Sorry @ineth, that doesn't prove what you wrote about the Democratic Party position despite your use of the word "force" to lean in.
The fact is that Democratic policies of lifting up women and poor folks have resulted in far fewer abortions being performed than the Republicans philosophy of punishment or shaming women into not having them. Do you want to actually stop abortion as opposed to talking about it or raising tons of money to do it without ever actually planning on stopping it? Like the Republican Party has done for many years now. You know, the Republican Party had complete control of the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court from 2000-2006. @ineth did they ban abortion then? Did they even so much as submit a single bill to do so? The answer is no, because they have no intention of doing anything about it as long as they know they can whip people into a frenzy over it and get their votes without ever doing what they said they would do.
@Ayiekie Two separate things are going on here. 1. The video talks about the CRISPR technology that could be used to cure genetic defects in people. Good thing, we want this, or most of us would, I believe. 2. It brings up an old notion of eugenics and defeats one of its main detractions (namely restricting people on whom they can reproduce with). But what about the other downsides of eugenics? Who decides what is "correct" genes or traits? How can people in power abuse something like eugenics (which has already happened with the Nazis) when it is combined with the awesome power of CRISPR? And what do we lose by eliminating diversity in our gene pool?
The fear is that abortion will be combined with eugenic philosophy and CRISPR technology to become an accepted or even desired step in reproducing, sort of like, "Well, I dont really like the way this fetus is turning out, so let's abort and start over." (I've only heard of abortion being enforced as a part of a eugenical government as whispers by media scare tacticians reminiscing of fascist Nazi Germany.)
I do not support eugenic philosophy because I believe it is wrong for someone else to predetermine acceptable traits for someone else to have. It is very reminiscent of racism and sexism, but with a strange, almost disguised twist. They both feel the same to me.
In the US, eugenics usually took the form of involuntary sterilization. Sometimes without even informing the person that they'd been sterilized. North Carolina's eugenics program didn't end until 1977.
In the US, eugenics usually took the form of involuntary sterilization. Sometimes without even informing the person that they'd been sterilized. North Carolina's eugenics program didn't end until 1977.
Yes, as governmental control. You can perform eugenics, however, without governmental interference.
There is also euthenasia, which is killing people who are somehow physically undesirable. It is argued that we practice a mild form of this in some states within the US by ending the suffering of elderly people who wish to die.
The Nazi's practiced both eugenics and euthanasia in the cruelest, most extreme, and evil forms that our world has seen. Many people associate any form of the two philosophies, no matter how mild their form, with the Nazis.
Our doctor, and I believe many doctors in the world are of this practice, advocated to us a) eugenics by identifying Down Syndrome as an undesirable trait and b) euthanasia by advising us to abort the child should the test prove positive for Down Syndrome.
That is how abortion is linked with both eugenics and euthanasia now; abortion can be used as a mild form of euthanasia to uphold a eugenic philosophy.
@Dee I haven't heard of Orphan Black. Is it a movie or tv show or book?
find sources that are reputable, that contain quotes and citations from other reputable sources
The official 2016 Republican Party Platform I linked, is surely an appropriate primary source for the purposes of discussing what the GOP stance on the topic is.
And The Federalist article I linked, is pretty thorough and contains many links to other secondary and primary sources, including government websites listing the full text of the bills and laws discussed.
Are you sure you haven't just taken the easy way out by dismissing it all out of hand?
The IRS has been increasingly understaffed for years now. It's no wonder rich people get away with cheating on their taxes; they've been weakening the only agency that can stop them from doing so.
@mashedtaters It's a TV show on BBC America. I won't tell you anything more than that, except to say that Tatiana Maslany gives incredible performances throughout. Worth watching.
Those situations are almost strictly life of the mother, or a grave birth defect that precludes the ability for the child to even have a modicum of a functional life.
That's the line that liberal talkshow hosts like to repeat, but is not so much supported by the evidence.
This whole area is under-studied, but the two scientific studies that do get quoted a lot, are:
Wikipedia seems to consider this one authoritative
It's an old study, but allegedly still the most thorough one. (The Guttmacher Institute is a pro-choice organization, but seems to be more committed to truth-finding than most). They found the most common reasons for late-term abortions to be:
71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant 6% Woman didn't know timing is important 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy 11% Other
Note that "fetal problems" only rank in at 2%, and saving the life of the mother was so rare it fell under "Other". Which I don't find surprising - if the pregnancy is actually life-threatening, then that's likely to be discovered earlier on.
This study apparently excluded abortions that were done to safe the mother's life (without saying how many those were), but looked into why the remaining ones were done. They state the most common reasons as:
"raising money for the procedure and related costs" "difficulty securing insurance coverage" "difficulty getting to the abortion facility" "not knowing where to go for an abortion".
They also found that the women who seek early vs late-term abortions are similar according to most statistical measures.
@ineth: Another list of real, actual events! Thank you.
But I have gone through your entire list of citations, including the citations within your citations, and they do not support the argument you're trying to make about the Democratic party and abortion. I will note them one by one:
1. This source (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/) references the following sources: 1a. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4862 --This source is about LifeCare, a pro-life group, being required to post a sign saying that they do not provide abortions or birth control referrals. This sign amounted to an attempt to "deter women from using their services."-- The truth was, LifeCare did not in fact provide abortions or birth control referrals. So that sign was an accurate reflection of the services they provided. It therefore could not deter women from using their services, because women interested in an abortion or birth control referrals would not receive those services from LifeCare to begin with. 1b. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/5186 --The same event in 1a happened in a different location.-- 1c. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9277 --An unrelated court subpoenaed LifeCare for information on its activities; LifeCare refused to provide the information.-- The source does not say what information the court was trying to get. So we have no idea if the request for said information was unreasonable or not. 1d. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4673 --A Montgomery County law required “limited-service pregnancy centers” to post a sign saying "a medical professional is not on staff and that the county health department advises them to speak with a licensed medical professional." "The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn’t apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons."-- A limited service pregnancy center does not have medical professionals on staff; Planned Parenthood does. So this sign is also an accurate reflection of the services being provided, and the people on staff. 1e. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8807 --The city of Elgin passed an ordinance requiring a mobile ultrasound facility to move away from the high school where it was located.-- The mobile ultrasound facility was not forbidden from providing its services; it was just asked to move.
2. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1) --"The Clinton administration regulations on Title X (pregnancy “options counseling”) require government-funded counselors at Planned Parenthood to tell women about abortion, but adoption counseling is optional. Taxpayer-paid “options” counselors at Planned Parenthood can satisfy their obligation to fully inform a woman in a crisis pregnancy about her options by telling her about abortion and keeping the baby without saying a word about adoption."-- I'm note really sure how they reached this conclusion, because the regulations they cited at (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/59.5) explicitly say that family planning projects must "Offer pregnant women the opportunity to be provided information and counseling regarding each of the following options: (A) Prenatal care and delivery; (B) Infant care, foster care, or adoption; and (C) Pregnancy termination." So those regulations DO require counselors to suggest adoption. Another source at (http://thebelltowers.com/2013/09/09/planned-parenthoods-adoption-gag-rule/) uses the exact same quote to say that the regulations make suggesting adoption optional, when the quote itself says the exact opposite. I'm guessing they object to the word "or," but we're talking about the phrase "foster care, or adoption." Foster care is a form of adoption, so yes, they're still required to suggest it.
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzSN-7uGHiY&t=1m8s --A former Planned Parenthood employee complained that she had asked the administration to focus more on recommending adoption. She was told that people do not really come to Planned Parenthood looking for advice on adoption. She was also told that her alternative plan was not "revenue-generating."-- The first thing makes sense; the second looks shady.
4. (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/) (same as number 1) --Based on the above, the Federalist claims that "Democrats don’t just support aborting seven-pound babies. They regularly oppose those who seek to offer women alternatives to abortion and deny women the opportunity to know about other choices."-- First, the above sources do not reference aborting seven-pound babies (see the bottom of this post). Second, the only reference to Democrats (the Clinton regulations) specifically REQUIRES Planned Parenthood to suggest adoption.
5. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/2895 --A new law proposes that the government may not discriminate against medical professionals who refuse to assist in performing abortions.-- I don't see much to disagree with here. I found one source criticizing the law: http://feministmajority.org/legislation/abortion-non-discrimination-act/ on the grounds that: --"It would permit health care institutions to ignore public health laws that require them to provide pregnant women complete information about all of their options, to treat abortion patients whose health is at risk, or to coverabortions [sic] in cases of rape or incest."-- But USCCB at (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Federal-Conscience-Protection-on-Abortion-No-Threat-to-Life.pdf) argues that: --These last two claims are wrong, because there is no documented evidence of a medical professional turning away a woman who desperately needed attention because of this law.-- However, this works the other way around, too: I have also heard of no medical professionals being discriminated against because they refused to perform an abortion. The person mentioned at the top of number 5 refused to perform one and there is no mention of punitive action taken or discrimination against them.
6. http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/23/three-ways-obamacare-forces-americans-to-fund-big-abortion/ --Federal tax revenue is used to provide abortions via health insurance, sometimes when abortion is not necessary to save the life of the mother.-- (multiple citations for this one) Normally, taxpayer money is used for activities regardless of who supports them or how controversial this is. My family's tax money was used to pay for the Iraq War, which we opposed; it also (more recently, according to this source) was used to pay for abortions, which we're okay with. --Planned Parenthood profits from taxpayer-funded abortion.-- It doesn't actually provide any evidence that taxpayer money specifically went to Planned Parenthood, though Planned Parenthood is a prominent abortion provider. It's my understanding there's a law specifically forbidding Planned Parenthood from using any taxpayer funds to pay for abortion; it has to use funds from elsewhere.
7. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1) --""Democrats even oppose bills fighting female sex trafficking over their passion for forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion."-- According to their own citation taken from (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2015/03/11/last-call-democrats-block-gops-hyde-amendment-on-abortion), Democrats were in support of the bill until Republican lawmakers sneaked in an extra amendment about abortion. This is called a "poison pill," wherein you add a controversial amendment to a popular law in order to bait the opposition into opposing a popular bill. Alternatively, and less sinister, the Republican amendment was just done to try and sneak in an abortion regulation that would have failed on its own. In either case, it tells little about Democrat priorities: if Republican lawmakers supported the bill without that amendment, which they did, Democrats would logically conclude they could get the amendment excised, and pass the original bill by blocking the current one.
10. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1) --"Last week, due to Sen. Rand Paul’s prompting, national media asked Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz whether she believed aborting full-term, seven-pound babies should be legal. Her response—that an abortion on a full-term child was the mother’s constitutional right—is clearly extreme and deserves the revulsion it has met."-- According to (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hits-back-rand-paul-abortion-fight), what Wasserman-Schultz said was that she would “support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved – period.” Unless women and doctors all support full-term abortions, this comment does not support the Federalist's characterization at all. Wasserman-Schultz did not say she supported them; she said the government wasn't the boss here.
11. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1) --"When the U.S. House of Representatives considered the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act in 2012, which would have prohibited abortions because of the father’s race or the unborn child’s sex, Democrats opposed the bill by a vote of 161-20."-- According to (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-based-abortion-bill_us_570fe899e4b088aea430df26), Democratic lawmakers objected to the law because the rhetoric surrounding it was "racist." But I don't think that has anything to do with the law itself, so I'm not sure that's a valid criticism. I am, however skeptical of the point of the law, as I have heard no evidence that femicide is a genuine risk in the United States, nor have I heard of anyone getting an abortion because of the child's race... which doesn't really make sense, unless the mother either believes her own race should not reproduce (that is, she objects to her own race), or that miscegenation is immoral (that is, she objects to the father's race).
So Democrats do not hold any of the positions that your sources claim they do. In each and every case, these sources misrepresent Democratic motives.
If you want to know the Democratic party's positions, read sources from the Democratic party, not from its critics.
The Republican party is pro-life, not anti-choice. The Democratic party is pro-choice, not anti-life.
The IRS has been increasingly understaffed for years now. It's no wonder rich people get away with cheating on their taxes; they've been weakening the only agency that can stop them from doing so.
Your own source, Wikipedia, says in the first section that the FBI found no evidence of "enemy hunting."
Political groups are not allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status, and it is the IRS' job to enforce that. They would be lax if they did not try. And that is precisely what they were investigating: allegedly non-political groups that were endorsing and supporting political candidates.
The IRS prevents tax evasion by the wealthy (as I mentioned) and tax evasion by political groups (as you mentioned). But it does not have the power to do these things as successfully as they should be able to.
Your argument doesn't even relate to mine: your source says the IRS is trying to do its job; I say they're not as strong as they should be.
In other news, Clinton now leads by over 800,000 in the popular vote, with STILL more to come from 3 of the bluest states in the nation.
Subtract all the illegal immigrants who voted, well, illegally (thanks to Democrats blocking the kinds of voter ID laws that many European countries consider normal), and Trump probably leads by a million...
People have been making claims about illegal immigrants voting in U.S. elections for months now. To date, these claims have never been verified.
Also, the voter ID laws were new, which means that voter fraud would be less feasible in this election than in previous ones. Nobody, incidentally, has accused these previous elections of being rigged by illegal aliens.
Also, in-person voter fraud would require people to commit easily detectable felonies en masse. By your count, this would have happened almost two million times. Without ever being detected. Despite the Republican party looking for it.
Also, illegal immigrants in particular have little reason to commit easily detectable voter fraud because they stand to get deported if they are caught. If they wanted to stay here, they wouldn't endanger their presence by trying to vote.
Also, a massive undertaking like that would have required a massive amount of communication for the Democratic party to organize. Yet, despite the Democratic party getting hacked and its private emails exposed, no such evidence has surfaced.
Also, if you wanted to commit voter fraud to steal an election, you wouldn't be stupid enough to do so in person. You would use absentee ballots, which do not require a photo ID.
Also, for what it's worth, absentee ballots, which do not require a photo ID, tend to skew Republican, not Democrat.
Also, for what it's worth, this is the first election since 1965 when voters did not have the protection of the Voting Rights Act.
Also, in recent years, as Democrats have been pointing out, Republican policymakers have been shutting down voting booths in Democratic districts, which makes voting more difficult for Democratic voters. Democratic policymakers have not, however, done the same to Republican districts.
There is no voter fraud. None, zilch. Not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1%. There have been something like 30-some legit cases TOTAL in recent history, among billions of votes cast. 30 votes likely isn't enough to turn most races for County Treasurer, much less any national race, much less blaming ENTIRE cycles on it. It's like blaming roaming packs of polar bears for traffic problems in LA. It's a fantasy.
What IS real is voter suppression. Active efforts by Republican lawmakers in States no longer subject to now defunct Voting Rights Act to make it as hard as possible for people in poor and minority precincts to vote. Ending wknd early voting. Shutting down a large percentage of polling placea in Democratic districts to cause massive lines, not allowing college students to vote with their college ID. We could go on for hours.
I overheard that a person I know who is a rabid pro-trump person may have committed voter fraud. I overheard that she filled out two voting ballots (both pro-trump of course) and turned them in. One for themself, then another for another relative who otherwise was not going to vote.
I overheard that a person I know who is a rabid pro-trump person may have committed voter fraud. I overheard that she filled out two voting ballots (both pro-trump of course) and turned them in. One for themself, then another for another relative who otherwise was not going to vote.
Turned in both.
As a matter of fact, all 3 reported cases of voter fraud this cycle were Trump voters, who said they did it because Trump was telling them the election was rigged, and they were trying to even the scales. Now, NO ONE on this site is more anti-Trump than I am. But I'm not insane enough to think this was some massive movement of voter fraud on that side that put Trump into office. But a LARGE contingent of GOP voters DO think that ACORN and two Black Panthers standing outside one polling place in Philly cost Romney the election in 2012. Because FOX News told them so.
"Just 16% of Republicans said the economy was getting better in the week before the election, while 81% said it was getting worse. Since the election, 49% say it is getting better and 44% worse."
Trump isn't even in office yet. Barack Obama is still President. I wish I could say I'm surprised about this, but I'm surprised the numbers aren't more lopsided. I would bet every penny in my checking account that 3 out of 4 of these people could not name the 3 branches of government with a gun to their head. Actually, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to find out that many of them probably think Trump is ALREADY in office.
Think about it, Trump can increase the economy so much by just being president-elect!
The moment he becomes president, the USA will experience an unprecedented economy miracle!
Well, this rather illustrates the point. He campaigned and spoke like a 5th-grader, explicitly catering to people of 5th-grade level intelligence. He simply promised people they were going to "win". There was, and remains no "how", no plan on achieving these so-called victories. Trump's transition team has still not reached out to ANYONE at either the State or Defense Department to begin transition work. Chris Christie (who believe me, I have less than zero respect for) was kicked off from being transition head (which he has been for the last few months) for one simple reason: He put Jared Kushner's (Trump's son-in law) father in jail as a US Attorney. The people who should be staffing the Cabinet and staff positions of the Executive Branch of the United States are using the process to settle personal feuds. You know people like this is your life, you've known people like this at work. Tell me, when has it ever worked out well??
The fear is that abortion will be combined with eugenic philosophy and CRISPR technology to become an accepted or even desired step in reproducing, sort of like, "Well, I dont really like the way this fetus is turning out, so let's abort and start over." (I've only heard of abortion being enforced as a part of a eugenical government as whispers by media scare tacticians reminiscing of fascist Nazi Germany.)
First up, I'll note I was responding to the eugenics debate in general, not you in particular.
Now, why precisely would you think this would happen? Abortion is an unpleasant and often traumatising procedure. People do not do it for fun (well, except in conspiracy theory land). "Oh crap, this baby didn't get both blonde hair genes, DELETE DELETE DELETE" is not going to happen.
In the real world, the only example I am aware of for large-scale "voluntary" abortions is China, where the One Child policy led to a significant amount of "abort until male child is conceived". But even then, with a strong cultural and economic bias towards having a male child, the difference was still relatively small on a percentage basis (about 121 male to 100 female births at its highest point, against the 108/100 ratio it was prior to the policy). That's not nothing, and it has caused problems, but even with such powerful forces pushing it, only a minority of the population were willing to take that step.
And yet you think large quantities of people would willingly abort their own viable fetus for desirable cosmetic features? I can't agree. It's not how real human beings act. Rich people will be willing to pay for cosmetic features if the fetus' DNA can be manipulated, but very few people are ever going to take an "abort until you get it right" option even were it perfectly legal and easy to do.
I do not support eugenic philosophy because I believe it is wrong for someone else to predetermine acceptable traits for someone else to have. It is very reminiscent of racism and sexism, but with a strange, almost disguised twist. They both feel the same to me.
People predetermine "acceptable traits" for their children all the time. What religion you follow, what political party you vote for, your socioeconomic class - all these things are heavily predetermined by parents.
"Blonde hair" isn't more important than any of those things, and in any case, it'll mostly be a toy of rich people. As for the ideal of eugenics, to breed a "better race of human" - it's hopelessly muddled pseudoscience based on a grade-school idea of Darwinian evolution. There's no single gene for "intelligence" you can turn on and guarantee a genius. Same thing for physical fitness, longevity, or any of the other usually desirable traits. Trying to breed humans "for" something would be like breeding horses to be champion racers, or dogs to have faces so squashed they can't breathe right anymore - it would take generations upon generations of inbreeding, and the "successful" outcomes would still be in many ways up to chance and how their lives went (after all, if breeding alone could give you Secretariat, every racing stable would be churning out Secretariats).
But what probably can be done is the elimination of inheritable genetic disease, and that is nothing but for the good. Yeah, it will mean a generation or two of rich people enjoying benefits the rest of us don't get - which is exactly the same as the world right now. Eventually the technology gets cheap enough for everybody, and it'll still be way better to be rich than poor for some other reason. And with any luck, custom gene therapies might find some unexpected things that will benefit us all in the long run. Que sera, sera.
@Ayiekie Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. Case in point is that I don't know anyone who has told me they were happy they aborted their Down Syndrome child. It usually seems to be advocated by doctors, and some people as portrayed on the media, but I haven't actually met anyone who feels that way.
Many people, mothers that I know in particular, voice the fear that when they go to the doctors and the doctor advocates to abort their Down Syndrome child, their feelings and thoughts are, essentially, something like, "Where do we draw the line?" And that is the big kicker for a eugenic philosophy, and the biggest reason, imo, that Americans abandoned the philosophy decades ago when it was popular. They saw what Nazi Germany turned the philosophy into and were afraid of becoming that.
Where do we draw the line? What is actually a defect? Is this all actually subjective? Obviously we can say some things are defects, like being born without a limb, yeah, yeah, we agree. But what about Aspergers? Is that even a defect, which many people believe, and which I don't (having family members with Aspergers)? Where is the line?
The fear of eugenics is not that we are going to kill everyone who is not like us, and the link to abortion isn't through that medium. Eugenics and abortion, and thus euthanasia because they are combined, are linked to each other because they are being linked by doctors now.
Here is an article which phrases my thoughts on the issue much more intelligently than I am currently doing.
This issue is unbelievably controversial. I just wanted to say, that although I disagree with eugenics as a philosophy of life, I understand and do not judge anyone who has sided with one or the other side of the argument. I am trying my best just to present facts and my opinions of the argument as presented.
@Ayiekie I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to communicate. I don't believe that large quantities of people would be willing to abort their children, whatever the reason. I was trying to portray the idea that people fear a future like that, and that it is a link between abortion and what was being described as eugenics (which was actually euthanasia), and to clear up a misunderstanding of what eugenics actually is. As far as people predetermining traits for their children via attraction to a mate and teaching them certain philosophies and social ideas, that is not eugenics, except at its most basic, watered down, and misunderstood level. Eugenics is the philosphy that we should "improve" the gene pool by either decreasing and/or eliminating "undesirable" genetic traits or by increasing and/or rewarding the amount of "desirable" genetic traits in our society as a whole. However, "improve" is completely subjective to whomever is advocating the philosophy, which is its biggest drawback, and the number 1 reason why I could never support it as a governmentally or socially adopted philosophy. It was linked to euthanasia by the Nazis, but euthanasia is not a part of the philosophy.
"Blonde hair" isn't more important than any of those things, and in any case, it'll mostly be a toy of rich people. As for the ideal of eugenics, to breed a "better race of human" - it's hopelessly muddled pseudoscience based on a grade-school idea of Darwinian evolution. There's no single gene for "intelligence" you can turn on and guarantee a genius. Same thing for physical fitness, longevity, or any of the other usually desirable traits. Trying to breed humans "for" something would be like breeding horses to be champion racers, or dogs to have faces so squashed they can't breathe right anymore - it would take generations upon generations of inbreeding, and the "successful" outcomes would still be in many ways up to chance and how their lives went (after all, if breeding alone could give you Secretariat, every racing stable would be churning out Secretariats).
You are correct, that up until the past few years, it has been only pseudoscience, yes.
BUT:
With the advent of CRISPR technology, this will no longer be pseudoscience, but actual, practical, implementable bio-technology. CRISPR has the potential to change everything about our biological technology and understanding. Most of our genetic identification has happened almost by accident today, and some of it is even being falsified. CRISPR can eliminate the "accident" from genetic manipulative technology cheaply and exactly. It has the potential now to exactly identify the purpose of every gene in our body, which science has tried to do but usually failed for many years.
When CRISPR does come out, then we will all need to be prepared to answer the questions posed by eugenic philosophies, abortion philosophies, and even, dare we consider it, euthanasic philosophies. We are already doing that in a very crude, basic way with Down Syndrome and abortion.
The pro-life position, as I understand it, is that a woman's right to choose, if existent, does not override the child's right to live. The pro-life position does NOT say women deserve to suffer for getting knocked up.
But I'm hearing a different idea from some forumites in this thread: the idea that people should not be given an easy way out of a bad situation, because it conflics with personal responsibility. If you do something wrong, you shouldn't try to reverse it; you should just deal with the consequences.
In this argument... the child doesn't even get mentioned.
Because, as I said earlier today, it isn't about children. The same people who want to force women to have babies are against every single social program that could conceivably help a child or low-income mother. It's about PUNISHING WOMEN.
The pro-life position, as I understand it, is that a woman's right to choose, if existent, does not override the child's right to live. The pro-life position does NOT say women deserve to suffer for getting knocked up.
But I'm hearing a different idea from some forumites in this thread: the idea that people should not be given an easy way out of a bad situation, because it conflics with personal responsibility. If you do something wrong, you shouldn't try to reverse it; you should just deal with the consequences.
In this argument... the child doesn't even get mentioned.
Because, as I said earlier today, it isn't about children. The same people who want to force women to have babies are against every single social program that could conceivably help a child or low-income mother. It's about PUNISHING WOMEN.
Oh yeah, this guy.
I agree. I've pulled out of discussions on this thread for 3-4 days. All I see is forumites that are so pro(insert party here) that they even dismiss facts or reason because of their deep rooted hatred. Kinda like whats going on in the streets of America right now.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Whatever our politics, it is a basic requirement of this thread and the Site Rules that we respect each other, even if we disagree on fundamental issues. Personal attacks are not acceptable.
I have high expectations for this forum and my fellow commenters. We have discussed contentious topics in the past without getting personal, and I expect the same here.
You are correct, that up until the past few years, it has been only pseudoscience, yes.
The only way to make eugenics not pseudoscience would be for evolution to work in a manner completely different to reality and more in line with the thinking of mostly scientifically illiterate Europeans of the first half of 20th century.
To put it more plainly, eugenics will always be pseudoscience no matter what we can do with our genetic code. The entire philosophy and body of thinking behind it is more mystical than scientific. And it's tied very deeply into racism and unscientific racial philosophy in general, of course.
With the advent of CRISPR technology, this will no longer be pseudoscience, but actual, practical, implementable bio-technology. CRISPR has the potential to change everything about our biological technology and understanding. Most of our genetic identification has happened almost by accident today, and some of it is even being falsified. CRISPR can eliminate the "accident" from genetic manipulative technology cheaply and exactly. It has the potential now to exactly identify the purpose of every gene in our body, which science has tried to do but usually failed for many years.
When CRISPR does come out, then we will all need to be prepared to answer the questions posed by eugenic philosophies, abortion philosophies, and even, dare we consider it, euthanasic philosophies. We are already doing that in a very crude, basic way with Down Syndrome and abortion.
No, we really aren't. Parents who abort a fetus with Downs Syndrome (something, for the record, my wife and I discussed whether we would do, without reaching a definite conclusion, but it turned out to be a moot point - this is not an idle discussion for me) are not doing so because they want to "improve the human race". They are doing so because for personal reasons they are unwilling, or unable to provide the level of extra care such a child will require. It is actually much more comparable to the situation in China, where rural families especially were financially burdened by having a female child.
If - and that is a large if - CRISPR-based technology can do everything it promises, it will still not be particularly relevant to why most people get abortions (they are primarily for people who cannot carry the child to term for medical reasons, have fetuses with extreme problems, or who simply do not desire to have a baby). If anything, the technology might reduce the number of abortions since certain fetal defects are genetic in nature (but this is assuming a lot about how effective and affordable the technology may grow to be). I honestly don't know why you keep associating abortion as an issue with it. Being able to tweak the genes in a fetus isn't going to lead to more abortions (well, maybe some accidental ones). Incidentally, the extremely high likelihood of fetuses being killed or having undesirable side-effects by use of such an immature technology is likely to keep designer gene therapy for children out of the marketplace for a very long time, to say nothing of the "tampering in God's domain" sorts.
But hell, let's go crazy and imagine that CRISPR-based technology leads to a world where you can get your child not just freedom from genetic diseases (like heart disease, or ADHD), but also some immunity to other notable scourges (anti-malarial genetics without sickle-cell anemia, let's say), or a cocktail of genes tuned to allow long life with no averse side effects no matter who you give them to. We could go even crazier and imagine you can build people with physical superiority in some respects, or with some of the tools needed to be excellent at sports (although such genetically modified people would undoubtedly be banned from the Olympics and other competitions).
Well, so what? None of this is particularly different from the advantages humans already get. I wear glasses, but I could also wear contacts or get laser eye surgery to fix my nearsightedness, all of which are completely unnatural (and just like gene therapy, available predominantly to the richest portions of the world's population). Vaccines and immunisations of all sorts have dramatically cut the rates of diseases that killed more people than every war in history combined. The most dramatic and successful genetic engineering will never make a human beat a car in a marathon. Humans will always be more similar to each other than different no matter what genes you tweak.
Plus, people tend towards an unscientific view (propelled by the media, and Jurassic Park, thanks Crichton) of just how relevant genetics are to what you end up being in life. They're important, but they're also just one part of the picture. I mentioned ADHD above - it seems to have an inheritance component (but not a 100% one), but it is also dramatically increased if the mother smokes during pregnancy. Tons of things about you are affected by your environment, the environment your mother is in while pregnant, and many other factors. Plus, single genes don't actually tend to determine anything by themselves, but instead complex groups provide (as far as our science knows, and I don't see why or how CRISPR can change that) mere possibilities and likelihoods for the vast majority of outcomes. This will make it quite difficult to do designer gene therapies that a) guarantee success for anything more complex than hair colour, and b) also guarantee not having unwanted side effects, because you're actually going to be changing out a group of genes with myriad effects.
Just in case you haven't read enough, there's an article I liked on the topic at the Atlantic:
I'll also put a question to you: what, precisely, are you worried is going to happen? Not vagaries about "eugenics", but what do you actually foresee a real, living human being doing with this technology on a given day in the future that concerns you?
@Ayiekie Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. Case in point is that I don't know anyone who has told me they were happy they aborted their Down Syndrome child. It usually seems to be advocated by doctors, and some people as portrayed on the media, but I haven't actually met anyone who feels that way.
Many people, mothers that I know in particular, voice the fear that when they go to the doctors and the doctor advocates to abort their Down Syndrome child, their feelings and thoughts are, essentially, something like, "Where do we draw the line?" And that is the big kicker for a eugenic philosophy, and the biggest reason, imo, that Americans abandoned the philosophy decades ago when it was popular. They saw what Nazi Germany turned the philosophy into and were afraid of becoming that.
This'll be shorter, as I said most of what I wanted to say in the other post. That being said, I will again register my disagreement that abortions due to massive defects like Downs Syndrome are related to eugenics. Your own article that you linked to shows how personal a decision it is, how little it conforms to the "expected" beliefs of pro-choice or pro-life parents.
That being said, not to say your anecdotal experiences are false, but I am skeptical of the idea that abortion is widely "advocated" for a fetus with Downs Syndrome, by doctors or the media. It does not square at all with how the topic is treated with any media from the US I've seen.
Where do we draw the line? What is actually a defect? Is this all actually subjective? Obviously we can say some things are defects, like being born without a limb, yeah, yeah, we agree. But what about Aspergers? Is that even a defect, which many people believe, and which I don't (having family members with Aspergers)? Where is the line?
My sister has Aspergers, and probably so do I (there is no co-morbidity allowed between it and ADHD in medical diagnosis, even though there is no reason to believe they can't coexist). It is absolutely and completely a defect. So is ADHD. So is BPD. So are most mental illnesses.
While I can appreciate the unwillingness to define the abnormal state of one's own or a loved one's brain as "defective", they are defective nonetheless. In happiness, ability to have and keep relationships, scholastic achievement, ability to have and hold down a job, and many other categories, everything I mentioned above is a powerful negative indicator. That doesn't mean they can't overcome it and lead a fulfilling life, any more than your own condition does. But it makes it harder. And much harder still if you're not born in the wealthy first world with its safety net, support structures, and readily available advanced medical care.
If gene therapy can eradicate any of the above, then we would be well-served if it could do so.
However, I doubt that people will abort a fetus because it has a higher than normal chance (note that this is all genetics is likely to ever be able to tell us) to have Aspergers, so I don't see how it relates to your argument immediately prior.
Comments
The fact is that Democratic policies of lifting up women and poor folks have resulted in far fewer abortions being performed than the Republicans philosophy of punishment or shaming women into not having them. Do you want to actually stop abortion as opposed to talking about it or raising tons of money to do it without ever actually planning on stopping it? Like the Republican Party has done for many years now. You know, the Republican Party had complete control of the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court from 2000-2006. @ineth did they ban abortion then? Did they even so much as submit a single bill to do so? The answer is no, because they have no intention of doing anything about it as long as they know they can whip people into a frenzy over it and get their votes without ever doing what they said they would do.
Two separate things are going on here.
1. The video talks about the CRISPR technology that could be used to cure genetic defects in people. Good thing, we want this, or most of us would, I believe.
2. It brings up an old notion of eugenics and defeats one of its main detractions (namely restricting people on whom they can reproduce with). But what about the other downsides of eugenics? Who decides what is "correct" genes or traits? How can people in power abuse something like eugenics (which has already happened with the Nazis) when it is combined with the awesome power of CRISPR? And what do we lose by eliminating diversity in our gene pool?
The fear is that abortion will be combined with eugenic philosophy and CRISPR technology to become an accepted or even desired step in reproducing, sort of like, "Well, I dont really like the way this fetus is turning out, so let's abort and start over." (I've only heard of abortion being enforced as a part of a eugenical government as whispers by media scare tacticians reminiscing of fascist Nazi Germany.)
I do not support eugenic philosophy because I believe it is wrong for someone else to predetermine acceptable traits for someone else to have. It is very reminiscent of racism and sexism, but with a strange, almost disguised twist. They both feel the same to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
There is also euthenasia, which is killing people who are somehow physically undesirable. It is argued that we practice a mild form of this in some states within the US by ending the suffering of elderly people who wish to die.
The Nazi's practiced both eugenics and euthanasia in the cruelest, most extreme, and evil forms that our world has seen. Many people associate any form of the two philosophies, no matter how mild their form, with the Nazis.
Our doctor, and I believe many doctors in the world are of this practice, advocated to us a) eugenics by identifying Down Syndrome as an undesirable trait and b) euthanasia by advising us to abort the child should the test prove positive for Down Syndrome.
That is how abortion is linked with both eugenics and euthanasia now; abortion can be used as a mild form of euthanasia to uphold a eugenic philosophy.
@Dee
I haven't heard of Orphan Black. Is it a movie or tv show or book?
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2015/06/10/HIV-positive-women-sterilised-against-their-wishes
And The Federalist article I linked, is pretty thorough and contains many links to other secondary and primary sources, including government websites listing the full text of the bills and laws discussed.
Are you sure you haven't just taken the easy way out by dismissing it all out of hand? Well, they somehow still found the manpower to harass Obama's political enemies with needless audits...
That's still a four or five-figure number of late-term abortions per year, in absolute terms (see this table in the report). That seems... unlikely.
According to this Guttmacher Insitute fact-sheet, 34% of all abortion providers offer abortion at 20 weeks, and 16% at 24 weeks. (Primary source is this 2014 study.)
They'll need a bit more than 4 doctors to staff those...
This whole area is under-studied, but the two scientific studies that do get quoted a lot, are:
Torres/Forrest at Guttmacher Institute (1978):
- the actual study
- Huffington Post article discussing it
- Wikipedia seems to consider this one authoritative
It's an old study, but allegedly still the most thorough one. (The Guttmacher Institute is a pro-choice organization, but seems to be more committed to truth-finding than most). They found the most common reasons for late-term abortions to be:Foster/Kimport (2013):
- the study itself
- Washington Times article discussing it
- Lozier Institute (a pro-life think tank) dossier discussing it
This study apparently excluded abortions that were done to safe the mother's life (without saying how many those were), but looked into why the remaining ones were done. They state the most common reasons as:"difficulty securing insurance coverage"
"difficulty getting to the abortion facility"
"not knowing where to go for an abortion".
But I have gone through your entire list of citations, including the citations within your citations, and they do not support the argument you're trying to make about the Democratic party and abortion. I will note them one by one:
1. This source (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/) references the following sources:
1a. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4862
--This source is about LifeCare, a pro-life group, being required to post a sign saying that they do not provide abortions or birth control referrals. This sign amounted to an attempt to "deter women from using their services."--
The truth was, LifeCare did not in fact provide abortions or birth control referrals. So that sign was an accurate reflection of the services they provided. It therefore could not deter women from using their services, because women interested in an abortion or birth control referrals would not receive those services from LifeCare to begin with.
1b. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/5186
--The same event in 1a happened in a different location.--
1c. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9277
--An unrelated court subpoenaed LifeCare for information on its activities; LifeCare refused to provide the information.--
The source does not say what information the court was trying to get. So we have no idea if the request for said information was unreasonable or not.
1d. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4673
--A Montgomery County law required “limited-service pregnancy centers” to post a sign saying "a medical professional is not on staff and that the county health department advises them to speak with a licensed medical professional." "The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn’t apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons."--
A limited service pregnancy center does not have medical professionals on staff; Planned Parenthood does. So this sign is also an accurate reflection of the services being provided, and the people on staff.
1e. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8807
--The city of Elgin passed an ordinance requiring a mobile ultrasound facility to move away from the high school where it was located.--
The mobile ultrasound facility was not forbidden from providing its services; it was just asked to move.
2. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1)
--"The Clinton administration regulations on Title X (pregnancy “options counseling”) require government-funded counselors at Planned Parenthood to tell women about abortion, but adoption counseling is optional. Taxpayer-paid “options” counselors at Planned Parenthood can satisfy their obligation to fully inform a woman in a crisis pregnancy about her options by telling her about abortion and keeping the baby without saying a word about adoption."--
I'm note really sure how they reached this conclusion, because the regulations they cited at (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/59.5) explicitly say that family planning projects must
"Offer pregnant women the opportunity to be provided information and counseling regarding each of the following options:
(A) Prenatal care and delivery;
(B) Infant care, foster care, or adoption; and
(C) Pregnancy termination."
So those regulations DO require counselors to suggest adoption.
Another source at (http://thebelltowers.com/2013/09/09/planned-parenthoods-adoption-gag-rule/) uses the exact same quote to say that the regulations make suggesting adoption optional, when the quote itself says the exact opposite. I'm guessing they object to the word "or," but we're talking about the phrase "foster care, or adoption." Foster care is a form of adoption, so yes, they're still required to suggest it.
3.
--A former Planned Parenthood employee complained that she had asked the administration to focus more on recommending adoption. She was told that people do not really come to Planned Parenthood looking for advice on adoption. She was also told that her alternative plan was not "revenue-generating."--
The first thing makes sense; the second looks shady.
4. (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/) (same as number 1)
--Based on the above, the Federalist claims that "Democrats don’t just support aborting seven-pound babies. They regularly oppose those who seek to offer women alternatives to abortion and deny women the opportunity to know about other choices."--
First, the above sources do not reference aborting seven-pound babies (see the bottom of this post). Second, the only reference to Democrats (the Clinton regulations) specifically REQUIRES Planned Parenthood to suggest adoption.
5. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/2895
--A new law proposes that the government may not discriminate against medical professionals who refuse to assist in performing abortions.--
I don't see much to disagree with here. I found one source criticizing the law:
http://feministmajority.org/legislation/abortion-non-discrimination-act/
on the grounds that:
--"It would permit health care institutions to ignore public health laws that require them to provide pregnant women complete information about all of their options, to treat abortion patients whose health is at risk, or to coverabortions [sic] in cases of rape or incest."--
But USCCB at (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Federal-Conscience-Protection-on-Abortion-No-Threat-to-Life.pdf) argues that:
--These last two claims are wrong, because there is no documented evidence of a medical professional turning away a woman who desperately needed attention because of this law.--
However, this works the other way around, too: I have also heard of no medical professionals being discriminated against because they refused to perform an abortion. The person mentioned at the top of number 5 refused to perform one and there is no mention of punitive action taken or discrimination against them.
6. http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/23/three-ways-obamacare-forces-americans-to-fund-big-abortion/
--Federal tax revenue is used to provide abortions via health insurance, sometimes when abortion is not necessary to save the life of the mother.-- (multiple citations for this one)
Normally, taxpayer money is used for activities regardless of who supports them or how controversial this is. My family's tax money was used to pay for the Iraq War, which we opposed; it also (more recently, according to this source) was used to pay for abortions, which we're okay with.
--Planned Parenthood profits from taxpayer-funded abortion.--
It doesn't actually provide any evidence that taxpayer money specifically went to Planned Parenthood, though Planned Parenthood is a prominent abortion provider. It's my understanding there's a law specifically forbidding Planned Parenthood from using any taxpayer funds to pay for abortion; it has to use funds from elsewhere.
7. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1)
--""Democrats even oppose bills fighting female sex trafficking over their passion for forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion."--
According to their own citation taken from (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2015/03/11/last-call-democrats-block-gops-hyde-amendment-on-abortion), Democrats were in support of the bill until Republican lawmakers sneaked in an extra amendment about abortion. This is called a "poison pill," wherein you add a controversial amendment to a popular law in order to bait the opposition into opposing a popular bill. Alternatively, and less sinister, the Republican amendment was just done to try and sneak in an abortion regulation that would have failed on its own. In either case, it tells little about Democrat priorities: if Republican lawmakers supported the bill without that amendment, which they did, Democrats would logically conclude they could get the amendment excised, and pass the original bill by blocking the current one.
8. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1)
--"But Democrats have defended any abortion method, no matter how brutal. They fought to retain partial-birth abortion."--
The source for this claim is (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/02/religious-freedom-acts-have-never-harmed-a-gay-person/). The source for that source is a broken link: (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217496/partial-truth/ramesh-ponnuru). The rest of the article does not relate to this claim.
9. http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2015/04/unborn-child-protection-from-dismemberment-abortion-act-passes-senate-goes-to-governor-democrats-vote-no
/#.WCszmyQW4kZ
--Democrats voted against a law that would ban a particularly gruesome method of abortion.--
I looked up the law and the reasoning for opposing it, according to (https://thinkprogress.org/the-next-anti-abortion-strategy-lurking-around-the-corner-2e27df780471#.8lt17dhjw), was that the language used was not enforceable because "dismemberment" was not a medical term, and one of the methods that the law seemed to be targeting was "the method of second-trimester abortion that researchers from the World Health Organization endorse, and it’s now preferred by the vast majority of U.S. patients having midtrimester terminations because it’s a simple outpatient procedure with a low risk of complications."
...Which means Democratic opposition is not based on tolerance for ripping babies to pieces.
10. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1)
--"Last week, due to Sen. Rand Paul’s prompting, national media asked Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz whether she believed aborting full-term, seven-pound babies should be legal. Her response—that an abortion on a full-term child was the mother’s constitutional right—is clearly extreme and deserves the revulsion it has met."--
According to (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hits-back-rand-paul-abortion-fight), what Wasserman-Schultz said was that she would “support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved – period.”
Unless women and doctors all support full-term abortions, this comment does not support the Federalist's characterization at all. Wasserman-Schultz did not say she supported them; she said the government wasn't the boss here.
11. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/20/5-democrat-abortion-policies-more-extreme-than-killing-7-pound-babies/ (same as number 1)
--"When the U.S. House of Representatives considered the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act in 2012, which would have prohibited abortions because of the father’s race or the unborn child’s sex, Democrats opposed the bill by a vote of 161-20."--
According to (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-based-abortion-bill_us_570fe899e4b088aea430df26), Democratic lawmakers objected to the law because the rhetoric surrounding it was "racist." But I don't think that has anything to do with the law itself, so I'm not sure that's a valid criticism.
I am, however skeptical of the point of the law, as I have heard no evidence that femicide is a genuine risk in the United States, nor have I heard of anyone getting an abortion because of the child's race... which doesn't really make sense, unless the mother either believes her own race should not reproduce (that is, she objects to her own race), or that miscegenation is immoral (that is, she objects to the father's race).
So Democrats do not hold any of the positions that your sources claim they do. In each and every case, these sources misrepresent Democratic motives.
If you want to know the Democratic party's positions, read sources from the Democratic party, not from its critics.
The Republican party is pro-life, not anti-choice. The Democratic party is pro-choice, not anti-life.
Political groups are not allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status, and it is the IRS' job to enforce that. They would be lax if they did not try. And that is precisely what they were investigating: allegedly non-political groups that were endorsing and supporting political candidates.
The IRS prevents tax evasion by the wealthy (as I mentioned) and tax evasion by political groups (as you mentioned). But it does not have the power to do these things as successfully as they should be able to.
Your argument doesn't even relate to mine: your source says the IRS is trying to do its job; I say they're not as strong as they should be.
Also, the voter ID laws were new, which means that voter fraud would be less feasible in this election than in previous ones. Nobody, incidentally, has accused these previous elections of being rigged by illegal aliens.
Also, in-person voter fraud would require people to commit easily detectable felonies en masse. By your count, this would have happened almost two million times. Without ever being detected. Despite the Republican party looking for it.
Also, illegal immigrants in particular have little reason to commit easily detectable voter fraud because they stand to get deported if they are caught. If they wanted to stay here, they wouldn't endanger their presence by trying to vote.
Also, a massive undertaking like that would have required a massive amount of communication for the Democratic party to organize. Yet, despite the Democratic party getting hacked and its private emails exposed, no such evidence has surfaced.
Also, if you wanted to commit voter fraud to steal an election, you wouldn't be stupid enough to do so in person. You would use absentee ballots, which do not require a photo ID.
Also, for what it's worth, absentee ballots, which do not require a photo ID, tend to skew Republican, not Democrat.
Also, for what it's worth, this is the first election since 1965 when voters did not have the protection of the Voting Rights Act.
Also, in recent years, as Democrats have been pointing out, Republican policymakers have been shutting down voting booths in Democratic districts, which makes voting more difficult for Democratic voters. Democratic policymakers have not, however, done the same to Republican districts.
What IS real is voter suppression. Active efforts by Republican lawmakers in States no longer subject to now defunct Voting Rights Act to make it as hard as possible for people in poor and minority precincts to vote. Ending wknd early voting. Shutting down a large percentage of polling placea in Democratic districts to cause massive lines, not allowing college students to vote with their college ID. We could go on for hours.
I overheard that a person I know who is a rabid pro-trump person may have committed voter fraud. I overheard that she filled out two voting ballots (both pro-trump of course) and turned them in. One for themself, then another for another relative who otherwise was not going to vote.
Turned in both.
"Just 16% of Republicans said the economy was getting better in the week before the election, while 81% said it was getting worse. Since the election, 49% say it is getting better and 44% worse."
Trump isn't even in office yet. Barack Obama is still President. I wish I could say I'm surprised about this, but I'm surprised the numbers aren't more lopsided. I would bet every penny in my checking account that 3 out of 4 of these people could not name the 3 branches of government with a gun to their head. Actually, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to find out that many of them probably think Trump is ALREADY in office.
Now, why precisely would you think this would happen? Abortion is an unpleasant and often traumatising procedure. People do not do it for fun (well, except in conspiracy theory land). "Oh crap, this baby didn't get both blonde hair genes, DELETE DELETE DELETE" is not going to happen.
In the real world, the only example I am aware of for large-scale "voluntary" abortions is China, where the One Child policy led to a significant amount of "abort until male child is conceived". But even then, with a strong cultural and economic bias towards having a male child, the difference was still relatively small on a percentage basis (about 121 male to 100 female births at its highest point, against the 108/100 ratio it was prior to the policy). That's not nothing, and it has caused problems, but even with such powerful forces pushing it, only a minority of the population were willing to take that step.
And yet you think large quantities of people would willingly abort their own viable fetus for desirable cosmetic features? I can't agree. It's not how real human beings act. Rich people will be willing to pay for cosmetic features if the fetus' DNA can be manipulated, but very few people are ever going to take an "abort until you get it right" option even were it perfectly legal and easy to do. People predetermine "acceptable traits" for their children all the time. What religion you follow, what political party you vote for, your socioeconomic class - all these things are heavily predetermined by parents.
"Blonde hair" isn't more important than any of those things, and in any case, it'll mostly be a toy of rich people. As for the ideal of eugenics, to breed a "better race of human" - it's hopelessly muddled pseudoscience based on a grade-school idea of Darwinian evolution. There's no single gene for "intelligence" you can turn on and guarantee a genius. Same thing for physical fitness, longevity, or any of the other usually desirable traits. Trying to breed humans "for" something would be like breeding horses to be champion racers, or dogs to have faces so squashed they can't breathe right anymore - it would take generations upon generations of inbreeding, and the "successful" outcomes would still be in many ways up to chance and how their lives went (after all, if breeding alone could give you Secretariat, every racing stable would be churning out Secretariats).
But what probably can be done is the elimination of inheritable genetic disease, and that is nothing but for the good. Yeah, it will mean a generation or two of rich people enjoying benefits the rest of us don't get - which is exactly the same as the world right now. Eventually the technology gets cheap enough for everybody, and it'll still be way better to be rich than poor for some other reason. And with any luck, custom gene therapies might find some unexpected things that will benefit us all in the long run. Que sera, sera.
Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. Case in point is that I don't know anyone who has told me they were happy they aborted their Down Syndrome child. It usually seems to be advocated by doctors, and some people as portrayed on the media, but I haven't actually met anyone who feels that way.
Many people, mothers that I know in particular, voice the fear that when they go to the doctors and the doctor advocates to abort their Down Syndrome child, their feelings and thoughts are, essentially, something like, "Where do we draw the line?" And that is the big kicker for a eugenic philosophy, and the biggest reason, imo, that Americans abandoned the philosophy decades ago when it was popular. They saw what Nazi Germany turned the philosophy into and were afraid of becoming that.
Where do we draw the line? What is actually a defect? Is this all actually subjective? Obviously we can say some things are defects, like being born without a limb, yeah, yeah, we agree. But what about Aspergers? Is that even a defect, which many people believe, and which I don't (having family members with Aspergers)? Where is the line?
The fear of eugenics is not that we are going to kill everyone who is not like us, and the link to abortion isn't through that medium. Eugenics and abortion, and thus euthanasia because they are combined, are linked to each other because they are being linked by doctors now.
Here is an article which phrases my thoughts on the issue much more intelligently than I am currently doing.
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/opinion/does-down-syndrome-justify-abortion.amp.html?client=safari
Here are some of the tests being performed by doctors to detect Down syndrome.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20020948
This issue is unbelievably controversial. I just wanted to say, that although I disagree with eugenics as a philosophy of life, I understand and do not judge anyone who has sided with one or the other side of the argument. I am trying my best just to present facts and my opinions of the argument as presented.
@Ayiekie
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to communicate. I don't believe that large quantities of people would be willing to abort their children, whatever the reason. I was trying to portray the idea that people fear a future like that, and that it is a link between abortion and what was being described as eugenics (which was actually euthanasia), and to clear up a misunderstanding of what eugenics actually is.
As far as people predetermining traits for their children via attraction to a mate and teaching them certain philosophies and social ideas, that is not eugenics, except at its most basic, watered down, and misunderstood level. Eugenics is the philosphy that we should "improve" the gene pool by either decreasing and/or eliminating "undesirable" genetic traits or by increasing and/or rewarding the amount of "desirable" genetic traits in our society as a whole. However, "improve" is completely subjective to whomever is advocating the philosophy, which is its biggest drawback, and the number 1 reason why I could never support it as a governmentally or socially adopted philosophy.
It was linked to euthanasia by the Nazis, but euthanasia is not a part of the philosophy.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Edit: corrected I thought that @semiticgod wrote what @Ayiekie actually wrote! Sorry! Changed name call outs.
BUT:
With the advent of CRISPR technology, this will no longer be pseudoscience, but actual, practical, implementable bio-technology. CRISPR has the potential to change everything about our biological technology and understanding. Most of our genetic identification has happened almost by accident today, and some of it is even being falsified. CRISPR can eliminate the "accident" from genetic manipulative technology cheaply and exactly. It has the potential now to exactly identify the purpose of every gene in our body, which science has tried to do but usually failed for many years.
When CRISPR does come out, then we will all need to be prepared to answer the questions posed by eugenic philosophies, abortion philosophies, and even, dare we consider it, euthanasic philosophies. We are already doing that in a very crude, basic way with Down Syndrome and abortion.
Edit: corrected formatting
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
I have high expectations for this forum and my fellow commenters. We have discussed contentious topics in the past without getting personal, and I expect the same here.
To put it more plainly, eugenics will always be pseudoscience no matter what we can do with our genetic code. The entire philosophy and body of thinking behind it is more mystical than scientific. And it's tied very deeply into racism and unscientific racial philosophy in general, of course. No, we really aren't. Parents who abort a fetus with Downs Syndrome (something, for the record, my wife and I discussed whether we would do, without reaching a definite conclusion, but it turned out to be a moot point - this is not an idle discussion for me) are not doing so because they want to "improve the human race". They are doing so because for personal reasons they are unwilling, or unable to provide the level of extra care such a child will require. It is actually much more comparable to the situation in China, where rural families especially were financially burdened by having a female child.
If - and that is a large if - CRISPR-based technology can do everything it promises, it will still not be particularly relevant to why most people get abortions (they are primarily for people who cannot carry the child to term for medical reasons, have fetuses with extreme problems, or who simply do not desire to have a baby). If anything, the technology might reduce the number of abortions since certain fetal defects are genetic in nature (but this is assuming a lot about how effective and affordable the technology may grow to be). I honestly don't know why you keep associating abortion as an issue with it. Being able to tweak the genes in a fetus isn't going to lead to more abortions (well, maybe some accidental ones). Incidentally, the extremely high likelihood of fetuses being killed or having undesirable side-effects by use of such an immature technology is likely to keep designer gene therapy for children out of the marketplace for a very long time, to say nothing of the "tampering in God's domain" sorts.
But hell, let's go crazy and imagine that CRISPR-based technology leads to a world where you can get your child not just freedom from genetic diseases (like heart disease, or ADHD), but also some immunity to other notable scourges (anti-malarial genetics without sickle-cell anemia, let's say), or a cocktail of genes tuned to allow long life with no averse side effects no matter who you give them to. We could go even crazier and imagine you can build people with physical superiority in some respects, or with some of the tools needed to be excellent at sports (although such genetically modified people would undoubtedly be banned from the Olympics and other competitions).
Well, so what? None of this is particularly different from the advantages humans already get. I wear glasses, but I could also wear contacts or get laser eye surgery to fix my nearsightedness, all of which are completely unnatural (and just like gene therapy, available predominantly to the richest portions of the world's population). Vaccines and immunisations of all sorts have dramatically cut the rates of diseases that killed more people than every war in history combined. The most dramatic and successful genetic engineering will never make a human beat a car in a marathon. Humans will always be more similar to each other than different no matter what genes you tweak.
Plus, people tend towards an unscientific view (propelled by the media, and Jurassic Park, thanks Crichton) of just how relevant genetics are to what you end up being in life. They're important, but they're also just one part of the picture. I mentioned ADHD above - it seems to have an inheritance component (but not a 100% one), but it is also dramatically increased if the mother smokes during pregnancy. Tons of things about you are affected by your environment, the environment your mother is in while pregnant, and many other factors. Plus, single genes don't actually tend to determine anything by themselves, but instead complex groups provide (as far as our science knows, and I don't see why or how CRISPR can change that) mere possibilities and likelihoods for the vast majority of outcomes. This will make it quite difficult to do designer gene therapies that a) guarantee success for anything more complex than hair colour, and b) also guarantee not having unwanted side effects, because you're actually going to be changing out a group of genes with myriad effects.
Just in case you haven't read enough, there's an article I liked on the topic at the Atlantic:
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/genes-are-overrated/480729/
I'll also put a question to you: what, precisely, are you worried is going to happen? Not vagaries about "eugenics", but what do you actually foresee a real, living human being doing with this technology on a given day in the future that concerns you?
That being said, not to say your anecdotal experiences are false, but I am skeptical of the idea that abortion is widely "advocated" for a fetus with Downs Syndrome, by doctors or the media. It does not square at all with how the topic is treated with any media from the US I've seen. My sister has Aspergers, and probably so do I (there is no co-morbidity allowed between it and ADHD in medical diagnosis, even though there is no reason to believe they can't coexist). It is absolutely and completely a defect. So is ADHD. So is BPD. So are most mental illnesses.
While I can appreciate the unwillingness to define the abnormal state of one's own or a loved one's brain as "defective", they are defective nonetheless. In happiness, ability to have and keep relationships, scholastic achievement, ability to have and hold down a job, and many other categories, everything I mentioned above is a powerful negative indicator. That doesn't mean they can't overcome it and lead a fulfilling life, any more than your own condition does. But it makes it harder. And much harder still if you're not born in the wealthy first world with its safety net, support structures, and readily available advanced medical care.
If gene therapy can eradicate any of the above, then we would be well-served if it could do so.
However, I doubt that people will abort a fetus because it has a higher than normal chance (note that this is all genetics is likely to ever be able to tell us) to have Aspergers, so I don't see how it relates to your argument immediately prior.