Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[RAFUH]

@RAFUH - Does this sound plausible?

Technically it can be used with other agents for medical abortion although a rare use now at least in the US.
And then it's given as in injection or intravaginally, not as a pill.
So basically a bunch of crap, but there are physicians and pharmacists of the radical right persuasion that may refuse the medication for this reason.
And some cautious healthcare providers in very red states/areas that will be concerned about being sued - and rightly so in some areas.

There are plenty that already refuse to prescribe/dispense birth control, Plan B, mifepristone, and misoprostol.

Also while I'm at it since I refrained earlier in this thread. Someone made an erroneous assumption about hormonal contraception. It may prevent ovulation, but it can also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

but what do you say. should a 6 week old fetus be a citizen?

I think this is a poor line of logic/argument. If you are an illegal citizen in America that doesn't give people the right to kill you.

The question really lies in, what do we consider life to be. Some people will say, when there is a heartbeat, that is a sign of life. Some people will say you have to be born to be considered 'alive' - I do not know what is the right answer and I think people could reasonably argue for both sides, without having to invoke religious scripture to make that argument.

I don't think it makes you a horrible person to think that a heartbeat = life and because of this you disagree with abortion (in cases of pregnancies that do not endanger the mother or pregnancies due to rape/incest etc). So where does that leave this group of people, who lets say, just disagree with it and don't force their opinions/views onto others. The arguments around abortion are extremely polarized with little room for any middle ground.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

I think this is a poor line of logic/argument. If you are an illegal citizen in America that doesn't give people the right to kill you.

The question really lies in, what do we consider life to be. Some people will say, when there is a heartbeat, that is a sign of life. Some people will say you have to be born to be considered 'alive' - I do not know what is the right answer and I think people could reasonably argue for both sides, without having to invoke religious scripture to make that argument.

I don't think it makes you a horrible person to think that a heartbeat = life and because of this you disagree with abortion (in cases of pregnancies that do not endanger the mother or pregnancies due to rape/incest etc). So where does that leave this group of people, who lets say, just disagree with it and don't force their opinions/views onto others. The arguments around abortion are extremely polarized with little room for any middle ground.

See that's the point.

That's where we were before last Friday

Now, they most certainly ARE forcing, not just their views/opinions, but actual LAWS onto others

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

See that's the point.

That's where we were before last Friday

Now, they most certainly ARE forcing, not just their views/opinions, but actual LAWS onto others

Yes I totally agree.

 

[BlueTX]

Bro, I was born because daddy believed every life is precious. Why do you think I'm so anti abortion?

So your father forced your mother to have you? Did your mother have a say or if your father instructed her to have an abortion, would she have complied?

My mother was 19 when I was conceived and unmarried at the time. She and my father chose to marry and have me. That experience, while I'm certainly appreciative, has literally zero bearing on the decisions made by anyone else. That's what freedom is and what rights are all about.

 

[Ruairi77]

I think this is a poor line of logic/argument. If you are an illegal citizen in America that doesn't give people the right to kill you.

The question really lies in, what do we consider life to be. Some people will say, when there is a heartbeat, that is a sign of life. Some people will say you have to be born to be considered 'alive' - I do not know what is the right answer and I think people could reasonably argue for both sides, without having to invoke religious scripture to make that argument.

I don't think it makes you a horrible person to think that a heartbeat = life and because of this you disagree with abortion (in cases of pregnancies that do not endanger the mother or pregnancies due to rape/incest etc). So where does that leave this group of people, who lets say, just disagree with it and don't force their opinions/views onto others. The arguments around abortion are extremely polarized with little room for any middle ground.

I agree and my tone was insensitive.
It was merely intended to push Emir on his statement that the science on when life begins is settled.
I don't think it makes you a horrible person to be pro life at all. My mother likely is.
I do think, if there are shades of grey as to when life starts, it's not reasonable to expect any woman to adhere to the ideas of others on the subject.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

I agree and my tone was insensitive.
It was merely intended to push Emir on his statement that the science on when life begins is settled.
I don't think it makes you a horrible person to be pro life at all. My mother likely is.
I do think, if there are shades of grey as to when life starts, it's not reasonable to expect any woman to adhere to the ideas of others on the subject.

Bingo

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[catcherintherye]

I said it was repugnant because the “trial” you were suggesting was clearly just a extrajudicial made up one so you could then excuse killing them - as you have clarified in the bolded bit above. There are no existing laws that these justices broke, let alone ones that carry a capital murder charge.

I in no way see saying I hope someone rots in hell (a place I do not believe exists) as analogous to calling for someone to get there sooner by force.

I detest this ruling and the people who made it. It does not mean that I support killing them for it and I believe that sort of “eye for an eye justice” would put the already rocky democracy of my nation on an even worse path.

There were no laws for the Nazi war criminals either, but clearly there is scope, in exceptional circumstances, when grave crimes have been committed, to summon special courts to deal with such abuses of power.

The fact you automatically assume that to be a kangaroo court is a little surprising. There is precedent for this sort of stuff, and it does not require it to be a kangaroo court.

I dont think saying an eye for an eye, versus rot in hell are massively different.

But look, I like you as a poster, and I dont want to be a cnut about it. If you feel its completely different, that's your view and you're entitled to it.

As is probably clear, it's an emotive issue. I think it needs a serious response, that goes far beyond the existing patriachal framework that exists within the USA to rectify this issue.

 

[catcherintherye]

I think this is a poor line of logic/argument. If you are an illegal citizen in America that doesn't give people the right to kill you.

The question really lies in, what do we consider life to be. Some people will say, when there is a heartbeat, that is a sign of life. Some people will say you have to be born to be considered 'alive' - I do not know what is the right answer and I think people could reasonably argue for both sides, without having to invoke religious scripture to make that argument.

I don't think it makes you a horrible person to think that a heartbeat = life and because of this you disagree with abortion (in cases of pregnancies that do not endanger the mother or pregnancies due to rape/incest etc). So where does that leave this group of people, who lets say, just disagree with it and don't force their opinions/views onto others. The arguments around abortion are extremely polarized with little room for any middle ground.

The issue isnt around heart beats. It is around bodily autonomy. People have a right to bodily autonomy.

If men dont like it, fine, then dont get an abortion. If other people want to do as they choose with their body, that is their basic human right.

And let's be frank here, this debate is not about allowing situations where womens (or often childrens) life is in danger, or their has been rape. There is no opt out for those in the laws being made. It completely shows the hypocrisy of the alleged pro life argument, which is pro death of women and children by denying them medical treatment. They are actual humans, not foetuses/groups of cells. If you care about human life, you protect human life. It's not complex, it's very simple.

Let's not forget some of the biggest proponents of the pro-death, pro-rape, anti-choice side, The Catholic Church. They harboured peadophiles for generations. They flushed babies down toilets. They stole babies born out of wedlock. But they want to deny women rights over their bodies, by claiming they care about babies. Complete rubbish, and wholly at odds with their conduct.

They want to subject women and girls to murder, to go along with the rampant peadophilia they covered for. That's their agenda. Anyone not calling it out, is complicit as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tsubaki]

There were no laws for the Nazi war criminals either, but clearly there is scope, in exceptional circumstances, when grave crimes have been committed, to summon special courts to deal with such abuses of power.

The fact you automatically assume that to be a kangaroo court is a little surprising. There is precedent for this sort of stuff, and it does not require it to be a kangaroo court.

I dont think saying an eye for an eye, versus rot in hell are massively different.

But look, I like you as a poster, and I dont want to be a cnut about it. If you feel its completely different, that's your view and you're entitled to it.

As is probably clear, it's an emotive issue. I think it needs a serious response, that goes far beyond the existing patriachal framework that exists within the USA to rectify this issue.

Making a legal decision is not a grave crime, at all.

Unfortunately, Roe vs Wade was left as a legal decision for decades (rather than becoming a constitutional amendment) - it was always the case that such a decision would be changed, via exactly this route, so to claim its equivalent to war crimes is to go way beyond sense.

Those who left it as a decision need to examine their own consciences right now. I would strongly suggest they surrender their positions of power before they cause even more damage than they have done already.

 

[catcherintherye]

Making a legal decision is not a grave crime, at all.

Unfortunately, Roe vs Wade was left as a legal decision for decades (rather than becoming a constitutional amendment) - it was always the case that such a decision would be changed, via exactly this route, so to claim its equivalent to war crimes is to go way beyond sense.

Those who left it as a decision need to examine their own consciences right now. I would strongly suggest they surrender their positions of power before they cause even more damage than they have done already.

The consequences of this decision are akin to a war crime, for the women and girls who will end up murdered as a result. That's a fact. Some people are willing to be tolerant of that. I'd want some proactive action to rectify this.

 

[LinekersLegs]

As is probably clear, it's an emotive issue. I think it needs a serious response, that goes far beyond the existing patriachal framework that exists within the USA to rectify this issue.

I think there is probably best where we leave it - agreeing that it is a harmful ruling that conjures up strong emotions but disagreeing what the response should consist of.

 

[tsubaki]

The issue isnt around heart beats. It is around bodily autonomy. People have a right to bodily autonomy.

If men dont like it, fine, then dont get an abortion. If other people want to do as they choose with their body, that is their basic human right.

And let's be frank here, this debate is not about allowing situations where womens (or often childrens) life is in danger, or their has been rape. There is no opt out for those in the laws being made. It completely shows the hypocrisy of the alleged pro life argument, which is pro death of women and children by denying them medical treatment. They are actual humans, not foetuses/groups of cells. If you care about human life, you protect human life. It's not complex, it's very simple.

Let's not forget some of the biggest proponents of the pro-death, pro-rape, anti-choice side, The Catholic Church. They harboured peadophiles for generations. They flushed babies down toilets. They stole babies born out of wedlock. But they want to deny women rights over their bodies, by claiming they care about babies. Complete rubbish, and wholly at odds with their conduct.

They want to subject women and girls to murder, to go along with the rampant peadophilia they covered for. That's their agenda. Anyone not calling it out, is complicit as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with some of this (especially the hypocrisy of the right wing) but the real problem with the "bodily autonomy" argument is that it inevitably comes up against two problems.

Firstly, the problem that the law recognises there is something (the fetus) who is in most places recognized as some form of entity deserving separate legal protection at some stage prior to birth. Offences of child destruction for example are separate to assaults on the mother-to-be and are rightly treated extremely seriously. If society accepts that, it really is an anomaly that it then also accepts someone has the right to end that existence in some circumstances; for example the law (as it exists here in the UK) only recognises self-defence of self or another where a post-birth life can be lawfully taken and yet here we have an exemption that goes way beyond that.

Secondly, the law almost everywhere recognises that there is a point at which abortion isn't permitted. In terms of logically applying the bodily autonomy argument there really isn't any reason why a woman should lose her choice in that regard after 18, 21 or 24 weeks (or whatever the term limit is) - it is after all still her body and her choice - but society has almost everywhere said that there is a point at which it is not her choice, which can only have the effect of wrecking the argument as a whole.

Personally, I think the whole notion of legalizing abortion or making it illegal is to miss the point entirely - it should only ever be a medical decision carried out by fully trained staff in line with the wishes and needs of the woman involved and with due respect to the existence that is being brought about. After all we do not legislate over whether kidney stones should be removed, whether a foot can be amputated or most other medical procedures - nor do we demand that having treatment for those things when there is no need is a human right.

 

[catcherintherye]

I agree with some of this (especially the hypocrisy of the right wing) but the real problem with the "bodily autonomy" argument is that it inevitably comes up against two problems.

Firstly, the problem that the law recognises there is something (the fetus) who is in most places recognized as some form of entity deserving separate legal protection at some stage prior to birth. Offences of child destruction for example are separate to assaults on the mother-to-be and are rightly treated extremely seriously. If society accepts that, it really is an anomaly that it then also accepts someone has the right to end that existence in some circumstances; for example the law (as it exists here in the UK) only recognises self-defence of self or another where a post-birth life can be lawfully taken and yet here we have an exemption that goes way beyond that.

Secondly, the law almost everywhere recognises that there is a point at which abortion isn't permitted. In terms of logically applying the bodily autonomy argument there really isn't any reason why a woman should lose her choice in that regard after 18, 21 or 24 weeks (or whatever the term limit is) - it is after all still her body and her choice - but society has almost everywhere said that there is a point at which it is not her choice, which can only have the effect of wrecking the argument as a whole.

Personally, I think the whole notion of legalizing abortion or making it illegal is to miss the point entirely - it should only ever be a medical decision carried out by fully trained staff in line with the wishes and needs of the woman involved and with due respect to the existence that is being brought about. After all we do not legislate over whether kidney stones should be removed, whether a foot can be amputated or most other medical procedures - nor do we demand that having treatment for those things when there is no need is a human right.

Well society havent said that, patriarchy- essentially men, have decided that women dont deserve bodily autonomy. They have no right to do that. Women have the same rights as men, to bodily autonomy. It's as simple as that.

As for your 2nd point, you only get to the point of safe medical treatments (which is what an abortion is) it needs to be legalised. You seem to contradict yourself a little there.