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

xp!

then again I'm coming from a position that holds that staunch pro-lifers aren't fit to be physicians.

100% agree with this. this goes for pharmacists who don't want to fill birth control scripts as well.

I kind of want to go to convert to Christian Scientist, go to pharmacy school and hold some poor pharmacy hostage by staunchly refusing to fill anyone's prescriptions for anything while alerting the news to my principled stance.

This would totally end in tears for me, I know.

so what

You're a fucking genius

interestingly, I have a few pro-choice legally but pro-life philosophically fellow students that think I am basically a bad person for thinking that. I mean, these ppl would still perform medically indicated abortions, but aren't comfortable with it, and think there needs to be a diversity of opinion in the medical field. and while I'm I'm favor of diversity of opinion, I cannot countenance the idea that some of your future MDs would feel righteous and good if they withheld care from a woman seeking it. they'd grimace through surgery on an ACTUAL murderer, but perform an abortion? no sir!

/so what/

You're a fucking genius

^_^

Wait suddenly Morbs is sticking up for nuance or something?

think there needs to be a diversity of opinion in the medical field

Haha, plz send these ppl to me for immediate trepanning and administration of leeches.

all the "gov't can't tell you what to do with your body" rhetoric in the world has zero impact on ppl who think another fully human body is involved; I think everyone should've figured that out by now.

morbs otm!

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.

― goole, Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You could argue that in a privileged/wealthy society, rhetoric is the base issue to everything.

i am interested tho--what do you and gbx and j0hn think would happen if "we" (the democratic party?) went rhetorically hard-line (i guess this involves kicking anti-choice democrats out of the party?) and refused to concede anything in the debate?

yes but what does that mean? srsly? so they hold spiritual beliefs that disallow abortion (and believe me, the prolife movement is inextricably rooted in an appeal to the supernatural, and the fact that there might be an exact moment that a blastocyst becomes a ~human~): what, then, are we in favor of choice supposed to do? according to y'all, a hardline stance is a bad choice, as is an appeal to law (it's already legal you guys)---what does that leave?

ha xp to max

a multilateral stance that allows for certain concessions in the hopes of reaching a larger, stable goal, i.e., electoral politics?

It's not about conceding the debate, it's about reframing the terms of the debate to make your position stronger.

sorry not 'multilateral'

or: what is there to concede?? that abortions can be sucky for some people? ill grant that, it's not exactly an easy thing for many women to do. but, again, so what. lots of things are emotionally trying, but that's no reason to limit them

a multilateral stance that allows for certain concessions in the hopes of reaching a larger, stable goal, i.e., electoral politics?

vague as hell imo. again: what concessions ARE there in this? no coverage under a natl plan?

It's not about conceding the debate, it's about reframing the terms of the debate to make your position stronger.

in which case: abortion is a medical issue, full stop.

i mean i think one problem with this conversation is that were not being clear about what 'concessions' were talking about? there is a certain apocalyptic tone to some of the posts on this thread, like democrats have given up a major, major point in the abortion debate, when essentially nothing is changing since the hyde amendments first passage in 1976. no federal funds are going to abortion now, none were ten, twenty, thirty (or for that matter forty!) years ago, and none will once this bill is passed.

"You're gonna have to take this baby from my cold, dead hands."

http://www.worsethanhitler.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/scalia.jpg

Personally, I think hammering the legal aspect of abortion is exactly correct, and that informing people who are against it that they are free to attempt to change the law to make abortion illegal and also free to avoid professions and circumstances where they may encounter it as much as they can, but, since abortion has been granted constitutional protection, arbitrary restrictions on it are unconstitutional and should not be tolerated.

xp: I am going to say this again; the issue is not that something is being given up, the issue is that something continues not to be fought for. What you are seeing is a strong reaction to yet another lost opportunity to correct something that has been wrong for 34 years.

xp: I am going to say this again; the issue is not that something is being given up, the issue is that something continues not to be fought for. What you are seeing is a strong reaction to yet another lost opportunity to correct something that has been wrong for 34 years.

^^^ this

also, like, what if you frame it this way:

-- do you believe that what takes place between a doctor and patient ought to be private from everyone else in the world?
-- yeah
-- ok then

because abortion is ALREADY LEGAL, this should be a foregone conclusion; a woman should be able to see a fukkin GP (imo) and get an abortion and just not have to worry about picketers and going to a special clinic and talking to a counselor (unless she wants one) and what the fuck ever. it is a procedure that has real, tangible, medical uses, and that is not dangerous most of the time. ergo: it should just be on the fukkin menu imo. but for some reason (lol politics), very few liberals are willing to be that forthright and, more importantly, that non-chalant about it. abortion as a right is a big deal. if you are pro-choice, however, i think you should be comfortable with the idea that, much of the time, medically, abortion really ISN'T a big deal. THAT's the stumbling block here, imo.

i realize that it might be bad politicking, but i wish some fucking liberal would have the fortitude to just come out and say that "abortion is just like this medical thing that happens between women and their care providers. it's legal, there's compelling reasons for it to remain that way, let's just move on. the ~debate~ is over." i dunno. i mean i know that HALF the country has POWER and HATES abortion but fuck 'em. making concessions in the public discourse just gives them reason to believe. crush their dreams, tbh

i realize that it might be bad politicking, but i wish some fucking liberal would have the fortitude to just come out and say that "abortion is just like this medical thing that happens between women and their care providers. it's legal, there's compelling reasons for it to remain that way, let's just move on. the ~debate~ is over." i dunno. i mean i know that HALF the country has POWER and HATES abortion but fuck 'em. making concessions in the public discourse just gives them reason to believe. crush their dreams, tbh

you cant really just call a debate "over" dude!

i mean, HOW does one crush their dreams? try and cram anti-hyde amendment language into your health-care bill? but the health-care bill wont pass! and that wont crush their dreams--it will embolden them!

i wish some fucking liberal would have the fortitude to just come out and say that abortion is just like this medical thing that happens between women and their care providers. it's legal, there's compelling reasons for it to remain that way, let's just move on. the ~debate~ is over

this would be so awesome.

interesting nyt article this morning about how the issue for congressional democrats now is less will there be enough votes to pass HCR (there will, apparently), but which of them facing tough elections in november will be given permission by the leadership to vote "no" on HCR.

also in today's nyt, a nice editorial about the benefits of the HCR bill. apologies if these have been linked before.

sure i can! ppl didn't use to think that blacks didn't deserve to vote or be in the same schools as white people, but eventually everyone that thought that had to get used to it.

put it this way: if i cannot in any way concede that abortion should, under some circumstances, be rationed/disallowed, then what else there for me? the right to abortion is not a political issue for me. most democratic legislation IS political---maybe school vouchers really ARE a good idea! i think there a host of reasons they are not, most of them informed by ethical concerns, but i'm willing to place that in the court of public opinion. but not abortion. a woman's right to choose is a civil right. the end.

wait, some confusing double negatives up there, u kno what i mean

the right to abortion is not a political issue for me.

everything is a political issue. to everybody.

Didn't some Democrats vote for the civil rights legislation in '65, knowing damn well it'd cost them their seats? Proof perhaps that fed politicking isn't quite biz-as-usual, it's worse?

is the death penalty a political issue, or a personal issue for only those involved?

(just thrown that out there)

do not get me started on the death penalty, i don't have enough tinfoil hats for everybody

but, to contrast what i said: while i think that a healthcare provider's opposition to abortion is unseemly (and unprofessional, in a deeper sense of the word), i do not think that we should prohibit them from practice. it is my ~opinion~ that anti-abortion docs are rong, but obv they should be just as free to do their thing as anyone else. and most, obv, are dedicated caregivers to the patients they actually serve; it just bums me out that this blindspot exists. but, ultimately: their opinion shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not a woman has the right to a safe and medically-administered abortion.

i believe that i have the legal right to a tinfoil hat tbh

like where does the populace fall in terms of views on abortion:

-- *blows up a clinic*
-- totally wrong, you are killing a person with a soul that enjoys the same rights as you and i, from the moment the sperm crashes into the egg
-- very wrong, you are killing a person that has some rights, and i'm not sure when that actually happens, but it's def before birth so we should just cut everything off at the pass, and not allow abortions

~~~~~~~~VALID "POLITICAL" ARGUMENTS START HERE IMO

-- same, but i think that since embryos become people somewhere between conception and birth, there's probably a decent way to estimate where that is, and allow pre-person abortions, and disallow post-person ones
-- same, except that post-person abortions are ok in extremely extenuating circumstances, like if mom is gonna die
-- i think that abortions are a bummer, but that's life, and i wish ladies wouldn't get them, so i think that they should be allowed, just don't go telling me about it or thinking that it's a fun thing to do
-- abortions can be traumatic for many women (and their families), and i think there some situations where irresponsible young ladies take "the easy way out," but that's no reason to make them illegal. they are a part of life.
-- i don't care if they're traumatic or if some women get "frivolous" abortions---they should be legal, and it's none of your business.
-- babies aren't babies until they come out of their mom. what happens before that is entirely the mother's business, and fuck you if you disagree. getting an abortion is just a part of womanhood (tho not an essential one, obv), and the sooner we get used to the idea, the sooner women will enjoy a position in society where their reproductive rights are so not anyone's business that we even feel compelled or entitled to debate them in a public forum
-- *kills a baby*

-- *masturbates in front of a baby*

-- i don't care if they're traumatic or if some women get "frivolous" abortions---they should be legal, and it's none of your business.

This is where I am, but with added misanthropy: if quick and easy and legal abortion rights is tearing apart the fabric of society, big deal -- it's just Mother Nature aborting one of her own babies, the human race.

But that's saying more about me than about politics, so never mind, carry on, etc.

superimpose the extent to which people think that the doctor/patient privilege is a sacred thing, and again the extent to which people have a right to free/affordable healthcare.

the venn that delineates the overlap of 'doctor/patient' and 'politically valid imo arguments on abortion' and i think you'll find that it's a lot of the voting US electorate. the convincing that remains, as far as public debate goes, is that the doctor/patient relationship overrules the public's right to ~know~ what women are doing with their bodies. which is to say: to legislate the right to abortion (after conceding that SOME abortions are medically warranted), is to invade the doctor/patient relationship (at what point is an abortion illegal? is it a time-limit? is it a detailed and easily identifiable gestational transition? what?) in a way that fundamentally invades a person's right to privacy (as it is laid out in the constitution). Legislating abortion would be like saying that drug addicts get bumped on the organ transplant list if a clean-living mother of two needs a kidney, too.

I mean, it's a bit ironic to hear the right get worked up about the supposed rationing of health care, and death panels, and the like, when, in aiming to eliminate or tightly control abortion, they are doing precisely that.

The troubling facts are that polls have shown abortion rights to be less popular than than ten years ago, that in many states, like the Dakotas, abortion access doesn't really exist or is in a very tenuous state, that, as exemplified by the Citizens United ruling, the right-wing of the SCOTUS is willing to revisit prior judgments...

As much as I understand the importance of Roe for women, the concrete importance of it in many cases, I also worry for the larger implications of backing away from an implied right to privacy on a whole host of issues.

~~~~~~~~VALID "POLITICAL" ARGUMENTS START HERE IMO

presumably iyo they finish somewhere above the 'kills a baby', right?

Legislating abortion would be like saying that drug addicts get bumped on the organ transplant list if a clean-living mother of two needs a kidney, too

wait you don't do this over there?

(NB- i don't think we do this over here either)

presumably iyo they finish somewhere above the 'kills a baby', right?

but what if that baby really needs killing

presumably in mercy after seeing a masturbation

-- totally wrong, you are killing a person with a soul that enjoys the same rights as you and i, from the moment the sperm crashes into the egg
-- very wrong, you are killing a person that has some rights, and i'm not sure when that actually happens, but it's def before birth so we should just cut everything off at the pass, and not allow abortions
-- same, but i think that since embryos become people somewhere between conception and birth, there's probably a decent way to estimate where that is, and allow pre-person abortions, and disallow post-person ones
-- same, except that post-person abortions are ok in extremely extenuating circumstances, like if mom is gonna die

See, but the problem is, even if you believe one of these, you can neither protect that "unborn person's" rights, nor disallow an abortion, without violating the pregnant woman's right to sovereignty over her own body. I realize rights are often a balancing act, but in this case, I don't think that people's spiritual beliefs -- even if that covers half the country! or more! -- are so sacrosanct that they merit violating another human being's rights over their own body.

^ I agree with you here, but I'm not sure that 'spiritual beliefs' is the right term?

As much as I understand the importance of Roe for women, the concrete importance of it in many cases, I also worry for the larger implications of backing away from an implied right to privacy on a whole host of issues.

GOP leaders secretly hope roe is never overturned. it would stir a tidal wave of liberal anger (like the right now enjoys among pro-lifers), and it would also cut into their libertarian-leaning constituency (who value privacy in all -- well, most -- things).

i think actually it's a bit more complicated than that (C-L would probably know), but basically, no. or can at least say, to the best of my knowledge, that transplants are generally only performed on people that can afford the risk, medically. if a despicable criminal is an otherwise healthy candidate for a transplant, they can't suddenly take the intended kidney and give it to a kid that got into a car accident, because he's nicer.

i'm not sure that there could ever be a 'tidal wave' of liberal anger in the way that the right can conjure one up at will tbh