Progressives, part 3...

posted by Heretic

I mean, if you're true left-wing, you should be (quietly) celebrating this. With how the secondary party tends to make gains when the other party holds the power combined with how Biden's approval rating is at a level where the word "approval" probably shouldn't be used to describe it, the Ds were looking FUBAR as far as at least the mid-terms go.

And now you have a hot-button issue to go all-out on the attack against, using all the Trump-level exaggerations and falsehoods imaginable in order to fire up the base and get people to the polls. I mean, if one Supreme Court leak is sufficient to dispel the apathy that Biden's presidency has generated, then that's a victory.

Because, today, that's all that politics are.

You’re smart enough to know the next outrage news cycle is only a month away, and the Dems will go full retard (already have) with their messaging, which will cancel out any gains they make from this leak. 

November is a long way from now, but I don’t see this being the mega shift some believe it will be.  A lot of people overestimate how important abortion is to the general voting public. 

posted by jmog

The 2 million couples on waiting lists for abortion will take care of the immediate “triage” need. The babies won’t end up in the foster care system like Kizer believes.

There's no list of people waiting to adopt. Of course, you knew that. There's estimates (which I'm sure you googled too) that say between 1 million and 2 million people. I can see why you chose 2 million since it helps your argument. For the sake of even helping your argument... lets assume 2 million is right (which of course, it isn't.) There's upwards of 1 mil abortions in the US... EVERY YEAR. There's already 400,000 kids who can't find homes...RIGHT NOW. even with a 2 million back log of people looking for adopt babies... how long do you think that's sustainable? It's not 2 million couples joining the list every year.  But the abortions happen...every year. Even when you factor some states won't outlaw it... abortions happen in every state. Even the red ones that vote against their interests.  If you look at only the 23 states that have some sort of abortion or trigger laws on the books or in place, last year there were 390k abortion just in those 23 states. When you factor in  a majority of abortions are other than white (33%) and adoption rates are much slower for non white babies... it doesn't take a math major to realize that number, totaling yearly, far outpaces adoption rates. But by all means.. keep your head in the sand.  

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abortion-rates-by-state

posted by jmog

A scenario where abortion becomes illegal everywhere tomorrow is asinine and not even worth talking about.

That is unless you don’t understand the leaked possible ruling and the Constitution.

If the ruling is true it relinquishes the law to the states just like it was before RvW. 

Knowing that reality, and combining that zero blue states and 99% change no purple states will overturn their laws, my numbers are right about what reality will look like.

Sorry, I try to live in the real world not in some dystopian fantasy that isn’t real.

The ruling, if real, says states choose, less than 40% of the people live in deep red states, so my numbers are about as accurate as can be. 

Even if it was 100% illegal everywhere the adoption backlog would still last over 2 years. 

It was a hypothetical in order to ask a philosophical question.   

posted by kizer permanente

There's no list of people waiting to adopt. Of course, you knew that. There's estimates (which I'm sure you googled too) that say between 1 million and 2 million people. I can see why you chose 2 million since it helps your argument. For the sake of even helping your argument... lets assume 2 million is right (which of course, it isn't.) There's upwards of 1 mil abortions in the US... EVERY YEAR. There's already 400,000 kids who can't find homes...RIGHT NOW. even with a 2 million back log of people looking for adopt babies... how long do you think that's sustainable? It's not 2 million couples joining the list every year.  But the abortions happen...every year. Even when you factor some states won't outlaw it... abortions happen in every state. Even the red ones that vote against their interests.  If you look at only the 23 states that have some sort of abortion or trigger laws on the books or in place, last year there were 390k abortion just in those 23 states. When you factor in  a majority of abortions are other than white (33%) and adoption rates are much slower for non white babies... it doesn't take a math major to realize that number, totaling yearly, far outpaces adoption rates. But by all means.. keep your head in the sand.  

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abortion-rates-by-state

You know you just reiterated what I said, with basically the same numbers, but tried to do it while pissed off and trying to refute what I said.

You can’t back me up angrily and try to pass it off as refuting me, it doesn’t work.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It was a hypothetical in order to ask a philosophical question.   

In other words no where near the reality of what may happen. We could ask what will happen if 100% of this year’s babies are born with Down syndrome and how we would deal with that but it’s just a mind exercise that could never and would never happen.

Just like what yours is.

posted by jmog

You know you just reiterated what I said, with basically the same numbers, but tried to do it while pissed off and trying to refute what I said.

You can’t back me up angrily and try to pass it off as refuting me, it doesn’t work.

if you think what I posted agrees with your logic and reaffirms your logic, you're too far gone.

posted by jmog

You’re still wrong.

47% of people identify as pro life in a recent study I saw. 49% as pro choice and 4% said they didn’t understand (no idea how).

So it isn’t the vast majority that support RvW, that is just factually incorrect.

You would be right if you said the vast majority are at least ok with abortions in the cases of rape, incest, and mother’s life. Only the far extreme right is not ok with abortion in even those cases.

But the vast majority does not support RvW, like I said, its not even a majority and it’s barely a plurality.

I consider myself "pro-life"  I wouldnt want anyone to kill or abort a baby.  However that doesnt mean I believe that my beliefs should be forced upon others.  I firmly believe that people have the right to choose.  So IDK what exactly the parameters were of the questions on your survey.

posted by jmog

In other words no where near the reality of what may happen. We could ask what will happen if 100% of this year’s babies are born with Down syndrome and how we would deal with that but it’s just a mind exercise that could never and would never happen.

Just like what yours is.

It was a philosophical question as to whether pro life supporters have considered the ramifications of no abortions (or less abortions) on other facets of society.  It was not intended as some battle of logic.  I don’t know what else to say about it. 

posted by geeblock
I consider myself "pro-life"  I wouldnt want anyone to kill or abort a baby.  However that doesnt mean I believe that my beliefs should be forced upon others.  I firmly believe that people have the right to choose.  So IDK what exactly the parameters were of the questions on your survey.

So, what’s your red line?

posted by like_that

So, what’s your red line?

not sure i understand what you are asking.  

Understanding the liberal mind is quite the challenge:  on one hand they are happy to fine and imprison you for disturbing a sea turtle egg on the beach; on the other hand they have no problem ending the life of an innocent unborn human.   

There is no reconciling this mental disturbance. 

posted by QuakerOats

Understanding the liberal mind is quite the challenge:  on one hand they are happy to fine and imprison you for disturbing a sea turtle egg on the beach; on the other hand they have no problem ending the life of an innocent unborn human.   

There is no reconciling this mental disturbance. 

Pro Life!

NEW: Texas Governor Greg Abbott says he wants to challenge SCOTUS ruling requiring states to provide children free public education pic.twitter.com/GdDdJZo7dj

— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) May 5, 2022

posted by geeblock

Pro Life!

NEW: Texas Governor Greg Abbott says he wants to challenge SCOTUS ruling requiring states to provide children free public education pic.twitter.com/GdDdJZo7dj

— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) May 5, 2022

It’s a bit more nuanced than that (per a 2 second google search). They want to challenge having to provide free education to illegal immigrants, which the current party in charge is doing nothing to slow down.

Coming in late on some things here, so a summary of thoughts:

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

-jmog: If life begins at conception as you have said, where is the line now on what is acceptable abortion? Is it the moment of conception? Do we want government dictating when that is? Is Plan B considered an abortion under your definition? 

I also hope you are right about adoptions. I do. However, I do think that women will be less willing to part with their children post birth, and as on average they are lower income, will be more a strain on the system. 

I am very interested to see if religious, pro-life organizations follow through with their talk and actually push more support services for lower income parents now, and offer more bridges on adoptions. I am not holding my breath though. 

You have mentioned that the country is half and half. It is. But, the big thing is a very small number of Americans are in favor of getting rid of abortion totally. Most have a nuanced view that RvW should stand, there should be abortion, but it should be properly regulated, but still be available. What we are seeing in more and more states goes against American public opinion and more and more out of the mainstream. 

Again, here in Ohio, a bill is being debated, which would make zero exception for rape and incest, which is way outside the norm. There are more politicians on record giving quotes saying there should not be any exceptions now. That is again, outside the norm. 

I am also very interested to see any language where the exception is health of the mother. What does that mean? If someone is told by their doctor their body cannot handle a pregnancy and they get pregnant, can they get an abortion? 

posted by QuakerOats

Understanding the liberal mind is quite the challenge:  on one hand they are happy to fine and imprison you for disturbing a sea turtle egg on the beach; on the other hand they have no problem ending the life of an innocent unborn human.   

There is no reconciling this mental disturbance. 

I mean... in one case its someone else disturbing someone else's eggs. In the other is a woman terminating her own pregnancy.  I don't think anyone is demanding arresting a mother turtle for abandoning her eggs. Vice-versa, no ones ok with someone else deciding to cut a fetus out of a woman's stomach and discard a pregnancy when she wants to have a baby. They get arrested for that too. 

But I can see how that would be hard for you to understand, I guess?

posted by ptown_trojans_1

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

Not a Republican, but I have less problem with my state dictating things that are at least specified by the state constitution as opposed to the myriad of things the federal government has its nose in without any constitutional authority.

posted by queencitybuckeye
Not a Republican, but I have less problem with my state dictating things that are at least specified by the state constitution as opposed to the myriad of things the federal government has its nose in without any constitutional authority.

Precisely.  But this decades-long increase in federalism is really about liberals pushing their views where they can't win elections.

States can and do plenty where they find federal law/resources lacking.  But that's never enough for radicals - places you'll never go and people you'll never meet HAVE to live by your values.

IMO, there's largely three criteria for what the federal govt should do.  1) widespread public supermajorities (i.e. roads & bridges). 2) efficiency of scale (education, but perhaps an example of why a govt shouldn't do something even when it might make sense) and 3) where inconsistent law state-to-state creates problems (i.e. commerce).

I can't see where abortion satisfies any of those 3 conditions.  I think most of what the federal govt does fails to meet all 3 of those conditions.

posted by kizer permanente

I mean... in one case its someone else disturbing someone else's eggs. In the other is a woman terminating her own pregnancy.  I don't think anyone is demanding arresting a mother turtle for abandoning her eggs. Vice-versa, no ones ok with someone else deciding to cut a fetus out of a woman's stomach and discard a pregnancy when she wants to have a baby. They get arrested for that too. 

But I can see how that would be hard for you to understand, I guess?

It's a macro-type illustration; on the one hand liberals value turtle life to the point of punishing anyone who disturbs their egg; on the other  hand liberals champion those who destroy unborn human life.    Very, very, strange, and sad. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Coming in late on some things here, so a summary of thoughts:

-I understand federalism. It is just funny how Republicans are totally fine with state governments dictating elements of our lives. I think states are just as bad as screwing things up and overreaching. 

-jmog: If life begins at conception as you have said, where is the line now on what is acceptable abortion? Is it the moment of conception? Do we want government dictating when that is? Is Plan B considered an abortion under your definition? 

I also hope you are right about adoptions. I do. However, I do think that women will be less willing to part with their children post birth, and as on average they are lower income, will be more a strain on the system. 

I am very interested to see if religious, pro-life organizations follow through with their talk and actually push more support services for lower income parents now, and offer more bridges on adoptions. I am not holding my breath though. 

You have mentioned that the country is half and half. It is. But, the big thing is a very small number of Americans are in favor of getting rid of abortion totally. Most have a nuanced view that RvW should stand, there should be abortion, but it should be properly regulated, but still be available. What we are seeing in more and more states goes against American public opinion and more and more out of the mainstream. 

Again, here in Ohio, a bill is being debated, which would make zero exception for rape and incest, which is way outside the norm. There are more politicians on record giving quotes saying there should not be any exceptions now. That is again, outside the norm. 

I am also very interested to see any language where the exception is health of the mother. What does that mean? If someone is told by their doctor their body cannot handle a pregnancy and they get pregnant, can they get an abortion? 

I don't think anyone said they are "fine" with being "dictated" to by state government, it is just that they prefer to be governed, if consent is granted, on a more local basis.  I would much prefer to be governed by a state that requires a balanced budget for instance, knowing my taxes are being spent more wisely than at the federal level, and also knowing I am not being impoverished and enslaved by massive deficits.  There is simply far more accountability at the local and state levels, than there is at the federal level, which is virtually unaccountable for everything. 

posted by geeblock

Pro Life!

NEW: Texas Governor Greg Abbott says he wants to challenge SCOTUS ruling requiring states to provide children free public education pic.twitter.com/GdDdJZo7dj

— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) May 5, 2022

Come on geeblock, you aren’t that stupid.

It’s not “children” it’s paying for free education to illegal immigrants.

God that’s in QO’s level of stupidity to post that like it’s gospel