Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. — unenlightened

"On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells."

-- Claude Rains character at the end of Lawrence of Arabia.

Couldn't find a shorter clip but it's at 4:18 here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdLM2ENld8

There are still plenty of places in the country where it is legal to kill a fetus. In any case, it was a shaky legal precedent, not a right. Now everyone can go about it the right way. — NOS4A2

I'll take the other side of that for sake of discussion.

I have heard over the years that Roe was bad law. Even some liberal, pro-choice legal scholars made that argument.

But as a moderate pro-choicer (safe, legal, and rare as Bill Clinton put it), I say that Roe was working. It kept abortion off the ballot. It's analogous to Obergefell. Before Obergefell, gay marriage was an issue in every election. Now, whether you support or oppose gay marriage, it's the law of the land. You can blog your opinion, but it's never on the ballot. It never affects an election.

In the same way, Roe kept abortion off the ballot. It may have been bad law in the eyes of legal scholars, and it upset the pro-lifers, but politically it was working.

I say that if the so-called conservative justices were secretly working for the Democrats, things couldn't have turned out worse than they are now. Abortion kept the 2022 red wave from happening. It's an issue in 2024. It's Kamala's strongest issue. I've seen her give pro-abortion speeches and she is really, really good at it. She has her heart in the issue and she has her talking points straight.

Dobbs has been an electoral gift to Democrats and it is going to continue forever. It's worth a few points in every election from national to local and it's going to be till Congress does something about it, and they never will.

And it brings out the worst in the pro-life forces. This idea of arresting women who cross state lines is completely insane. I've "crossed state lines" from California to Nevada to visit gambling casinos. Nobody ever objects to that, even though laws against gambling used to be rooted in moral arguments.

Dobbs has unleashed the worst impulses on the right. It's just a disaster for the GOP.

More than 200 former Bush, McCain and Romney staffers endorse Harris

The alumni of the three Republican presidential nominees sought to reiterate their opposition to Trump's 2020 re-election in an open letter.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna168363

A lot of things work, for a while. But whether it is just or unjust, legal or illegal, wrong or right, are far more important to this particular issue.

Roe never worked politically. It has always been a seriously divisive decision. And now we know it was doomed to fail under the lightest scrutiny. If people want a political solution, it needs to be done politically, not through judicial activism.

Why do I need to travel to make decisions about my body? Funny how freedom all of a sudden isn't important to you anymore.

Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is.

I find it odd that one can be pro-life on moral grounds, but against free school meals, child support and so on. As though a woman does not have the right to control the resources of her body, but no one has any comparable duties with their financial resources. Makes no sense to me.

But my original point was that the attack on Walz's treatment of his son, and the accusation of violence, like the attack on his son earlier, was a lie being perpetuated on these pages without refutal; and the contempt shown for the disabled seems too often to go along with the supposed "pro-life" stance, which more usually turns out to be a parallel contempt for women, than a real valuing of all life.

Why do I need to travel to make decisions about my body? Funny how freedom all of a sudden isn't important to you anymore.

You’re the big government, anti-freedom guy. Don’t you want the government to have all the power and make the decisions? This is one way to navigate the situation should one want to kill her child.

Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is. — Benkei

Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society?

I'd say the human right to bodily autonomy weighs quite heavily here, but by that same logic are people who advocated for vaccine mandates degenerates as well?

Naive and dumb reduction of my position on government. You seem to miss the point entirely your completely inconsistent. That's a consequence of your ideological hangups.

Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society? — Tzeentch

No, the political question is to act or not to act. The basic assumption is to not act unless there's a clear benefit that increases positive freedom. Increasing choice, eg. positive freedom, is therefore the moral position.

Edit: in fact, acting here limited negative freedom by introducing a prohibition, limiting personal choice.

And don't get me started on the retarded method of interpretation in the USA that leads to dumb rulings to begin with.

Former Trump administration staffers also support Harris in this election. Not a great look.

Several spoke at the DNC, including Stephanie Grisham. She reported that Trump said his diehard supporters, people like you, were basement dwellers. How does that make you feel?

Naive and dumb reduction of my position on government. You seem to miss the point entirely you’re completely inconsistent. That's a consequence of your ideological hangups.

You keep talking about me to disguise the fact you cannot speak to the issues. That you seek for some law to decide the issue suggests you want to leave it up to the government. Is that not so?

The architects and propagandists of the Bush regime join your campaign. Not a great look, but good good riddance nonetheless.

I think Grisham is an idiot, but she's right. It was Clinton who insinuated Bernie supporters were basement dwellers in her leaked audio, and Trump accepted them with open arms.

:up:

should one want to kill her child — NOS4A2

Isn't this a wee bit hyperbolic? Whatever you want to call it, "one" = "her", "one" isn't someone/something else, yes? Are you thinking of a slippery slope? Either way, abortion ≠ killing a child here.

A couple of months in, a fetus is a lump of cells about the size of a cherry, something like that. Not a person. My neighbor's kid is. It's more like a cyst. No more a person or conscious than pre-conception sperm and egg cell. ← bio-facts

I'll readily admit to having an emotional attachment to life. It's not like abortion is a positive thing or to be encouraged (anti-natalists not invited at the moment :grin:), it's a rough enough decision.

Every human being who walked the earth began that way. They are not like cysts. Abortion, infanticide, homicide…they all involve the same act: causing the death, or killing, of a human being.

The architects and propagandists of the Bush regime join your campaign. — NOS4A2

The MAGA term is RINO. Anyway, who’s more neocon than Nikki Haley, whose wealth seems to be tied to defense contractors. No “Republican” is rejecting her endorsement of Trump. In fact, many Republicans wanted to elect her president in this race.

Every human being who walked the earth began that way. They are not like cysts. Abortion, infanticide, homicide…they all involve the same act: causing the death, or killing, of a human being. — NOS4A2

If that’s what you believe then shouldn’t you want a national ban? As it is, the abortion rate hasn’t decreased by much, if at all. Most abortions are performed with drugs, and as you pointed out earlier, women can travel to states where it’s legal. It seems that the most vulnerable women, those with the least resources, in red states are hardest hit.

I seek for no law unlike you who's arguing for a prohibition unless local states rule otherwise. So no, it was a dumb archaic and backward ruling and your idiotic defence women can now vote for something they had a god given right to is antithetical to your repeated stance that we shouldn't need governments for rights.

Trump is attempting to side-step the problem by leaving it up to the state. This makes it a matter of choice. It is a form of pernicious relativism - arbitrarily permissible if and when the individual state says it is. No true "pro-life" advocate should find this acceptable. It undermines the moral claim and cedes its ground to choice.

This is not to say I oppose choice, but rather oppose the choice being made one way or another by someone other than the individual.

Trump is attempting to side-step the problem by leaving it up to the state. This makes it a matter of choice. It is a form of pernicious relativism - arbitrarily permissible if and when the individual state says it is. No true "pro-life" advocate should find this acceptable. — Fooloso4

Exactly. Trump is currently saying he’d be “great for women and their reproductive rights.” If he doesn’t lose the support of pro-life advocates it just further demonstrates that the issue is little more than politicization.

, let's set up a trolley problem involving sperm + egg cells (incidentally akin to what Nightingale and Stalin "began" as) over ↖ there, cherry-sized 2-months-old fetuses over ↑ there, and toddlers over ↗ there.
I have a feeling the toddlers ↗ would make it every time, outside of rather special(ized) scenarios.
OK, what it there were, say, 10 times as many sperm + egg cells and fetuses as toddlers? 100? 10000 as many sperm + egg cells?
In terms of bio-facts, only the toddlers ↗ are conscious persons — children.
I suppose we could craft the details of a scenario (or more) and run a poll if you like.

Simply put, they are out of their minds. And one must ask, one must ask, why exactly is it that they don’t trust women? — Kamala Harris, from DNC nomination acceptance speech

Pro-forced birth / anti-woman's autonomy aka "pro-life" will be the critical dealbreaker for the majority of women voters across the political spectrum this year like it was in 2022. :fire:

Roevember is coming! :mask:

If that’s what you believe then shouldn’t you want a national ban? As it is, the abortion rate hasn’t decreased by much, if at all. Most abortions are performed with drugs, and as you pointed out earlier, women can travel to states where it’s legal. It seems that the most vulnerable women, those with the least resources, in red states are hardest hit.

I think prohibition is a terrible idea, and states that enact it ought to feel the repercussion of it. The act is no one’s decision but the woman’s. But, since the government has involved itself, the issue is now whether the matter should be settled by some judiciary in Washington or on a more local level. To those who want the government to set the bounds of their lives, the change required to set those bounds is easier attained at the local level. Activists get to ban it in some places while celebrating it as a human right in the other. In short, state governments ought to have more right to determine their own laws than a federal judiciary.

The act is no one’s decision but the woman’s. — NOS4A2

You say abortion is no one’s decision but the woman’s, and then go on to say that the state ought to have more right to determine women’s choice because it’s easier to restrict or liberate at the local level. This is contradictory. If you think abortion is a woman’s choice then the state ought not restrict that choice on any level and no matter how easy or difficult.

Well said.

I see NOS is talking in circles again. Don’t look for consistency, folks— there’s no principles to discern. It’s pure political tribalism. When it’s something Trump does, they will find a way to make it fit into their worldview, no matter how contradictory.

So now Trump is pushing for being the “best on women’s reproductive rights”— :rofl: — because he’s losing in the polls and it’s generally an issue they’re being crushed on. If he had any principles or soul whatsoever (or any balls), he’d be calling for a national ban on the murdering of babies (which is what these nutjobs actually believe). But there’s no chance of that. Instead he’ll mumble some nonsense and his ass-kissing slaves like our resident Trumper and Ayn Rand devotee will endlessly defend it, pretending it all makes perfect sense.

Don’t waste too much time on it.

—

In other news: Harris has her first interview tomorrow. I think she should do several interviews, not just one big one. Too easy for Fox News to demonize if even the slightest phrasing is off.

our resident Trumper and Ayn Rand devotee — Mikie

Ayn Rand made strong arguments for choice. Whadaya bet she would have argued differently has she been a he.

In other news: Harris has her first interview tomorrow. I think she should do several interviews, not just one big one. Too easy for Fox News to demonize if even the slightest phrasing is off. — Mikie

Places like Fox are inevitably gonna move the goal posts no matter how many interviews Harris does but I agree she should be doing more of them if just to clarify her positions. Or get Walz out there doing interviews since he's a better speaker. Apparently he never read from a teleprompter until hitting the national stage which is a very welcome trait considering who the Dems were/are running up to this point.

Yeah, it always struck me as funny how Trump gets credit for his ad libs and general off-script remarks. The truth is he sucks at it; he’s an awful speaker. Mostly incoherent, and almost always the same lines, 99% of which are lies (“the country is going to hell, everything is being destroyed”). It’s easier to talk extemporaneously when you can make things up, unbound by reality.

In any case, I hope he continues doing it.

You say abortion is no one’s decision but the woman’s, and then go on to say that the state ought to have more right to determine women’s choice because it’s easier to restrict or liberate at the local level. This is contradictory. If you think abortion is a woman’s choice then the state ought not restrict that choice on any level and no matter how easy or difficult.

That’s a lie and misrepresentation of my view. I knew it would come to this because you are often unable to argue in good faith. Oh well.

A new tasty scandal is brewing regarding Trump’s invite and visit to Arlington national cemetery to honor those killed by Biden/Harris’ disastrous Afghanistan debacle. Who wants to bet it’s fake news?

https://archive.ph/Foy8A

Whoever wins, this country needs to reform its outdated judicial system. Americans take very seriously the thoughts of the founding fathers, but Europe has developed a much more functioning judicial system due to the interruptions/failures of European democracies in the past (something that has not happened in the US so far).

It is a shame that in the US judges and district attorneys are party candidates or independents supported by parties and billionaires like George Soros, when democracies are supposed to have three independent branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Since in the US the judicial branch is not independent from the executive, US justice is flawed and divisions have become more difficult to heal.

It is a shame also to put the blame on the Republicans (who control SCOTUS) only, when the real problem are the laws and standards pertaining to the US judicial system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-23/how-european-countries-create-ideologically-balanced-courts