US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

I mean from the pov of pro-lifers, Planned Parenthood isn't a "legitimate medical establishment" either, really. they're an abortionist front group dontcha know

xp

I mean from the pov of pro-lifers, Planned Parenthood isn't a "legitimate medical establishment" either, really. they're an abortionist front group dontcha know

right, but they're performing services under the auspices of the AMA. there are standards, and they're easy to determine, it's not like there's any argument about whether abortion is a legal medical procedure. it is. an "abortionist" is just a doctor. so, we don't really need to engage the pov that there's anything to be discussed there, any more than we need to take into account Christian Scientists on the question of whether medication is a sin.

what do you mean there's no argument? i'm absolutely confident my side of the argument is true, but that's not the same thing is it. you always compare the anti-abortion position to something that is totally fringey like xtian science, you really can't do that. it isn't.

this editorial made me so fucking mad:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704743404575127540906168462.html

I know there are 1000 things that should make me discount this, beginning with "WSJ" and continuing on to "Fred Barnes" but still, the amount of bullshit irrelevancy in this is astounding.

christian science healthcare plan would solve out-of-control medical cost$

goole and velko both otm

you always compare the anti-abortion position to something that is totally fringey like xtian science, you really can't do that. it isn't.

that a lot of people agree with it doesn't legitimize it imo. how many people believe we should be able to pray in school? the anti-abortion position is that unscientific whether it has broader support or not -- I mean, if we put evolution to a national referendum, I can pretty much guarantee there'll be Young Earth Creationism in schools after the election. Fortunately, "lots of people agree with my insane position" isn't something we're bending to on that side yet. Give it time tho!

how is anti-abortion unscientific again?

1) abortion is a legal medical procedure
2) the end

with democrats like iatee on board though I know we can look forward to lots more "acknowledging" the alleged complexities of this issue until women's rights have been further eroded in the name of party unity

Isn't it general lack of party unity/discipline that's responsible for right-erosion?

no I'm afraid the rot is in the wood Philip

i really don't understand you j0hn. the fact that half the country, half!, is uneasy about/doesn't like/flat out hates abortion doesn't legitimize their ideas it TO ME, but they VOTE, that's the PROBLEM, they don't NEED legitimization, they have POWER

the way you are arguing here, it's as if you believe the democratic party's squishiness on reproductive rights CAUSED the "pro-life" movement to come into being.

do you think if "we" were rhetorically hard line all the time, that half of the country -- and the people who represent their sentiments -- are going to go away? give up? rhetoric is not the base issue here, as i said before.

lots of things are medical procedures that are in ethical grey areas, like lobotomies.

j0hn I am pretty firm on my moral convictions, but I don't think that anyone who disagrees with them is objectively, scientifically wrong and must be treated as such. in fact, the only people I know who do act like that are a. orthodox religious people b. you.

John, so how do we get 60 Dems elected in the Senate and a required majority in the House who will take the women's rights position? And if we do not have enough such votes, do we just leave health care alone under the current system?

the way you are arguing here, it's as if you believe the democratic party's squishiness on reproductive rights CAUSED the "pro-life" movement to come into being.

goole, it's not they caused it to come into being: it's that they gave it, and continue to give it, power & legitimacy. it doesn't matter whether half the country & the people who represent, etc., "go away," nor is it even desirable - these are entitled to their beliefs & to peaceful protests & even civil disobedience: they should follow the dictates of their consciences within the confines of the law & human decency. but the people who protect & uphold the constitution need not concede any ground to people who object to its content, and abortion's constitutionally protected, for the moment, anyway.

j0hn I am pretty firm on my moral convictions, but I don't think that anyone who disagrees with them is objectively, scientifically wrong and must be treated as such. in fact, the only people I know who do act like that are a. orthodox religious people b. you.

you're a treat iatee. this has nothing to do with anybody's moral convictions. luckily, moral convictions are a private matter. are you arguing that abortion is not a legal medical procedure? I bet I can show you a law that says it is!

kinda am feeling J0hn on this line of argument, although I'm not sure that anything less than a civil war will actually decide the issue one way or the other

The whole inability to deal with science OR sex OR wimmin is just part of the 'other side' in the cold civil war we seem to be having.

John, so how do we get 60 Dems elected in the Senate and a required majority in the House who will take the women's rights position? And if we do not have enough such votes, do we just leave health care alone under the current system?

finally, before I clock out for the afternoon (I think Morbius has the 3-11 today): this is the correct and sane q imo - but of course, despite the people who get all pissed with me, I'll say again, I think the bill should be passed. I don't think kissing the asses of people who oppose a matter of settled constitutional law is a victimless strategy, though, and I think the people who'll pay most dearly for the ground ceded by such a strategy are 1) poor women who can't afford to take care of more children and 2) the children themselves. I think that's worth pointing out, especially in a time when so many Democrats, on the evidence, are keen to turn matters of medical science over to a popular vote.

this abortion debate has "nothing to do w/ anybody's moral convictions"

um...

are you trying to say anything other than "abortion is currently legal"?

I'm pro-choice and have even helped out friends who have had abortions, but to say that anti-abortion stance is "unscientific" and thus invalid is pretty silly. The reasons pro-lifers don't like the idea of abortion aren't just limited to fundamentalist Christian dogma, you know.

so many Democrats, on the evidence, are keen to turn matters of medical science over to a popular vote.

give me a fucking break j0hn, this isn't what i was arguing and you know it. drive by bullshit like this is conduct unbecoming.

That said it's funny and characteristically ironic that the political stance that says "Keep government out of my health care!" the loudest is also the one that most wants government to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

cept for them it's not an issue of what 'they can and can't do with their bodies' but it's a moral issue about murder

Given how no one purportedly reads the bills in their entirety, how hard would it be to sneak de facto abortion funding in (without actually mentioning the procedure)?

Yeah but why can't we trust the free market on this matter? I thought it was the shining beacon of capitalism even more important than democracy!

the politicians don't read it, other people do

give me a fucking break j0hn, this isn't what i was arguing and you know it. drive by bullshit like this is conduct unbecoming.

OK I get overtime pay for this but it's iatee who keeps making the "but people are against abortion!" argt like it should have any bearing on anything - it's a right, that's settled law, the end

Bill! http://rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4606

re: sneaking abortion coverage in, they could call it something like coverage for "removal of growths/tissue that significantly affect the health of the patient" and it can cover everything from tumors to fetuses, but no one would catch it's implications until it's passed?

I actually don't want them to do that. I want the issue moved forward. Sneaking coverage in is also ceding the larger issue. I don't know how people closer to the front lines than me feel about it. The general idea though is to discuss medical procedures in a frank and honest way - you give credence to the "abortion is shameful" ppl if you try to sneak it through.

on a different subject (OR IS IT) yglesias posts a map of the ideological positions of different occupations and their giving habits:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/occupationsBIG.jpeg

the republican map is fringier, narrower and more concentrated on its own end of the map. the democratic map is wider, shallower, and has a funny double peak, one in the left, one right on the center. fascinating shit.

so, wait, no occupations are to the right of car dealers??

wait, so which is more conservative, car dealers or oil/gas barons

yeah I don't get it - the rightwing is composed of nothing but car dealers and oil/gas employees? that doesn't seem right

is "being Rick Santorum" an occupation?

dunno! the categories are a little weird. i wanted to see clergy on there, but their clout is not $$ clout anyway, is it.

xps

america loves its cars

also, do they mean hedge fund managers or the actual hedge funds themselves, because that has frightening AI implications

Maybe the social conservatives are giving to churchy things and pressure groups instead?

here's the explanation

http://abonica.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/ideological-rankings-of-occupational-categories/

I'd be more interested to see that done w/ 2004

obama-2008 isn't really that representative of a normal political year

Christ the font on that PDF is hard to read.

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf

Obamacare must really be as close to a done deal as possible, because The Corner is in full panic mode.

yep

bring it on, motherfuckers

cept for them it's not an issue of what 'they can and can't do with their bodies' but it's a moral issue about murder

Eh, it's not even that, because with a lot of these jokers, when you start asking them what the various jail terms or other penalties (fines? execution?) should be for women, doctors and other parties, they start hemming and hawing "Uh, er, um, well, you know, I don't mean THAT." It really is about controlling what women do.

"but people are against abortion!" argt like it should have any bearing on anything - it's a right, that's settled law, the end

Nothing is ever settled. We could have a Constitutional Convention or just enact amendments to the Constitution and let's not forget that slavery was inscribed into our very Constitution once, too. They think it's murder and legitimizes fornication. Oddly, medieval canon law is against them: murdering a pregnant woman was only one murder.

This is a good place to argue for states rights/Federalism: let Alabama and N. Dakota et al., criminalize abortion and see how many people wish to stay there. The only way to settle this is either civil war and all its subsequent rancor or putting real pressure on these states. You want subsidies to keep America obese? Stop telling my daughter/wife/sister/friend what she may or may not do with her own body while the fetus is not viable. Fight for your principles, by all means, but know that California, New York, etc., will receive all your gays and all your victims of patriarchy 'cause your're such flaming assholes.