Grand political roundup

[Taishyr]

This is why science must advance enough so we can make all the fundamentalist Christian men bear the fetuses to fruition themselves. See how quickly they change their mind on the issue. Also gives some fetishists something to go on about, so hey, everyone's happy.

On a more serious note, speaking as a Christian I have to agree with NEB/Idunie, and note that wouldn't God figure out the child's not going to be born and have a chance to wake his/her mommy up every night at 2:31 AM like a perfect alarm clock and thus go "Okay, my soul brudda, how about you waitsee until you can go to someone else?"

I mean seriously, the sanctity of life thing only really works if you believe in Limbo that heavily despite it kinda mainly being Catholic doctrine and nothing else, so far as I can tell (if you do believe in it, your call; I'm mainly saying that it has very little if any biblical rooting to go on, here); otherwise why not just presume that God has it covered and move on, assuming you believe in him? Doesn't mean it's a decision to be treated lightly, but I just can't see agonizing over the baby's fate, myself.

...And I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but felt like I had to give my two cents in here with how much I've been reading this thread and going "...Eh?". So.

[Grefter]

History shows that a great deal of the Catholic specific beliefs didn't come about until the first majour doctrine split in organised Christian faith (I... am forgetting which ones it was, Catholic and Lutheran springs to mind but sounds wrong), so for the vast majority of practicing christians Limbo should not really come into play.  Except for that most people who are Christian and not even Catholic still pay a lot of heed to what the Pope and/or the Vatican has to say on the matter.

I am going to chime back in on it being entirely a women's issue for abortion though.  It is not a woman's issue.  It is the woman's ultimate call, but it is the issue of everyone involved who gives a flying fuck about the child.

[InfinityDragon]

History shows that a great deal of the Catholic specific beliefs didn't come about until the first majour doctrine split in organised Christian faith (I... am forgetting which ones it was, Catholic and Lutheran springs to mind but sounds wrong), so for the vast majority of practicing christians Limbo should not really come into play.  Except for that most people who are Christian and not even Catholic still pay a lot of heed to what the Pope and/or the Vatican has to say on the matter.

Limbo isn't even canon, unless things have changed since I took Early European history and literature classes some 10 years ago. The major split you're thinking of is probably the Great Schism in the 1050s where the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church became separate; although theologians such as Augustine were arguing for the existence of Limbo in the early Dark Ages--some 600 years before that particular split.

It is the woman's ultimate call, but it is the issue of everyone involved who gives a flying fuck about the child.

This.

Unfortunately, the hard part is coming up with a system that appropriately weighs in the interests of all the concerned parties. This is why Roe v. Wade is horseshit and leads to even more laughable cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (the female doesn't even need to inform the male that she's having an abortion, thus rendering the male NO rights...but minors still need consent from their parents! Genius logic ahoy!).

Although Casey does bring up a fact I misspoke of earlier. The strict scrutiny standard in Roe had already been lowered to the undue burden standard by Casey. So...even though abortion no longer has the full protections of a fundamental right, the right to an abortion seems to be surviving fairly well despite the lowered standard.

[NotMiki]

While we're on the subject of difficult subjects regarding sex, here's something that may give you pause.  When Palin was governor of Wasilla, under a policy instituted by the chief of police she appointed, Wasilla, if a woman was raped and had a rape kit done, if they couldn't catch the defendant, it was their policy to charge the woman or her insurance company for the cost of the kit.  The state of Alaska quickly outlawed the practice in response.

Here's the left-leaning hyperventilating version:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html

The short USA today version, in case you're skeptical about something originating on the web:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

the article about Alaska banning the practice (Charlie Fannon is the chief of police Palin appointed):

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

and proof that Palin was complicit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

Incidentally, Alaska has the highest number of rapes per capita in the nation.

[Grefter]

I knew Lutheran sounded way wrong (I blame reading Descartes more recently than anything surrounding the Orthodox church and yeah ID pretty much said what I meant to say, but doing it betterer.

Edit - Oh yeah and Jim highlights a key factor here in fucked up shit that is why a Feminist voting for Palin purely because she is a women is countering their own agenda.  Fail.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Unfortunately, the hard part is coming up with a system that appropriately weighs in the interests of all the concerned parties.

Legally? No, it really isn't.

Woman carrying the unborn child - 100%
Everyone else - 0%

From a moral, ethical, warm-happy-fuzzy place perspective I agree with you. Of course it is a decision that should weigh the opinions of everyone involved. From a legal perspective, if people can't come to a decision? Only one person's opinion matters then. As I already outlined in my previous post I don't see how you can sensibly argue this. (I might honestly be missing something, so feel free to elaborate.) Woman and her boyfriend disagree about this = I just can't see how you can argue the latter would take priority.

Now the boyfriend needing to be informed I can see going either way on; there's reasonable arguments either way there.

I don't see anything hypocritical about minors needing a parent's permission, either. There's ample precedent for minors not having full authority over themselves for serious decisions like this. A minor certainly doesn't need the permission of a boyfriend or girlfriend, though. The situation's not comparable.

[InfinityDragon]

Legally? No, it really isn't.

Woman carrying the unborn child - 100%
Everyone else - 0%

That's oversimplifying the matter by condensing all the relevant rights and interests to a single right of "who makes the final decision."

The state has a very strong and legitimate in protecting the lives of unborn children. I don't care what your stance on abortion is, everyone with some shred of reasoning recognizes this interest. Its why states can pass laws that make it murder/manslaughter for anyone other than the mother who kills a fetus.

A father has an equally strong--if not stronger--interest than the state. After all, both the father and mother have equal rights and equal responsibilities of caring for the child once it is born. To say that a father has zero rights or zero interest in the child before birth is ludicrous.

Simply saying that the "woman has all rights, everyone else has none" doesn't take any of the above into consideration. Now, should the woman's interests be given more weight? Certainly, but this does not mean eviscerating the interests of every other party is the best method.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Maybe I'm being simple-minded, but I don't see another way. Ultimately, if the two can't agree, the state must side with one of them and who that should be seems patently clear.

I know it's a difficult subject, but if you could clarify your stance with some examples I'd appreciate it.

[NotMiki]

Well, to what extent can the state force a woman to have an unnecessary medical procedure such as a paternity test?  You would think the answer would be, 'not at all' but the existance of mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound procedures, if upheld constitutionally (I know this has been proposed, not sure if it's been to court or even made law yet) seems to indicate that a woman may have a lot less than that 100%.

[Idun]

God, semantics is so annoying over abortion. I'm also just exhausted with how men are trying to "fight for rights" also when it comes to abortion. The main issue at hand is the woman's privacy and choice legally. Anything communally between her and whoever else takes the backseat and doesn't deserve purpose in legal discussions for the ultimate, final choice being the woman, because it IS the woman's body and not the man's. Only in backwater states, in marriages ONLY, are men in legal right to be told by his wife that she intends to have an abortion, but a man cannot legally prohibit a woman in her choice. I'm not condoning women never disclosing information or taking in consideration the feelings of the man, but to be frank, the feelings of a man could mean less shit to me when it involves me and a choice I have to make directly with myself (because I'm the type of person that doesn't want to rely on supposedlys or will dos rather than my own capabilities* EDIT; so I think it depends on the woman's personality and morals also). So this moral argument can go back and forth redundantly.

As I've stated previously, it would be morally right (personally) for a woman to share information, and discuss, but in no way do I think it needs to be 100% necessitated or that she needs to be "swayed." Fuck that.

A father has an equally strong--if not stronger--interest than the state.

You know, I agree with you there, but with the statistics of defunct fathers who aren't married (or are married/divorced) with deferment child support never getting paid and having their faces plastered on the internet for being obstinate fathers, and the increasing numbers of single mothers, I'm pretty sure an argument can be made against that statement where the state courts intend to legally support the mother moreso than a father connected by blood.

[Grefter]

Semantics is everything in politics.  Welcome to the realities of it.  You have two parties who's central philosophies are different interpretations on your constitution.  It is all in the semantics when you are trying to define things and how you define things is important when it effects things on such a large scale.

It is short sighted to read these rights to being men wanting rights in the act of abortion.  If the father wants a child and the mother doesn't want one, tough shit.  If the father doesn't want a child and has no intention of raising the child and the mother does, sorry, shit out of luck.    It is a freedom in paternity there more than an issue of whether the mother should have an abortion or not.  Extend this to extended familly of the child as well, a large number of grandparents do the parenting in some famillies and so on and so forth.  There is no legal place for the father to opt out completely, yet there is for the mother.

Having provisions in there, well you could have a mother that is prepared to go through the childbirth but does not want to raise the child or to put it up for adoption.  Can make stuff there a lot more official and standard if you have something in place for the equivalent opposite (you can do that I believe actually, but the paper work involved is pretty insane and it is usually someone trying to take the child away from the other rather than it being a friendly agreement...).

There is more to the issue than just the act.  I repeat myself.  The ISSUE is something that involves everyone who will be involved in the child's upbringing.  The act and final choice is entirely on the mother.  The law extends beyond the act in this case as well.

[Idun]

Semantics over ambiguous subjects will be perepetually repetitive. Getting meaning out of the abortion discussion means nothing to the main parties set in their ways religiously, or scientifically, and trying to convince either party is silly.

Idealistically, abortion discussions and participation can be homogenous throughout the family and father. But realistically, many women feel they're the sole deciders: discussing her issue with her family or the father of the child is part of the issue. But that's the last I'm going to say to this, because I feel like abortion topics in general get skewed to mother's decision vs. omg wat about teh daddy, when in reality, people are fighting to keep the woman's choice and privacy legal rather than trying to moralize which procedure she chooses to go about getitng the abortion or not. I'll chime in if there's any policies about it.

Can make stuff there a lot more official and standard if you have something in place for the equivalent opposite (you can do that I believe actually, but the paper work involved is pretty insane and it is usually someone trying to take the child away from the other rather than it being a friendly agreement...).

I have no clue what you're talking about. If you mean a woman deciding to keep the pregnancy term til birth and give it to a specific family, unless there's an agreement between those two individuals, the female can still choose not to. If fees are paid for her doctor visits/et al, she is obligated to give it back. Since abortion is typically legal up to the 12lth (sometimes 14th - doctor's approval), that's only where the law would surpass her (unless she just simply has horrible complications/health and has to go through the paperwork to do so) . . . Yeah, I don't understand what you're saying.

[NotMiki]

It's a reality of America that there are a lot of single mothers, and the number keeps rising.  It's no coincidence that the debate over abortion has become so prominent in an environment where, over the past 30 or 40 years, the demographics of what a traditional American family looks like have changed so drastically.  Single parents, abortion, astronomical divorce rates, and the increasing prevalence of openly gay couples are all interrelated.

There have been a number of high-profile politicians who have opposed gay marriage but switched their position on it, some even after making a campaign promises to oppose it.  The mayor of San Diego, a republican who ran against it, is the most prominent example, and there are also a number of Massachusetts republicans and conservative democrats who switched sides in a vote to quash a ballot question on gay marriage.  The big reason these switchers have cited is that people they knew turned out to be gay, often older people with long-term partners urged them to allow them to marry.  The current marriage environment, with divorce rates through the roof and many people cohabiting or living single instead of marrying at all, has caused some people to fervently denounce gay marriage as another attack on the institution.  In these cases it seems to me that people inclined against allowing gays to marry are convinced to drop their objections for those same reasons; when so many people are running away from what a traditional American family has been, they feel they shouldn't stand in the way of people who want sincerely to embrace that ideal.

Here's the video of the mayor of San Diego, incidentally.  Very emotional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y05XmZlF44

[Grefter]

I am saying that you could have legal provisions in place for either biological parent to opt out of having anything to do with raising the child if it is one that they did not want where the other feels that they want it.  I think currently such deals can come up from custody battles I believe with the person with custody of the child may choose to forgo the need for child support.  This however is relating to custody battles, which is not something I quite had in mind.  I am thinking more along the lines of if the mother and father are on good terms the mother may not be adverse to the concept of having a child, but not prepared to raise one herself, may bring the child to term and hand over full custody to the father.

It would be an odd situation, but it could happen.

Edit - And again, it is politics.  The current system is broken and in need of reform.  You can approach it far more broadly than discussing the current broken state but attempt to build a framework to improve and fix it.  By discussing the ideals for what you see in the way in which the issue can be dealt with you are laying out that framework and you can work backwards to find the steps to reach that ultimate goal.

Edit 2 - Late night posts lead to much clarification.  This is to say that even the way women feel on the issue is something that can be improved.  If the issue is approached more progressively you will have a lot less reactionary response from women as well (you know, getting over this whole bullshit should we ban it or not crap and get onto actual important things, like the raising of children that are going to be brought to term) because you are not taking away from them what many see to be a fundamental right to choose (which obviously is something I agree with), it is just a step on a longer path.  The ultimate goal requires some social engineering which brings me full circle to Semantics.  Semantics being one of the most potent pieces of social engineering around.  You can shift the meaning of a word through semantics and procedural memetic mutation.  Look up the dictionary definition of the word Liberal and look at the way it is used in politics today (especially by Conservatives, who have twisted it far enough that they can use it as an insult).

[Sierra]

The big reason these switchers have cited is that people they knew turned out to be gay, often older people with long-term partners urged them to allow them to marry.

I've always thought situations like that are very telling in regards to the entire gay marriage issue. When Bush was making noise a few years back about agreeing with the idea of a marriage amendment, Cheney didn't support him. Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. When someone is forced to consider gays as individual human beings instead of a demographic, everything changes.

Off-topic, but hey, we were off-topic already, so this is off-off-topic.

[NotMiki]

It's an interesting phenomenon that in America, fights for equal rights tend to come in two phases: the first phase is insular, think the Black Panthers or League of Women voters, and the second phase is inclusive.  The first phase seeks betterment for themselves and the people they represent, and the second seeks equality in the mainstream of American culture.  The second group is made possible by the work of the first group, people aren't going to stand up for folks who won't stand up for themselves after all, but the first groups' continued prominence makes the second group's work harder.

For homosexuals, the first group can be broadly represented by lisping, leather-wearing flamers who proudly embrace their shared queer identity.  Parades are their thing.  Gay marriage isn't really their issue, because they reject mainstream American culture.  The second group are the folks who don't buy into the queer subculture and just want to participate in the mainstream with the same rights and respect as their straight neighbors.

Guess who gets more TV time?

EDIT: Bill O'Reilly has also made the point that gay people strutting around San Francisco pride parades in BDSM leather don't help the cause of inclusion.  I agree with him.  Someone mark down the date.

Another thing: the phenomenon I described is pretty similar to what often happens with unions: they're formed to protect workers, but in the end they usually only advance the causes of union members.  You can view gay people who live mainstream lives as the non-union members in this equation.

[Grefter]

Unions are slightly different there though.  They function that was as the best way to have an effective Union is to have everyone that you can possibly have be a member.  That is an attempt to consolidate power more than anything else.

[BaconForTheSoul]

Humans do condone murder for tons of different reasons, which is why I really don't care when people are all for abortion.  I just don't want them to be for abortion because "It's a woman's body and her right to choose."  That logic is just fucking retarded and horribly flawed.  These same idiots should be pro drugs, pro suicide, pro wrist cutting, pro fast food, pro prostitution, pro everything.

Uh, we're talking about the legality of abortion.  Are you saying fast food should be illegal just because it's awful for you and kind of disgusting?  It's a person's right to choose to eat disgusting fast food if he or she wants to and I support that 100% even if I don't like fast food myself.  It's not the federal government's place to make laws about whether or not I squander my health by eating poorly and neglecting exercise.  In the same way, it is a woman's choice to abort her own pregnancy and I don't see what's "fucking retarded and horribly flawed" about that.

Are you just not into personal freedoms or what?

Like I said, if you want to legalize abortion, legalize EVERYTHING ELSE TOO.   Legalize drugs, ditch age limits on anything, fuck seat belt laws, don't force kids to go to school, don't force parents into forcing their kids to go to school, don't force me to pay social security taxes that I'll never see again, drop speed limits for good drivers, legalize suicide... hell make Futurama suicide booths a reality.  Don't try and give me that personal freedom crap.  People give up dozens of personal freedoms every day and don't think twice about it.  However, when they fuckup bigtime (OMG WHO KNOW SEX COULD MAKE ME PREGGO!?!?!), they want a bailout.

Abortion is a get out of jail free card for idiots.  If I went around and started shooting up with random needles no one would feel sorry for me if I got HIV, but god forbid women have unprotected sex and get knocked up!  (And yes, 99% of abortion come from a result of unprotected sex.  Rape/BC failures are the super small minority.)

As for the domesticating animal train of thought.  Yes, we keep them as PETS, but if they get out of hand, we have no issue ending their lives.  Trying to argue the fact that humans don't give a damn about other species is just silly.  We use everything else for our personal pleasure because we own this planet, it's been this way for thousands of years now and will continue to be this way.

[BaconForTheSoul]

"There is no sentience" could be taken as "Kill retarded people, brain dead people, etc."

Just want to jump in on this. "Retarded" people are very much sentient. They're actually often capable of much more thought than they are casually given credit for, though depending on the type of disability they may be slow to learn or have trouble communicating or with motor abilities in general. Soo yeah this parallel doesn't even begin to hold water.

(The one with braindead people does, though it's a separate issue. I don't view euthanasia of the permently brain dead as murder myself, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)

I work with the DD and MH population, I'm well aware of this.  I didn't say I feel this way as a whole, but a lot of people do.  Look at the hype Palin got for not aborting a baby that has DS.  If this was not aborting a normal baby, no one would think twice, but since it's a DS baby... OMG SHE GOOD CHRISTIAN!

People think of the DD population as second class citizens.  Even people paid to take care of these people don't go more than a month at a time without abusing them.  This is also something that won't change anytime in the near future.

No one alive can tell me when exactly a being becomes sentient so trying to put some magical date on it is ridiculous.  People need to quit being wimps about the issues and get to the facts.  Abortion helps to keep scum out of the country, so go for it!

[NotMiki]

Unions are slightly different there though.  They function that was as the best way to have an effective Union is to have everyone that you can possibly have be a member.  That is an attempt to consolidate power more than anything else.

The relationship between unions and businesses is different, but the relationship between union and non-union workers is much the same.  I guess a simpler way of saying it would be that the vanguards, the first group, act like a union, for better or worse.

[NotMiki]

Abortion is a get out of jail free card for idiots.

America has a much higher rate of accidental pregnancy than other comparably advanced countries.  Lack of education and lack of birth control seem to be the primary culprits.  So if we're blaming people for being stupid, we should also be looking at why they are.

[Dhyerwolf]

Like I said, if you want to legalize abortion, legalize EVERYTHING ELSE TOO.   Legalize drugs, ditch age limits on anything, fuck seat belt laws, don't force kids to go to school, don't force parents into forcing their kids to go to school, don't force me to pay social security taxes that I'll never see again, drop speed limits for good drivers, legalize suicide... hell make Futurama suicide booths a reality.  Don't try and give me that personal freedom crap.  People give up dozens of personal freedoms every day and don't think twice about it.  However, when they fuckup bigtime (OMG WHO KNOW SEX COULD MAKE ME PREGGO!?!?!), they want a bailout.

Several of those usually have bad attached consequences for the rest of society (Drugs, Not forcing school, Speed limits), making them completely different issues. Allowing 8 year olds to drive is not equivalent to abortion in any way.

[Sierra]

We use everything else for our personal pleasure because we own this planet, it's been this way for thousands of years now and will continue to be this way.

Until we obliterate ourselves, at least. Then the planet belongs to the bacteria (again).

My alternate response was "Really? Can I see the deed?"

[NotMiki]

Really? Can I see the deed?

Possession is nine tenths of the law.

[Sierra]

Ehhh. Come back to me when we can control the weather. Until then I will remain skeptical.