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

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

i guess i dont really understand what were arguing about

i'm just hijacking gbx's interesting opinions tbh. sorry if there's a thread for that.

i think there some situations where irresponsible young ladies take "the easy way out,"

I think this is 100% myth. It's the kind of thinking that goes along with "poor people are poor because they are lazy".

There are very few things that are 100% myth. The myth part of that is not that these women don't exist, it's that they make up anywhere near a sizable percentage of the women getting abortions.

xp

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.

well, yes, i'd agree. that's why (and this in response, really, to max's suggestion that we continue the dialogue with the right), that the people that are sitting on the fence (ie - don't like abortions but grudgingly accept that they're out there ~legal or not~) might be swayed by suggesting that
--if you concede that some abortions should be legally allowed
--and if you think that the gov't shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship (the govt should not have the right to disallow a person's access to care if they have it. receiving treatment (privately, at least) is no one's business). this is a ~real~ RIGHT TO LIFE
--then it follows that legislation that disallows some abortions and disallows others fundamentally violates that relationship. case closed.

now, people COULD then say that they're fine with abortions being legal, but that they don't want to pay for it. that's FINE. THAT is a political debate. i don't want my taxes supporting wars and the death penalty, but here we are.

xp DAN OTM

I think even the most hedonistic liberal harlot, even if she gets through weeks f physical pain w/o feeling any emotional sadness, still cries about it from time to time. It's a sad thing you know, even to those who have the abortions.

sadness does not always equal regret

"poor people are poor because they are lazy"

accepting that someone, somewhere, is poor because he or she is lazy is not the same as agreeing that yes, poor people are poor because they are lazy.

anyway, max: i'm not really arguing about anything! i'm on spring break and thinkin baout things. i was just trying to think of how the left can engage the right's constituency (not the politicians) in a dialogue on abortion that doesn't give ground on a woman's legal right to have one. THAT debate is over, and ought to remain that way. anyone that thinks we can renegotiate Roe or that we ought to, in a spirit of fair play, can gtfo imo, you are playing for the bad guys

Feeling bad afterward doesn't preclude you from being an irresponsible lady who thought she was taking the easy way out up until you had the procedure. It also doesn't automagically make you never consider having another abortion. You're building up just as much of a unicorn as the people you're decrying.

The fact of the matter is that the motive is immaterial; it is the woman's business and it should remain between her and her doctor unless she chooses otherwise.

women can have abortions but should be publicly whipped, shamed after

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

― Mr. Que, Friday, March 19, 2010 10:01 AM (1 hour ago)

otm, i've made some enemies in pharm school by basically yelling at people who don't agree with this

massive xp
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.

amid the lolz there is a core of potentially awesome protest logic in this. have no idea if there is a christian scientist/pro-choice overlap but it would be good to see.

now, people COULD then say that they're fine with abortions being legal, but that they don't want to pay for it. that's FINE. THAT is a political debate.

Which makes Stupak's demurrals all the more retarded.

automagically!

I mean yeah if "the easy way out" = "abortion", no questions asked, then it's kind of pointless of me to say it's not really all that easy for these people, or point out the hardships for someone going through the process.

Let's be clear. If a woman chooses to be a wanton harlot, it's still her choice to make. I wouldn't recommend being dumb about contraception and protection, but the moral argument that abortion encourages harlotry leaves me entirely cold.

"wanton harlot" = how nineteenth century of you!

what do you expect from a dandified fop

Not looking very dandified today - wearing blue jeans and a blue shirt. Maybe I just escaped from prison.

amused by your uncertainty on the issue

lol

time travelling debtor's prison escapee

i always find it hard to believe, but i guess representatives and senators who vote "yes" to HCR might pay a severe price in november.

i guess the only answer is pass HCR fast, and spent quality months rehabilitating the vote with constituents.

If only they could make things like discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and dropping coverage in the middle of when it's needed most, if they could make the most important and visible parts go into effect THE DAY they sign it, then wouldn't the voters have a nice 6 months of living w this new improved system before deciding if they hate it or not?

Daniel,

The result: Repeal 45%, expand 29%, leave as is 18%.

That essentially adds up to 45% against and 47% for.