US Politics Thread

[idahoblues]

Whatever our past disagreements, I believe that we can agree that sheep are not to be fucked.

I have to disagree with that

 

[Gabriel]

 

[buckshot]

Said it before — I don’t think he’s the nominee in 24. This is doing major damage and there’s so much else in the hopper. DeSantis has to be dancing around his office with glee.

There isn't anybody else who can get their base out without him they're dead in the water. Just look at PA, we aren't considered a red state and we aren't as stupid as the southern states but we still have the people he endorsed for governor and senator winning nominations. I don't think they can win the general but they're the only ones who have a chance.

Of course the fact that they don't accept election results when they lose could change things pretty quickly...

 

[super_city_si]

Looking at the Evidence. Trump, some staffers and some GOP reps could potentially be tried for treason.

What evidence? Some aides account of it won’t mean anything. No doubt it all’s true but absolutely nothing will haopen

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

 

[andyhinch]

It’s hard to see how the country repairs it’s self from this, it really is a sad state of affairs.

 

[Bigga]

The last time I checked (which was not recently) more than half of the various states in the USA had laws that make it a crime to cause harm to a fetus. Thus, someone who attacks a pregnant woman and kills the fetus she is carrying can face murder or manslaughter charges. In the UK, ‘child destruction’ is the name given to the offence of killing an unborn but viable fetus.

Here, as you have pointed out, there are two ethical issues that arise: 1) It seems contradictory that a woman can legally terminate a pregnancy through abortion while a third party might face legal charges if they kill the fetus; 2) Suppose the pregnant woman is a drug addict or an alcoholic. Should she also face some kind of charge if her fetus suffers from the effects of this?

Unfortunately, I cannot recall any discussions of abortion in the specialist literature that I have looked at (books by Peter Singer, Ronald Dworkin, Mary Warnock and Carol Sanger) that delve into the above questions, though I gather that some commentators have attempted to frame abortion within the context of justifiable homicide, for example, in cases of ectopic pregnancy, or perhaps if the pregnancy is a consequence of rape or incest.

On the other hand, in the 1980’s and 90’s, a fundamentalist anti-abortion Christian organisation called the Army of God were responsible for 8 murders, 41 explosions and 173 arson attacks at abortion clinics. According to Army of God beliefs, abortion is murder and the killing of hundreds of thousands of defenceless babies in those clinics is nothing less than a government approved ‘Holocaust.’ The doctors who work in them were viewed as committing crimes against humanity. Therefore murdering them was perceived as an act of justifiable homicide.

Here's Richard Dawkins interviewing one of them:



What I do remember is that ethicists have often taken issue with where dividing lines are drawn between when abortion is morally acceptable/legal and when it is not.

To take one example (birth rather than viability as the demarcation point), Colin McGinn has observed that if a fetus was scheduled to be aborted on a certain day but then the mother gave birth prematurely before her appointment, that it seems strange to think that it is now suddenly wrong and illegal to do what was previously seen as acceptable, simply because the baby has left the womb.

From this, he thinks we can conclude that what matters as far as the abortion issue is concerned is not where the fetus is but what it is: its stage of biological and mental development, or the potential it has to mature and develop into a human being.

Just on the issue of late terminations (which got mentioned upthread), these articles are both worth a look:

Mary Warnock: Women, not the unborn, deserve our protection

Mary Warnock: It's a great pity that we see attempts to restrict abortion in the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

www.theguardian.com

The agony of ending a wanted late-term pregnancy: three women speak out

In the wake of Trump’s criticism of late-term abortions, three mothers shatter the misconceptions about why women make the choice

www.theguardian.com

Judith Jarvis Thomson also once wrote an influential article on abortion featuring some thought experiments that are often debated in ethics classes:

A Defense of Abortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Carol Sanger's book About Abortion: Terminating Pregnancy in Twenty-First Century America is the best book I have read on this subject. I suspect that a revised edition may now be warranted in the light of the Supreme Court decision.

Hope this helps.

I realize that I haven't answered your question but the above links and references should give you plenty to reflect on.

Thank you for the highly detailed response, I did note the question wasn't answered (nor by anyone else from the US at this point in reading), which makes the pro-abortion debate, somewhat, faulty in total reasoning.

It it what it is, though, and people can do as they like.

I've tabbed those articles, so I can read them over the next day or two.

Again, highly appreciated.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Thank you for the highly detailed response, I did note the question wasn't answered (nor by anyone else from the US at this point in reading), which makes the pro-abortion debate, somewhat, faulty in total reasoning.

It it what it is, though, and people can do as they like.

I've tabbed those articles, so I can read them over the next day or two.

Again, highly appreciated.

Just reading the Wikipedia entry on it, it seems like it is opposed by the same people who would oppose restrictions to abortions, for the same reasons, and is basically an inconsistency in the law.

In the UK, the foetus itself isn't considered a person, but I think most countries with legal abortion will have heavy penalties for inducing a miscarriage outside of the rules that allow abortion. There is an additional law of Child Destruction that covers any baby that is unborn but viable to cover deaths of babies that are almost born, and basically covers the point from when abortions become illegal (in most cases) up to birth. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Here's a recent case. There are also cases where a pregnant woman has induced her own abortion and been charged, although typically the sentence for that is much lower.

 

[SebastianBlue]

 

[SebastianBlue]

What evidence? Some aides account of it won’t mean anything. No doubt it all’s true but absolutely nothing will haopen

It’s the extremely jaded cynic in me, but I agree. I don’t see Trump ever being held fully to account for 6th January or the many, many other crimes he committed whilst in office (and afterward).

 

[Bigga]

Just reading the Wikipedia entry on it, it seems like it is opposed by the same people who would oppose restrictions to abortions, for the same reasons, and is basically an inconsistency in the law.

In the UK, the foetus itself isn't considered a person, but I think most countries with legal abortion will have heavy penalties for inducing a miscarriage outside of the rules that allow abortion. There is an additional law of Child Destruction that covers any baby that is unborn but viable to cover deaths of babies that are almost born, and basically covers the point from when abortions become illegal (in most cases) up to birth. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Here's a recent case. There are also cases where a pregnant woman has induced her own abortion and been charged, although typically the sentence for that is much lower.

Do you have any thoughts on the inconsistency?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Do you have any thoughts on the inconsistency?

I think the reason it's considered an additional crime is based on the assumption that a pregnant woman typically wants to keep the baby, rather than being out of concern for an early-stage foetus. It's more to prevent violence against women rather than a particular worry for an unborn foetus.

When the baby is beyond 24 weeks, it then becomes the case that it does get individual rights beyond that of the mother, and so while not legally considered a person, is considered a being worthy of a certain degree of moral consideration. In reality, the extent to which a foetus becomes a person is something that gradually happens, and so our ethical consideration for it grows likewise. But laws don't work like that, they need a cut off. However, you might find that the difference between an early-stage pregnancy and a late-stage pregnancy is reflected in sentencing. I don't know, but I suspect that you'd get a higher sentence for illegally inducing a miscarriage at 30 weeks rather than 10 weeks.

Another reason for the existence of such laws is presumably precisely because legal abortion exists. If it's accessible, then punishing potentially dangerous illegal alternatives is necessary. But it's worth mentioning that women illegally terminating a late-stage abortion might get something like a 12-month prison sentence (even though it could technically be life), which I'm sure we can agree is far less than she'd receive if she murdered her baby after birth. So while it is considered worthy of ethical consideration, it clearly isn't considered anywhere near the same level as a baby after birth. On the other hand, using violence to cause a woman to miscarry against her will will result in a far longer sentence (life in the case I linked earlier), suggesting that the mother's wishes are a major part of the equation.

 

[Bigga]

I think the reason it's considered an additional crime is based on the assumption that a pregnant woman typically wants to keep the baby, rather than being out of concern for an early-stage foetus. It's more to prevent violence against women rather than a particular worry for an unborn foetus.

When the baby is beyond 24 weeks, it then becomes the case that it does get individual rights beyond that of the mother, and so while not legally considered a person, is considered a being worthy of a certain degree of moral consideration. In reality, the extent to which a foetus becomes a person is something that gradually happens, and so our ethical consideration for it grows likewise. But laws don't work like that, they need a cut off. However, you might find that the difference between an early-stage pregnancy and a late-stage pregnancy is reflected in sentencing. I don't know, but I suspect that you'd get a higher sentence for illegally inducing a miscarriage at 30 weeks rather than 10 weeks.

Another reason for the existence of such laws is presumably precisely because legal abortion exists. If it's accessible, then punishing potentially dangerous illegal alternatives is necessary. But it's worth mentioning that women illegally terminating a late-stage abortion might get something like a 12-month prison sentence (even though it could technically be life), which I'm sure we can agree is far less than she'd receive if she murdered her baby after birth. So while it is considered worthy of ethical consideration, it clearly isn't considered anywhere near the same level as a baby after birth. On the other hand, using violence to cause a woman to miscarry against her will will result in a far longer sentence (life in the case I linked earlier), suggesting that the mother's wishes are a major part of the equation.

I was just beginning to reflect on my own question when you posted, but I'm grateful you replied. Your response actually makes me think of more questions, but I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole as I have Zen's response to go through and some of that might induce more questions!

I appreciate your thoughts, though!

 

[Bigga]

Anyway, like it or not, I'm posting this clip(a bit of it seen elsewhere) from Mr Dore on Dems latest escapades...

 

[SebastianBlue]

Anyway, like it or not, I'm posting this clip(a bit of it seen elsewhere) from Mr Dore on Dems latest escapades...

Why do you only post this content about Dems?

 

[Bigga]

Why do you only post this content about Dems?

I've explained to this to others already.

To note, by the way, everyone is giving the GOP a kicking which is, rightly, to be expected.

The Dems have been complicit, which should not be ignored.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Lol.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

There isn't anybody else who can get their base out without him they're dead in the water. Just look at PA, we aren't considered a red state and we aren't as stupid as the southern states but we still have the people he endorsed for governor and senator winning nominations. I don't think they can win the general but they're the only ones who have a chance.

Of course the fact that they don't accept election results when they lose could change things pretty quickly...

The GOP isn't going to want him nominated -- they want to hell and gone with him. He's a necessary evil at the moment. But all this damage with effectively no way for him to respond weakens him. Who knows what else will come out in the next two-plus years? It won't be refutation nor will he ever do anything that can claw back this series of events. He's absolutely toast -- it's just the timing of when he becomes toast. Within the party, only his toadiest, dumbest, most disgusting lackeys want him running again -- which is why GOP leadership is hoping via gerrymandering, incumbency, a bad-look-for-Biden economy, Dems' own internal struggles and a right-wing activist SC, the "platform" is enough to keep the cult members supporting the next generation rather than withering away. You might be right that it won't be enough and God I hope you are. But make no mistake -- the party power brokers themselves want him to be Jesus -- venerated as a savio(u)r, but nailed up on that cross dead as a doornail. They have to wean the cult off of him specifically and get them hooked on the idea and ideals of him.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Hey, after today, is Trump Derangement Syndrome FINALLY going to be applied properly to the MAN rather than leveled as an insult by the stupid con-victim motherfuckers who used it as a term to insult Never Trumpers? Who, by the way, were right all fucking along?

 

[ROCKET80]

As I mentioned centre right isn’t there anymore. I am kiwi and I come from a country where I stand for women having right to abortion, and staunchly against guns.

However investment and infrastructure investment from what I understand is on the up in Florida. Internal migration to the state is also on the up.

Trans topic is not a big issue in my life but I can see how ridiculous it’s becoming.

Being religious is not something which is wrong. It does provide a good structure and morals for a lot of people.

I come from a family which is inter religion a Christian mom and Sikh Father. And I’ve learnt to respect religion be spritual.

All I am saying is for people to call out religious folks as fuck tards just because you yourself are not religious doesn’t give one a
Moral high ground.

If people believe in omnipotent beings and the doctrine associated with them, but don't believe a person can identify as a different gender then yes they are fuck tards.

Some of these dangerous fuck tards are starting to have major influence here in NZ.