SCOTUS and whatnot

[buddha]

59 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

the world does not have too few humans anywhere or under any economic conditions. "Baby Shortages" are nationalistic pearl clutching fantasies. There is no place on this planet that wouldn't be better off with a lower titer of Homo-Sapiens. 

i know youre not being serious, but declining birth rates are a massive problem for almost every western country.  its an even bigger problem in china.  

[Motown Bombers]

38 minutes ago, chasfh said:

So, a woman or a girl who might have had an abortion had it been available to them, but was forced to have the baby instead—and it's not as though we'd know one way or the other, since abortion would be illegal and thus outside the bounds of consideration—when these women or girls do have their baby, your approach would be to imprison them?

I don't know ... that doesn't sound like a serious solution to me, but I did say this was a serious question, so that means this is your serious answer. My serious reply is, I sure wouldn't do that, and I'm not sure even Republicans would do that. But who knows, maybe you're on to something.

I just want to be clear that this isn't my solution and what I'm interpreting from the illegal immigrant strawman that was used in response. If it were up to me I wouldn't be banning abortion. 

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, buddha said:

i know youre not being serious, but declining birth rates are a massive problem for almost every western country.  its an even bigger problem in china.  

I’m perfectly serious. It bullshit. Germany and Japan illustrate well that a nation can cope with declining as well as expanding population. China may have thrown themselves into a tougher adjustment problem than others but they will cope. The whole thing is based on a fallacy that fails to parse the difference between gross GDP and per capita GDP. The later is actually all that matters to social well being and it need not/will not fall even with contracting population. 

[RatkoVarda]

24 minutes ago, buddha said:

theyre the dog that has caught the ambulance.  now what do i do?

 

yep. also could drive down $$$ from fund raising drives. that would really hurt them.

[mtutiger]

Dog who caught the ambulance,  Exhibit B

[buddha]

1 minute ago, RatkoVarda said:

yep. also could drive down $$$ from fund raising drives. that would really hurt them.

i really think its going to hurt them in the mid terms.  the election went from masks, school closings and crt (all republican issues), massive inflation and a recession to the gop banning abortion.  

the gop just lost a significant chunk of suburban white women if that's what the election is now about.

the gop will still make gains because of the map this year and its an off year election, but i dont think the dems get wiped out anymore.

of ciurse, being the democrats, they'll probably do something stupid like talk about court packing.  just shut up and let the gop shoot ITSELF in the foot this time!  there's a reason why mitch doesnt want to talk about this now...

[buddha]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I’m perfectly serious. It bullshit. Germany and Japan illustrate well that a nation can cope with declining as well as expanding population. China may have thrown themselves into a tougher adjustment problem than others but they will cope. The whole thing is based on a fallacy that fails to parse the difference between gross GDP and per capita GDP. The later is actually all that matters to social well being and it need not/will not fall even with contracting population. 

i completely disagree.  unless the robots are replacing us a generation or two sooner, there will be massive labor shortages, massive pension shortages, massive social security shortages, and massive tax increases on fewer workers to make up the difference.

china will cope when 2/3 of its population are unmarried men in their 30s?  lets see how that works out for the rest of the world.

[Tigeraholic1]

19 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Can you elaborate on this? What's your idea here?

Planned parenthood has/had a great positive footprint in our country. They really have helped young women with pregnancy prevention and resources to handle being pregnant.There is no denying that fact. The contention comes with performing abortions. If that is off the table then they can help guide these young woman on how she might possibly be able to raise the child. If not the process for adoptions. If they want the mother can have a lot of input on who is able to adopt their child. 

 

[chasfh]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I just want to be clear that this isn't my solution and what I'm interpreting from the illegal immigrant strawman that was used in response. If it were up to me I wouldn't be banning abortion. 

I was asking a serious question, twice, about what we should do with the 750,000 or so more additional babies that presumably would be born once abortion is outlawed throughout America.

In a abortion-is-outlawed world, through the years, millions of girls and women, many of whom are young teen and preteen girls coerced into having sex in the first place by adult men, would be compelled to carry the child to term and raise it themselves, as the father takes himself out of the picture, the girl gives up schooling that might better her life to take whatever low paying no-health-care-giving job she can get, trying to raise the child in impoverished circumstances, all while being criticized for even being a single mother, and ultimately resenting her child and the damage that having it did to her life while taking out her frustrations on that kid throughout his childhood as he ends up drifting who knows where, all while putting billions of dollars in additional strain on the public assistance system. Add on top of that the hundreds of thousands of girls and women who would keep taking their chances on illegal abortions, frequently unsafe, and this would result in many multiples more deaths on abortion tables than the single digit number per year that occurs today.

I know the hardcore anti-abortion people give less than a shit about the mothers, since they tend to dismiss such women and girls as sluts out slutting around, so hell yes they should get the punishment they deserve by being forced to raise a baby. But it's worth remembering that the women and girls are not the only ones who would suffer here. The baby—the part of this equation these anti-choicers purport to be all so, so concerned about—is also in a very bad spot as well.

If this entire debate is all about the baby and not really about the mother—is that the case for anyone here?—then sure, that would make some case that abortion should always be illegal in all circumstances. And it looks like that sooner than later, they're gonna get their wish. But remember: in a handmaid's world, once the baby is born, it's not as simple as life wins and the job is complete. God help that baby afterwards, because in most cases, it is going to be a very bad ride for that kid.

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, buddha said:

i really think its going to hurt them in the mid terms.  the election went from masks, school closings and crt (all republican issues), massive inflation and a recession to the gop banning abortion.  

I'm increasingly of the view that the first three are less of an advantage and (in the case of CRT) the Gop may have overreached or gone a little overboard on it. And abortion ties into that... it's red meat right wing culture war stuff, and it's not clear at all to me that the median voter is all that into it.

Inflation is the big one and, IMO, accounts for a lot of where the race sits right now (along with the general nature of midterms). Roe being repealed will have an impact (some of these statements coming out from GOP candidates and their campaign arm) are the biggest piece of evidence that is the case... the biggest impact may be generating interest from the D side.

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Planned parenthood has/had a great positive footprint in our country. They really have helped young women with pregnancy prevention and resources to handle being pregnant.There is no denying that fact. The contention comes with performing abortions. If that is off the table then they can help guide these young woman on how she might possibly be able to raise the child. If not the process for adoptions. If they want the mother can have a lot of input on who is able to adopt their child. 

 

Honestly, as an idea, "let Planned Parenthood sort it out" sounds completely unbaked. It's going to take a lot a lot more than seminars and bootstraps to help women and girls who are completely ignorant and unmotivated about parenting to raise an actual live child with any level of success. And adoption is not an option for a lot of women or girls, because for a lot of them, carrying a baby completely to term and then immediately giving it up for adoption is far more traumatizing than having an abortion would have been.

I understand that namby-pamby concepts like traumatization don't penetrate the hearts of the hardest anti-abortion people, but healthcare professionals, social care professionals, and most of the rest of us recognize that as real barrier to the freewheeling have-the-baby-and-put-it-up-for-adoption solution that sounds oh so easy. I get that for the hardcore people it's supposed to be all about punishing the girls for the temerity of having sex in the first place, but that doesn't mean it's right.

[buddha]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I'm increasingly of the view that the first three are less of an advantage and (in the case of CRT) the Gop may have overreached or gone a little overboard on it. And abortion ties into that... it's red meat right wing culture war stuff, and it's not clear at all to me that the median voter is all that into it.

Inflation is the big one and, IMO, accounts for a lot of where the race sits right now (along with the general nature of midterms). Roe being repealed will have an impact (some of these statements coming out from GOP candidates and their campaign arm) are the biggest piece of evidence that is the case... the biggest impact may be generating interest from the D side.

i disagree with you on crt but see your point.  i agree that the biggest influence will be dem enthusiasm.  

[buddha]

16 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I was asking a serious question, twice, about what we should do with the 750,000 or so more additional babies that presumably would be born once abortion is outlawed throughout America.

In a abortion-is-outlawed world, through the years, millions of girls and women, many of whom are young teen and preteen girls coerced into having sex in the first place by adult men, would be compelled to carry the child to term and raise it themselves, as the father takes himself out of the picture, the girl gives up schooling that might better her life to take whatever low paying no-health-care-giving job she can get, trying to raise the child in impoverished circumstances, all while being criticized for even being a single mother, and ultimately resenting her child and the damage that having it did to her life while taking out her frustrations on that kid throughout his childhood as he ends up drifting who knows where, all while putting billions of dollars in additional strain on the public assistance system. Add on top of that the hundreds of thousands of girls and women who would keep taking their chances on illegal abortions, frequently unsafe, and this would result in many multiples more deaths on abortion tables than the single digit number per year that occurs today.

I know the hardcore anti-abortion people give less than a shit about the mothers, since they tend to dismiss such women and girls as sluts out slutting around, so hell yes they should get the punishment they deserve by being forced to raise a baby. But it's worth remembering that the women and girls are not the only ones who would suffer here. The baby—the part of this equation these anti-choicers purport to be all so, so concerned about—is also in a very bad spot as well.

If this entire debate is all about the baby and not really about the mother—is that the case for anyone here?—then sure, that would make some case that abortion should always be illegal in all circumstances. And it looks like that sooner than later, they're gonna get their wish. But remember: in a handmaid's world, once the baby is born, it's not as simple as life wins and the job is complete. God help that baby afterwards, because in most cases, it is going to be a very bad ride for that kid.

none of this is true.

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

i disagree with you on crt but see your point.  i agree that the biggest influence will be dem enthusiasm.  

Its anecdotal, but some of the book banning stuff that we've seen threatened down here is pretty unpopular with some folks I know who don't necessarily share my world view.

YMMV if you live in Illinois or NY

Edited May 3, 2022 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Honestly, as an idea, "let Planned Parenthood sort it out" sounds completely unbaked. It's going to take a lot a lot more than seminars and bootstraps to help women and girls who are completely ignorant and unmotivated about parenting to raise an actual live child with any level of success. And adoption is not an option for a lot of women or girls, because for a lot of them, carrying a baby completely to term and then immediately giving it up for adoption is far more traumatizing than having an abortion would have been.

I understand that namby-pamby concepts like traumatization don't penetrate the hearts of the hardest anti-abortion people, but healthcare professionals, social care professionals, and most of the rest of us recognize that as real barrier to the freewheeling have-the-baby-and-put-it-up-for-adoption solution that sounds oh so easy. I get that for the hardcore people it's supposed to be all about punishing the girls for the temerity of having sex in the first place, but that doesn't mean it's right.

It would probably be easier to "Let Planned Parenthood sort it out" if they weren't constantly being threatened with losing sources of funding. As has often been the case for as long as I've been following this stuff 

[buddha]

8 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It would probably be easier to "Let Planned Parenthood sort it out" if they weren't constantly being threatened with losing sources of funding. As has often been the case for as long as I've been following this stuff 

they can always sell more dead baby parts!

/ducks

pp does fine with fundraising, iirc.

[buddha]

14 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Its anecdotal, but some of the book banning stuff that we've seen threatened down here is pretty unpopular with some folks I know who don't necessarily share my world view.

YMMV if you live in Illinois or NY

the book banning stuff is concerning too.

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

they can always sell more dead baby parts!

/ducks

pp does fine with fundraising, iirc.

Probably true.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

none of this is true.

actually a good chunk if it is true. Who do you think it's going to be who is denied abortions? It's going to be poor girls, mostly of color, who are exactly going to have limited life prospects grow even more limited - will be cast onto a welfare system that those same white men who denied her an abortion are trying to throw her off of. What world are you seeing if you don't see this as the result?

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

i completely disagree.  unless the robots are replacing us a generation or two sooner, there will be massive labor shortages, massive pension shortages, massive social security shortages, and massive tax increases on fewer workers to make up the difference.

china will cope when 2/3 of its population are unmarried men in their 30s?  lets see how that works out for the rest of the world.

No there won't, there will be an adjustment and people will work longer so that the ratio of worker to retirees stabilizes. It's already happening in the US and we don't even have nearly the demo dislocation of other places. There will be no crises and no massive tax increases. The idea that you can be retired for 30 yrs after working for 30 will certainly go away for sure, but that was an unsustainable transient anomaly created by the oddity of the baby boom the first place.

The truth is that any species that can't survive at stable population numbers can't survive at all, so at some point Homo Sapiens might as well get with the program the Universe has set for it because the Universe has a talent for snuffing out any organism that doesn't learn to play by the rules.

Edited May 4, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

It is wild that the “750k extra babies a year are bad reasoning, fear and hysteria” sound eerie similar to the language used by Trumpers to describe the travesty of illegals crawling over the border. 

[mtutiger]

I dont get the extra 750k line or why that matters except that too often those arguing against Roe V. Wade also advocate for cuts to the social safety net..

To an extent, though not many remain, I have more respect for the D pro-life position because it cares more for the kid before and after birth.

[buddha]

22 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

actually a good chunk if it is true. Who do you think it's going to be who is denied abortions? It's going to be poor girls, mostly of color, who are exactly going to have limited life prospects grow even more limited - will be cast onto a welfare system that those same white men who denied her an abortion are trying to throw her off of. What world are you seeing if you don't see this as the result?

actually it's not.  its another "mike pence is going to turn america into the handmaids tale" liberal fantasy.

 

[buddha]

19 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

It is wild that the “750k extra babies a year are bad reasoning, fear and hysteria” sound eerie similar to the language used by Trumpers to describe the travesty of illegals crawling over the border. 

the best is the "the ones who will really suffer are the babies".  yes, i'm sure they'd much rather have their brains sucked out while theyre still in the womb.  that's much more preferable.

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, buddha said:

actually it's not.  its another "mike pence is going to turn america into the handmaids tale" liberal fantasy.

 

I hear a lot of denial, I don't see much evidence that would refute Chasf scenario. Most women getting abortions are poor (and the poor are disproportionate of color, so that inference doesn't need explicit statement even if the report avoids it) single,  already have children they are trying to take care of and have become overmatched by their circumstances. You wouldn't have abortions to ban if these women had had the options they needed to gain better control over their lives.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html

Edited May 4, 2022 by gehringer_2