McCarthy's House doing stuff

[scourge165]

20 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I'm sorry that your cousin had to go through that. It must have been unbelievably hard for her whole family. 

I don't know exactly how this bill would handle her situation. My hope would be that it allowed her to make the horrible choice she had to make, just as she did, with her doctor, her loved ones and no interference from politicians.

My answer to your last question is this, not all doctors and mother's are as compassionate as your cousin.  People can be extremely selfish and stupid. I have a niece with disabilities, her parents could've made a decision similar to your cousins. Luckily for my niece her parents might actually be angels for the level of care they continue to give her, 19 years later. She wasn't nearly as bad off with the few details we have both shared but she is the sweetest person you could meet and she has a right to life. This is not meant to disparage your cousin, because making the choice she had to make I have a tremendous amount of respect for her too.

I want less government in my life, so these kind of questions really make me think. I still don't know how I feel about this bill but in general, I would err on the side of life.

I don't take it as anything against my Cousin. The Child was literally NOT viable. It did not look like a human child. It was horrific. 

She didn't just make a choice that this child would be too much trouble or that she didn't want to deal with the hassle. She was told the child would be a still born. That it was born alive was a fluke of monumental proportions. It was under 2 pounds, it was blind...it did not have 10 fingers and 10 toes. 

Quote

I don't know exactly how this bill would handle her situation. My hope would be that it allowed her to make the horrible choice she had to make, just as she did, with her doctor, her loved ones and no interference from politicians.

See, now THIS is where I agree with you;

Quote

My answer to your last question is this, not all doctors and mother's are as compassionate as your cousin.  People can be extremely selfish and stupid.

And this is where YOU don't agree with YOU. 

This two comments...which come one after another are at direct odds with each other. 

It kinda feels like you think people who share your beliefs should have politicians stay out of their decisions between a Doctor and the Patient, but the "stupid and selfish" ones should not.

[scourge165]

13 hours ago, Nailbender said:

    That article is dripping with opinion expressed as fact to keep people pissed. I thought you didn't like that?

 

The only truth in it is that these bills are a waste of everyone's time. Just like the article. 

 

 

 

 

You know what wouldn't be a waste of time?

Each state just put it to a referendum. Let the people decide. 

Should abortion be legal; Yes or No?

Should Planned Parenthood be Federally Funded; Yes or No?

State referendums can't overrule the Hyde Amendment, so you'd be funding basic health care for women, family planning, etc...

This is preliminary polling;
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/

And then they voted in Kansas and it went from 49 to 49 to overwhelming voter turnout(good thing, right?) and it was a landslide in favor pro-choice.

 

What are we doing here? Why can't we deal with some of these fundamental issues via referendums?

 

[Nailbender]

1 hour ago, scourge165 said:

I don't take it as anything against my Cousin. The Child was literally NOT viable. It did not look like a human child. It was horrific. 

She didn't just make a choice that this child would be too much trouble or that she didn't want to deal with the hassle. She was told the child would be a still born. That it was born alive was a fluke of monumental proportions. It was under 2 pounds, it was blind...it did not have 10 fingers and 10 toes. 

See, now THIS is where I agree with you;

And this is where YOU don't agree with YOU. 

This two comments...which come one after another are at direct odds with each other. 

It kinda feels like you think people who share your beliefs should have politicians stay out of their decisions between a Doctor and the Patient, but the "stupid and selfish" ones should not.

I never implied your cousin thought any of the things in your second paragraph. I don't pretend to know what that was like. I was trying to agree that she made the best decision for her situation and acknowledge that it must have been the hardest one she will ever make.

 

I err on the side of life. Not doing so is stupid and selfish, I'll stand by that. The idea that your decisions are yours to make until they harm someone else is not a new or radical idea. You continue to describe your cousins child to show how "horrific" it was, to get across to me that it wasn't viable and that it would have been cruel to try and keep the child alive. I already understood and agree. Yet no aknowledgement or even a mention that my niece could've had her life ended before it began. That gives me the impression you don't agree my nieces life is valuable? If you do, I assure you there are people who wouldn't. I don't agree with their choices. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Nailbender
Spelling

[Nailbender]

49 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

You know what wouldn't be a waste of time?

Each state just put it to a referendum. Let the people decide. 

Should abortion be legal; Yes or No?

Should Planned Parenthood be Federally Funded; Yes or No?

State referendums can't overrule the Hyde Amendment, so you'd be funding basic health care for women, family planning, etc...

This is preliminary polling;
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/

And then they voted in Kansas and it went from 49 to 49 to overwhelming voter turnout(good thing, right?) and it was a landslide in favor pro-choice.

 

What are we doing here? Why can't we deal with some of these fundamental issues via referendums?

 

Fine with me.

[scourge165]

6 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

I never implied your cousin thought any of the things in your second paragraph. I don't pretend to know what that was like. I was trying to agree that she made the best decision for her situation and acknowledge that it must have been the hardest one she will ever make.

 

I err on the side of life. Not doing so is stupid and selfish, I'll stand by that. The idea that your decisions are yours to make until they harm someone else is not a new or radical idea. You continue to describe your cousins child to show how "horrific" it was, to get across to me that it wasn't viable and that it would have been cruel to try and keep the child alive. I already understood and agree. Yet no aknowledgement or even a mention that my niece could've had her life ended before it began. That gives me the impression you don't agree my nieces life is valuable? If you do, I assure you there are people who wouldn't. I don't agree with their choices. 

Well, that's just you projecting then. I never assigned a value to her life. That's not my place and I don't know anything about her.

 

I was pointing out the conflicting positions. I don't know what your Niece's struggles are. Has she lived her life bedridden and unaware of what's going on? It's actually not my business. That's more the point I was going for. You made the statement that in the particular case I mentioned, you didn't think that a politician should have a say. That it should be between the Doctor and the parents.

Then you seem to change that for the "stupid and selfish." 

How do you propose we legislate that?

Either politicians have a say or the parents/Doctors have the final say. 

[scourge165]

17 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

Fine with me.

Good. I think we'd avoid a lot of the petty and performative politics, the histrionics on both sides.

We should do this with more things IMO. 

Put this would put the power in the hands of the people, out of the politicians and it'd take one issue off the table that the political parties use to fundraise, so I don't anticipate it happening. 

Same thing that should be done with weed in my opinion. Or whatever policy that's simplistic enough to be dealt with via a yes or a no.

[Nailbender]

3 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Well, that's just you projecting then. I never assigned a value to her life. That's not my place and I don't know anything about her.

 

I was pointing out the conflicting positions. I don't know what your Niece's struggles are. Has she lived her life bedridden and unaware of what's going on? It's actually not my business. That's more the point I was going for. You made the statement that in the particular case I mentioned, you didn't think that a politician should have a say. That it should be between the Doctor and the parents.

Then you seem to change that for the "stupid and selfish." 

How do you propose we legislate that?

Either politicians have a say or the parents/Doctors have the final say. 

  We can have abortion in certain instances and not in others. We also don't have to leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves. There can be laws, with doctors and mothers still having the final say within that frame work. Not all prolife people want nationwide abortion bans or rape victims to carry their baby to term. In fact even a lot of prochoice people prefer abortion not to be used as birth control. This doesn't have to be all or nothing. Implying it does is dishonest or dense. The laws don't even have to be the same from state to state.

 

I've been trying to be compassionate to your cousins specific circumstance but you're so passionate about this, you seem to not to be capable of reciprocating. You don't need to know my neice to value her life. She is happy and healthy(although not always or at first). She won't be productive and her parents have made a lifetime commitment to provide care for her. My niece is valuable, there are those in our society who don't think people like her are. I'm not saying that's you but those people are selfish and stupid. 

 

 

I'm also not a king, so my opinions are my own, which I've expressed by saying go ahead and vote on it. Even though I'm not sure voting directly on every issue is the way our country was designed to work. I'm also unsure that it's even a good idea but in general, I err on the side of states rights. You can take issue with that too if you like.

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Nailbender
Spelling

[Mike Parrish]

As the boomers die off and gen Z starts voting in numbers, I predict some people on this board will be less than happy with the state results.

 

As for even having each state decide things, should Mississippi be able to decide that interracial marriage is illegal within their borders?

Seems like a bad idea.

[Nailbender]

31 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

As the boomers die off and gen Z starts voting in numbers, I predict some people on this board will be less than happy with the state results.

 

As for even having each state decide things, should Mississippi be able to decide that interracial marriage is illegal within their borders?

Seems like a bad idea.

Everyone is stupid until they get older. A few choose to stay that way, it's fine.

 

Red herrings are always a bad idea, that's why people throw them out.

[Mike Parrish]

19 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

Everyone is stupid until they get older. A few choose to stay that way, it's fine.

 

Red herrings are always a bad idea, that's why people throw them out.

Wasn't someone saying the same thing about Roe v Wade not too long ago?

[Nailbender]

3 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

Wasn't someone saying the same thing about Roe v Wade not too long ago?

Explain this question to me as if I don't know what you're talking about. 

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

Explain this question to me as if I don't know what you're talking about. 

Nobody thought Roe would get overturned.

When the SCOTUS did it, some states went hog wild trying to outdo each other by restricting abortion.

In the Hobbs decision, SCOTUS also cast doubt on the basis of the Obergfell and Loving decisions, leaving them vulnerable to being challenged and overturned with the current court.

If that happens, there will likely be a state that has a referendum on invalidated interracial marriage.

[Crotalus]

Not to mention one of the main arguments for overturning Roe was that the abortion question should be left up to the states. Almost immediately after it was overturned Republicans were talking about drafting federal legislation limiting abortion....

[Nailbender]

47 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

Not to mention one of the main arguments for overturning Roe was that the abortion question should be left up to the states. Almost immediately after it was overturned Republicans were talking about drafting federal legislation limiting abortion....

I have no patience for Republicans either. Our politicians don't represent the best of us.

[Nailbender]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

Nobody thought Roe would get overturned.

When the SCOTUS did it, some states went hog wild trying to outdo each other by restricting abortion.

In the Hobbs decision, SCOTUS also cast doubt on the basis of the Obergfell and Loving decisions, leaving them vulnerable to being challenged and overturned with the current court.

If that happens, there will likely be a state that has a referendum on invalidated interracial marriage.

You can't be serious. No state in 2023 or beyond is going to ban interracial marriage. Just stop.

[Mike Parrish]

5 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

You can't be serious. No state in 2023 or beyond is going to ban interracial marriage. Just stop.

What about gay marriage?

[scourge165]

7 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I'm also not a king, so my opinions are my own, which I've expressed by saying go ahead and vote on it. Even though I'm not sure voting directly on every issue is the way our country was designed to work. I'm also unsure that it's even a good idea but in general, I err on the side of states rights. You can take issue with that too if you like.

I didn't suggest you vote directly on every issue. Obviously I don't believe we should throw together a quick referendum on the debt ceiling. That'd be foolish. But on issues such as abortion, marijuana. Straight yes or no issues...or close to it. 

7 hours ago, Nailbender said:

We can have abortion in certain instances and not in others. We also don't have to leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves. There can be laws, with doctors and mothers still having the final say within that frame work.

Sure. Late term abortion is objectionable to most people. So make it simple. First trimester. 

But your statement still seems like a contradiction. "We don't have to leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves." I'm not sure how you reconcile that with the statement that you don't think Politicians should be involved? Are you just talking about late term abortions? 

7 hours ago, Nailbender said:

 Not all prolife people want nationwide abortion bans or rape victims to carry their baby to term.

Yes. I know that. The overwhelming majority of people believe it's a women's choice.

7 hours ago, Nailbender said:

In fact even a lot of prochoice people prefer abortion not to be used as birth control.

Of course not. I don't think anyone's actually "pro-abortion."

You're killing what could very likely become a baby. And I still don't think it's anyone else's decision to make. It's pretty simple...to me. I'm also not a King.

7 hours ago, Nailbender said:

This doesn't have to be all or nothing. Implying it does is dishonest or dense. The laws don't even have to be the same from state to state.

No...it doesn't HAVE to be...but it kinda is. And implying it's not is dishonest...or "dense." Look at the story about the the 10 year old. You had Jim Jordan calling it a lie. Just...no facts, nothing. Just don't like that narrative, must be a lie. 

That girl had to go to another state to get an abortion. 10 years old. 

But ok. He looked like the asshole he's become when they arrested the rapist and the story was confirmed. Does ANYONE think it's a good idea when you REALLY think about it to use rape as an exemption? Lets take the 10 year old or the minors who can't legally consent out of it. It's agreed, they should have access.

So how about the rest? Is it incumbent upon the women to prove the rape? 6 weeks later, she didn't report it. It was a date rape...she was drugged. Or...MAYBE she wasn't. It's not like there haven't been false allegations. How do you want to prove(or disprove) the veracity of the claim?

 

8 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I've been trying to be compassionate to your cousins specific circumstance but you're so passionate about this, you seem to not to be capable of reciprocating.

As I said, I don't know the situation with your niece(and actually stated it's none of my business). I also didn't need sympathy. I used it as an example of a case that would be DIRECTLY impacted by THIS LAW. It was a personal anecdote that knew of that I shared. It didn't happen to me. So I wasn't looking for sympathy. This wasn't my story or my tragedy and I don't know what it feels like to go through that. It was an example of how utterly ridiculous this law is(though not surprising as most of these votes are simply performative at this point). 

Now, as for me not "reciprocating," you've resorted to ad hominem attacks a few times and now you keep coming back to this. What sympathy would you like? You have stated she's living a full and happy life, her parents love her and she's cared for.

What reciprocity would you like? That is what you call a HAPPY ending, no? 

THEY made that decision and they are happy and fulfilled. So please explain to me what you'd like me to say here? I'm sorry they chose to raise a happy, loving child with some type of disability? My deepest apologies. What an asshole I've been for not being sympathetic that person is alive...? 

8 hours ago, Nailbender said:

You don't need to know my neice to value her life.

I NEVER once said I did. In fact, I said it was none of my business. That's a recurring theme here. I don't believe it's MY(or your) business. 

8 hours ago, Nailbender said:

She is happy and healthy(although not always or at first). She won't be productive and her parents have made a lifetime commitment to provide care for her. My niece is valuable, there are those in our society who don't think people like her are. I'm not saying that's you but those people are selfish and stupid. 

Yeah, but you kinda are. You've made this inference multiple times now. And again, I read this and I wonder why you're asking for me to reciprocate sympathy? Because she wasn't born healthy? That's...genuinely awful. Because your Aunt and Uncle have made a commitment to care for her full-time? Yes, that is admirable. 

Is that a decision that should be forced on every couple?

Should a couple that gets pregnant in their 40s, they shouldn't have the same freedom your family members had?

Not everyone is in a position to care for a child that will need care their entire lives...and the costs can easily run up into the millions(which is most often pushed off onto the state and those are NOT often happy lives). 

 

[scourge165]

8 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

As the boomers die off and gen Z starts voting in numbers, I predict some people on this board will be less than happy with the state results.

 

As for even having each state decide things, should Mississippi be able to decide that interracial marriage is illegal within their borders?

Seems like a bad idea.

Right...I have two words when ceding individual rights to the states. "Jim Crow."

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

What about gay marriage?

That is going to happen.  Clarence Thomas invited that in the Dobbs ruling.

[Plasmodium]

4 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Right...I have two words when ceding individual rights to the states. "Jim Crow."

Or slavery, environmental decimation and many others.

[Mike Parrish]

3 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

That is going to happen.  Clarence Thomas invited that in the Dobbs ruling.

I think so too.

Roe, Loving and Obergfell all were decided on the same basis.
SCOTUS invalidated that underlying basis.
I don't think it's a big stretch to see Mississippi remove protections for interracial marriages.

I could be wrong.

[Plasmodium]

4 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

I think so too.

Roe, Loving and Obergfell all were decided on the same basis.
SCOTUS invalidated that underlying basis.
I don't think it's a big stretch to see Mississippi remove protections for interracial marriages.

I could be wrong.

I think interracial marriage is a stretch, even for MS.  OTH, what do I know?  I learned the other day that MLK day is officially Robert E Lee/Martin Luther King day in both Alabama and Mississippi.

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Crotalus said:

Not to mention one of the main arguments for overturning Roe was that the abortion question should be left up to the states. Almost immediately after it was overturned Republicans were talking about drafting federal legislation limiting abortion....

This is incorrect.   "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."  This is the direct quote from the decision.  The people could have that done via their state representatives or their Congressional representatives.  There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a federal abortion law.   You will notice they chose not to do so before their majority ended.   Who's playing politics with this and has been for years?  If they pass it, they cannot campaign and get money by scaring people about it. 

mspart

[Nailbender]

22 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

I didn't suggest you vote directly on every issue. Obviously I don't believe we should throw together a quick referendum on the debt ceiling. That'd be foolish. But on issues such as abortion, marijuana. Straight yes or no issues...or close to it. 

Sure. Late term abortion is objectionable to most people. So make it simple. First trimester. 

But your statement still seems like a contradiction. "We don't have to leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves." I'm not sure how you reconcile that with the statement that you don't think Politicians should be involved? Are you just talking about late term abortions? 

Yes. I know that. The overwhelming majority of people believe it's a women's choice.

Of course not. I don't think anyone's actually "pro-abortion."

You're killing what could very likely become a baby. And I still don't think it's anyone else's decision to make. It's pretty simple...to me. I'm also not a King.

No...it doesn't HAVE to be...but it kinda is. And implying it's not is dishonest...or "dense." Look at the story about the the 10 year old. You had Jim Jordan calling it a lie. Just...no facts, nothing. Just don't like that narrative, must be a lie. 

That girl had to go to another state to get an abortion. 10 years old. 

But ok. He looked like the asshole he's become when they arrested the rapist and the story was confirmed. Does ANYONE think it's a good idea when you REALLY think about it to use rape as an exemption? Lets take the 10 year old or the minors who can't legally consent out of it. It's agreed, they should have access.

So how about the rest? Is it incumbent upon the women to prove the rape? 6 weeks later, she didn't report it. It was a date rape...she was drugged. Or...MAYBE she wasn't. It's not like there haven't been false allegations. How do you want to prove(or disprove) the veracity of the claim?

 

As I said, I don't know the situation with your niece(and actually stated it's none of my business). I also didn't need sympathy. I used it as an example of a case that would be DIRECTLY impacted by THIS LAW. It was a personal anecdote that knew of that I shared. It didn't happen to me. So I wasn't looking for sympathy. This wasn't my story or my tragedy and I don't know what it feels like to go through that. It was an example of how utterly ridiculous this law is(though not surprising as most of these votes are simply performative at this point). 

Now, as for me not "reciprocating," you've resorted to ad hominem attacks a few times and now you keep coming back to this. What sympathy would you like? You have stated she's living a full and happy life, her parents love her and she's cared for.

What reciprocity would you like? That is what you call a HAPPY ending, no? 

THEY made that decision and they are happy and fulfilled. So please explain to me what you'd like me to say here? I'm sorry they chose to raise a happy, loving child with some type of disability? My deepest apologies. What an asshole I've been for not being sympathetic that person is alive...? 

I NEVER once said I did. In fact, I said it was none of my business. That's a recurring theme here. I don't believe it's MY(or your) business. 

Yeah, but you kinda are. You've made this inference multiple times now. And again, I read this and I wonder why you're asking for me to reciprocate sympathy? Because she wasn't born healthy? That's...genuinely awful. Because your Aunt and Uncle have made a commitment to care for her full-time? Yes, that is admirable. 

Is that a decision that should be forced on every couple?

Should a couple that gets pregnant in their 40s, they shouldn't have the same freedom your family members had?

Not everyone is in a position to care for a child that will need care their entire lives...and the costs can easily run up into the millions(which is most often pushed off onto the state and those are NOT often happy lives). 

 

All my comments are here for anyone who cares to read them. They address most of that in my own words rather than the ones you think I used. I'm not treating that rant as a coherent thought. 

I'm sure we'll talk past each other again, someday. 

 

 

 

  

 

 

     

[Crotalus]

51 minutes ago, mspart said:

This is incorrect.   "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."  This is the direct quote from the decision.  The people could have that done via their state representatives or their Congressional representatives.  There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a federal abortion law.   You will notice they chose not to do so before their majority ended.   Who's playing politics with this and has been for years?  If they pass it, they cannot campaign and get money by scaring people about it. 

mspart

Nothing you've said makes my statement incorrect.