On abortion

[MartyFunkhouser]

Timeline is this: Trump elected; Justice Kennedy retires; Kavanagh is nominated; Left reacts with batshit crazy legislation in NY and VA; batshit crazy Democrats advocate genocide on national TV/radio; batshit crazy Republicans pass zero-exception anti-abortion bills.

I am of the opinion that the political will and desire by the Repbulicans comes from the indifference to human life and genocide advocated by the Dems after Kennedy's retirement. If the Dems could have held off on advocating infanticide, you get your standard "parents must provide permission" statutes in the states (or something similar).

The only batshit crazy law abortion law is the current Alabama ones. I don't love the NY or VA laws, but they aren't batshit crazy.

If you really want to talk about indifference to human life, the law that demonstrates the must indifference to human life is the Alabama one.

[MartyFunkhouser]

One thing that may help with civil discourse is not using terms like Democrats are advocating for genocide.

[Omaha 680]

Utah AG announces he will not prosecute utah’s new anti-abortion law. Says it is likely unconstitutional so it is a waste of time.

These dualing abortion laws (full-term OK in liberal states, severely restriction in conservative states) are dumb. I am a broken record, but politics are broken right now. God help us.

This is similar to how we let 2nd amendment debates be framed by arguments between proponents of gun confiscation and those who think everyone should be able to own a tank. 70% of americans can agree on major points in these debates. It is so frustrating that we let the radical fringes guide the conversation.

[Green Monstah]

Oh brother. It isn't reactionary to those laws at all. It is a reaction to Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. You have another damn near guaranteed vote to finding an abortion law constitutional. A wild card in Kennedy is off the court and they are going to strike now. The only possible change to the supreme court in the near future is Ginsburg if she dies. She also might hold on until Trump is out so that vote may not change anyway.

Timeline is this: Trump elected; Justice Kennedy retires; Kavanagh is nominated; Left reacts with batshit crazy legislation in NY and VA; batshit crazy Democrats advocate genocide on national TV/radio; batshit crazy Republicans pass zero-exception anti-abortion bills.

I am of the opinion that the political will and desire by the Repbulicans comes from the indifference to human life and genocide advocated by the Dems after Kennedy's retirement. If the Dems could have held off on advocating infanticide, you get your standard "parents must provide permission" statutes in the states (or something similar).

[Eddie]

I think it's a little of both.

I think there are some who are super excited about the Trump supreme court appointees and can't wait to challenge Roe V Wade. Trump himself, as I recall, has talked about the supreme court changing Roe V Wade.

So I think that the laws themselves are a response to the new make up of the court and are intended to challenge Roe V Wade. But I also think that some states have over-reacted to the laws going the other direction allowing fetuses to be aborted the day they are born. Almost one-upping them, to a degree.

What would be interesting is if the Supremes were to say "you're all right - this is a state issue, and ya'll can do what you want". Such extreme laws from one state to the next, no one is happy.

What I hope happens is that some reasoning takes place that allows for abortion in certain circumstances (circumstances referring to timing, situation, etc.), but not on demand at 40 weeks. Things have gone off the rails both directions and I'm hoping the supreme court and get us to a better place for both sides.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Why now? Why not, say, in the last several decades?

The composition of the court is the best it has been in decades for a challenge to Roe v. Wade and Casey.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-legislatures/

“What I’m trying to do here is get this case in front of the Supreme Court so Roe v. Wade can be overturned,” Republican Alabama state Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the abortion ban legislation, said in an interview with The Washington Post.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I'm pretty pro-life. I fully support rape, incest, and risk to life (mom or baby exceptions), and I have no problem with the mom making that call up to the point of viability.

These new bills going through the states' legislatures are in direct response to the Democrats' overreaches earlier in the year in NY and VA. If they could have left well enough alone, then Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio wouldn't be acting like idiots.

Oh brother. It isn't reactionary to those laws at all. It is a reaction to Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. You have another damn near guaranteed vote to finding an abortion law constitutional. A wild card in Kennedy is off the court and they are going to strike now. The only possible change to the supreme court in the near future is Ginsburg if she dies. She also might hold on until Trump is out so that vote may not change anyway.

[Northwestcoug]

Why now? Why not, say, in the last several decades?

There haven't been anti-abortion bills passed in states that have been overruled in courts? Didn't at least one go up to the supreme court after Roe?

I guess if your argument is that there have always been anti-abortion laws passed, but not as crazy as this crop, I can't argue against that. But still, in the past there have been laws banning second-trimester abortions, requirements to disseminate false health info to women, etc. There's been a steady history of anti-abortion sentiment.

[Green Monstah]

Complete BS. A plan to strike down Roe v Wade has been on the official republican platform for decades. Maaaaybe the lack of a rape/incest provision in Alabama was a response to democrats in other states. But the other states are doing what republican voters want them to do. This is who they are, frankly.

Why now? Why not, say, in the last several decades?

[Northwestcoug]

I'm pretty pro-life. I fully support rape, incest, and risk to life (mom or baby exceptions), and I have no problem with the mom making that call up to the point of viability.

These new bills going through the states' legislatures are in direct response to the Democrats' overreaches earlier in the year in NY and VA. If they could have left well enough alone, then Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio wouldn't be acting like idiots.

Complete BS. A plan to strike down Roe v Wade has been on the official republican platform for decades. Maaaaybe the lack of a rape/incest provision in Alabama was a response to democrats in other states. But the other states are doing what republican voters want them to do. This is who they are, frankly.

[Green Monstah]

I'm pretty pro-life. I fully support rape, incest, and risk to life (mom or baby exceptions), and I have no problem with the mom making that call up to the point of viability.

These new bills going through the states' legislatures are in direct response to the Democrats' overreaches earlier in the year in NY and VA. If they could have left well enough alone, then Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio wouldn't be acting like idiots.

[swampfrog]

It all seems like political grand-standing to me. Pandering to extremists. Because that’s what we do now.

An appeal to rational, civil discourse

In a week’s worth of conversations in London and Oxford, Bret and I heard people from both left and right, upper class and working class, talk about their concerns regarding the watchful eyes of the state, and the de facto orthodoxy that is creeping in. So many people have faith that the human spirit can rise to the set of modern predicaments in which we find ourselves, but believe—indeed, know in their heart of hearts—that we need oversight and regulation of processes too large to contain within small political structures and policy fixes, but that there is an obvious tension between this and a need for privacy, time and space away from state control. How, at this late date, can we free ourselves from the corporate algorithms that capture our attention and resources, from the legal and ubiquitous mood-disrupters and exogenous hormones that so many people find themselves on, from the ever narrowing social norms of what constitutes acceptable discourse? In a sense, we have agreed to our own imprisonment.

[swampfrog]

Amen.

I'd like to believe it's a vocal minority, but more and more people I know seem to be too far out on the poles.

It likely is a minority, but that's all it takes in many cases. Interesting research has been done on how activism with a minority opinion can flip the majority. Models have been anywhere from 10% to 25% being the necessary threshold. Especially if the activists are unwavering. Some dispute to where the threshold is.

Decades of work in sociology, physics, and other disciplines have supported this idea. Small groups of people can indeed flip firmly established social conventions, as long as they reach a certain critical mass. When that happens, what was once acceptable can quickly become unacceptable, and vice versa.

"What I think is happening at the threshold is that there’s a pretty high probability that a noncommitted actor”—a person who can be swayed in any direction—“will encounter a majority of committed minority actors, and flip to join them,” says Pamela Oliver, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. “There is therefore a good probability that enough non-committed actors will all flip at the same time that the whole system will flip."

This isn’t necessarily an uplifting message, Centola stresses. “It’s really important to be aware of how easily populations can be co-opted by people with an agenda,” he says.

Also this article.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It all seems like political grand-standing to me. Pandering to extremists. Because that’s what we do now.

I don't think this is political grandstanding at this point. I think this is drawing battle lines by passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional under the current jurisprudence. It is to force the issue of getting this matter before the Supreme Court and trying to change the law based on the current composition of the court. The only exception to this might be Alabama. That law is so cruel and out there that it might very well be political grandstanding.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am at a loss to explain those states' long-term strategies. They are obviously crafting laws for a potential SC hearing, but there is no way even a conservative majority is going strike down Roe in favor of a 6-8 week ban or no rape/incest exceptions. At least I don't think so.

It all seems like political grand-standing to me. Pandering to extremists. Because that’s what we do now.