom to practice your relgion as you please does NOT mean you are free to impose it on others... and most Americans agree (see above)

Except you don’t want people to practice as they wish, you don’t want them to be able to abstain from participating, you just said you want the govt to force them

 

[KHE88]

Shame on any doctor who refuses to REFER a woman who wants any abortion

That's your opinion.

A significant portion of Americans believe elective abortion of a healthy fetus is murder at some point. Yeah, murder is a strong word, but what else do you call intentionally ending a life without consent? Whether ending the life at conception, at 9 weeks, at 21 weeks, at 37 weeks, or at the split second the baby leaves the birth canal constitutes murder is debatable for many people. If I believe that someone who wants to terminate a healthy 30 week fetus is committing murder and decline to research where she can have this done and point her in that direction, then shame on me for refusing to be complicit in that? OK. If you say so.

But the bottom line is that if you are a physician who personally believes that what is being requested constitutes murder, then shame on you. Or else I guess you're just Ralph Northram, MD who wouldn't necessarily try to save a baby that survived a botched abortion without having a discussion first. As a physician with an understanding of embryology and human development, I have a pretty good idea of when and what constitutes life. The general public, however, may not given the constant misinformation campaign.

We have a constitution. It exists for a reason. The popular vote doesn't matter for a reason. Checks and balances are important. It shouldn't matter whether a democrat or a republican nominates a supreme court justice, because the court is not supposed to be political and attempt to legislate from the bench. As a result you get garbage decisions like Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, PP vs. Casey, etc, where things are literally made up (e.g., viability limits, applying the right to privacy, undue burden, etc.). Nobody should be opposed to appointing an originalist judge to the court. The entire point is to objectively interpret our constitution. The left is, and they are strongly, and I think this gives them away. The constitution and the rights protected by it are an impediment to gaining total power and one party rule. Get rid of it by any means necessary: pack the court, grant statehood to non-states that would support you, get rid of the popular vote, get rid of the filibuster, etc. The power grabs are obvious.

The good news, for those with their hair on fire, is that Trump's first two SCOTUS picks, especially Kavanaugh, are extremely unlikely to vote in favor of overturning Roe. It would be a 8 vs. 1 decision with Thomas dissenting. With Trump's third pick, maybe a 7 vs. 2 decision now. It's not going anywhere. You're welcome.

It's also worth noting, and I think a lot of people forget this or don't understand that this is a federal ruling, is that if Roe were overturned (which I don't even think I would support at this point), abortion would still be legal everywhere except in states that have outlawed it (17 states).

 

[OTN]

In the history of the republic, no nominee to a federal bench (SCOTUS or otherwise) was denied a vote on since 1866. As I point out above, the precedent for adding justices is more recent than this... thus that would appear to be a reasonable consideration for Democrats should they win the senate.

Then when the GOP reclaims the senate at some point with a GOP president, they simply pack the court more and move on. No end game there.

As far as Puerto Rico, the Dems can’t just decide they get to be a state. The people of PR have to vote on it. And, currently, because they’re not a state, they currently pay no (0) federal income tax.

 

[radOresident]

The popular vote doesn't matter for a reason.

The absurdity of conservative political thought summed up. Majority rule is undemocratic! If Texas were to ever go faithfully blue, no question conservatives would lobby to get rid of the electoral college. It's not about checks and balances for them, it's about maintaining power in the face of declining support from the American people.

 

[medgator]

The absurdity of conservative political thought summed up. Majority rule is undemocratic! If Texas were to ever go faithfully blue, no question conservatives would lobby to get rid of the electoral college. It's not about checks and balances for them, it's about maintaining power in the face of declining support from the American people.

And instead of the 3/5 rule, let's use poll taxes/felon fines etc to suppress the vote. Basically what has been happening in FL with the governor ignoring the will of the people and Bloomberg trying to rectify it before the election.

Texas will go blue this decade. Will be interesting to see how conservatives address it

 

[KHE88]

The absurdity of conservative political thought summed up. Majority rule is undemocratic! If Texas were to ever go faithfully blue, no question conservatives would lobby to get rid of the electoral college. It's not about checks and balances for them, it's about maintaining power in the face of declining support from the American people.

I can only speak for myself, but I believe in upholding our constitution and the reason that the electoral college was established in the first place (see federalism). America was established as a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.

No doubt there are those on both sides who would prefer whatever system would grant them the most power. But there are plenty like me who care about principles and believe our system is worth "conserving" and, no, we would not argue to get rid of the electoral college if we lost Texas or other red states with large numbers of red votes. Furthermore, if Texas became blue, republicans almost certainly would not win the popular vote either (unless hell freezes over and California turns red). So that hypothetical is a bit absurd.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

That's your opinion.

A significant portion of Americans believe elective abortion of a healthy fetus is murder at some point. Yeah, murder is a strong word, but what else do you call intentionally ending a life without consent? Whether ending the life at conception, at 9 weeks, at 21 weeks, at 37 weeks, or at the split second the baby leaves the birth canal constitutes murder is debatable for many people. If I believe that someone who wants to terminate a healthy 30 week fetus is committing murder and decline to research where she can have this done and point her in that direction, then shame on me for refusing to be complicit in that? OK. If you say so.

But the bottom line is that if you are a physician who personally believes that what is being requested constitutes murder, then shame on you. Or else I guess you're just Ralph Northram, MD who wouldn't necessarily try to save a baby that survived a botched abortion without having a discussion first. As a physician with an understanding of embryology and human development, I have a pretty good idea of when and what constitutes life. The general public, however, may not given the constant misinformation campaign.

We have a constitution. It exists for a reason. The popular vote doesn't matter for a reason. Checks and balances are important. It shouldn't matter whether a democrat or a republican nominates a supreme court justice, because the court is not supposed to be political and attempt to legislate from the bench. As a result you get garbage decisions like Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, PP vs. Casey, etc, where things are literally made up (e.g., viability limits, applying the right to privacy, undue burden, etc.). Nobody should be opposed to appointing an originalist judge to the court. The entire point is to objectively interpret our constitution. The left is, and they are strongly, and I think this gives them away. The constitution and the rights protected by it are an impediment to gaining total power and one party rule. Get rid of it by any means necessary: pack the court, grant statehood to non-states that would support you, get rid of the popular vote, get rid of the filibuster, etc. The power grabs are obvious.

The good news, for those with their hair on fire, is that Trump's first two SCOTUS picks, especially Kavanaugh, are extremely unlikely to vote in favor of overturning Roe. It would be a 8 vs. 1 decision with Thomas dissenting. With Trump's third pick, maybe a 7 vs. 2 decision now. It's not going anywhere. You're welcome.

It's also worth noting, and I think a lot of people forget this or don't understand that this is a federal ruling, is that if Roe were overturned (which I don't even think I would support at this point), abortion would still be legal everywhere except in states that have outlawed it (17 states).

Isn't refusing to look into where babies are being murdered being complicit? Sounds like something that should be stopped at all costs.

 

[KHE88]

Isn't refusing to look into where babies are being murdered being complicit? Sounds like something that should be stopped at all costs.

I'm confused if I'm supposed to disagree with this.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

I'm confused if I'm supposed to disagree with this.

Seems like murdering babies should warrant a greater response than just hoping for the right supreme court composition.

 

[medgator]

Seems like murdering babies should warrant a greater response than just hoping for the right supreme court composition.

All the more reason conservatives should have been pushing more, not less, for OCPs.... The cognitive dissonance of being pro life and abstinence only ed in schools never made sense to me, still doesn't

 

[KHE88]

Seems like murdering babies should warrant a greater response than just hoping for the right supreme court composition.

So I can't question anything about abortion at all unless I'm boots on the ground setting abortion clinics on fire? Ok. I sincerely regret entering this conversation and will ignore medgator's bizzare strawman above. But there you go, at least the other side has been presented now.

 

[Lamount]

Then when the GOP reclaims the senate at some point with a GOP president, they simply pack the court more and move on. No end game there.

As far as Puerto Rico, the Dems can’t just decide they get to be a state. The people of PR have to vote on it. And, currently, because they’re not a state, they currently pay no (0) federal income tax.

Trump taught Democrats not to mind the slippery slope. A balanced supreme court would be more likely to address issues such as barriers to voting and gerrymandering... which ultimately will make it harder for conservative minorities to be represented as a majority in state government

Regarding PR, they have historically wanted to be a state. I think they may have a non-binding referendum vote this year... will be interested to see the results. If they do, I see no compelling reason why PR and/or DC shouldn't become states: both of a greater population than Wyoming but lack representation in the senate.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

So I can't question anything about abortion at all unless I'm boots on the ground setting abortion clinics on fire? Ok. I sincerely regret entering this conversation and will ignore medgator's bizzare strawman above. But there you go, at least the other side has been presented now.

You or anyone. Seems like murdering babies would warrant more. There's presumably somewhere on the order of 50 to 150 million americans that think babies are being murdered regularly, and all they're doing about it is watching property brothers. Seems inconsistent.

 

[Lamount]

That's your opinion.

A significant portion of Americans believe elective abortion of a healthy fetus is murder at some point. Yeah, murder is a strong word, but what else do you call intentionally ending a life without consent? Whether ending the life at conception, at 9 weeks, at 21 weeks, at 37 weeks, or at the split second the baby leaves the birth canal constitutes murder is debatable for many people. If I believe that someone who wants to terminate a healthy 30 week fetus is committing murder and decline to research where she can have this done and point her in that direction, then shame on me for refusing to be complicit in that? OK. If you say so.

But the bottom line is that if you are a physician who personally believes that what is being requested constitutes murder, then shame on you. Or else I guess you're just Ralph Northram, MD who wouldn't necessarily try to save a baby that survived a botched abortion without having a discussion first. As a physician with an understanding of embryology and human development, I have a pretty good idea of when and what constitutes life. The general public, however, may not given the constant misinformation campaign.

We have a constitution. It exists for a reason. The popular vote doesn't matter for a reason. Checks and balances are important. It shouldn't matter whether a democrat or a republican nominates a supreme court justice, because the court is not supposed to be political and attempt to legislate from the bench. As a result you get garbage decisions like Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, PP vs. Casey, etc, where things are literally made up (e.g., viability limits, applying the right to privacy, undue burden, etc.). Nobody should be opposed to appointing an originalist judge to the court. The entire point is to objectively interpret our constitution. The left is, and they are strongly, and I think this gives them away. The constitution and the rights protected by it are an impediment to gaining total power and one party rule. Get rid of it by any means necessary: pack the court, grant statehood to non-states that would support you, get rid of the popular vote, get rid of the filibuster, etc. The power grabs are obvious.

The good news, for those with their hair on fire, is that Trump's first two SCOTUS picks, especially Kavanaugh, are extremely unlikely to vote in favor of overturning Roe. It would be a 8 vs. 1 decision with Thomas dissenting. With Trump's third pick, maybe a 7 vs. 2 decision now. It's not going anywhere. You're welcome.

It's also worth noting, and I think a lot of people forget this or don't understand that this is a federal ruling, is that if Roe were overturned (which I don't even think I would support at this point), abortion would still be legal everywhere except in states that have outlawed it (17 states).

With masks: my body, my choice

With woman's health: your body, my choice.

Makes sense

 

[KHE88]

With masks: my body, my choice

With woman's health: your body, my choice.

Makes sense

Since I'm being called a hypocrite and my position is being misrepresented, I'll respond.

The difference is the belief that the fetus is not part of the woman's body in the same way as is the liver or even reproductive organs, and is in fact a separate life dependent on the mother. Much in the same way a newborn cannot live independently without support, neither can a fetus. It doesn't make either less alive or less independent.

I'm sure you already knew this, but this is what the other side thinks, to be clear. For what it's worth, I have mixed views on the subject and am not strictly a life-begins-at-conception proponent who thinks preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is the same as killing a newborn. Reductio ad absurdum is not helpful, but that's what always happens in these arguments.

No comment on the absurd mask mandate analogy. I was reliably informed that debate was settled and discussing that's forbidden anyway.

 

[communitydoc13]

We have meandered from BLM, vulnerability of the professional class (us), moral issues of income disparity, democratic value of the electoral college, originalism and now abortion. Intersectionality is the rule.

IMO abortion is problematic and as a DEM feel that we should tread carefully. The mask/abortion comparison makes some sense to me as the issue of consent is paramount in both cases. The fetus can’t consent to imminent death. The public can’t consent to the increased risk of being around a non-mask wearer and thus the defense of mask mandates. Admittedly, there are orders of magnitude difference in risk.

We have a tradition of protection based on consent, and while the consensual/non-consensual aspect of sex factors into the moral measure of abortion as a reasonable act, our realm of consent gets bigger with technology and is contextual. I think that is reasonable to think of carrying a child for 9 months as a consentable act at multiple points in time after conception in a world where safe abortion is possible. Personally, I think abortion should be legal, rare and limited to relatively early in pregnancy unless mother’s life is at risk.

You or anyone. Seems like murdering babies would warrant more. There's presumably somewhere on the order of 50 to 150 million americans that think babies are being murdered regularly, and all they're doing about it is watching property brothers. Seems inconsistent.

I don't think that a fetus’ life is equivalent to a born child’s or adult’s in the public consciousness and this is why there is such an absurdity when discussing abortion numbers and response. I don’t know why this is, but I believe that it is related to the very high frequency of miscarriage and our necessary emotional response to it. In 19th century western cultures, it would be extremely rare to think of life as starting at conception, even among the most religious. In fact, children’s lives were not valued as adult’s largely because of their vulnerability to disease.

 

[deleted480308]

You or anyone. Seems like murdering babies would warrant more. There's presumably somewhere on the order of 50 to 150 million americans that think babies are being murdered regularly, and all they're doing about it is watching property brothers. Seems inconsistent.

That’s not a dare you want to throw out to the universe, don’t ask for things no one wants

 

[KHE88]

We have meandered from BLM, vulnerability of the professional class (us), moral issues of income disparity, democratic value of the electoral college, originalism and now abortion. Intersectionality is the rule.

IMO abortion is problematic and as a DEM feel that we should tread carefully. The mask/abortion comparison makes some sense to me as the issue of consent is paramount in both cases. The fetus can’t consent to imminent death. The public can’t consent to the increased risk of being around a non-mask wearer and thus the defense of mask mandates. Admittedly, there are orders of magnitude difference in risk.

We have a tradition of protection based on consent, and while the consensual/non-consensual aspect of sex factors into the moral measure of abortion as a reasonable act, our realm of consent gets bigger with technology and is contextual. I think that is reasonable to think of carrying a child for 9 months as a consentable act at multiple points in time after conception in a world where safe abortion is possible. Personally, I think abortion should be legal, rare and limited to relatively early in pregnancy unless mother’s life is at risk.



I don't think that a fetus’ life is equivalent to a born child’s or adult’s in the public consciousness and this is why there is such an absurdity when discussing abortion numbers and response. I don’t know why this is, but I believe that it is related to the very high frequency of miscarriage and our necessary emotional response to it. In 19th century western cultures, it would be extremely rare to think of life as starting at conception, even among the most religious. In fact, children’s lives were not valued as adult’s largely because of their vulnerability to disease.

Your post is very reasonable and well thought out. I disagree with some of your points, but I understand where you are coming from and can respect that.

I, probably obviously, will not be voting democratic this election, and I think your fears are legitimate. If I wanted to increase the odds of your side losing, I would say that your candidates should definitely get on stage and support the unquestionable right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy at any point for any reason, including a full term pregnancy as was done in the primaries. I think even among most abortion rights proponents, there is some degree of something-not-feeling-quite-right about elective D&E of a healthy full-term fetus. On this and other issues, if your candidates repeat the same level of extremism seen in the primaries, you might be in trouble. Of course, if they really believe it, then be honest about it and see if the people really support that I suppose.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

That’s not a dare you want to throw out to the universe, don’t ask for things no one wants

Obviously, not asking for it. Calling bull**** on the idea that the masses, deep down, think abortion and killing a baby are the same thing.

 

[KHE88]

Obviously, not asking for it. Calling bull**** on the idea that the masses, deep down, think abortion and killing a baby are the same thing.

Most people would agree that killing a 1 month old is equally as wrong as killing a 1 year old or a 10 year old.
However, there seems to be fairly widespread disagreement whether terminating a pregnancy at pre-implantation (with plan B) = terminating a 7 week pregnancy with RU-486 = terminating a near viable 23 week pregnancy with a D&E = terminating a 37 week pregnancy with a intact D&X/partial birth abortion = terminating a breathing baby after a botched late term abortion. There are certainly some who think that all of the above constitute "abortion" equally and are all equally fine and are all equally different from killing a one month old. I don't think that such views are as common as you think they are. If you showed most people a video of a late term abortion, which you can find online, I suspect most would find it unsettling and not support it or at least not refer to it as extracting a cluster of cells or some other euphemism. I could be wrong. I guess the democrats can try and take that position and see what happens.

 

[temujim]

Polls are meaningless. Every time these questions have been put to actual voters, they have been rejected. Even in California in the case of gay marriage.

But I for one am glad to debate these types of topics in a civil manner. As opposed to the shut down of debate on the topic of masks by the SDN overlords. In a medical forum. With doctors.

The data do not support you assertion. An NBC poll found 77% support upholding roe v wade, with 61% saying there should be no more restrictions than are currently imposed.

Additionally, a Gallup poll found that 67% believe same sex marriages should be recognized as valid under the law.

 

[communitydoc13]

Your post is very reasonable and well thought out. I disagree with some of your points, but I understand where you are coming from and can respect that.

I, probably obviously, will not be voting democratic this election, and I think your fears are legitimate. If I wanted to increase the odds of your side losing, I would say that your candidates should definitely get on stage and support the unquestionable right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy at any point for any reason, including a full term pregnancy as was done in the primaries. I think even among most abortion rights proponents, there is some degree of something-not-feeling-quite-right about elective D&E of a healthy full-term fetus. On this and other issues, if your candidates repeat the same level of extremism seen in the primaries, you might be in trouble. Of course, if they really believe it, then be honest about it and see if the people really support that I suppose.

You can shoot from the hip a million times better than me. I give you props. A few points important to me:

Biden is no radical on this and there are very good libertarian reasons to support abortion legality. The following are a few good facts about abortions.

From the BBC: Mr Biden spoke about how he squared his religious beliefs with his views on abortion, saying: "I'm prepared to accept for me, personally, doctrine of my church [on when life begins]...but I'm not prepared to impose that on every other person."

The CDC reported in 2016 that 91% of abortions occurred before 13 weeks of pregnancy, nearly 30% before eight weeks and only 1.2% after 21 weeks.

The rate of abortions continues to go down and went down significantly under Clinton and Obama administrations. I don't think restrictive state laws are the driver of this reduction but am happy to be corrected.

Access to birth control and prenatal care are common sense and among the highest value interventions any health care system can provide.

Please correct me if you think this statement isn't accurate.

Nearly none of those Evergreen State type radicals or leftist anarchists, who have at times been violent and sometimes disingenuously taken up the BLM mantra, are energized by Biden. Conversely, I would guess that most of those proud boys and unrepentant cultural chauvinists and white supremacists (not saying they are representative of the average republican or you or most people offended by Kendi) are very enthusiastic about Trump.

 

[deleted480308]

Obviously, not asking for it. Calling bull**** on the idea that the masses, deep down, think abortion and killing a baby are the same thing.

We don’t run in the same cohort. But you are correct that my cohort isn’t the majority

 

[deleted480308]

You can shoot from the hip a million times better than me. I give you props. A few points important to me:

Biden is no radical on this and there are very good libertarian reasons to support abortion legality. The following are a few good facts about abortions.

From the BBC: Mr Biden spoke about how he squared his religious beliefs with his views on abortion, saying: "I'm prepared to accept for me, personally, doctrine of my church [on when life begins]...but I'm not prepared to impose that on every other person."

The CDC reported in 2016 that 91% of abortions occurred before 13 weeks of pregnancy, nearly 30% before eight weeks and only 1.2% after 21 weeks.

The rate of abortions continues to go down and went down significantly under Clinton and Obama administrations. I don't think restrictive state laws are the driver of this reduction but am happy to be corrected.

Access to birth control and prenatal care are common sense and among the highest value interventions any health care system can provide.

Please correct me if you think this statement isn't accurate.

Nearly none of those Evergreen State type radicals or leftist anarchists, who have at times been violent and sometimes disingenuously taken up the BLM mantra, are energized by Biden. Conversely, I would guess that most of those proud boys and unrepentant cultural chauvinists and white supremacists (not saying they are representative of the average republican or you or most people offended by Kendi) are very enthusiastic about Trump.

Agreed with one clarification, they might just be energized about biden not being trump. I think they would be enrgized about a box of shoes if they thought it could beat trump in an election

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Most people would agree that killing a 1 month old is equally as wrong as killing a 1 year old or a 10 year old.
However, there seems to be fairly widespread disagreement whether terminating a pregnancy at pre-implantation (with plan B) = terminating a 7 week pregnancy with RU-486 = terminating a near viable 23 week pregnancy with a D&E = terminating a 37 week pregnancy with a intact D&X/partial birth abortion = terminating a breathing baby after a botched late term abortion. There are certainly some who think that all of the above constitute "abortion" equally and are all equally fine and are all equally different from killing a one month old. I don't think that such views are as common as you think they are. If you showed most people a video of a late term abortion, which you can find online, I suspect most would find it unsettling and not support it or at least not refer to it as extracting a cluster of cells or some other euphemism. I could be wrong. I guess the democrats can try and take that position and see what happens.

So there's a point where it's not murder? In other words, where is the moment during pregnancy that the government shouldn't tell a woman what to do with or to her own body? Is it the level of grossness of the process?

 

[KHE88]

So there's a point where it's not murder? In other words, where is the moment during pregnancy that the government shouldn't tell a woman what to do with or to her own body? Is it the level of grossness of the process?

Yes. That was my entire point. Some people think it's murder any time after conception. Some people think it's at this point called "viability." Some people think it's at the moment the baby leaves the birth canal, or potentially even afterwards. Some people don't know for sure.
I wouldn't use the word grossness. I think grotesqueness is probably more appropriate.

You can shoot from the hip a million times better than me. I give you props. A few points important to me:

Biden is no radical on this and there are very good libertarian reasons to support abortion legality. The following are a few good facts about abortions.

From the BBC: Mr Biden spoke about how he squared his religious beliefs with his views on abortion, saying: "I'm prepared to accept for me, personally, doctrine of my church [on when life begins]...but I'm not prepared to impose that on every other person."

The CDC reported in 2016 that 91% of abortions occurred before 13 weeks of pregnancy, nearly 30% before eight weeks and only 1.2% after 21 weeks.

The rate of abortions continues to go down and went down significantly under Clinton and Obama administrations. I don't think restrictive state laws are the driver of this reduction but am happy to be corrected.

Access to birth control and prenatal care are common sense and among the highest value interventions any health care system can provide.

Please correct me if you think this statement isn't accurate.

Nearly none of those Evergreen State type radicals or leftist anarchists, who have at times been violent and sometimes disingenuously taken up the BLM mantra, are energized by Biden. Conversely, I would guess that most of those proud boys and unrepentant cultural chauvinists and white supremacists (not saying they are representative of the average republican or you or most people offended by Kendi) are very enthusiastic about Trump.

I agree for the most part and think it's odd that some democrats are choosing to die on the hill of late term abortions when they are so uncommon and unpopular.

I would also add that the young white woke far left ultraprogressive crowd doesn't make up a huge proportion of the democratic voter base. They control the media and as a result I think are able to gaslight some into believing their ideas are more mainstream than they really are. Democrats are supported by a lot of blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, many of whom are deeply religious and hold views counter to those espoused by the progressives, which are basically anything and everything goes in regards to matters surrounding sex and culture.

And while Biden is certainly more moderate compared to those he beat out in the primaries, he is primarily concerned with getting elected and has described himself as a "transitional candidate" to that end. In that the future of the democratic party belongs to AOC and Ilhan Omar. To them, the constitution, particularly the enumeration of powers (i.e., preventing the federal government from doing things it isn't explicitly empowered to do), and checks and balances that require signfiicant majority opinion and prevent tyranny over a large minority by a slim majority is a major roadblock for them. So getting judges on the court who don't interpret the constitution as it was written (as is the explicit role of the judiciary) to protect the philosophy of America's founding, is critical to implementing the vision they and people like Kendi see for this country, which requires overriding protected individual rights in certain instances to achieve desired outcomes.

Biden would be entering office with the mental acuity of an exiting Reagan. I don't see him lasting long and wouldn't be surprised if there is already a plan for Harris to take control.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Biden would be entering office with the mental acuity of an exiting Reagan. I don't see him lasting long and wouldn't be surprised if there is already a plan for Harris to take control.

Are you suggesting the current president is any different? The ongoing narrative is that the constant stream of incoherent nonsense from the president is all a product of his disdain for the fake news, and is strategic. And we attribute his absolute lack of understanding of most anything to disinterest. Why is it not something more in his case?

 

[KHE88]

Are you suggesting the current president is any different? The ongoing narrative is that the constant stream of incoherent nonsense from the president is all a product of his disdain for the fake news, and is strategic. And we attribute his absolute lack of understanding of most anything to disinterest. Why is it not something more in his case?

Why would you think I would be suggesting that? But since you mentioned it, I am not a fan of how the current president conducts himself on Twitter, and frankly it's an embarrassment and does nothing but hurt him. I have no evidence to believe that this is a result of dementia and rather think it's a result of his narcisstic personality as he has behaved consistently like this his entire life and certainly since he ever started using Twitter. However, he can engage in conversations rationally without forgetting what he's talking about and has the energy to actively campaign. Biden objectively does not. The debates are going to painful with Biden struggling to put his thoughts together and form coherent sentences and Trump's hubris causing him to fall into literally every trap that involves him being unable to admit he has any faults or is ever wrong.

 

[communitydoc13]

In that the future of the democratic party belongs to AOC and Ilhan Omar. To them, the constitution, particularly the enumeration of powers (i.e., preventing the federal government from doing things it isn't explicitly empowered to do), and checks and balances that require signfiicant majority opinion and prevent tyranny over a large minority by a slim majority is a major roadblock for them. So getting judges on the court who don't interpret the constitution as it was written (as is the explicit role of the judiciary) to protect the philosophy of America's founding, is critical to implementing the vision they and people like Kendi see for this country, which requires overriding protected individual rights in certain instances to achieve desired outcomes.

I don't see Omar being a prominent national level figure. Her identity makes her prominent, particularly on the right, where her role as a villain is out sized. AOC is different and you will have to get granular with things that she has said or done to make me think that she is anything but very bright and more left leaning than me.

The tyranny is already here and it came from the right. It is a right leaning populist up-swell driven by identity politics and promoting a non-nonsensical deep state narrative even as its applied to institutions filled with conservatives. (FBI is filled with conservative leaning professionals. I know this personally.) We have a personal transactional foreign policy that has supplanted 60 years of remarkable peace under pax-Americana. There is no conservative fiscal or other strategy going on (remarkable borrowing prior to Covid) exempting relatively mindless deregulation and court placement. We have **** the bed when confronted with the first major crisis in years (see Covid). Our president is actively undermining confidence in the electoral process.

After 40 years of regressive tax policies and rightward movement, just time for a turn left. Demographics and history will matter here and national leadership will become less white and male. Eventually it will be time to turn right again.

Regarding originalism? Have I every seen this used to promote justice?

 

[deleted480308]

I don't see Omar being a prominent national level figure. Her identity makes her prominent, particularly on the right, where her role as a villain is out sized. AOC is different and you will have to get granular with things that she has said or done to make me think that she is anything but very bright and more left leaning than me.

The tyranny is already here and it came from the right. It is a right leaning populist up-swell driven by identity politics and promoting a non-nonsensical deep state narrative even as its applied to institutions filled with conservatives. (FBI is filled with conservative leaning professionals. I know this personally.) We have a personal transactional foreign policy that has supplanted 60 years of remarkable peace under pax-Americana. There is no conservative fiscal or other strategy going on (remarkable borrowing prior to Covid) exempting relatively mindless deregulation and court placement. We have **** the bed when confronted with the first major crisis in years (see Covid). Our president is actively undermining confidence in the electoral process.

After 40 years of regressive tax policies and rightward movement, just time for a turn left. Demographics and history will matter here and national leadership will become less white and male. Eventually it will be time to turn right again.

Regarding originalism? Have I every seen this used to promote justice?

regressive? a huge portion of the population pays no federal income tax

 

[communitydoc13]

regressive? a huge portion of the population pays no federal income tax

Regressive in time. They pay other taxes (payroll, which stops at ~120K?, sales, property if they own it). Top tax rate has gone down remarkably since 1980. My taxes went down.

Among that radicalized (largely white) young leftist group, a big chunk just think that they are opportunity poor in today's world. When's the last time you've seen a guy graduate from high school, work for a large company, retire around 55 comfortably and go on to enjoy a good quality of life? The last guy like this is now in his early 70s.