Moves against abortion could help the Dems in the midterms – politicalbetting.com

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?

True.

Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.

Thanks for the answer.

Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?

Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.

The scenario could play out differently, though.

Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

I call "bullshit".

When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

Probably.

But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.

One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.

In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.

One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.

Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.

Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.

I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.

Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.

In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.

Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.

The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed

Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.

You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?

In the UK, maybe yes.

Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.

I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.

So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?

True.

Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.

Thanks for the answer.

Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?

Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.

The scenario could play out differently, though.

Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

I call "bullshit".

When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

Probably.

But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.

One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.

In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.

One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.

Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.

Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.

I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.

Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.

In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.

Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.

The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed

Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.

You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?

In the UK, maybe yes.

Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.

I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.

So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.

I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.

ping said:

Interest rates should be ~5%, given where inflation is right now, imo.

BoE failing their most basic duty.

londonpubman said:

Interest rate rise 0.25% to 1.00% confirmed

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?

True.

Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.

Thanks for the answer.

Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?

Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.

The scenario could play out differently, though.

Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

I call "bullshit".

When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

Probably.

But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.

One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.

In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.

One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.

Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.

Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.

I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.

Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.

In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.

Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.

The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed

Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.

You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?

In the UK, maybe yes.

Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.

I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.

So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.

I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.

Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.

I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?

True.

Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.

Thanks for the answer.

Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?

Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.

The scenario could play out differently, though.

Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

I call "bullshit".

When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

Probably.

But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.

One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.

In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.

One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.

Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.

Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.

I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.

Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.

In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.

Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.

The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed

Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.

You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?

In the UK, maybe yes.

Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.

I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.

So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.

I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.

Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.

I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.

Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,

Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.

NerysHughes said:

londonpubman said:

Interest rate rise 0.25% to 1.00% confirmed

Oh the horror!!

Richard_Tyndall said:

I hope it will help the Democrats. It is yet another reason why the Republican party as it stands is unfit for office or even existence.

HYUFD said:

Former Tory MP Nick Boles says he has voted Labour today for the first time since 1997

https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

MISTY said:

Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

The stagflation from hell.

10% inflation in Q4

Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is quite amazing how people are in denial over this. It's going to happen.

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

MISTY said:

Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

The stagflation from hell.

10% inflation in Q4

Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

BartholomewRoberts said:

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?

True.

Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.

Thanks for the answer.

Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?

Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.

The scenario could play out differently, though.

Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

I call "bullshit".

When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

Probably.

But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.

One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.

In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.

One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.

Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.

Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.

I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.

Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.

In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.

Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.

The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed

Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.

You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?

In the UK, maybe yes.

Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.

I suspect if you proposed an abortion one minute before birth most people would resile from that concept.

Including pregnant women, so its a moot point.

How many pregnant women do you think are begging for an abortion one minute before birth?

Why is this even an issue, or is it just a straw windmill to tilt?

I will put my faith in women that they're not likely to do that and in the extremely unlikely event that they did they must have extremely good reasons and its none of my business.

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Former Tory MP Nick Boles says he has voted Labour today for the first time since 1997

https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ

Anyone who prefers a Conservative government to a Labour one should NOT vote Conservative (aka CINO) today.

If the Tories do not do extremely badly there is a greater chance of the car crash known as Boris Johnson continue his disastrous premiership through to the GE which will lead to Labour being in power for a generation.

MISTY said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MISTY said:

Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

The stagflation from hell.

10% inflation in Q4

Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.

Well looking at the numbers, what would you call it?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

MISTY said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MISTY said:

Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

The stagflation from hell.

10% inflation in Q4

Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.

Well looking at the numbers, what would you call it?

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.

And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.

And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.

MISTY said:

Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

The stagflation from hell.

10% inflation in Q4

Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?

True.

Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.

Thanks for the answer.

Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?

Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.

The scenario could play out differently, though.

Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

I call "bullshit".

When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

Probably.

But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.

One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.

In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.

One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.

Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.

Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.

I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.

Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.

In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.

Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.

The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed

Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.

You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?

In the UK, maybe yes.

Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.

I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.

So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.

I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.

Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.

I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.

Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,

Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.

Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.

No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.

tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.

Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.

So what is your view on the rights of the child?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.

And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.

Unfortunate that you think that of most of the UK population

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.

And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.

Unfortunate that you think that of most of the UK population

Most of the UK population don't promote the "destruction of democracy" conspiracy theory.

turbotubbs said:

What would have happened next to make it a close run thing? This is the bit I don't get. Surely the police would get their shit together and arrest the rioters. What we saw is not how you take over a county. You need to control the police, the army, the national guard (in USA), the TV, the internet. How was that going to happen?

Applicant said:

How does he get round term limits?

Applicant said:

kjh said:

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

Trump and his supporters tried numerous different attempts to overturn the election. Now lots of those that prevented it have been or are being replaced in their posts in the States that matter. If Trump stands again and loses in a similar way I would expect a coup attempt. The only thing stopping it's success I believe is that this time he is not the incumbent. If he wins genuinely I believe it will be impossible after that to remove him 4 years later.

How does he get round term limits? And he'll be over 80.

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

If he had partially disrupted the electoral college vote count, he could have remained in power.
There were multiple attempts to do exactly that, not the least of which was sending a violent mob to break in and attack the people certifying.

kjh said:

Applicant said:

kjh said:

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

Trump and his supporters tried numerous different attempts to overturn the election. Now lots of those that prevented it have been or are being replaced in their posts in the States that matter. If Trump stands again and loses in a similar way I would expect a coup attempt. The only thing stopping it's success I believe is that this time he is not the incumbent. If he wins genuinely I believe it will be impossible after that to remove him 4 years later.

How does he get round term limits? And he'll be over 80.

You really think that is an issue that will try and stop him. He was happy to overturn an election he lost.

turbotubbs said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

turbotubbs said:

What would have happened next to make it a close run thing? This is the bit I don't get. Surely the police would get their shit together and arrest the rioters. What we saw is not how you take over a county. You need to control the police, the army, the national guard (in USA), the TV, the internet. How was that going to happen?

This is the US. You use lawyers to achieve your coup..

Can you argue that for previous occasions? Al Gore?

MISTY said:

kjh said:

Applicant said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Applicant said:

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

Alistair said:

LostPassword said:

I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.

The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?

At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.

I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.

I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.

You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.

And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.

I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.

That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.

In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.

The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.

IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.

BartholomewRoberts said:

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?

True.

Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.

Thanks for the answer.

Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?

Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.

The scenario could play out differently, though.

Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

I call "bullshit".

When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

Probably.

But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.

One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.

In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.

One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.

Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.

Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.

I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.

Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.

In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.

Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.

The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed

Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.

You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?

In the UK, maybe yes.

Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.

I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.

So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.

I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.

Viability - which is the basis of the UK system (albeit 1990 medicine) is entirely intellectually consistent

If you're claiming that a foetus is viable so it can't be aborted then that is one thing, so long as you're then accompanying that with offering the woman the opportunity to have that foetus delivered so it can survive as it has gestated to date rather than insisting she continues to carry it.

If at 21 weeks a woman wants an abortion, and is denied it because the foetus is "viable", then she should be entitled to have a delivery of that foetus that can be born as a child and so she is no longer carrying it.

However 21 week foetuses may be theoretically viable, but in reality it could be a very different matter. So would you be comfortable having delivery instead of abortion offered to the woman?

BartholomewRoberts said:

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MoonRabbit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?

True.

Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.

Thanks for the answer.

Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?

Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.

The scenario could play out differently, though.

Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037

I call "bullshit".

When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

Probably.

But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.

One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.

In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.

One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.

Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.

Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.

I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.

Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.

I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.

In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.

Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.

The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed

Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.

You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?

In the UK, maybe yes.

Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.

I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.

So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.

I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.

Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.

I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.

Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,

Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.

Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.

No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.

tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.

Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.

So what is your view on the rights of the child?

A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.

A foetus does not.