@ThacoBell: I think it's just that the pro-life position fits in better with traditional Christian doctrine and the pro-choice position fits in better with the women's rights movement.
It just seems odd to me. So many of the positions traditionally associated with the Left are about improving the lot of those arpund you. It looks like a complete 180 to me.
Not really adding to the current discussion but: Does anyone else find it really weird that its the Left that is largely pro abortion? The political side of better welfare programs, racial equality, anti anti immigration (I really can't think of good way to articulate that). The party that advocates programs to help people shoved into poverty and held down in ways beyon their control, is the same party that advocates the murder of children because its convienant.
I get that people in general tend to be selfish, but it would really make more sense to me if it was the Right that advocated for abortion. Their motto is basically, "Screw you, I got mine."
Not really.
First - you're framing the entire narrative and question with your bias. The left isnt "Pro-abortion". I'm not trying to convince women to have abortions. We're pro-choice. We feel that this is a health and family related choice that women should be allowed to discuss and make. On a personal note, I do resent the accusation that I advocate for the "murder of children". I disagree philosophically.
Secondly - it comports perfectly within the left to be pro-choice. In several ways. For example - progressivism is about attempting to level the playing field in terms of societal roles. Historically, women werent given the option to make their own decision. Liberalism supported suffrage. Liberalism supports equal pay. Liberalism supports the right of women to make a choice relating to their own body.
Also, liberalism fits economically within the argument of pro-choice, as a lot of times that decision is made (in part) because the person in question cannot feasibly support that child economically. Is it worth it to force several people to live a life in poverty because birth control failed? I dont necessarily think so.
Not really adding to the current discussion but: Does anyone else find it really weird that its the Left that is largely pro abortion? The political side of better welfare programs, racial equality, anti anti immigration (I really can't think of good way to articulate that). The party that advocates programs to help people shoved into poverty and held down in ways beyon their control, is the same party that advocates the murder of children because its convienant.
I get that people in general tend to be selfish, but it would really make more sense to me if it was the Right that advocated for abortion. Their motto is basically, "Screw you, I got mine."
Pro-abortion is really stretching it. I've never met a single person who has openly advocated or cheered on an abortion (I have known and dated people who had them in the past). Late-term abortion almost never happens (I believe something like 4 doctors perform the service in the entire country, mostly because two of them have been assassinated) and many of those occur for legitimate medical reasons. Only 1% occur after 21 weeks.
As for the argument of why the left wants it to be legal?? A woman's life expectancy is about 80 years in this country. I'm not going to force her to gestate and carry a baby for almost a full year of that if she doesn't want to, or can't afford it, or for whatever reason comes up. I'm certainly not going to TELL someone to get an abortion if they don't want one, that would be absurd. This isn't China. A baby (generally) cannot be born healthy into this world without living inside of a woman for 9 months. I am in no position to tell anyone they have to usher in a new human life because of circumstance.
I would prefer unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen in the first place, which requires comprehensive sex-ed, and readily available and cheap birth control. Both of which are policies Republicans have been dead set against for the last couple decades. As Bill Clinton said, "safe, legal, and rare" is what we want. The government already doesn't use tax dollars to fund them because of the Hyde Amendment. Last year, Republicans made the Hyde Amendment permanent. Until the majority of Republicans and Republican voters want to have a serious discussion about the way to REDUCE abortions (which are basic common sense and proven to work) then we kind of come to an impasse. They could also try not passing laws in Georgia barring gay couples from adopting kids.
@BallpointMan "progressivism is about attempting to level the playing field in terms of societal roles. Historically, women werent given the option to make their own decision. Liberalism supported suffrage."
@BallpointMan "progressivism is about attempting to level the playing field in terms of societal roles. Historically, women werent given the option to make their own decision. Liberalism supported suffrage."
Unless you are an unborn child, apparently.
Yeah. Pretty much. In that case, I'm going to defer to the judgement of the parents-to-be. Pro-choice
Actress Cynthia Nixon is making what to me seems like a totally serious primary challenge to Andrew Cuomo in the race for New York governor. Since Cuomo is one of the (if not THE biggest) pimple on the ass of Democratic politics, I wholly support this endeavor. Even if she is simply able to destroy his Presidential aspirations.
@BallpointMan "progressivism is about attempting to level the playing field in terms of societal roles. Historically, women werent given the option to make their own decision. Liberalism supported suffrage."
Unless you are an unborn child, apparently.
If you take both sides of the argument to absolutist positions I think they are equally untenable. I agree that saying a fetus has no rights at all shows a lack of respect for human life, but I think the same can also be said for forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will.
Like so much in politics I think the argument is around how best to balance competing rights. I'm not 100% sure if there are any countries in the world that have an absolute right to abortion on demand, but I rather doubt it. There are examples of countries with an absolute no abortion position, although that's rare. The vast majority of countries fall on the spectrum of allowing abortion in some circumstances, based on various factors, e.g. - age of fetus - origin of conception (was instance was that due to rape) - risk of harm to the mother if pregnancy continues - risk of abnormalities if the child is born
I agree with @Grond0 100%. The right of the mother to her bodily integrity is matters. A lot. Even countries with a duty to rescue (which the US is not, if I remember correctly) do not say you have to risk yourself to do so. No one has the duty to imperil their own health for the sake of another, even if it might be the right thing to do from a moral perspective.
The main argument against abortion remains motivated by religion. Otherwise the focus would be much more on miscarriages in addition to abortion - demanding that research should be done in how to reduce the number thereof.
But I wonder if this thread is the best place to discuss abortion. It has political aspects, but I do not think we are really discussing those.
Yeah, I did specifically ask for non-religious reasons. I'm not sure I got any. I don't know what a "right to life" is, and even if there is such a right, who or what to extend it to is non-trivial. Hence the burger consent question. How do you define this right to life?
It seems conservatives tend to be more hands-on with policies whereas liberals are more hands-off. The abortion stances fit that paradigm.
That... is not remotely true in the United States. Look at gun control, healthcare, taxes, business regulations. They are both "hands on" in certain areas.
I'm not 100% sure if there are any countries in the world that have an absolute right to abortion on demand, but I rather doubt it.
The United States is the nation most close to that unfortunately. We are one of four countries that do not restrict abortion after 24 weeks (the others being China, North Korea, and Vietnam... not the best company). Any reasonable regulation, from waiting periods to informing the parents, are met with slippery slope arguments and shot down by the courts with no textual basis.
Anyone interested in getting a sense of what kind of FBI employee Andrew McCabe was would be well-served to read this Twitter thread, which has actual documents and emails showing the steps he took once his wife decided to run for office, obtained courtesy of FOIA requests. This information does not show a nefarious actor:
Yes, but this begs the question why did the OPR, headed by a Mueller appointee no less, recommend his firing?
I think that people close to the scene (who are NOT political appointees) who were tasked with investigating his misconduct know more than us.
"Do it or your next."
From what I have read, the whole procedure was rushed so McCabe would be fired before his retirement date. It's a kangaroo court system, that as a citizen of the country it happened in, you should be worried.
This isn't to say that McCabe wasn't guilty, but he was owed due process which he didn't get. You also have to remember why he was fired, which is leaking information about the Clinton Email Investigation during the election. If this was a breach of public trust, why did it take the Sessions this long to bring charges against him, especially when the same excuse was used for firing Comey.
He did get due process. Its the same procedure any member of the FBI gets.
I honestly believe that if any other law enforcement official lied under oath (say, about the killing of an unarmed black man) every single person on this thread would call for his firing. It's odd that people are so supportive here.
The right of the mother to her bodily integrity is matters. A lot.
I agree that it matters a lot, but on the balance, when looking at competing goods, protecting innocent life is far more important.
So would you be ok with mandatory kidney donations for people who still have two of them, if there is someone out there who really needs the kidney?
As for protecting innocent life, how far does this extend? Are animals innocent life? Plants? Does any human cell qualify? If I look at the balance of things I see one one side a fully sentient, intelligent woman with dreams, hopes, aspiration and the capability to feel both physical, mental and emotional anguish and on the other side I see something without sentience which might just barely have a pain reflex. I do not see how the balance of competing goods could ever come out in anything but the favor of the woman.
@Re: the religious motivation, I was just saying that it is main motivation, in that without I feel much (but not all) of the opposition would melt away.
I'm not 100% sure if there are any countries in the world that have an absolute right to abortion on demand, but I rather doubt it.
The United States is the nation most close to that unfortunately. We are one of four countries that do not restrict abortion after 24 weeks (the others being China, North Korea, and Vietnam... not the best company). Any reasonable regulation, from waiting periods to informing the parents, are met with slippery slope arguments and shot down by the courts with no textual basis.
The right of the mother to her bodily integrity is matters. A lot.
I agree that it matters a lot, but on the balance, when looking at competing goods, protecting innocent life is far more important.
@booinyoureyes Sorry but this really peeves me. OK, you're agnostic. So is every reasonable person. What is your stance on god belief, though: Do you or do you not believe a god or gods exist(s)? Please drop a pm if you would prefer.
He did get due process. Its the same procedure any member of the FBI gets.
I honestly believe that if any other law enforcement official lied under oath (say, about the killing of an unarmed black man) every single person on this thread would call for his firing. It's odd that people are so supportive here.
Sessions quoted "lack of candor", not lying under oath. It is ultimately not possible to decide at this point whether the firing was justified or not, as the report from the IG is not publicly available (last I checked). We do not even have the full recommendations of the report.
Some other points:
There is evidence that he was targeted by Trump for personal/political reasons (see the tweet from about half a year ago, where Trump already implied that he would try to get him fired before getting his pension)
Being fired by Sessions for "lack of candor" is a joke, given that he basically committed perjury during his confirmation hearing
The president is gloating in such a way that the entire process is tainted beyond repair
Doing it two days before retirement just seems very petty
The report was rushed, according to all accounts
Those are enough reasons to be upset. There is no faith that the process was above board, nor should there be.
The right of the mother to her bodily integrity is matters. A lot.
I agree that it matters a lot, but on the balance, when looking at competing goods, protecting innocent life is far more important.
So would you be ok with mandatory kidney donations for people who still have two of them, if there is someone out there who really needs the kidney?
No one has the right to force another to take an affirmative act to save another's life. But that is not factually analogous to abortion, which is an affirmative act to end someone's life.
He did get due process. Its the same procedure any member of the FBI gets.
I honestly believe that if any other law enforcement official lied under oath (say, about the killing of an unarmed black man) every single person on this thread would call for his firing. It's odd that people are so supportive here.
Sessions quoted "lack of candor", not lying under oath. It is ultimately not possible to decide at this point whether the firing was justified or not, as the report from the IG is not publicly available (last I checked). We do not even have the full recommendations of the report.
Some other points:
There is evidence that he was targeted by Trump for personal/political reasons (see the tweet from about half a year ago, where Trump already implied that he would try to get him fired before getting his pension)
Being fired by Sessions for "lack of candor" is a joke, given that he basically committed perjury during his confirmation hearing
The president is gloating in such a way that the entire process is tainted beyond repair
Doing it two days before retirement just seems very petty
The report was rushed, according to all accounts
Those are enough reasons to be upset. There is no faith that the process was above board, nor should there be.
I'm actually a regular reader of lawfare and actually got most of my information here from the same article you shared. I agree that we don't know for sure if the firing was justified, but almost everything we know at this point certainly indicates that the firing was not wrongful.
The difference between lying under oath and lacking candor under oath is minimal. When someone asks you a question and you evade it, you may well be lying by omission.
I think the most telling part is "So while Sessions made the decision to dismiss McCabe, career officials or otherwise independent actors were involved in conducting the investigation into the deputy director and recommending his dismissal on multiple levels."
You'd expect career officials to have the back of one of their own, as you see with the "blue wall of silence" in almost every law enforcement agency. The fact that they recommended his dismissal speaks volumes.
I don't see how the president gloating makes the process tainted. Unless you can show that he had a hand in it, then there is nothing there. Sessions and Trump may well be scoundrels, but that doesn't mean McCabe has clean hands. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
The right of the mother to her bodily integrity is matters. A lot.
I agree that it matters a lot, but on the balance, when looking at competing goods, protecting innocent life is far more important.
So would you be ok with mandatory kidney donations for people who still have two of them, if there is someone out there who really needs the kidney?
No one has the right to force another to take an affirmative act to save another's life. But that is not factually analogous to abortion, which is an affirmative act to end someone's life.
While I disagree with @ThacoBell that believing elective abortion should be permissible is entirely inconsistent with left-wing ideology, I do find one thing very odd. It seems like the same people who say that every citizen has a moral obligation to provide others with healthcare, housing, income, and food also believe that in the matter of abortion the only person capable of providing affirmative aid to another is under no obligation to do so. The same person who, post-parturition, would have the legal obligation to provide for their child.
@booinyoureyes You can give up the child, can you not...
If, and more realistically, when you find someone willing to adopt or the state to take. As long as the child is in your care, you have a legal duty to care for him or her. You are not allowed to let it starve or freeze. Seeing as you cannot put an unborn child up for adoption, you should have the same legal duty during pregnancy.
@booinyoureyes And what happens when the parent does not fulfill this duty?
In many cases, negligently allowing your child to die through inaction is manslaughter.
Multiple of those hippie new-age medicine and religious extremist types have been charged with involuntary manslaughter for refusing to treat their kids or relying on "faith healing". I personally think that is a correct result.
Another bomb intended for Austin went off at a Fed-Ex plant this morning. A serial bomber is operating with impunity for over a week and thus far, we haven't heard a peep of concern from Donald Trump or Jeff Sessions.
Also, another school shooting this morning in Maryland, because hey, it's Tuesday.....
Comments
First - you're framing the entire narrative and question with your bias. The left isnt "Pro-abortion". I'm not trying to convince women to have abortions. We're pro-choice. We feel that this is a health and family related choice that women should be allowed to discuss and make. On a personal note, I do resent the accusation that I advocate for the "murder of children". I disagree philosophically.
Secondly - it comports perfectly within the left to be pro-choice. In several ways. For example - progressivism is about attempting to level the playing field in terms of societal roles. Historically, women werent given the option to make their own decision. Liberalism supported suffrage. Liberalism supports equal pay. Liberalism supports the right of women to make a choice relating to their own body.
Also, liberalism fits economically within the argument of pro-choice, as a lot of times that decision is made (in part) because the person in question cannot feasibly support that child economically. Is it worth it to force several people to live a life in poverty because birth control failed? I dont necessarily think so.
As for the argument of why the left wants it to be legal?? A woman's life expectancy is about 80 years in this country. I'm not going to force her to gestate and carry a baby for almost a full year of that if she doesn't want to, or can't afford it, or for whatever reason comes up. I'm certainly not going to TELL someone to get an abortion if they don't want one, that would be absurd. This isn't China. A baby (generally) cannot be born healthy into this world without living inside of a woman for 9 months. I am in no position to tell anyone they have to usher in a new human life because of circumstance.
I would prefer unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen in the first place, which requires comprehensive sex-ed, and readily available and cheap birth control. Both of which are policies Republicans have been dead set against for the last couple decades. As Bill Clinton said, "safe, legal, and rare" is what we want. The government already doesn't use tax dollars to fund them because of the Hyde Amendment. Last year, Republicans made the Hyde Amendment permanent. Until the majority of Republicans and Republican voters want to have a serious discussion about the way to REDUCE abortions (which are basic common sense and proven to work) then we kind of come to an impasse. They could also try not passing laws in Georgia barring gay couples from adopting kids.
Unless you are an unborn child, apparently.
Like so much in politics I think the argument is around how best to balance competing rights. I'm not 100% sure if there are any countries in the world that have an absolute right to abortion on demand, but I rather doubt it. There are examples of countries with an absolute no abortion position, although that's rare. The vast majority of countries fall on the spectrum of allowing abortion in some circumstances, based on various factors, e.g.
- age of fetus
- origin of conception (was instance was that due to rape)
- risk of harm to the mother if pregnancy continues
- risk of abnormalities if the child is born
The main argument against abortion remains motivated by religion. Otherwise the focus would be much more on miscarriages in addition to abortion - demanding that research should be done in how to reduce the number thereof.
But I wonder if this thread is the best place to discuss abortion. It has political aspects, but I do not think we are really discussing those.
I honestly believe that if any other law enforcement official lied under oath (say, about the killing of an unarmed black man) every single person on this thread would call for his firing. It's odd that people are so supportive here.
So would you be ok with mandatory kidney donations for people who still have two of them, if there is someone out there who really needs the kidney?
As for protecting innocent life, how far does this extend? Are animals innocent life? Plants? Does any human cell qualify? If I look at the balance of things I see one one side a fully sentient, intelligent woman with dreams, hopes, aspiration and the capability to feel both physical, mental and emotional anguish and on the other side I see something without sentience which might just barely have a pain reflex. I do not see how the balance of competing goods could ever come out in anything but the favor of the woman.
@Re: the religious motivation, I was just saying that it is main motivation, in that without I feel much (but not all) of the opposition would melt away.
Some other points:
- There is evidence that he was targeted by Trump for personal/political reasons (see the tweet from about half a year ago, where Trump already implied that he would try to get him fired before getting his pension)
- Being fired by Sessions for "lack of candor" is a joke, given that he basically committed perjury during his confirmation hearing
- The president is gloating in such a way that the entire process is tainted beyond repair
- Doing it two days before retirement just seems very petty
- The report was rushed, according to all accounts
Those are enough reasons to be upset. There is no faith that the process was above board, nor should there be.I think this article is pretty good summary:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-firing-andrew-mccabe
No one has the right to force another to take an affirmative act to save another's life. But that is not factually analogous to abortion, which is an affirmative act to end someone's life.
The difference between lying under oath and lacking candor under oath is minimal. When someone asks you a question and you evade it, you may well be lying by omission.
I think the most telling part is "So while Sessions made the decision to dismiss McCabe, career officials or otherwise independent actors were involved in conducting the investigation into the deputy director and recommending his dismissal on multiple levels."
You'd expect career officials to have the back of one of their own, as you see with the "blue wall of silence" in almost every law enforcement agency. The fact that they recommended his dismissal speaks volumes.
I don't see how the president gloating makes the process tainted. Unless you can show that he had a hand in it, then there is nothing there. Sessions and Trump may well be scoundrels, but that doesn't mean McCabe has clean hands. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
While I disagree with @ThacoBell that believing elective abortion should be permissible is entirely inconsistent with left-wing ideology, I do find one thing very odd. It seems like the same people who say that every citizen has a moral obligation to provide others with healthcare, housing, income, and food also believe that in the matter of abortion the only person capable of providing affirmative aid to another is under no obligation to do so. The same person who, post-parturition, would have the legal obligation to provide for their child.
Multiple of those hippie new-age medicine and religious extremist types have been charged with involuntary manslaughter for refusing to treat their kids or relying on "faith healing". I personally think that is a correct result.
Also, another school shooting this morning in Maryland, because hey, it's Tuesday.....