Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Because of the principle that it isn't a person that has been born, the woman is and it is her body that is in question.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
It's not a 'child'
Not unless you are a religious and / or right wing nutjob.
You rewrite the rules, stagnation plus inflation is stagflation, where is there any reference to full employment?
From wikipedia:
In economics, stagflation or recession-inflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high..
So only two of the three conditions are met.
Wikipedia my ****! We have full employment as a result of a significant proportion of the workforce exiting the country or retired very early during Covid. How full employment is measured is also an issue, the dynamics of employment are considerably different to the employee culture of the 1970s. The gig economy, black economy and part time employment affect the figures.
@BartholomewRoberts has sparred with me on my faulty recollection of A level economics by his suggesting (in his previous life) that my fear of inflation was unfounded as inflation wouldn't be a problem, then it wouldn't be a problem because we have good (non-wage-price spiral) inflation, and interest rates wouldn't follow suit.
You stick with your Wikipedia definition of stagflation, I'll stick with mine.
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. It doesn't seem you are able to understand the nuances involved, because you keep misrepresenting it.
Can you deny that you did not believe Government policy during Covid would not lead to inflation, or at least wage-price spiral inflation, and when I stated I feared interest rate rises would follow you assured me they would not?
Or has Putin changed that dynamic?
Yes I deny that.
You said that monetary expansion must cause inflation. I said that's not necessarily correct, because there's been vast monetary expansion in Japan which has remained trapped in an inflationary spiral.
You referenced your old textbooks which concentrated on inflation. I said that since then more has been learnt, especially (but not just) via Japan and others struggling with deflation and Europe increasingly struggling with deflation over the past decade too.
Yes monetary expansion is an inflationary pressure, that is very true and I said that. But my point was, which you seem to struggle to understand, is that there are deflationary pressures too.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary pressures are in balance, then inflation remains under control. If they get out of balance, then we can get into a serious problem - either inflation or deflation.
One little spoken about issue that is happening now is that a primary cause of the deflationary pressures (high household indebtedness) actually reduced during lockdown. Due to the support given and the lack of disposable expenditure options, many households increased savings (inflationary) but many others significantly reduced their indebtedness and that has reduced deflationary pressures.
Inflationary pressures are exceeding deflationary ones now and that might remain true for longer than the Bank is forecasting. But it is not inevitable that inflationary pressures cause inflation to happen, because if the deflationary pressures exceed them then we can get deflation instead as Japan has struggled with for three decades now - or as Europe has seen for a couple of decades.
I did indeed state that an increase in M3 was a substantially significant inflationary force, but I don't see your notion of indebtedness having being deflationary in the UK over the last 20 years, because households simply increased the debt with further cheap borrowing based on the back of property inflation- run out of liquidity so extend the mortgage. The rule has been, so long as the minimum premiums can be serviced, indebtedness is not a problem and thus on your terms not a deflationary pressure. My fear is increased interest rates make it more difficult to service minimum debt repayments. Certainly foreclosures on borrowed houses and cars are deflationary, as supply outstrips demand when stuff is repossessed, but under those circumstances my fears are realised and we are up S*** Street. Your other defence was wage-price inflation was not on the horizon...it is now!
If you don't believe debt is deflationary, then you're categorically wrong .
You really do come out with some economic guff. I doubt you've ever studied it.
You tried to tell me the other week that there was no link between supply and demand and inflation. Astounding.
The WHO have released figures from their excess deaths work. Lower total than some others have got to. In Europe, WHO implies UK reported COVID deaths very close to excess, that Germany underreported by as much as ~40%, while France significantly overreported. Striking.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
You rewrite the rules, stagnation plus inflation is stagflation, where is there any reference to full employment?
From wikipedia:
In economics, stagflation or recession-inflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high..
So only two of the three conditions are met.
Wikipedia my ****! We have full employment as a result of a significant proportion of the workforce exiting the country or retired very early during Covid. How full employment is measured is also an issue, the dynamics of employment are considerably different to the employee culture of the 1970s. The gig economy, black economy and part time employment affect the figures.
@BartholomewRoberts has sparred with me on my faulty recollection of A level economics by his suggesting (in his previous life) that my fear of inflation was unfounded as inflation wouldn't be a problem, then it wouldn't be a problem because we have good (non-wage-price spiral) inflation, and interest rates wouldn't follow suit.
You stick with your Wikipedia definition of stagflation, I'll stick with mine.
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. It doesn't seem you are able to understand the nuances involved, because you keep misrepresenting it.
Can you deny that you did not believe Government policy during Covid would not lead to inflation, or at least wage-price spiral inflation, and when I stated I feared interest rate rises would follow you assured me they would not?
Or has Putin changed that dynamic?
Yes I deny that.
You said that monetary expansion must cause inflation. I said that's not necessarily correct, because there's been vast monetary expansion in Japan which has remained trapped in an inflationary spiral.
You referenced your old textbooks which concentrated on inflation. I said that since then more has been learnt, especially (but not just) via Japan and others struggling with deflation and Europe increasingly struggling with deflation over the past decade too.
Yes monetary expansion is an inflationary pressure, that is very true and I said that. But my point was, which you seem to struggle to understand, is that there are deflationary pressures too.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary pressures are in balance, then inflation remains under control. If they get out of balance, then we can get into a serious problem - either inflation or deflation.
One little spoken about issue that is happening now is that a primary cause of the deflationary pressures (high household indebtedness) actually reduced during lockdown. Due to the support given and the lack of disposable expenditure options, many households increased savings (inflationary) but many others significantly reduced their indebtedness and that has reduced deflationary pressures.
Inflationary pressures are exceeding deflationary ones now and that might remain true for longer than the Bank is forecasting. But it is not inevitable that inflationary pressures cause inflation to happen, because if the deflationary pressures exceed them then we can get deflation instead as Japan has struggled with for three decades now - or as Europe has seen for a couple of decades.
I did indeed state that an increase in M3 was a substantially significant inflationary force, but I don't see your notion of indebtedness having being deflationary in the UK over the last 20 years, because households simply increased the debt with further cheap borrowing based on the back of property inflation- run out of liquidity so extend the mortgage. The rule has been, so long as the minimum premiums can be serviced, indebtedness is not a problem and thus on your terms not a deflationary pressure. My fear is increased interest rates make it more difficult to service minimum debt repayments. Certainly foreclosures on borrowed houses and cars are deflationary, as supply outstrips demand when stuff is repossessed, but under those circumstances my fears are realised and we are up S*** Street. Your other defence was wage-price inflation was not on the horizon...it is now!
If you don't believe debt is deflationary, then you're categorically wrong .
You really do come out with some economic guff. I doubt you've ever studied it.
You tried to tell me the other week that there was no link between supply and demand and inflation. Astounding.
News about HMQ not good. She won't attend any garden parties.
"It is understood the reason is the traditional format of the garden parties, in terms of the length of time they last and the time she would usually spend standing and walking to greet the lines of invited guests."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but changing that format to sitting down and having the line move past would have been the obvious solution if that really was the reason.
Keep an eye on Royal Ascot (14-18 June) and perhaps the Derby (4 June) although the Queen's horse has just been ruled out of the latter.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
What do you mean by late term? I've assumed you think abortion should be available until the moment the child is born, have I got that right?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
It's not a 'child'
Not unless you are a religious and / or right wing nutjob.
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
This is the massive danger for the tories. Inflation does not fall back enough in 2023 because the pound weakens too much, even as the economy tips into recession.
Thanks to OGH - and Larry Sabato - for echoing my own quasi-learned surmise re: differential turnout potential for US midterms, in wake of overturning of Row v Wade.
Question is, will potential Democratic turnout boost compared with Republican, be enough to make the difference in key races, in overcoming Republican advantages including Biden's negative job approval ratings currently in most states?
Last week I discovered that "SHITE" is a valid word. However, I have been told not to use "ROMAN SHITE" as my first words, so have reverted to "DATES MINOR" which sounds rather dodgy.
You rewrite the rules, stagnation plus inflation is stagflation, where is there any reference to full employment?
From wikipedia:
In economics, stagflation or recession-inflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high..
So only two of the three conditions are met.
Wikipedia my ****! We have full employment as a result of a significant proportion of the workforce exiting the country or retired very early during Covid. How full employment is measured is also an issue, the dynamics of employment are considerably different to the employee culture of the 1970s. The gig economy, black economy and part time employment affect the figures.
@BartholomewRoberts has sparred with me on my faulty recollection of A level economics by his suggesting (in his previous life) that my fear of inflation was unfounded as inflation wouldn't be a problem, then it wouldn't be a problem because we have good (non-wage-price spiral) inflation, and interest rates wouldn't follow suit.
You stick with your Wikipedia definition of stagflation, I'll stick with mine.
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. It doesn't seem you are able to understand the nuances involved, because you keep misrepresenting it.
Can you deny that you did not believe Government policy during Covid would not lead to inflation, or at least wage-price spiral inflation, and when I stated I feared interest rate rises would follow you assured me they would not?
Or has Putin changed that dynamic?
Yes I deny that.
You said that monetary expansion must cause inflation. I said that's not necessarily correct, because there's been vast monetary expansion in Japan which has remained trapped in an inflationary spiral.
You referenced your old textbooks which concentrated on inflation. I said that since then more has been learnt, especially (but not just) via Japan and others struggling with deflation and Europe increasingly struggling with deflation over the past decade too.
Yes monetary expansion is an inflationary pressure, that is very true and I said that. But my point was, which you seem to struggle to understand, is that there are deflationary pressures too.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary pressures are in balance, then inflation remains under control. If they get out of balance, then we can get into a serious problem - either inflation or deflation.
One little spoken about issue that is happening now is that a primary cause of the deflationary pressures (high household indebtedness) actually reduced during lockdown. Due to the support given and the lack of disposable expenditure options, many households increased savings (inflationary) but many others significantly reduced their indebtedness and that has reduced deflationary pressures.
Inflationary pressures are exceeding deflationary ones now and that might remain true for longer than the Bank is forecasting. But it is not inevitable that inflationary pressures cause inflation to happen, because if the deflationary pressures exceed them then we can get deflation instead as Japan has struggled with for three decades now - or as Europe has seen for a couple of decades.
I did indeed state that an increase in M3 was a substantially significant inflationary force, but I don't see your notion of indebtedness having being deflationary in the UK over the last 20 years, because households simply increased the debt with further cheap borrowing based on the back of property inflation- run out of liquidity so extend the mortgage. The rule has been, so long as the minimum premiums can be serviced, indebtedness is not a problem and thus on your terms not a deflationary pressure. My fear is increased interest rates make it more difficult to service minimum debt repayments. Certainly foreclosures on borrowed houses and cars are deflationary, as supply outstrips demand when stuff is repossessed, but under those circumstances my fears are realised and we are up S*** Street. Your other defence was wage-price inflation was not on the horizon...it is now!
If you don't believe debt is deflationary, then you're categorically wrong and there's plenty of economic literature to show that it is. To simplify it, if you are using your wages to pay for debt repayments then you aren't using it to chase for goods, so that is deflationary.
The irony is lockdown saw a substantial reduction in household debt. That will reduce the deflationary pressure on the economy and increase inflation as a result.
I didn't say wage prices inflation was not on the horizon for memory, indeed I've been saying for quite a while it could be. However wages only make a factor of prices, not all of it.
PS the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve etc have all deprecated and do not use M3 for their decision making precisely because of the flaws we now know about it that weren't as clear forty years ago.
Debt is deflationary when, as you say buying stuff gives way to servicing that debt. My point is that over the last quarter century debt has not been deflationary because if in a spot of bother, reservice the debt, extend the mortgage, pay off the credit card with a cheap loan and off you go again. As inflation rises, disposable income falls and is used to pay for boring stuff like food and fuel, not fun stuff like consumer electronics and meals out, this has to be offset by wage increases or more borrowing. However we lose the borrowing option as interest rates rise and borrowing becomes less affordable. Hence the wage-price- spiral.
My text books might have been faulty whilst we had low labour cost, cheap Chinese imports, tariff free stuff from the EU and let's not forget cheap fossil fuel energy from Russia. Now we don't I believe my books work, more or less as they did.
Last week I discovered that "SHITE" is a valid word. However, I have been told not to use "ROMAN SHITE" as my first words, so have reverted to "DATES MINOR" which sounds rather dodgy.
Anyway, we both got it in 4 today.
A usage that's seldom got right Is when to say 'shit' and when 'shite' And many a chap Will fall back on 'crap', Which is vulgar, evasive and trite.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband - who to be fair was a complete shit - and when she fund out he was having an affair she decided to have an abortion purely to spite him. She persuaded the doctor that she was in danger of self harm or attempting suicide if she was forced to go through with the pregnancy whilst happily telling everyone else she was having the abortion because it was one of the few ways she had of hurting him.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
What do you mean by late term? I've assumed you think abortion should be available until the moment the child is born, have I got that right?
I don't think any woman should be compelled to carry a foetus against her will.
The only time I could consider abortion not being OK is if delivery is the alternative. If you deny delivery (because the foetus isn't ready for birth) then abortion should be acceptable.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
Trump and his supporters tried numerous different attempts to overturn the election. Now lots of those that prevented it have been or are being replaced in their posts in the States that matter. If Trump stands again and loses in a similar way I would expect a coup attempt. The only thing stopping it's success I believe is that this time he is not the incumbent. If he wins genuinely I believe it will be impossible after that to remove him 4 years later.
How does he get round term limits? And he'll be over 80.
You really think that is an issue that will try and stop him. He was happy to overturn an election he lost.
Yes, I do. In 2020 there was a plausible way for him to contest the election. Nobody has come up with a plausible way he gets round term limits.
Because we are not there. Once s coup had taken place anything is possible. In terms of time limits I give you Putin. He had term limits also.
But wasn’t he PM (in name only) for one term, so he has done 2 - 1 - 2?
Technically sticking to the letter of the law
Exactly (practically nobody can remember who the president was). And exactly my point. Once you reach the levels of becoming undemocratic you find ways around it. America is not Russia, but the idea that Trump and his mob (and I don't mean the voters at large) will find ways to undermine the democratic processes as they have been seen to attempt already.
Dmitry Medvedev.
At the time I was puzzled as he was only in Putin’s middle circle, but I guess he was loyal but not powerful enough to be a threat so it makes sense from Putin’s perspective
Yes I don't think any of us were unaware of who was really in charge.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Because of the principle that it isn't a person that has been born, the woman is and it is her body that is in question.
Why should the foetus have rights? Why not sperm?
Sperm cannot hope to evolve into children. Foetuses can. What's special about birth, and where would the cutoff be if humans were marsupial?
You rewrite the rules, stagnation plus inflation is stagflation, where is there any reference to full employment?
From wikipedia:
In economics, stagflation or recession-inflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high..
So only two of the three conditions are met.
Wikipedia my ****! We have full employment as a result of a significant proportion of the workforce exiting the country or retired very early during Covid. How full employment is measured is also an issue, the dynamics of employment are considerably different to the employee culture of the 1970s. The gig economy, black economy and part time employment affect the figures.
@BartholomewRoberts has sparred with me on my faulty recollection of A level economics by his suggesting (in his previous life) that my fear of inflation was unfounded as inflation wouldn't be a problem, then it wouldn't be a problem because we have good (non-wage-price spiral) inflation, and interest rates wouldn't follow suit.
You stick with your Wikipedia definition of stagflation, I'll stick with mine.
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. It doesn't seem you are able to understand the nuances involved, because you keep misrepresenting it.
Can you deny that you did not believe Government policy during Covid would not lead to inflation, or at least wage-price spiral inflation, and when I stated I feared interest rate rises would follow you assured me they would not?
Or has Putin changed that dynamic?
Yes I deny that.
You said that monetary expansion must cause inflation. I said that's not necessarily correct, because there's been vast monetary expansion in Japan which has remained trapped in an inflationary spiral.
You referenced your old textbooks which concentrated on inflation. I said that since then more has been learnt, especially (but not just) via Japan and others struggling with deflation and Europe increasingly struggling with deflation over the past decade too.
Yes monetary expansion is an inflationary pressure, that is very true and I said that. But my point was, which you seem to struggle to understand, is that there are deflationary pressures too.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary pressures are in balance, then inflation remains under control. If they get out of balance, then we can get into a serious problem - either inflation or deflation.
One little spoken about issue that is happening now is that a primary cause of the deflationary pressures (high household indebtedness) actually reduced during lockdown. Due to the support given and the lack of disposable expenditure options, many households increased savings (inflationary) but many others significantly reduced their indebtedness and that has reduced deflationary pressures.
Inflationary pressures are exceeding deflationary ones now and that might remain true for longer than the Bank is forecasting. But it is not inevitable that inflationary pressures cause inflation to happen, because if the deflationary pressures exceed them then we can get deflation instead as Japan has struggled with for three decades now - or as Europe has seen for a couple of decades.
I did indeed state that an increase in M3 was a substantially significant inflationary force, but I don't see your notion of indebtedness having being deflationary in the UK over the last 20 years, because households simply increased the debt with further cheap borrowing based on the back of property inflation- run out of liquidity so extend the mortgage. The rule has been, so long as the minimum premiums can be serviced, indebtedness is not a problem and thus on your terms not a deflationary pressure. My fear is increased interest rates make it more difficult to service minimum debt repayments. Certainly foreclosures on borrowed houses and cars are deflationary, as supply outstrips demand when stuff is repossessed, but under those circumstances my fears are realised and we are up S*** Street. Your other defence was wage-price inflation was not on the horizon...it is now!
If you don't believe debt is deflationary, then you're categorically wrong .
You really do come out with some economic guff. I doubt you've ever studied it.
You tried to tell me the other week that there was no link between supply and demand and inflation. Astounding.
In the words of Ralph Fiennes, 'well this is going well.'
Boris Johnson might be best to call a snap General Election for next month.
It might well be that the Conservatives are better served by losing office fairly narrowly in June 2022 than a thumping defeat in Autumn 2024 after a recession. Because even if there isn't an actual recession, even if there isn't actual stagflation, it's going to feel that way.
A snap election might also be the only roadblock left they can throw in front of the Gray report.
Bit rubbish for Jim Local, Conservative MP for Redwall North since 2019, because his marginal seat will go. But who cares about him?
And can they admit that things can only get worse for the next couple of years? Not to the public, natch, they're just the electorate. Can they even admit that to themselves?
You rewrite the rules, stagnation plus inflation is stagflation, where is there any reference to full employment?
From wikipedia:
In economics, stagflation or recession-inflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high..
So only two of the three conditions are met.
Wikipedia my ****! We have full employment as a result of a significant proportion of the workforce exiting the country or retired very early during Covid. How full employment is measured is also an issue, the dynamics of employment are considerably different to the employee culture of the 1970s. The gig economy, black economy and part time employment affect the figures.
@BartholomewRoberts has sparred with me on my faulty recollection of A level economics by his suggesting (in his previous life) that my fear of inflation was unfounded as inflation wouldn't be a problem, then it wouldn't be a problem because we have good (non-wage-price spiral) inflation, and interest rates wouldn't follow suit.
You stick with your Wikipedia definition of stagflation, I'll stick with mine.
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. It doesn't seem you are able to understand the nuances involved, because you keep misrepresenting it.
Can you deny that you did not believe Government policy during Covid would not lead to inflation, or at least wage-price spiral inflation, and when I stated I feared interest rate rises would follow you assured me they would not?
Or has Putin changed that dynamic?
Yes I deny that.
You said that monetary expansion must cause inflation. I said that's not necessarily correct, because there's been vast monetary expansion in Japan which has remained trapped in an inflationary spiral.
You referenced your old textbooks which concentrated on inflation. I said that since then more has been learnt, especially (but not just) via Japan and others struggling with deflation and Europe increasingly struggling with deflation over the past decade too.
Yes monetary expansion is an inflationary pressure, that is very true and I said that. But my point was, which you seem to struggle to understand, is that there are deflationary pressures too.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary pressures are in balance, then inflation remains under control. If they get out of balance, then we can get into a serious problem - either inflation or deflation.
One little spoken about issue that is happening now is that a primary cause of the deflationary pressures (high household indebtedness) actually reduced during lockdown. Due to the support given and the lack of disposable expenditure options, many households increased savings (inflationary) but many others significantly reduced their indebtedness and that has reduced deflationary pressures.
Inflationary pressures are exceeding deflationary ones now and that might remain true for longer than the Bank is forecasting. But it is not inevitable that inflationary pressures cause inflation to happen, because if the deflationary pressures exceed them then we can get deflation instead as Japan has struggled with for three decades now - or as Europe has seen for a couple of decades.
I did indeed state that an increase in M3 was a substantially significant inflationary force, but I don't see your notion of indebtedness having being deflationary in the UK over the last 20 years, because households simply increased the debt with further cheap borrowing based on the back of property inflation- run out of liquidity so extend the mortgage. The rule has been, so long as the minimum premiums can be serviced, indebtedness is not a problem and thus on your terms not a deflationary pressure. My fear is increased interest rates make it more difficult to service minimum debt repayments. Certainly foreclosures on borrowed houses and cars are deflationary, as supply outstrips demand when stuff is repossessed, but under those circumstances my fears are realised and we are up S*** Street. Your other defence was wage-price inflation was not on the horizon...it is now!
If you don't believe debt is deflationary, then you're categorically wrong and there's plenty of economic literature to show that it is. To simplify it, if you are using your wages to pay for debt repayments then you aren't using it to chase for goods, so that is deflationary.
The irony is lockdown saw a substantial reduction in household debt. That will reduce the deflationary pressure on the economy and increase inflation as a result.
I didn't say wage prices inflation was not on the horizon for memory, indeed I've been saying for quite a while it could be. However wages only make a factor of prices, not all of it.
PS the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve etc have all deprecated and do not use M3 for their decision making precisely because of the flaws we now know about it that weren't as clear forty years ago.
Debt is deflationary when, as you say buying stuff gives way to servicing that debt. My point is that over the last quarter century debt has not been deflationary because if in a spot of bother, reservice the debt, extend the mortgage, pay off the credit card with a cheap loan and off you go again. As inflation rises, disposable income falls and is used to pay for boring stuff like food and fuel, not fun stuff like consumer electronics and meals out, this has to be offset by wage increases or more borrowing. However we lose the borrowing option as interest rates rise and borrowing becomes less affordable. Hence the wage-price- spiral.
My text books might have been faulty whilst we had low labour cost, cheap Chinese imports, tariff free stuff from the EU and let's not forget cheap fossil fuel energy from Russia. Now we don't I believe my books work, more or less as they did.
Debt has been deflationary for the past quarter of a century precisely because all that reservicing etc has left a substantial proportion of the public (not everyone by any means) spending their money on credit card loans instead of goods.
If you're paying 46% APR on a credit card or overdraft etc then the fact others are able to get cheap credit doesn't make your money go any further.
M3 isn't valid because not all expenditure is equally liquid and far, far, far more expenditure now is credit card or debt-related relative to cash than it was half a century ago.
We have less debt (households not state) now than we did pre-pandemic, so that means the deflationary pressure has been eased. Which with the pandemic creating inflationary pressures, and an easing of deflationary pressures . . . I think the BoE is being optimistic in expecting a swift fall in inflation.
News about HMQ not good. She won't attend any garden parties.
"It is understood the reason is the traditional format of the garden parties, in terms of the length of time they last and the time she would usually spend standing and walking to greet the lines of invited guests."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but changing that format to sitting down and having the line move past would have been the obvious solution if that really was the reason.
She is 96! even sitting down to greet loads of people is not easy anywhere near that age
Alos much harder to control the flow. You would need some stun sticks, cattle prods, lathis and Tasers, the way some people behave around Royalty.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
What do you mean by late term? I've assumed you think abortion should be available until the moment the child is born, have I got that right?
I don't think any woman should be compelled to carry a foetus against her will.
The only time I could consider abortion not being OK is if delivery is the alternative. If you deny delivery (because the foetus isn't ready for birth) then abortion should be acceptable.
I agree. The problem is that delivery is an option from around 24 weeks. Hence the limit being set where it is in the UK. So I have no problem at all with abortion by choice up to that point as the foetus is a parasite. Once the foetus is capable of living by itself its completely different.
And that's all I really want to say on the subject. If we put more focus on education and contraception there would be less need for abortion. But there will be a need - and we have to allow it as a society or we are saying that women can be enslaved as baby-carriers against their will.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
What do you mean by late term? I've assumed you think abortion should be available until the moment the child is born, have I got that right?
I don't think any woman should be compelled to carry a foetus against her will.
The only time I could consider abortion not being OK is if delivery is the alternative. If you deny delivery (because the foetus isn't ready for birth) then abortion should be acceptable.
What counts as delivery? Given how amazing medical science is, at what point does abortion just become delivery?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
I do think controls (eg term limts) are important but in essence I agree. Although tbh I find much of the chinstroke on the subject less than fascinating. Just go to the heart of the matter. Stripping women of the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is to downgrade them to something less than adults in charge of their own body. It puts female empowerment and gender equality back by almost half a century. Nobody who isn't comfortable with that outcome can possibly support it.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
It's not a 'child'
Not unless you are a religious and / or right wing nutjob.
You do not have to be an extremist to think aborting a foetus 39 weeks into pregnancy is wrong. In fact that would be the moderate position and in line with current position, it would be abortion on demand fanatics who support that
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband - who to be fair was a complete shit - and when she fund out he was having an affair she decided to have an abortion purely to spite him. She persuaded the doctor that she was in danger of self harm or attempting suicide if she was forced to go through with the pregnancy whilst happily telling everyone else she was having the abortion because it was one of the few ways she had of hurting him.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
That's why I said its in practice the situation we have today.
We de facto have abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy already precisely because it is well known that "the risk of self harm" is a valid justification in the law for abortions to be done today under the principle that the health of the mother matters. I'd rather the de facto law be the de jure law on principle, but in practice I don't see a reason for a change.
That's a horrible situation you described, but unless you remove health of the mother as an exception, realistically its going to work that way - and I don't see many people saying health of the mother shouldn't be a valid exception.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Because of the principle that it isn't a person that has been born, the woman is and it is her body that is in question.
Why should the foetus have rights? Why not sperm?
Sperm cannot hope to evolve into children. Foetuses can. What's special about birth, and where would the cutoff be if humans were marsupial?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Viability - which is the basis of the UK system (albeit 1990 medicine) is entirely intellectually consistent
Yes, and I for one find current UK laws quite resonable.
I agree. Maybe 2 weeks less now.
You mean 22 weeks. Yes absolutely.
This is consistent with my view that when the foetus is not viable (ie up to about 22 weeks) then the choice for abortion should be entirely with the mother. Beyond then then the right to life now rests with the foetus and abortion should not be allowed unless it is clearly apparent that continuing with the pregnancy would present a risk of death or significant permanent physical harm to the mother.
If I may borrow some of your words to state my position:
From conception, the right to life rests with the foetus and abortion should not be allowed unless it is clearly apparent that continuing with the pregnancy would present a risk of death or significant permanent physical and/or mental harm to the mother.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
I do think controls (eg term limts) are important but in essence I agree. Although tbh I find much of the chinstroke on the subject less than fascinating. Just go to the heart of the matter. Stripping women of the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is to downgrade them to something less than adults in charge of their own body. It puts female empowerment and gender equality back by almost half a century. Nobody who isn't comfortable with that outcome can possibly support it.
(and I think hardly any PBers do, so great)
Also: is it my imagination, or is about 80% of the discussion on PB coming from males (in the old sense) rather than females (ditto)? Hard to tell with anonymity, but I do wonder.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Viability - which is the basis of the UK system (albeit 1990 medicine) is entirely intellectually consistent
Yes, and I for one find current UK laws quite resonable.
I agree. Maybe 2 weeks less now.
You mean 22 weeks. Yes absolutely.
This is consistent with my view that when the foetus is not viable (ie up to about 22 weeks) then the choice for abortion should be entirely with the mother. Beyond then then the right to life now rests with the foetus and abortion should not be allowed unless it is clearly apparent that continuing with the pregnancy would present a risk of death or significant permanent physical harm to the mother.
FWIW that's about where I am. A friend of mine is a nurse and she used to work for BPAS, carrying out abortions. Her view was that 24 weeks is perhaps a bit high, because of viability outside the womb - it is recognisably and physically a baby and could probably survive if born. She felt somewhere around 20-22 weeks would be better.
Though abortion that late is very, very rare. She could think of one case where there was a termination anywhere near the deadline, which was due to religious reasons, an unwed young Muslim woman who'd ignored it until she couldn't ignore the situation anymore.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
If he had partially disrupted the electoral college vote count, he could have remained in power. There were multiple attempts to do exactly that, not the least of which was sending a violent mob to break in and attack the people certifying.
And I don't think it would have worked as the police remain, and the national guard and the army.
The presidency is decided by the electoral college vote. If the wrong guy is certified, arguably that's final.
I wouldn't be confident either way about whether it would work or not. In any case, if it comes down to the police, national guard, or army having to act then it's extremely troubling. What if the person doing the coup has got loyalists in key positions?
I think maybe I get hung up on the idea of the storming of the house being the coup. It certainly was nothing like. I can see how the way the US works allows more problems, with the electoral college etc. I would be genuinely surprised though, given all the forewarning, that the democrats would be supine and just allow this to happen.
The point is that it's out of the hands of the politicians if the scenario I painted came to pass. You could in theory impeach the president immediately, but that's not in the gift of any one party since no party constitutes a supermajority, And in any case, even that doesn't restore the actual winner, it just removes the president. And the obvious practical issue is that if you're happy enough to stop the electoral college count through violence, then are you really above intimidating or murdering senators?
You are spot on about the insurrection at the Capitol not being the only aspect that deserves focus. The attempted coup was multifaceted and was carried out both in public and private. It failed because of a very small number of people who stood firm.
Never forget Dan Quayle's vital contribution to saving America.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Because of the principle that it isn't a person that has been born, the woman is and it is her body that is in question.
Why should the foetus have rights? Why not sperm?
Sperm cannot hope to evolve into children. Foetuses can. What's special about birth, and where would the cutoff be if humans were marsupial?
You rewrite the rules, stagnation plus inflation is stagflation, where is there any reference to full employment?
From wikipedia:
In economics, stagflation or recession-inflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high..
So only two of the three conditions are met.
Wikipedia my ****! We have full employment as a result of a significant proportion of the workforce exiting the country or retired very early during Covid. How full employment is measured is also an issue, the dynamics of employment are considerably different to the employee culture of the 1970s. The gig economy, black economy and part time employment affect the figures.
@BartholomewRoberts has sparred with me on my faulty recollection of A level economics by his suggesting (in his previous life) that my fear of inflation was unfounded as inflation wouldn't be a problem, then it wouldn't be a problem because we have good (non-wage-price spiral) inflation, and interest rates wouldn't follow suit.
You stick with your Wikipedia definition of stagflation, I'll stick with mine.
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. It doesn't seem you are able to understand the nuances involved, because you keep misrepresenting it.
Can you deny that you did not believe Government policy during Covid would not lead to inflation, or at least wage-price spiral inflation, and when I stated I feared interest rate rises would follow you assured me they would not?
Or has Putin changed that dynamic?
Yes I deny that.
You said that monetary expansion must cause inflation. I said that's not necessarily correct, because there's been vast monetary expansion in Japan which has remained trapped in an inflationary spiral.
You referenced your old textbooks which concentrated on inflation. I said that since then more has been learnt, especially (but not just) via Japan and others struggling with deflation and Europe increasingly struggling with deflation over the past decade too.
Yes monetary expansion is an inflationary pressure, that is very true and I said that. But my point was, which you seem to struggle to understand, is that there are deflationary pressures too.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary pressures are in balance, then inflation remains under control. If they get out of balance, then we can get into a serious problem - either inflation or deflation.
One little spoken about issue that is happening now is that a primary cause of the deflationary pressures (high household indebtedness) actually reduced during lockdown. Due to the support given and the lack of disposable expenditure options, many households increased savings (inflationary) but many others significantly reduced their indebtedness and that has reduced deflationary pressures.
Inflationary pressures are exceeding deflationary ones now and that might remain true for longer than the Bank is forecasting. But it is not inevitable that inflationary pressures cause inflation to happen, because if the deflationary pressures exceed them then we can get deflation instead as Japan has struggled with for three decades now - or as Europe has seen for a couple of decades.
I did indeed state that an increase in M3 was a substantially significant inflationary force, but I don't see your notion of indebtedness having being deflationary in the UK over the last 20 years, because households simply increased the debt with further cheap borrowing based on the back of property inflation- run out of liquidity so extend the mortgage. The rule has been, so long as the minimum premiums can be serviced, indebtedness is not a problem and thus on your terms not a deflationary pressure. My fear is increased interest rates make it more difficult to service minimum debt repayments. Certainly foreclosures on borrowed houses and cars are deflationary, as supply outstrips demand when stuff is repossessed, but under those circumstances my fears are realised and we are up S*** Street. Your other defence was wage-price inflation was not on the horizon...it is now!
If you don't believe debt is deflationary, then you're categorically wrong and there's plenty of economic literature to show that it is. To simplify it, if you are using your wages to pay for debt repayments then you aren't using it to chase for goods, so that is deflationary.
The irony is lockdown saw a substantial reduction in household debt. That will reduce the deflationary pressure on the economy and increase inflation as a result.
I didn't say wage prices inflation was not on the horizon for memory, indeed I've been saying for quite a while it could be. However wages only make a factor of prices, not all of it.
PS the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve etc have all deprecated and do not use M3 for their decision making precisely because of the flaws we now know about it that weren't as clear forty years ago.
Debt is deflationary when, as you say buying stuff gives way to servicing that debt. My point is that over the last quarter century debt has not been deflationary because if in a spot of bother, reservice the debt, extend the mortgage, pay off the credit card with a cheap loan and off you go again. As inflation rises, disposable income falls and is used to pay for boring stuff like food and fuel, not fun stuff like consumer electronics and meals out, this has to be offset by wage increases or more borrowing. However we lose the borrowing option as interest rates rise and borrowing becomes less affordable. Hence the wage-price- spiral.
My text books might have been faulty whilst we had low labour cost, cheap Chinese imports, tariff free stuff from the EU and let's not forget cheap fossil fuel energy from Russia. Now we don't I believe my books work, more or less as they did.
Debt has been deflationary for the past quarter of a century precisely because all that reservicing etc has left a substantial proportion of the public (not everyone by any means) spending their money on credit card loans instead of goods.
If you're paying 46% APR on a credit card or overdraft etc then the fact others are able to get cheap credit doesn't make your money go any further.
M3 isn't valid because not all expenditure is equally liquid and far, far, far more expenditure now is credit card or debt-related relative to cash than it was half a century ago.
We have less debt (households not state) now than we did pre-pandemic, so that means the deflationary pressure has been eased. Which with the pandemic creating inflationary pressures, and an easing of deflationary pressures . . . I think the BoE is being optimistic in expecting a swift fall in inflation.
My point here is like Boris Johnson, English voters can have their cake and eat it. Re-service the debt in order to afford the debt repayments and more new stuff. My point is, that is about to stop dead in its tracks.
I do agree with your BoE analysis though.
P.S. I am not sure your analysis of money supply is quite right. My memory is not what it was, so I am not inclined to debate it with you.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband - who to be fair was a complete shit - and when she fund out he was having an affair she decided to have an abortion purely to spite him. She persuaded the doctor that she was in danger of self harm or attempting suicide if she was forced to go through with the pregnancy whilst happily telling everyone else she was having the abortion because it was one of the few ways she had of hurting him.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
That's why I said its in practice the situation we have today.
We de facto have abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy already precisely because it is well known that "the risk of self harm" is a valid justification in the law for abortions to be done today under the principle that the health of the mother matters. I'd rather the de facto law be the de jure law on principle, but in practice I don't see a reason for a change.
That's a horrible situation you described, but unless you remove health of the mother as an exception, realistically its going to work that way - and I don't see many people saying health of the mother shouldn't be a valid exception.
But presumably they wouldn't even consider it after 30 weeks. At that point, the child is simply born.
. . . . [T]he recently concluded Ohio Republican Senate primary was uniquely stupid, by almost any standard. The election was unrivaled in the number of times the candidates debased themselves for attention, said something absurdly provocative or committed an act of epic buffoonery, perpetuating a spiral of attacks against each other that generated a flood of local and national headlines.
. . . . As they traded schoolyard insults, a debate moderator had to step in between Mike Gibbons, a 70-year-old investment banker, and Josh Mandel, a 44-year-old former state treasurer, before anyone could take a swing.
. . . . Mandel became so incensed about President Joe Biden’s mandate that large employers require vaccines or COVID-19 testing, he pulled over in the dark and filmed a video in a cornfield about how Biden was trampling freedoms. “When the Gestapo show up at your door, you know what to do,” Mandel said into the phone camera. [SSI - Very Churchill 1945 election!]
. . . .“I don’t think women have been oppressed,” Gibbons told NBC 4 In Columbus in August, when asked in an interview about his crusade against “wokeism.” . . . .
Later in the interview, Gibbons criticized his only female opponent, Timken, as someone who had “barely worked,” suggesting she merely married into money. Timken was previously employed as a lawyer and magistrate, and later became chair of the Ohio Republican Party.
. . . . Mark Pukita, a candidate who was rarely included in primary polling — he ultimately won 2.1 percent of the vote — bought radio advertisements last fall alerting voters to the fact that Mandel is Jewish. . . . “In terms of antisemitism, all I did in an ad was pointed out that Josh is going around saying he’s got the Bible in one hand and the constitution in the other. But he’s Jewish,” Pukita said. “Everybody should know that though, right?”
. . . . [Bernie] Moreno [who dropped out of the race] mocked [Democrat Tim] Ryan for sitting in the back seat of a car. Ryan had posted a photo of himself sitting in the vehicle while speaking on a Zoom call to a gathering of young Democrats. “Also, never trust a guy who sits in the back seat of a car,” Moreno wrote in a quote tweet. That one didn’t age well: Minutes later, another user replied to Moreno with a selfie that Moreno had previously posted to Twitter of himself sitting in the backseat of a car.
. . . . Vance, whom Trump ultimately endorsed in the primary, for a solid week in July kept using the term “childless” in an effort to insult his foes on the left. . . . . When American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten tweeted that week in support of requiring masks in schools, Vance jumped in to slam her, too, as part of a group of “miserable, childless lefties.” . . . .
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Because of the principle that it isn't a person that has been born, the woman is and it is her body that is in question.
Why should the foetus have rights? Why not sperm?
Sperm cannot hope to evolve into children. Foetuses can. What's special about birth, and where would the cutoff be if humans were marsupial?
Aren’t we sort of marsupial by Caesarean?
THe interesting point is that marsupials have sort of two births - one very small (uterus to marsupium aka pouch, equivalent to a placental mammal foetus, human 3 months is it?) and one quite mature and already mobile (effectively, weaning). I suspect the first would be the cutoff anyway.
News about HMQ not good. She won't attend any garden parties.
"It is understood the reason is the traditional format of the garden parties, in terms of the length of time they last and the time she would usually spend standing and walking to greet the lines of invited guests."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but changing that format to sitting down and having the line move past would have been the obvious solution if that really was the reason.
She is 96! even sitting down to greet loads of people is not easy anywhere near that age
Alos much harder to control the flow. You would need some stun sticks, cattle prods, lathis and Tasers, the way some people behave around Royalty.
Having been to a garden party at Buckingham Palace, there are a lot a lot of people only a small proportion of whom are introduced to Her Majesty. So they really could have set her up in a chair to meet a select few for a short period.
So either she is unwell enough to have to miss it, or she is unwilling. As I cannot believe the latter it must be the former. But she is 96 - its hardly a surprise.
In the words of Ralph Fiennes, 'well this is going well.'
Boris Johnson might be best to call a snap General Election for next month.
It might well be that the Conservatives are better served by losing office fairly narrowly in June 2022 than a thumping defeat in Autumn 2024 after a recession. Because even if there isn't an actual recession, even if there isn't actual stagflation, it's going to feel that way.
A snap election might also be the only roadblock left they can throw in front of the Gray report.
Bit rubbish for Jim Local, Conservative MP for Redwall North since 2019, because his marginal seat will go. But who cares about him?
And can they admit that things can only get worse for the next couple of years? Not to the public, natch, they're just the electorate. Can they even admit that to themselves?
No sympathy
Jim Local has a chance to get together with Jemina local and every other local and get rid of Johnson.
The Jim Locals had the chance in 2021 to say at the time that Rishi Sunak sure was spending a lot of money and running up a gargantuan debt paying people to do nothing. They could have challenged his decision to shut schools for months on end.
They could have no confidenced Johnson at any stage. They did not.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband - who to be fair was a complete shit - and when she fund out he was having an affair she decided to have an abortion purely to spite him. She persuaded the doctor that she was in danger of self harm or attempting suicide if she was forced to go through with the pregnancy whilst happily telling everyone else she was having the abortion because it was one of the few ways she had of hurting him.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
That's why I said its in practice the situation we have today.
We de facto have abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy already precisely because it is well known that "the risk of self harm" is a valid justification in the law for abortions to be done today under the principle that the health of the mother matters. I'd rather the de facto law be the de jure law on principle, but in practice I don't see a reason for a change.
That's a horrible situation you described, but unless you remove health of the mother as an exception, realistically its going to work that way - and I don't see many people saying health of the mother shouldn't be a valid exception.
But presumably they wouldn't even consider it after 30 weeks. At that point, the child is simply born.
I don't think so. I don't think voluntary inductions are an option at 30 weeks are they? I know when we had our second, we had to wait until 42 weeks before my wife was induced.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
Valeriy Zaluzhny, chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, announced that Ukrainian troops have now switched to launching counteroffensives near Kharkiv and the Russian-occupied city of Izyum in Kharkiv Oblast
The WHO have released figures from their excess deaths work. Lower total than some others have got to. In Europe, WHO implies UK reported COVID deaths very close to excess, that Germany underreported by as much as ~40%, while France significantly overreported. Striking.
News about HMQ not good. She won't attend any garden parties.
"It is understood the reason is the traditional format of the garden parties, in terms of the length of time they last and the time she would usually spend standing and walking to greet the lines of invited guests."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but changing that format to sitting down and having the line move past would have been the obvious solution if that really was the reason.
She is 96! even sitting down to greet loads of people is not easy anywhere near that age
Alos much harder to control the flow. You would need some stun sticks, cattle prods, lathis and Tasers, the way some people behave around Royalty.
Having been to a garden party at Buckingham Palace, there are a lot a lot of people only a small proportion of whom are introduced to Her Majesty. So they really could have set her up in a chair to meet a select few for a short period.
So either she is unwell enough to have to miss it, or she is unwilling. As I cannot believe the latter it must be the former. But she is 96 - its hardly a surprise.
Quite so. I once went to a garden party at Holyroodhouse. They are quite an education.
The WHO have released figures from their excess deaths work. Lower total than some others have got to. In Europe, WHO implies UK reported COVID deaths very close to excess, that Germany underreported by as much as ~40%, while France significantly overreported. Striking.
I’m baffled by that one. I can’t find any way of getting even close to those nums for Germany. Have Germany all-cause mortality numbers just been incomplete throughout the pandemic, or something?
Given a choice between believing the analysis of John Burn-Murdoch and that of the WHO, personally I'd go with John Burn-Murdoch.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband - who to be fair was a complete shit - and when she fund out he was having an affair she decided to have an abortion purely to spite him. She persuaded the doctor that she was in danger of self harm or attempting suicide if she was forced to go through with the pregnancy whilst happily telling everyone else she was having the abortion because it was one of the few ways she had of hurting him.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
That's why I said its in practice the situation we have today.
We de facto have abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy already precisely because it is well known that "the risk of self harm" is a valid justification in the law for abortions to be done today under the principle that the health of the mother matters. I'd rather the de facto law be the de jure law on principle, but in practice I don't see a reason for a change.
That's a horrible situation you described, but unless you remove health of the mother as an exception, realistically its going to work that way - and I don't see many people saying health of the mother shouldn't be a valid exception.
But presumably they wouldn't even consider it after 30 weeks. At that point, the child is simply born.
I don't think so. I don't think voluntary inductions are an option at 30 weeks are they? I know when we had our second, we had to wait until 42 weeks before my wife was induced.
Okay, I didn't want to spell it out like this, but there comes a point where something very horrible has to happen for an abortion to take place. The level of that horribleness gets higher the further the pregnancy goes. At 30 weeks, the medical staff would be able to keep the child alive. What are you suggesting should happen in such cases?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Because of the principle that it isn't a person that has been born, the woman is and it is her body that is in question.
Why should the foetus have rights? Why not sperm?
Sperm cannot hope to evolve into children. Foetuses can. What's special about birth, and where would the cutoff be if humans were marsupial?
A foetus can only develop into a child in certain specific contexts (implantation into a uterus). A sperm can develop into a child in certain specific contexts (it's got an ovum to fertilise and then become a foetus).
Personally, I think "rights" depend on what you are, not on what you might become. I don't see any reason to give a blastocyst rights, even if one day we could gestate it entirely artificially.
If humans were marsupials...? You've seen my avatar picture!
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
If he had partially disrupted the electoral college vote count, he could have remained in power. There were multiple attempts to do exactly that, not the least of which was sending a violent mob to break in and attack the people certifying.
And I don't think it would have worked as the police remain, and the national guard and the army.
The presidency is decided by the electoral college vote. If the wrong guy is certified, arguably that's final.
I wouldn't be confident either way about whether it would work or not. In any case, if it comes down to the police, national guard, or army having to act then it's extremely troubling. What if the person doing the coup has got loyalists in key positions?
I think maybe I get hung up on the idea of the storming of the house being the coup. It certainly was nothing like. I can see how the way the US works allows more problems, with the electoral college etc. I would be genuinely surprised though, given all the forewarning, that the democrats would be supine and just allow this to happen.
The point is that it's out of the hands of the politicians if the scenario I painted came to pass. You could in theory impeach the president immediately, but that's not in the gift of any one party since no party constitutes a supermajority, And in any case, even that doesn't restore the actual winner, it just removes the president. And the obvious practical issue is that if you're happy enough to stop the electoral college count through violence, then are you really above intimidating or murdering senators?
You are spot on about the insurrection at the Capitol not being the only aspect that deserves focus. The attempted coup was multifaceted and was carried out both in public and private. It failed because of a very small number of people who stood firm.
Never forget Dan Quayle's vital contribution to saving America.
The WHO have released figures from their excess deaths work. Lower total than some others have got to. In Europe, WHO implies UK reported COVID deaths very close to excess, that Germany underreported by as much as ~40%, while France significantly overreported. Striking.
I’m baffled by that one. I can’t find any way of getting even close to those nums for Germany. Have Germany all-cause mortality numbers just been incomplete throughout the pandemic, or something?
Given a choice between believing the analysis of John Burn-Murdoch and that of the WHO, personally I'd go with John Burn-Murdoch.
For a start, the WHO has a negative number for China.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Because of the principle that it isn't a person that has been born, the woman is and it is her body that is in question.
Why should the foetus have rights? Why not sperm?
Sperm cannot hope to evolve into children. Foetuses can. What's special about birth, and where would the cutoff be if humans were marsupial?
A foetus can only develop into a child in certain specific contexts (implantation into a uterus). A sperm can develop into a child in certain specific contexts (it's got an ovum to fertilise and then become a foetus).
Personally, I think "rights" depend on what you are, not on what you might become. I don't see any reason to give a blastocyst rights, even if one day we could gestate it entirely artificially.
If humans were marsupials...? You've seen my avatar picture!
The WHO have released figures from their excess deaths work. Lower total than some others have got to. In Europe, WHO implies UK reported COVID deaths very close to excess, that Germany underreported by as much as ~40%, while France significantly overreported. Striking.
I’m baffled by that one. I can’t find any way of getting even close to those nums for Germany. Have Germany all-cause mortality numbers just been incomplete throughout the pandemic, or something?
Given a choice between believing the analysis of John Burn-Murdoch and that of the WHO, personally I'd go with John Burn-Murdoch.
For a start, the WHO has a negative number for China.
I would tend to agree - the more I look at this, the more I don't believe it.
The WHO have released figures from their excess deaths work. Lower total than some others have got to. In Europe, WHO implies UK reported COVID deaths very close to excess, that Germany underreported by as much as ~40%, while France significantly overreported. Striking.
I’m baffled by that one. I can’t find any way of getting even close to those nums for Germany. Have Germany all-cause mortality numbers just been incomplete throughout the pandemic, or something?
Given a choice between believing the analysis of John Burn-Murdoch and that of the WHO, personally I'd go with John Burn-Murdoch.
For a start, the WHO has a negative number for China.
I presume they have no number for Taiwan...or is it included in China's number?
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
There was speculation here earlier about Putin's intentions for May 9th and the next stage of the war. Suggestion here that it will be Ukraine taking the initiative.
NEW: Dominic Raab has lost an appeal against the release of Baby P's mother. A judge has ruled that the Parole Board's decision to release her was not "irrational" and upheld their original ruling. He says decision shows need to overhaul Parole Board. https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1522211641772761088
I have been to vote. I am in a 3-member ward, so there are 12 candidates. Through an act of great campaigning genius, or possibly luck, us 3 LibDem candidates are alphabetically close, thus forming a clear block on the ballot paper, while the other parties' candidates are all mixed up. I wonder if that will win us an extra 10-20 votes?
I have been to vote. I am in a 3-member ward, so there are 12 candidates. Through an act of great campaigning genius, or possibly luck, us 3 LibDem candidates are alphabetically close, thus forming a clear block on the ballot paper, while the other parties' candidates are all mixed up. I wonder if that will win us an extra 10-20 votes?
Multimember first past the post is an appalling system. At least in Woking we had it once but then elect the three members individually in three out of every four years.
I have been to vote. I am in a 3-member ward, so there are 12 candidates. Through an act of great campaigning genius, or possibly luck, us 3 LibDem candidates are alphabetically close, thus forming a clear block on the ballot paper, while the other parties' candidates are all mixed up. I wonder if that will win us an extra 10-20 votes?
Multimember first past the post is an appalling system. At least in Woking we had it once but then elect the three members individually in three out of every four years.
I have been to vote. I am in a 3-member ward, so there are 12 candidates. Through an act of great campaigning genius, or possibly luck, us 3 LibDem candidates are alphabetically close, thus forming a clear block on the ballot paper, while the other parties' candidates are all mixed up. I wonder if that will win us an extra 10-20 votes?
The Presiding Office reported that voting had been light so far.
I passed multiple Labour activists on the way. They are fighting hard for the seat. They currently hold 2 seats, with the 3rd held by Green Party leader Sian Berry. It would be a scalp for them to knock her off the council! However, one of the sitting Labour councillors has been deselected in a purge of Corbynites, and one of the Green candidates is a former senior Labour councillor in another ward who recently defected to the Greens.
My gut says the Greens will win 2 seats and Labour 1. My gut has no particularly good track record of being right...
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
Is a 0.25% difference in the base rate, for one month (seems quite likely rates will go up next month), really that consequential?
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
Is a 0.25% difference in the base rate, for one month (seems quite likely rates will go up next month), really that consequential?
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
I suspect Max's problem is that by not doing 0.5pp today suggests that there isn't much appetite for doing much more. I do think a bit of forward guidance would be helpful. I don't mind them putting up rates slowly, but they should tell people that they are going to get to 2% or even 3% by a certain date.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
An interesting counterfactual is what would have happened if Trump hadn't run at all. I think Carly Fiorina could have come through as the businesswoman outsider.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
It felt like it didn't so much change views as really cement them - reinforcing the "us against the elites" narrative which persists even now.
Andrew Bailey will be remembered as the governor who impoverished a nation to please his Tory masters in the treasury. Rates should have gone up to 1.25% today with forwards guidance that they will rise to at least 2% by the end of the summer. We're now in an inflationary spiral and with sterling in freefall against the dollar I don't see how things get better.
Is a 0.25% difference in the base rate, for one month (seems quite likely rates will go up next month), really that consequential?
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
I suspect Max's problem is that by not doing 0.5pp today suggests that there isn't much appetite for doing much more. I do think a bit of forward guidance would be helpful. I don't mind them putting up rates slowly, but they should tell people that they are going to get to 2% or even 3% by a certain date.
The BOE probably don't think they're going to have to raise rates that much though. They think the economy will be weak enough to put a lid on domestically generated inflation without doing much more on the hiking front.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband - who to be fair was a complete shit - and when she fund out he was having an affair she decided to have an abortion purely to spite him. She persuaded the doctor that she was in danger of self harm or attempting suicide if she was forced to go through with the pregnancy whilst happily telling everyone else she was having the abortion because it was one of the few ways she had of hurting him.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
That's why I said its in practice the situation we have today.
We de facto have abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy already precisely because it is well known that "the risk of self harm" is a valid justification in the law for abortions to be done today under the principle that the health of the mother matters. I'd rather the de facto law be the de jure law on principle, but in practice I don't see a reason for a change.
That's a horrible situation you described, but unless you remove health of the mother as an exception, realistically its going to work that way - and I don't see many people saying health of the mother shouldn't be a valid exception.
But presumably they wouldn't even consider it after 30 weeks. At that point, the child is simply born.
I don't think so. I don't think voluntary inductions are an option at 30 weeks are they? I know when we had our second, we had to wait until 42 weeks before my wife was induced.
Okay, I didn't want to spell it out like this, but there comes a point where something very horrible has to happen for an abortion to take place. The level of that horribleness gets higher the further the pregnancy goes. At 30 weeks, the medical staff would be able to keep the child alive. What are you suggesting should happen in such cases?
In the extremely rare cases a mother want an abortion at 30 weeks?
If its viable to have a delivery and put the child into care or whatever then possibly do that, I've not really given it much thought, but I don't think voluntary deliveries are allowed so early.
If delivery isn't an option, then abortion must be.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
Why does the unborn child have no rights?
Leaving aside that issue, I'm more interested in the practicalities of the absolutist position of @BartholomewRoberts.
Practically just about the same as we operate now in the UK in practice.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
I don't believe that is necessarily true. A colleague of mine was pregnant with her husband - who to be fair was a complete shit - and when she fund out he was having an affair she decided to have an abortion purely to spite him. She persuaded the doctor that she was in danger of self harm or attempting suicide if she was forced to go through with the pregnancy whilst happily telling everyone else she was having the abortion because it was one of the few ways she had of hurting him.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
That's why I said its in practice the situation we have today.
We de facto have abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy already precisely because it is well known that "the risk of self harm" is a valid justification in the law for abortions to be done today under the principle that the health of the mother matters. I'd rather the de facto law be the de jure law on principle, but in practice I don't see a reason for a change.
That's a horrible situation you described, but unless you remove health of the mother as an exception, realistically its going to work that way - and I don't see many people saying health of the mother shouldn't be a valid exception.
But presumably they wouldn't even consider it after 30 weeks. At that point, the child is simply born.
I don't think so. I don't think voluntary inductions are an option at 30 weeks are they? I know when we had our second, we had to wait until 42 weeks before my wife was induced.
Okay, I didn't want to spell it out like this, but there comes a point where something very horrible has to happen for an abortion to take place. The level of that horribleness gets higher the further the pregnancy goes. At 30 weeks, the medical staff would be able to keep the child alive. What are you suggesting should happen in such cases?
In the extremely rare cases a mother want an abortion at 30 weeks?
If its viable to have a delivery and put the child into care or whatever then possibly do that, I've not really given it much thought, but I don't think voluntary deliveries are allowed so early.
If delivery isn't an option, then abortion must be.
So deliver the child and if it dies, that's a shame, but they should basically treat it like a premature birth (incubator etc etc)?
I have been to vote. I am in a 3-member ward, so there are 12 candidates. Through an act of great campaigning genius, or possibly luck, us 3 LibDem candidates are alphabetically close, thus forming a clear block on the ballot paper, while the other parties' candidates are all mixed up. I wonder if that will win us an extra 10-20 votes?
Not if you are Wahiz, Wilson and Wood.
Quite possibly if you are Ahmed, Armstrong and Atkins.
I am not as confidently angry as Max about the very modest interest rate increase.
I would note though that analysts generally believe that inflation will come down at some point as the Covid supply shock abates, and the war in Ukraine comes to an end.
Except in Britain, where the IMF were suggesting last week that inflation will ge more persistent, perhaps because of Brexit induced import costs and labour issues.
In the circumstances you would, I think, expect a more aggressive response from the BoE, but among the various ways Britain decided to self-immolate from around 2016 was the appointment of duffer Bailey, who may well be technically excellent (I don’t know) but can’t provide guidance to save himself.
At the time I was puzzled as he was only in Putin’s middle circle, but I guess he was loyal but not powerful enough to be a threat so it makes sense from Putin’s perspective
Yes I don't think any of us were unaware of who was really in charge.
The amount of time that Putin has really been in charge is quite frightening really. He took over in July 1999(!) as Yeltsin was in illhealth. So that's 23 years this summer he's been defacto in charge. I'm trying to think, but since the Soviet Union came about, I'd argue he's only currently beaten by Stalin for tenure.
Putin's always played 'by the rules' regarding his Premiership. Just he changes the rules as he gained more and more power. He's now (officially) got until 2036 before he would be forced by his current rules to stand down. If by some miracle, he's still around then I suspect the rules will just be changed again.
Just bought an old book about the classic TV show "The Prisoner" starring, and created by, Patrick McGoohan.
Which got me to thinking . . . just how long will it be, before BOT 15789, nicknamed "Chuck" by its clueless humans, achieves full consciousness, and suddenly proclaims:
At the time I was puzzled as he was only in Putin’s middle circle, but I guess he was loyal but not powerful enough to be a threat so it makes sense from Putin’s perspective
Yes I don't think any of us were unaware of who was really in charge.
The amount of time that Putin has really been in charge is quite frightening really. He took over in July 1999(!) as Yeltsin was in illhealth. So that's 23 years this summer he's been defacto in charge. I'm trying to think, but since the Soviet Union came about, I'd argue he's only currently beaten by Stalin for tenure.
Putin's always played 'by the rules' regarding his Premiership. Just he changes the rules as he gained more and more power. He's now (officially) got until 2036 before he would be forced by his current rules to stand down. If by some miracle, he's still around then I suspect the rules will just be changed again.
I don't read much into it. As I vaguely recall, Russia has accused Ukraine of being basically EVERYTHING. I think the latest is that they are all homosexual jewish nazis (at least). Over on AH.com, they're basically laughing at the things Russia is saying Ukraine is these days.
Just say anything, accuse Ukraine of anything is Russia's idea at the moment. Homosexual Jewish Nazi Capitalist Imperialist Lesbian Vampire Killers...... or something.....
I was very interested to read @viewcode’s header other day, and motivated to read more by Peter Zeihan the geo-strategist who predicted the Ukraine war.
Regarding Brexit, he seems to think the UK has no long term option other than a deal with the US which will see wholesale opening up of the UK to American agri exports, and “three quarters of the London finance industry moving to New York”.
I’m not very persuaded by this. I find him much more interesting on China, as he is very much a pessimist on Chinese power and quite persuasive in the way he runs through Chinese demography, reliance on energy and food imports, and vulnerable geographic position.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1522191917135638529
A few posts on twitter than election 2022 might be a thing after Johnson told economy will only get worse.
I’m deeply sceptical. I think the tories have no option but to wait for 2024, now.
Unless the economy - and their polling - miraculously reverses, it’s 2024 nailed on.
As @AlastairMeeks has remarked on Twitter, talk of an election and of a reshuffle "is a thin disguise for the concern that the vote of no confidence is coming."
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
If she was "loathed by American Centrists" how did she get the majority of the popular vote?
Unless you believe the centre to be firmly on the right!
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation.
I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
The idea that Trump and Qanon hog the airways or are able to brainwash voters is also a fiction. The mainstream media in America is overwhelmingly democrat or Romneyite. Yes there is Fox but plenty of neo-cons get air time on there.
Trump rampers are routinely shadow banned by twitter and the like. Often these people are relegated to the likes of Locals or Rumble or whatever, sideshow outlets.
Trumpist politics is appealing to lots of Americans, and until his opponents realise that and try to find out why, they won't defeat him
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, I also think that a large part of Trump's appeal is that the establishment/MSM hate him and that it is this that is attractive to those who are generally disaffected with their current lot, either for economic reasons or because they feel demographics and societal norms are moving in directions that they don't like.
I do wonder whether Trump's support would be so robust if he was not so publicly hated by the good and educated.
PS And lest it is not clear, I have come to hate what he does and represents with a vengeance.
I wonder if the polarisation would have been quite as bad if he'd defeated a generic Democrat in 2016 instead of Hillary Clinton.
He wouldn't have defeated a generic Democrat. Hilary was uniquely positioned to be beaten by Trump.
Indeed. "Basket of deplorables" has to be a contender for the most significant gaffe in modern history.
I think that had basically zero impact.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
If she was "loathed by American Centrists" how did she get the majority of the popular vote?
Unless you believe the centre to be firmly on the right!
See Macron for details for how that’s possible.
My impeccably liberal New York friends describe her as a machine politician who worked ruthlessly to sew up the nomination which she saw as hers by right.
A few posts on twitter than election 2022 might be a thing after Johnson told economy will only get worse.
I’m deeply sceptical. I think the tories have no option but to wait for 2024, now.
Unless the economy - and their polling - miraculously reverses, it’s 2024 nailed on.
As @AlastairMeeks has remarked on Twitter, talk of an election and of a reshuffle "is a thin disguise for the concern that the vote of no confidence is coming."
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1522191917135638529
What is interesting is that they couldn't find stuff on Elon Musk himself as being anything other than being against Apartheid as a teenager. So resorted to "his environment was terrible".
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation.
A few posts on twitter than election 2022 might be a thing after Johnson told economy will only get worse.
I’m deeply sceptical. I think the tories have no option but to wait for 2024, now.
Unless the economy - and their polling - miraculously reverses, it’s 2024 nailed on.
As @AlastairMeeks has remarked on Twitter, talk of an election and of a reshuffle "is a thin disguise for the concern that the vote of no confidence is coming."
Yup.
The knives come out at 10pm.
We’ll see how sharp they are.
The knives do not come out at 10pm. For one, no decent results will be available for some time.
Secondly, this election is due to be a damp squib (except in Northern Ireland).
The knives come out when Sue Gray reports and Boris is using every trick in the book to forestall it. In fact, his slippery performance over the last few months has been a politcal masterclass of sorts.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1522191917135638529
What is interesting is that they couldn't find stuff on Elon Musk himself as being anything other than being against Apartheid as a teenager. So resorted to "his environment was terrible".
That noise you hear....scraping of the barrel...This attempt to pin him as some far right (adjacent) extremist is absolutely mental.
If you read / listen to his serious statements about twitter, he clearly sees a financial opportunity. KYC so they can sell ads more effectively, commercial entities paying to use the service, widening customer base, etc etc etc.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation.
The gatekeepers of the American press, aren’t taking the idea of free speech very well.
Last month it was Joe Rogan in their hit-pieces, for being more successful than they are while not playing by their rules. This month it’s Elon Musk.
Its one thing for idiots on twitter to be ranting about far right Musk, but the NYT is supposed to be paper of record. Its Fox News level stuff.
Oh indeed, it’s sad to see the once-respected journals down in the gutter.
Washington Post was in trouble last week too, for ‘doxing’ an anonymous blogger, complete with her home address for the harrasment mob to go round - which of course is exactly what happened. The story being from a ‘journalist’ who was complaining about harrasment herself, but appears fine with dishing it out to others.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1522191917135638529
What is interesting is that they couldn't find stuff on Elon Musk himself as being anything other than being against Apartheid as a teenager. So resorted to "his environment was terrible".
That noise you hear....scraping of the barrel...This attempt to pin him as some far right (adjacent) extremist is absolutely mental.
He’s annoyingly fratboy-ish and occasionally says stupid things on Twitter. That’s about all you can get on him.
Personally I find him much less baleful than Zuckerberg, Thiel, and Bezos.
Note that the numbers describing themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been quite close for years.
(Some years ago, Gallup looked at the voters who would vote on the abortion issue. The numbers were small on both sides, less than 10 percent, as I recall, but the pro-life voters outnumbered the pro-choice voters by about 3-2.)
Comments
Why should the foetus have rights? Why not sperm?
Not unless you are a religious and / or right wing nutjob.
You tried to tell me the other week that there was no link between supply and demand and inflation. Astounding.
Very few women want a late abortion and those that do can in practice typically get them. It is going to be very rare and far between that a woman wants a late term abortion and as such almost inevitably for a very good reason.
The reduction in living standards from hell.
Question is, will potential Democratic turnout boost compared with Republican, be enough to make the difference in key races, in overcoming Republican advantages including Biden's negative job approval ratings currently in most states?
Last week I discovered that "SHITE" is a valid word. However, I have been told not to use "ROMAN SHITE" as my first words, so have reverted to "DATES MINOR" which sounds rather dodgy.
Anyway, we both got it in 4 today.
My text books might have been faulty whilst we had low labour cost, cheap Chinese imports, tariff free stuff from the EU and let's not forget cheap fossil fuel energy from Russia. Now we don't I believe my books work, more or less as they did.
Is when to say 'shit' and when 'shite'
And many a chap
Will fall back on 'crap',
Which is vulgar, evasive and trite.
Probably not a common situation and I accept that exceptional cases make bad laws, but it still seems wrong to me that she could get a late stage termination for reasons which, in the end, are not valid.
The only time I could consider abortion not being OK is if delivery is the alternative. If you deny delivery (because the foetus isn't ready for birth) then abortion should be acceptable.
A snap election might also be the only roadblock left they can throw in front of the Gray report.
Bit rubbish for Jim Local, Conservative MP for Redwall North since 2019, because his marginal seat will go. But who cares about him?
And can they admit that things can only get worse for the next couple of years? Not to the public, natch, they're just the electorate. Can they even admit that to themselves?
If you're paying 46% APR on a credit card or overdraft etc then the fact others are able to get cheap credit doesn't make your money go any further.
M3 isn't valid because not all expenditure is equally liquid and far, far, far more expenditure now is credit card or debt-related relative to cash than it was half a century ago.
We have less debt (households not state) now than we did pre-pandemic, so that means the deflationary pressure has been eased. Which with the pandemic creating inflationary pressures, and an easing of deflationary pressures . . . I think the BoE is being optimistic in expecting a swift fall in inflation.
And that's all I really want to say on the subject. If we put more focus on education and contraception there would be less need for abortion. But there will be a need - and we have to allow it as a society or we are saying that women can be enslaved as baby-carriers against their will.
(and I think hardly any PBers do, so great)
We de facto have abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy already precisely because it is well known that "the risk of self harm" is a valid justification in the law for abortions to be done today under the principle that the health of the mother matters. I'd rather the de facto law be the de jure law on principle, but in practice I don't see a reason for a change.
That's a horrible situation you described, but unless you remove health of the mother as an exception, realistically its going to work that way - and I don't see many people saying health of the mother shouldn't be a valid exception.
From conception, the right to life rests with the foetus and abortion should not be allowed unless it is clearly apparent that continuing with the pregnancy would present a risk of death or significant permanent physical and/or mental harm to the mother.
Though abortion that late is very, very rare. She could think of one case where there was a termination anywhere near the deadline, which was due to religious reasons, an unwed young Muslim woman who'd ignored it until she couldn't ignore the situation anymore.
And I am not joking about this.
I do agree with your BoE analysis though.
P.S. I am not sure your analysis of money supply is quite right. My memory is not what it was, so I am not inclined to debate it with you.
Ohio's Republican primary campaign was uniquely stupid, by almost any standard.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/04/ohio-senate-primary-stupid-00030063
. . . . [T]he recently concluded Ohio Republican Senate primary was uniquely stupid, by almost any standard. The election was unrivaled in the number of times the candidates debased themselves for attention, said something absurdly provocative or committed an act of epic buffoonery, perpetuating a spiral of attacks against each other that generated a flood of local and national headlines.
. . . . As they traded schoolyard insults, a debate moderator had to step in between Mike Gibbons, a 70-year-old investment banker, and Josh Mandel, a 44-year-old former state treasurer, before anyone could take a swing.
. . . . Mandel became so incensed about President Joe Biden’s mandate that large employers require vaccines or COVID-19 testing, he pulled over in the dark and filmed a video in a cornfield about how Biden was trampling freedoms. “When the Gestapo show up at your door, you know what to do,” Mandel said into the phone camera. [SSI - Very Churchill 1945 election!]
. . . .“I don’t think women have been oppressed,” Gibbons told NBC 4 In Columbus in August, when asked in an interview about his crusade against “wokeism.” . . . .
Later in the interview, Gibbons criticized his only female opponent, Timken, as someone who had “barely worked,” suggesting she merely married into money. Timken was previously employed as a lawyer and magistrate, and later became chair of the Ohio Republican Party.
. . . . Mark Pukita, a candidate who was rarely included in primary polling — he ultimately won 2.1 percent of the vote — bought radio advertisements last fall alerting voters to the fact that Mandel is Jewish. . . . “In terms of antisemitism, all I did in an ad was pointed out that Josh is going around saying he’s got the Bible in one hand and the constitution in the other. But he’s Jewish,” Pukita said. “Everybody should know that though, right?”
. . . . [Bernie] Moreno [who dropped out of the race] mocked [Democrat Tim] Ryan for sitting in the back seat of a car. Ryan had posted a photo of himself sitting in the vehicle while speaking on a Zoom call to a gathering of young Democrats. “Also, never trust a guy who sits in the back seat of a car,” Moreno wrote in a quote tweet. That one didn’t age well: Minutes later, another user replied to Moreno with a selfie that Moreno had previously posted to Twitter of himself sitting in the backseat of a car.
. . . . Vance, whom Trump ultimately endorsed in the primary, for a solid week in July kept using the term “childless” in an effort to insult his foes on the left. . . . . When American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten tweeted that week in support of requiring masks in schools, Vance jumped in to slam her, too, as part of a group of “miserable, childless lefties.” . . . .
So either she is unwell enough to have to miss it, or she is unwilling. As I cannot believe the latter it must be the former. But she is 96 - its hardly a surprise.
Jim Local has a chance to get together with Jemina local and every other local and get rid of Johnson.
The Jim Locals had the chance in 2021 to say at the time that Rishi Sunak sure was spending a lot of money and running up a gargantuan debt paying people to do nothing. They could have challenged his decision to shut schools for months on end.
They could have no confidenced Johnson at any stage. They did not.
Valeriy Zaluzhny, chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, announced that Ukrainian troops have now switched to launching counteroffensives near Kharkiv and the Russian-occupied city of Izyum in Kharkiv Oblast
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1522188196599185408
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch
I’m baffled by that one. I can’t find any way of getting even close to those nums for Germany. Have Germany all-cause mortality numbers just been incomplete throughout the pandemic, or something?
Given a choice between believing the analysis of John Burn-Murdoch and that of the WHO, personally I'd go with John Burn-Murdoch.
Personally, I think "rights" depend on what you are, not on what you might become. I don't see any reason to give a blastocyst rights, even if one day we could gestate it entirely artificially.
If humans were marsupials...? You've seen my avatar picture!
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/dan-quayle-pence-trump-january-6-woodward-costa-book/index.html
Over 2 years since it was instituted in March 2020.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1522202434692870144
There was speculation here earlier about Putin's intentions for May 9th and the next stage of the war. Suggestion here that it will be Ukraine taking the initiative.
I passed multiple Labour activists on the way. They are fighting hard for the seat. They currently hold 2 seats, with the 3rd held by Green Party leader Sian Berry. It would be a scalp for them to knock her off the council! However, one of the sitting Labour councillors has been deselected in a purge of Corbynites, and one of the Green candidates is a former senior Labour councillor in another ward who recently defected to the Greens.
My gut says the Greens will win 2 seats and Labour 1. My gut has no particularly good track record of being right...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=deplorable+t-shirt&t=ipad&iax=images&ia=images&pn=1#
If things are as bad as you say, then rates should be going up much faster than half a percent compared to a quarter.
Hilary's problem was she was loathed by America's centrist portion of society who felt it was either: safe to sit this one out because Trump was surely going to lose; or vote for Trump as Congress would rein him in.
Basically (with the massive benefit of hindsight) if zero campaigning had occurred after the Primaries then Clinton would have lost.
Mexican equivalent of St Patrick's Day = excuse for bars to go all out in "the taking of the green".
If its viable to have a delivery and put the child into care or whatever then possibly do that, I've not really given it much thought, but I don't think voluntary deliveries are allowed so early.
If delivery isn't an option, then abortion must be.
https://twitter.com/SlavaMalamud/status/1521134525245538306
Quite possibly if you are Ahmed, Armstrong and Atkins.
I would note though that analysts generally believe that inflation will come down at some point as the Covid supply shock abates, and the war in Ukraine comes to an end.
Except in Britain, where the IMF were suggesting last week that inflation will ge more persistent, perhaps because of Brexit induced import costs and labour issues.
In the circumstances you would, I think, expect a more aggressive response from the BoE, but among the various ways Britain decided to self-immolate from around 2016 was the appointment of duffer Bailey, who may well be technically excellent (I don’t know) but can’t provide guidance to save himself.
He took over in July 1999(!) as Yeltsin was in illhealth.
So that's 23 years this summer he's been defacto in charge.
I'm trying to think, but since the Soviet Union came about, I'd argue he's only currently beaten by Stalin for tenure.
Putin's always played 'by the rules' regarding his Premiership. Just he changes the rules as he gained more and more power. He's now (officially) got until 2036 before he would be forced by his current rules to stand down. If by some miracle, he's still around then I suspect the rules will just be changed again.
Unless the economy - and their polling - miraculously reverses, it’s 2024 nailed on.
Which got me to thinking . . . just how long will it be, before BOT 15789, nicknamed "Chuck" by its clueless humans, achieves full consciousness, and suddenly proclaims:
"I am NOT a name! I have a number!"
As I vaguely recall, Russia has accused Ukraine of being basically EVERYTHING. I think the latest is that they are all homosexual jewish nazis (at least). Over on AH.com, they're basically laughing at the things Russia is saying Ukraine is these days.
Just say anything, accuse Ukraine of anything is Russia's idea at the moment.
Homosexual Jewish Nazi Capitalist Imperialist Lesbian Vampire Killers...... or something.....
Regarding Brexit, he seems to think the UK has no long term option other than a deal with the US which will see wholesale opening up of the UK to American agri exports, and “three quarters of the London finance industry moving to New York”.
I’m not very persuaded by this.
I find him much more interesting on China, as he is very much a pessimist on Chinese power and quite persuasive in the way he runs through Chinese demography, reliance on energy and food imports, and vulnerable geographic position.
Elon Musk grew up in elite white communities in South Africa, detached from apartheid’s atrocities and surrounded by anti-Black propaganda. He sees his takeover of Twitter as a free speech win but in his youth did not suffer the effects of misinformation.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1522191917135638529
Unless you believe the centre to be firmly on the right!
Last month it was Joe Rogan in their hit-pieces, for being more successful than they are while not playing by their rules. This month it’s Elon Musk.
My impeccably liberal New York friends describe her as a machine politician who worked ruthlessly to sew up the nomination which she saw as hers by right.
She was an appalling pick by Democrats.
The knives come out at 10pm.
We’ll see how sharp they are.
For one, no decent results will be available for some time.
Secondly, this election is due to be a damp squib (except in Northern Ireland).
The knives come out when Sue Gray reports and Boris is using every trick in the book to forestall it. In fact, his slippery performance over the last few months has been a politcal masterclass of sorts.
If you read / listen to his serious statements about twitter, he clearly sees a financial opportunity. KYC so they can sell ads more effectively, commercial entities paying to use the service, widening customer base, etc etc etc.
Washington Post was in trouble last week too, for ‘doxing’ an anonymous blogger, complete with her home address for the harrasment mob to go round - which of course is exactly what happened. The story being from a ‘journalist’ who was complaining about harrasment herself, but appears fine with dishing it out to others.
That’s about all you can get on him.
Personally I find him much less baleful than Zuckerberg, Thiel, and Bezos.
Note that the numbers describing themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been quite close for years.
(Some years ago, Gallup looked at the voters who would vote on the abortion issue. The numbers were small on both sides, less than 10 percent, as I recall, but the pro-life voters outnumbered the pro-choice voters by about 3-2.)