Political Roundtable Part XXXI

[Fairview4Life]

Having sex isn't hedonism. In fact, people are generally having less sex now than ever before. We aren't living in some kind of morally failed society. Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get pregnant. Choosing to drive to work isn't choosing to get into a car crash. If the choice is to ask women to abstain from sex until they want to have children it is as silly, if not more, then asking boys to get a reversible vasectomy at 10 until a women consents to try and have their child. Trying to get pregnant is not choosing to have a non viable fetus, or ectopic pregnancy, or any other innumerable examples of problems that can happen.

[Kanyewest]

Someone said that we could be heading for a nationwide ban on abortions if such a case reaches the Supreme Court- based on the Supreme Court ruling against New York's gun control laws.

[bsilver]

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.

Abortion has been legal in Ireland since 2018, and in Argentina since 2020.

[nate33]

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.

Abortion has been legal in Ireland since 2018, and in Argentina since 2020.

Sorry. It was an old article and I was going from memory. Here is the source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/how-many-women-die-illegal-abortions/572638/

The larger point stands. There was not a massive uptick in women dying due to "back alley abortions" after full abortion bans were implemented. Zonker's outrageous rhetoric that pro-lifers, out of sheer misogynistic hatred, want to see women die, does not stand scrutiny.

[nate33]

Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get pregnant. Choosing to drive to work isn't choosing to get into a car crash.

Choosing to have sex is indeed choosing to take on the risk of pregnancy. Just as choosing to drive a car is choosing to take on the risk of a car crash.

When the car crash happens, you can't just go to the dealer and demand a new car because it wasn't your choice to get into a car crash. You knew the risks and you took them on. And then you pay the consequences.

[nate33]

Someone said that we could be heading for a nationwide ban on abortions if such a case reaches the Supreme Court- based on the Supreme Court ruling against New York's gun control laws.

There is no 2nd Amendment right either for or against abortion. That's the whole point. The Constitution is silent on the matter. That's why it should be decided by states.

The opposite holds for guns. The Constitution most definitely isn't silent on the matter. Perhaps the meaning of the Constitution is up for interpretation, but it is unquestionably a Constitutional question.

[Fairview4Life]

Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get pregnant. Choosing to drive to work isn't choosing to get into a car crash.

Choosing to have sex is indeed choosing to take on the risk of pregnancy. Just as choosing to drive a car is choosing to take on the risk of a car crash.

When the car crash happens, you can't just go to the dealer and demand a new car because it wasn't your choice to get into a car crash. You knew the risks and you took them on. And then you pay the consequences.

Can't drive without insurance, so yeah you can actually go and get a new car. The risk of getting pregnant is mitigated by contraception, and then worst case, an abortion. Abstinence until ready to give birth is just as silly as vasectomy until ready for a woman to give birth to your child.

[Fairview4Life]

Someone said that we could be heading for a nationwide ban on abortions if such a case reaches the Supreme Court- based on the Supreme Court ruling against New York's gun control laws.

There is no 2nd Amendment right either for or against abortion. That's the whole point. The Constitution is silent on the matter. That's why it should be decided by states.

The opposite holds for guns. The Constitution most definitely isn't silent on the matter. Perhaps the meaning of the Constitution is up for interpretation, but it is unquestionably a Constitutional question.

Lots of things are not specifically called out in the constitution. It doesn't mention heart surgery either. But the arguments about privacy or forced labor or a bunch of others certainly apply, and have applied, until the recent decision calvinballed it all out the window.

[nate33]

Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get pregnant. Choosing to drive to work isn't choosing to get into a car crash.

Choosing to have sex is indeed choosing to take on the risk of pregnancy. Just as choosing to drive a car is choosing to take on the risk of a car crash.

When the car crash happens, you can't just go to the dealer and demand a new car because it wasn't your choice to get into a car crash. You knew the risks and you took them on. And then you pay the consequences.

Can't drive without insurance, so yeah you can actually go and get a new car. The risk of getting pregnant is mitigated by contraception, and then worst case, an abortion. Abstinence until ready to give birth is just as silly as vasectomy until ready for a woman to give birth to your child.

You can't drive without liability insurance. You can drive without collision insurance.

Insurance is a separate issue anyhow. The point is, just because you don't expect driving to result in a collision, the fact is, it sometimes does, and those collisions result in consequences that we must deal with.

[Fairview4Life]

Choosing to have sex is indeed choosing to take on the risk of pregnancy. Just as choosing to drive a car is choosing to take on the risk of a car crash.

When the car crash happens, you can't just go to the dealer and demand a new car because it wasn't your choice to get into a car crash. You knew the risks and you took them on. And then you pay the consequences.

Can't drive without insurance, so yeah you can actually go and get a new car. The risk of getting pregnant is mitigated by contraception, and then worst case, an abortion. Abstinence until ready to give birth is just as silly as vasectomy until ready for a woman to give birth to your child.

You can't drive without liability insurance. You can drive without collision insurance.

Insurance is a separate issue anyhow. The point is, just because you don't expect driving to result in a collision, the fact is, it sometimes does, and those collisions result in consequences that we must deal with.

Abortion is one way a woman can choose to deal with those consequences.

[nate33]

Someone said that we could be heading for a nationwide ban on abortions if such a case reaches the Supreme Court- based on the Supreme Court ruling against New York's gun control laws.

There is no 2nd Amendment right either for or against abortion. That's the whole point. The Constitution is silent on the matter. That's why it should be decided by states.

The opposite holds for guns. The Constitution most definitely isn't silent on the matter. Perhaps the meaning of the Constitution is up for interpretation, but it is unquestionably a Constitutional question.

Lots of things are not specifically called out in the constitution. It doesn't mention heart surgery either. But the arguments about privacy or forced labor or a bunch of others certainly apply, and have applied, until the recent decision calvinballed it all out the window.

Yes, it threw them out the window, but it didn't REVERSE them. With Roe vs Wade the standard, our position on abortion was ultimately decided by 9 people in robes. All it would take is to get 5 sufficiently zealous judges and anything was possible. I argue we were closer to a no-abortion allowed dystopia then than we are now with the decision being made democratically.

[Kanyewest]

Latest polls for the midterms- Dems may be gaining some ground although still very early. Plus the incumbent party has typically lost ground in Congress during the midterms.

- Yahoo 45 Dem 38 R (+7 D) - it was half that last week https://news.yahoo.com/poll-confidence-in-supreme-court-collapses-as-just-33-agree-with-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-090021689.html
- Morning consult 45 Dem 42 R (D+3) - it was 1 point Dem last week
- Marist 45 Dem 42 R (D+3) - last week it was tied
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-national-poll-the-overturning-of-roe-v-wade-june-2022/

[Fairview4Life]

Yes, it threw them out the window, but it didn't REVERSE them. With Roe vs Wade the standard, our position on abortion was ultimately decided by 9 people in robes. All it would take is to get 5 sufficiently zealous judges and anything was possible. I argue we were closer to a no-abortion allowed dystopia then than we are now with the decision being made democratically.

Rights being left up to what passes in the US as democracy is one reason why there was a civil war. It will lead to balkanization and unraveling of the united part of the united states.

[nate33]

Can't drive without insurance, so yeah you can actually go and get a new car. The risk of getting pregnant is mitigated by contraception, and then worst case, an abortion. Abstinence until ready to give birth is just as silly as vasectomy until ready for a woman to give birth to your child.

You can't drive without liability insurance. You can drive without collision insurance.

Insurance is a separate issue anyhow. The point is, just because you don't expect driving to result in a collision, the fact is, it sometimes does, and those collisions result in consequences that we must deal with.

Abortion is one way a woman can choose to deal with those consequences.

You do realize that there is another entity involved though. Don't you? That entity didn't exist when the choice to have sex is made. That entity does exist when a choice to have an abortion is made, and that entity is the one suffering the consequences. Ignoring that issue doesn't make it go away.

I've said my piece. Nobody is changing anyone's mind in this conversation. I just hope that the more zealous of you pro-choice people could at least try and understand that the pro-life side isn't a bunch evil women haters like Zonker seems to believe. They have a rational, coherent, logical belief system and are following through with it.

[nate33]

Yes, it threw them out the window, but it didn't REVERSE them. With Roe vs Wade the standard, our position on abortion was ultimately decided by 9 people in robes. All it would take is to get 5 sufficiently zealous judges and anything was possible. I argue we were closer to a no-abortion allowed dystopia then than we are now with the decision being made democratically.

Rights being left up to what passes in the US as democracy is one reason why there was a civil war. It will lead to balkanization and unraveling of the united part of the united states.

Yeah. That looks destined to happen. I blame social media which has pushed each side further and further into their echo chamber. I don't recoil from it though. I see no particular reason why all 330 million of us should live by the same rules when we can't begin to agree on them. I welcome a separation. Folks on both sides will be much happier.

[Fairview4Life]

You do realize that there is another entity involved though. Don't you? That entity didn't exist when the choice to have sex is made. That entity does exist when a choice to have an abortion is made, and that entity is the one suffering the consequences. Ignoring that issue doesn't make it go away.

That entity isn't actually more worthy of consideration that the woman's. Early term abortions, which are the vast number of abortions of convenience (with "convenience" also grossly understating how big of a decision it usually is for the woman), is not a baby suffering consequences of being left in a hot car.

[Fairview4Life]

Yes, it threw them out the window, but it didn't REVERSE them. With Roe vs Wade the standard, our position on abortion was ultimately decided by 9 people in robes. All it would take is to get 5 sufficiently zealous judges and anything was possible. I argue we were closer to a no-abortion allowed dystopia then than we are now with the decision being made democratically.

Rights being left up to what passes in the US as democracy is one reason why there was a civil war. It will lead to balkanization and unraveling of the united part of the united states.

Yeah. That looks destined to happen. I blame social media which has pushed each side further and further into their echo chamber. I don't recoil from it though. I see no particular reason why all 330 million of us should live by the same rules when we can't begin to agree on them. I welcome a separation. Folks on both sides will be much happier.

The problem with this is that there are more Rpeublicans in California and NY than like 20 "red" states combined. And more Democrats in Florida, etc.. Is Georgia red or blue? Arizona?

Or, on the abortion issue alone, there are significantly more people in favor of abortion than opposed. So if Florida, for example, bans abortions, that isn't going to make everyone in Florida happier. With gerrymandering, ridiculous voting rules and regulations, and lots of voter disenfranchisement, this isn't exactly a "democracy will win out" situation either.

[Fairview4Life]

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.

Abortion has been legal in Ireland since 2018, and in Argentina since 2020.

Sorry. It was an old article and I was going from memory. Here is the source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/how-many-women-die-illegal-abortions/572638/

The larger point stands. There was not a massive uptick in women dying due to "back alley abortions" after full abortion bans were implemented. Zonker's outrageous rhetoric that pro-lifers, out of sheer misogynistic hatred, want to see women die, does not stand scrutiny.

This is a bit misleading as well. The article was looking at fewer deaths thanks to countries with functioning healthcare systems and easy to access to drugs like misoprostol or travel to neighboring countries that haven't outlawed abortion. That isn't going to be the case the way some states are moving. With each new Republican run state legislature working on one upping each other.

[nate33]

Rights being left up to what passes in the US as democracy is one reason why there was a civil war. It will lead to balkanization and unraveling of the united part of the united states.

Yeah. That looks destined to happen. I blame social media which has pushed each side further and further into their echo chamber. I don't recoil from it though. I see no particular reason why all 330 million of us should live by the same rules when we can't begin to agree on them. I welcome a separation. Folks on both sides will be much happier.

The problem with this is that there are more Rpeublicans in California and NY than like 20 "red" states combined. And more Democrats in Florida, etc.. Is Georgia red or blue? Arizona?

Or, on the abortion issue alone, there are significantly more people in favor of abortion than opposed. So if Florida, for example, bans abortions, that isn't going to make everyone in Florida happier.

However you look at it, the problem of people living with rules they hate is mitigated by a national divorce. It won't solve the problems for everyone. You will still have some conservatives in Blue America and some liberals in Red America, but overall, more people will live where the rules are consistent with their beliefs.

The alternative would be to keep the current structure of government, but revert to a much more extreme form of federalism like how things were run a century ago. Let states go back to being 50 separate laboratories where different policy experiments are tried. The problem is, the Left always seeks to nationalize issues.

But I really have to go now. Duty calls.

[Fairview4Life]

Yeah. That looks destined to happen. I blame social media which has pushed each side further and further into their echo chamber. I don't recoil from it though. I see no particular reason why all 330 million of us should live by the same rules when we can't begin to agree on them. I welcome a separation. Folks on both sides will be much happier.

The problem with this is that there are more Rpeublicans in California and NY than like 20 "red" states combined. And more Democrats in Florida, etc.. Is Georgia red or blue? Arizona?

Or, on the abortion issue alone, there are significantly more people in favor of abortion than opposed. So if Florida, for example, bans abortions, that isn't going to make everyone in Florida happier.

However you look at it, the problem of people living with rules they hate is mitigated by a national divorce. It won't solve the problems for everyone. You will still have some conservatives in Blue America and some liberals in Red America, but overall, more people will live where the rules are consistent with their beliefs.

The alternative would be to keep the current structure of government, but revert to a much more extreme form of federalism like how things were run a century ago. Let states go back to being 50 separate laboratories where different policy experiments are tried. The problem is, the Left always seeks to nationalize issues.

But I really have to go now. Duty calls.

There are better solutions. Like getting rid of the filibuster in the senate, to start with. Removing the cap on house seats. Increasing the size of the Supreme Court to match the number of circuits or even beyond and set term limits so there isn’t as much power on who the president at arbitrary points. Basically start mitigating how anti democracy the us is in practice. Let people actually decide what rules they want to live under.

Letting the south secede to expand slavery or ending reconstruction and allowing Jim Crow to oppress generations of Americans wasn’t a good option then, and national divorce because minority rule is being ingrained for a decade or more isn’t a good idea now. You’re also a bit off with who is trying to nationalize what. The left nationalizes rights and the right nationalizes their religious beliefs and personal morality.