US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Yes. That's what I am saying, that is not necessarily new life just yet. We cannot even say that it will inevitably result in new life. The process is not inevitable. To our current knowledge, even if everything is in place, the woman is perfectly healthy, fertilization occurred normally, the egg grew at the normal rate, etc... even still sometimes the process just fails. It could be due to things we still don't know, it could be just because the process is random in nature. Also, there might be natural factors that will prevent the egg/blastocist/embryo/fetus from evolving, which are beyond our control. By the way, @Moxie, I guarantee you I know from experience that miscarriages do happen.

I'm sorry for your experience with miscarriage. It's painful and sad.

There are many reasons for spontaneous miscarriage. And inviable fetus is one, and the inability to implant properly is another. Ectopic pregnancy is one, but always one that involves medical interventions. They are not viable. Current laws can prevent intervention, which threatens the life of the mother.

@Kieran suggested we're not talking about miscarriages here, but I think we are. You suggested where life begins. Aside from that, the abortion laws in the US have begun to affect how miscarriages can be handled. There are plenty of doctors in the US, in some states, who no longer understand how they can handle such inviable pregancies which require intervention that can now be considered "abortion"

But, again, the question is where life begins. We cannot run away from a question just because it is a hard one. Can I prove you that life does not begin just when the egg meets the sperm? Surely I can not. But there are good arguments for it. One could make the case that at the very early stages all we have are ordinary cells (that belong to the mother) carrying genetic information from both mother and father. And who said it all happens in an instant? You snap your fingers and, voilà, new life. It could be a smooth transition from potential new life to life.

On the other hand, it is quite easy to demonstrate that new life begins before parturition. The fact that you can perform a C-section and get a baby alive is direct evidence of that. It defies common basic logic, experience and pure human instincts to assume otherwise. It is not an honest position, and does not merit a response.

As I have said many times, the first trimester is when most abortions happen in the US, and when the decision is up to the mother/parents. That's 12 weeks, give or take. Fetal viability outside of the womb is 24 weeks, best case. I believe that late-term abortions should be done with doctor consultation, and related to extreme cases.

As I said above, my personal opinion is that new life begins between two to eight weeks after conception.

That's your personal opinion, and that's fine. It's a very narrow window for a woman to even confirm that she is pregnant, much less decide what she would do about it. And, since this is the US politics thread, it's especially narrow, if she lives in a state that no longer allows abortion. That's a lot of planning, and pulling your funds together, not to mention time off work, child care and travel plans.

 

[Moxie]

only partially. Wasn't it you I was debating with an age ago when the whole transgender thing started, and implied that I was ridiculous for asking what would be the difference if someone identified as an animal rather than the wrong gender? Well we're here now. Perhaps I'm simply more imaginative than you are or perhaps I'm just more willing to follow the fucked up logic of your side to the obvious end point

No, that was not me. However, if that is your logical run of thought, it's not so "imaginative" as both inflammatory and kind of crazy. I mean, seriously?

 

[Kieran]

Read your above. You believe that the embryo is a life, and that life is killed by abortion. That's murder, in your definition. How can it be otherwise? That's why I say that it's a hard conversation, when we're on different sides of it. I side with the mother, and you with the unborn fetus.

An embryo is life, I don’t just believe it. It’s as alive as you and me. I don’t call abortion murder because although it’s intentional, cruel and final, I’m also trying to look at it from the woman’s perspective. If she’s callous enough to bark, let’s kill this sucker then call it what we want. But I believe the culture has been so casual and in favour of abortion as an easy option that the life they’re killing is barely considered to be a life at all. Until after the abortion, when the emotional and moral effect can be terrible.

By the way, I side with the mother and the unborn foetus. You think the foetus is irrelevant.

I'm glad we agree on this, but I'm sorry you felt the need to add "if it's true."

I added if it’s true not to discredit you but because what different sides of the aisle focus on everywhere are often different and reported differently. It’s a pity that a whole industry grew up around abortion but hopefully in future it’ll tone a little, in places where it’s legal…

 

[Kieran]

@Kieran suggested we're not talking about miscarriages here, but I think we are. You suggested where life begins. Aside from that, the abortion laws in the US have begun to affect how miscarriages can be handled. There are plenty of doctors in the US, in some states, who no longer understand how they can handle such inviable pregancies which require intervention that can now be considered "abortion"

We’re not talking about miscarriage. A natural miscarriage is different in reason and cause to an abortion..

 

[Moxie]

An embryo is life, I don’t just believe it. It’s as alive as you and me. I don’t call abortion murder because although it’s intentional, cruel and final, I’m also trying to look at it from the woman’s perspective. If she’s callous enough to bark, let’s kill this sucker then call it what we want. But I believe the culture has been so casual and in favour of abortion as an easy option that the life they’re killing is barely considered to be a life at all. Until after the abortion, when the emotional and moral effect can be terrible.

This is a place we disagree, and where I find your position to be judgmental: it's not so casual for a lot of women. I don't think most are "callous" about it, either. I don't think it's an "easy" option for many women. You color your opinion with disparaging remarks about how women approach it, is what I'm saying.

By the way, I side with the mother and the unborn foetus. You think the foetus is irrelevant.

This is unfair to me. I have said that I give the right to the mother to choose in the first trimester. I don't live in her shoes. And by everything you've said, I'd say you lean in favor of the fetus. Which is your right.

I added if it’s true not to discredit you but because what different sides of the aisle focus on everywhere are often different and reported differently. It’s a pity that a whole industry grew up around abortion but hopefully in future it’ll tone a little, in places where it’s legal…

The "industry" of women's healthcare, if you must call it that, didn't grow up around abortion. It came a lot out of the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s, but started earlier in the 20C. with educating women on birth control, etc. The main objective was healthcare for women, particularly for low-income women. Basically all offer, or did, basic gynecological exams, PAP smears, breast exams, birth control information, pre- and post-natal care at no-cost/low-cost, as the primary objective. Some provided abortion services. Why would you even think that they "grew up around abortion?"

 

[Moxie]

We’re not talking about miscarriage. A natural miscarriage is different in reason and cause to an abortion..

Go back to Mrzz's response to you. He said that all zygotes turn into babies. I merely pointed out that that wasn't true, which is how we got to miscarriage. But there are inviable pregnancies which don't naturally expel, and require what some states call an "abortion," which causes legal dilemmas for the doctors, in states with very strict, new, and untested laws. This confusion threatens the life of the mother, not to mention the freedom of the doctors to act with the best of their medical information.

 

[Kieran]

This is a place we disagree, and where I find your position to be judgmental: it's not so casual for a lot of women. I don't think most are "callous" about it, either. I don't think it's an "easy" option for many women. You color your opinion with disparaging remarks about how women approach it, is what I'm saying.

You’re overreacting. I actually was giving most women the benefit of the doubt by using an extreme example of a callous woman.

This is unfair to me. I have said that I give the right to the mother to choose in the first trimester. I don't live in her shoes. And by everything you've said, I'd say you lean in favor of the fetus. Which is your right.

I don’t lean in favour of either. Once the foetus is alive in the womb, it has a right to life. You disagree, that’s fine. But when I asked you if you felt uncomfortable about 20% pregnancies ending up in abortion in 2020, you said no. So I wonder in what way you’re concerned about the foetus. They seem pretty disposable.

I asked you a follow up question: what about if 50% of pregnancies ended in abortion, or 100%? Is there any number that would make you uncomfortable?

The "industry" of women's healthcare, if you must call it that, didn't grow up around abortion. It came a lot out of the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s, but started earlier in the 20C. with educating women on birth control, etc. The main objective was healthcare for women, particularly for low-income women. Basically all offer, or did, basic gynecological exams, PAP smears, breast exams, birth control information, pre- and post-natal care at no-cost/low-cost, as the primary objective. Some provided abortion services. Why would you even think that they "grew up around abortion?"

I didn’t say the women’s healthcare industry grew up around abortion…

 

[Kieran]

I watched some clips of Andrew Cuomo on the Bill Maher show last night, and I wonder if - since he’s no longer facing any court cases for the allegations that forced him from office - if he’s putting himself out there to run against Biden?

He states frankly that Biden didn’t man up and support him during the allegations (when Biden himself had actually faced similar and survived), and that he’d run against him if he hadn’t faced his MeToo moment, and he doesn’t think Biden is the best the Democrats can offer.

Anybody here think he should run against Biden?

 

[Moxie]

Anybody here think he should run against Biden?

No.

 

[Kieran]

No.

What, nobody here thinks he should?

 

[Moxie]

You’re overreacting. I actually was giving most women the benefit of the doubt by using an extreme example of a callous woman.

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to add that, but whatever.

I don’t lean in favour of either. Once the foetus is alive in the womb, it has a right to life. You disagree, that’s fine. But when I asked you if you felt uncomfortable about 20% pregnancies ending up in abortion in 2020, you said no. So I wonder in what way you’re concerned about the foetus. They seem pretty disposable.

I asked you a follow up question: what about if 50% of pregnancies ended in abortion, or 100%? Is there any number that would make you uncomfortable?

It's sort of an outrageous hypothetical.

I didn’t say the women’s healthcare industry grew up around abortion…

You said this: "It’s a pity that a whole industry grew up around abortion." Given that I was talking about women's health care clinics, I hope you can understand how I mistook your point. That said, I'm not sure how a "whole industry grew up around abortion." What industry is that? You have an abortion, or you don't. They don't sell T-shirts, or offer punch-cards. There is no side-economy supported by abortion, or, if their is, it's been created by those who are against abortion and force women to travel. Even still, I don't think there is "abortion tourism." Most women who are forced to travel for an abortion they feel they need can barely afford it, as it is, including the time off of work, etc. I have looked around and have yet to find a clinic that offers abortion that doesn't offer other gynecological services. Again, I am unclear as to what "industry" grew up around abortion.

 

[Kieran]

It's sort of an outrageous hypothetical.

It’s not. It’s an honest question. What percentage would start to make you feel squeamish about the numbers? I mean, 60m+ in about 50 years doesn’t.

20% of all pregnancies in one year doesn’t. What would?

The industry I was talking about is the abortion industry. The killing babies in the womb industry. It’s gigantic, going by the numbers…

 

[Moxie]

What, nobody here thinks he should?

I'd be curious if anyone else here thinks he should, but, as the NYer around here, I will say that he's not especially well-liked in NY. He's a bully, and I'm saying that he was considered so long before his MeToo issues. His father's reputation got him a long way. Mario Cuomo was an elegant, eloquent man of conviction. Andrew is much less idealist, and much more ambitious, IMO.

 

[Moxie]

It’s not. It’s an honest question. What percentage would start to make you feel squeamish about the numbers? I mean, 60m+ in about 50 years doesn’t.

20% of all pregnancies in one year doesn’t. What would?

I honestly don't know how to answer your question. I have said that I agree with the mother's right to make her own decision in the first trimester, without explaining herself. The numbers basically conform to that. What could cause such enormously high numbers of abortions in the US? The young people who believe that the planet is unsustainable, as an example, and they stop wanting to bring children into it, while, at the same time, continuing to have sex? That would be some version of a dystopia. I could ask you the same thing about a dystopian world already imagined by Margaret Atwood in "The Handmaid's Tale," in which fertile women are forced to carry the babies for others. But to what point?

The industry I was talking about is the abortion industry. The killing babies in the womb industry. It’s gigantic, going by the numbers…

I just disagree with you that it fits the definition of "industry." They manufacture nothing. The proportion of the women's healthcare business that is abortion is relatively small. Sure, women's healthcare is huge...women need healthcare, and, frankly tend to be better at it, and from a younger age than men, because we basically have to be. In the US, however, the abortion side of the business, if you want to be crass, is clearly shrinking, due to legislation.

 

[Kieran]

I could ask you the same thing about a dystopian world already imagined by Margaret Atwood in "The Handmaid's Tale," in which fertile women are forced to carry the babies for others. But to what point?

I watched about 2 episodes. I thought it was about Saudi Arabia. Then I saw all these Hollywood whiny types saying it was about America.

Shake my damn head, as they say. I stopped watching…

 

[Moxie]

I watched about 2 episodes. I thought it was about Saudi Arabia. Then I saw all these Hollywood whiny types saying it was about America.

Shake my damn head, as they say. I stopped watching…

It was a very good book. And PS: Atwood is Canadian.

 

[Kieran]

It was a very good book. And PS: Atwood is Canadian.

My good friend Bríd loved the book but was very disappointed by the sequel. She loves Atwood’s work in general..

 

[Moxie]

I'm posting this video of Stephen Colbert's recent monologue for some personal reasons, one that I couldn't resist. You can pick it up at 6:50, for the rant on gun issues, which is a good one, or just go to 9:50, for what kind of people Mainers are. I was in Maine this summer, for other reasons, but I went to the sweet little town of Lisbon, where they hold the annual Moxie festival. It was shocking to think of that town on lockdown due to a massive shooting incident.

 

[mrzz]

Go back to Mrzz's response to you. He said that all zygotes turn into babies.

Just to clarify, that was merely bad phrasing, even from that very same post one can see I am aware this is not the case. But, yes, the phrase I wrote was simply wrong, period. I just did not mean that, but let me pay for my sloppy phrasing.

I was focused on differentiating something that is alive from something that will be alive. Even in the (unreal and merely hypothetical/rethorical) case where there would be certainty the zygote would turn into a baby later on, I still think it is important to distinguish between the two situations. The fact that there is no certainty at all is a distinct point to consider.


Ufffff.... that's a lot of words for an argument which is already past, and on which I already left my position clear. But I simply hate the fact people might think I would believe something as wrong as that. And, yes, I should not bother about what people think, but here we are....

 

[Moxie]

Just to clarify, that was merely bad phrasing, even from that very same post one can see I am aware this is not the case. But, yes, the phrase I wrote was simply wrong, period. I just did not mean that, but let me pay for my sloppy phrasing.

I was focused on differentiating something that is alive from something that will be alive. Even in the (unreal and merely hypothetical/rethorical) case where there would be certainty the zygote would turn into a baby later on, I still think it is important to distinguish between the two situations. The fact that there is no certainty at all is a distinct point to consider.


Ufffff.... that's a lot of words for an argument which is already past, and on which I already left my position clear. But I simply hate the fact people might think I would believe something as wrong as that. And, yes, I should not bother about what people think, but here we are....

You already clarified your point. The only reason I restated it was that Kieran couldn't understand how miscarriages had entered the conversation. I'm sorry I reiterated something you had already gone on to elaborate upon.