Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 15826
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by coopasonic » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:42 pm

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:40 pm
YellowKing wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:35 pm
It's just frustrating because conservatives have done an amazing job using labels and name-calling to win arguments they can't win on facts. They are extremely good at flipping the argument around, and putting those with more progressive beliefs on the defensive. When in fact the progressives are the ones with the numbers on their side.

I know that because I used to be one and I engaged in those very tactics.
Oh, facts are very much their enemy so bring on the ad hominum attacks. Really, their ability to debate anything is about the level of my 5 year old:

Me: "With the sole exception of scientists employed in industries generating greenhouse gases, there is no debate to whether global warming is occurring"

Boy: "You're a poopy head."
The boy has a point.
-Coop

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:45 pm

Crap, I'm just rehashing things already said. In my defense I'm on my phone and it's slow going.

And I think it's important that Nox hear that I'm sympathetic to human life is sacred argument, I don't dismiss it out of hand, but in the end women get to choose what grows in their bodies, not society.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32390
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:47 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:35 pm


Give me a break. You understand that you are not just in the minority in the US but in the western world, right?

But somehow I'm the elitist and out of touch?

But here's the deal. I understand exactly what your argument. I even agree with it in principle.

So what? I do not have the right to tell a woman to keep producing a baby. Period. Full stop. I don't have to like abortions, I don't have to approve of abortions, I don't have to make any sort of judgement about their life style, the circumstances, their reasons, medical situation, nothing. I do not get to force a woman to produce more humans if she doesn't want to do so. The very idea is ludicrous.
The issue with this argument is that if the fetus basically counts the same as a born and living person, then you (and society) would have the right to tell the woman to keep producing the baby. Basically if the fetus is an independent human life (legally), then abortion is murder, and just as you would have the right to tell a woman to not murder another living person (and the government would have the legal right to compel them to not commit said murder), then you would have the right to compel a woman to not have an abortion.

The bigger conceptual issue with the pro-life position to me is the position (common even in pro-life circles) that abortion should be legal in cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. I don't understand how that makes any logical sense, because if abortion restrictions depend on their validity on the position that the fetus is a living independent person with rights, I don't see how that is changed in any way by the fact that the fetus is the product of rape or incest.

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23162
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by noxiousdog » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:47 pm

Good lord.

Compare - "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion"

Gallup
Only 29% feel abortion should be legal in all situations. 50% in certain.
65% feel abortion should be illegal in the 2nd trimester and 81% in the third.
70% favor a 24 hour waiting period.
71% favor parental consent.
88% support doctors informing patients about alternatives.

And no, it's not just because they are brainwashed.
57% feel clinics should receive federal funds and 51% oppose allowing health providers to opt out.
82% think abortions should be legal when it endangers the mother, and not even life, but just health and 61% for mental health.
50% think it should be legal in cases of the child being physically impaired and slightly more for mental impairment.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32390
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:48 pm

coopasonic wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:42 pm
Jeff V wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:40 pm
YellowKing wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:35 pm
It's just frustrating because conservatives have done an amazing job using labels and name-calling to win arguments they can't win on facts. They are extremely good at flipping the argument around, and putting those with more progressive beliefs on the defensive. When in fact the progressives are the ones with the numbers on their side.

I know that because I used to be one and I engaged in those very tactics.
Oh, facts are very much their enemy so bring on the ad hominum attacks. Really, their ability to debate anything is about the level of my 5 year old:

Me: "With the sole exception of scientists employed in industries generating greenhouse gases, there is no debate to whether global warming is occurring"

Boy: "You're a poopy head."
The boy has a point.
I kind of like the visual of Jeff V haranguing his 5 YO son about global warming.

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23162
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by noxiousdog » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Zaxxon wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:35 pm
Indeed. In general within today's political environment, if you find yourself using the term 'elitist,' you're likely under the effects of the conservative kool-aid.

Those portrayed as elitist are the ones with the mainstream views, as YK mentioned.
That's the point. mainstream views are for some regulation just like with guns.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:05 pm

El guapo, it's a nightmare to quote and edit so I'm just going to respond here.

If I had to rebut that argument I explain how lucky we are that science has that covered.

But I don't need to rebut it. We can argue about when a zygote becomes a fetus and then an individual human entity if we want, but those are secondary arguments to me.

We cannot force an individual woman to be an incubator for the human race. Period. If that means a zygote or fetus goes in the trash bin, so be it. I don't have to like it, and I don't.

If it's not clear, I absolutely value even the lowest, most downturned, difficult, messy, immoral, addicted, wretched woman's right to sovereignty over her own body more than I value what the group of cells, zygote, fetus, human being growing inside her might become sometime in the future, and I absolutely value that sovereignty more that what is currently growing inside her.

Jeff V
Posts: 31240
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Jeff V » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:06 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:48 pm
I kind of like the visual of Jeff V haranguing his 5 YO son about global warming.
Living in a district that just now flipped blue led me to believe I couldn't rely on the schools to have this discussion with him.

Now, that exchange was for illustrative purposes only but we were listening to a Neil DeGrass Tyson audiobook the other day when Neil was going on and on about the need for more STEM education in the US. We did have a talk about that (and he did not counter with scatological observations about my head).

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32390
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:22 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:05 pm
El guapo, it's a nightmare to quote and edit so I'm just going to respond here.

If I had to rebut that argument I explain how lucky we are that science has that covered.

But I don't need to rebut it. We can argue about when a zygote becomes a fetus and then an individual human entity if we want, but those are secondary arguments to me.

We cannot force an individual woman to be an incubator for the human race. Period. If that means a zygote or fetus goes in the trash bin, so be it. I don't have to like it, and I don't.

If it's not clear, I absolutely value even the lowest, most downturned, difficult, messy, immoral, addicted, wretched woman's right to sovereignty over her own body more than I value what the group of cells, zygote, fetus, human being growing inside her might become sometime in the future, and I absolutely value that sovereignty more that what is currently growing inside her.
I just don't see the argument as side-stepping the question of whether the zygote/fetus/etc. is a person. Obviously we *can* force a woman to be an incubator for the human race (and have so for many years!). I think it also follows that the wisdom of so doing depends very heavily on whether one thinks of the zygote / fetus as a person or not. Like, I assume that you (and pretty much everyone else) would allow the state to prevent a woman from killing her newborn baby even though by preventing her from doing so we are borderline forcing her to tend for said baby for potentially decades.

I agree with you that the state should not force women to carry fetuses to term, but I agree with you because I regard a developing fetus as not a human (but rather as something that will become a human if left unimpeded). If I had to assume that the developing fetus is a person, then I think it would logically follow that aborting the fetus should be illegal in most circumstances (just as killing another human is illegal in most circumstances).

User avatar
Z-Corn
Posts: 3866
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:16 pm
Location: GR, MI

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Z-Corn » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:51 pm

Jeff V wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:36 pm
Smoove_B wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:31 pm
Yeah, if supporting all those things makes me elitist then fetch me my monocle.
Would you have any Grey Poupon?
"You're soaking in it!"

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:08 pm

We can't force a woman to be an incubator in the same way we can't enslave our fellow humans.

I thought it was clear that I meant morally, ethically.

We can argue about what it means to be human and when that starts, but I still don't find value in that. Semen and eggs combine, implant, grow, grow some more, grow some more, eventually they're viable babies, and with technology that time is earlier and earlier.

Luckily others have decided on restrictions so that I don't have to entertain the morality of an 8 and a half month abortion. Those are strawmen anyway because outside of extreme outliers, those already don't happen.

You are never going to convince me that a small group of cells are more important than a woman's right to choose, so the only thing left is arguing over whether 6 months and 1 day is too late, or 5 months and 29 days is. Good luck with that.

We could fall back on scientific definitions, but pro-lifers have already shown that those don't matter.

Now what? 1 month is ok? 2 months? Never? Always?
I'm perfectly satisfied with the current status quo. Trying to change that is going to require extremely convincing arguments, but given the length and effort the debate put into the debate during my life time, I have to accept that that argument doesn't exist.

I am very, very lucky. I accept the current state of abortion science and law as good enough. I don't have to convince pro-lifers, they have to convince me. I do try to listen and keep an open mind, but it almost always boils down to emotional appeals or slippery slopes, constantly moving the acceptable line earlier and earlier. That's not an honest argument. That's getting your way incrementally through a thousand cuts.

There are only two pro-life stances based on the Human Life argument. Either it's a human worth protecting from conception, which I will never accept, or at some point it changes from a group of cells to a human being, to which I say the current restrictions cover that well enough.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32390
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:20 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:08 pm
We can't force a woman to be an incubator in the same way we can't enslave our fellow humans.

I thought it was clear that I meant morally, ethically.
It's clear that you meant morally / ethically. I'm just saying that whether it is moral / ethical for the state to force at least some women to carry fetuses to term still seems to depend heavily on whether one regards said fetuses as fully human or not. If you do regard the fetuses as fully human (having the same status as a born/living person), then it seems to follow that it would generally be moral / ethical to force a woman to carry the fetus to term. Just like how it's moral / ethical to prevent a woman from killing a newborn, even though by so doing we are likely 'enslaving' / compelling the woman to tend for that newborn for decades.

I'm just saying that I don't think there's an easy way out from concluding that the abortion debate rests very very heavily on one's views of the humanity / status of a fetus.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:31 pm

On phone. Hit send too early. Added more after.

If you want to convince me that a human being can live inside another human being as a seperate entity with rights that superscede the host's, you've got your work cut out for you.

Especially since we as a society, science and law already have a rough definition of when the transition occurs from blob of cells to human.

We already have restrictions on when abortions can occur, remember? You have to convince me that more restrictions are warranted. I don't have to convince you.

If you want to move that definition earlier, you need to be extremely compelling. Right now the argument is almost always an attempt to undermine currently accepted definitions, often with pseudo-science, like deciding that brain activity means something other than what science believes it means. That's not going to work with me.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:01 pm

If I accept that some people believe life begins at conception (I do), then I also have to accept that they have a moral obligation to try to change the law, which I also do. They are free to try.

What I don't accept are arguments presented in bad faith, or civil disobedience/violence/harrasment. Protest to your heart's desire. Don't hurt the born to protect the unborn. It should be clear that I value the born over the unborn by now.

I accept that they have a right to their beliefs. I also accept that society and western society in general have already decided that their beliefs are wrong.

That's all fine, it may be that this division may never end until we have cloning technology and artificial incubators are the norm, and live gestation the exception, rendering the entire argument moot. 100% full control over every stage of the reproductive process will end this, even pregnancy from crime.

They have a right to try to change society. Good luck. It hasn't been going very well, considering pro-life started with 100% win (all abortion outlawed) and pro-choice started with 0%. Even with the heavily skewed starting points, pro-choice is the majority in most (all?) western countries.

They are losing and it's frustrating. I get it. I've got it easy. They've got serious challenges. That makes my position elitist. Whatever, call it a sin. Tell me I'm going to hell. Tell me I'm murdering future ghandis. I don't care.

And let's face it, the kid is more likely to be another Dahmer than another ghandi anyway. This is a strawman for me anyway. Arguing what the zygote might be in the future does not sway me in the least.

User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 5721
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by gbasden » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:26 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:41 pm
And that's why you guys are considered elitist and out of touch.

The logic is simple.
A fetus is homo sapiens.
It's alive.
The end.

You can argue justification. You can argue which is more important (mother or fetal tissue). But it's a unique genetic being that is being terminated.

I'm even fine with you telling me it's not a baby.

But the fact that you won't even consider how people could believe another way and be passionate about it is infuriating.

Honestly it feels like mental gymnastics because you don't want to even consider the possibility you might be wrong because that presents an irreconcilable ethical dilemma similar to the push the button to kill one person to save 10,000.
The thing is, though, that your point stands. The D's should be all over pointing out the evidence around birth control and sex education and the decrease in the need for abortion. The truly fundamentalist on the right will ignore it, but there has to be some common cause to be found with a number of pro-life groups. I pretty much agree with GG about the rights of women to autonomy over their own bodies and why it's important that a generally unfettered access to abortion is preserved, but I think the vast, vast majority of us want there to be as few abortions needed as possible. We should make alliances to do what we can together to prevent unwanted pregnancies even if we disagree on what to do about them.

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13662
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Zarathud » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:27 pm

El Guapo wrote:I kind of like the visual of Jeff V haranguing his 5 YO son about global warming.
That's why you keep the door closed in winter, kid.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 8536
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Jaymann » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:53 pm

Forget about zygotes, according to Kant, masturbation is worse than suicide.
"Masturbation is in some ways a worse vice than the horror of murdering oneself, and "debases [the masturbator] below the beasts"
Won't someone think of the sperm?

Then again, Kant thought it was ok to murder bastards. Different strokes I guess.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by GreenGoo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:55 pm

Unwanted pregnancies are a social problem, not a legal one.

You don't need to talk about the wonders of education in a political campaign to get voters. You need to actually educate. From an outsider's viewpoint, you as a country are still struggling with even this basic task.

That said, unwanted pregnancies are trending down, so progress in the areas that aren't shackled by 1950's mentalities, I guess.

It's not our abortion laws that keep our abortion rates relatively low. And it's not the US abortion laws that result in a 50% increase in abortion rates in the US over Canada.

I get that I'm being insulting. It's frustrating to watch the constant battles over whether basic healthcare for women should even be legal, let alone provided, then hear about how education is the answer (which it absolutely is) then see how many states fuck that up for either religious or conservative reasons, or both.

Maybe what I'm really frustrated about is that we as a country up here are flirting with returning to where you guys are, bickering and warring over it.

Nothing is more productive than spending decades deciding whether a medical procedure is a decision between a woman and her doctor, or leaving those two out of it completely and just letting the government decide.

Let's do that some more.

It's not like we started out enlightened. Contraception of any kind was illegal prior to 1969.

Abortion hasn't even been a national debate since I was a teenager. There was nothing to discuss. For decades even bringing up abortion as part of your campaign would almost certainly tank you. Right now there is a concentrated effort by very motivated lobbyists to help elect anti-abortion candidates across the country, and some of them are winning. We might be headed back to the dark ages, so you can take some schadenfreude from that perhaps, if it comes to be. They aren't actually creating a national dialogue, or changing the country's mind, they are putting people in power that agree with them. That's not the same thing.

I suspect that this has caught/will catch many people off guard. There has been no reason to worry about a candidate's stance on abortion because it was a non-issue. If legislation starts to pass I think you'll see a re-awakening of the pro-choice movement that has mostly been dormant up here for the last several decades because there was nothing to fight about. This could get interesting. It certainly won't be good for the country. Divisive topics rarely are.

User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 10291
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Paingod » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:51 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:54 pm
Here's a good list of opinions
Interesting. Thank you.
GreenGoo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:55 pm
Unwanted pregnancies are a social problem, not a legal one.

You don't need to talk about the wonders of education in a political campaign to get voters. You need to actually educate. From an outsider's viewpoint, you as a country are still struggling with even this basic task.
Education isn't the goal, and certainly isn't needed to vote.

I may be a hopeless cynic, but I've always felt that part of the reason religious (conservatives) oppose abortion is because it adds to their total weight in society (more dollars, more votes). They work to oppose science and intellectualism. You need numbers and those numbers need to stay ignorant. When too many eyes get opened, it starts causing them problems.

In my opinion (disregard it if you'd like) a lot of religions themselves are numbers games. They want more converts than the others, so they can have more dollars and votes to set their own agendas and try to impose their will on as many as possible. I'm not singling out any specific religion - it seems to be a common trend. They consistently work towards this goal. Cut education funding, eliminate uncomfortable science, force more births, bog down the support systems - all to keep the numbers going in their favor. I don't think its a conspiracy as much as I think it's the nature of the beast and how it feeds itself.
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: City of Heroes (Homecoming), Project Zomboid

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4521
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Fireball » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:25 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:41 pm
Honestly it feels like mental gymnastics because you don't want to even consider the possibility you might be wrong because that presents an irreconcilable ethical dilemma similar to the push the button to kill one person to save 10,000.
This is not an irreconcilable ethical dilemma. Pushing that button is clearly the only ethical choice.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4521
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Fireball » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:30 am

El Guapo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:20 pm
GreenGoo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:08 pm
We can't force a woman to be an incubator in the same way we can't enslave our fellow humans.

I thought it was clear that I meant morally, ethically.
It's clear that you meant morally / ethically. I'm just saying that whether it is moral / ethical for the state to force at least some women to carry fetuses to term still seems to depend heavily on whether one regards said fetuses as fully human or not. If you do regard the fetuses as fully human (having the same status as a born/living person), then it seems to follow that it would generally be moral / ethical to force a woman to carry the fetus to term.
Why? We accept that five year old children are humans, obviously, but if a five year old child had a medical condition that could only be addressed by daily blood transfusions from his mother, we would not require the mother to give him those transfusions if she didn't want to. We as individuals have a right to bodily autonomy. The government cannot compel us to take medical risks upon ourselves in order to help another person. We cannot be forced to give blood, donate tissues, etc.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23162
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by noxiousdog » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:35 am

Fireball wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:25 am
noxiousdog wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:41 pm
Honestly it feels like mental gymnastics because you don't want to even consider the possibility you might be wrong because that presents an irreconcilable ethical dilemma similar to the push the button to kill one person to save 10,000.
This is not an irreconcilable ethical dilemma. Pushing that button is clearly the only ethical choice.
Put up a poll and watch the handwringing commence. But I agree with you.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32390
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:47 am

Fireball wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:30 am
El Guapo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:20 pm
GreenGoo wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:08 pm
We can't force a woman to be an incubator in the same way we can't enslave our fellow humans.

I thought it was clear that I meant morally, ethically.
It's clear that you meant morally / ethically. I'm just saying that whether it is moral / ethical for the state to force at least some women to carry fetuses to term still seems to depend heavily on whether one regards said fetuses as fully human or not. If you do regard the fetuses as fully human (having the same status as a born/living person), then it seems to follow that it would generally be moral / ethical to force a woman to carry the fetus to term.
Why? We accept that five year old children are humans, obviously, but if a five year old child had a medical condition that could only be addressed by daily blood transfusions from his mother, we would not require the mother to give him those transfusions if she didn't want to. We as individuals have a right to bodily autonomy. The government cannot compel us to take medical risks upon ourselves in order to help another person. We cannot be forced to give blood, donate tissues, etc.
That's not entirely the same situation - we generally don't require people to take affirmative steps (like daily blood infusions) that may save lives (even if those steps are easy), but we do generally require people to refrain from doing things that could hurt/kill people (e.g., don't murder people). Banning abortion is more the latter than the former. And as for medical risks, "health of the mother" is one of the abortion ban exceptions that is most broadly accepted, even in pro-life circles (which makes some logical sense - even if one assumes that the fetus is a person, if the mother's health is in danger then the public has no real interest in compelling people to choose the fetus over the mother).

Anyway, the bottom line is that while I'm pro-choice, I have some sympathy for the pro-life position if one starts with the assumption (that I disagree with) that a fetus is a person.

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23162
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by noxiousdog » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:58 am

El Guapo wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:47 am
Anyway, the bottom line is that while I'm pro-choice, I have some sympathy for the pro-life position if one starts with the assumption (that I disagree with) that a fetus is a person.
That's the crux of the issue.

Most people do not think a fetus is a person in the first trimester. Most people are changing their mind during the 2nd, and by the 3rd, 80% of the people do.

It's not a binary issue despite both parties platforms.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 26459
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
the_meal’s avatar
Snooze

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by The Meal » Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:12 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:31 pm
Yeah, if supporting all those things makes me elitist then fetch me my monocle.
Image
Not a pathological narcissist.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17780
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:39 pm

Defiant wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:49 am


I posted about this earlier, but IIRC it was 10 of the 37 candidates that ran on that that won (and 5 were tossups). That by itself wouldn't prevent her from being speaker, but some incumbents will probably vote against her. Last time, 63 Democrats voted against her, and my guess would be that number would be less (given the victory during the election), but I suppose it's possible it could be larger

My guess would be that Pelosi would win the vote within the party. At that point, those 10-15 new representatives could just abstain the vote for speaker, thereby saying they didn't support Pelosi for speaker, but Pelosi would still win (assuming most of those 63 agree to vote for her for speaker when the alternative is a Republican). I do think there's a possibility that Pelosi promises to only serve one term, though.
Then again...



I'm still skeptical of it happening, but I guess it's a real possibility.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32390
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo » Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:36 pm

Who are the plausible other contenders? I saw something yesterday about Steny Hoyer putting himself up for Speaker, but insofar as the main problem with Pelosi seems to be that she's "old guard", I don't think Hoyer would be much of a change. I would assume that there would be some other young-ish progressive-ish challenger, but I haven't heard any names yet.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20827
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman » Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:43 pm

I assume the backroom dealing in a Speakership race involves promises of legislative priorities?

If so, isn't the winner likely to be "Pelosi, nudged slightly Left"?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17780
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:34 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:36 pm
Who are the plausible other contenders? I saw something yesterday about Steny Hoyer putting himself up for Speaker, but insofar as the main problem with Pelosi seems to be that she's "old guard", I don't think Hoyer would be much of a change. I would assume that there would be some other young-ish progressive-ish challenger, but I haven't heard any names yet.
The thing is, of those who publicly said they weren't going to support Pelosi (that I was able to find out info on) the bulk came from candidates that are to the right of Pelosi (not too surprising, since she's to the left of about 80% of the Democrats in the House). I guess that shouldn't be a complete surprise, since a Democrat in a more moderate district is more likely to face attack ads mentioning Pelosi than one in a blue district.

So there's a good chance that anyone that replaces her will be at least a little less progressive.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20827
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:54 pm

Defiant wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:34 pm
El Guapo wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:36 pm
Who are the plausible other contenders? I saw something yesterday about Steny Hoyer putting himself up for Speaker, but insofar as the main problem with Pelosi seems to be that she's "old guard", I don't think Hoyer would be much of a change. I would assume that there would be some other young-ish progressive-ish challenger, but I haven't heard any names yet.
The thing is, of those who publicly said they weren't going to support Pelosi (that I was able to find out info on) the bulk came from candidates that are to the right of Pelosi (not too surprising, since she's to the left of about 80% of the Democrats in the House). I guess that shouldn't be a complete surprise, since a Democrat in a more moderate district is more likely to face attack ads mentioning Pelosi than one in a blue district.

So there's a good chance that anyone that replaces her will be at least a little less progressive.
Interesting. I assumed it was a challenge from the few vocal Berniecrats we keep hearing about.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17780
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:07 pm

Holman wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:54 pm


Interesting. I assumed it was a challenge from the few vocal Berniecrats we keep hearing about.
There were at least a few from her left, and others with no track record that could also be to her left. And some on either side might care more about having a new/younger face than where exactly they are on the spectrum within the party.

If they do replace Pelosi, I just hope they pick someone based on their ability to keep the caucus together, and less about being charismatic to the voters.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33811
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kraken » Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:49 pm

Defiant wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:07 pm
Holman wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:54 pm


Interesting. I assumed it was a challenge from the few vocal Berniecrats we keep hearing about.
There were at least a few from her left, and others with no track record that could also be to her left. And some on either side might care more about having a new/younger face than where exactly they are on the spectrum within the party.

If they do replace Pelosi, I just hope they pick someone based on their ability to keep the caucus together, and less about being charismatic to the voters.
At this moment in history, being able to credibly stand up to Trump is of paramount importance. There's a fine line between going toe-to-toe with him and sinking to his level. Walking that line is the statesmanship Dems need today. Have we seen Pelosi do that? Not notably, but she hasn't been Speaker during our national emergency, either.

But yeah, congressional power is about seniority and influence, favors done and favors owed, and the people who have that are the ones who've been there the longest. A telegenic young face probably can't do it.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17780
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:57 pm

Kraken wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:49 pm


At this moment in history, being able to credibly stand up to Trump is of paramount importance. There's a fine line between going toe-to-toe with him and sinking to his level. Walking that line is the statesmanship Dems need today. Have we seen Pelosi do that? Not notably, but she hasn't been Speaker during our national emergency, either.
If "credibly stand up to Trump" consists of holding her caucus unified to prevent Republican legislation going forward, I think she's done a pretty good job of that (even while being in the minority).

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20827
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman » Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:13 pm

Defiant wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:57 pm

If "credibly stand up to Trump" consists of holding her caucus unified to prevent Republican legislation going forward, I think she's done a pretty good job of that (even while being in the minority).
Yeah, that's the thing. I'd love to see a generation of Beto's take charge, but I'd need to know that Pelosi's replacement could out-Pelosi Pelosi. If she's the best at what needs doing, I stand with her. Go Grandma Go.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32390
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:14 pm

Holman wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:13 pm
Defiant wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:57 pm

If "credibly stand up to Trump" consists of holding her caucus unified to prevent Republican legislation going forward, I think she's done a pretty good job of that (even while being in the minority).
Yeah, that's the thing. I'd love to see a generation of Beto's take charge, but I'd need to know that Pelosi's replacement could out-Pelosi Pelosi. If she's the best at what needs doing, I stand with her. Go Grandma Go.
Yeah, I suspect that 90% of the anti-Pelosi sentiment is just the accumulated effect of 10+ years of Republican attack ads, so a lot of people have a visceral negative reaction without really anything specific attached to it. She's clearly capable, and she's clearly progressive enough. There is value is bringing younger people into Democratic leadership as an end in itself (both to give additional perspectives, and to groom future leaders). For me the best case scenario would be Pelosi back as speaker with some young promising representative as her lieutenant.

We'll see, anyway.

GungHo
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Second star to the right

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by GungHo » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:57 am

I got a little derailed in my reading with the abortion discussion (which is totally cool to have I'm just not up for it personally) but was there any further discussions about who exactly will be in the hunt for 2020 in the presidential race? I'm looking specifically for mentions of Beto because I think he'd rock it but also curious if there's any legit talk of trump getting primaried. That would actually be fun in a -I'ma-goin'ta-nascar-this-weekend-and-i-cain't-wait-fer-dat-furst-crash kind of voyeurism
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.

-Hiccup

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20827
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:39 am

Kasich has been hinting at either a primary challenge or a third-party run.

In a primary, he would be crushed flat. (A glance at Trump's favorables among Republicans makes it clear.)

A third-party run would probably ensure Trump's re-election. (See above.)
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 37833
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by hepcat » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:17 am

Trump will win unless the economy tanks. Too many people are too stupid to see the truth.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 14019
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Carpet_pissr » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:32 am

Defiant wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:07 pm
I just hope they pick someone based on their ability to keep the caucus together, and less about being charismatic to the voters.
See: Mitch "Yertle" McConnell

I doubt many on the right actually LIKE him, but he was damn effective at doing the devil's work. If your world view is garbage, he was a great choice.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32390
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:55 am

Holman wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:39 am
Kasich has been hinting at either a primary challenge or a third-party run.

In a primary, he would be crushed flat. (A glance at Trump's favorables among Republicans makes it clear.)

A third-party run would probably ensure Trump's re-election. (See above.)
Yeah, I agree. I assume that Kasich is ultimately not going to run; if he primaries, he'll be crushed, unless something really weird happens - it would probably have to require Fox News and the conservative media bubble throwing him overboard.

I'm not sure that an independent run by Kasich would help Trump - intuitively seems like he would draw from soft Republicans more than soft Democrats (though it would depend on who the Democratic nominee is).

Post Reply