US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[pwsusi]

There was a time when the ultra wealthy paid a higher share, I believe I posted the historic marginal tax rates a page or so back, and none of the ill effects you're hypothesizing came to fruition. Innovation didn't stop. The ultra wealthy were still leaps and bounds more well off than 99% of society. We just had money for better social and infrastructure programs.

I was talking about socialism...not a modification of the tax code. I would agree we need serious tax reform, but that is not the same as adoption of democratic socialism.

As for abortion, it's often forgotten that the incubator of that person in potentia is also a person with rights. Pregnancy comes with complications up to and including death. If we refuse to offer comprehensive prenatal care, how can we subject someone to the risks associated?

Comprehensive prenatal care is fine. Killing an unwanted child is something else entirely. Look at the stats of how many abortions have to do with jeopardy of the mother's life or even rape or incest. If we want to have a serious conversation about the edge cases and how to handle them that is reasonable, but to use those few cases as a argument to allow or justify abortion in general isn't. The argument of "policing a woman's body" isn't one of protecting a mother's life in an unusual circumstance, it's a statement indicating that the woman carrying the baby can do whatever she wants regardless of the circumstances or what the father may want (as the father the man should have rights too) . Leaving aside the vast majority of abortions and only speaking of the edge cases. even those will require serious debate and consideration which i believe neither side is ever going to have. Let's face it..if you or i got a woman pregnant and abortion was only allowed if she was raped, what do you think will happen to the number of reported rapes in this country? Now there is a whole different problem of protecting men from such false accusations and with the me too movement mentality it seems you're guilty until proven innocent. That also does a disservice IMO to the woman who is legitimately raped. Not saying these are reasons to deny those unfortunate situations from abortion, but it's not as easy as it may seem on the surface. It's much easier for both sides to just argue all or none.


WHY DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?
Percentage Reason
<0.5% Victim of rape
3% Fetal health problems
4% Physical health problems
--------------------
~7%

4% Would interfere with education or career
7% Not mature enough to raise a child
8% Don't want to be a single mother
19% Done having children
23% Can't afford a baby
25% Not ready for a child
----------------------------------------
86%

6% Other

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I was talking about socialism...not a modification of the tax code. I would agree we need serious tax reform, but that is not the same as adoption of democratic socialism.

Taxes would be the primary mechanism of change.

Comprehensive prenatal care is fine. Killing an unwanted child is something else entirely. Look at the stats of how many abortions have to do with jeopardy of the mother's life or even rape or incest. If we want to have a serious conversation about the edge cases and how to handle them that is reasonable, but to use those few cases as a argument to allow or justify abortion in general isn't. The argument of "policing a woman's body" isn't one of protecting a mother's life in an unusual circumstance, it's a statement indicating that the woman carrying the baby can do whatever she wants regardless of the circumstances or what the father may want. Leaving aside the vast majority of abortions and only speaking of the edge cases. even those will require serious debate and consideration which i believe neither side is mature enough to have. Let's face it..if you or i got a woman pregnant and abortion was only allowed if she was rated, what do you think will happen to the number of reported rapes in this country? Now there is a whole different problem of protecting men (some...not all of course ) from such false accusations. Not saying that's a reaosns to deny those unfortunate situations from abortion, but it's not as easy as it may seem on the surface. It's much easier for both sides to just argue all or none.

Again, been there, done that. We've seen what happens when abortion is illegal.

 

[Cynicanal]

Killing an unwanted child is something else entirely. Look at the stats of how many abortions have to do with jeopardy of the mother's life or even rape or incest. If we want to have a serious conversation about the edge cases and how to handle them that is reasonable, but to use those few cases as a argument to allow or justify abortion in general isn't.

You're aware that this is a self-defeating stance, right? If you think abortion is wrong because it's baby-killing, then rape or incest are irrelevant; neither of those change the fact that you'd be taking a life. Thus, either you have to be against abortion in those two cases as well, or you have to admit that your reasons for being anti-abortion have nothing to do with "killing babies".

 

[pwsusi]

You're aware that this is a self-defeating stance, right? If you think abortion is wrong because it's baby-killing, then rape or incest are irrelevant; neither of those change the fact that you'd be taking a life. Thus, either you have to be against abortion in those two cases as well, or you have to admit that your reasons for being anti-abortion have nothing to do with "killing babies".

I never stated my position on rape or incest...i simply stated it becomes a more complex issue and since they are a very small percentage they shouldn't be used to justify abortions in general. Usually this is the first counter argument to the pro-choice position...which was actually the case above too. It's a red herring.

So using your logic applied to the pro-choice argument, if you think abortion is okay because of a woman's right to choose then it doesn't really matter if it's a baby or fetus or whatever you want to call the thing that is being terminated. Thus, you either have to be in favor of things like late term abortion and/or partial birth abortion, or have to admit that your reasons for being pro-choice have nothing to do with "a woman's right to choose".

I'm not going to make assumptions on what your position is on these nor does it really matter because many pro choice people are not in favor of late term or partial birth abortions. just like many pro life may be okay with certain exceptions. Is that inconsistent, sure. Regardless of either or our personal positions I personally think these bring complexity into the conversation and can understand why people may be inconsistent in their thinking...although i wouldn't go so far to call them self-righteous.
I get your black and white view from an ideology perspective ....but that's often not how actual legislation or compromise plays out

 

[SpaceDock]

4% Would interfere with education or career
7% Not mature enough to raise a child
8% Don't want to be a single mother
19% Done having children
23% Can't afford a baby
25% Not ready for a child
----------------------------------------
86%

6% Other

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

These are not “babies.” They are clumps of cells. Late term abortions are for extreme circumstances, the reasons above are lumped in as abortion but are Morning After pill and other pills that are for very early termination. For centuries it has been common to use herbal means to end pregnancy prior to the quickening, movement of the fetus can be felt internally. It is not normal to kill babies, it is not normal to ban all forms of abortion, giving women the ability to decide their lives when they have an early pregnancy is normal for literally thousands of years.

 

[StevenC]

Sure, but I didn't write that document, so I see no reason why I can't say an idea in it is nonsense.

At this point why anything?

 

[Cynicanal]

I never stated my position on rape or incest...i simply stated it becomes a more complex issue and since they are a very small percentage they shouldn't be used to justify abortions in general.

So using your logic applied to the pro-choice argument, if you think abortion is okay because of a woman's right to choose then it doesn't really matter if it's a baby or fetus or whatever you want to call it. Thus, you either have to be in favor of things like late term abortion/partial birth abortion, or have to admit that your reasons for being pro-choice have nothing to do with "a woman's right to choose".

I'm not going to make assumptions on what your position is on these, but would like to think whether you are in favor of them or not acknowledge that are certainly more complex topics to talk about just like rape and incest are. I get your black and white view from an ideology perspective and consistency in position....but that's often not how legislation plays out.

I'm totally in favor of late-term/partial-birth abortion. No inconsistencies in my stance!

And, no, it's really not a complex topic. If abortion is wrong because it's killing, then it doesn't matter the circumstances that formed that life; abortion is wrong.

 

[pwsusi]

I'm totally in favor of late-term/partial-birth abortion. No inconsistencies in my stance!

And, no, it's really not a complex topic. If abortion is wrong because it's killing, then it doesn't matter the circumstances that formed that life; abortion is wrong.

Cool, i can respect that you're open about and consistent in your thinking with respect to a mother being able to end the life of her child up to and possibility including the birth. With this argument personally i question why not allow it after birth too as the baby is still completely dependent on it's parents to live. But whatever...we're free to agree to disagree and have different perspectives.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

To get meta for a second: does anyone here think that the abortion issue will ever be decisively tackled? Will that ever cease to be a humongous Schrodinger's clusterfuck wherein both sides are both simultaneously wrong and right? I honestly can't see that ever happening.

The problem is, we'll never address the structural issues that lead to the greater majority of abortions, it's just not sexy enough.

- Providing sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

- Affordable/subsidized/free prenatal/postnatal care and family counseling.

- Adequate maternity/paternity leave.

- Expand SNAP/CHIP

Those would all but eliminate abortion as we know it.

I'm 100% pro-choice, but it's not like I enjoy the thought of abortions. I just understand that it's often the most humane option given the situation.

 

[pwsusi]

These are not “babies.” They are clumps of cells. Late term abortions are for extreme circumstances, the reasons above are lumped in as abortion but are Morning After pill and other pills that are for very early termination. For centuries it has been common to use herbal means to end pregnancy prior to the quickening, movement of the fetus can be felt internally. It is not normal to kill babies, it is not normal to ban all forms of abortion, giving women the ability to decide their lives when they have an early pregnancy is normal for literally thousands of years.

Just like there are pro-choice people that have different lines that they draw in terms of when it's okay to abort (20 weeks, vs. late term, etc) people on the pro-life side have lines that they draw too (ex..morning after pill okay vs. not, or some extreme would even argue no condoms even to interfere with God's will). Anyway, The problem with the above argument is that the morning after pill is taken within 120 hours. Most women don't even know they're pregnant until like 6 weeks or so when you have a heart beat, ears, beginnings of arms and legs etc. So the question comes down to when exactly is it no longer just a clump of cells? I would argue once you get into this timeframe it's not exactly the same as taking the morning after pill. How many pro-choice people do you think would be okay with a law that said that was okay but no abortions after the 120 hours.....not many. Thus, the lump of cells argument doesn't really hold...it's more about the freedom to course correct when you later figure out you made a mistake and don't want the baby.

The rape and incest argument is a red herring because if we're truly trying to address that scenario it doesn't take 6 weeks to realize you were raped.. in those cases you would know immediately and the morning after pill would be the likely way to address it...so a law that says abortion exceptions for rape and incest actually make no sense whatsoever.

 

[SpaceDock]

Just like there are pro-choice people that have different lines that they draw in terms of when it's okay to abort (20 weeks, vs. late term, etc) people on the pro-life side have lines that they draw too (ex..morning after pill okay vs. not, or some extreme would even argue no condoms even to interfere with God's will). Anyway, The problem with the above argument is that the morning after pill is taken within 120 hours. Most women don't even know they're pregnant until like 6 weeks or so when you have a heart beat, ears, beginnings of arms and legs etc. So the question comes down to when exactly is it no longer just a clump of cells? I would argue once you get into this timeframe it's not exactly the same as taking the morning after pill. How many pro-choice people do you think would be okay with a law that said that was okay but no abortions after the 120 hours.....not many. Thus, the lump of cells argument doesn't really hold...it's more about the freedom to course correct when you later figure out you made a mistake and don't want the baby.

The rape and incest argument is a red herring because if we're truly trying to address that scenario it doesn't take 6 weeks to realize you were raped.. in those cases you would know immediately and the morning after pill would be the likely way to address it...so a law that says abortion exceptions for rape and incest actually make no sense whatsoever.

I did not say only morning after only. I said “and other pills” and these run into the first 10 weeks normally. This is a very early stage that is not the characterized abortion that many will use to horrify people. This is a rational timeframe I hope most can agree grants women the ability to decide their life without “killing babies.”

 

[narad]

For centuries it has been common to use herbal means to end pregnancy prior to the quickening,

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Just came across this, thought it was interesting.

 

[Evil Chuck]

I was talking about socialism...not a modification of the tax code. I would agree we need serious tax reform, but that is not the same as adoption of democratic socialism.

Comprehensive prenatal care is fine. Killing an unwanted child is something else entirely. Look at the stats of how many abortions have to do with jeopardy of the mother's life or even rape or incest. If we want to have a serious conversation about the edge cases and how to handle them that is reasonable, but to use those few cases as a argument to allow or justify abortion in general isn't. The argument of "policing a woman's body" isn't one of protecting a mother's life in an unusual circumstance, it's a statement indicating that the woman carrying the baby can do whatever she wants regardless of the circumstances or what the father may want (as the father the man should have rights too) . Leaving aside the vast majority of abortions and only speaking of the edge cases. even those will require serious debate and consideration which i believe neither side is ever going to have. Let's face it..if you or i got a woman pregnant and abortion was only allowed if she was raped, what do you think will happen to the number of reported rapes in this country? Now there is a whole different problem of protecting men from such false accusations and with the me too movement mentality it seems you're guilty until proven innocent. That also does a disservice IMO to the woman who is legitimately raped. Not saying these are reasons to deny those unfortunate situations from abortion, but it's not as easy as it may seem on the surface. It's much easier for both sides to just argue all or none.


WHY DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?
Percentage Reason
<0.5% Victim of rape
3% Fetal health problems
4% Physical health problems
--------------------
~7%

4% Would interfere with education or career
7% Not mature enough to raise a child
8% Don't want to be a single mother
19% Done having children
23% Can't afford a baby
25% Not ready for a child
----------------------------------------
86%

6% Other

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

I'll just say, that like many of you here, I was fine with abortion being legal and honestly never gave it too much thought. The semantics used like "choice" and "clump of cells" made it easy for me to to hand wave it away. It didn't effect me personally so I didn't see much point in stressing over it or advocating that abortion be outlawed.

Then I had a kid and the thought of my child not being in my life completely changed my view on abortion. It's true that most abortions are performed for purposes of convenience, and that truth is something that I have a hard time reconciling.

A society that calls abortion "healthcare" when abortions are almost always performed "because I can't be bothered", is not a well society.
A society that enables several hundred thousand abortions a year, without even batting an eye, even celebrating it as some sort of human rights victory, is not a well society.

To @Cynicanal above who said he / she supported partial birth and late term abortions, it's honestly depressing that someone could be so callous. It's easy to make a post on the internet about supporting such a thing, but I wonder if you had to witness a partial birth abortion in person if you'd be so quick to throw your support behind it.

Obviously, nothing I say is going to change anyone's mind, but maybe if there's someone out there reading this who is pro-life, or even just questioning the rhetoric from the other side, just know you aren't alone in your feelings.

 

[bostjan]

@SpaceDock For sure. I agree with a good bit of what you said. However, I recognize that I am super biased on abortion due to some personal things I rather not post online.

@bostjan And I agree with much of what you said. As I said earlier, Trump wasn't my first or second pick either during 2016 Primaries. Also, no politician is 100% truthful. As well as I will likely never agree with 100% a politician does. So sometimes it's the lesser evil, and hoping the checks and balances of the system work.

The two party system is only in our heads. You do realize that you can vote for anyone, right?

Going back to the beginingish of this thread, I was saying all along that if the DNC nominates HRC and the GOP nominates DJT, the only option is to vote for not a major party candidate to tell these twits that they cannot get away with that nonsense. What if the GOP nominated Hitler and the DNC nominated Stalin? Would you still vote for the lesser of two evils?

These are not “babies.” They are clumps of cells.

Are you not a clump of cells, though?

The abortion debate is very likely not something we want to dive into any more than we already have. Suffice it to say that different folks define a human being as different things when it comes to prenatal development, and that there is no objective answer, and never will be. Therefore no one will ever "win" any argument concerning that topic, nor any other topic in which people get to make up their own definitions of the terminology used in the topic.

But applying this conversation back onto Trump, there are people who feel very strongly about abortion, and are convinced that the USA is a two party government, so, if you put Stalin and Hitler as the two candidates, and said that Hitler was anti-abortion and also wanted to commit genocide, and Stalin was pro-choice and also wanted to commit genocide, these people would vote for Hitler, based on pro/con compare/contrast. The only fallacy in their logic would be the assumption that no third choice was allowed.

To be clear, Trump is not Hitler, and HRC is not Stalin. Neither of them are nearly as bad. I made the hypothetical situation for rhetorical purposes, because the left thinks Trump is going the direction toward Hitler, and the right thinks Sanders is going in the direction of Stalin, and both sides' common denominators see these candidates starting the nation down a potential slippery slope.

And I agree that we need more moderate candidates on both sides of the aisle if our government is ever going to get any work done. Sadly, we won't see anything like that in the next 4 or 8 or probably 12 years. Obama tried to work with compromises, and it just alienated his base without impressing his opponents. We needed more like him, but, on his own, he ended up being an ineffective leader, because the people he was leading were, as a group, idiots.

 

[InHiding]

 

[narad]

Whatever your political leanings, you have to concede -- the conservatives' meme game is WEAK.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

From dsausa.org

"Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."

The "few" that are making the profits are doing so because they took risks that others didn't. If the argument is that once successful someone else should dictate what they do with their earnings then I'd like to see what the democratic socailists are going to offer those that are unsuccessful. Why take a risk if the rewards are taken away yet you still assume all of the risk? Might as well take the easier path and work 9 to 5 and not take the risks and tell everyone else they should be doing with their money. I would argue this would kill innovation and you would not have many of the things we enjoy in society today. People go to work to make money. There is always someone lower on the totem pole...and just like we wouldn't want them telling us what to do with money we work 9 to 5 for we shouldn't be telling people a notch or two higher on the ladder. The interesting term used here is "ordinary americans". Deincentivize enough "extra ordinary" americnas and soon everyone becomes ordinary and we have a whole different society....i would argue not for the better.

As for the comment above "Would you mind explaining what's "small government" about policing womens' bodies?"
In a free society you are able to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of someone else. Assuming you believe the entity in a woman's womb is a human being, terminating it is a violation of that person's human rights. So it has nothing to do with policing a woman's body and more about ensuring the rights and freedoms of the person who's life is being ended by their parents. Whether or not one believes the being in a woman's womb is a person is a whole other discussion. Then you get into when questions about when it becomes okay to kill it...moment of conception? heartbeat? development of limbs? arbitrary # of weeks? moment it is delivered? Like i said that's a whole separate debate but to call it a policing a woman's body is either disingenuous or not understanding the other side's position. Even though you may or may not agree that a person's life is being terminated...that is the belief of the counter argument which means it really has nothing to do with the woman's body and more about protecting the rights of the helpless baby. Just like most are probably not in favor of the government policing our paychecks or bedrooms, most would probably agree that it may be okay to intervene if that money spent infringed on the rights of someone else (example buying a slave, sex trafficking, sex with minors etc). Same concept...do what you want as but you can't infringe on the rights of others.

When we had higher tax brackets up until the 70's for the wealthy, literally none of this happened.

I never stated my position on rape or incest...i simply stated it becomes a more complex issue and since they are a very small percentage they shouldn't be used to justify abortions in general. Usually this is the first counter argument to the pro-choice position...which was actually the case above too. It's a red herring.

So using your logic applied to the pro-choice argument, if you think abortion is okay because of a woman's right to choose then it doesn't really matter if it's a baby or fetus or whatever you want to call the thing that is being terminated. Thus, you either have to be in favor of things like late term abortion and/or partial birth abortion, or have to admit that your reasons for being pro-choice have nothing to do with "a woman's right to choose".

I'm not going to make assumptions on what your position is on these nor does it really matter because many pro choice people are not in favor of late term or partial birth abortions. just like many pro life may be okay with certain exceptions. Is that inconsistent, sure. Regardless of either or our personal positions I personally think these bring complexity into the conversation and can understand why people may be inconsistent in their thinking...although i wouldn't go so far to call them self-righteous.
I get your black and white view from an ideology perspective ....but that's often not how actual legislation or compromise plays out

You're equating the circumstances of early term abortions with those of late term abortions. You can't do that as the reasons for one are not generally the reasons for the other. In order for your premise to work, the reasons for making the choice in early term and late term would have to generally be the same. Since they are not, as late term and partial birth are generally due to fetal viability and risk to the mother's life vs. contraception in early term, your statement literally holds no water rationally as its a logical fallacy under the guidelines of false equivalence.

 

[StevenC]

Whatever your political leanings, you have to concede -- the conservatives' meme game is WEAK.

r/therightcantmeme

 

[narad]

r/therightcantmeme

Holy shit. It's like the entire Rigtalk OffTopic got its own subreddit.