Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The problem with laissez-faire is that it isn't possible. Small-l libertarian David Brin convinced me of that - the rich are going to cheat and manipulate the levers of government and either employ government-backed coercive power to protect their economic interests or funnel tax dollars into their own pockets, or simply hire mercenaries that the government is unable to effectively police. Alternately, if laissez-faire capitalism allows people to fall into desperate poverty, they will stop respecting government enforcement of property rights (as a certain K. Marx suggested, and we were beginning to see in the Great Depression).
Government enforcement of property rights is the use of state power to protect the interests of the rich, hence why a lot of liberal thought is simultaneously reliant on the state and terrified of it. That's not changed since Locke, really, given modern neo/ordoliberals are decidedly not fans of democracy.
A quick explainer re: “heartbeat” abortion bans. Pregnancy is dated back to the last period before the first missed period. However, conception happens two weeks after the last period. So, timeline:
Week 0: Woman or trans man has their period.
Week 2-3: Fertilization occurs and the embryo begins traveling to the uterus
Week 3-4: Embryo attaches to uterus wall
Week 4-5: Woman or trans man misses their period. They may or may not notice, as light bleeding often occurs during implantation.
Week 5-6: Woman or trans man may start to suspect an issue, depending on how regular their cycle is. Very few people have a precise 28 day period, and many issues such as stress, exercise, chronic illness, and weight loss or weight gain can result in irregular or skipped periods.
Week 6-7: Heart cells have begun to form and “beat” even though there is no actual organ formed yet. Zygote is the size of a single sweet pea.
Just for reference.
One additional note: in medieval Europe, pregnancy didn’t typically count until the “quickening,” which is when the fetus began to move independently and kick. This occurs in the 5th or 6th month, and many if not most medieval women did not know they were pregnant until this point, as there were no reliable ways to test for pregnancy and as I mentioned earlier many things can interfere with regular period cycles.
![]()
Plus it is actually pretty common that woman lose their baby in the first weeks anyway. something between 10 and 15% of known pregnancies are miscarried within the first 12 weeks...emphasis on "known", it is entirely possible that the number is actually higher but how is a woman suppose to notice that she miscarried if it happens within the first four weeks?
The ironic thing is that a miscarriage is actually a kind of protection. If the mother is too ill/stressed/malnourished to survive a pregnancy, there is a good chance that the body will react on its own. It is out modern medicine which allows humans to "interfere" so to speak and give both mother and child a better chance of survival. So you could argue that abortions are basically even out the odds again.
Edited by Swanpride on May 30th 2019 at 4:19:55 AM
What really gets me, is that most of the states that try to ban it, also have really high maternal morality rates.
- 12.7 deaths per 100,000 live births for white women.
- 43.5 deaths per 100,000 live births for black women.
- 14.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for women of other races.
Edited by megaeliz on May 30th 2019 at 9:23:23 AM
It's almost like anti-abortion states don't care much about women's lives or something.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.And the poor. Y'know, when small businesses aren't forced to sell out by "men of honor." They might be forced to sell by inability to compete, of course, unless the state protects their interests through subsidies that may or may not be a good idea.
You're right that liberals have always grappled with the issue of state power, but that's because we know that it's both necessary for a functioning society and ripe for abuse, corruption, and plain illegal shit. We've been grappling with some variant of that since Juvenal, actually: who is going to watch the watchmen?
(Which, incidentally, is why Libertarians tend to be so masturbatorily-fond of the militia movement and the right to bear arms, even if militias and gun owners rarely care about libertarian ideals. They buy into the idea that if we want to keep the government under control, we make the government afraid of an armed populace, totally ignoring the massive disparities in actual power.)
No, you really can't. If you believe that a fetus is a person, then you believe that abortion is murder. And if you believe abortion is murder and don't want to ban it, then you've got a seriously unorthodox viewpoint.
Edited by Ramidel on May 30th 2019 at 6:42:33 AM
The real inconsistency of Republican politics on abortion isn't the desire to ban abortion in and of itself. That is at least reasonable if you accept their viewpoint on the rights of a fetus. We can and do disagree with it, but it's not inconsistent.
The problem is that they also want to ban contraception, sex education, maternal care, post-natal care, and almost everything else that would help people not have unwanted babies, protect the life and health of the mother, and help the child be successful after it pops out.
Recognizing that people can and will have abortions even if you personally don't approve of it is not a "pro-life" stance; it's a practical one. That's not the problem.
Edited by Fighteer on May 30th 2019 at 10:52:07 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
Nah, their beliefs are consistent, just completely reality-proof. Remember that they're real big on abstinence. ("You shouldn't be having sex at all unless you're married and willing to make babies.")
The Catholic Church, meanwhile, holds a Dominionist position on sex ed and contraception but combines it with "and we'll help with pre-and-post-natal care and social welfare programs, preferably state-funded" which is a coherent position even if we think they're wrong, and even if they're putting the cart well before the horse in practice (something Pope Francis is trying to reverse).
They seem to believe the world should be a certain ideal state where everyone is celibate before marriage, everyone is heterosexual AND cisgender, and everyone has a traditional family structure and are entirely self-sufficient so that they don't have to pay for your healthcare, and where medical complications and crimes don't exist. And they will wage a demonising culture war and pass legislation to try and create that 'ideal state', because fuck everyone who doesn't want to do that I guess.
It's like they've taken the moral absolutist parts of Christianity and applied it to their own personal traditional worldview. Also the whole salt of the earth directive, which is a sorta commandment for Christians to go out and be a good influence on the world, which has unfortunately been interpreted as "so, theocracy? Theocracy!" by a lot of people over the ages.
![]()
That's essentially my position. I don't like it, but I can't justify banning it. Or interfering with anyone's access to any adjacent services.
Edited by GoldenKaos on May 30th 2019 at 4:10:00 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."I don't think even the most intense abortion proponent likes the idea of terminating a pregnancy. That's absurd. There are no genocidal maniacs running around telling women to abort their babies in the name of sexual freedom or anything like that.
Recognizing that abortion is a necessity and a right doesn't equate to going, "Yay, baby murder, woo!"
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Capitalism is very much a mixed bag. As is globalization, which tends to go hand in hand with it.
Disgusted, but not surprised