It is definitely a logical extreme - but of what argument? If the child is already born, then you are no longer dealing with a woman having a choice over what is happening to her body. If you have removed this constraint, then the argument is just about a dogmatic respect for a 'woman's choice', and this is not the logical extreme. You can go even further. It is a woman's choice if she wants to blow up the entire world using nuclear weapons, so we should make it possible for any woman to have access to the nuclear deployment system. We need to add constraints to move the boundary of the logical extreme, and even then we will usually be able to find logical extremes that are, well, too extreme. So that's why we as a society need to negotiate the limits... I don't think many people will agree with this woman's strange assertion that it is O.K. to kill a two year old child, and I really hope that not even the woman herself would agree with that limit if she stops to think for 30 seconds....
I meant the 9 month debate. No pro abortion activist is willing to say when the cutoff should be (so they don't get eaten by other wokes). Biden himself supported abortion upto birth. This is the most extreme view that the govt is behind.
A lot of people who didn't pay attention thought that people were arguing about 1st or 2nd trimester abortion. Hearing this idiot, may just have made those Folx google the limit. I didn't mean realistically, an abortion of a 2 year old.
I am not following the debate because I am not from the US, but I think politicians are very good at making their actual positions vague enough to leave room for interpretation. The laws tend to be written using very specific language and defining the limits precisely, whereas the politician is more like a 'marketer' using broad generalized statements to sell an idea or show allegiance to a group (in this case the pro-choice voters). Then again, this room for interpretation is weaponized by the other political team by using the worst interpretation possible.
My (not very educated) guess is that Biden's group position is that under some circumstances, such as very high risk of death during child birth, it should be allowed to choose an abortive method that is less risky to the mother, and to allow this you can't code a hard limit on abortion into the law, you can only encode that specific conditions have to be met (which the Roe v. Wade decision very clearly already does).
Yes, you are right. Even an average politician wouldn't say something so directly to destroy his polling.... but for some reason the current US admin has gone extreme left on every issue very directly - saying kids don't belong to parents but teachers (actual quote from Biden), 9 month unlimited abortion (direct quote from his press secretary, and she reiterated it also), calling conservatives white supremacists etc.... they have gone ALL IN on every issue.
The result as you would expect is completely dividing not just independents, but the moderates in their own base. Last year's Gubernatorial elections in deeply Liberal heartland states like New Jersey were an indicator, and things have gotten much worse since (even deeper approval drops). Generic Conservative leads by 34 points Generic Liberal in battleground states this year - SO FAR. Senate and Gubernatorial elections this year will be a total Red wash
Unfortunately, politics is a game of 'who can get more votes' and not 'who can create the best society', and there seems to be very little correlation between the two. Votes are gained largely via marketing propaganda, and this marketing is expensive. I think that having a two-party system and creating a highly polarized society is beneficial to the two parties in power, but it is awful to society.
Here's another yesterday - Mayor of New York. They really are going ALL IN on the crazy train:
I'm not able to find the specific video where that image comes from. But I did find a transcript from an interview (https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/315-22/transcript-mayor-eric-adams-conducts-series-interviews) according to which this is what was said:
Question: Mayor Adams, do you think there should be any one [inaudible] on abortion?
Mayor Adams: No, I do not.
Question: Non- [inaudible] of birth. Totally fine?
Mayor Adams: No, I do not think... I think women should have a right to choose their bodies. Men should not have that right to choose how women should treat their bodies.
[Audio ends]
Berman: Now it is interesting. A poll just came out this morning. NPR/Marist says, "The vast majority of Americans do not support overturning Roe versus Wade, but a majority, including a majority of Democrats does believe that there could or should be some restrictions, and when during a pregnancy that could be." You say no restrictions at all.
Mayor Adams: No. I say and I continue to say and I stand by this, women should determine what they're going to do with their bodies. I just believe it's unbelievable that men are making these determinations. Women should determine. The overwhelming number of people on the Supreme Court, I don't believe they can deliver a baby. So women should determine what they're going to do with their bodies. I strongly believe that and I'm not taking a Gallup poll to make that determination. It is something I believe from seeing the women who are in my life. My mother that passed away, my two sisters and others, they should make the determination of what they're to do with their bodies.
I agree with you that this is an extreme position and I have not seen anything reflecting that view being actually discussed in law.
I also saw another extreme claim yesterday from a pro-life proponent under oath: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-hearing-gop-catherine-foster-fetus-b2083367.html
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 1 year ago
Lol, Repeal the nineteenth! Only way to save the world from nukes.
Sal@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Putin's next move: hormone replacement therapy and American naturalization.