Is anybody interested in listening to points of view different from one's own?

[beckiefalwell]

Lizz Winstead talks about Kroger Supermarket;

Want to talk about inflation?

 

[PaxNurgle]

Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.

Not if Trump gets elected.

Then it will be 100% The Government's responsibility, 100% The Government's body, 100% The Government's choice, 100% The Government's power and 100% The Government's decision. It's like that in Idaho already. Women in this state are little more than The Government's Grade-A breeding stock, and have virtually no rights when it comes to pregnancy.

This is what Trump and Project 2025 want to do to ALL women in America. But then again, treating pregnant women like Government Property is one of your "kinks," right?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I watched a wretched drama play out recently here in Texas where conservative dogma and religious intolerance created a situation that almost killed a woman in the name of ideological purity.

A woman was happily pregnant at 28 weeks, getting ready to welcome her new viable baby into the world, when disaster struck. Her baby suffered a catastrophic failure in the womb, the baby's skull collapsed and the nascent brain within died. The child had zero chance of survival outside the womb at this point without a functioning brain.

The dead fetus began to decay inside the mother. The mother's blood still flowed into the fetus via the umbilical cord, but necrotized (rotting) tissue entered the mother's body and began to poison her via sepsis. The mother's body did not realize it was pumping blood into a rotting carcass, there was no miscarriage.

Things of this nature are unfortunate but do occur in a very small numbers.

In the days of Roe, the decision would have been relatively easy: administer a medication that forces the womans body to expel the remains of the fetus.

In a Post-Dobbs world, though, the fee-fees of SimonDoom and "his majority of Americans" reduce the status of the woman to a mere birthing vessel, their ideological purity demand that the potential life of a brain-dead fetus is superior to that of a living mother.

The woman must by necessity die for the ideological purity of those disgusted at the thought of third trimester abortion, with no exception.

This is why all-out bans are utter nonsense in any trimester. This is why we should leave the decisions to abort between a doctor and a patient. The Roe decision applied "strict scrutiny" to third trimester abortion, which provided a path for women to survive these unexpected disasters.

Many states now claim to have exceptions "to save the life of the mother" but in reality they refuse to pre-authorize any specific procedure, instead telling the OB doctor to abort the baby as he/she sees fit and they will render judgement in a court of law as to whether or not the doctor may keep his license after the fact. No doctor wants to risk his/her career on an arbitrary and capricious court. This is now the new norm in Texas and Louisiana, among other states.

If you are in favor of a complete ban on abortion in the third trimester, I hope and pray that a castestrophic fetal collapse does not fall upon you (if female), your wife, your lover, your daughters, sisters, mother, aunts or granddaughters. If a catastrophic fetal failure DOES in fact affect one of your female loved ones, I'd be interested in hearing whether your beliefs have changed at all. I've found people's inflexible core beliefs change quite a bit when they or someone they love are personally affected.

Abortion is basic health care, your feelings on the matter notwithstanding.

I have nothing but utter contempt for anyone suggesting an unconditional ban on abortion.

 

[Wylie3]

Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.

If that is the case then Women have 100% the right to an abortion if they want one.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The less intelligent among us usually pivot to "PREVENTION" long before this.

The "PREVENTION" they mention (hey, that rhymes!) is not PREGNANCY prevention, it's SEXUAL prevention, i.e. patriarchal control.

What it basically boils down to is "slut shaming" and (to use Project 2025's creator's verbiage) "making sex dangerous again".

These folks are not about "PREVENTION", they're about control over unmarried sex.

It's not gonna happen.

 

[AlexBailey]

Wow. Dishonest much? Can you cut and paste a quote of me saying that? Here's a clue: emotions are not tools of cognition, and your emotions obviously drive every thing you say and do.

Which is preferable, a woman having an abortion, or that women not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?

The "abortion debate" is an asinine logjam. Stepping back to PREVENTION makes that debate moot.

Which you likely already understood, you're just so much of a shill for the liberal agenda, you feel compelled to be a troll.

The asinine logjam came in with you.

Do you have a workable concept of how society should be structured or is this just a fixation?

Are you like the guy yelling on a street corner pushing your version of the good book?

Part of the purpose for the US Constitution - stated in its preamble, is that it will promote the general welfare, then it goes on to describe how decisions are to be made and that we will democratically elect our representatives….

Do you promote overthrowing that system?

Maybe you aren’t talking about this country, maybe you’re evangelizing for future generations…. whatever your quixotic agenda, what’s your plan?

Your consent is surrendered in this country with an opportunity to participate within the framework of the constitution. If you think government has it wrong you are welcome to join the frey and do something within it, or you can simply vote.

Are you just playing the part of an Objectivist proselytizer?

Ayn Rand’s life is a case study that proves social security ‘promotes the general welfare’. Her life is proof that her philosophy can let anyone’s plans fail. Our society has decided to have a safety net for any citizen’s benefit. It may help you someday too.



We can talk about the benefits to the general welfare of social investment in education and infrastructure later.


“The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.” - Bertrand Russell

 

[TastySuckToy]

If that is the case then Women have 100% the right to an abortion if they want one.

Yeah, I've repeatedly argued that position.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Wow. Dishonest much? Can you cut and paste a quote of me saying that? Here's a clue: emotions are not tools of cognition, and your emotions obviously drive every thing you say and do.

Which is preferable, a woman having an abortion, or that women not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?

The "abortion debate" is an asinine logjam. Stepping back to PREVENTION makes that debate moot.

Which you likely already understood, you're just so much of a shill for the liberal agenda, you feel compelled to be a troll.

Even with widespread use of contraception, ready access to legal abortion is important for saving women’s lives. Pregnancy is dangerous. If something goes wrong with fetal development or the mother’s health takes a nosedive, often termination is the only option to save her life or her capacity to have children in the future.

There is no rational reason to oppose abortion, only emotions.

 

[jaF0]

Says who? This is not a universally accepted principle. If we accepted this, then we shouldn't worry about climate change and environmental despoliation, because the consequences will be felt not by those who live today, primarily, but by those who will live (hypothetically) in the future.

Over 100 tons of dead fish collect at Greek port after climate-related mass die-off​

ABC|48 minutes ago
Authorities say more than 100 tons of dead fish have been collected in and around the port of Volos, in central Greece, following a mass die-off linked to extreme climate fluctuations ...

 

[jaF0]

Says who? This is not a universally accepted principle. If we accepted this, then we shouldn't worry about climate change and environmental despoliation, because the consequences will be felt not by those who live today, primarily, but by those who will live (hypothetically) in the future.

More Than 1,000 Viruses Unknown to Science Found in Melting Ice​

"This at least indicates the potential connection between viruses and climate change," researcher ZhiPing Zhong said.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Wow. Dishonest much? Can you cut and paste a quote of me saying that? Here's a clue: emotions are not tools of cognition, and your emotions obviously drive every thing you say and do.

Which is preferable, a woman having an abortion, or that women not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?

Which is preferable? A woman not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Easy answer, right?

Sadly, while it SHOULD be that easy...it's not!
Why?

Because many of the SAME PEOPLE and the SAME ORGANIZATIONS that are basically trying to reduce women to nothing more than state-owned breeding stock, are, at the same time, trying to take away all forms of contraception and birth control.

They are trying to ban or restrict access to morning-after pills.
They are trying to ban or restrict access to birth control pills.
They are trying to outlaw sex-education in schools, and restrict information on family planning and contraception.
There are even efforts to make condoms and IUD's harder to obtain.

These are things that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies. But ironically, many of the same militantly pro-life organizations, people, and political figures are AGAINST these things. Why would they be against them?

Simple. Because abortion was never the end game. They basically want to outlaw all sex that is non-procreative or pleasurable. Control people's sexual behavior; it's about repression, power and control. Even if abortion is outlawed nationwide, for any and all reasons, these people will not stop there- and they have said so. It's one of the planks of Project 2025 in fact.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.

Oh, not at all. A guy has to get it up and get it in. THAT is a conscious choice by the male. If he doesn't want a baby, he shouldn't stick it in. 100% his choice. 100% his responsibility. 100% his dick. 100% his sperm.

 

[RobDownSouth]

More Lizz Winstead, the creator of the original Daily Show.

Good clip, but it is a bit jarring seeing Lizz Winstead with white hair.
In my mind's eye, she was still the supercute head writer with brown hair on The Daily Show way back in the 1990s when Greg Kilborn was the host and she was the first political reporter.
30 years passed so quickly!

Embarrassing admission: I thought the Daily Show would disappear once Kilborn stepped down and Jon Stewart took over. But then, I also thought Amazon would fail bigly once they branched out their website to sell stuff other than books. Guess I'm not much of a futurist.

 

[jaF0]

Good clip, but it is a bit jarring seeing Lizz Winstead with white hair.
In my mind's eye, she was still the supercute

Lizz Winstead, not cute.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead, cute.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lizz Winstead, not cute.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead, cute.

Mayhaps. Can we at least agree that Jamie Lee Curtis absolutely rocks white hair?

 

[jaF0]

The queen of white hair is/was Emmy Lou Harris.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.

Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.

I enjoy investigating different points of view. I prefer that they be presented with more civility, learning, and intelligence than they usually are on internet websites.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Oh, not at all. A guy has to get it up and get it in. THAT is a conscious choice by the male. If he doesn't want a baby, he shouldn't stick it in. 100% his choice. 100% his responsibility. 100% his dick. 100% his sperm.

That's not pregnancy, that's sex. Men and women have equal responsibility for engaging in sex.

Having sex is not agreeing to or consent to have a baby. Unless you're actually against abortion.

 

[ChloeTzang]

That's not pregnancy, that's sex. Men and women have equal responsibility for engaging in sex.

Having sex is not agreeing to or consent to have a baby. Unless you're actually against abortion.

Sex results in pregnancy. Having sex is, de facto, consenting to the implied risk. You stick it in, you share responsibility for the end result. If men don't want babies, they should keep their dick in their jeans. Or shorts. Or trousers. Or kilts. Or whatever. And stay celibate. Guy don't stick it in, woman don't get pregnant. Except for Jesus, and possibly Donald Trump the Second Messiah, their ain't no virgin births. Ergo, some dude with a dick done something to someone. Dickee shares responsibility.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Sex results in pregnancy.

I wasn't talking about sex, I was talking about pregnancy, and only pregnancy.

And I already agreed that engaging in sex is a fifty fifty responsibility between two people. Sex is completely irrelevant to my point.

 

[dmallord]

I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.

Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.

You offer an observation. Please, offer a solution. Then the sea lions and sharks can ridicule you like any of the sane and sensible members who stay afloat here.

 

[dmallord]

I read your posts and consider the content when replying. You align with the political left and your posts indicate that you, while more thoughtful because you attempt to clandestinely convey that you're "above it all" even though it's obvious that you're not when your posts are dissected, have many of the same end goals embraced by the moderate political left. For you, the ideals of the political right are shunned. Not because the ideals are bad, but because those ideals belong to "those people" and therefore cannot be trusted. Which is a slap in the face to your own neighbors and friends.

The needle doesn't move here because this forum, like many, is infested with trolls whose only purpose is to make themselves feel powerful. Laurel refuses to delouse her own creation and that gives the trolls the belief they have power. Of those who actually come here to learn and discuss current events and issues, I have seen several change their opinions. Admittedly I'm one of them who changed for what I believe to be the positive. I've also seen members go full rabid fuckwit in the opposite direction.

I don't "instantly brand" people. I do, however, find that particular trait more prevalent in those who espouse the Leftist viewpoint. One need only review the replies to my posts to see the truth in that.

You do brand people. You don't ever support a counter rebuttal even when reasoned input. You keep to your biases.

Readers here label you as a contrarian for the most part. One with Trumpian cataracts.

 

[dmallord]

These are ALL Leftist talking points. The same rancor, the same words, the same lack of rational, the same hate.

You want to show me that you're not a leftist? Speak truly about Trump and his achievements when he was President. Speak truly about the constant lawfare against the policies he tried to do when in office. Speak truly about which party engages in lawlessness as a matter of course. And speak truly about which party stokes violence as a tactic against the people.

Pick one and speak the truth.

You are incapable of recognizing Truth. Why should anyone point out the truth when you are incapable of accepting it?

Your mind is closed and should be declared 'abandoned.'

 

[dmallord]

I don't know what that means. There are plenty of women who share this perspective.

It doesn't bother me, but I think it's a silly thing to say.



There you go. You have to believe it's bad faith. Exactly the problem I was raising.



And if that's so, then the voters of those states are perfectly free to toss out the anti-abortion politicians with those who will vote on laws to protect the rights they want. That's democracy. It's a process, and it doesn't always result in the laws you want. But that doesn't make it undemocratic.



Critics of Roe have, from the very beginning, pointed out that this is exactly what the majority in Roe did: they ignored what the Constitution actually said and made up a right that nobody previously had ever thought it encompassed. Have you read the opinion? I'm a lawyer. I've read it, and thousands--I mean, literally, thousands-- of legal opinions.

I believed in you! Up to the point you said you were a lawyer! Another Arpy? Damn the sea lions are gonna get eaten fer sure!

 

[dmallord]

OK, I'll bite.

What makes a Supreme Court decision on whether something is a right under the Constitution sound?

There are a variety of different interpretive principles we can use to answer the question. Every law student learns these principles in law school.

First, is the claimed right grounded in the text of the Constitution? Nearly every judge and legal scholar I can think of claims that the text is at least important, if not always determinative. You should be able to point to words in the Constitution and make a good-faith argument that the right is grounded in that text.

Second, you can look at statutory history. Why was the text enacted? What was said about it? What was the law meant to do? What was its purpose?

Third, you can look at how the language would have been understood at the time the language was enacted. This is originalism.

Fourth, you can look at the function of the language within the context of the document as a whole. Would interpreting the text in X way create problems for the purpose of the Constitution? Would you be opening the gate to arguments about rights that might seem outlandish (i.e., does a right over one's body mean one has a constitutional right to ingest cocaine?).

Fifth, you can look at precedent. What legal precedents support acknowledging the right in question? How strong are they and how long have they been recognized? Would the decision upset existing precedents (thereby violating the principle of stare decisis)?

Sixth, you can look at evolving societal standards. For example, a narrow historical reading of the 8th amendment might mean recognition of methods of torture or punishment that nearly all people today would disapprove of. Probably most judges take this into account even if they don't always admit they do.

You don't have to be a strict textualist, originalist, or formalist to take these interpretive principles seriously to at least some extent. Nearly every single judicial decision I've read (I've read thousands) uses some combination of these principles to determine whether a decision is right or wrong.

One thing most people acknowledge is not appropriate: a judge doesn't get to just say, "Damn the law, I think X is the right result and I'm going to rule that way regardless of what the law says." Most judges, lawyers, and scholars would say that's not "right," and feel some duty to make their decision fit with the law, even if some realists among them might concede that some decisions do, in fact, get decided that way. I personally think that's too cynical. I think most judges try to get an answer that they believe is "right" while also trying to base their reasoning on interpretive principles that give their decision legitimacy and weight. A judge is not supposed to be a super-legislator who overrules the law just because he or she personally disagrees with it, no matter how strongly they feel.

Roe is a weak opinion by virtually all of these principles. It's based on the Fifth Amendment, but there's nothing in the Fifth Amendment language of Due Process that refers specifically or even generally to a right of abortion, or even the broader right of privacy that its predecessor decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, enunciated. There's nothing in the statutory history of the Fifth Amendment that refers to abortion. Nobody in 1791 or 1865 would have understood the language to include this right. Finding a right of abortion in the Fifth Amendment opens up the interpretation of the language to other broad "privacy" rights, such as the right to take recreational drugs, based on a theory of privacy and right over one's body, which many would find objectionable. The legal precedent for the abortion right was weak. Griswold, which created a constitutional right to contraception, was probably the least textually tethered case in US Constitutional history; Justice Douglas openly said he wasn't trying to find it within any specific language, but only within the broad "penumbras" of constitutional language. And as far as societal standards, as of the time Roe became law there was no clear consensus on abortion; most states had laws that were more restrictive than what Roe required, so Roe in its day was not in any way a "democratic" opinion that represented a consensus of societal standards. It was ahead of its time from the standpoint of public opinion.

If you want a more thorough discussion of the topic than I can give in this thread then I recommend going on line and finding the Dobbs opinion and reading Alito's analysis of Roe, which I mostly agree with, and read John Hart Ely's essay The Wages of Crying Wolf, and if you want a more thorough discussion of the issue of Supreme Court legitimacy read Ely's book Democracy and Distrust. Of course, if you read the Dobbs dissent you'll get a lengthy rebuttal to Alito's analysis, so you should read that too. I read both and I found Alito's analysis much more persuasive, although I am pro-choice.


If people disagree with me about Roe, that's fine. I won't call them stupid and I won't accuse them of bad faith. But don't accuse me of bad faith, either, and don't try to assert the obviously false statement that reasonable people cannot have legitimate differences in point of view about abortion, Roe, and Dobbs. Obviously, they can.

Okaaaay. Mr lawyer. I read this three times. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your claim that you want to engage in a legitimate debate. It's been a long time since I've read anything at this erudite level, so forgive my slowness in digesting it in bits and pieces.

I'll hand it to you; you are not like Harpy. My bad–for thinking that might be the case. Arphy would have been frothing over the subject matter and accusative or at least telling his attacker to go F* themselves. You are not that guy, in my view.

So, please hang around. Don't jump ship or ride off on a sea lion. This was well put together and persuasive. Now, I need time to digest it.