Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

We’ve got another month of this in Georgia – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 27 in General
imageWe’ve got another month of this in Georgia – politicalbetting.com

One of the aspects of American politics that is not always appreciated in the UK is that each of the 50 states have different election laws. In Georgia they have a rule that unless a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in an election then there is a run off with the top 2 a few weeks later.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    It'll be like goin' back to a simpler place and time.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,330
    New thread just as I write out two midwit paragraphs? What a load of arse.
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.

    Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.

    It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
    I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.

    Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
    You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.

    For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.

    This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
    Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
    That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.

    Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.

    As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
    The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.

    All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
    Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.

    It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.

    Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
    Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".

    And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486
    edited November 9
    In the 2020 election referenced (well, one of them) David Perdue got 49.7% to 47.9%, but then lost the runoff to Jon Ossoff, 49.4% to 50.6%.

    Warnock will be hoping he doesn't have a similarly embarrassing final slip up.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,720
    carnforth said:

    New thread just as I write out two midwit paragraphs? What a load of arse.

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.

    Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.

    It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
    I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.

    Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
    You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.

    For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.

    This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
    Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
    That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.

    Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.

    As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
    The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.

    All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
    Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.

    It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.

    Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
    Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".

    And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
    Yes and here was my answer from the last thread:

    Indeed. Once you get on to "basic [and therefore immutable] human rights" you get on to eternal truths and @HYUFD can tell you where that leads. Yes that's right - straight to Vatican City and the Word of god.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


  • pingping Posts: 3,212
    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
  • kle4 said:

    In the 2020 election referenced (well, one of them) David Perdue got 49.7% to 47.9%, but then lost the runoff to Jon Ossoff, 49.4% to 50.6%.

    Warnock will be hoping he doesn't have a similarly embarrassing final slip up.

    That was my thinking when people were calling this as a likely Warnock win.

    Now in 2020, Trump was an embarrassment and weighed down the vote. Will a similar event repeat itself?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,330
    OnlyLivingBoy in the previous thread makes a useful point: paraphrasing - perhaps we just slow down democracy a bit when it comes to "fundamental" matters - 2/3 majorities for change, and so on. I'm uneasy, but I see the logic.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    Cookie said:

    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


    Failed attempt at haiku?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486

    carnforth said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.

    Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.

    It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
    I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.

    Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
    You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.

    For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.

    This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
    Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
    That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.

    Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.

    As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
    The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.

    All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
    Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.

    It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.

    Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
    Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".

    And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
    It's a genuine conundrum. I tend to take Kinabalu's view (unsurprising as he's basically right about everything). The idea that people's freedoms could just be taken away at the whim of some rabble rousing politician is really repulsive to me. Ultimately the decision has to be democratic but it shouldn't be easy or quick. Whipping up the majority to shit all over the rights of a minority is just too easy, and by the time the wrong is righted it might simply be too late.
    It shouldn't be easy or quick, but that's not his position which was 'as hard as possible', which suggests to be almost impossible, and thus not flexible enough, and ending up with people ignoring what is written and interpreting it however they like when morals and mores change.

    It's very hard to pinpoint the ideal level of protection and procedural or legal hurdles vs a total free for all, but if it is so tough it is easier to ignore and reinterpret that's what will happen, it actually prevents sensible evolution.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    edited November 9
    Arizona governor:

    69% counted

    Dem 50.3%
    GOP 49.7%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/us/results

    Anyone know if the remaining votes are likely to favour one of the parties?
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,846

    Cookie said:

    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


    Failed attempt at haiku?
    Translated from Welsh?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.

    How do they fail?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486
    edited November 9
    Cookie said:

    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


    I get unnecessary capitalisation, that's pretty normal, but that's not just unnecessary it is inconsistently unnecessary (why is Their capitalised but not Honor[sic] or Borough?)

    I find double spacing a greater sin than erroneous capitalisation, in general, possibly ebecause I commit the latter more often.

    (Albeit not as often as unnecessary parentheticals, hypenisation, and semi-colon use).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Across the country—at least everywhere north of the DeSantis-Dixon line—the normies held serve. Voters split their ticket, backing the least-Trumpy GOP governors at huge margins over their ticket-mates who were more comfortable in Steve Bannon’s War Room. In New Hampshire, Chris Sununu ran 25 points ahead of The General; in Ohio, Mike DeWine ran 18 points ahead of Vance; and, as I reported would happen, in Georgia, Brian Kemp ran 8 points ahead of Herschel Walker.


    Biden’s Silent Majority Is Still Trucking
    https://www.thebulwark.com/bidens-silent-majority-is-still-trucking/
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Cookie said:

    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


    Failed attempt at haiku?
    People don't realise there are rules for the *content* of haiku, not just the form. A poem should refer to nature in an identifiable season of the year, and convey a sense of the overwhelming sadness of things. This actually scores quite high on content but of course overshoots on syllables (5,7,5).

    My masterpiece from late October:

    Leaves on wet pavements.
    Next weekend we change the clocks
    And the government.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    edited November 9
    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Oliver Darcy
    @oliverdarcy
    ·
    54m
    Murdoch media is celebrating Ron DeSantis today, with prominently featured pieces in the New York Post and Fox News hailing him as the future of the GOP. "It is not an accident," a source familiar with how Murdoch operates his media empire tells me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486
    I wonder where his opponents think Sir Keir's Labour are on this chart


    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1457994224536899586/photo/1
    https://t.co/dAy6Zy51U5
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,987
    edited November 9
    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Andy_JS said:

    Arizona governor:

    69% counted

    Dem 50.3%
    GOP 49.7%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/us/results

    Anyone know if the remaining votes are likely to favour one of the parties?

    Lake is tweeting very confidently. Could be kiddology of course
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486

    Andy_JS said:

    Arizona governor:

    69% counted

    Dem 50.3%
    GOP 49.7%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/us/results

    Anyone know if the remaining votes are likely to favour one of the parties?

    Lake is tweeting very confidently. Could be kiddology of course
    If she's right she looks prescient. If she is wrong she can stoke a betrayal narrative.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Arizona governor:

    69% counted

    Dem 50.3%
    GOP 49.7%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/us/results

    Anyone know if the remaining votes are likely to favour one of the parties?

    Depends on your view

    Looking at the map, you would say Ds because the votes are concentrated in Maricopa and more D leaning counties.

    However, in 2020, Trump was actually gaining ground on Biden towards the end, which was against expectations given the perceived wisdom on the vote.

    My gut feel is that Lake does this. As some said, her comment may be getting ready to prepare the steal. But it may also because the GOP feels like the Maricopa votes to come in will be more GOP-focused.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,309
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cookie said:

    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


    Failed attempt at haiku?
    People don't realise there are rules for the *content* of haiku, not just the form. A poem should refer to nature in an identifiable season of the year, and convey a sense of the overwhelming sadness of things. This actually scores quite high on content but of course overshoots on syllables (5,7,5).

    My masterpiece from late October:

    Leaves on wet pavements.
    Next weekend we change the clocks
    And the government.
    Grammar frozen out
    Swindon’s cold words fail to shine
    Even on brass plaques

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486

    Andy_JS said:

    Arizona governor:

    69% counted

    Dem 50.3%
    GOP 49.7%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/us/results

    Anyone know if the remaining votes are likely to favour one of the parties?

    However, in 2020, Trump was actually gaining ground on Biden towards the end, which was against expectations given the perceived wisdom on the vote.
    Hence the competing Trump chants at different states of 'Stop the Count' and 'Count the Votes'.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cookie said:

    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


    Failed attempt at haiku?
    People don't realise there are rules for the *content* of haiku, not just the form. A poem should refer to nature in an identifiable season of the year, and convey a sense of the overwhelming sadness of things. This actually scores quite high on content but of course overshoots on syllables (5,7,5).

    My masterpiece from late October:

    Leaves on wet pavements.
    Next weekend we change the clocks
    And the government.
    Very clever. But I reject that. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that surely there is room in the world for an upbeat haiku? It may of course have to be called something else if haiku already describes a particular thing.

    Baking Christmas Cake
    Fireworks, parkin, Arnside Knott
    I love November

    Or even depart from seasonality into outright unbridled optimism:

    In every decade
    We can see ev'rything getting
    Better and better

    I'm from Manchester
    And therefore everything is
    Bloody brilliant

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,720
    edited November 9

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cookie said:

    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


    Failed attempt at haiku?
    People don't realise there are rules for the *content* of haiku, not just the form. A poem should refer to nature in an identifiable season of the year, and convey a sense of the overwhelming sadness of things. This actually scores quite high on content but of course overshoots on syllables (5,7,5).

    My masterpiece from late October:

    Leaves on wet pavements.
    Next weekend we change the clocks
    And the government.
    Grammar frozen out
    Swindon’s cold words fail to shine
    Even on brass plaques

    The Magic Roundabout:
    A pigeon sits on a street light
    And defecates.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    Just as the punishment for all crimes should be either death or a 1p fine, not arbitrary and messy compromises between the two.

    Of course birth isn't bloody arbitrary, it is the difference between eating, breathing and seeing stuff, and not doing those things.

    And really, what logical or moral weight do you attach to what you personally or anyone else "just thinks" about anything? It is the last refuge of the, for instance, homophobe: I just think two men doing those things is just wrong.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    Cookie said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cookie said:

    Have we done this yet? Swindon Borough Council taking the Russian bot approach to capitalisation and punctuation.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ridiculed-plaque-honouring-key-workers-littered-with-grammatical-errors/ar-AA13Vg6l?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4072238fdae7471784bcf7353bc99d07

    "The 35-word inscription contained a spelling mistake, nine unnecessary capital letters, an erroneous mid-sentence full-stop, and also stated that the pandemic began in March 2019."
    There is also a rogue double space in there.


    Failed attempt at haiku?
    People don't realise there are rules for the *content* of haiku, not just the form. A poem should refer to nature in an identifiable season of the year, and convey a sense of the overwhelming sadness of things. This actually scores quite high on content but of course overshoots on syllables (5,7,5).

    My masterpiece from late October:

    Leaves on wet pavements.
    Next weekend we change the clocks
    And the government.
    Very clever. But I reject that. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that surely there is room in the world for an upbeat haiku? It may of course have to be called something else if haiku already describes a particular thing.

    Baking Christmas Cake
    Fireworks, parkin, Arnside Knott
    I love November

    Or even depart from seasonality into outright unbridled optimism:

    In every decade
    We can see ev'rything getting
    Better and better

    I'm from Manchester
    And therefore everything is
    Bloody brilliant

    Manchester and haikus. This from our lost Poet laureate.

    To-con-vey one’s mood
    In sev-en-teen syll-able-s
    Is ve-ry dif-fic

    John Cooper Clarke.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066

    Oliver Darcy
    @oliverdarcy
    ·
    54m
    Murdoch media is celebrating Ron DeSantis today, with prominently featured pieces in the New York Post and Fox News hailing him as the future of the GOP. "It is not an accident," a source familiar with how Murdoch operates his media empire tells me.

    I was a bit surprised to see that he's almost the same age as Rishi Sunak, about 18 months difference. He looks more like 10 years older.
  • TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    edited November 9
    Reason for GOP Flop identified

    "Women just went crazy"

    https://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1590409501446148096?t=EwR8VUtKHXkZUBR9zcFzng&s=19

    (Messina has apologised already incidentally)
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    Oliver Darcy
    @oliverdarcy
    ·
    54m
    Murdoch media is celebrating Ron DeSantis today, with prominently featured pieces in the New York Post and Fox News hailing him as the future of the GOP. "It is not an accident," a source familiar with how Murdoch operates his media empire tells me.

    Murdoch has always hated Trump.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Wildly in Autumn
    Quick bets with little research
    I lose so badly
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    edited November 9
    Alistair said:
    A lot of this is typical media frenzy. I always thought the result would be either 50 or 51 GOP seats. A few days ago the media was saying it would be 53 or 54, and now it's 49 or 50.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,473
    kle4 said:

    In the 2020 election referenced (well, one of them) David Perdue got 49.7% to 47.9%, but then lost the runoff to Jon Ossoff, 49.4% to 50.6%.

    Warnock will be hoping he doesn't have a similarly embarrassing final slip up.

    Fact that Rev. Dr. Sen. Warnock is favored by suburban voters is a BIG plus for him in prospective runoff versus his GOP challenger.

    Same factor was also in play in Jan 2021 runoffs for Ossoff AND Warnock.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
    No.

    Two men. It's just not right.

    has exactly the same moral content. Your and anyone else's personal deeply held beliefs on any question, just aren't interesting.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,553
    To highlight how gerrymandering can give a minority a majority of house seats .

    Take NC . Currently it’s 7-7 .

    Because the GOP now have a majority on the State Supreme Court they will likely rubberstamp what the GOP originally wanted which was where they can get under half the states votes but end up with a 10-4 house split !

    This race to the bottom means you have to fight fire with fire .

    So in NY they drew up a gerrymandered map but this time the Dem majority on their SSC decided to play fair and kicked out the map.

    You can applaud that court but equally if you’re a Democrat you must also think wtf . Playing nice with the GOP gets you nowhere .
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,467
    Herschel Walker used to be handsome! No wonder he's struggling.
  • nico679 said:

    To highlight how gerrymandering can give a minority a majority of house seats .

    Take NC . Currently it’s 7-7 .

    Because the GOP now have a majority on the State Supreme Court they will likely rubberstamp what the GOP originally wanted which was where they can get under half the states votes but end up with a 10-4 house split !

    This race to the bottom means you have to fight fire with fire .

    So in NY they drew up a gerrymandered map but this time the Dem majority on their SSC decided to play fair and kicked out the map.

    You can applaud that court but equally if you’re a Democrat you must also think wtf . Playing nice with the GOP gets you nowhere .

    That is not exactly true with the NYSC playing fair.

    Cuomo's picks for the court were either Republican or conservative Democrat. There has been a lot of criticism from many in the NY D party about what he did, which was essentially ensuring personal friends were on the court.

    So, it wasn't a case of one side playing nice and the other not. If anything, it's more that Cuomo's pals got their own back on the D establishment in NY state for kicking him out.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 148

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the
    baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
    Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.

    The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.

    It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
  • Back and forth on NV - everyone trying to work out whether good or bad for CCM or Laxalt (gut feel, a bit more CCM but only because of the possible implications for Clark)

    https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1590421964451028994
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,286
    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    I can see arguments for drawing the line at conception, birth or at some point where the baby if born would be able (or likely) to survive.

    Florida's 15 weeks is reasonably consistent with much of Europe (eg France 16 weeks, Germany 12, Portugal 10, Spain 14). I'm not sure what the justification for a limit in this area is: perhaps that it gives plenty of time to know you're pregnant and make a decision? It seems to me less easy to justify than the other three possibilities.

    Of course, theoretically in GB abortion on request is illegal - that doesn't stop the practice being different from the theory.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    For those interested in the TERF wars. An obese male bodied ‘lady’s on a beauty contest in NH as part of the Miss America competition. 😂😂😂😂

    https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1590377686358450177?s=61&t=-Qsem5tDCyBfsPVOf3HLdQ
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,467
    I like John Fetterman.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    maxh said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the
    baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
    Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.

    The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.

    It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
    In what other context does "investment in" another human being confer preferential rights over it?

    I take it you are not a father. Or if you are, you are also borderline psychopathic, with this reduced emotional investment prior to birth?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    Roger said:

    I like John Fetterman.

    Why so?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    maxh said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the
    baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
    Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.

    The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.

    It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
    There is a third party in all this too of course.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,720
    edited November 9
    maxh said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the
    baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
    Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.

    The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.

    It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
    I have no idea about the emotion or physical aspect but in my example a happy couple decided to have a baby and then in week 38 they fell out and she wants an abortion.

    Does the past relationship, implicit contract, and viability of the baby with someone willing to look after it have no influence on the situation?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    6.2 on a GOP majority in the senate. Value?

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.179673535
  • pingping Posts: 3,212
    edited November 9

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    No.

    Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.

    The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.

    Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.

    Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.

    Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.

    You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.

    Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.

    Your absolutist position is infantile.
  • Had to deliver a parcel to this lady earlier

    Very disappointed that Mrs Dyldo wasn't in; I really wanted to see what she looks like


  • maxhmaxh Posts: 148
    Ishmael_Z said:

    maxh said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the
    baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
    Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.

    The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to
    terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.

    It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
    In what other context does "investment in" another human being confer preferential rights over it?

    I take it you are not a father. Or if you are, you are also borderline psychopathic, with this reduced emotional investment prior to birth?
    I’m not sure there are other comparable contexts.

    And yes I am with a second on the way. And I’m not really sure, hard to self-diagnose such things.

    My emotional and physical investment is not remotely comparable to that of my wife’s at this stage.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Had to deliver a parcel to this lady earlier

    Very disappointed that Mrs Dyldo wasn't in; I really wanted to see what she looks like


    Just another substytute penys, probably.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241

    Had to deliver a parcel to this lady earlier

    Very disappointed that Mrs Dyldo wasn't in; I really wanted to see what she looks like


    You’d have got a buzz out of that.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Roger said:

    I like John Fetterman.

    Why so?
    Rich layabout benefiting from wealthy parents so he can play left-wing causes?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    edited November 9

    Had to deliver a parcel to this lady earlier

    Very disappointed that Mrs Dyldo wasn't in; I really wanted to see what she looks like

    Be careful, even anonymised that picture may be a disciplinary offence.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    edited November 9
    ping said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    No.

    Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.

    The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.

    Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.

    Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.

    Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.

    You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.

    Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.

    Your absolutist position is infantile.
    I don't object to a position of 'until birth' - it's only a fundamentalist position if it brooks no disagreement. As far as I can see Bart is open to the arguments of those who favour other positions, he just happens to favour his own. A position of 'somewhere in the middle' is not inherently more reasonable in this or most other arguments.


  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    edited November 9
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,586
    ping said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    No.

    Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.

    The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.

    Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.

    Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.

    Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.

    You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.

    Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.

    Your absolutist position is infantile.
    Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Taz said:

    For those interested in the TERF wars. An obese male bodied ‘lady’s on a beauty contest in NH as part of the Miss America competition. 😂😂😂😂

    https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1590377686358450177?s=61&t=-Qsem5tDCyBfsPVOf3HLdQ

    There's legit edge cases about safe spaces, sport, gillick consent and so on.

    And there's moronic stone age bigotry. Why not tell us a joke about how God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Bruce?

    Don't forget to put a whole row of those gut wrenchingly embarrassing emoji things in, to enhance the comedy even further. That'll make you look really adult.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    Also, have we done that throwing-egg-at-Prince-Charles man was also a just-stop-oil man?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,649
    algarkirk said:

    ping said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    No.

    Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.

    The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.

    Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.

    Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.

    Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.

    You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.

    Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.

    Your absolutist position is infantile.
    Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.

    Especially when God carries out his own abortions, ie. miscarriage.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,066
    Ridiculous.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,639
    kle4 said:

    I wonder where his opponents think Sir Keir's Labour are on this chart


    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1457994224536899586/photo/1
    https://t.co/dAy6Zy51U5

    I would swap ‘97 and ‘05. People forget how radical some of Blair’s incoming policies were and focus too much on (initial) spending constraint.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Cookie said:

    Also, have we done that throwing-egg-at-Prince-Charles man was also a just-stop-oil man?
    And a Green candidate.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857

    Cookie said:

    Also, have we done that throwing-egg-at-Prince-Charles man was also a just-stop-oil man?
    No mayonnaise for him then.
    Post of the day.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    Andy_JS said:

    Ridiculous.
    As the police are demonstrating, they really don’t need new powers to do with these protests, and others. They just seem to find a reason if they want to arrest you, no matter how ridiculous. Frankly I despair of the depths the police service is falling to.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    No.

    Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.

    The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.

    Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.

    Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.

    Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.

    You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.

    Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.

    Your absolutist position is infantile.
    I don't object to a position of 'until birth' - it's only a fundamentalist position if it brooks no disagreement. As far as I can see Bart is open to the arguments of those who favour other positions, he just happens to favour his own. A position of 'somewhere in the middle' is not inherently more reasonable in this or most other arguments.


    *develops argument further*
    - for example, our own @SandyRentool favours the extinction of humanity. This is quite an extreme position. But not an unreasonable one - he accepts others' views and isn't, so far as we know, going round snuffing humanity out one by one. That would be unreasonable.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,467
    Andy_JS said:

    Roger said:

    I like John Fetterman.

    Why so?
    He looks unmanicured unlike most Americans standing for office
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    Cookie said:

    Also, have we done that throwing-egg-at-Prince-Charles man was also a just-stop-oil man?
    Shockingly bad shot. I thought it must have been Ronnie Rosenthal.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Also, have we done that throwing-egg-at-Prince-Charles man was also a just-stop-oil man?
    No mayonnaise for him then.
    Post of the day.
    Just wish it had been the 10,000th. Sadly I peaked too soon.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    edited November 9
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Taz said:

    For those interested in the TERF wars. An obese male bodied ‘lady’s on a beauty contest in NH as part of the Miss America competition. 😂😂😂😂

    https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1590377686358450177?s=61&t=-Qsem5tDCyBfsPVOf3HLdQ

    There's legit edge cases about safe spaces, sport, gillick consent and so on.

    And there's moronic stone age bigotry. Why not tell us a joke about how God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Bruce?

    Don't forget to put a whole row of those gut wrenchingly embarrassing emoji things in, to enhance the comedy even further. That'll make you look really adult.

    Not my sort of humour, Fella.

    Now jog on, people are interested in this matter. Plenty post about it. Have another drink.

    🥃🍸😂😂
  • Foxy said:

    Had to deliver a parcel to this lady earlier

    Very disappointed that Mrs Dyldo wasn't in; I really wanted to see what she looks like

    Be careful, even anonymised that picture may be a disciplinary offence.
    You're right I've got to be careful with this stuff, but I'm extremely confident that it's a made-up name or a typo. I've delivered to the house a few times before and never seen that name. I've removed everything else that could possibly be used to identify her, so I think I'm on pretty safe ground with it
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    15k Clark county mail ballots to be counted today. Represents monday and Tuesday morning mail ins.


    No on day drop boxs yet.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 148
    Cookie said:

    maxh said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the
    baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
    Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.

    The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.

    It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
    There is a third party in all this too of course.
    Agreed, and not saying it is an easy decision. I think Bart's position (and one that I would agree with) is that a mother will be very well aware of this point and it will factor heavily into her decision.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Roger said:

    I like John Fetterman.

    Why so?
    He looks unmanicured unlike most Americans standing for office
    Ars est celare artem. That headshave plus sculpted beard plus NINE tattoos take more grooming than most of us spend in a lifetime on manicures.

    He is 6'8" btw, which is cool, no question.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486

    I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.

    How do they fail?

    Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235

    Cookie said:

    Also, have we done that throwing-egg-at-Prince-Charles man was also a just-stop-oil man?
    Shockingly bad shot. I thought it must have been Ronnie Rosenthal.
    Savo Milosevic in his Villa days.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Another 13k mail was delivered today.

    Drop box figure will be reported this afternoon
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,846
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cookie said:

    Also, have we done that throwing-egg-at-Prince-Charles man was also a just-stop-oil man?
    And a Green candidate.
    According to one report he was wittering on about slavery. Turns out he's against it. Takes all sorts.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,304
    carnforth said:

    New thread just as I write out two midwit paragraphs? What a load of arse.

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.

    Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.

    It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
    I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.

    Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
    You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.

    For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.

    This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
    Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
    That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.

    Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.

    As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
    The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.

    All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
    Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.

    It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.

    Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
    Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".

    And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
    Replied to you on PT.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.

    How do they fail?

    Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
    If the Dems hadn't fucked up NY they might actually have been able to hold the house which would have been an outstanding night for the Dems.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486
    Andy_JS said:
    Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Taz said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Taz said:

    For those interested in the TERF wars. An obese male bodied ‘lady’s on a beauty contest in NH as part of the Miss America competition. 😂😂😂😂

    https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1590377686358450177?s=61&t=-Qsem5tDCyBfsPVOf3HLdQ

    There's legit edge cases about safe spaces, sport, gillick consent and so on.

    And there's moronic stone age bigotry. Why not tell us a joke about how God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Bruce?

    Don't forget to put a whole row of those gut wrenchingly embarrassing emoji things in, to enhance the comedy even further. That'll make you look really adult.

    Not my sort of humour, Fella.

    Now jog on, people are interested in this matter. Plenty post about it. Have another drink.

    🥃🍸😂😂
    Sure. Like people are interested in gay rights, therefore they enjoy the Adam and Bruce gags.

    you are far, far too stupid to profit from reading this site or for this site to profit from your posts. I don't say this in a spirit of spite or hostility, but because it is true. Accepting it would save you an awful lot of time.

    Well done with the emojis.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,304
    algarkirk said:

    ping said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    No.

    Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.

    The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.

    Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.

    Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.

    Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.

    You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.

    Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.

    Your absolutist position is infantile.
    Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.
    It's logic plus values.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 148
    TOPPING said:

    maxh said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    So if the father wants to keep the baby at Wk38 and the mother says no then the mother's view should obtain.

    Is there an element of there having been an implicit contract in the conception of the
    baby.

    But rape. Absolutely but this was against the will of the mother.

    Is there not with a consensual pregnancy an agreement that both father and mother will produce a baby and therefore at Wk 38 with a father willing to look after the baby his view should be taken into account?
    No.

    Not until birth.
    Goodness, I find myself agreeing with Bart again.

    The convincing part of the argument for me is that a woman cannot carry a baby to 38 weeks, with all that entails, without being deeply invested in it. So a decision to terminate at 38 weeks would only be made by her if it was an extreme circumstance and prima facie therefore justified without further discussion.

    It’s just not the same for a man, emotionally or physically, right up to and including birth. So he doesn’t get a say, except to the extent that his views influence the mother to be.
    I have no idea about the emotion or physical aspect but in my example a happy couple decided to have a baby and then in week 38 they fell out and she wants an abortion.

    Does the past relationship, implicit contract, and viability of the baby with someone willing to look after it have no influence on the situation?
    Yeah, sorry, I reacted to Bart's reply without really considering your specific scenario. I think I find it a bit diffiicult to imagine tbh - why does the falling out between parents make the mother want an abortion? Is it because she doesn't want to bring the baby up alone? If so she can give birth and hand responsibility to the willing father. It would seem spiteful in the extreme (as well as very damaging to her body) to abort in that case.

    It just doesn't seem like a case that would happen in the real world. Certainly not often enough to make policy based on it.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.

    Not betting either way but i think the suggested volume of outstanding mail and drop box makes the Dem the favourite in Nevada
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.

    How do they fail?

    Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
    Bobo Bear going down
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Foxy said:
    I can't hear it. Inappropriate, as you say, but with Raab calling the LOTO a wanker 20 minutes earlier not that big a deal in the scheme of things.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,639
    Foxy said:
    Yes if you’re Shadow Health Sec, it’s best to stick to “he’s a massive knob end”.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.

    How do they fail?

    Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
    I think the market is now overcorrecting to anything good for the Dems and slow to revise its position when it looks like the Republicans might actually do just well enough.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235

    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.

    How do they fail?

    Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
    Bobo Bear going down
    Oh Dear
    How sad
    Never mind.
  • Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Small value, yes: they should probably be less than evens for Nevada and about 2s for Georgia. AZ is also a (low probably) saver.

    Not betting either way but i think the suggested volume of outstanding mail and drop box makes the Dem the favourite in Nevada
    It depends on the mix and / or when they were dropped off.

    Laxalt had actually been benefiting (small) from the drop-offs in Washoe.

    Crucially, we don't have the total left outstanding for Clark, which is apparently coming in a few hours
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Taz said:


    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.

    How do they fail?

    Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
    Bobo Bear going down
    Oh Dear
    How sad
    Never mind.
    Although shes closed in from 6k down to 2500 with 9% left to count. Its very tight
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Taz said:


    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know why the market still thinks the Dems have a 10%+ chance of taking the House. The Republicans needed +5 pickups and they've already got +7 with only 45 seats left to declare.

    How do they fail?

    Co-3 is looking like a Dem pickup
    Bobo Bear going down
    Oh Dear
    How sad
    Never mind.
    Amusing and original, in equal parts.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,586
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    ping said:

    Cookie said:

    ping said:

    FPT;

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    nico679 said:

    It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .

    The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .

    The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.

    There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.

    Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
    Until birth?
    No, until the fortieth trimester.

    Yes, until birth.
    OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
    I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
    Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
    The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.

    It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
    Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
    I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?

    I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
    What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
    Its the mother's body until birth.
    I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.

    Neither are serious positions.

    You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
    I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third.
    I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
    What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
    Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?

    In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.

    If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.

    You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.

    24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.

    Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
    No.

    Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.

    The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.

    Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.

    Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.

    Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.

    You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.

    Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.

    Your absolutist position is infantile.
    Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.
    It's logic plus values.
    ...plus reasoning plus analogy plus argument as to rights of all including the unborn (if any) and duties.

    Science tells you nothing about what value and rights to place upon any individual from conception onwards, or its moral status. Religion cannot helpfully add to the general universal agreement that unjustified killing of humans is to be avoided, and dogmatic religious assertions don't advance argument.

This discussion has been closed.