Political Roundtable Part XXXI

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=A7mIt00j8Kr8dZ9AXJ9Cqw&s=19

[popper]

I'd like to hear Popper's thoughts on this?

Thanks for invitation WP. As I've said for years, I hope Trump is wounded and unable to run. He, like Biden, Bush, Clinton and Obama are idiots or worse. The country faces deep, deep, deep problems. I'm not hopeful in the ability of the average voter to ascertain the best path forward. It makes me sad because I have children and grandchildren that will suffer because of our collective ignorance.

I see you can’t condemn Trump without trying to create a false equivalency between Bush, Clinton, Obama (like WTF) and Biden (even more WTF).

I think you’ve said before you’re a Desantis guy right?

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

[Zonkerbl]

If Engel and Ornato were so loyal to Trump, why did they disobey a direct order from him and not drive him to the Capitol? Look forward to them testifying. More information is better than less.

The fact that he wanted to go to the Capitol, knowing that would whip up his followers to a violent frenzy, enough that he got angry when he was thwarted, is enough for me. And I think enough to establish intent for prosecution purposes. If it's true he assaulted his SS detail he should be thrown in jail immediately, so yeah, I think it's important to hear from them, even if they did get brainwashed by him.

Also there's active witness tampering going on *right now* - that has to be nipped in the bud immediately.

FWIW I think if Trump had actually placed his hands on the wheel, and the SS guy forcibly removed it, the SS guy could have and probably would have snapped his 76-year-old arm like a twig. Plus that's just a big, athletic lunge to try to grab the steering wheel from the back seat of a big SUV. It sounds like an exaggeration. What I would believe is some sort of lunging motion, with him sticking his face between the seats to scream more effectively. I don't find that hard to believe at all - dude had completely lost his snap at that point, based on the ketchup testimony.

[Zonkerbl]

Thanks for invitation WP. As I've said for years, I hope Trump is wounded and unable to run. He, like Biden, Bush, Clinton and Obama are idiots or worse. The country faces deep, deep, deep problems. I'm not hopeful in the ability of the average voter to ascertain the best path forward. It makes me sad because I have children and grandchildren that will suffer because of our collective ignorance.

I see you can’t condemn Trump without trying to create a false equivalency between Bush, Clinton, Obama (like WTF) and Biden (even more WTF).

I think you’ve said before you’re a Desantis guy right?

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

Oh, for some reason I thought you were an Ohio guy like Nate. I would love to live in a world where the most evil, dangerous Republican in the US was DeSantis. He doesn't scare me as much as Trump does. I'd still hate for him to be President but I wouldn't be wistfully reconsidering my choice not to move to Frankfurt in 2006

[Zonkerbl]

My wife got in a twitter argument about abortion yesterday. The forced birthers have a new tack to sidestep their inability to address the "personhood" question - the zygote is human because it has human dna from two parents.

I can parry the "life begins at conception" idiocy pretty easily - cows, pigs, chickens are alive, we kill and eat them all the time. That has the added advantage of forcing people to shut up about what is clearly a very stupid thing to say. I know the DNA thing is just as ridiculous but not as easily knocked out of the park. You could say "fingernails have human dna in them and people eat them" I suppose, but what if they come back saying "it's not the combined dna of two parents"

What's the difference between cows and chickens and babies? Well, babies are people with rights that potentially counter that of the mother. At what point does a fetus that can't think or feel or use tools or any of the things that the mother very definitely can do become a potential human whose rights potentially trump those of the mother? Under Roe v Wade it was viability, which is very fact based, if a little loosey goosey.

With the human dna argument you can't even say "your argument is not fact based" - human dna from two parents is scientifically verifiable.

There's still no forced birth answer to the question of "when does a non thinking, non feeling clump of cells have more rights than a fully sentient person"? But of course they're not interested in answering that question.

[pancakes3]

the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*

re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.

re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.

re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.

*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.

[nate33]

My wife got in a twitter argument about abortion yesterday. The forced birthers have a new tack to sidestep their inability to address the "personhood" question - the zygote is human because it has human dna from two parents.

I can parry the "life begins at conception" idiocy pretty easily - cows, pigs, chickens are alive, we kill and eat them all the time. That has the added advantage of forcing people to shut up about what is clearly a very stupid thing to say. I know the DNA thing is just as ridiculous but not as easily knocked out of the park. You could say "fingernails have human dna in them and people eat them" I suppose, but what if they come back saying "it's not the combined dna of two parents"

What's the difference between cows and chickens and babies? Well, babies are people with rights that potentially counter that of the mother. At what point does a fetus that can't think or feel or use tools or any of the things that the mother very definitely can do become a potential human whose rights potentially trump those of the mother? Under Roe v Wade it was viability, which is very fact based, if a little loosey goosey.

With the human dna argument you can't even say "your argument is not fact based" - human dna from two parents is scientifically verifiable.

There's still no forced birth answer to the question of "when does a non thinking, non feeling clump of cells have more rights than a fully sentient person"? But of course they're not interested in answering that question.

I have a pretty straightforward hierarchy of the moral principles involved:

Principle 1: An individual has dominion over one's body. You cannot be enslaved to serve another, even if it is to save their life. It is for this reason that I would allow a rape exception into any prohibition on abortion. In rape, a women never made an proactive choice in bringing the baby into existence.

Principle 2: Innocent human life, even a zygote or a fetus, is precious. Everything reasonable must be done to keep that entity alive unless such an act might reasonably cause the death of another life (the mother), or interfere with Principle 1.

However, the elephant in the room in this discussion, the issue that nobody on the pro choice want to contemplate, is that THE WOMAN HAS ALREADY MADE HER CHOICE WHEN SHE CONSENTS TO HAVE SEX. By consenting to have sex, a women (and her partner) are relinquishing their "right" under Principle 1. They are not being enslaved by outside forces beyond their control. They are willingly acting to produce the child. They signed a contract and got advance pay, so now they must show up to work. So we default to Principle 2.

[dckingsfan]

There's still no forced birth answer to the question of "when does a non thinking, non feeling clump of cells have more rights than a fully sentient person"? But of course they're not interested in answering that question.

To that end - the platform is to ban all abortions. You have the abortion and they would like to jail you. (see how that has gone with tough on drugs - let's see how that goes when we start jailing thousands of women).

If you are raped, you can't have an abortion because the discovery and the trial take place first. Same with a pregnancy that is likely to put the mother at risk.

And the platform is to rid ourselves of the troublesome contraceptives. God's will...

The platform makes know mention of wanting to support the child after it has been born or the health services for the birth itself.

It is a fascinating platform and wildly inconsistent to the majority view.

[nate33]

There's still no forced birth answer to the question of "when does a non thinking, non feeling clump of cells have more rights than a fully sentient person"? But of course they're not interested in answering that question.

To that end - the platform is to ban all abortions. You have the abortion and they would like to jail you. (see how that has gone with tough on drugs - let's see how that goes when we start jailing thousands of women).

If you are raped, you can't have an abortion because the discovery and the trial take place first. Same with a pregnancy that is likely to put the mother at risk.

And the platform is to rid ourselves of the troublesome contraceptives. God's will...

The platform makes know mention of wanting to support the child after it has been born or the health services for the birth itself.

It is a fascinating platform and wildly inconsistent to the majority view.

These are all valid points.

I will say that my previous post was speaking to the moral principles involved. There are practical implications that make this issue more difficult from a policy perspective.

The reality is that that "clump of cells" comes closer and closer to a living human being with the passage of time. I don't know when exactly that point is reached, but since I don't know, then we damn well better err on the side of "early"

As I said a month or so ago when this topic came up, my actual policy proposal would be to limit window for legal abortion to the earliest window possible. Obviously, that must allow some time for a women to recognize she is pregnant and make a decision, but that time does not need to be very long. 6 weeks, or maybe up to 8 weeks. I just don't understand why an abortion would need to take place later than that, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who supports later abortions. We are talking about the very high possibility that we are executing a living entity with a consciousness and soul. We can't ask people to be a little more diligent in taking a pregnancy test and then making their decision in a timely matter?

[dckingsfan]

There's still no forced birth answer to the question of "when does a non thinking, non feeling clump of cells have more rights than a fully sentient person"? But of course they're not interested in answering that question.

To that end - the platform is to ban all abortions. You have the abortion and they would like to jail you. (see how that has gone with tough on drugs - let's see how that goes when we start jailing thousands of women).

If you are raped, you can't have an abortion because the discovery and the trial take place first. Same with a pregnancy that is likely to put the mother at risk.

And the platform is to rid ourselves of the troublesome contraceptives. God's will...

The platform makes know mention of wanting to support the child after it has been born or the health services for the birth itself.

It is a fascinating platform and wildly inconsistent to the majority view.

These are all valid points.

I will say that my previous post was speaking to the moral principles involved. There are practical implications that make this issue more difficult from a policy perspective.

The reality is that that "clump of cells" comes closer and closer to a living human being with the passage of time. I don't know when exactly that point is reached, but since I don't know, then we damn well better err on the side of "early"

As I said a month or so ago when this topic came up, my actual policy proposal would be to limit window for legal abortion to the earliest window possible. Obviously, that must allow some time for a women to recognize she is pregnant and make a decision, but that time does not need to be very long. 6 weeks, or maybe up to 8 weeks. I just don't understand why an abortion would need to take place later than that, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who supports later abortions. We are talking about the very high possibility that we are executing a living entity with a consciousness and soul. We can't ask people to be a little more diligent in taking a pregnancy test and then making their decision in a timely matter?

Which is a far different than the platform to ban all abortions, penalize the women for any abortion, ban contraceptives, etc..

Your proposal is more in-line with most moderates - but that is not the direction we are headed.

[nate33]

To that end - the platform is to ban all abortions. You have the abortion and they would like to jail you. (see how that has gone with tough on drugs - let's see how that goes when we start jailing thousands of women).

If you are raped, you can't have an abortion because the discovery and the trial take place first. Same with a pregnancy that is likely to put the mother at risk.

And the platform is to rid ourselves of the troublesome contraceptives. God's will...

The platform makes know mention of wanting to support the child after it has been born or the health services for the birth itself.

It is a fascinating platform and wildly inconsistent to the majority view.

These are all valid points.

I will say that my previous post was speaking to the moral principles involved. There are practical implications that make this issue more difficult from a policy perspective.

The reality is that that "clump of cells" comes closer and closer to a living human being with the passage of time. I don't know when exactly that point is reached, but since I don't know, then we damn well better err on the side of "early"

As I said a month or so ago when this topic came up, my actual policy proposal would be to limit window for legal abortion to the earliest window possible. Obviously, that must allow some time for a women to recognize she is pregnant and make a decision, but that time does not need to be very long. 6 weeks, or maybe up to 8 weeks. I just don't understand why an abortion would need to take place later than that, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who supports later abortions. We are talking about the very high possibility that we are executing a living entity with a consciousness and soul. We can't ask people to be a little more diligent in taking a pregnancy test and then making their decision in a timely matter?

Which is a far different than the platform to ban all abortions, penalize the women for any abortion, ban contraceptives, etc..

Your proposal is more in-line with most moderates - but that is not the direction we are headed.

The ban contraceptives part is particularly egregious. That really seems to me like an intentional goal of subjecting women, rather than merely protecting babies.

I can totally understand the other positions though. I disagree with them, but they make logical sense if you invert the order of Principle 1 and Principle 2 as I've outline above. If you value life over individual liberty, then banning all abortions, including rape, is logistically consistent. And if states vote on them in free and fair elections, then that is democracy in action.

[Zonkerbl]

There's still no forced birth answer to the question of "when does a non thinking, non feeling clump of cells have more rights than a fully sentient person"? But of course they're not interested in answering that question.

To that end - the platform is to ban all abortions. You have the abortion and they would like to jail you. (see how that has gone with tough on drugs - let's see how that goes when we start jailing thousands of women).

If you are raped, you can't have an abortion because the discovery and the trial take place first. Same with a pregnancy that is likely to put the mother at risk.

And the platform is to rid ourselves of the troublesome contraceptives. God's will...

The platform makes know mention of wanting to support the child after it has been born or the health services for the birth itself.

It is a fascinating platform and wildly inconsistent to the majority view.

These are all valid points.

I will say that my previous post was speaking to the moral principles involved. There are practical implications that make this issue more difficult from a policy perspective.

The reality is that that "clump of cells" comes closer and closer to a living human being with the passage of time. I don't know when exactly that point is reached, but since I don't know, then we damn well better err on the side of "early"

As I said a month or so ago when this topic came up, my actual policy proposal would be to limit window for legal abortion to the earliest window possible. Obviously, that must allow some time for a women to recognize she is pregnant and make a decision, but that time does not need to be very long. 6 weeks, or maybe up to 8 weeks. I just don't understand why an abortion would need to take place later than that, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who supports later abortions. We are talking about the very high possibility that we are executing a living entity with a consciousness and soul. We can't ask people to be a little more diligent in taking a pregnancy test and then making their decision in a timely matter?

Lol

Yeah this is the problem. People setting abortion policy as if ectopic pregnancies are a choice. They're not Nate! Sometimes you have to make tough choices, and you don't get to be the one making it! That's life! That's reality! Sometimes nature makes nasty choices *to* you!

This is not easy or simple or a question of "choice" or "consent." When you take contraceptive drugs you are taking a *gamble,* you are *hoping* you won't get pregnant, but no one who is actively taking contraception is 100% certain not to get pregnant, but that doesn't change the fact that they *did not intend to.* Being unlucky should not be a death sentence, if it's avoidable, or saddle you with a responsibility against your will, if you did what you could to avoid it, or if you were raped or abused. This is a messy, complicated, heartbreaking topic that does not lend itself to "simple" solutions, like "derp de derp let's just strike down Roe v Wade and have 25 different regimes of different extremes, some of which ban abortions that were caused by rape or by medical necessity, like in Texas, because we don't actually care about real people's lives at all"

Striking down Roe v Wade the way it was was evil, and barbaric, undemocratic, unlawful, unreasonable, cruel and downright murderous, and I hope there's a hell so all those SCOTUS judges responsible suffer for eternity for their insanely evil actions. God knows there won't be any accountability for their recklessness while they're alive.

[Zonkerbl]

Someday several decades from now we'll solve this problem and undo the damage these six murderers did. But in the intervening years thousands and thousands of women are going to suffer and die, for no reason except hate.

[nate33]

To that end - the platform is to ban all abortions. You have the abortion and they would like to jail you. (see how that has gone with tough on drugs - let's see how that goes when we start jailing thousands of women).

If you are raped, you can't have an abortion because the discovery and the trial take place first. Same with a pregnancy that is likely to put the mother at risk.

And the platform is to rid ourselves of the troublesome contraceptives. God's will...

The platform makes know mention of wanting to support the child after it has been born or the health services for the birth itself.

It is a fascinating platform and wildly inconsistent to the majority view.

These are all valid points.

I will say that my previous post was speaking to the moral principles involved. There are practical implications that make this issue more difficult from a policy perspective.

The reality is that that "clump of cells" comes closer and closer to a living human being with the passage of time. I don't know when exactly that point is reached, but since I don't know, then we damn well better err on the side of "early"

As I said a month or so ago when this topic came up, my actual policy proposal would be to limit window for legal abortion to the earliest window possible. Obviously, that must allow some time for a women to recognize she is pregnant and make a decision, but that time does not need to be very long. 6 weeks, or maybe up to 8 weeks. I just don't understand why an abortion would need to take place later than that, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who supports later abortions. We are talking about the very high possibility that we are executing a living entity with a consciousness and soul. We can't ask people to be a little more diligent in taking a pregnancy test and then making their decision in a timely matter?

Lol

Yeah this is the problem. People setting abortion policy as if ectopic pregnancies are a choice. They're not Nate! Sometimes you have to make tough choices, and you don't get to be the one making it! That's life! That's reality! Sometimes nature makes nasty choices *to* you!

This is not easy or simple or a question of "choice" or "consent." When you take contraceptive drugs you are taking a *gamble,* you are *hoping* you won't get pregnant, but no one who is actively taking contraception is 100% certain not to get pregnant, but that doesn't change the fact that they *did not intend to.* Being unlucky should not be a death sentence, if it's avoidable, or saddle you with a responsibility against your will, if you did what you could to avoid it, or if you were raped or abused. This is a messy, complicated, heartbreaking topic that does not lend itself to "simple" solutions, like "derp de derp let's just strike down Roe v Wade and have 25 different regimes of different extremes, some of which ban abortions that were caused by rape or by medical necessity, like in Texas, because we don't actually care about real people's lives at all"

Striking down Roe v Wade the way it was was evil, and barbaric, undemocratic, unlawful, unreasonable, cruel and downright murderous, and I hope there's a hell so all those SCOTUS judges responsible suffer for eternity for their insanely evil actions. God knows there won't be any accountability for their recklessness while they're alive.

What the hell does ectopic pregnancy have to do with any of this? I already said that the life of the mother outweighs the life of the fetus. And in an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus is doomed to death anyhow.

And yes, I agree that contraception is a gamble. That's why I do not morally support abortion in the event of "failed" contraception. The man and the women agreed to consensual sex with the knowledge that there is a risk of contraception failure.

And I can just as easily say that killing a fetus is "evil, and barbaric, undemocratic, unlawful, unreasonable, cruel and downright murderous". Does that change your mind?

[nate33]

Someday several decades from now we'll solve this problem and undo the damage these six murderers did. But in the intervening years thousands and thousands of women are going to suffer and die, for no reason except hate.

I don't understand how one can be so blinded by ideology that one can conclude that the pro-life side roots their position in "hate" rather than a genuine concern for the lives of babies. There are reasonable arguments for both viewpoints, but your ranting and raving like a lunatic isn't useful or persuasive.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

There's still no forced birth answer to the question of "when does a non thinking, non feeling clump of cells have more rights than a fully sentient person"? But of course they're not interested in answering that question.

To that end - the platform is to ban all abortions. You have the abortion and they would like to jail you. (see how that has gone with tough on drugs - let's see how that goes when we start jailing thousands of women).

If you are raped, you can't have an abortion because the discovery and the trial take place first. Same with a pregnancy that is likely to put the mother at risk.

And the platform is to rid ourselves of the troublesome contraceptives. God's will...

The platform makes know mention of wanting to support the child after it has been born or the health services for the birth itself.

It is a fascinating platform and wildly inconsistent to the majority view.

These are all valid points.

I will say that my previous post was speaking to the moral principles involved. There are practical implications that make this issue more difficult from a policy perspective.

The reality is that that "clump of cells" comes closer and closer to a living human being with the passage of time. I don't know when exactly that point is reached, but since I don't know, then we damn well better err on the side of "early"

As I said a month or so ago when this topic came up, my actual policy proposal would be to limit window for legal abortion to the earliest window possible. Obviously, that must allow some time for a women to recognize she is pregnant and make a decision, but that time does not need to be very long. 6 weeks, or maybe up to 8 weeks. I just don't understand why an abortion would need to take place later than that, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who supports later abortions. We are talking about the very high possibility that we are executing a living entity with a consciousness and soul. We can't ask people to be a little more diligent in taking a pregnancy test and then making their decision in a timely matter?

I rarely show up in this thread, and almost never want to get into it with Nate.

I'm also extremely pro-choice.

Both of these things said, I do think Nate's post provides a glimpse of where the conversation should go if we ever want to get to a place where access to abortion finds a point of stasis that isn't what anyone wants, but might be what is acceptable enough to enough of the population to remove it as a crippling wedge issue that stops us from accomplishing so much of what we NEED to accomplish.

Abortion is literally a matter of belief and faith for people. As such, it is very unlikely that many will change their minds much if at all. Again, I am pro choice, but I respect people who believe in their soul that abortion at some point during a pregnancy is akin to murder.

Compromise is hard... but, we need to find one. I was fine with viability as a reasonable line, but that line left so many people feeling it is unjust that the controversy never waned.

I know I'm being Pollyannaish, but I think we need to find some way to open up a conversation between the Nates of the world and those who are pro choice, but could live with some restrictions that are tighter than viability.

Any matter of absolute faith is pretty much impossible to solve in a democracy.

[Zonkerbl]

Someday several decades from now we'll solve this problem and undo the damage these six murderers did. But in the intervening years thousands and thousands of women are going to suffer and die, for no reason except hate.

I don't understand how one can be so blinded by ideology that one can conclude that the pro-life side roots their position in "hate" rather than a genuine concern for the lives of babies. There are reasonable arguments for both viewpoints, but your ranting and raving like a lunatic isn't useful or persuasive.

I don't see how one can be so blinded by ideology that one can think that anything but hate would motivate pulling the rug out from under women and leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths. If forced birthers care so much about women, why did they do it like this?

Talk is cheap. I look at the consequences of your actions, of all of you who supported this. And it is so horrifying and murderous that it can only be motivated by hate. I don't see how you can look at the facts in front of you and come to any other conclusion. Own the consequences of your actions, Nate. They are despicable.

[nate33]

Someday several decades from now we'll solve this problem and undo the damage these six murderers did. But in the intervening years thousands and thousands of women are going to suffer and die, for no reason except hate.

I don't understand how one can be so blinded by ideology that one can conclude that the pro-life side roots their position in "hate" rather than a genuine concern for the lives of babies. There are reasonable arguments for both viewpoints, but your ranting and raving like a lunatic isn't useful or persuasive.

I don't see how one can be so blinded by ideology that one can think that anything but hate would motivate pulling the rug out from under women and leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths. If forced birthers care so much about women, why did they do it like this?

Talk is cheap. I look at the consequences of your actions, of all of you who supported this. And it is so horrifying and murderous that it can only be motivated by hate. I don't see how you can look at the facts in front of you and come to any other conclusion. Own the consequences of your actions, Nate. They are despicable.

What is your source for these "thousands of unnecessary deaths". Ireland banned abortion a year ago and there have been 0 deaths attributed to "back alley abortions". Argentina banned abortions and there are less than 20 deaths associated with unregulated abortion procedures.

[pancakes3]

taking rape, incest, and medical needs aside, the entire point of abortions is that i'm free to have sex with someone recreationally without being burdened by Nate's view of sex wherein i'm also entering into a contract to potentially raise a baby. just because it's a hedonistic world view that doesn't jibe with conservative values doesn't mean it's wrong, or barbaric, or murder.

[nate33]

taking rape, incest, and medical needs aside, the entire point of abortions is that i'm free to have sex with someone recreationally without being burdened by Nate's view of sex wherein i'm also entering into a contract to potentially raise a baby.

Fair enough. I appreciate that you summarized the subject succinctly. That's exactly what we are talking about.

just because it's a hedonistic world view that doesn't jibe with conservative values doesn't mean it's wrong, or barbaric, or murder.

But it's also a sufficiently contested viewpoint that I think it's up to the people to democratically decide where we stand on the issue as a society. Do we value hedonism more than the we value a growing fetus? In jurisdictions where a majority consider to the practice to be too barbaric, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to vote to forbid it.