US Politics Thread

[mat]

Seems fair if they’re going to outlaw abortions.

She's not wrong. Same rules should apply if that's what the GOP wants.

 

[west didsblue]

I don’t always read all your posts but never fail to be impressed by the detail and analysis on show. There’s a few could learn from you how to structure a sentence and an argument

Unfortunately the people who would benefit most from taking on board @ZenHalfTimeCrock 's detailed and informative posts appear to have the comprehension skills of a 6 year old and are unlikely to get past the first line.

 

[mancity1]

I don’t always read all your posts but never fail to be impressed by the detail and analysis on show. There’s a few could learn from you how to structure a sentence and an argument

Excellent read without doubt and easy to understand.

 

[Dax777]

But you have a bias AND no clue so therefore . . .

You’re a hockey puck, dude. Ovechkin should be slapping you top corner.

Yes., A bias towards common sense. Who is more likely to be harmed by the leak? That side is less likely to have leaked it.

Clearly, neither one of, You, I, Swp-dunce nor Amy 'i once clerked at the Supreme Court' have a clue.

But if one were to use commons sense, the kind of question one might ask may follow the lines of: Who does the leak harm or help?

Certainly such thinking seems more sensible than pontificating on the possibility 'loose lips.'

To each their own.

If the unborn can be 'dehumanized' then presumably they should be regarded as human from the moment of conception.

As usual, a fantastic write up. Like I've told you many times, I wish you'd write more. Even when I have reservations, I appreciate the depth.

Let me start by saying the presumption that because the killing the unborn dehumanizes them does not automatically suggest that all unborn should be regarded the same from conception. Some have made that argument, and like you I'm not sure I find it compelling.

But to not find treating a fertilized egg and a 7 month feutus the same, isn't far fetched. I say your claim that for the argument to work it must start at conception, is a red herring. Only religious people make that claim.

Okay. So consider the following thought experiment (originally conceived by the bioethicist George Annas and which can be found in one of Michael Sandel's books):

There is a fire in a fertility lab. The emergency services are faced with a straight choice between saving a tray of 20 fertilized human embryos or a five year old child.

Someone who believes what you do would be committed to saving the embryos, to prevent a greater loss of human life, which seems odd to say the least.

No one will argue that. And this argument only addresses fertilized eggs. Which isn't even at issue in most States in America.

Secondly, it is true that a fetus very quickly begins to look human in its development. However, the cerebral cortex of the fetus is insufficiently developed to register pain until the 18th week of the pregnancy. So appearances can be deceptive. Many would not consider the fetus to have any moral status up until that point (though the law in many countries regards feticide as a criminal offence) because it is not conscious and has not yet developed a nervous system that would make it capable of experiencing pain.

Yes, lots of States follow the 18 week model. I.e the 'feeling threshold' argument. However, others follow the enough time for the potential mother to know and make a decision. 12 weeks.

The argument being that as the fertilized cell begins to grow into it's potentiality, it's rights too begin to grow correspondingly vis a vis that of it's mother.

A possible response to this that someone opposed to abortion might fall back on is that the newly fertilised egg is still a potential human individual and that it is wrong to kill any being with this potential. However, it is not the case that a potential something should enjoy the same rights as an actual something.

We agree in totality here. Have to run to a meeting. I'll read the rest and respond where necessary. But I'm not sure I'll disagree with much.

What is clear here is that this is a complex issue. And that was the point I wanted to drive across all along.

For example, some readers of this post may have the potential to become Prime Minister one day, at which point they will enjoy special rights and privileges e.g. police protection/bodyguards. But it would be absurd to say that right now they have the right to a bodyguard because they are a potential Prime Minister. So even if a fetus is a potential human being this does not entail that it should be entitled to the same rights that we have.

On the issue of potentiality, Jonathan Glover has this to say in his book Causing Death and Saving Lives:

'The problem with using the foetus's potential for developing into a person as an anti-abortion argument is that this suggests that the person it will become is what is really valued. It is hard to see how this potential argument can come to any more than saying that abortion is wrong because a person who would have existed in the future will not exist if an abortion is performed. I would not be here if my mother, when pregnant with me, had opted for abortion. But equally I would not be here if my parents had used an effective contraceptive. It is hard to see how the potential argument can succeed against abortion without also succeeding against contraception. And even those who are against both normally want to say that abortion is worse than contraception.'

Moving on, you seem to be opposed to late stage abortion. But these are rare. The overwhelming majority of abortions (over 85% of those performed in the USA, for example) take place during the first trimester, that is, when the fetus is less than 13 weeks old. It is also worth noting that some fetal abnormalities cannot be detected exept through amniocentisis, a procedure which is unsafe until after the 15th week of pregnancy at the earliest.

Now on to Roe v. Wade. Here is Carol Sanger writing about the aftermath of this ruling in her book About Abortion: Terminating Pregnancy in Twenty-First-Century America (Sanger is a Professor of Law at Columbia Law School) :

'There was...a massive decline in maternal mortality and obstetric injury. Thirty-nine illegal abortion deaths were reported in 1972, nineteen in 1973, and three in 1975; emergency rooms saw far fewer cases of sepsis and uterine perforation from illegal abortions. All this shows how differently women were able to proceed with their lives on account of the decision in Roe v. Wade.

In the preface to the same publication, Sanger also remarks that:

'This is not to say that a woman's life necessarily proceeds exactly as it would, had there been no pregnancy and no abortion, though many lives do. For some women, abortion registers as a profound loss, the date or a projected birth date reflected upon, sometimes commemorated, for years to come. For many others, the core reaction is one of relief and the welcome return of the preferred (at least for now) non-pregnant self that almost got away. Still other women experience both relief - the most widely reported emotion following abortion - and some form of regret and or wistfulness, not about the decision itself, but because the circumstances around the pregnancy - partner, finances, obligations, plans - were just not right enough to proceed.'

In other words, it is simply not the case that a decision to abort is typically an unreflective one made by promiscuous women who are often teenagers (many undergoing the procedure are actually older married women who already have children). Often it is seen as the least worst option. And as Sanger points out elsewhere in her book, when it is a teenager who becomes pregnant, it is, in fact, often the 'good girl' who finds herself in this position.

Although abortion has been legal in America since 1973, it is the most regulated procedure in the country, and some states force women to have a compulsory ultrasound scan and to listen to a doctor describe what can be seen in the scan before they can get an abortion. Some US states also require women to wait an extra 48 hours for an abortion after they have formally requested it (might entail having to pay for an overnight stay somewhere). And during the 1980’s, one US state forced doctors performing the procedure to tell their patients that ‘the unborn child is a human life from the moment of conception’. The famous American cartoonist called Gary Trudeau had his popular cartoon strip ‘Doonesbury’ temporarily banned from some US newspapers when he took on the topic of abortion and rightfully satirised those states that create these obstacles Those strips are not difficult to locate online.

Lastly, it has been suggested that devolving decisions to the US States may not necessarily turn out to be a bad thing. I am not so sure. Recently, I have been doing some research on sex offences in the USA prior to 1967. At that time, fornication was illegal in many states (and still is in Idaho and Mississippi). Punishments ran from a ten dollar fine in Rhode Island up to five hundred dollars and two years' imprisonment in Alaska. For homosexuality, the penalties were also variable, ranging from imprisonment for one day (New York), to life imprisonment (Nevada), with many states favouring minimum/maximum jail terms of five years. Meanwhile, in Indiana, solo masturbation was an offence considered to be as serious as sodomy and was subject to punishment on the same terms, and in six states, 'cohabitation' (defined as consistent nonmarital intercourse with the same person) was also deemed to be criminal.

Wonder if we may end up with the same inconsistencies if Roe v. Wade gets repealed. If so, poorer pregnant women may be financially unable to travel to a state where the law still allows her to obtain a termination.

Will leave it there. In spite of all the above, I am not suggesting that abortion is ever a good thing, though in cases of severe fetal abnormality it undoubtedly is. It is more that I have never come across pro-life arguments that are logically coherent, well-supported empirically, and that are based on something other than fideistic terms of reference.

In any case, Biblically based pro-life arguments are specious because a much stronger case can be made for abortion rather than against it on the basis of that particular text.

 

[Dax777]

Just so we're clear: the pregnancy that ends up in the wrong spot, like the fallopian tube? The one that will NEVER turn into a baby and will rupture and kill your wife, daughter, or sister? Terminating that fetus is also an abortion, and they want to ban those, too.


That's the America we are talking about?

What a shitty place with some proper shitty people.

This is patently false. Why so we have to lie to win?

 

[Dax777]

Ok so you’ve got absolutely no evidence let alone proof of elective abortions at 7 months.

Why not just say that instead of lying to everyone.

There were feutus of 7 months or later found in disposed bags.
The police decided not to investigate. But rather prosecute the woman who found the fetuses and alerted the police.

But, sure let's just pretend we can't think.

 

[Dax777]

Errrr…the “unborn” are not “people.” SIX WEEKS!!!

6 weeks: Your baby is as big as a sweet pea.

What a bunch of shit you post on occasion. I’ll leave it to others to highlight the frequency of those occasions.

Abortions do not stop at 6 weeks. They go on up to partial birth.


Why are we pretending zygotes are the only claims at issue here?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

This is a first draft of an opinion that says EXACTLY what RWNJs want it to say. By leaking it NOW, any changes to it will be known AND as a perceived majority opinion, if there is any change in that count, someone will be held to account!

In effect, if RWNJs have the count they need and Alito has said what they want, they have just CEMENTED IT IN WRITING IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD FOR ETERNITY!

So, now, RWNJ Justice, just try and change your vote!!!

I don't know the answer but I find this argument at least as compelling as "a liberal did it to foment American outrage" or "a moderate did it to test the waters of public opinion".

 

[Dax777]

You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

This is a first draft of an opinion that says EXACTLY what RWNJs want it to say. By leaking it NOW, any changes to it will be known AND as a perceived majority opinion, if there is any change in that count, someone will be held to account!

How will they be held to account? By voting them out? Oh wait, can't so that. They have lifetime positions. By protesting them? Oh wait only leftist Justices get that kind of treatment from their constituents. And really will have no effect.

2nd, there is NO suggestion any Justice was considering changing their vote or Opinion. Justice Roberts ofcourse will write a concurrent opinion that disagrees with the overturning, but no one else will.

It's the weakest of possibilities to think the leaker leaked it to enshrine positions already held by 5 members of the court.

In effect, if RWNJs have the count they need and Alito has said what they want, they have just CEMENTED IT IN WRITING IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD FOR ETERNITY!

Yes, so why would they leak it then? You seem to be missing that point.

So, now, RWNJ Justice, just try and change your vote!!!

Lord! This is silly reasoning. Why would Justices that already agree on a position be worried about anyone changing their vote?

You keep missing the key point that no one was under any threat to change their vote.

The most plausible explanation is that it was leaked to galvanize opposition.


Of all the issues here, this is the LEAST complicated! My God!

 

[Dax777]

I don't know the answer but I find this argument at least as compelling as "a liberal did it to foment American outrage" or "a moderate did it to test the waters of public opinion".

Yikes! Like public opinion on Roe v. Wade needs to be tested.

But hey, I like your open mind on the issue. It's more than one can say for you on other issues. Lol