Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[Didba 5,256]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

OMG, We got Billy Flynn on the board...

 

Lmao, this actually made me laugh, good clip

[AUDub 11,148]

Welcome to the dark age

 

[DKW 86 7,423]

17 hours ago, Didba said:

Almost like the only thing that would ever solve this country's political problems is a electoral reform to a multi-party proportional system so more parties could form, gerrymandering would cease to exist without wasted votes, and politicians would be less extreme without their most vocal support being extreme left/right divide.

If only someone would be appointed to form a proposal for this reform and it had to be followed. Ideally a person appointed without any political ambitions who steps down as soon as the reform is finished.

You are about to hear from the partisans here that the two party system is what we have and that it is okay by them. Anyone that proposes a multi-party system is just taking votes away from Party X and that is a bad thing. Two-party Uber Alles...

[AUDub 11,148]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You are about to hear from the partisans here that the two party system is what we have and that it is okay by them. Anyone that proposes a multi-party system is just taking votes away from Party X and that is a bad thing. Two-party Uber Alles...

The way our democracy is structured ultimately means two major parties is the inevitable result. Even if a third party was to pop up, it would either have limited electoral success or by some miracle replace one of the current dominant parties.

If I had a preference, it'd be toward a parliamentary system. Has weaknesses of its own but voters are better represented and things are generally less polarized because you'll never know when you need a coalition. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

9 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Even if a third party was to pop up, it would either have limited electoral success or by some miracle replace one of the current dominant parties.

I believe this has already happened.  There is nothing about today's Republican Party that I can reconcile with the Republican Party of my youth.

[AUDub 11,148]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I believe this has already happened.  There is nothing about today's Republican Party that I can reconcile with the Republican Party of my youth.

It's being dominated by a wing and actually a minority, and the way our country is set up gives this minority outsized say. 

It's why I think a parliamentary system would be better. The Ds would likely be 3 different parties and the Rs would likely be another 2 or 3. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,148]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

...because you'll never know when you need a coalition. 

Speaking of coalitions, that's what the dems do. They have an old conservative wing best represented by Manchin, an aging progressive wing best represented by Biden, and a young leftist wing represented but people like AOC. Rs have no such thing. They're in lockstep with the exception of a few individuals like Cheney. 

Which reinforces what I've said in the past about why Mitch McConnell has done more damage to American democracy than anyone alive. If there's one thing he did well, he distilled the Republicans to the worst qualities. 

[GoAU 1,600]

On 6/27/2022 at 7:10 PM, AuCivilEng1 said:

That doesn’t even happen. Only 1% of abortions are performed at 21+ weeks. You’re talking about 38 weeks here. No doctor is going to abort a full grown fetus. At that point they would surgically remove the baby. 

 

Although it is much more rare after 21 weeks than before, it DOES happen.   If people conceded allowing abortions before 16 weeks, would you agree to banning after 16?   Caveats after 16 if the mothers life is in danger, rape / incest, and for severe birth defects that would be terminal anyway.  

6 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I believe this has already happened.  There is nothing about today's Republican Party that I can reconcile with the Republican Party of my youth.

I think the same could be said of the Democratic Party.  I’m not sure of your age (I’m 50), but I never thought I’d see the day when open socialists / communists would be in control of any major political party.   

[AuCivilEng1 11,010]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Although it is much more rare after 21 weeks than before, it DOES happen.   If people conceded allowing abortions before 16 weeks, would you agree to banning after 16?   Caveats after 16 if the mothers life is in danger, rape / incest, and for severe birth defects that would be terminal anyway.  

I think the same could be said of the Democratic Party.  I’m not sure of your age (I’m 50), but I never thought I’d see the day when open socialists / communists would be in control of any major political party.   

Roe v. Wade doesn’t  even protect abortions at 16 weeks. So to answer your question, yes I would like a court ruling protecting a woman’s right to have an abortion up to 16 weeks, except for the circumstances that you indicated. But this is Roe v Wade and the SCOTUS just did away with it.

 

Also, the extreme left commies are hardly in control of the Democratic Party. Where are you even coming up with this. If you think Biden, Harris, Schumer or Pelosi are communists I have news for you.

Edited June 29, 2022 by AuCivilEng1

[Didba 5,256]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

It's being dominated by a wing and actually a minority, and the way our country is set up gives this minority outsized say. 

It's why I think a parliamentary system would be better. The Ds would likely be 3 different parties and the Rs would likely be another 2 or 3. 

Have you ever looked into a Multi-Party proportional representation system?  It is very similar to what you propose.  If anyone is interested I attached my paper on reforming Texas's electoral system to a Multi-party proportional system.  I wrote it for a Texas Con Law course at law school.  Beware its pretty long.

Redacted Paper.pdf

Edited June 29, 2022 by Didba

[AUDub 11,148]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

Have you ever looked into a Multi-Party proportional representation system?  It is very similar to what you propose.

I have. Like New Zealand, for example. 

[Didba 5,256]

43 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I think the same could be said of the Democratic Party.  I’m not sure of your age (I’m 50), but I never thought I’d see the day when open socialists / communists would be in control of any major political party.   

There have been open socialist democrats in the Democratic Party in Congress since at least the 90s.  I don't know of any true communists in congress. True communists are hard to find these days as its a pretty extreme ideology that most socialist democrats are not associated with.

To be even more pointed the progressives/socialists that are in the Democratic party are a minority and definitely not in control.  The Dems are still very much controlled by moderate left centrists that would be considered moderate right centrists in most European democracies.

[Didba 5,256]

23 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Roe v. Wade does ever protect abortions at 16 weeks. So to answer your question, yes I would like a court ruling protecting a woman’s right to have an abortion up to 16 weeks, except for the circumstances that you indicated. But this is Roe v Wade and the SCOTUS just did away with it.

 

Also, the extreme left commies are hardly in control of the Democratic Party. Where are you even coming up with this. If you think Biden, Harris, Schumer or Pelosi are communists I have news for you.

When has the Democrats ever had a substantial communist contingent?  I cannot think of one unless progressives/socialist democrats are considered communists which they really shouldn't be.

[AUDub 11,148]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

When has the Democrats ever had a substantial communist contingent?  I cannot think of one unless progressives/socialist democrats are considered communists which they really shouldn't be.

Even Bernie is a Social Dem, as much as he likes to bandy about the term "socialism."

[AuCivilEng1 11,010]

11 minutes ago, Didba said:

When has the Democrats ever had a substantial communist contingent?  I cannot think of one unless progressives/socialist democrats are considered communists which they really shouldn't be.

Yea that’s a ridiculous take. There are communists in the world, but we don’t even have any communist people in office, much less in leadership.

[AUDub 11,148]

3 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Yea that’s a ridiculous take. There are communists in the world, but we don’t even have any communist people in office, much less in leadership.

I think you 2 are talking past each other and more than likely agree with each other more than you know. 

[Didba 5,256]

46 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I think you 2 are talking past each other and more than likely agree with each other more than you know. 

Yeah, I was agreeing with AuCivilEng1,

Edited June 29, 2022 by Didba

[AuCivilEng1 11,010]

7 minutes ago, Didba said:

Yeah, I was agreeing with AuCivilEng1,

I was agreeing with you too. The guy who said the Dems are controlled by commies is who we are both trying to figure out.

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Roe v. Wade doesn’t  even protect abortions at 16 weeks. So to answer your question, yes I would like a court ruling protecting a woman’s right to have an abortion up to 16 weeks, except for the circumstances that you indicated. But this is Roe v Wade and the SCOTUS just did away with it.

 

Also, the extreme left commies are hardly in control of the Democratic Party. Where are you even coming up with this. If you think Biden, Harris, Schumer or Pelosi are communists I have news for you.

I'm sorry, but I'm missing how you said RvW didn't protect abortion up to 16 weeks.  We had abortions running all the way up to partial birth abortions at that point, and to be accurate it is still legal in most of the states that were allowing it before.  SCOTUS overturning RvW didn't "ban" anything - it relinquished the decision to the states.

4 hours ago, Didba said:

There have been open socialist democrats in the Democratic Party in Congress since at least the 90s.  I don't know of any true communists in congress. True communists are hard to find these days as its a pretty extreme ideology that most socialist democrats are not associated with.

To be even more pointed the progressives/socialists that are in the Democratic party are a minority and definitely not in control.  The Dems are still very much controlled by moderate left centrists that would be considered moderate right centrists in most European democracies.

Agree with you on socialists vs. communists - I tend to (erroneously) lump them into one category, and it is not always accurate, my bad.   However, I do disagree with your sentiment about the "moderate left centrists" controlling the left.   I am definitely not referring to "the squad" as controlling the left - I am referring to Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, etc.

Edited June 30, 2022 by GoAU

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Agree with you on socialists vs. communists - I tend to (erroneously) lump them into one category, and it is not always accurate, my bad.  

Yeah I am glad you realized this and admitted it, I appreciate the honesty.  At this point saying you are a true communists for a liberal person is like saying you are a true fascist for a conservative.  They are both extreme ideologies on the far left/right, that really don't exist too much in modern democracies.  They really only exist in Authoritarian governments these days.

Biden, Harris, and Pelosi are moderate left centrists, Pelosi is for sure a moderate centrist, Biden probably is as well, and Harris I guess is a little more left now that I think about it.

None of them platform on socialist democrats/progressive platforms such as universal healthcare.

Biden only began picking up some Bernie's platform to assuage the stupid BernieBros (I love Sanders but some of his supporters will cut off their nose to spite their face).  Warren and Sanders are definitely progressives though I do not consider either to be "in control" of the party. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,010]

36 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I'm sorry, but I'm missing how you said RvW didn't protect abortion up to 16 weeks.  We had abortions running all the way up to partial birth abortions at that point, and to be accurate it is still legal in most of the states that was allowing it before.  SCOTUS overturning RvW didn't "ban" anything - it relinquished the decision to the states.

Agree with you on socialists vs. communists - I tend to (erroneously) lump them into one category, and it is not always accurate, my bad.   However, I do disagree with your sentiment about the "moderate left centrists" controlling the left.   I am definitely not referring to "the squad" as controlling the left - I am referring to Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, etc.

Overturning Roe didn’t ban anything, but it gave the power to state governments, some of who are run by people who refuse to see how dangerous it is the make women carry pregnancies to birth, no matter what. Did you know that an oncologist who is preparing to treat a woman with cancer, requires the termination of a pregnancy, before a woman can begin chemotherapy? I didn’t know that, but it makes the state wide bans even more disgusting. As it stands today, a woman in one of those states has to travel to another state and have an abortion, just to get cancer treatment.

Roe protected women from having to do that, carry their rapists babies, and carry incest babies. If  the states can’t come up with common sense legislation on the matter, then it’s the responsibility of the federal government to step in and protect the women who live here.That’s how a good federal government serves its purpose. 

And Biden Harris and Pelosi have about as much in common with Sanders and Warren as Donald Trump has with Barack Obama, when it comes to fiscal policy’s. Maybe part of conservatives problem is that they pay so little attention to the other side that they can’t see that most Democratic social and fiscal policy proposals align far more with the 99% of America who is just trying to make a fair wage, have affordable and attainable healthcare and live in peace on a pollution free planet.

Edited June 30, 2022 by AuCivilEng1

[Didba 5,256]

50 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

And Biden Harris and Pelosi have about as much in common with Sanders and Warren as Donald Trump has with Barack Obama, when it comes to fiscal policy’s. Maybe part of conservatives problem is that they pay so little attention to the other side that they can’t see that most Democratic social and fiscal policy proposals align far more with the 99% of America who is just trying to make a fair wage, have affordable and attainable healthcare and live in peace on a pollution free planet.

You know you and I haven't always seen eye to eye on the football forum but we are in lockstep on this forum's subject lol

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Overturning Roe didn’t ban anything, but it gave the power to state governments, some of who are run by people who refuse to see how dangerous it is the make women carry pregnancies to birth, no matter what. Did you know that an oncologist who is preparing to treat a woman with cancer, requires the termination of a pregnancy, before a woman can begin chemotherapy? I didn’t know that, but it makes the state wide bans even more disgusting. As it stands today, a woman in one of those states has to travel to another state and have an abortion, just to get cancer treatment.

Roe protected women from having to do that, carry their rapists babies, and carry incest babies. If  the states can’t come up with common sense legislation on the matter, then it’s the responsibility of the federal government to step in and protect the women who live here.That’s how a good federal government serves its purpose. 

And Biden Harris and Pelosi have about as much in common with Sanders and Warren as Donald Trump has with Barack Obama, when it comes to fiscal policy’s. Maybe part of conservatives problem is that they pay so little attention to the other side that they can’t see that most Democratic social and fiscal policy proposals align far more with the 99% of America who is just trying to make a fair wage, have affordable and attainable healthcare and live in peace on a pollution free planet.

Yes, I did actually know that.  My wife and I were put in that same situation in one of our pregnancies.   She had an abnormal test and her OB/GYN recommended terminating the pregnancy and beginning chemo.  We saw several specialists and she / we (more she than we) made the decision to finish out the pregnancy before being treated.  It turned out really well (blessed) and we've actually had a couple more kids since then.  But we've "been there" when tough decisions have to be made.

This is why I've always made the stipulations about a mother's health.   I'm actually pretty moderate in my political stance on abortion (not at all on a personal level), but I'm a pretty big proponent of states rights, versus trying to get a nation as big & diverse as ours to run everything through the federal government.

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Overturning Roe didn’t ban anything, but it gave the power to state governments, some of who are run by people who refuse to see how dangerous it is the make women carry pregnancies to birth, no matter what. Did you know that an oncologist who is preparing to treat a woman with cancer, requires the termination of a pregnancy, before a woman can begin chemotherapy? I didn’t know that, but it makes the state wide bans even more disgusting. As it stands today, a woman in one of those states has to travel to another state and have an abortion, just to get cancer treatment.

Roe protected women from having to do that, carry their rapists babies, and carry incest babies. If  the states can’t come up with common sense legislation on the matter, then it’s the responsibility of the federal government to step in and protect the women who live here.That’s how a good federal government serves its purpose. 

And Biden Harris and Pelosi have about as much in common with Sanders and Warren as Donald Trump has with Barack Obama, when it comes to fiscal policy’s. Maybe part of conservatives problem is that they pay so little attention to the other side that they can’t see that most Democratic social and fiscal policy proposals align far more with the 99% of America who is just trying to make a fair wage, have affordable and attainable healthcare and live in peace on a pollution free planet.

The rape / incest thing is really arguing on the fringe, and is even less frequent than third trimester and partial birth abortions.  

 

Your statement bolded above sounds a lot like "if states cant do it my way, then we will do it for them - whether its what they want or not".  However, I would agree with legalization of abortion up to 16 weeks, if we make it illegal (exceptions for medical necessity) after.  

I will have to disagree with you pretty staunchly on your last statement however.  There may be some differences within the party, but the entire Democratic party votes in lock-step on almost all issues,  with the exception of Manchin on a few things (and I actually wish the Republicans would take notes from that).   There are significant differences between the parties fiscally (spending, taxation, and to a lesser extent on international commerce),  socially ("wokeness", gun rights, universal healthcare) and internationally.

[AuCivilEng1 11,010]

56 minutes ago, GoAU said:

The rape / incest thing is really arguing on the fringe, and is even less frequent than third trimester and partial birth abortions.  

 

Your statement bolded above sounds a lot like "if states cant do it my way, then we will do it for them - whether its what they want or not".  However, I would agree with legalization of abortion up to 16 weeks, if we make it illegal (exceptions for medical necessity) after.  

 

The rape and incest thing may be rare in the grand scheme of things, but it’s still important to protect a person right to terminate a pregnancy in those situations and the states where they have in acted trigger laws aren’t protecting that. 
 

State rights don’t mesh well with “fundamental human rights”. If a state wants the power to not have a lottery, yes state rights a great. But if a state is trying to take away a persons right to autonomy over their own body, that’s where the federal government needs to step in. Also, if our country was set up where the states has full control of their own laws, black people and women wouldn’t have even been able to vote for probably like another 40 years, if ever. The federal government is incredibly important at regulating a states laws, imo. ESPECIALLY now that the gerrymandering in states has been drawn up to favor 1 political party controlling their states. 
 

Another thought I have, would you give up federal aid from the government if it meant your state didn’t have to play by the feds set of rules and laws? I’m generally curious.

The only reason the dems are in lockstep is because the compromise within the party. And vote on legislation that doesn’t favor one wing over another. Notice the dems haven’t ever pushed through a bill on universal healthcare or UBI.