Roe v Wade is on deck

[Hermit]

It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.

Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?

No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.

And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.

That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.

Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

How do you propose we achieve this balancing act? Should we be governed by the tyranny of the minority for half a year and by the tyranny of the majority the other half?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.

Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?

No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.

And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.

That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.

Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice. It is enduring and some ways it is permanant.

There is no analogy to pregnancy, nor is it symmetric. It is the woman and woman alone that will bear most of it.

For the state to intercede in such an event, in any way that doesn’t involve widespread legitimate concern for health of pregnant women it is a travesty of human rights.

Democracy is smaller than this. To use democracy to justify forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy or an abortion is nothing short of a mockery of democracy.

 

[Metaphor]

It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.

Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?

No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.

And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.

That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.

Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

What?

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

I mean the part where there is suffering, compromise, and even a bunch of pain. While I'm glad you think pregnancy is roses and lilacs with cherubs floating around for over nine months, that isn't exactly how it works.

Many women even plan and want to get pregnant.

And marathon runners want to run in a marathon. That doesn't mean it isn't hard and painful.

I'm certain you are going to get to some point here. Was it that the state should be allowed to force a woman to endure a pregnancy? Because your mom was overjoyed over conception?

 

[Jarhyn]

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

What?

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

I mean the part where there is suffering, compromise, and even a bunch of pain. While I'm glad you think pregnancy is roses and lilacs with cherubs floating around for over nine months, that isn't exactly how it works.

Many women even plan and want to get pregnant.

And marathon runners want to run in a marathon. That doesn't mean it isn't hard and painful.

I'm certain you are going to get to some point here. Was it that the state should be allowed to force a woman to endure a pregnancy? Because your mom was overjoyed over conception?

Honestly, I expect it is one of the longest, hardest, most painful things anyone can do, and that's not even discussing raising the child.

It honestly baffles me how anyone can have the gall to think that any of it is easy!

It is guaranteed for massive swaths of it to be shitty and miserable.

Whenever I bring it up I bring it up in relation to my hernia, the accompanying surgery, or my kidney stones, the worst of which took 2 days to pass. I'm no stranger to such pain and brokenness, and it doesn't scare me. It just isn't going to be attainable for me for a very long time.

However, it is remarkably ignorant for someone to grandstand that these are not sacrifices someone should only be expected to undergo with consent.

Consent to an orgasm, a momentary drug effect, is not consent to that, and often enough in cases of abortions sought, there was not even that much consent involved.

 

[Toni]

It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.

Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?

No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.

And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.

That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.

Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.

I loved and wanted each of my children, including the one that would have been born had I not suffered an early miscarriage, aka a spontaneous abortion.

Did I lose something of value while pregnant? Certainly I did. I lost a significant amount of sleep and comfort. I lost my tiny waistline. I lost a great deal of time that I would have used otherwise. I lost a number of opportunities. I lost a significant amount of personal freedom. I could have lost a great deal more but I was fortunate to have access to good medical care and my children were delivered safely.

Here's the thing: I CHOSE to continue my pregnancies. I had a CHOICE about whether or not to go through the joys of pregnancy and motherhood--or not. One of my pregnancies came at a particularly inconvenient time for me, personally. Continuing that pregnancy meant compromising my career and giving up on a career path I had wanted since I was a child. I chose to continue the pregnancy because I decided between the two CHOICES I had, I cared more about the child than I did about the career I had wanted. It is really hard to explain to someone who never faced such a CHOICE how the mere fact that I had that CHOICE made it easier for me to accept the consequences, without even a hint of regret. If I had had no CHOICE, I might have truly resented the child that resulted from that pregnancy instead of loving them dearly and unconditionally and without hesitation, more than my own life.

I am certain your mother is a wonderful woman who loved and appreciated each of her children, even in the less comfortable and convenient days of pregnancy, even during the labor, however long and painful that was, and through the sleepless nights, while her children were infants or were ill or were teenagers or adults struggling with some aspect of their life. I'm certain of it because indeed, that's how I feel about my own children.

That doesn't mean that she and I did not give up some things, even if the sacrifice was willing and even if she and i judge it to be very worthwhile.

 

[Elixir]

Honestly, I expect it is one of the longest, hardest, most painful things anyone can do

That’s because you’re a bleeding heart lib’rul. You have no idea how hard it is to keep a dodge dually full of gas, to keep four 30 round clips of .223 ammo on hand at all times and still have time and money to attend Trump rallies.

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, I expect it is one of the longest, hardest, most painful things anyone can do

That’s because you’re a bleeding heart lib’rul. You have no idea how hard it is to keep a dodge dually full of gas, to keep four 30 round clips of .223 ammo on hand at all times and still have time and money to attend Trump rallies.

Only four? I had to keep 6, then later 8 30 round mags on my person at all times, and sleep with the rifle for a whole year of my life. Keeping the hummer gassed up and the turret manned was my life. And don't get me started on the jingoism I had to let myself be subjected to.

I have a coin handed to me by Robert Gates himself.

You know what nobody tells you? Rifle rounds are heavy.

.50 cal cans are even heavier.

And don't get me started how heavy that fucking SAW was...

 

[Elixir]

It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.

Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?

No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.

And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.

That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.

Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.

I loved and wanted each of my children, including the one that would have been born had I not suffered an early miscarriage, aka a spontaneous abortion.

Did I lose something of value while pregnant? Certainly I did. I lost a significant amount of sleep and comfort. I lost my tiny waistline. I lost a great deal of time that I would have used otherwise. I lost a number of opportunities. I lost a significant amount of personal freedom. I could have lost a great deal more but I was fortunate to have access to good medical care and my children were delivered safely.

Here's the thing: I CHOSE to continue my pregnancies. I had a CHOICE about whether or not to go through the joys of pregnancy and motherhood--or not. One of my pregnancies came at a particularly inconvenient time for me, personally. Continuing that pregnancy meant compromising my career and giving up on a career path I had wanted since I was a child. I chose to continue the pregnancy because I decided between the two CHOICES I had, I cared more about the child than I did about the career I had wanted. It is really hard to explain to someone who never faced such a CHOICE how the mere fact that I had that CHOICE made it easier for me to accept the consequences, without even a hint of regret. If I had had no CHOICE, I might have truly resented the child that resulted from that pregnancy instead of loving them dearly and unconditionally and without hesitation, more than my own life.

I am certain your mother is a wonderful woman who loved and appreciated each of her children, even in the less comfortable and convenient days of pregnancy, even during the labor, however long and painful that was, and through the sleepless nights, while her children were infants or were ill or were teenagers or adults struggling with some aspect of their life. I'm certain of it because indeed, that's how I feel about my own children.

That doesn't mean that she and I did not give up some things, even if the sacrifice was willing and even if she and i judge it to be very worthwhile.

More seriously (than my previous post) I think you touch on a profoundly important point.
If a pregnant woman feels pressured at all to carry to term, the elective element of their decision is compromised, opening the door to resentment. That resentment, no matter how slight or subliminal, is going to follow the eventual child for the rest of their life.

 

[Jarhyn]

It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.

Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?

No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.

And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.

That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.

Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.

I loved and wanted each of my children, including the one that would have been born had I not suffered an early miscarriage, aka a spontaneous abortion.

Did I lose something of value while pregnant? Certainly I did. I lost a significant amount of sleep and comfort. I lost my tiny waistline. I lost a great deal of time that I would have used otherwise. I lost a number of opportunities. I lost a significant amount of personal freedom. I could have lost a great deal more but I was fortunate to have access to good medical care and my children were delivered safely.

Here's the thing: I CHOSE to continue my pregnancies. I had a CHOICE about whether or not to go through the joys of pregnancy and motherhood--or not. One of my pregnancies came at a particularly inconvenient time for me, personally. Continuing that pregnancy meant compromising my career and giving up on a career path I had wanted since I was a child. I chose to continue the pregnancy because I decided between the two CHOICES I had, I cared more about the child than I did about the career I had wanted. It is really hard to explain to someone who never faced such a CHOICE how the mere fact that I had that CHOICE made it easier for me to accept the consequences, without even a hint of regret. If I had had no CHOICE, I might have truly resented the child that resulted from that pregnancy instead of loving them dearly and unconditionally and without hesitation, more than my own life.

I am certain your mother is a wonderful woman who loved and appreciated each of her children, even in the less comfortable and convenient days of pregnancy, even during the labor, however long and painful that was, and through the sleepless nights, while her children were infants or were ill or were teenagers or adults struggling with some aspect of their life. I'm certain of it because indeed, that's how I feel about my own children.

That doesn't mean that she and I did not give up some things, even if the sacrifice was willing and even if she and i judge it to be very worthwhile.

More seriously (than my previous post) I think you touch on a profoundly important point.
If a pregnant woman feels pressured at all to carry to term, the elective element of their decision is compromised, opening the door to resentment. That resentment, no matter how slight or subliminal, is going to follow the eventual child for the rest of their life.

Not for the first time this reminds me that while I would crawl through broken glass and have my face melted by acid if it meant being able to consent to having a child, anyone who tried to coerce me to do it in anyone's timeline and by anyone's choice but my own would find only one of us walking away from that confrontation.

 

[Jarhyn]

It may well be that we won’t be able to keep our democracy.

Eh, wouldn’t letting the states - the peoples’ representatives - decide a contentious moral issue be democracy?

No, it wouldn't.

Letting the people - the actual people themselves - decide a contentious issue would be democracy.

And in a representative democracy we do that through our elected representatives.

That's the theory. In practice elected representatives do not always create laws that represent the will of the vast majority of the people they represent. This is happening right now in Texas and 12 other US states in regard to abortion.

Of course the majority is not always right
The tyranny of the 51% Tyranny of the majority

Are you suggesting the tyranny of the minority is preferable?

Certainly not. It is always a balancing act. The majority is not always right and neither is the minority always right. If we ever work out how to balancing all those competing and sometimes contradictory wishes it will be wonderful.

Pregnancy is perhaps the most intimate and invasive thing a human being can go through. At its very least, it is an extraordinary sacrifice.

What?

I assume you mean this definition of sacrifice:

a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost

Women have given birth at least 30 billion times. Many women even plan and want to get pregnant. My own mother was overcome with joy when she first heard from the doctor confirming her first pregnancy. I what sense did she give up anything or lose something of value? She would not characterise it in any such way.

I loved and wanted each of my children, including the one that would have been born had I not suffered an early miscarriage, aka a spontaneous abortion.

Did I lose something of value while pregnant? Certainly I did. I lost a significant amount of sleep and comfort. I lost my tiny waistline. I lost a great deal of time that I would have used otherwise. I lost a number of opportunities. I lost a significant amount of personal freedom. I could have lost a great deal more but I was fortunate to have access to good medical care and my children were delivered safely.

Here's the thing: I CHOSE to continue my pregnancies. I had a CHOICE about whether or not to go through the joys of pregnancy and motherhood--or not. One of my pregnancies came at a particularly inconvenient time for me, personally. Continuing that pregnancy meant compromising my career and giving up on a career path I had wanted since I was a child. I chose to continue the pregnancy because I decided between the two CHOICES I had, I cared more about the child than I did about the career I had wanted. It is really hard to explain to someone who never faced such a CHOICE how the mere fact that I had that CHOICE made it easier for me to accept the consequences, without even a hint of regret. If I had had no CHOICE, I might have truly resented the child that resulted from that pregnancy instead of loving them dearly and unconditionally and without hesitation, more than my own life.

I am certain your mother is a wonderful woman who loved and appreciated each of her children, even in the less comfortable and convenient days of pregnancy, even during the labor, however long and painful that was, and through the sleepless nights, while her children were infants or were ill or were teenagers or adults struggling with some aspect of their life. I'm certain of it because indeed, that's how I feel about my own children.

That doesn't mean that she and I did not give up some things, even if the sacrifice was willing and even if she and i judge it to be very worthwhile.

More seriously (than my previous post) I think you touch on a profoundly important point.
If a pregnant woman feels pressured at all to carry to term, the elective element of their decision is compromised, opening the door to resentment. That resentment, no matter how slight or subliminal, is going to follow the eventual child for the rest of their life.

Not for the first time this reminds me that while I would crawl through broken glass and have my face melted by acid if it meant being able to consent to having a child, anyone who tried to coerce me to do it in anyone's timeline and by anyone's choice but my own would find only one of us walking away from that confrontation.

I just came to the realization that the same is true for my desire, and my ability, to create technology.

I have put my mind through a gauntlet of insanity beyond insanities to figure out some of the things I know how to engineer of technology, and some of them are really cool; some are utterly terrifying; some are both!

I would again go to far lengths to realize these dreams.

I would go to far lengths to prevent someone from leveraging me to do so for purposes other than my own.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
Nobody is advocating that pregnant women be forced to have abortions, and unions are decided by a majority of the workers. In many unionized companies, it is possible to opt out of being a member of the union, and that typically means that one gets the benefits of a union contract without paying for it or having to stop work when a strike is called. So you've managed to construct a whataboutism

Non sequitur. By that standard, any pointing out of inconsistency whatever counts as a whataboutism. What does any of that have to do with being mealy-mouthed about the thing you favor?

Whataboutism arguments are usually about hypocrisy, which is a simple ad hominem (genetic) fallacy.

Where do you see Jimmy claiming some virtue, for there to be anything for me to be accusing him of hypocrisy about? Pointing out an inconsistency is not normally about hypocrisy; it's about helping a person to see where he made a mistake.

Why drag unionism into a discussion of abortion?

Gee, why drag anything into a discussion of anything else? If people would only stay on topic then we'd all be free to claim anything follows from anything without all that pesky checking to see if we're committing special pleading fallacies.[/sarcasm]

Jimmy was evidently thinking about abortion using an inference procedure that he shouldn't rely on because it gives wrong answers. I dragged unionism in because his procedure gives wrong answers when you apply it to anything, not just when you apply it to abortion, and I picked unionism because I happened to know Jimmy is pro-union so I figured I could count on him to see the answer his procedure outputs is wrong when it's applied to unions.

As analogies go, this one was pretty bad.

As analogies go this one was pretty good, except that it depends on the listener to be able to handle a certain degree of abstraction about the sort of entity making the choice. (What with unions being collectives; it's kind of their whole point.)

wrapped inside of a straw man.

Now you're just trumping up charges out of hostility. What the bejesus argument am I supposed to have misrepresented?

You were the one charging Jimmy of an inconsistency regarding pro-unionism, which you inserted into the discussion.

And? How the devil do you figure that's a strawman? What the bejesus argument am I supposed to have misrepresented? Wait, do you not know what "strawman" means?

The term "pro-abortion" can be taken in two different ways--to advocate that an abortion be allowed and to advocate that an abortion take place. That's why those who advocate for it being allowed prefer the term "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion". The decision should be made by the pregnant woman, not someone else who favors or opposes the abortion.

Oh for the love of god. The decision of whether you marry a man should be made by you and him, not by somebody else who favors or opposes the marriage. The term "pro-gay-marriage" could be taken in two different ways by somebody with a sufficiently neurotic sense of how English works: to advocate that a gay marriage be allowed or to advocate that a gay marriage take place. And yet people keep saying they're "pro-gay-marriage", not "pro-gay-marriage-choice", and never worry that anyone will take them to be saying you and some other man should have to get married whether you want to or not.

I think that Jimmy has the question on <expletive deleted> analogies. Now it's about gay marriage.

I think I covered that under "Good argument". If the only reason you can come up with to dismiss an analogy is to curse at it, it's probably a good analogy. If you guys decline to reason about unions and gay marriage the same way you reason about abortion, that's a red flag that when you reason about abortion you're special pleading.

 

[TomC]

Not for the first time this reminds me that while I would crawl through broken glass and have my face melted by acid if it meant being able to consent to having a child,

What a goddam boy.

Trust me. Pregnancy is no cake walk.

I grew up in a huge Irish Catholic family. Pregnant women were just a regular fact of life. By the time my youngest aunt was birthing her last child, my oldest cousin was married and trying to get pregnant. It was just everywhere.

Believe me when I say. You don't wanna get pregnant. For some people it's not a bigger comittment than a summer garden. For some, it's much more involved. For some others, it's a life or death situation.

Do not take it lightly. It's a big fucking deal!
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

The guy advocated a maximum wage. Of course he's a radical far leftist. Just one who is very, very capable of compromise. If he were running in a different country's upcoming election he would conform his policy recommendations to that country's Overton window instead of to the U.S.'s.

Why would Sanders be a radical far leftist in the US, but conform his policy recommendations to a different country's Overton window if he were running in its upcoming election?

The same reason he conforms his policy recommendations to the U.S.'s Overton window when he's running in a U.S. election: because he wants to win. He'd rather get some of his wish-list enacted than none of it. This isn't rocket science.

So he is a radical far leftist in the US, but would conform his policy recommendations to a different country's Overton window? You are confused about stuff that is not even rocket science.

You evidently think those characteristics contradict each other. How do they contradict each other?

When you conform your policies to a different country's Overton window, presumably meaning you shift your policies in a rightward direction, you are no longer a radical far leftist.

You say "your policies" as if you were identifying something specific. I said "his policy recommendations". The policies a person recommends are not as a rule identical to the policies he wants. People conform their policy recommendations to Overton windows because there's little point in picking a hill to die on when it's a lost cause. They don't do it because they've magically stopped wanting something just because their neighbors won't go for it.

When you conform your policy recommendations to a different country's Overton window, in a rightward direction, presumably meaning you shut up about the unsaleably far-left stuff you favor, you are still a radical far leftist. Politesse had it precisely right: "The notion that Bernie Sanders is a radical far leftist utterly incapable of compromise is an opinion fully so divorced from his actual record as a politician as to be non-intersecting." That isn't a claim that he isn't a radical far leftist; it could just be that he's entirely capable of compromising. When people can't get everything they want, sensible ones compromise and go for the subset that's potentially achievable.

The notion that Sanders would be in the Coalition if he were an Australian MP is ludicrous. He'd most likely be an independent and usually vote with Labor.

Imagine you were shipped off by the CCP to the University of Chicago to learn how to be an economist, and you came home a hard-core free-market capitalist...

I'd no longer be a radical far leftist.

...and they gave you an economist job in some bureaucracy, while Mao was still alive. Would you talk to the people around you about how they needed to abolish communism and open a stock market and privatize inefficient factories and let just anybody hire employees? Or would you talk to them about how they could increase the food supply if they let peasants work fewer hours on the collective farm and more hours on their private plots?

I'd no longer be a radical far leftist because I am advocating capitalist policy now.

It's an analogy -- I'm asking you to contemplate a socialist's capitalist mirror image. You'd still be a hard-core free-market capitalist who wants to abolish communism even though you'd be advocating only the mildest of free-market reforms, because what you really want is outside 1970s China's Overton window, so arguing for it wouldn't accomplish anything of use and would just get you fired.

Here's another analogy. Let's suppose you're an atheist and you're living in Saudi Arabia. Are you going to tell your neighbors there's no God, or are you going to tell them there's no good reason to think God objects to women driving? Would you construe your failure to mention to them that you're an atheist as meaning you are no longer an atheist?

 

[Jarhyn]

Not for the first time this reminds me that while I would crawl through broken glass and have my face melted by acid if it meant being able to consent to having a child,

What a goddam boy.

Trust me. Pregnancy is no cake walk.

I grew up in a huge Irish Catholic family. Pregnant women were just a regular fact of life. By the time my youngest aunt was birthing her last child, my oldest cousin was married and trying to get pregnant. It was just everywhere.

Believe me when I say. You don't wanna get pregnant. For some people it's not a bigger comittment than a summer garden. For some, it's much more involved. For some others, it's a life or death situation.

Do not take it lightly. It's a big fucking deal!
Tom

As I told SoHy:
Don't. Tell. Me. What. I. Want.

I know what I want. I know what I would suffer for it, and I certainly know me better than you know me.

I have had kidney stones, and hernias, and hernia surgeries.

I have been confined to a chair for a month and a half because my insides were broken apart and living far harder far quicker than I ought to have. I did not make good decisions there, getting out of the chair like that that one time...

I have lain prone washed with pain, unmedicated, and shaking for days, pushing through it to shake sharp rocks out of my kidneys.

I found out later the cause and then I did that thing again anyway knowing I what would happen, knowing what I would develop another and have to pass it. The second was much worse than the first, and it won't likely be the last, and I know what costs I pay and what I pay it for.

I would do that all a hundred fold to gestate and birth a child.

I would do this even if there was a significant chance it would kill me just to try.

So please don't tell me what I am willing to experience.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think I covered that under "Good argument". If the only reason you can come up with to dismiss an analogy is to curse at it, it's probably a good analogy.

Or it is a bullshit analogy. Like 105% of all political analogies.

Do you think every workplace should be required to be unionized even if the employees vote against it? I can't believe you're against workers getting a say in the matter. But does this mean you'd doggedly insist that you aren't pro-union? Do you tell people, "No, no. Pro-union isn't what people like me are for. I'm pro-choice about unions. I'm pro-legal access to a union."

No, and again, that isn't remotely similar to pregnancy and women. I only care that every woman has a right to choose for herself. In order to be able to choose, abortion has to be legal, but that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. I'm rather indifferent on abortion.

 

[Bomb#20]

So why the heck can't we talk about abortion the same way we talk about unions -- the same way we talk about everything normal?

Because most pro-choice people are anti-abortion.

I am firmly pro-union; I think that the more workers are union members, the better.

I am also firmly anti-abortion; I think that the fewer abortions that occur, the better.

But I am firmly pro-choice; I do not believe that any woman who wants or needs an abortion should be faced with legal obstacles to obtaining one.

In my ideal dream world, ...

I am anti-house fire too; But I think that making access to firefighters as difficult as possible, in an attempt to encourage people to be more responsible and not have as many house fires, would be ... insane.

So would you describe yourself as anti-fire-department, because in your ideal dream world nobody would need one?

Bailing out of a plane is traumatic. Pilots report becoming permanently shorter afterwards. Would you describe yourself as anti-ejection-seat?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So would you describe yourself as anti-fire-department, because in your ideal dream world nobody would need one?

Bailing out of a plane is traumatic. Pilots report becoming permanently shorter afterwards. Would you describe yourself as anti-ejection-seat?

Man, you seem possessed over people not wanting to use the term pro-abortion. You might need to get over it.

Now, I would say I will be pro-decriminalization of abortion (and birth control) soon. Which really seems to be the more important thing and not the molehill you apparently want to set your flag on.

 

[Gospel]

Bomb#20 has earned my most misunderstood mutha (shut yo mouth) award. Here is your trophy , be sure to display it in public as often as possible. Cheerio!

 

[Jarhyn]

So would you describe yourself as anti-fire-department, because in your ideal dream world nobody would need one?

Bailing out of a plane is traumatic. Pilots report becoming permanently shorter afterwards. Would you describe yourself as anti-ejection-seat?

Man, you seem possessed over people not wanting to use the term pro-abortion. You might need to get over it.

Now, I would say I will be pro-decriminalization of abortion (and birth control) soon. Which really seems to be the more important thing and not the molehill you apparently want to set your flag on.

Well, it's full speed ahead to Handmaid's, if we can't win the midterms.

The Dems need one strategy and one alone: Handmaid's Tale:IRL edition; it's really happening, brought to you by the GOP.

Just, clips from handmaid's tale and the BC legislation and the anti-abortion legislation, and the opinion, and the discussions on the gay sex shit.

"Vote Democrat. Stay home, or vote republican/tea party, and you vote, quite literally, for an end to freedom."

I don't really want things to get ugly.

If America descends that far to Christo-Fascism or whatever, a lot of people will die, and life will suck regardless of who "wins" the ensuing conflict for a good long time.