U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[The Internet]

I've seen ***** on the news saying it's just step 1, next step is to make sure it's banned in all 50 states. Plenty more to come after that and it'll happen quite quickly imo. Gay marriage will obviously go, but if something as extreme as banning contraception happens I think that would be a watershed moment where real shit goes down. (and I'm not trying to downplay the significance of banning gay marriage) 

 

Anyway whatever your views on abortion it's objectively wrong to think it shouldn't be a choice at all. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by The Internet

[Unknown user]

31 minutes ago, Ked said:

Again Smithee other than the first week or two the foetus is much more than a bunch of cells.

The relationship between the mother and the unborn child deserves much more respect.

 

 

While the mother is definitely always much more than a bunch of cells, with the right to do what she likes with her body, same as you.

[FWJ]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

Very few people are pro-abortion.  Most people are of the opinion that abortion is a private matter for the woman involved, and she alone should have the choice about how to proceed with her pregnancy.

The only sensible thing I ever heard Edwina Currie say was ‘no woman wants an abortion, but some women need an abortion.’

[Mikey1874]

2 hours ago, Imaman said:

People seem to forget that men are suffers from abortion too. We have already had one  poster who has expressed that sentiment. 
 

 

Women suffer from not having freedom over their lives. Abortion helps give some women that. 

[Don Dan]

It’s a body within a body albeit a growing body lets not forget that. 

[The Mighty Thor]

The Christian right bammers that are driving this are turning the US into a white man's 'IS'.

 

What a shambles of a place the 'world's democracy' is. 

[Ray Gin]

America really is an absolute cluster****.

 

[Locky]

America has to be the least progressive nation in the west. Don't think there's a country in the western world that's quite ruled by religious nutjobs.

 

Abortion is a touchy subject and always will be. I'm not saying I agree with it, but what I don't agree with is women being denied that freedom. There's many reasons why a woman wouldn't want to be left to deal with a pregnancy. Victims of rape is a big one of course, but even things like contraception going wrong or whatever. If I found out I got a girl pregnant and she aborted it, I'd probably be fuming and heartbroken, but ultimately, it's a women's choice what she does with her body, and for the powers that be to stand in the way of a women's freedom is disgraceful.

[Norm]

With this and all the other bullshit going on over there, the place is one police killing away from nation wide riots. The States could be in flames before the end of summer. 

[Sooperstar]

Religious extremism, plain and simple.

[Ked]

4 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

While the mother is definitely always much more than a bunch of cells, with the right to do what she likes with her body, same as you.

Of course.

 

I don't want to in anyway deny that fact.And I don't want to particularly side with any view .

Like you said earlier about arguing with yourself about it.

Another complex thing that seems to be polarised in the politics of culture .

Fek knows smithee

[FWJ]

Good book

[Maple Leaf]

[A Boy Named Crow]

8 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

 

Close your eyes...it's Krusty 😁

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, Cade said:

The same zoomers than bang on about "pro life" are very often the same zoomers that bang on about "overpopulation"

 

 

And the death penalty.

[JFK-1]

8 hours ago, Ked said:

This is where I'm troubled.

Describing an unborn baby as a group of cells is as ignorant as the people who protest outside abortion clinics.

And what exactly is the mythology of the bronze age?

The more we learn about how a foetus develops is all the more reason to examine our attitudes.

 

 

This where i'm troubled, a handful of cells is not an unborn baby, ask the scientists, they're as ignorant as me on this and require your superior knowledge.

What's the mythology of the bronze age? You ever heard of the bible? That's where their inspiration for this is coming from, not science so don't bring newer knowledge and a re-examination of attitudes into it.

 

The religious take no heed of science or indisputable fact. It's a fact all life on this planet has evolved over billions of years, the religious haven't grasped that reality among many others. They don't want this indisputable fact revealed to school children far less taught.

So don't bring re-examining attitudes into it. Non religious people are constantly examining their attitudes as new information comes in. The religious stick with the bronze age mythology no matter what, and that's what's happening here. Humouring bronze age mythology. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

Memes are so shit here as it just drives extremism on both ends.

 

It's easy to claim "pro life" or "pro choice" but the bottom line is that politicians somewhere have to draw up legislation. The fact that Congress ducked the issue for years on the basis that the Supreme Court made a ruling allowed the possibility of the Roe v Wade verdict of being overturned.

 

I think the UK legislation gets this right with the 24 weeks gestation limit as the life can be viable outside the womb at that point. I get why American Federal politicians ducked the issue for years but it has come back to bite them in the sense that states have the legislative power again.

[JFK-1]

10 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

And it has been my experience that many of the pro-life people are also pro-death when it comes to capital punishment, which is clearly a contradiction.  That applies overwhelmingly to right-wing politicians in the USA.

 

And pro gun, almost comical. Focus on the unborn, kill off as many of the living as possible.

[Maple Leaf]

5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

 

 

It's easy to claim "pro life" or "pro choice" but the bottom line is that politicians somewhere have to draw up legislation.

 

No they don't.  Canada does not have an abortion law, nor a law on any other medical condition. It has nothing to do with politicians.

[JFK-1]

9 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Memes are so shit here as it just drives extremism on both ends.

 

It's easy to claim "pro life" or "pro choice" but the bottom line is that politicians somewhere have to draw up legislation. The fact that Congress ducked the issue for years on the basis that the Supreme Court made a ruling allowed the possibility of the Roe v Wade verdict of being overturned.

 

I think the UK legislation gets this right with the 24 weeks gestation limit as the life can be viable outside the womb at that point. I get why American Federal politicians ducked the issue for years but it has come back to bite them in the sense that states have the legislative power again.

 

Would you agree the reason they have done this is entirely unconnected to any benefit to the society? That it's simply humouring extreme religionists? 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

No they don't.  Canada does not have an abortion law, nor a law on any other medical condition. It has nothing to do with politicians.

So can someone abort a child at 40 weeks in Canada without issue?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Would you agree the reason they have done this is entirely unconnected to any benefit to the society? That it's simply humouring extreme religionists? 

The rationale is moot. The point is that if a Federal right to abortion was so important, it would have been legislated for. 

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

So can someone abort a child at 40 weeks in Canada without issue?

 

I don't know what you mean by "without issue".

 

There is no law that says when an abortion may or may not be performed.  The vast majority of abortions are performed in the 1st trimester, around 99% iirc, the remainder shortly thereafter.  I doubt if any woman or any doctor wants to get involved after that. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I don't know what you mean by "without issue".

 

There is no law that says when an abortion may or may not be performed.  The vast majority of abortions are performed in the 1st trimester, around 99% iirc, the remainder shortly thereafter.  I doubt if any woman or any doctor wants to get involved after that. 

You are claiming there is no legislation. So the question is straightforward. Could a woman at full-term gestation ask for a termination? Yes or No?

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You are claiming there is no legislation. So the question is straightforward. Could a woman at full-term gestation ask for a termination? Yes or No?

 

 

I'm not claiming there is no legislation:  It's a fact.   Is that straightforward enough for you?

 

Of course a woman can ask for a termination.  There's nothing to stop her from asking.  

 

And you can ask me a question, but don't tell me how to answer it.

[A Boy Named Crow]

2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I'm not claiming there is no legislation:  It's a fact.   Is that straightforward enough for you?

 

Of course a woman can ask for a termination.  There's nothing to stop her from asking.  

 

And you can ask me a question, but don't tell me how to answer it.

That's interesting. So in Canada, if you have a baby on a Tuesday and kill it, you'd go to jail, but if you'd terminated on the Monday you'd be in the clear?

 

Makes it sound like the life of the child is determined by location. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

21 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

No they don't.  Canada does not have an abortion law, nor a law on any other medical condition. It has nothing to do with politicians.

Your quote above.

 

So what are you actually talking about?

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

That's interesting. So in Canada, if you have a baby on a Tuesday and kill it, you'd go to jail, but if you'd terminated on the Monday you'd be in the clear?

 

Makes it sound like the life of the child is determined by location. 

That's how I read it too.

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Your quote above.

 

So what are you actually talking about?

 

 

 

You said "politicians somewhere have to draw up legislation".

 

I replied that they don't, citing Canada as an example.

[JFK-1]

18 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

The rationale is moot. The point is that if a Federal right to abortion was so important, it would have been legislated for. 

 

We must be approaching it from a different perspective, the rationale of this decision is all that matters to me. Any decision that affects the entire society, all that matters is the reasoning.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, JFK-1 said:

 

We must be approaching it from a different perspective, the rationale of this decision is all that matters to me. Any decision that affects the entire society, all that matters is the reasoning.

I'm approaching it from the angle that politicians screaming about it after the fact is actually on them for not doing anything about the issue. Abortion legislation across the world is a necessary compromise. There have been opportunities to legislate at a Federal level since 1973 and they've never been actioned. Thus, a reversal could always have happened.

 

Do I agree with what the US Supreme Court has done? No, but then I'm not American and I wouldn't be starting with their system of government in the first place.

[Maple Leaf]

6 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

That's interesting. So in Canada, if you have a baby on a Tuesday and kill it, you'd go to jail, but if you'd terminated on the Monday you'd be in the clear?

 

Makes it sound like the life of the child is determined by location. 

 

The point I'm making is that a woman's pregnancy is between her and her doctor.  In Canada the politicians recognise that, therefore there is no law on the subject.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

4 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

You said "politicians somewhere have to draw up legislation".

 

I replied that they don't, citing Canada as an example.

Cool, so if there is a test case where a woman asks for a termination at 40 weeks, you would be fully supportive of that even though that child can be born and breathe on their own?

[A Boy Named Crow]

5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Cool, so if there is a test case where a woman asks for a termination at 40 weeks, you would be fully supportive of that even though that child can be born and breathe on their own?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

 

Looks like Maple Leaf is spot on in terms of the law, seems pretty barbaric to me, but there you go!

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Cool, so if there is a test case where a woman asks for a termination at 40 weeks, you would be fully supportive of that even though that child can be born and breathe on their own?

 

You're making incredible illogical leaps. 

 

I pointed out that you are incorrect in saying that politicians "have to draw up legislation", and that leads you to ask that absurd question? What does that have to do with you being wrong in your assertion?   Can't you just admit that you were wrong in your statement? 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, A Boy Named Crow said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

 

Looks like Maple Leaf is spot on in terms of the law, seems pretty barbaric to me, but there you go!

Yep. This stuns me, personally. So when does a baby having legal status? When the umbilical cord is cut?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

You're making incredible illogical leaps. 

 

I pointed out that you are incorrect in saying that politicians "have to draw up legislation", and that leads you to ask that absurd question? What does that have to do with you being wrong in your assertion?   Can't you just admit that you were wrong in your statement? 

I'm not. The point of abortion legislation across the world is to effectively say when the mother has protection in the decision to carry or not carry a child and when the unborn child has rights. I accept Canada doesn't have legislation, which stuns me but there you go, but I'm also saying that the point of laws that have been drawn up is to ensure that there are legal rights in decision making.

 

So my "illogical leaps" are where law comes in. If Canada doesn't have those then there are a lot of grey areas which will be open to major legal interpretation. That's why I asked you the hypothetical.

[A Boy Named Crow]

6 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

You're making incredible illogical leaps. 

 

I pointed out that you are incorrect in saying that politicians "have to draw up legislation", and that leads you to ask that absurd question? What does that have to do with you being wrong in your assertion?   Can't you just admit that you were wrong in your statement? 

I suppose you could say they made a call on it, that they wouldn't draw up legislation, but they still have a position, which is not to have a legal position, which in itself is a legal position 🤠

Edited June 25, 2022 by A Boy Named Crow

[JFK-1]

12 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Cool, so if there is a test case where a woman asks for a termination at 40 weeks, you would be fully supportive of that even though that child can be born and breathe on their own?

 

So how many women are likely to ask for an abortion at 40 weeks in a society where you can easily do this far earlier?

 

I would imagine few if any, and if one crazy did as ML said, it's between her and her doctor. And i'm pretty confident the doctor wouldn't be that crazy.

 

You appear to be driving with highly unlikely scenarios.  

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, JFK-1 said:

 

So how many women are likely to ask for an abortion at 40 weeks in a society where you can easily do this far earlier?

 

I would imagine few if any, and if one crazy did as ML said, it's between her and her doctor. And i'm pretty confident the doctor wouldn't be that crazy.

 

You appear to be driving with highly unlikely scenarios.  

Very, very few but the possibility is greater than zero. And you are saying the doctor "wouldn't be that crazy"? What does that actually mean? The whole point of the highly unlikely scenarios that I'm sharing is to show why laws for abortion exist in countries. The baby at that stage is viable outside the womb which no one is arguing. Consequently, if that baby has rights then it also has the right for its life to be protected.

[ri Alban]

18 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Yep. This stuns me, personally. So when does a baby having legal status? When the umbilical cord is cut?

So tell us about your life whilst in the womb. 

 

 

No contraception, no abortion, but guys here's a gun and some handcuffs, keep your wife in check.

[ri Alban]

Northern Ireland is just as bad, is it not. Flat earth bible bashers telling their women what's what.

[Maple Leaf]

6 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm not. The point of abortion legislation across the world is to effectively say when the mother has protection in the decision to carry or not carry a child and when the unborn child has rights. I accept Canada doesn't have legislation, which stuns me but there you go, but I'm also saying that the point of laws that have been drawn up is to ensure that there are legal rights in decision making.

 

So my "illogical leaps" are where law comes in. If Canada doesn't have those then there are a lot of grey areas which will be open to major legal interpretation. That's why I asked you the hypothetical.

 

Abortion has been off the political table in Canada for more than a generation.  As far as most people are concerned, the status quo is the preferred position.  Around election time, some conservative politician occasionally wants to make abortion an issue, but the discussion never gains any traction and that's the end of it. Introducing an abortion law has not been in any party's platform in my memory, if ever.

 

In almost all cases, a woman is under a doctor's care very soon after she misses her menstrual period, so the question of terminating a pregnancy is addressed quickly.  Late term abortions, although hypothetically possible, don't happen.

 

The situation we have here might not be appropriate in any other country, but it's what Canadians want, as repeated polls show.

[A Boy Named Crow]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

So tell us about your life whilst in the womb. 

 

 

No contraception, no abortion, but guys here's a gun and some handcuffs, keep your wife in check.

Memory can't be the determining factor, I can remember nothing before I was about three...so can we kill toddlers? 😶

Edited June 25, 2022 by A Boy Named Crow

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

So tell us about your life whilst in the womb. 

 

 

No contraception, no abortion, but guys here's a gun and some handcuffs, keep your wife in check.

Tell me about your early childhood? Do you remember your first step, your first filled nappy....

[JFK-1]

14 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Very, very few but the possibility is greater than zero. And you are saying the doctor "wouldn't be that crazy"? What does that actually mean? The whole point of the highly unlikely scenarios that I'm sharing is to show why laws for abortion exist in countries. The baby at that stage is viable outside the womb which no one is arguing. Consequently, if that baby has rights then it also has the right for its life to be protected.

 

The whole point, for me, is the 99.9999% remaining, not some imaginary unlikely miniscule fraction of a percentage fringe scenario. There isn't a zero chance that the doctor wont deliberately kill you Harold Shipman style. That's life.

 

Out of curiosity are you religious? I never see anything but the religious right talking about a handful of cells being a baby. It's not a baby. I have a wheelbase in the garage, no one calls it a car.

 

 

[JFK-1]

2 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Memory can't be the determining factor, I can remember nothing before I was about three...so can we kill toddlers? 😶

 

I can remember being in a cot, and having dreams.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

The whole point, for me, is the 99.9999% remaining, not some imaginary unlikely miniscule fraction of a percentage fringe scenario. There isn't a zero chance that the doctor wont deliberately kill you Harold Shipman style. That's life.

 

Out of curiosity are you religious? I never see anything but the religious right talking about a handful of cells being a baby. It's not a baby. I have a wheelbase in the garage, no one calls it a car.

 

 

I'm not religious. I'm not a lawyer either. The point is that if the life is viable outside the womb, in my opinion, then it deserves to be protected.

 

PS And by viable, I am not referring to cases where the baby at a longer term has a fatal foetal abnormality. I am referring to the fact that if a woman had a pregnancy early at, say, 28 weeks, medical staff would intervene to try and save that baby's life because that life can be saved. This is why I bring up legislation.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[A Boy Named Crow]

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I can remember being in a cot, and having dreams.

Fair enough, but you get my point aye? Not remembering the womb doesn't mean you weren't alive then. 

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm not religious. I'm not a lawyer either. The point is that if the life is viable outside the womb, in my opinion, then it deserves to be protected.

 

I'd be surprised if there is anyone on this thread who would disagree with that.